natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
— at their own request, persons who, although they have neither their domicile nor habitual residence in Germany, receive income arising in Germany, on condition that at least 90% of their income during the calendar year is subject to German income tax or who receive income of no more than EUR 6 136 per calendar year not subject to German tax.
— na svojo zahtevo osebe, ki nimajo niti stalnega niti začasnega prebivali�ča v Nemčiji in dobivajo nacionalne dohodke, od katerih se vsaj v 90 odstotkih plačuje nem�ka dohodnina ali katerih neobdavčeni dohodki ne presegajo 6136 EUR v koledarskem letu.
In order to attract the home ownership subsidy, the subsidised property must be situated in Germany and must be used by the owner for his own occupation.
Za dodelitev subvencije za stanovanja mora biti subvencionirana nepremičnina na nem�kem ozemlju in se mora uporabljati za lastno prebivanje.
Occupation of the subsidised property free of charge by a member of the family is considered to be use by the owners for their own occupation.
Neodplačno prebivanje družinskega člana v subvencionirani nepremičnini se �teje za uporabo za lastno prebivanje.
The Federal Republic of Germany, in its letter of reply dated 30 May 2000, disputes the Commission’s contentions.
Zvezna republika Nemčija v odgovoru z dne 30. maja 2000 prereka trditve Komisije.
It considers that the law on the property subsidy is not discriminatory, since nationals of other Member States of the Union may also be subject to unlimited German income tax and thus qualify for the grant in order to acquire a property in Germany.
Meni, da zakon o subvencijah za stanovanja ni diskriminatoren, saj so lahko tudi državljani drugih držav članic Unije v celoti zavezani za plačilo nem�ke dohodnine in tako koristijo subvencijo za nakup nepremičnine na nem�kem ozemlju.
The Federal Republic of Germany further submits that the extension of the subsidy to
Poleg tega Zvezna republika Nemčija meni, da bi bila raz�iritev subvencije za
Under Paragraph 2 of the law on the real property subsidy, immovable property used as a holiday home or a second home does not give rise to entitlement to the subsidy.
Na podlagi člena 2 zakona o subvencijah za stanovanja do subvencije niso upravičene nepremičnine, ki so počitni�ke hi�e ali sekundarna prebivali�ča.
Germany is not contrary to Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC.
BOTA – ZADEVA C-152/05 na nepremičnine na nem�kem ozemlju ni v nasprotju s členi 18 ES, 39 ES in 43 ES.
properties situated outside Germany would be contrary to the objective of this subsidy, which is to guarantee the existence of sufficient housing stock in Germany in the face of growing housing need.
stanovanja zunaj nem�kega ozemlja v nasprotju s cilji te subvencije, ki je zagotavljati obstoj zadostnega �tevila stanovanj v Nemčiji zaradi nara�čajoče potrebe po njih.
Likewise, the Federal Republic of Germany continues to maintain that the limitation contained in the law on the property subsidy responds to the legitimate objective of protecting the German property market.
Zvezna republika Nemčija tudi �e naprej zatrjuje, da omejitev v zakonu o subvencijah za stanovanja ustreza legitimnemu cilju varstva nem�kega nepremičninskega trga.
Not persuaded by the answer given by the Federal Republic of Germany, on 16 December 2003 the Commission addressed to the latter a reasoned opinion in which it repeated its claims.
Ker odgovor Zvezne republike Nemčije Komisije ni prepričal, je 16. decembra 2003 nanjo naslovila obrazloženo mnenje, v katerem je ponovila svoje trditve.
According to the Commission, the law on the property subsidy may have the effect of preventing employed or selfemployed workers working in Germany from going to live on the other side of the border.
Po mnenju Komisije je lahko učinek zakona o subvencijah za stanovanja ta, da je zaposlenim ali samozaposlenim delavcem, ki opravljajo dejavnost v Nemčiji, preprečeno, da grejo prebivat na drugo stran meje.
