natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Article 10(1) distinguishes three alternative circumstances which are capable — each
S tem namenom odstavek 1 ločuje tri alternativne okoli�čine, ki lahko vsaka posebej pomeni razlog za
2008 — CASE C-19/07 on its own — of constituting the event giving rise to the right to commission.
2008 – ZADEVA C-19/07 pravico do provizije.
The right is thus acquired as soon as and to the extent that the principal has executed the transaction or should have executed it, according to his agreement with the third party, or as soon as or to the extent that the third party has executed the transaction.
Ta zapade, takoj ko in kolikor je naročitelj izpeljal posel ali bi ga moral po pogodbi s tretjim, ki ga to zadeva, izpeljati oziroma �e takoj ko in kolikor je posel izpeljal tretji.
Article 10(2) of Directive 86/653 states that the commission becomes due, at the latest, when that third party has executed his part of the transaction or should have done so if the principal had executed his part of the transaction.
Člen 10(2) Direktive natančno določa, da provizija zapade najpozneje takrat, ko navedeni tretji izpelje svoj del posla ali bi ga moral izpeljati, če bi naročitelj izpeljal svoj del posla.
It follows from the combination of those two paragraphs of Article 10 of Directive 86/653 that the commercial agent’s right to commission arises either when the principal has or should have carried out his obligation, or when the third party to the agency contract, that is the customer, has or should have carried out his obligation.
Iz sinteze teh dveh odstavkov člena 10 Direktive izhaja, da pravica trgovskega zastopnika do provizije nastane, bodisi ko naročitelj je ali bi moral izpeljati svojo obveznost bodisi ko tretji pri pogodbi o trgovskem zastopanju, torej stranka, je ali bi moral izpeljati svojo.
In each instance, the presence of the principal in the transactions for which the commercial agent can claim commission is indispensable.
V vseh teh primerih je prisotnost naročitelja pri poslih, zaradi katerih lahko trgovski zastopnik zahteva provizijo, nujno potrebna.
That interpretation of Article 10 of Directive 86/653 is supported by the wording of Article 11(1) of that directive, according to which the commercial agent’s right to commission can be extinguished only if and to the extent that it is established that the contract between the third party and the principal will not be executed, and that fact is due to a reason for which the principal is not to blame.
Tako razumevanje člena 10 Direktive je podkrepljeno z besedilom člena 11(1) te direktive, v skladu s katerim pravica trgovskega zastopnika do provizije ugasne, samo in če je dokazano, da pogodba med stranko in naročiteljem ne bo izpolnjena in da za to, da pogodba ne bo izpolnjena, ni kriv naročitelj.
That sole ground for extinguishment, which requires the combination of two sets of circumstances in which express reference is made to the principal, emphasises the importance of his role for the existence of the right to commission.
Ta edini razlog za ugasnitev, ki zahteva kombinacijo dveh okoli�čin, v katerih se izrecno sklicuje na naročitelja, poudarja pomembno vlogo slednjega za obstoj pravice do provizije.
It therefore follows from Articles 7(2), 10(1) and (2), and 11(1) of Directive 86/653, read in conjunction with each other, that the commercial agent can claim commission on the basis of a transaction only to the extent that the principal acted, directly or indirectly, in the conclusion of that transaction.
Tako iz besedila člena 7(2) skupaj s členoma 10(1) in (2) ter 11(1) Direktive izhaja, da lahko trgovski zastopnik zahteva provizijo za posel, samo če je naročitelj neposredno ali posredno posredoval pri sklenitvi tega posla.
Having regard to the foregoing considerations, the reply to the question referred must be that the first indent of Article 7(2) of Directive 86/653 must be interpreted as meaning that a commercial agent entrusted with a specific geographical area does not have the right to a commission for transactions concluded by customers belonging to that area with a third party without any action, direct or indirect, on the part of the principal.
