natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It is apparent that the contested provisions in the cases in the main proceedings were adopted by the foral authorities after the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) (Spain), by judgment of 9 December 2004 in appeal (cassation) No 7893/1999, declared numerous similar provisions adopted by the same authorities to be automatically invalid on the ground that, as those measures were capable of constituting State aid, they should have been notified to the Commission of the European Communities pursuant to Article 88(3) EC.
Vse kaže, da so izpodbijane določbe v postopkih v glavni stvari foralni organi sprejeli, potem ko je Tribunal Supremo v sodbi z dne 9. decembra 2004, ki jo je izreklo v zvezi z revizijskim predlogom �t. 7893/1999, ugotovilo ničnost več podobnih določb, ki so jih sprejeli ti organi, saj naj bi ti ukrepi lahko pomenili državne pomoči in naj bi jih bilo zato v skladu s členom 88(3) ES treba priglasiti Komisiji Evropskih skupnosti.
However, the defendants in the main proceedings state in their written observations submitted to the Court that, in view of the fact that the Tribunal Supremo gave judgment without making a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice and for other reasons, a ‘recurso de amparo’ (constitutional complaint) has been brought before the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) (Spain) against that judgment.
Tožene stranke v postopkih v glavni stvari pa v svojih pisnih stali�čih, ki so jih predložile Sodi�ču, navajajo, da so zoper to sodbo vložile „recurso de amparo“ pri Tribunal Constitucional, ker je Tribunal Supremo odločilo, ne da bi na Sodi�če naslovilo vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, ter iz drugih razlogov.
In the context of the actions for annulment in the main proceedings, the national court asks whether tax legislation which is adopted with general application and which does not confer an advantage on certain undertakings or the production of certain goods, is to be regarded as ‘selective’ and subject to the provisions of Articles 87 EC and 88 EC, solely on the ground that the effects and effectiveness of that legislation are limited exclusively to the territorial jurisdiction of an infraState authority with autonomy in tax matters.
Predložitveno sodi�če se v okviru ničnostnih tožb v postopkih v glavni stvari spra�uje, ali je treba splo�ne davčne ukrepe, ki ne dajejo prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, obravnavati kot „selektivne“ in zanje uporabiti ureditev iz členov 87 ES in 88 ES, zgolj zato, ker se nana�ajo le na območje v pristojnosti poddržavne skupnosti, ki uživa davčno avtonomijo.
The national court mentions in that regard the judgment in Case C-88/03 Portugal v Commission [2006] ECR I-7115, concerning tax measures adopted by the Autonomous Region of the Azores and refers to the three conditions of institutional, procedural and economic autonomy laid down by the Court in paragraph 67 of that judgment.
Predložitveno sodi�če v zvezi s tem navaja sodbo Sodi�ča z dne 6. septembra 2006 v zadevi Portugalska proti Komisiji (C-88/03, ZOdl., str. I-7115) v zvezi z davčnimi ukrepi, ki jih je sprejela Avtonomna regija Azorov, in se sklicuje na tri pogoje institucionalne, procesne in gospodarske avtonomije, ki jih je Sodi�če opredelilo v točki 67 navedene sodbe.
Examining whether the Basque Country and its Historical Territories fulfil those three conditions, the national court states that it has no doubt as to the existence of institutional autonomy.
Glede vpra�anja, ali Baskija in njena zgodovinska ozemlja izpolnjujejo te tri pogoje, predložitveno sodi�če zatrjuje, da ne dvomi o obstoju institucionalne avtonomije.
The national court asks, however, whether the formal procedure for drawing up the tax legislation in the Basque Country satisfies the procedural autonomy criterion.
Vendar pa se spra�uje, ali formalni postopek sprejemanja davčne zakonodaje Baskije izpolnjuje merilo procesne avtonomije.