The Commission, being of the opinion that this reply from the Federal Republic of Germany did nothing to support the conclusion that the latter had complied with its obligations under Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC, decided to bring this action.
Komisija je odločila, da vloži to tožbo, ker je menila, da glede na odgovor Zvezne republike Nemčije ne more sklepati, da se je ta uskladila z obveznostmi iz členov 18 ES, 39 ES in 43 ES.
III — The action
III – Tožba
Moreover, the Commission takes the view that the objective put forward by the Federal Republic of Germany to justify restricting the grant of the subsidy is not valid since, according to the Commission, pressure on the German housing market would be reduced if a person working in Germany were to become an owner-occupier abroad.
Komisija poleg tega meni, da cilj, ki ga je navedla Zvezna republika Nemčija, da bi utemeljila omejitev dodelitve subvencije, ni veljaven, saj naj bi bil po njenem mnenju nem�ki stanovanjski trg manj obremenjen, če bi oseba, ki dela v Nemčiji, postala lastnica stanovanja v tujini.
The Federal Republic of Germany, in a letter of 17 February 2004, maintained its point of view that limiting the property subsidy to immovable property situated in
Zvezna republika Nemčija je v pismu z dne 17. februarja 2004 vztrajala pri stali�ču, da omejitev subvencij za stanovanja
In support of its action, the Commission puts forward the complaint that it is impossible for a person liable to unlimited German income tax and residing abroad to receive the property subsidy for the purchase of a property situated in any Member State other than Germany.
Komisija v utemeljitev tožbe navaja očitek, da je za osebo, ki je v celoti zavezana za plačilo nem�ke dohodnine in prebiva v tujini, nemogoče, da bi koristila subvencijo za stanovanja za pridobitev nepremičnine na ozemlju države članice, ki ni Nemčija.
On the basis of that complaint, the Commission claims that the Court should: subsidy to properties situated in Germany, German law operates to the detriment of persons liable to unlimited German income tax and permanently resident outside Germany.
Na podlagi tega očitka Komisija Sodi�ču predlaga, naj: na nepremičnine v Nemčiji, postavil osebe, ki so v celoti zavezane za plačilo nem�ke dohodnine in ki prebivajo zunaj nem�kega ozemlja, v slab�i položaj.
— declare that by excluding, in the first sentence of Paragraph 2(1) of the law on the property subsidy, properties situated in other Member States from eligibility for the property subsidy granted to persons liable to unlimited German income tax, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC;
— ugotovi, da Zvezna republika Nemčija s tem, da je v členu 2(1), prvi stavek, zakona o subvencijah za stanovanja izključila dodelitev subvencije za stanovanja osebam, ki so v celoti zavezane za plačilo nem�ke dohodnine, za nepremičnine v drugih državah članicah, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz členov 18 ES, 39 ES in 43 ES;
— order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
— Zvezni republiki Nemčiji naloži plačilo stro�kov postopka.
Three categories of people are thus unjustly excluded from eligibility for the subsidy.
Tako naj bi bile tri kategorije oseb nepravično izključene iz dodelitve subvencije.
These are people, permanently resident abroad, who are employed and paid by a legal person governed by German public law and are subject to limited taxation in their country of residence; frontier workers, at least 90% of whose incomes are subject to German income tax or whose incomes received abroad are no more than EUR 6 136 per calendar year; and, finally, German nationals who are officials or employees of the European Communities with their domicile or habitual residence abroad.
Gre za osebe, ki imajo stalno prebivali�če v tujini in jih zaposluje in plačuje pravna oseba nem�kega javnega prava ter so delno zavezane za plačilo davka v državi njihovega prebivali�ča; obmejne delavce, ki so zavezani za plačilo nem�ke dohodnine vsaj za 90 % svojih dohodkov ali katerih dohodki, pridobljeni v tujini, so nižji od 6136 EUR v koledarskem letu, in končno nem�ki državljani, ki so uradniki ali uslužbenci Evropskih skupnosti, ki imajo stalno ali običajno prebivali�če v tujini.
