natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Also, the exception 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 Article 58(1) EC ‘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 [EC]’.
Poleg tega je izjema iz člena 58(1)(a) ES omejena s členom 58(3) ES, ki določa, da nacionalni predpisi „ne smejo biti sredstvo samovoljne diskriminacije ali prikritega omejevanja prostega pretoka kapitala in plačil iz člena 56 [ES].“
26 — See, as to that, in greater detail my Opinion in Arens-Sikken, cited in footnote 2, points 73 to 77.
26 – V zvezi s tem glej podrobneje moje sklepne predloge v zadevi Arens-Sikken, navedene v opombi 2, točke od 73 do 77.
A distinction must therefore be drawn between unequal treatment which is permitted under Article 58(1)(a) EC and arbitrary discrimination which is prohibited by Article 58(3) EC.
Torej je treba razlikovati med neenakim obravnavanjem, ki je v skladu s členom člen 58(1)(a) ES dovoljeno, in arbitrarno diskriminacijo, ki je v skladu s členom 58(3) ES prepovedana.
As follows in that regard from the caselaw of the Court, for a national measure to be capable of being regarded as compatible with the Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital, the difference in treatment must concern situations which are
V zvezi s tem iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča izhaja, da mora razlika v obravnavanju zadevati položaje, ki niso objektivno primerljivi ali utemeljeni z nujnimi razlogi v splo�nem interesu, da lahko
OPINION OF MR MAZÁK — CASE C-11/07 as that in issue.
MAZÁKA – ZADEVA C-11/07 obveznosti, kot je zadevna.
In addition, as the Commission has pointed out, the burden of proof as to the existence of the debt concerned lies in any event with the heirs, whether or not the person to whose estate the debt belongs was a resident or not.
Poleg tega, kot je opozorila Komisija, dediči v vsakem primeru nosijo dokazno breme o obstoju zadevnega dolga, ne glede na to, ali je bila oseba, za katere dolg gre, rezident ali ne.
purposes of inheritance taxation with respect to immovable property situated in Belgium, both the estate of a resident and that of a nonresident are subject to tax under the WS.
obdavčitve dedovanja nepremičnin, ki so v Belgiji, WS določa davek za zapu�čino rezidenta in nerezidenta.
Although, in formal terms, it is ‘inheritance duty’ that is levied in the case of a resident and ‘transfer duty’ in the case of a nonresident, the fact remains, in my view, that residents and nonresidents are in principle considered comparable, under Belgian inheritance tax legislation, as regards liability to succession duties on immovable property situated in Belgium.
Čeprav se, formalno gledano, „davek na dedi�čino“ odmerja, kadar gre za rezidenta, in „davek na prehod lastnine“, kadar gre za nerezidenta, je po mojem mnenju dejstvo, da belgijska zakonodaja o davkih na dedi�čine rezidente in nerezidente �teje za primerljive, kar se tiče obveznosti plačila davka na dedovanje nepremičnin, ki so v Belgiji.
Finally, it should be noted that the debt at issue in the main proceedings is secured — according to the information provided by the parties and the referring court — by a mortgage mandate which enables the immovable property inherited to be encumbered with a corresponding mortgage.
Nazadnje je treba opozoriti, da je zadevni dolg v postopku v glavni stvari zavarovan – glede na podatke, ki so jih posredovale stranke in predložitveno sodi�če – s pooblas -tilom za ustanovitev hipoteke, ki omogoča, da se podedovano nepremičnino obremeni z ustrezno hipoteko.
Secondly, although the applicable succession duties are formally levied on the value of the immovable property forming part of the estate of a nonresident, the fact that the inheritance is taxed in the hands of the heirs is not to be overlooked.
Drugič, čeprav se veljavne davke na dedi� -čino praviloma odmeri od vrednosti nepremičnine, ki je del zapu�čine nerezidenta, se ne sme spregledati dejstva, da se dedi�čina obdavči v rokah dedičev.
Thus, the case does not exclusively concern the personal situation of the deceased and the responsibility of his Member State of residence to take account, in accordance with the residence principle invoked by the Belgian Government, of all his personal circumstances and obligations, as it is the heirs who are the taxable persons under the WS and liable to tax according to their share in the inheritance.
Zadeva se torej ne nana�a izključno na osebni položaj pokojnika in odgovornost države članice njegovega prebivali�ča, da v skladu z načelom prebivali�ča, na katerega se sklicuje belgijska vlada, upo�teva vse njegove osebne okoli�čine in obveznosti, saj so v skladu z WS dediči davčni zavezanci in so zavezani za plačilo davka glede na njihov dedni delež.
