natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Consequently, the inheritance here at issue in the main proceedings constitutes a movement of capital within the meaning of Article 73b(1) of the Treaty.
Zato je dedovanje v postopku v glavni stvari pretok kapitala v smislu člena 73b(1) Pogodbe.
It is thus necessary to examine, first, whether, as maintained by Mr Jäger and the Commission, a national provision such as that at issue in the main proceedings amounts to a restriction on the movement of capital.
Kot trdita T. Jäger in Komisija je tako treba najprej preizkusiti, ali nacionalna ureditev, kot je ureditev v postopku v glavni stvari, pomeni omejitev pretoka kapitala.
The German Government submits that the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings does not amount to a restriction on the movement of capital.
Nem�ka vlada trdi, da nacionalna ureditev v postopku v glavni stvari ne pomeni omejitve pretoka kapitala.
First, it submits that, since the assets situated in France were acquired initially by the father of Mr Jäger before 1 June 1990, the date by which Directive 88/361 had to be transposed into national law, the rights deriving from that directive or from the Treaty could not be relied on directly by the purchaser of the assets concerned.
Po eni strani zatrjuje, da ker je premoženje, ki se nahaja v Franciji, oče T. Jägra najprej kupil pred 1. junijem 1990, ko bi Direktiva 88/361 morala biti prenesena v nacionalno pravo, se dedič zadevnega premoženja ne bi mogel neposredno sklicevati na pravice iz te direktive ali Pogodbe.
Secondly, according to the German Government, such a purchaser cannot be deterred by the effects of legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not in any way affect the person in question but, at the very most, his heirs.
Nem�ka vlada po drugi strani meni, da takega pridobitelja učinki ureditve, kot je ureditev v postopku v glavni stvari, ne bi odvrnili, saj nikakor ne bremenijo njega, temveč najbolj njegove dediče.
For that reason, the effects of such legislation are too indirect to be capable of constituting a restriction on the movement of capital.
Zato naj bi bili učinki take ureditve preveč posredni, da bi lahko �lo za omejitev pretoka kapitala.
In that respect, according to the caselaw of the Court, national provisions which determine the value of immovable property for the purposes of calculating the amount of tax due when it is acquired through inheritance may not only be such as to discourage the purchase of immovable property situated in the Member State concerned and the transfer of financial ownership of such property to another person by a resident of another Member State, but may also have the effect of reducing 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).
V zvezi s tem iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča izhaja, da nacionalne določbe, ki določajo vrednost nepremičnine za izračun vi�ine davka, ki ga je treba plačati pri dedovanju, lahko ne le odvrnejo od nakupa nepremičnin, ki se nahajajo v zadevni državi članici, in od odsvojitve teh nepremičnin v korist druge osebe s strani rezidenta druge države članice, temveč prav tako lahko zmanj�ajo vrednost dedi�čine rezidenta države članice, v kateri se to premoženje ne nahaja (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Barbier, točka 62).
Furthermore, as regards inheritances, the caselaw has confirmed that the measures prohibited by Article 73b(1) of the Treaty 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).
Poleg tega je sodna praksa v zvezi z dedovanjem potrdila, da ukrepi, ki so prepovedani po členu 73b(1) Pogodbe in 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 navedena sodba van Hilten-van der Heijden, točka 44).
In the present case, the national provisions in issue in the main proceedings, in so far as they result in an inheritance consisting of agricultural land and forestry situated in another Member State being subject, in Germany, to inheritance tax that is higher than that which would be payable if the assets inherited were situated exclusively within the territory of that Member State, have the effect of restricting the movement of capital by reducing the value of an inheritance consisting of such an asset situated outside Germany.
V tem primeru nacionalne določbe v postopku v glavni stvari, ki povzročajo, da je dedi�čina, sestavljena iz premoženja v obliki kmetijskega zemlji�ča in gozdov, ki je v drugi državi članici, v Nemčiji predmet vi�jega davka na dedi�čino, kot bi zna�al
That conclusion cannot be called into question by the arguments put forward by the German Government, noted in paragraph 29 of this judgment, since they are irrelevant in the light of the criteria arising from the caselaw cited in paragraphs 30 and 31 of this judgment.