Although that procedure is not subject to direct intervention by the central government, it does entail mechanisms based on non-coercive conciliation, reciprocity and the equal representation of both sides, for the purpose of examining whether draft legislation, once it is known, is compatible with the Economic Agreement between the parties, in order to ensure that legislation to be enacted by both parties accords with what has been agreed and has attained the force of law between the authorities concerned.
Osrednja vlada v ta postopek sicer ni vpletena neposredno, ima pa na voljo mehanizme, ki temeljijo na neprisilnosti, vzajemnosti in paritetni sestavi, s katerimi se po objavi osnutkov zagotavlja presoja skladnosti s finančnim sporazumom, ki so ga sprejele stranke, da bi se predpisi, ki jih potrdijo, uskladili s pravili, ki jih soglasno sprejmeta osrednja in regionalna uprava, torej s pravili z zakonsko veljavo.
In addition, from the perspective of the objectives pursued by the autonomous tax legislation and the Basque administration’s obligation to ‘take the national interest into account when setting the tax rate’, Article 3 of the Economic Agreement sets negative thresholds relating to the real global tax burden, to freedom of movement and establishment, and to the absence of discriminatory effects.
Poleg tega – gledano z vidika ciljev, ki jim sledi avtonomna davčna ureditev, in z vidika obveznosti baskovske uprave, da po potrebi „pri določanju davčne stopnje upo�teva državni interes“ – finančni sporazum v členu 3 določa posamezne negativne omejitve v zvezi z učinkovito skupno davčno obremenitvijo, prostim gibanjem in svobodo ustanavljanja ter v zvezi z neobstojem diskriminatornih učinkov.
Those limits may give rise a posteriori to judicial review of implemented tax provisions in order to determine whether they comply with the legal rules or guidelines mentioned above.
Na podlagi teh omejitev je mogoče sprožiti naknadni sodni nadzor veljavnih davčnih določb, s katerim se preizkusi njihova skladnost z zgoraj navedenimi pravili ali smernicami.
As regards the economic autonomy criterion, the national court asks whether, despite being the responsible tax body, the Basque Country nevertheless has sufficient powers to satisfy that criterion.
V zvezi z merilom gospodarske avtonomije se predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje, ali ima Baskija, čeprav je subjekt z odgovornostmi v davčnih zadevah, dovolj pristojnosti, da ustreza temu merilu.
The national court states in that regard that, although the Basque Country has a very high level of autonomy compared with other examples of regional autonomy within the European Union, that autonomy is nevertheless limited by the fact that the State has exclusive powers in certain areas which have an economic impact on the Basque Country, such as, inter alia, the other areas of competence set out in Article 149 of the Spanish Constitution, the monetary system, basic rules and coordination of general economic planning, financial rules governing the social security system, and public works of general benefit.
To sodi�če v zvezi s tem navaja, da je raven pristojnosti Baskije sicer precej visoka v primerjavi z drugimi oblikami regionalne avtonomije v evropskem okviru, vendar omejena z izključnimi pristojnostmi države na področjih, ki finančno vplivajo na Baskijo, kot so monetarni sistem, podlage in usklajevanje za splo�no načrtovanje gospodarskih dejavnosti, finančna ureditev na področju socialne varnosti in javna dela v splo�nem interesu ter druga področja pristojnosti iz člena 149 ustave.
‘Must Article 87(1) EC be construed as meaning that, by providing for a rate of tax lower than the basic rate set in Spanish State legislation and for deductions from the amount of tax payable which do not exist in State tax legislation, provisions in the field of taxation adopted by the Juntas Generales del Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya amending Articles 29(1)(a), 37 and 39 of the Provincial Law on Company Tax, which take effect in the jurisdiction of that infraState autonomous body, must be regarded as selective and as covered by the definition of State aid enshrined in Article 87(1) EC and, accordingly, must be notified to the Commission pursuant to Article 88(3) EC?’