Although, as the Belgian Government has emphasised, the link in the present case between the immovable property and the obligation in question is obviously technically different from that, for example, between the obligation to transfer title and the estate at issue in Barbier, 29I do not regard that difference as relevant in this context, nor do I consider it sufficient to enable the Court to distinguish the present case from that case.
Čeprav se v tej zadevi, kot je poudarila belgijska vlada, vez med nepremičnino in zadevno obveznostjo tehnično razlikuje od, na primer, vezi med obveznostjo prenosa stvarne pravice in zapu�čino v zadevi Barbier, 29se mi ta razlika v tem kontekstu ne zdi pomembna in mislim, da ne zadostuje za to, da bi Sodi�ču omogočila razlikovati obravnavano zadevo od te zadeve.
The fact remains that there is a link, in that the debts thus secured can in any event burden the immovable property concerned which is subject to tax. 30
Dejstvo pa je, da obstaja vez v tem, da tako zavarovani dolg lahko v vsakem primeru bremeni zadevno nepremičnino, za katero je določena obdavčitev. 30
30 — See in that regard my Opinion in Arens-Sikken, cited in footnote 2, point 79 and footnote 35.
30 – V zvezi s tem glej moje sklepne predloge v zadevi Arens-Sikken, navedene v opombi 2, točka 79, in v opombi 35.
In particular, in a situation where the heirs were themselves resident in Belgium, and to whom the same non-deductibility rule would apparently apply as regards the inheritance of immovable property from a nonresident, one might well ask if the deceased’s State of residence would really be in a better position to take into account obligations such
Predvsem v položaju, ko dediči prebivajo v Belgiji in bi zanje očitno veljalo isto pravilo o neodbitju glede dedovanja nepremičnin po nerezidentu, se lahko vpra�amo, ali bi bila država članica pokojnikovega prebivali�ča res v bolj�em položaju, da bi upo�tevala
ECKELKAMP AND OTHERS trary discrimination within the meaning of Article 58(3) EC and the abovementioned caselaw 32and is therefore incompatible with the Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital.
ECKELKAMP IN DRUGI trarno diskriminacijo v smislu člena 58(3) ES in zgoraj navedene sodne prakse 32ter zato ni skladno z določili Pogodbe o prostem pretoku kapitala.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, it has not been shown that the mere fact that the deceased was not, at the time of death, resident in the Member State where immovable property forming part of his estate is situated could provide objective justification for denying an heir, in a situation as that before the referring court, the deduction of such a debt, if an heir in the same situation but inheriting from a resident would have the right to avail himself of such a tax advantage.
Glede na zgornje preudarke ni bilo dokazano, da bi lahko že dejstvo, da pokojnik ob smrti ni prebival v državi članici, v kateri je nepremičnina, ki je del njegove zapu�čine, objektivno upravičilo, da se dediču, ki je v položaju, kot je ta pred predložitvenim sodi�čem, odreče odbitje takega dolga, če bi imel dedič, ki bi bil enakem položaju, a bi dedoval po rezidentu, pravico do davčne ugodnosti.
It is clear from the foregoing that it is unnecessary to examine the question referred in so far as it concerns the provisions of the Treaty relating to the freedom of Union citizens to take up residence in another Member State. 33
Iz navedenega je jasno, da ni treba preučiti zastavljenega vpra�anja, v delu, v katerem se nana�a na določbe Pogodbe o svobo�čini državljanov Unije, da prebivajo v drugi državi članici. 33
As regards, finally, the argument put forward by the Belgian Government that the taking account of the debt at issue may lead to double-deduction, it is settled caselaw that a Community national cannot be deprived of the right to rely on the provisions of the Treaty on the ground that he is profiting from tax advantages which are legally provided by the rules in a Member State other than his State of residence. 31
Nazadnje, kar se tiče trditve belgijske vlade, da lahko upo�tevanje spornega dolga privede do dvojnega odbitja, je ustaljena sodna praksa, da državljana Skupnosti ni mogoče prikraj�ati za pravico, da se zanese na določbe Pogodbe, ker ima korist od davčnih ugodnosti, ki so zakonito določene v državi članici, ki ni država prebivali�ča. 31
Since also no overriding reasons in the general interest have been advanced which could justify the legislation at issue, it must be concluded that the difference in tax treatment entailed amounts to arbi-
Ker poleg tega ni bil naveden nujni razlog v splo�nem interesu, ki bi upravičil sporno zakonodajo, je treba ugotoviti, da je zadevno različno davčno obravnavanje pomenilo arbi-
To my mind, the answer to the question referred must therefore be that the Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital preclude national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which — for the purposes of determining the basis of assessment of the tax due on the inheritance of an immovable property situated in the territory of the Member State concerned — account may be taken of certain charges, such as debts secured by the right conferred on a creditor to take out a mortgage against the immovable property inherited, if the person from whom the property has been inherited was resident, at the time of death, in that Member State, but not if that person was resident in another Member State.