Glede na navedeno presojo je na zastavljeno vpra�anje treba odgovoriti, da je treba člen 7(2), prva alinea, razlagati tako, da trgovski zastopnik, pristojen za določeno območje, nima pravice do provizije za posle, ki so jih sklenile stranke, ki pripadajo temu območju, s tretjo osebo brez neposrednega ali posrednega posredovanja naročitelja.
On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby rules:
Iz teh razlogov je Sodi�če (prvi senat) razsodilo:
The first indent of Article 7(2) of Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to selfemployed commercial agents must be interpreted as meaning that a commercial agent entrusted with a specific geographical area does not have the right to a commission for transactions concluded by customers belonging to that area with a third party without any action, direct or indirect, on the part of the principal.
Člen 7(2), prva alinea, Direktive Sveta 86/653/EGS z dne 18. decembra 1986 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o samozaposlenih trgovskih zastopnikih je treba razlagati tako, da trgovski zastopnik, pristojen za določeno območje, nima pravice do provizije za posle, ki so jih sklenile stranke, ki pripadajo temu območju, s tretjo osebo brez neposrednega ali posrednega posredovanja naročitelja.
Case C-105/07
Zadeva C-105/07
Lammers & Van Cleeff NV v Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen)
Lammers & Van Cleeff NVprotidržavi Belgiji (Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen)
(Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — Interest paid by a subsidiary on funds lent by the parent company established in another Member State — Reclassification of the interest as taxable dividends — No such reclassification where interest payments are made to a resident company)
„Svoboda ustanavljanja – Prosti pretok kapitala – Davčna zakonodaja – Davek od dohodka pravnih oseb – Obresti, ki jih hčerinska družba izplača kot plačilo posojila matične družbe, ustanovljene v drugi državi članici – Opredelitev obresti kot obdavčljivih dividend – Neopredelitev v primeru obresti, izplačanih družbi rezidentki“
Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment (Art. 43 EC)
Prosto gibanje oseb – Svoboda ustanavljanja (člen 43 ES)
SUMMARY — CASE C-105/07
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-105/07
Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Tax legislation — Corporation tax
Prosto gibanje oseb – Svoboda ustanavljanja – Davčna zakonodaja – Davek od dohodka pravnih oseb
(Arts 43 EC and 48 EC)
(člena 43 ES in 48 ES)
Member State are reclassified as dividends and are, on that basis, taxable, where, at the beginning of the taxable period, the total of the interest-bearing loans is higher than the paid-up capital plus taxed reserves, whereas, in the same circumstances, where those interest payments are made to a director which is a company established in the same Member State, those payments are not reclassified as dividends and are, on that basis, not taxable.
v drugi državi članici, opredeljene kot dividende in so zato obdavčljive, če na začetku davčnega obdobja skupni znesek obrestovanih predujmov presega prosti kapital, povečan za obdavčene rezerve, medtem ko v istih okoli�činah obresti, izplačane upravitelju družbe, ki je družba, ustanovljena v isti državi članici, niso opredeljene kot dividende in zato niso obdavčljive.
The mere fact that a resident company is granted a loan by a related company which is established in another Member State cannot be the basis of a general presumption of abusive practices and justify a measure which compromises the exercise of a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the Treaty.
Sama okoli�čina, da družba rezidentka prejme posojilo od povezane družbe s sedežem v drugi državi članici, ne ustvarja splo�ne domneve zlorabe in ne upravičuje ukrepa, ki �koduje izvajanju temeljne svobode, ki jo zagotavlja Pogodba.
Conversely, a national measure restricting freedom of establishment may be justified on the ground of prevention of abusive practices where it specifically targets wholly artificial arrangements which do not reflect economic reality and are designed to circumvent the legislation of the Member State concerned and, in particular, to escape the tax normally due on the profits generated by activities carried out on national territory.