„Ali je treba člen 87(1) ES razlagati tako, da so davčni ukrepi, ki jih je sprejel Juntas Generales del Territorio Histórico de Bizkaia in s katerimi so bili spremenjeni členi 29(1)(a), 37 in 39 predpisa o davku od dobička pravnih oseb, selektivni in v smislu zgoraj navedene določbe pomenijo državne pomoči, ki jih je treba na podlagi člena 88(3) ES priglasiti Komisiji, ker za ozemlje te avtonomne enote določajo davčno stopnjo, ki je nižja od splo�ne davčne stopnje, ki jo predvideva zakonodaja Španije, in uvajajo davčni odbitek, ki ne obstaja v državnem davčnem pravu?“
In Cases C-430/06 to C-433/06, the question referred for a preliminary ruling is the same as that set out in the preceding paragraph, save that it refers to the relevant foral laws of Álava and Guipúzcoa.
Vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje v zadevah od C-430/06 do C-433/06 je enako vpra�anju v prej�nji točki, le da se nana�a na ustrezne foralne zakone ozemelj Álava in Guipúzcoa.
By order of the President of the Court of 30 November 2006, Cases C-428/06 to C-434/06 were joined for the purposes of the written and oral procedure and of the judgment.
S sklepom predsednika Sodi�ča z dne 30. novembra 2006 so bile zadeve od C-428/06 do C-434/06 združene za pisni in ustni postopek ter sodbo.
Admissibility of the requests for a preliminary ruling
Dopustnost predlogov za sprejetje predhodne odločbe
The Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja submits that the requests for a preliminary ruling are not admissible since the answer to the question referred is not necessary in order to enable the national court to deliver judgment.
Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja zatrjuje, da predlogi za sprejetje predhodne odločbe niso dopustni, saj naj predložitveno sodi�če ne bi potrebovalo odgovora na zastavljeno vpra�anje, da bo lahko odločilo o zadevah.
By order of 14 November 2005, confirmed by subsequent order of 17 March 2006, both adopted in the context of proceedings for the enforcement of the judgment of the Tribunal Supremo of 9 December 2004 (Enforcement No 3753/96-1), the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco had already annulled certain of the provisions contested in the main proceedings, namely Article 29 of the respective amended foral laws on the rate of corporation tax and Article 39, as amended, of Foral Law 3/1996, taking the view that they were counter to that judgment and had been adopted with the aim of avoiding the enforcement thereof.
Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco naj bi že s sklepom z dne 14. novembra 2005, ki je bil potrjen z naknadnim sklepom z dne 17. marca 2006, oba pa sta bila sprejeta v okviru postopka za izvr�itev sodbe, ki jo je 9. decembra 2004 izreklo Tribunal Supremo (izvr�ba �t. 3753/96-1), razveljavilo nekatere od izpodbijanih določb v postopkih v glavni stvari, in sicer člen 29 različnih spremenjenih foralnih zakonov o davku od dobička pravnih oseb ter spremenjeni člen 39 foralnega zakona 3/1996, ker je menilo, da so bile te določbe v neskladju z navedeno sodbo in da so bile sprejete, da bi se izognili njeni izvr�itvi.
Regarding the two orders mentioned above, they were currently subject to appeals in cassation.
V zvezi z zgoraj navedenima sklepoma pa naj bi trenutno potekal revizijski postopek.
By letter of 23 January 2008, the Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja informed the Court, however, that it was withdrawing its application for a declaration that the references for a preliminary ruling were inadmissible.
Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja pa je v dopisu z dne 23. januarja 2008 Sodi�če obvestila, da umika predlog, naj se predlogi za sprejetje predhodne odločbe razglasijo za nedopustne.
UGT-Rioja also claims that those references are inadmissible on the ground that there is absolutely no doubt that the tax measures at issue in the main proceedings constitute State aid.
Tudi UGT-Rioja zatrjuje, da navedeni predlogi niso dopustni, saj naj ne bi bilo nikakr�nega dvoma, da sporni davčni ukrepi pomenijo državne pomoči.
