natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It follows from the caselaw of the Court that the effect of national rules which determine the value of immovable property for the purposes of assessing the amount of tax payable when it is acquired through inheritance may be not only to discourage the purchase of immovable property situated in the Member State concerned, but also to reduce the value of the inheritance of a resident of a Member State other than that in which that property is situated (see, to that effect, Barbier, paragraph 62, and Jäger, paragraph 30).
Iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča izhaja, da nacionalne določbe, ki določajo vrednost nepremičnine za namene izračuna vi�ine davka, ki ga je treba plačati v primeru dedovanja, lahko ne samo odvrnejo od nakupa nepremičnin, ki so v zadevni državi članici, ampak tudi zmanj�ajo vrednost dedi�čine rezidenta države članice, ki ni država članica, v kateri je to premoženje (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeni sodbi Barbier, točka 62, in Jäger, točka 30).
As regards inheritances, the caselaw has confirmed that the measures prohibited by Article 56(1) EC as being restrictions on the movement of capital include those the effect of which is to reduce the value of the inheritance of a resident of a State other than the Member State in which the assets concerned are situated and which taxes the inheritance of those assets (van Hilten-van der Heijden, paragraph 44, and Jäger, paragraph 31).
V zvezi z dedovanjem je sodna praksa potrdila, da ukrepi, ki so prepovedani s členom 56(1) ES, ker pomenijo omejitve pretoka kapitala, obsegajo ukrepe, ki povzročajo zmanj�anje vrednosti dedi�čine rezidenta države, ki ni država članica, v kateri je zadevno premoženje, in ki obdavči dedovanje tega premoženja (zgoraj navedeni sodbi van Hiltenvan der Heijden, točka 44, in Jäger, točka 31).
It is true that, in circumstances such as those of the case before the referring court, for the purposes of applying the national rules, the taxable value of the immovable property left by way of inheritance remains the same, whether or not deductions are allowed in order to take account of a testamentary parental partition inter vivos.
Na podlagi nacionalne ureditve ostane v primeru, kot se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, vrednost obdavčene nepremičnine iz zapu�čine sicer enaka, ne glede na to, ali so zaradi upo�tevanja oporočne delitve zapu�čine star�ev inter vivos odbitki dovoljeni ali ne.
Nevertheless, as the Commission correctly maintained, as regards the method of assessment used to determine the amount of tax actually payable, the Netherlands rules make a distinction between persons who, at the time of death, were residing in the Member State concerned and those who, at the time of death, were not.
Vendar pa, kot je Komisija pravilno uveljavljala, glede metode izračuna, ki se uporabi pri določanju davka, ki ga je dejansko treba plačati, v nizozemski ureditvi obstaja razlika med osebami, ki so bile ob svoji smrti rezidenti zadevne države članice, in tistimi, ki to niso bile.
As is apparent from paragraphs 34 and 35 of the present judgment, if a resident of the Netherlands had left an immovable property situated there to five heirs, and had also entered into a testamentary parental partition inter vivos, the overall tax burden linked to that property would be shared by all the heirs, whereas, following the death of a nonresident, such as the husband of Ms Arens-Sikken, the overall tax burden is borne by one heir alone.
Kot namreč izhaja iz točk 34 in 35 te sodbe, če bi rezident zapustil petim dedičem nepremičnino na Nizozemskem in tudi predlagal oporočno delitev zapu�čine star�ev inter vivos, bi se celotna davčna obremenitev, povezana s to nepremičnino, razdelila med vse dediče, medtem ko v primeru smrti nerezidenta, kot je bil mož tožeče stranke v postopku v glavni stvari, celotno davčno obremenitev nosi en sam dedič.
As the Commission noted, in the first situation there would be a number of heirs and the amount paid by each of them would not necessarily exceed the threshold(s) for a higher rate of taxation, depending on the value of the immovable property concerned.
Kot je ugotovila Komisija, bi bilo v prvem primeru več dedičev in znesek, ki bi ga dobil vsak izmed njih, ne bi nujno presegel praga ali pragov za uporabo vi�je davčne stopnje.
By contrast, a levy based on the full value of an immovable property and imposed on a single heir who has assumed the overendowment debts resulting from a testamentary parental partition inter vivos could lead — and, arguably, would lead — to a higher rate of taxation being applied.
Nasprotno pa bi obdavčenje celotne vrednosti nepremičnine v breme enega dediča, ki je prevzel dolgove zaradi presežne pridobitve, do katere je pri�lo na podlagi oporočne delitve zapu�čine star�ev inter vivos, lahko povzročilo, oziroma bi neizogibno povzročilo uporabo vi�je davčne stopnje.