Nasprotno, nacionalni ukrep, ki omejuje svobodo ustanavljanja, je lahko upravičen zaradi boja proti zlorabam, če je posebej namenjen povsem umetnim konstruktom brez gospodarske resničnosti, katerih cilj je izogibanje zakonodaji zadevne države članice, zlasti pa to, da se obide davek na dobiček, ustvarjen z opravljanjem dejavnosti na nacionalnem ozemlju, ki ga je po navadi treba plačati.
(see paras 26-28)
(Glej točke od 26 do 28.)
Articles 43 EC and 48 EC preclude national legislation under which interest payments made by a company resident in a Member State to a director which is a company established in another
Člena 43 ES in 48 ES nasprotujeta nacionalni zakonodaji, na podlagi katere so obresti, ki jih družba, ki je rezidentka države članice, izplača upravitelju družbe, ki je družba, ustanovljena
Such a difference in treatment between resident companies according to the place of establishment of the company which, as director, has granted them a loan constitutes an obstacle to the freedom of establishment if it makes it less attractive for companies established in other Member States to exercise that freedom and they may, in consequence, refrain from managing a company in the Member State which enacts that measure, or even refrain from acquiring, creating or maintaining a subsidiary in that Member State.
Tako različno obravnavanje družb rezidentk glede na kraj, v katerem ima njihova matična družba, ki jim je dala posojilo, sedež, namreč pomeni omejevanje svobode ustanavljanja, ker povzroči, da postane izvajanje te svobode ustanavljanja za družbe s sedežem v drugih državah članicah manj privlačno in bi zato te družbe lahko opustile upravljanje družbe v državi članici, ki je sprejela ta ukrep, ter tudi opustile pridobitev, ustanovitev ali ohranitev hčerinske družbe v tej državi članici.
LAMMERS & VAN CLEEFF as they exceed such a limit, it cannot be ruled out that that reclassification will also apply to interest paid on loans granted on an arm’s length basis. (see paras 23, 32-34, operative part)
LAMMERS & VAN CLEEFF ne more biti izključeno, da se ta opredelitev uporablja tudi za obresti, nakazane kot plačilo posojila, danega v okoli�činah svobodne konkurence. Čeprav je cilj omejitve, kot je omejitev, ki je določena v navedeni zakonodaji, boj proti zlorabam, ta vsekakor presega tisto, kar je nujno potrebno za dosego tega cilja, ker prav tako vpliva na položaje, v katerih zadevne transakcije ni mogoče �teti za povsem umeten konstrukt.
Even if the application of a limit such as the limits laid down under that legislation seeks to combat abusive practices, it goes in any event beyond what is necessary to attain that objective, since it also affects situations in which the transaction concerned cannot be regarded as a purely artificial arrangement.
Čeprav so obresti, izplačane družbam nerezidentkam, opredeljene kot dividende, če presežejo tako mejo,
If interest payments made to nonresident companies are reclassified as dividends as soon
(Glej točke 23, od 32 do 34 in izrek.)
2008 — CASE C-105/07
2008 – ZADEVA C-105/07
* Language of the case: Dutch.
* Jezik postopka: nizozem�čina.
LAMMERS & VAN CLEEFF Advocate General: J. Kokott, Registrar: R. Grass, having regard to the written procedure, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
LAMMERS & VAN CLEEFF generalna pravobranilka: J. Kokott, sodni tajnik: R. Grass, na podlagi pisnega postopka, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili: — za Lammers & Van Cleeff NV D. Merckx, odvetnik, — za Komisijo Evropskih skupnosti R. Lyal in A.
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 12 EC, 43 EC, 46 EC, 48 EC, 56 EC and 58 EC.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago členov 12 ES, 43 ES, 46 ES, 48 ES, 56 ES in 58 ES.