Utemeljitve nem�ke vlade, navedene v točki 29 te sodbe, te ugotovitve ne morejo izpodbiti, saj glede na merila, ki izhajajo iz sodne prakse, navedene v točkah 30 in 31 te sodbe, niso upo�tevne.
In the present case, the effects of the national legislation in issue in the main proceedings on the value of the inheritance occurred after 1 June 1990 and are manifestly not too indirect to be capable of constituting a restriction on the movement of capital.
V takem primeru so učinki zadevne nacionalne ureditve v glavni stvari na vrednost dedi�čine nastali po 1. juniju 1990 in očitno niso zadosti neposredni, da bi lahko omejevali pretok kapitala.
The same is true of the German Government’s argument that there cannot be a restriction resulting from a reduction in the value of the inheritance, since the effect of legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings is merely the unavoidable consequence of the coexistence of national tax systems.
Isto velja za utemeljitev nem�ke vlade, da ni omejitve, ki bi izhajala iz zmanj�anja vrednosti dedi�čine, saj je učinek ureditve, kot je ureditev v glavni stvari, le neizogibna posledica soobstoja nacionalnih davčnih sistemov.
That circumstance is irrelevant in the light of the criteria resulting from the caselaw cited in paragraphs 30 and 31 of this judgment.
Ta okoli�čina, glede na merila, ki izhajajo iz sodne prakse, navedene v točkah 30 in 31 te sodbe, namreč ni pomembna.
Indeed, in any event it is clear that the reduction in the value of the estate flows solely from the application of the German legislation at issue.
Poleg tega je v vsakem primeru treba ugotoviti, da izhaja zmanj�anje vrednosti dedi�čine le iz uporabe zadevne nem�ke ureditve.
It follows that the fact that the grant of tax advantages in relation to inheritance tax is made subject to the condition that the asset acquired by inheritance be situated in the national territory constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital prohibited, in principle, by Article 73b(1) of the Treaty.
Iz tega izhaja, da podelitev davčnih ugodnosti pri davku na dedi�čino, če se podedovano premoženje nahaja na nacionalnem ozemlju, pomeni omejitev prostega pretoka kapitala, ki je načeloma prepovedana s členom 73b(1) Pogodbe.
Next, it is necessary to examine whether the restriction on the free movement of capital thus determined may be justified having regard to the provisions of the Treaty.
Dalje, treba je preizkusiti, ali je tako ugotovljeno omejitev prostega pretoka kapitala mogoče upravičiti z določbami Pogodbe.
In that respect, it should be noted that, under Article 73d(1)(a) of the Treaty, ‘… Article 73b 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 … the place where their capital is invested’.
V zvezi s tem je treba v skladu s členom 73d(1)(a) Pogodbe spomniti, 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 […] kraj, v katerem je naložen njihov kapital“.
According to the Finanzamt and the German Government, under that provision the Federal Republic of Germany is entitled to reserve the benefit of assessment under the special procedure solely to assets situated within its territory.
Finanzamt in nem�ka vlada menita, da iz te določbe izhaja, da ima Zvezna republika Nemčija pravico, da si za premoženje, ki se nahaja na njenem ozemlju, pridrži pravico do vrednotenja v skladu s posebnim postopkom.
The Finanzamt adds that Paragraph 31 of the BewG is justified by Article 73d(1)(a) of the Treaty, read in the light of Declaration No 7 annexed to the Final Act of the Treaty on European Union, since the set of rules for the valuation of assets situated abroad, at issue in the main proceedings, existed at the end of 1993, within the terms of that declaration.
Finanzamt dodaja, da je člen 31 BewG utemeljen s členom 73d(1)(a) Pogodbe v povezavi z Izjavo �t. 7, priloženo k Sklepni listini Pogodbe o Evropski uniji, ker je v smislu te izjave obravnavani sistem vrednotenja premoženja, ki se nahaja v tujini, obstajal konec leta 1993.
Without the need to rule on whether those rules for the valuation of assets situated abroad existed on 31 December 1993, it should be noted that in the judgment in Case C-35/98 Verkooijen [2000] ECR I-4071, the Court was required to address arguments based on Article 73d(1)(a) of the Treaty, although the facts in the main proceedings in that case occurred before that provision came into force.