Po mojem mnenju mora torej biti odgovor na zastavljeno vpra�anje, da določbe Pogodbe o prostem pretoku kapitala nasprotujejo nacionalni zakonodaji, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, v skladu s katero se – za določitev osnove za odmero davka od dedovanja nepremičnine, ki je na ozemlju zadevne države članice – lahko upo�tevajo nekatere obveznosti, kot so dolgovi, zavarovani s pravico upnika, da lahko vzame hipoteko na dedovano nepremičnino, če je zapustnik ob smrti prebival v tej državi članici, vendar pa ne, če je prebival v drugi državi članici.
31 — Inter alia Barbier, cited in footnote 3, paragraph 71.
31 – Med drugim sodba Barbier, navedena v opombi 3, točka 71.
See, as to that, in greater detail also my Opinion in Arens-Sikken, cited in footnote 2, points 66 and 86 to 89.
V zvezi s tem glej podrobneje moje sklepne predloge v zadevi Arens-Sikken, navedene v opombi 2, točka 66 in točke od 86 do 89.
32 — See point 67 above.33 — See to that effect Barbier, cited in footnote 3, paragraph 75.
33 – V tem smislu glej sodbo Barbier, navedeno v opombi 3, točka 75.
For the reasons given above, I propose that the question referred by the Hof van Beroep te Gent should be answered as follows:
Iz zgoraj navedenih razlogov predlagam, naj Sodi�če na vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje Hof van Beroep te Gent odgovori:
The Treaty provisions on the movement of capital preclude national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which — for the purposes of determining the basis of assessment of the tax due on the inheritance of an immovable property situated in the territory of the Member State concerned — account may be taken of certain charges, such as debts secured by the right conferred on a creditor to take out a mortgage against the immovable property inherited, if the person from whom the property has been inherited was resident, at the time of death, in that Member State, but not if that person was resident in another Member State.
„Določbe Pogodbe o prostem pretoku kapitala nasprotujejo nacionalni zakonodaji, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, v skladu s katero se – za določitev osnove za odmero davka od dedovanja nepremičnine, ki je na ozemlju zadevne države članice – lahko upo�tevajo nekatere obveznosti, kot so dolgovi, zavarovani s pravico upnika, da lahko vzame hipoteko na dedovano nepremičnino, če je zapustnik ob smrti prebival v tej državi članici, vendar pa ne, če je prebival v drugi državi članici.“
11 September 2008 *
SODBA SODIŠČA (tretji senat) z dne 11. septembra 2008 *
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Hof van Beroep te Gent (Belgium), made by decision of 11 January 2007, received at the Court on 18 January 2007, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-11/07, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Hof van Beroep te Gent (Belgija) z odločbo z dne 11. januarja 2007, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 18. januarja 2007, v postopku
2008 — CASE C-11/07
2008 – ZADEVA C-11/07
Advocate General: J. Mazák, Registrar: B. Fülöp, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 13 December 2007,
Fülöp, administrator, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 13. decembra 2007,
ECKELKAMP AND OTHERS after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
ECKELKAMP IN DRUGI ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 12 EC, 17 EC, 18 EC, 56 EC and 58 EC.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago členov 12 ES, 17 ES, 18 ES, 56 ES in 58 ES.
Article 1 of Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988 for the implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty (subsequently, Article 67 of the EC Treaty, repealed by the Treaty of Amsterdam) (OJ 1988 L 178, p.
Člen 1 Direktive Sveta 88/361/EGS z dne 24. junija 1988 o izvajanju člena 67 Pogodbe (postal člen 67 Pogodbe ES (razveljavljen z Amsterdamsko pogodbo)) (UL L 178, str.
5) provides:
5) določa:
Without prejudice to the following provisions, Member States shall abolish restrictions on movements of capital taking place between persons resident in Member States.
Države članice odpravijo omejitve pretoka kapitala med rezidenti držav članic, brez poseganja v nadaljnje določbe.
To facilitate application of this Directive, capital movements shall be classified in accordance with the Nomenclature in Annex I.
Da bi olaj�ali uporabo te direktive, se pretoki kapitala razvrstijo v skladu z nomenklaturo v Prilogi I.
Transfers in respect of capital movements shall be made on the same exchange rate conditions as those governing payments relating to current transactions.’