The reference has been made in the context of proceedings between NV Lammers & Van Cleeff, the company seat of which is in Belgium (‘the Belgian subsidiary’), and the Belgische Staat (Belgian State) concerning payment of corporation tax for the assessment years 1996 and 1997. Legal context
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med družbo Lammers & Van Cleeff NV s sedežem v Belgiji (v nadaljevanju: belgijska hčerinska družba) in državo Belgijo glede odmere davka od dohodka pravnih oseb za davčni leti 1996 in 1997. Pravni okvir
Article 18(1), point 3, of the Income Tax Code 1992, consolidated by the Royal Decree of 10 April 1992 (Belgisch Staatsblad of 30 July 1992, p.
Člen 18, prvi odstavek, točka 3, zakonika o dohodnini iz leta 1992, ki je bil potrjen s kraljevo uredbo z dne 10. aprila 1992 (Moniteur belge z dne 30. julija 1992, str.
17120), in the version in force at the time of the facts in the main proceedings (‘the ITC 1992’), provided:
17120), je v različici, ki je veljala v času spora v glavni stvari, določal:
‘Dividends shall include:
„Dividende obsegajo:
3. interest on loans where one of the following limits is exceeded and to the extent of that excess:
3. obresti na predujme, če so prekoračene te meje in v vi�ini vsake prekoračitve:
— either the limit set out in Article 55,
— bodisi meja, določena v členu 55,
LAMMERS & VAN CLEEFF — or the total of the interest-bearing loans is higher than the paid-up capital plus taxed reserves at the beginning of the taxable period.’
LAMMERS & VAN CLEEFF — bodisi če skupna vi�ina obrestovanih predujmov na začetku davčnega obdobja presega prosti kapital, povečan za obdavčene rezerve.“
Article 18(2) of the ITC 1992 provided:
Člen 18, drugi odstavek, zakonika o dohodnini iz leta 1992 je določal:
‘Loan includes any claim, whether or not represented by securities, of a director of a capital company against that company, or of a partner of a partnership against that partnership, and any claim, against those firms, of his spouse or of his children if the director, partner or his spouse are legally entitled to the income of the children, except for:
„Predujem je vsaka evidentirana ali neevidentirana terjatev, ki jo ima upravitelj kapitalske družbe do te družbe ali družbenik osebne družbe do te družbe, ter vsaka terjatev, ki jo ima njegov zakonec ali njuni otroci do teh družb, če je upravitelj družbe, družbenik ali zakonec upravičen do njihovih dohodkov na podlagi zakona, razen v primeru:
1. bonds issued by a public call for savings;
1. obveznic, ki se izdajo na podlagi javnega poziva k nakupu in vplačilu vrednostnih papirjev;
2. claims against cooperative companies recognised by the National Council of cooperatives;
2. terjatev do zadrug, ki jih priznava nacionalni svet za sodelovanje;
3. claims of directors and partners which are companies referred to in Article 179.’
3. terjatev, ki jih imajo upravitelji družbe ali družbeniki, ki so družbe iz člena 179.“
Article 179 of the ITC 1992 was worded as follows:
Člen 179 zakonika o dohodnini iz leta 1992 je določal:
‘Resident companies and, from 1 January 1995, the communal savings banks referred to in Article 124 of the New Communal Law shall be subject to corporation tax.’
„Davčni zavezanci so družbe, družbe rezidentke ter od 1. januarja 1995 hranilnice lokalnih skupnosti iz člena 124 novega zakona o lokalnih skupnostih.“
Article 55 of the ITC 1992 provides inter alia that interest on bonds, loans, claims, deposits and other financial instruments equivalent to loans is to be treated as professional expenses only to the extent to which it does not exceed an amount corresponding to the market rate having regard to the particular factors specific to the assessment of the risk connected with the transaction and, in particular, the financial situation of the debtor and the duration of the loan.
Člen 55 zakonika o dohodnini iz leta 1992 med drugim določa, da se obresti na obveznosti, predujme, terjatve, pologe in na druga posojila upo�tevajo kot poslovni stro�ki zgolj, če ne presegajo vi�ine, ki ustreza tržni obrestni meri, ob upo�tevanju posebnih elementov ocene tveganja, povezanega s transakcijo, zlasti pa finančnega položaja dolžnika in časa posojila.