It follows that, on account of the progressive nature of the tax bands provided for under the Netherlands rules — which, as the Commission pointed out at the hearing, is not in itself improper — national rules such as those at issue in the main
Zaradi progresivnosti davčne lestvice, ki je predvidena v nizozemski ureditvi in ki je, kot je na obravnavi poudarila Komisija, ni mogoče grajati, bi bilo torej na podlagi
2008 — CASE C-43/07 proceedings could make the inheritance of a nonresident subject to a higher overall tax burden.
2008 – ZADEVA C-43/07 ureditve, kot se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, dedovanje po nerezidentu lahko predmet večje skupne davčne obremenitve.
That conclusion cannot be called into question by the Netherlands Government’s argument that the rules which are applied in the Netherlands do not involve any restriction, as the difference in treatment invoked by Ms Arens-Sikken results from the way in which powers of taxation are allocated between the Member States.
Ta sklep se ne more omajati s trditvijo nizozemske vlade, v skladu s katero ureditev, ki se uporablja na Nizozemskem, ne vsebuje nobene omejitve, ker različno obravnavanje, na katerega se sklicuje tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari, izhaja iz razdelitve davčnih pristojnosti med državami članicami.
That circumstance is irrelevant in the light of the criteria resulting from the caselaw referred to in paragraphs 36 and 37 of the present judgment.
Glede na merila, ki izhajajo iz sodne prakse, navedene v točkah 36 in 37 te sodbe, ta okoli�čina namreč ni pomembna.
Moreover, the difference in treatment as regards the taking into account of overendowment debts flows solely from the application of the Netherlands rules at issue (see also, to that effect, Jäger, paragraph 34).
Poleg tega različno obravnavanje v zvezi z upo�tevanjem dolgov zaradi presežne pridobitve izhaja le iz uporabe zadevne nizozemske ureditve (glej v tem smislu tudi zgoraj navedeno sodbo Jäger, točka 34).
The Netherlands Government contends, however, that overendowment debts should not be regarded as directly linked to an immovable property, within the meaning of the judgments in Gerritse and Barbier.
Nizozemska vlada vendarle uveljavlja, da se dolgovi zaradi presežne pridobitve ne morejo obravnavati kot dolgovi, ki so neposredno povezani z nepremičnino v smislu zgoraj navedenih sodb Gerritse in Barbier.
Those debts are not debts forming part of the estate, but debts assumed by the surviving spouse which arise after the death of the deceased in consequence of his will.
Ti dolgovi naj ne bi bili del zapu�čine, ampak dolgovi, ki jih je prevzel preživeli zakonec in ki so nastali po smrti zadevne osebe zaradi njene oporoke.
Such debts do not encumber the immovable property, and creditors of the surviving spouse who assumes the overendowment debt would be unable to claim any right in rem in respect of that property.
Nepremičnina naj ne bi bila obremenjena z navedenimi dolgovi in upniki preživelega zakonca, ki je prevzel dolgove zaradi presežne pridobitve, naj ne bi mogli uveljavljati nobene stvarne pravice na tej nepremičnini.
In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, in the case giving rise to the judgment in Barbier, the question referred concerned the assessment of tax payable on the inheritance of immovable property situated in a Member State and the taking into account, for the purposes of assessing the property’s value, of the fact that the holder of the legal title was under an unconditional obligation to transfer that title to a third party who had financial ownership of the property.
V zvezi s tem je treba spomniti, da se je v zadevi, v kateri je bila izdana zgoraj navedena sodba Barbier, predloženo vpra�anje nana�alo na izračun zneska davka, ki ga je bilo treba plačati v primeru dedovanja nepremičnine, ki je bila v državi članici, in na upo�tevanje nepogojne obveznosti imetnika stvarne pravice, da jo prenese na tretjo osebo, ki je bila ekonomski lastnik navedene nepremičnine, pri določanju vrednosti te nepremičnine.
That debt was therefore directly linked to the immovable property included in the estate.
Ta dolg je bil torej neposredno povezan z nepremičnino, ki je bila predmet zapu�čine.
Similarly, in relation to Articles 49 EC and 50 EC, the Court has held that national rules which, in matters of taxation, refuse to allow nonresidents to deduct business expenses which are directly linked to the activity that generated the taxable income in the Member State concerned, while allowing residents to do so, risk operating mainly to the detriment of nationals of other Member States and are contrary to those articles (see, to that effect, Gerritse, paragraphs 27 and 28).