It refers in that regard to the judgment of the Tribunal Supremo and to certain Commission decisions concerning tax provisions adopted by the Historical Territories and which are similar to the measures in question.
V zvezi s tem se sklicuje na sodbo Tribunal Supremo in nekatere odločbe Komisije v zvezi z dav -čnimi določbami, ki so jih sprejela zgodovinska ozemlja in so podobna navedenim ukrepom.
Confebask also claims that the references for a preliminary ruling were not necessary since the judgment in Portugal v Commission is very clear and that there can be no doubt that the tax measures at issue in the main proceedings do not constitute State aid.
Združenje Confebask prav tako meni, da predlogi za sprejetje predhodne odločbe niso potrebni, ker je zgoraj navedena sodba Portugalska proti Komisiji zelo jasna in ne dopu�ča dvoma, da sporni davčni ukrepi pomenijo državne pomoči.
As the Court’s jurisdiction is dependent on the existence of an action in the main proceedings, the Court may verify it of its own motion.
Ker je pristojnost Sodi�ča odvisna od obstoja spora o glavni stvari, lahko to ta obstoj preizkusi po uradni dolžnosti.
Consequently, the Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja’s withdrawal of its claim that the reference for a preliminary ruling is inadmissible has no effect on that verification.
Iz tega izhaja, da umik predloga, naj se vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje razglasi za nedopustno, ki ga je podala Comunidad Autónoma de la Rioja, ne vpliva na ta preizkus.
In the present case, it is not apparent from any of the evidence submitted to the Court that, following the annulment of certain of the provisions contested therein, the cases in the main proceedings no longer serve any purpose or that the answer to the references for a preliminary ruling is no longer needed by the national court to enable it to deliver judgment in the cases before it.
V tem primeru iz nobenega od Sodi�ču predloženih podatkov ne izhaja, da so se spori o glavni stvari zaradi razglasitve ničnosti nekaterih določb, ki so se izpodbijale v postopkih v glavni stvari, končali niti da predložitveno sodi�če ne bi več potrebovalo odgovora na vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, da bo lahko odločilo o zadevah.
Regarding the claim that the answer to the question referred is clear, it should be pointed out that, where the answer to a question referred to the Court for a
V zvezi z zatrjevano jasnostjo odgovora na zastavljeno vpra�anje je treba opozoriti, da če je iz sodne prakse mogoče jasno sklepati oziroma ni nobenega razumnega dvoma,
2008 — JOINED CASES C-428/06 TO C-434/06 preliminary ruling may be clearly deduced from existing caselaw and where it leaves no scope for any reasonable doubt, first, a court or tribunal against the decisions of which there is no judicial remedy under national law is not required, in certain circumstances, to make a preliminary reference (see, to that effect, Case 283/81 Cilfit and Others [1982] ECR 3415, paragraphs 14 and 16 to 20) and, second, this Court may give its decision by reasoned order pursuant to Article 104(3) of its Rules of Procedure.
2008 – ZADEVA C-428/06 kak�en bo odgovor na vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, sodi�ču, zoper odločitev katerega ni pravnega sredstva, v nekaterih primerih ni treba zastaviti vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 6. oktobra 1982 v zadevi Cilfit in drugi, 283/81, Recueil, str. 3415, točke 14 in od 16 do 20), Sodi�če pa lahko odloči z obrazloženim sklepom na podlagi člena 104(3) Poslovnika.
However, those circumstances in no way prevent a national court from making a reference for a preliminary ruling to this Court (see, to that effect, Cilfit and Others, paragraph 15) and do not have the effect of depriving this Court of jurisdiction to rule on such a question.
Vendar pa take okoli�čine nacionalnemu sodi�ču nikakor ne preprečujejo, da Sodi�ču zastavi vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Cilfit in drugi, točka 15), Sodi�ču pa ne odvzemajo pristojnosti za odločanje o takem vpra�anju.