Ne da bi se bilo treba izreči, ali je ta sistem vrednotenja premoženja, ki se nahaja v tujini, obstajal 31. decembra 1993, je treba opozoriti, da je Sodi�če v sodbi z dne 6. junija 2000 v zadevi Verkooijen (C-35/98, Recueil, str. I-4071) odgovorilo na utemeljitev na podlagi člena 73d(1)(a) Pogodbe, da so dejstva v glavni stvari nastala, preden je ta določba začela veljati.
It stated that, before the entry into force of Article 73d(1)(a) of the Treaty, national tax provisions of the kind to which that article refers, in so far as they establish certain distinctions, could be compatible with Community law provided that they applied to situations which were not objectively comparable (paragraph 43).
Poudarilo je, da so pred začetkom veljave člena 73d(1)(a) Pogodbe nacionalne davčne določbe, na kakr�ne se nana�a ta člen, če vzpostavijo določene razlike, lahko skladne s pravom Skupnosti, če se uporabljajo v položajih, ki niso objektivno primerljivi (točka 43).
That stated, Article 73d(1)(a) of the Treaty, in so far as it is a derogation from the fundamental principle of the free movement of capital, must be interpreted strictly.
Glede na to pojasnitev je treba poudariti, da je treba člen 73d(1)(a) Pogodbe glede na to, da pomeni izjemo od temeljnega načela prostega pretoka kapitala, razlagati ozko.
That provision cannot therefore be interpreted as meaning that all tax legislation
Zato te določbe ni mogoče razlagati tako, da naj bi bila vsaka davčna zakonodaja, ki
JÄGER 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.
JÄGER različno obravnava davčne zavezance glede na kraj prebivali�ča ali glede na državo članico, v katero vlagajo svoj kapital, avtomatično skladna s Pogodbo.
The derogation provided for in Article 73d(1)(a) of the Treaty is itself, as the German Government observed, limited by Article 73d(3) of the Treaty, 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 73b’ (see Verkooijen, paragraph 44, and Manninen, paragraph 28).
Kot ugotavlja nem�ka vlada, je izjema, določena v členu 73d(1)(a) Pogodbe, omejena s členom 73d(3) Pogodbe, 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 73b“ (glej zgoraj navedeni sodbi Verkooijen, točka 44, in Manninen, točka 28).
Moreover, in order to be justified, the difference in treatment between the agricultural land and forestry assets situated in Germany and those situated in the other Member States must not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective pursued by the legislation at issue.
Da bi bilo lahko različno obravnavanje kmetijskega zemlji�ča in gozdov, ki so v Nemčiji, ter kmetijskega zemlji�ča in gozdov, ki so v drugih državah članicah, upravičeno, se poleg tega ne sme prekoračiti to, kar je nujno za dosego cilja, ki mu sledi zadevna ureditev.
A distinction must therefore be made between the unequal treatment permitted under Article 73d(1)(a) of the Treaty and arbitrary discrimination prohibited under Article 73d(3).
Razlikovati je torej treba med dovoljenim neenakim obravnavanjem iz člena 73d(1)(a) Pogodbe in prepovedano samovoljno diskriminacijo iz člena 73d(3) Pogodbe.
According to the caselaw, in order for national tax legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, for the purposes of calculating inheritance tax, distinguishes between assets situated in another Member State and those situated in Germany, 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 Case C-443/06 Hollmann [2007] ECR I-8491, paragraph 45).
Kajti v skladu s sodno prakso bi se lahko nacionalna davčna zakonodaja, ki, kot v postopku v glavni stvari, za izračun davka na dedi�čino loči med premoženjem, ki se nahaja v drugi državi članici, in premoženjem, ki se nahaja na nem�kem ozemlju, obravnavala kot skladna 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 navedeni sodbi Verkooijen, točka 43, in Manninen, točka 29, ter sodbo z dne 11. oktobra 2007 v zadevi Hollmann, C-443/06, ZOdl., str. I-8491, točka 45).
In that respect, it must be stated, first, that the difference in the amount of tax paid according to whether the inheritance consists only of agricultural land and forestry situated in Germany or consists also of such an asset situated in another Member State cannot be justified on the ground that it concerns situations which are not objectively comparable.