Prav tako je Sodi�če v okviru členov 49 ES in 50 ES poudarilo, da lahko nacionalna ureditev, v skladu s katero se nerezidentom na davčnem področju ne morejo odbiti stro�ki poslovanja, ki so neposredno povezani z dejavnostjo, s katero so bili ustvarjeni dohodki, ki jih je zadevna država članica obdavčila, medtem ko je nasprotno tak odbitek možen za rezidente, �koduje predvsem državljanom drugih držav članic in da nasprotuje navedenima členoma (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Gerritse, točki 27 in 28).
However, while it is true that in the case before the referring court, as that court itself points out, the overendowment debts are connected to the immovable property at issue, in so far as they arise because that property was acquired in its entirety by Ms Arens-Sikken by virtue of the testamentary parental partition inter vivos, it is not necessary, for the purposes of establishing the existence of a restriction prohibited in principle by Article 56(1) EC, to determine whether there is a direct link between the overendowment debts and the immovable property included in the estate.
Vendar so v postopku v glavni stvari, kot poudarja predložitveno sodi�če, dolgovi zaradi presežne pridobitve sicer povezani z obravnavano nepremičnino, ker so posledica tega, da je navedeno nepremičnino na podlagi oporočne delitve zapu�čine star�ev inter vivos v celoti pridobila tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari, vendar pa za ugotovitev obstoja omejitve, ki je načeloma prepovedana s členom 56(1) ES, ni nujno, da se preveri, ali obstaja neposredna zveza med dolgovi zaradi presežne pridobitve in nepremičnino, ki je predmet zapu�čine.
Unlike the cases referred to above, the present case relates to the consequences — which are different for the heirs — of national rules which draw a distinction, in apportioning the taxable amount following a testamentary parental partition inter vivos, according to whether or not the person whose estate is being administered was residing, at the time of death, in the Member State concerned.
Nasprotno z zgoraj navedenimi zadevami se namreč obravnavana zadeva nana�a na za dediče različne posledice nacionalne ureditve, v kateri je pri delitvi davčne osnove na podlagi oporočne delitve zapu�čine star�ev inter vivos določeno razlikovanje glede na to, ali je bila oseba, po kateri je bilo uvedeno dedovanje, ob svoji smrti rezident ali nerezident zadevne države članice.
In the present case, as is apparent from paragraphs 38 to 40 of the present judgment, the restriction on the free movement of capital arises as a result of the fact that national rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings, applied in conjunction with a progressive rate of taxation, result in different treatment, on apportionment of the tax burden, between the various heirs of a person who, at the time of death, was residing in the Member State concerned and the heirs of a person who, at the time of death, was not.
Kot izhaja iz točk od 38 do 40 te sodbe, je v obravnavani zadevi omejitev prostega pretoka kapitala posledica dejstva, da tak�na nacionalna ureditev, kot je ureditev iz postopka v glavni stvari, skupaj z uporabo progresivne davčne stopnje vodi pri delitvi davčne obremenitve do različnega obravnavanja dedičev osebe, ki je bila ob svoji smrti rezident, in dedičev osebe, ki ob svoji smrti ni bila rezident zadevne države članice.
At the hearing, the Netherlands Government itself admitted that, in circumstances such as those of the case before the referring court, the failure to take into account the underendowment claims of the other heirs of such a nonresident person could lead to a greater tax burden, in view of the fact that the transfer duties are levied solely on the surviving spouse.
Na obravnavi je nizozemska vlada priznala, da lahko v primeru, kot se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, neupo�tevanje terjatev zaradi primanjkljaja, ki jih imajo preostali dediči tak�ne osebe, ki ni rezident, povzroči večjo davčno obremenitev, ker je za plačilo davka na prenos premoženja zavezan le preživeli zakonec.
It must also be noted that, in circumstances such as those of the case before the referring court, the impact of the restriction resulting from the fact that the surviving spouse is required to pay transfer duty on the full value of the immovable property without the overendowment debts being taken into account is exacerbated by the fact that — as is apparent from paragraph 12 of the present judgment and the written observations submitted to the Court by the Commission — the transfer duty is assessed not only on the basis of the value of the acquisition but also by taking account of the link between the taxpayer and the deceased.