The Federal Republic of Germany contends that the Court should dismiss the action and order the Commission to pay the costs.
Zvezna republika Nemčija Sodi�ču predlaga, naj tožbo zavrne kot neutemeljeno in Komisiji naloži plačilo stro�kov.
The Federal Republic of Germany disputes the complaint.
Zvezna republika Nemčija ugovarja temu očitku.
A — Main arguments of the parties
A – Bistvene trditve strank
It considers, first of all, that the action is inadmissible.
Najprej meni, da je tožba nedopustna.
In its opinion, the Commission has extended the subject-matter of the proceedings to the situation of workers of foreign nationality, although in its letter of
Po njenem mnenju je Komisija raz�irila predmet spora na primer delavcev s tujim državljanstvom, medtem ko naj bi v pisnem opominu očitek omejila zgolj na izključitev
formal notice, its complaint was limited to the exclusion from eligibility for the subsidy solely of people of German nationality.
oseb z nem�kim državljanstvom iz dodelitve subvencije.
The Federal Republic of Germany relies on paragraph 3 of this letter, in which the Commission refers to the ‘German taxpayer’. 7
Zvezna republika Nemčija se opira na točko 3 tega opomina, v katerem Komisija navaja „nem�ke zavezance“.7
In this case, the Federal Republic of Germany takes the view that the property subsidy has no influence on the access of workers to the labour market of another Member State.
V obravnavanem primeru Zvezna republika Nemčija meni, da subvencija za stanovanja ne vpliva na dostop delavcev na trg dela v drugi državi članici.
In addition, the Federal Republic of Germany maintains that the factual situations mentioned by the Commission are not covered by Community law, at the very least for frontier workers, and that the principles set out by the Court of Justice in Werner 8apply.
Poleg tega Zvezna republika Nemčija navaja, da dejansko stanje, ki ga navaja Komisija, ne spada v pravo Skupnosti, vsaj ne za obmejne delavce, in da naj bi veljala načela, ki jih je Sodi�če postavilo v sodbi Werner8.
It also maintains that the law on the property subsidy does not operate to the greater detriment of migrant workers in particular.
Navaja tudi, da zakon o subvencijah za stanovanja prav posebej ne postavlja v slab�i položaj delavcev migrantov.
Although it is true that the subsidy is granted only to persons liable to unlimited German income tax who acquire a property in Germany, the Federal Republic of Germany considers that the existence of adverse treatment cannot be deduced from this merely because, naturally, most persons liable to unlimited German income tax reside in Germany.
Čeprav je subvencija podeljena le osebam, ki so v celoti zavezane za plačilo nem�ke dohodnine in ki kupijo nepremičnino na nem�kem ozemlju, Zvezna republika Nemčija meni, da iz tega ne bi smeli sklepati o obstoju slab�ega položaja samo zato, ker v Nemčiji seveda prebiva največ oseb, ki so v celoti zavezane za plačilo nem�ke dohodnine.
However, it considers that this principle applies only to restrictions that are capable of limiting
Vendar Zvezna republika Nemčija meni, da to načelo velja le za omejitve, ki lahko omejujejo dostop
10 access to employment.
10 do zaposlitve. Iz sodb Bosman in Graf naj
7 — See Annex I to the application.
7 — Glej prilogo 1 k tožbi.
8 — Case C-112/91 Werner [1993] ECR I-429, paragraph 17.
8 — Sodba z dne 26. januarja 1993 (C-112/91, Recueil, str. I-429, točka 17).
In this judgment, the Court took the view that Article 52 of the EEC Treaty (after amendment, Article 52 of the EC Treaty, now Article 43 EC) does not preclude a Member State from imposing a heavier tax burden on its nonresident nationals who carry on their professional activities within its territory and earn all or almost all of their income there.