In any event, it should be pointed out that, for UGT-Rioja, the tax measures at issue in the main proceedings unquestionably constitute State aid, whereas, for Confebask, they definitely do not constitute State aid.
Vsekakor je treba ugotoviti, da UGT-Rioja ne dvomi, da so sporni davčni ukrepi državne pomoči, medtem ko za združenje Confebask ni dvoma, da ti ukrepi niso državne pomoči.
Those contradictory assessments of the tax measures in the light of the provisions of the EC Treaty are sufficient to establish the need to reply to the requests for a preliminary ruling.
Ta protislovna ocena navedenih davčnih ukrepov z vidika Pogodbe ES zado�ča za ponazoritev nujnosti, da se odgovori na vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje.
By its question the national court essentially asks whether Article 87(1) EC must be interpreted as meaning that tax measures such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which were adopted by infraState bodies, are to be considered to be selective measure and, accordingly, State aid within the meaning of that provision on the sole ground that they do not apply to the whole territory of the Member State concerned.
Predložitveno sodi�če s svojim vpra�anjem v bistvu spra�uje, ali je treba člen 87(1) ES razlagati tako, da je treba davčne ukrepe, kot so tisti v postopku v glavni stvari, ki so jih sprejele poddržavne enote, obravnavati kot selektivne in zato kot državne pomoči v smislu te določbe, zgolj zato, ker se ne nana�ajo na celotno ozemlje zadevne države članice.
As the Court indicated at paragraph 56 of its judgment in Portugal v Commission, in order to determine whether the measure at issue is selective, it is appropriate to examine whether, within the context of a particular legal system, that measure constitutes an advantage for certain undertakings in comparison with others which are in a comparable legal and factual situation.
Sodi�če je v točki 56 zgoraj navedene sodbe Portugalska proti Komisiji navedlo, da je treba za presojo selektivnosti posameznega ukrepa preučiti, ali v okviru določene pravne ureditve pomeni prednost za posamezna podjetja glede na druga, ki so v dejansko in pravno primerljivem položaju.
In that connection, the reference framework need not necessarily be defined within the limits of the Member State concerned, so that a measure conferring an advantage in only one part of the national territory is not selective on that ground alone for the purposes of Article 87(1) EC (Portugal v Commission, paragraph 57).
V zvezi s tem referenčnega okvira ni treba nujno opredeliti v mejah ozemlja zadevne države članice, tako da ukrep, ki daje prednost le v delu nacionalnega ozemlja, ni zgolj zato selektiven v smislu člena 87(1) ES (zgoraj navedena sodba Portugalska proti Komisiji, točka 57).
It is possible that an infraState body enjoys a legal and factual status which makes it sufficiently autonomous in relation to the central government of a Member State, with the result that, by the measures it adopts, it is that body and not the central government which plays a fundamental role in the definition of the political and economic environment in which undertakings operate (Portugal v Commission, paragraph 58).
Ni mogoče izključiti, da ima poddržavna enota pravni in dejanski status, ki ji daje dovolj avtonomije glede na osrednjo vlado države članice, da bi z ukrepi, ki jih sprejme ta enota in ne osrednja vlada, opravljala temeljno vlogo pri opredelitvi političnega in gospodarskega okolja, v katerem delujejo podjetja (zgoraj navedena sodba Portugalska proti Komisiji, točka 58).
The Court described, at paragraph 65 of the judgment in Portugal v Commission, the situation in which a regional or local authority adopts, in the exercise of sufficiently autonomous powers in relation to the central power, a tax rate lower than the national rate and which is applicable only to undertakings present in the territory within its competence.