Prav tako je treba ugotoviti, da je v primeru, kot se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, omejitev, ki izhaja iz dejstva, da mora preživeli zakonec plačati davek na prenos premoženja, ki se obračuna od celotne vrednosti nepremičnine, ne da bi se upo�tevali dolgovi zaradi presežne pridobitve, �e večja zaradi dejstva, kot izhaja iz točke 12 te sodbe in pisnih stali�č, ki jih je Sodi�ču predložila Komisija, da se davek na prenos premoženja izračuna ne samo na podlagi vrednosti pridobitve, ampak tudi ob upo�tevanju razmerja med davčnim zavezancem in zapustnikom.
According to the Commission, the exemption for surviving spouses is normally substantial, unlike the exemption for children.
Po mnenju Komisije je oprostitev, ki velja za preživele zakonce, običajno velika, nasprotno od oprostitve, ki velja za otroke.
Next, it is necessary to determine whether the restriction on the free movement of capital thus established can be justified under the provisions of the Treaty.
Nato je treba preveriti, ali je tako ugotovljeno omejitev prostega pretoka kapitala mogoče utemeljiti ob upo�tevanju določb Pogodbe.
In that respect, it should be noted that, under Article 58(1)(a) EC, ‘Article 56 shall be without prejudice to the right of Member States … to apply the relevant provisions of their tax law which distinguish between taxpayers who are not in the same situation with regard to their place of residence or with regard to the place where their capital is invested’.
V zvezi s tem je treba spomniti, da je v členu 58(1)(a) ES določeno, da „[d]oločbe člena 56 ne posegajo v pravice držav članic, da […] uporabljajo ustrezne predpise svojega davčnega prava, v katerih so različno obravnavani davčni zavezanci, ki niso v enakem položaju glede na prebivali�če ali kraj, v katerem je naložen njihov kapital“.
That provision of Article 58 EC, in so far as it is a derogation from the fundamental principle of the free movement of capital, must be interpreted strictly.
To določbo člena 58 ES je treba glede na to, da pomeni izjemo od temeljnega načela prostega pretoka kapitala, razlagati ozko.
It cannot therefore be interpreted as meaning that all tax legislation which draws a distinction between taxpayers based on their place of residence or the Member State in which they invest their capital is automatically compatible with the Treaty (see Jäger, paragraph 40).
Zato je ni mogoče razlagati tako, da naj bi bila vsaka davčna zakonodaja, ki različno obravnava davčne zavezance glede na kraj prebivali�ča ali glede na državo članico, v katero vlagajo svoj kapital, avtomatično združljiva s Pogodbo (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Jäger, točka 40).
The derogation provided for in Article 58(1)(a) EC is itself limited by Article 58(3) EC, which provides that the national provisions referred to in paragraph 1 of that article ‘shall not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on the free movement of capital and payments as defined in Article 56’ (see Case
Izjema, določena v členu 58(1)(a) ES, je namreč omejena s členom 58(3) ES, ki določa, da nacionalne določbe, navedene v odstavku 1 tega člena, „ne smejo biti sredstvo samovoljne diskriminacije ali prikritega omejevanja prostega pretoka kapitala in plačil iz člena 56“ (glej sodbi z dne 6. junija 2000 v zadevi Verkooijen, C-35/98,
Moreover, in order to be justified, the difference in treatment in relation to inheritance and transfer duties payable in respect of an immovable property situated in the Kingdom of the Netherlands between the person who, at the time of death, was residing in that Member State and the person who, at the time of death, was residing in another Member State, must not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective pursued by the legislation at issue (see, to that effect, Manninen, paragraph 29).
Da bi bilo različno obravnavanje osebe, ki je ob svoji smrti prebivala v tej državi članici, in osebe, ki je bila ob svoji smrti rezident druge države članice, na področju davka na dedi�čino in na prenos premoženja, ki ju je treba plačati v zvezi z nepremičnino na ozemlju Kraljevine Nizozemske, lahko upravičeno, se poleg tega ne sme prekoračiti tega, kar je nujno za dosego cilja, ki se zasleduje z zadevno ureditvijo (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Manninen, točka 29).
A distinction must therefore be made between the unequal treatment permitted under Article 58(1)(a) EC and the arbitrary discrimination prohibited under Article 58(3) EC.
Razlikovati je torej treba med dovoljenim neenakim obravnavanjem iz člena 58(1)(a) ES in prepovedano samovoljno diskriminacijo iz odstavka 3 tega člena.