V tej sodbi je Sodi�če �telo, da je skladno s členom 52 Pogodbe EGS (člen 52 Pogodbe ES, po spremembi postal člen 43 ES), če država članica državljana, ki ni rezident in opravlja poklicno dejavnost na območju te države članice ter tam dobiva vse ali skoraj vse dohodke, obdavči z vi�jim davkom.
9 — Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, paragraph 103.10 — Case C-190/98 Graf [2000] ECR I-493, paragraph 23.
9 — Sodba z dne 15. decembra 1995 (C-415/93, Recueil, str. I-4921, točka 103).
Further, the Federal Republic of Germany considers that there is no discrimination on grounds of nationality, since migrant workers liable to unlimited German income tax are entitled to the subsidy for a property situated in Germany.
Poleg tega Zvezna republika Nemčija meni, da ni nobene diskriminacije na podlagi državljanstva, saj imajo delavci migranti, ki so v celoti zavezani za plačilo nem�ke dohodnine, pravico do subvencije za nepremičnino, ki je v Nemčiji.
However, whether German nationals or migrant workers are
Vendar, naj gre
B — Assessment involved, a property situated abroad cannot be subsidised.
B – Presoja za nem�ke državljane ali delavce migrante, nepremičnina, ki je v tujini, ne more biti subvencionirana.
Thus, according to the Federal Republic of Germany, the nationality of the person subject to taxation matters little: the conditions for obtaining this grant are identical, whether the person is a migrant worker or a German national.
Tako so po mnenju Zvezne republike Nemčije ne glede na državljanstvo davčnega zavezanca pogoji za pridobitev te subvencije enaki za delavce migrante in za nem�ke državljane.
In any event, the Federal Republic of Germany considers that, if the Court were to accept that there is a breach of Art icles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC, the limitation of the property subsidy would be justified by an overriding reason relating to the public interest.
Vsekakor Zvezna republika Nemčija meni, da če bi moralo Sodi�če ugotoviti obstoj kr�itve členov 18 ES, 39 ES in 43 ES, naj bi bila omejitev subvencije za stanovanja upravičena zaradi nujnega razloga v javnem interesu.
The Federal Republic of Germany asserts that the Commission has, in this action, extended the subject-matter of the proceedings.
Zvezna republika Nemčija navaja, da je Komisija v tej tožbi raz�irila predmet spora.
For this, it refers to the letter of formal notice, in which the Commission’s subject is the situation of the ‘German taxpayer’, 11 whereas the complaint has now been extended to the exclusion of people of foreign nationality from eligibility for the property subsidy.
Glede tega se sklicuje na pisni opomin, v katerem se Komisija sklicuje na položaj „nem�kega davčnega zavezanca“,11medtem ko naj bi bil očitek zdaj raz�irjen na izključitev od dodelitve subvencije za stanovanja za osebe s tujim državljanstvom.
The objective of such a grant is to promote house building in Germany.
Cilj take subvencije naj bi bil namreč spodbujanje gradnje stanovanj v Nemčiji.
According to the Federal Republic of Germany, extending the grant of the subsidy to properties situated in another Member State would in effect fail to have regard to that objective.
Meni, da bi raz�iritev subvencije za stanovanja v drugi državi članici nasprotovala takemu cilju.
In that regard, it is important to note that, according to settled caselaw, the purpose of the pre-litigation procedure is to give the Member State concerned an opportunity to comply with its obligations under Community law or to avail itself of its right to defend itself against the complaints made by the Commission.
Glede tega je treba opozoriti, da je v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso cilj predhodnega postopka zadevni državi članici omogočiti, da izpolni obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz prava Skupnosti, ali da učinkovito uveljavlja sredstva za obrambo zoper očitke Komisije12.
12 More specifically, the purpose of the letter of formal notice in the pre-litigation procedure is to delimit the subject-matter of the dispute and to indicate to the Member State, which is invited to
Med drugim je cilj pisnega opomina v predhodnem postopku, da se omeji predmet
12 — See Case C-371/04 Commission v Italy [2006] ECR I-10257, paragraph 9 and the caselaw cited.