The main proceedings and the question referred
Spor v glavni stvari in vprašanje za predhodno odločanje
The Belgian subsidiary was established on 25 July 1991.
Belgijska hčerinska družba je bila ustanovljena 25. julija 1991.
On that date, and in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions, three directors were appointed, namely the two shareholders of the Belgian subsidiary and the parent company BV Lammers & Van Cleeff, established in the Netherlands. 8
Na ta datum in v skladu z veljavnimi zakonodajnimi določbami so bili imenovani trije člani uprave družbe, in sicer dva delničarja belgijske podružnice ter matična družba Lammers & Van Cleeff BV, ustanovljena na Nizozemskem. 8
Pursuant to a claim of the parent company BV Lammers & Van Cleeff against the Belgian subsidiary, the subsidiary paid interest to it. In accordance with the second indent of Article 18(1), point 3, of the ITC 1992, that interest was considered by the Belgian tax authorities in part to be dividends and was assessed as such. 9
Na podlagi terjatve matične družbe Lammers & Van Cleeff BV do belgijske hčerinske družbe ji je slednja izplačala obresti. V skladu s členom 18, prvi odstavek, točka 3, druga alinea, zakonika o dohodnini iz leta 1992 je belgijska davčna uprava te obresti delno �tela za dividende in jih kot take obdavčila. 9
The Belgian subsidiary then lodged objections against the assessments at issue before the Director of Direct Taxation, Antwerp II.
Belgijska hčerinska družba je nato zoper zadevne obdavčitve vložila pritožbo pri direktorju za neposredne davke v Antwerpnu II.
By decision of 17 June 2002 the latter upheld the disputed assessments.
Ta je z odločbo z dne 17. junija 2002 sporne obdavčitve ohranil.
On 16 September 2002 the Belgian subsidiary brought an action before the rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Court of First Instance, Antwerp) for the annulment of that decision.
Belgijska hčerinska družba je 16. septembra 2002 vložila pravno sredstvo pri Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen, s katerim je zahtevala razveljavitev te odločbe.
In its order for reference, the rechtbank states that it follows from Article 18(2), point 3, of the ITC 1992 that interest payments are not reclassified as dividends and thus are not taxable if made to a director which is a Belgian company, whereas those interest payments are reclassified as dividends, and thus taxable, if made to a director which is a foreign company.
V svoji predložitveni odločbi to sodi�če poudarja, da iz člena 18, drugi odstavek, točka 3, zakonik o dohodnini iz leta 1992 izhaja, da obresti niso opredeljene kot dividende in zato niso obdavčljive, če se izplačajo članu uprave družbe, ki je belgijska družba, medtem ko so te obresti opredeljene kot dividende in so zato obdavčljive, če se izplačajo članu uprave družbe, ki je tuja družba.
‘Do Articles 12 EC, 43 EC, 46 EC, 48 EC, 56 EC and 58 EC preclude Belgian national statutory rules, as set out in the then applicable Articles 18(1), point 3, and 18(2), point 3, of the Income Tax Code 1992, whereby interest payments were not reclassified as dividends, and were therefore not taxable, if those interest payments were made to a director which was a Belgian company, whereas in the same circumstances those interest payments were reclassified as dividends, and therefore taxable, if they were made to a director which was a foreign company?’