V zvezi s tem je najprej treba ugotoviti, da različen znesek dolgovanega davka glede na to, ali dedi�čina vključuje le kmetijsko zemlji�če in gozdove v Nemčiji ali pa tudi kmetijsko zemlji�če in gozdove v drugi državi članici, ne more biti upravičen, ker se nana�a na položaje, ki niso objektivno primerljivi.
The calculation of the tax is, under the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, directly linked to the value of the assets included in the estate, with the result that there is objectively no difference in situation such as to justify unequal tax treatment so far as concerns the level of inheritance tax payable in relation to, respectively, an asset situated in Germany and an asset situated in another Member State.
Izračun davka z uporabo nacionalne ureditve v postopku v glavni stvari je namreč neposredno povezan z vrednostjo premoženja, vključenega v dedi�čino, tako da objektivno ni nobene razlike med položaji, ki bi lahko upravičili neenakost davčnega obravnavanja glede stopnje davka na dedi�čino, ki ga je treba plačati za premoženje, ki je v Nemčiji, oziroma za premoženje, ki je v drugi državi članici. Položaj T.
Accordingly, it is, finally, necessary to examine whether the restriction on the movement of capital resulting from legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings may be objectively justified by an overriding reason in the general interest.
Zato je nazadnje treba raziskati, ali je omejitev pretoka kapitala, ki izhaja iz ureditve, kot je ureditev v postopku v glavni stvari, lahko objektivno upravičena zaradi nujnega razloga v splo�nem interesu.
The German Government submits that there is an overriding reason in the general interest which justifies that legislation.
Nem�ka vlada meni, da to ureditev upravičuje nujni razlog v splo�nem interesu.
First of all, it points out that that legislation is designed to compensate for the specific costs involved in maintaining the social role fulfilled by agricultural land and forestry holdings.
Nem�ka vlada najprej poudarja, da je namen navedene ureditve nadomestiti posebne stro�ke ohranitve socialne funkcije kmetijskih in gozdarskih obratov.
That legislation makes it possible to prevent, first, the heir to an agricultural company from being forced to sell or relinquish it in order to be able to pay the inheritance tax and, secondly, the break-up of agricultural land and forestry holdings guaranteeing productivity and jobs and also required to comply with their obligations under the national legal order.
Ta ureditev naj bi preprečevala, da bi bil dedič kmetijskega gospodarstva prisiljen, da ga proda ali se mu odpove, da bi lahko plačal davek na dedi�čino, hkrati pa propad takih obratov, ki zagotavljajo produktivnost in delovna mesta ter morajo poleg tega izpolniti svoje obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz nacionalnega pravnega reda.
In the view of the German Government, that overriding reason in the general interest could be considered the same as, indeed, the need to safeguard the coherence of the tax system.
Nem�ka vlada meni, da bi ta nujni razlog v splo�nem interesu moral biti sprejet kot potreba po varovanju doslednosti davčnega sistema.
There is, it argues, a direct link between the specific obligations resulting
Obstajala naj bi namreč neposredna povezava med posebnimi obveznostmi, ki izhajajo iz podrejanja teh obratov
JÄGER from the subordination of those holdings to the general interest and the particular kind of valuation applied to those holdings in inheritance matters.
JÄGER splo�nemu interesu, in posebnim načinom vrednotenja, ki se zanje uporablja pri dedovanju.
The Finanzamt and the German Government also submit that the legislation at issue in the main proceedings is justified by the fact that the German authorities are not obliged to take account of the existence of a comparable general interest in other Member States.
Dalje, Finanzamt in nem�ka vlada trdita, da ureditev v postopku v glavni stvari upravičuje dejstvo, da nem�ki organi niso dolžni upo�tevati obstoja primerljivega splo�nega interesa v drugih državah članicah.
That is the case since the specific obligations and costs associated with agricultural land and forestry in Germany do not necessarily weigh in the same manner on similar assets situated in other Member States.
Tako naj bi bilo, ker ni nujno, da obveznosti in posebni stro�ki, ki obremenjujejo kmetijsko zemlji�če in gozdove, ki so v Nemčiji, na isti način obremenjujejo istovrstno premoženje, ki je v drugih državah članicah.