12 — Glej sodbo z dne 26. oktobra 2006 v zadevi Komisija proti Italiji (C-371/04, ZOdl., str. I-10257, točka 9 in navedena sodna praksa).
Further, the Federal Republic of Germany alone is competent to guarantee an appropriate supply of housing in Germany, since housing policy is an unharmonised field.
Poleg tega naj bi bila Zvezna republika Nemčija sama odgovorna za zagotavljanje ustrezne ponudbe stanovanj na svojem ozemlju, saj stanovanjska politika spada na področje, ki ni usklajeno.
Therefore, the Federal Republic of Germany was properly able to submit its grounds of defence against the complaint.
Zvezna republika Nemčija je torej lahko navajala svoja sredstva obrambe zoper navajani očitek.
In this case, although the Commission used the expression ‘German taxpayer’ in its letter of formal notice, the fact remains that it clearly referred to persons taxable in Germany under Paragraph 1(2) and (3) of the EstG.
V obravnavanem primeru se je Komisija, čeprav je v pisnem opominu uporabila izraz „nem�ki davčni zavezanec“ s tem, jasno sklicevala na osebe, ki so davčno zavezane v Nemčiji na podlagi člena 1(2) in (3) EStG14.
14 Under this paragraph, persons liable to unlimited German income tax may equally well be of German or of foreign nationality.
V skladu s tem členom pa imajo lahko osebe, ki so v celoti zavezane za plačilo nem�ke dohodnine, nem�ko ali tuje državljanstvo.
The complaint deriving from the breach of Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC
Očitek kr�itve členov 18 ES, 39 ES in 43 ES
Further, it is also apparent from the operative part of the reasoned opinion that the Commission criticises the Federal Republic of Germany for restricting the grant of the property subsidy to persons liable to unlimited German income tax who acquire a property in Germany.
Poleg tega iz izreka obrazloženega mnenja izhaja tudi, da Komisija očita Zvezni republiki Nemčiji, da je omejila dodelitev subvencije za stanovanja na osebe, ki so v celoti zavezane za plačilo nem�ke dohodnine in ki kupijo nepremičnino na nem�kem ozemlju.
A preliminary point to be noted here is that on 11 January 2006 the Federal Republic of Germany mentioned the entry into force of the Law abolishing the subsidy for owneroccupied dwellings (Gesetz zur Abschaffung der Eigenheimzulage) of 22 December 2005.
Za začetek je treba omeniti, da se je Zvezna republika Nemčija 11. januarja 2006 sklicevala na začetek veljavnosti zakona z dne 22. decembra 2005 (Gesetz zur Abschaffung der Eigenheimzulage), s katerim je bil razveljavljen zakon o subvencijah za stanovanja.
I think that, as the Commission has rightly stated, the use of the expression ‘German taxpayer’ was intended to designate all persons subject to unlimited German income tax, whatever their nationality.
Kot je Komisija pravilno navedla, mislim, da je bil cilj uporabe izraza „nem�ki davčni zavezanec“ označiti vse osebe, ki so v celoti zavezane za plačilo nem�ke dohodnine, ne glede na njihovo državljanstvo.
15 — See inter alia Case C-43/05 Commission v Germany, not published in the ECR, paragraph 9 and the caselaw cited.
I-33, točka 9 in navedena sodna praksa).
13 — Idem.14 — See Annex I to the application.
13 — Ibidem.14 — Glej prilogo 1 k tožbi.
In this case, it is apparent from the reasoned opinion that the period prescribed for the Federal Republic of Germany to comply with Community law expired on 16 February 2004.
V obravnavanem primeru iz obrazloženega mnenja izhaja, da je rok, ki je bil določen Zvezni republiki Nemčiji, da se uskladi s pravom Skupnosti, potekel 16. februarja 2004.