Za prenose v zvezi s pretokom kapitala se uporabljajo enaki pogoji menjalnih tečajev, kot veljajo za plačila v zvezi s tekočimi transakcijami“.
Among the capital movements listed in Annex I to Directive 88/361 are, under heading XI, ‘Personal capital movements’, which include inheritances and legacies.
Med pretoki kapitala, na�tetimi v prilogi I k direktivi 88/361, spadajo dedi�čine in zapu�čine v rubriko XI z naslovom „Osebni pretoki kapitala“.
In Belgium, competence to establish, in relation to succession duties, the rate of tax -ation, the taxable amount, exemptions and reductions lies with the regions.
V Belgiji določanje davčne stopnje, davčne osnove, davčnih oprostitev in znižanj davka spada v pristojnost regij.
Article 1 of the Flemish Code of Succession Duties (‘the Code’) provides:
Člen 1 flamskega Wetboek Successierechten (zakonik o davkih na dedi�čino, v nadaljevanju: WS) določa:
(1) an inheritance duty on the value, after deduction of debts, of the whole of the gathered estate of an inhabitant of the Kingdom of Belgium;
1. davek na dedi�čino od vrednosti celotne zapu�čine prebivalca Kraljevine Belgije po odbitku dolgov;
(2) a duty on the transfer of property mortis causa on the value of immovable property situated in Belgium and pertaining to the gathered estate of a person who is not an inhabitant of the Kingdom of Belgium.
2. davek na prenos lastnine ob smrti od celotne vrednosti nepremičnin, ki so v Belgiji, in pripadajo zapu�čini osebe, ki ni prebivalec Kraljevine Belgije.
A person shall be deemed to be an inhabitant of the Kingdom of Belgium if, at the time of his death, he is domiciled in the Kingdom of Belgium or his assets are based there.’
Šteje se, da je oseba prebivalec Kraljevine Belgije, če ima ob svoji smrti v Kraljevini Belgiji prebivali�če ali sedež svojega premoženja“.
Under Article 15 of the Code, inheritance duty is payable, after deduction of debts, on all the property, wherever located, owned by the deceased or absent person.
Davek na dedi�čino se v skladu s členom 15 WS plača po odbitku dolgov od celot -nega premoženja, ki je bilo v lasti pokojne ali pogre�ane osebe, ne glede na to, kje je premoženje.
Article 18 of the Code, relating to persons who do not reside in Belgium, is worded as follows:
Člen 18 WS, ki se nana�a na nerezidente, določa:
‘Duty on the transfer of property mortis causa shall be payable on all immovable property situated in Belgium and owned by the deceased or absent person, without account being taken of debts and liabilities of the estate.’
„Davek na prenos lastnine ob smrti se plača od vseh nepremičnin, ki so v Belgiji in so v lasti pokojne ali pogre�ane osebe, pri čemer se ne upo�teva dolgov in obveznosti iz zapu�čine“.
Under Article 29 of the Code, in order to be accepted as a liability, a debt must still exist on the day of death, which may be proved by any form of evidence which is admissible in respect of an act granting credit and creating a debt.
V členu 29 WS je določeno, da mora dolg, da se ga upo�teva kot obveznost, obstajati na dan smrti, kar se lahko dokaže s kakr�nim koli pravnim sredstvom, ki je dopustno za odobritev posojila in nastanek dolga.
Article 40 of the Code provides that the period within which a declaration of estate must be filed is five months from the date of death, where death takes place in the Kingdom of Belgium, and six months from the date of death where death takes place in another country in Europe.
Člen 40 WS določa, da mora biti popis zapu�čine vložen v petih mesecih od dneva smrti, če je do smrti pri�lo v Kraljevini Belgiji, in v �estih mesecih od dneva smrti, če je do smrti pri�lo v drugi evropski državi.
Under Article 41 of the Code:
V členu 41 WS je določeno:
‘The period within which the declaration of estate must be filed may be extended by the Director-General of Registration and Public Property.
„Generalni direktor urada za register in državno premoženje lahko podalj�a rok, v katerem mora biti vložen popis zapu�čine.
A declaration filed within the period prescribed by statute or extended by the Director-General may be rectified provided that that period has not expired, unless
Popis, vložen v roku, določenem z zakonom, ali roku, ki ga podalj�a generalni direktor, se lahko popravi, dokler ta rok ne poteče, razen če so se zainteresirane
ECKELKAMP AND OTHERS the interested parties have expressly waived that right in a statement lodged in due accordance with legal requirements.’