„Ali členi 12 [ES], 43 [ES], 46 [ES], 48 [ES], 56 [ES] in 58 ES nasprotujejo nacionalni belgijski zakonodajni ureditvi iz določb člena 18 [prvi odstavek], točka 3, in [drugi odstavek], točka 3, [zakonika o dohodnini iz leta 1992], kot so se uporabljale v času dejanskega stanja in na podlagi katerih obresti niso bile opredeljene kot dividende in zato niso bile obdavčljive, če so bile izplačane članu uprave družbe, ki je bil belgijska družba, medtem ko so bile te obresti v istih okoli�činah opredeljene kot dividende in so bile zato obdavčljive, če so bile nakazane članu uprave družbe, ki je bil tuja družba?“
As a preliminary point, it must be remembered that, according to settled caselaw, although direct taxation falls within their competence, Member States must none the less exercise that competence consistently with Community law and avoid any discrimination on grounds of nationality (see, inter alia, Joined Cases C-397/98
Za začetek je treba opozoriti, da čeprav spada neposredno obdavčenje v pristojnost držav članic, morajo te glede na ustaljeno sodno prakso to pristojnost vseeno izvr�e -vati ob spo�tovanju prava Skupnosti in se vzdržati vsakr�ne diskriminacije, ki temelji na državljanstvu (glej zlasti sodbe z dne 8. marca 2001 v združenih zadevah
The national court refers in its question to Articles 12 EC, 43 EC, 46 EC, 48 EC, 56 EC and 58 EC.
Predložitveno sodi�če se v svojem vpra�anju za predhodno odločanje sklicuje na člene 12 ES, 43 ES, 46 ES, 48 ES, 56 ES in 58 ES.
In this respect, it must be stated that it follows from the caselaw that the general prohibition of all discrimination on grounds of nationality laid down by Article 12 EC applies independently only to situations governed by Community law for which the EC Treaty lays down no specific rules of non-discrimination.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča izhaja, da se člen 12 ES, ki določa splo�no načelo prepovedi vsakr�ne diskriminacije glede na državljanstvo, samostojno uporablja le v primerih, ki jih ureja pravo Skupnosti, za katere pa Pogodba ES ne določa posebnih pravil prepovedi diskriminacije.
The Treaty lays down in Articles 43 EC and 56 EC, in particular, such specific rules in relation to freedom of establishment and the free movement of capital (see, inter alia, Metallgesellschaft and Others, paragraphs 38 and 39, and Case C-443/06 Hollmann [2007] ECR I-8491, paragraphs 28 and 29).
Pogodba v členih 43 ES in 56 ES med drugim določa taka posebna pravila na področju svobode ustanav -ljanja in prostega pretoka kapitala (glej zlasti zgoraj navedeno sodbo Metallgesellschaft in drugi, točki 38 in 39, ter sodbo z dne 11. oktobra 2007 v zadevi Hollmann, C-443/06, ZOdl., str. I-8491, točki 28 in 29).
In so far as the rechtbank is putting a question to the Court as to the interpretation of both Article 43 EC on freedom of establishment and Article 56 EC on the free movement of capital, the Court must determine whether legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for taxation of interest payments, as dividends, of a resident company only if they are made to a director or to a partner which is a nonresident company, is liable to fall within the scope of those freedoms.
V delu, v katerem predložitveno sodi�če Sodi�če spra�uje o razlagi tako člena 43 ES, ki se nana�a na svobodo ustanavljanja, kot člena 56 ES, ki se nana�a na prosti pretok kapitala, je treba ugotoviti, ali je lahko v obsegu te svobode taka zakonodaja države članice, kot je zakonodaja v postopku v glavni stvari, ki določa, da se obresti obdavčijo kot dividende družbe rezidentke zgolj, če se izplačajo upravitelju družbe ali družbeniku, ki ima značilnosti družbe nerezidentke.
In this instance, it is apparent from the case-file that the interest payments made by the Belgian subsidiary were reclassified as dividends because they relate to a loan granted by a nonresident parent company which is a director of that subsidiary.
Iz spisa v obravnavanem primeru izhaja, da so bile obresti, ki jih je nakazala belgijska hčerinska družba, opredeljene kot dividende, ker se nana�ajo na posojilo matične družbe nerezidentke, ki je upraviteljica te hčerinske družbe.