Sodi�če je v točki 65 zgoraj navedene sodbe Portugalska proti Komisiji opisalo položaj, v katerem regionalni ali lokalni organ pri izvr�evanju pristojnosti, ki so dovolj avtonomne glede na osrednjo pristojnost, določi davčno stopnjo, ki je nižja od nacionalne stopnje in ki se uporablja le za podjetja na zadevnem ozemlju v njegovi pristojnosti.
In the latter situation, the legal framework appropriate to determine the selectivity of a tax measure may be limited to the geographical area concerned where the infraState body, in particular on account of its status and powers, occupies a fundamental role in the definition of the political and economic environment in which the undertakings present on the territory within its competence operate (Portugal v Commis­sion, paragraph 66).
V tem položaju bi lahko upo�teven pravni okvir za presojo selektivnosti davčnega ukrepa omejili na zadevno geografsko ozemlje, kadar poddržavni organ zlasti zaradi svojega statusa in pristojnosti opravlja temeljno vlogo pri opredelitvi političnega in gospodarskega okolja, v katerem delujejo podjetja, ki so prisotna na ozemlju v njegovi pristojnosti (zgoraj navedena sodba Portugalska proti Komisiji, točka 66).
In order that a decision taken by a regional or local authority can be regarded as having been adopted in the exercise of sufficiently autonomous powers, that authority must first have, from a constitutional point of view, a political and administrative status which is distinct from that of the central government.
Da bi lahko menili, da je bila odločba, ki jo sprejme regionalni ali lokalni organ, sprejeta pri izvr�evanju dovolj avtonomnih pristojnosti tega organa, mora slednji na ustavni ravni najprej imeti politični in upravni status, ki ga ločuje od osrednje vlade.
Next, the decision must have been adopted without the central government being able to intervene directly as regards its content.
Dalje, odločba mora biti sprejeta, ne da bi osrednja vlada lahko neposredno posegla v njeno vsebino.
Finally, the financial consequences of a reduction of the national tax rate for undertakings in the region must not be offset by aid or subsidies from other regions or central government (Portugal v Commission, paragraph 67).
Nazadnje, finančnih posledic znižanja nacionalne stopnje obdavčitve, ki se uporablja za podjetja v regiji, ni mogoče izravnati s pomočjo ali subvencijami iz drugih regij ali osrednje vlade (zgoraj navedena sodba Portugalska proti Komisiji, točka 67).
Those three conditions are commonly considered to be the criteria of institutional, procedural, and economic and financial autonomy.
Ti trije pogoji se na splo�no obravnavajo kot merila za institucionalno, procesno ter gospodarsko in finančno avtonomijo.
The Court found, in paragraph 68 of its judgment in Portugal v Commission, that a political and fiscal independence of central government which is sufficient as regards the application of Community rules on State aid presupposes not only that the infraState body has powers in the territory within its competence to adopt measures reducing the tax rate, regardless of any considerations related to the conduct of the central State, but also that, in addition, it assumes the political and financial consequences of such a measure.
Sodi�če je v točki 68 zgoraj navedene sodbe Portugalska proti Komisiji odločilo, da zadosten obseg politične in davčne avtonomije glede na osrednjo vlado pri uporabi pravil Skupnosti v zvezi z državnimi pomočmi predvideva ne le, da je poddržavna enota pristojna za sprejemanje ukrepov znižanja davčne stopnje na območju v njeni pristojnosti neodvisno od kakr�nih koli ugotovitev v zvezi z ravnanjem osrednje države, ampak da poleg tega prevzame tudi politične in finančne posledice takega ukrepa.
The lack of a precondition
Neobstoj temeljnega pogoja
Contrary to the Commission’s contention, paragraphs 58 and 66 of the judgment in Portugal v Commission do not lay down any precondition for the operation of the three criteria set out in paragraph 67 of that judgment.
Točki 58 in 66 zgoraj navedene sodbe Portugalska proti Komisiji v nasprotju s trditvami Komisije ne vzpostavljata nobenega temeljnega pogoja za izvajanje treh meril iz točke 67 te sodbe.