ECKELKAMP IN DRUGI stranke tej pravici izrecno odpovedale z izjavo, ki so jo podale v skladu z zakonskimi zahtevami“.
Article 48(1) of the Code includes tables showing the rates which apply to inheritance duty and to the duty on the transfer of property mortis causa.
Člen 48(1) WS določa tabele, ki prikazujejo stopnje, ki veljajo za davek na dedi�čino in davek na prenos lastnine ob smrti.
‘Debts and funeral expenses shall be deducted as a matter of priority from the movable property and the assets referred to in Article 60a, unless the declarants prove that a debt was specially incurred for the purpose of acquiring or preserving immovable property.’
„Dolgovi in stro�ki pogreba se prednostno odbijejo od premičnin in premoženja, navedenega v členu 60a, razen če vlagatelji popisa dokažejo, da je dolg nastal izrecno zaradi pridobitve ali ohranitve nepremičnin“.
There is no agreement between the Kingdom of Belgium and the Federal Republic of Germany for the prevention of double taxation of succession duties.
Med Kraljevino Belgijo in Zvezno republiko Nemčijo ni dvostranske konvencije o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja dedi�čine.
By notarial act of 5 June 2003, she granted him a mandate to encumber an immovable property situated in Knokke-Heist (Belgium) with a mortgage as security for that debt.
Eckelkamp z notarsko listino z dne 5. junija 2003, zaradi zavarovanja plačila tega dolga, dala pooblastilo za obremenitev nepremičnine v Knokke-Heist (Belgija) s hipoteko.
On 29 June 2004, the appellants in the main proceedings filed a declaration of estate in Belgium within the statutory timelimit of six months from the date of Ms Eckelkamp’s death, referring to that property, under assets of the estate, as having a value of EUR 200 000.
29. junija 2004 so tožeče stranke v glavni stvari, v zakonsko določenem roku 6 mesecev od smrti R. H. Eckelkamp, v Begiji vložile popis zapu�čine, v kateri je bilo pod rubriko sredstva zapu�čine navedeno, da je vrednost nepremičnine 200.000 EUR.
It is apparent from the observations of the appellants in the main proceedings and of the Belgian Government that an exchange of e-mails had taken place between one of those appellants and the competent national tax authority before that declaration was filed.
Iz stali�č tožečih strank v glavni stvari kot tudi iz stali�č belgijske vlade izhaja, da so si, preden je bil narejen popis zapu�čine, ena od tožečih strank in pristojni nacionalni davčni organi izmenjali elektronska sporočila.
In the course of that exchange, the tax authority indicated that, according to the relevant provisions of the Flemish legislation, duty on the transfer of property mortis causa is payable on all the assets of the deceased situated in Belgium, without deduction of debts and liabilities of the estate.
V njih so davčni organi navedli, da se v skladu s flamsko zakonodajo davek na prehod lastnine ob smrti plača od celotne vrednosti nepremičnin, ki so v Belgiji, brez od�tetja dolgov. Ker R. H.
The duties on the transfer of property mortis causa at issue in the main proceedings were assessed on the basis of the declaration filed on 29 June 2004.
Davek na prenos lastnine ob smrti, ki je predmet postopka v glavni stvari, je bil izračunan na podlagi popisa zapu�čine, vloženega 29. junija 2004.
The Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Brugge dismissed the inter partes application on 30 May 2005 on the ground that, at the time when that application was lodged, the period prescribed by the Code within which new information could be taken into consideration in determining the basis of assessment of the inheritance or transfer duties payable had expired.
To sodi�če je 30. maja 2005 zavrnilo tožbo zainteresiranih strank, ker se je ob vložitvi tožbe rok za upo�tevanje novih podatkov za določanje osnove za izračun davka na dedi�čino ali davka na prenos lastnine, določen v WS, že iztekel.
The appellants in the main proceedings brought an appeal against that judgment before the Hof van Beroep te Gent (Court of Appeal, Ghent; ‘the referring court’),
Tožeče stranke v glavni stvari so pred predložitvenim sodi�čem vložile pritožbo zoper navedeno odločitev sodi�ča, ker naj bi bile določbe WS o izračunu davka na
ECKELKAMP AND OTHERS claiming that the provisions of the Code concerning the assessment of duties on the transfer of property mortis causa are contrary to Community law.
ECKELKAMP IN DRUGI prenos lastnine ob smrti v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti.
They maintain that those provisions constitute indirect discrimination on grounds of nationality and a restriction on the free movement of capital.
Tožeče stranke v glavni stvari menijo, da navedene določbe posredno diskriminirajo na podlagi državljanstva in pomenijo omejitev prostega pretoka kapitala.