According to the caselaw, in order for national tax rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings — which, for the purposes of assessing inheritance tax, make a distinction as to the deductibility of overendowment debts according to whether the person whose estate is being administered was residing in that Member State or in another Member State at the time of death — to be considered compatible with the provisions of the Treaty on the free movement of capital, the difference in treatment must concern situations which are not objectively comparable or be justified by overriding reasons in the general interest (see Verkooijen, paragraph 43; Manninen, paragraph 29; and Jäger, paragraph 43).
Kajti v skladu s sodno prakso se lahko nacionalna davčna zakonodaja, v skladu s katero se kot v postopku v glavni stvari za namene izračuna davka na dedi�čino možnost odbitka dolgov zaradi presežne pridobitve razlikuje glede na to, ali je oseba, po kateri je bilo uvedeno dedovanje, ob svoji smrti prebivala v tej državi članici ali v drugi državi članici, obravnava kot združljiva z določbami Pogodbe o prostem pretoku kapitala le takrat, kadar se različno obravnavanje nana�a na položaje, ki med seboj niso objektivno primerljivi, oziroma če je to upravičeno z nujnim razlogom v splo� - nem interesu (glej zgoraj navedene sodbe Verkooijen, točka 43; Manninen, točka 29, in Jäger, točka 43).
In that respect, it must be stated that, contrary to the Netherlands Government’s contention, that difference in treatment cannot be justified on the ground that it concerns situations which are not objectively comparable.
V zvezi s tem je treba ugotoviti, da se nasprotno, kot je poudarjala nizozemska vlada, to različno obravnavanje ne more utemeljiti s tem, da se nana�a na položaja, ki nista objektivno primerljiva.
In fact, the situation of the heirs of the deceased concerned in the main proceedings is comparable to that of any heir whose inheritance includes an immovable property situated in the Netherlands and left by a person who was residing in that State at the time of death.
Položaj dedičev zapustnika iz postopka v glavni stvari je primerljiv s položajem vsakega drugega dediča, čigar dedi�čina zajema nepremičnino na Nizozemskem, ki jo je zapustila oseba, ki je ob svoji smrti prebivala v tej državi.
The Netherlands legislation deems, in principle, both the heirs of resident persons and the heirs of persons who were nonresident at the time of death to be taxable persons for the purposes of collecting inheritance and/or transfer duties on immovable properties situated in the Netherlands.
Nizozemska ureditev obravnava načeloma dediče rezidentov in dediče oseb, ki so bile ob svoji smrti nerezidenti, kot zavezance za plačilo davka na dedi�čino in/ali na prenos premoženja v zvezi z nepremičninami na Nizozemskem.
It is only in respect of the deduction of overendowment debts resulting from a testamentary parental partition inter vivos that the inheritances of residents and nonresidents are treated differently.
Šele pri odbitku dolgov zaradi presežne pridobitve, ki so posledica oporočne delitve zapu�čine star�ev inter vivos, se različno obravnava zapu�čina rezidentov in nerezidentov.
Finally, as regards the issue whether the restriction on the movement of capital resulting from legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings may be ob -ectively justified by an overriding reason in the general interest, it must be held that, subject to the arguments advanced in relation to Question 3, no such justification has been put forward by the Netherlands Government.
Nazadnje glede vpra�anja, ali se lahko omejitev pretoka kapitala, ki je posledica nacionalne ureditve, kot je ureditev iz postopka v glavni stvari, lahko objektivno utemelji z nujnim razlogom v splo�nem interesu, je treba ugotoviti, da s pridržkom trditev v okviru tretjega vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje nizozemska vlada ni navedla utemeljitev te vrste.
With regard to Question 2, it should be noted that the restriction on the free movement of capital lies in the fact that overendowment debts are not taken into account in the assessment of transfer duties, in conjunction with the fact that the progressive
V zvezi z drugim vpra�anjem je treba poudariti, da je prosti pretok kapitala omejen z dejstvom, da ima lahko neupo�tevanje dolgov zaradi presežne pridobitve pri izračunu davka na prenos premoženja skupaj s progresivnostjo davčne lestvice, predvidene z nacionalno zakonodajo, za posledico večjo skupno davčno obremenitev, kot je obremenitev, ki se uporabi pri izračunu davka na dedi�čino.
Furthermore, that question contains a reference to Gerritse and Barbier which, as is apparent from paragraph 45 of the present judgment, are not relevant in the present case.
ARENS-SIKKEN ki, kot izhaja iz točke 45 te sodbe, nista upo�tevni v obravnavanem primeru.
Accordingly, there is no need to answer Question 2.
V teh okoli�činah ni treba odgovoriti na drugo vpra�anje.