That is why the Court is to examine first the compatibility of the national rule in question with these two provisions, and it is only if these more particular provisions do not apply that it will go on to examine the compatibility of that national rule with citizens’ general freedom of movement.
To je razlog, zaradi katerega Sodi�če najprej preuči združljivost zadevnega nacionalnega predpisa s tema določbama, in �ele če se ti specialni določbi ne uporabljata, preuči združljivost tega nacionalnega predpisa s splo�no pravico do prostega gibanja državljanov.
Consequently, the amendment has no relevance to this action.
Ta sprememba zato za to tožbo ni upo�tevna.
Therefore the merit of the complaint should first of all be examined in the light of Articles 39 EC and 43 EC.
Najprej je torej treba preučiti utemeljenost očitka v zvezi s členoma 39 ES in 43 ES.
First of all, as the Commission rightly points out, the decisive factor conferring entitlement to the property subsidy is unlimited liability to German income tax.
Kot je pravilno poudarila Komisija, je odločilni element, ki daje pravico do subvencij za stanovanja, zavezanost v celoti za plačilo nem�ke dohodnine.
Eligibility for the property subsidy therefore concerns only taxpayers liable to German income tax.
Torej subvencija za stanovanja zadeva le davčne zavezance, ki so zavezani za plačilo nem�ke dohodnine.
Although direct taxation falls within their competence, the Member States must none the less exercise that competence consistently with Community law. 17 Therefore the Member States, in the exercise of their competence, must not contravene the
Vendar, čeprav so neposredni davki v pristojnosti držav članic, morajo te pristojnost izvr�evati ob spo�tovanju prava Skupnosti.17 Države članice torej pri izvr�evanju pristojnosti ne smejo kr�iti temeljnih
I note that, according to settled caselaw, Article 18 EC, which sets out in general terms the right of every citizen of the Union to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, finds specific expression in Article 39 EC with regard to freedom of movement for workers and in Article 43 EC with regard to freedom of establishment. 16
Opozarjam, da v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso člen 18 ES, ki na splo�no določa pravico vsakega državljana Unije, da se prosto giblje in prebiva na ozemlju držav članic, pride zlasti do izraza v členu 39 ES, ki se nana�a na prosto gibanje delavcev, in v členu 43 ES, ki se nana�a na svobodo ustanavljanja.16
17 — See, inter alia, Case-209/01 Schilling and Fleck-Schilling [2003] ECR I-13389, paragraph 22.
17 — Glej zlasti sodbo z dne 13. novembra 2003 v zadevi Schilling in Fleck-Schilling (C-209/01, Recueil, str. I-13389, točka 22).
16 — See point 5 of this Opinion.
16 — Glej točko 5 teh sklepnih predlogov.
The same applies to national provisions which prevent or deter a national of a Member State from leaving his country of origin in order to exercise his right to freedom of movement and freedom of establishment. 20
Enako je v primeru nacionalnih določb, ki preprečujejo ali odvračajo državljana druge države članice, da zapusti matično državo, da bi izvr�eval pravico do prostega gibanja in svobode ustanavljanja.20
However, discrimination can arise only through the application of different rules to comparable situations or the application of the same rule to different situations. 21
Vendar lahko diskriminacija nastane le z uporabo različnih pravil v primerljivih položajih ali z uporabo istega pravila v različnih položajih.21
In this regard, according to the Court’s settled caselaw, the equal treatment rule enshrined in both Article 39 EC and Article 43 EC prohibits not only overt discrimination on grounds of nationality but also all covert forms of discrimination which, by the application of other distinguishing criteria, lead in fact to the same result. 18
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodi�ča načelo enakega obravnavanja, napisano v členu 39 ES in členu 43 ES, ne prepoveduje le očitne diskriminacije na podlagi državljanstva, ampak tudi vse prikrite oblike diskriminacije, ki z uporabo drugih razlikovalnih meril dejansko povzročijo enak rezultat.18