In that respect, the Finanzamt adds that, even if comparable obligations and costs were imposed in other Member States on those kinds of assets, the Federal Republic of Germany would not be required to ensure compensation in respect of them.
V zvezi s tem Finanzamt dodaja, da tudi če bi v drugih državah članicah za to vrsto premoženja obstajali primerljive obveznosti in stro�ki, Zvezna republika Nemčija ne bi bila zavezana zagotoviti nadomestila.
It is, admittedly, conceivable that objectives connected with the carrying on of the activities of agricultural and forestry holdings and preservation of jobs in the latter in cases of inheritance may in themselves, in certain circumstances and under certain conditions, be in the public interest and capable of justifying restrictions on the free movement of capital (see, to that effect, Case C-370/05 Festersen [2007] ECR I-1129, paragraph 28).
Res je, da ni mogoče izključiti, da imajo lahko cilji ohranitve kmetijskih in gozdarskih obratov ter zaposlitve v teh pri dedovanju v nekaterih okoli�činah in pod nekaterimi pogoji naravo splo�nega interesa in lahko upravičijo omejitve prostega pretoka kapitala (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 25. januarja 2007 v zadevi Festersen, C-370/05, ZOdl., str. I-1129, točka 28).
It should be noted that, in the case in the main proceedings, with regard to the objective of preventing the tax burden from jeopardising the continuation of the activities of agricultural and forestry holdings, and thereby the preservation of the social role of those holdings, there is no evidence in the present case to support a finding that the holdings established in other Member States are not in a comparable situation to that of holdings established in Germany.
Poudariti je namreč treba, da v zvezi s ciljem preprečevanja, da bi davek na dedi�čino ogrozil izvajanje dejavnosti kmetijskih in gozdarskih obratov, ter ciljem ohranitve socialne funkcije teh obratov, na podlagi nobenega elementa v zadevi v glavni stvari ni mogoče ugotoviti, da obrati v drugih državah članicah niso v primerljivem položaju, kot je položaj obratov, ki so v Nemčiji.
Finally, in order to justify the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, the German Government refers to practical difficulties which preclude the transposition of the assessment criteria provided for by the legislation at issue in the main proceedings to agricultural land and forestry assets situated in other Member States.
Nazadnje, da bi upravičila nacionalno ureditev v postopku v glavni stvari, se nem�ka vlada sklicuje na praktične ovire, ki naj bi nasprotovale prenosu meril za vrednotenje, ki jih določa ta ureditev za kmetijska zemlji�ča in gozdove, ki so v drugih državah članicah.
It explains that that assessment procedure is based on standardised values of yield for the different types of holdings concerned and that those values have been derived from statistical documents compiled by the German authorities.
Nem�ka vlada pojasnjuje, da temelji ta postopek vrednotenja na vrednostih donosa, ki so standardizirane za različne vrste zadevnih obratov, in da te vrednosti izhajajo iz statističnih podatkov nem�ke uprave.
Similar data are not available in respect of agricultural land and forestry assets situated in other Member States.
Podobni podatki glede kmetijskih zemlji�č in gozdov, ki se nahajajo v drugih državah članicah, naj ne bi bili dostopni.
In that regard, it should be noted that, while it may indeed prove difficult for national authorities to apply the assessment procedure provided for in Paragraphs 140 to 144 of the BewG to agricultural land and forestry situated in another Member State, that difficulty cannot justify a categorical refusal to grant the tax advantage in question since the taxpayers concerned could be asked themselves to supply the authorities with the data which they consider necessary to ensure application of that procedure in such a way that it is adapted to holdings in other Member States.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da čeprav se namreč lahko izkaže, da nacionalni organi za kmetijsko zemlji�če in gozdove, ki so v drugi državi članici, težko uporabijo postopek vrednotenja iz členov od 140 BewG do 144 BewG, ta težava ne more upravičiti kategorične zavrnitve podelitve zadevne davčne ugodnosti, saj se od zadevnih davčnih zavezancev lahko zahteva, naj tem organom predložijo podatke, za katere ocenjujejo, da so potrebni za zagotovitev uporabe tega postopka v prilagojeni obliki za obrate, ki so v drugih državah članicah.