natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
By treating the inheritances of those two categories of persons in the same way (except in relation to the deduction of debts) for the purposes of taxing their inheritance, the national legislature has in fact admitted that there is no objective difference between them in regard to the detailed rules and conditions relating to that taxation which could justify different treatment.
Z enakim obravnavanjem zapu�čin teh dveh skupin oseb pri obdavčenju dedi�čin, razen pri odbitku dolgov, je namreč nacionalni zakonodajalec priznal, da glede podrobnih pravil in pogojev te obdavčitve med temi osebami ni objektivnih razlik, ki bi lahko utemeljile različno obravnavanje.
Articles 73b and 73d of the Treaty (subsequently, Articles 56 EC and 58 EC respectively) must be interpreted as precluding national rules concerning the assessment of inheritance duties and transfer duties payable in respect of an immovable property situated in a Member State, which, for the assessment of those duties, makes no provision for the deductibility of overendowment debts resulting from a testamentary parental partition inter vivos where the person whose estate is being administered was residing, at the time of death, not in that State but in another Member State, whereas provision is made for such deductibility where that person was residing, at the time of death, in the firstmentioned Member State, in which the immovable property included in the estate is situated, in so far as such rules apply a progressive rate of taxation and in so far as the combination of (i) the failure to take into account such debts and (ii) that progressive rate could result in a greater tax burden for heirs who are not in a position to rely on such deductibility.
Člena 73b in 73d Pogodbe ES (postala člena 56 ES in 58 ES) je treba razlagati tako, da nasprotujeta nacionalni ureditvi, ki se nana�a na izračun davka na dedi�čino in na prenos premoženja, ki ju je treba plačati v zvezi z nepremičnino v državi članici, in v kateri pri izračunu navedenih davkov ni predvidena možnost odbitka dolgov zaradi presežne pridobitve, ki so posledica oporočne delitve zapu�čine star�ev inter vivos, kadar oseba, po kateri je uvedeno dedovanje, ob svoji smrti ni bila rezident te države, ampak druge države članice, medtem ko je ta možnost odbitka predvidena, kadar je bila ta oseba ob svoji smrti rezident države, v kateri je podedovana nepremičnina, če se uporablja progresivna davčna stopnja in ker lahko neupo�tevanje navedenih dolgov skupaj s to progresivno stopnjo pomeni večjo davčno obremenitev dedičev, ki se ne morejo sklicevati na tak�no možnost odbitka.
The restriction on the free movement of capital arises as a result of the fact that such national rules, applied in conjunction with a progressive rate of taxation, result in different treatment, on apportionment of the tax burden, between the various heirs of a person who, at the time of death, was residing in the Member State concerned and the heirs of a person who, at the time of death, was not.
Omejitev prostega pretoka kapitala je namreč posledica dejstva, da tak�na nacionalna ureditev skupaj z uporabo progresivne davčne stopnje vodi pri delitvi davčne obremenitve do različnega obravnavanja dedičev osebe, ki je bila ob svoji smrti rezident, in dedičev osebe, ki ob svoji smrti ni bila rezident zadevne države članice.
That difference in treatment cannot be justified on the ground that it concerns situations
To različno obravnavanje se ne more utemeljiti s tem, da se nana�a na položaja, ki nista
That assessment is not affected by the fact that the rules of the Member State in which the person whose estate is being administered was residing at the time of death provide unilaterally for the possibility that a tax credit may be granted in respect of inheritance duties payable in another Member State on immovable property situated in that other State.
Okoli�čina, da je v ureditvi države članice, v kateri je ob svoji smrti prebivala oseba, po kateri je uvedeno dedovanje, enostransko predvidena možnost odobritve davčnega odbitka na podlagi davka na dedi�čino, ki ga je treba plačati v drugi državi članici v zvezi z nepremičninami v tej drugi državi, ne vpliva na navedeno presojo.
The Member State in which the immovable property is situated cannot, in order to justify a restriction on the free movement of capital arising from its rules, rely on the existence of a possibility, beyond its control, of a tax credit being granted by another Member State — such as the Member State in which the person whose estate is being administered was residing
Država članica, v kateri je nepremičnina, se v utemeljitev omejitve prostega pretoka kapitala, ki je posledica njene ureditve, ne more sklicevati na obstoj od njene volje neodvisne možnosti, da bo
ARENS-SIKKEN overendowment debts resulting from a testamentary parental partition inter vivos.
ARENS-SIKKEN presežne pridobitve, ki so posledica oporočne delitve zapu�čine star�ev inter vivos.
(see paras 46, 54, 57, 60, 65, 67, operative parts 12) at the time of death — which could, wholly or partly, offset the loss incurred by that person’s heirs as a result of the fact that, for the purposes of assessing transfer duties, no account is taken in the Member State in which that property is situated of
druga država članica, kot je država članica, v kateri je oseba, po kateri je bilo uvedeno dedovanje, prebivala ob svoji smrti, priznala davčni odbitek, ki bi lahko v celoti ali deloma nadomestil �kodo, ki je nastala dedičem te osebe, ker država članica, v kateri je navedena nepremičnina, pri izračunu davka na prenos premoženja ni upo�tevala dolgov zaradi
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERALMAZÁK delivered on 13 March 2008 1
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNEGA PRAVOBRANILCAJÁNA MAZÁKA, predstavljeni 13. marca 2008 1
I — Introduction today — which also concerns national legislation under which, for the purposes of assessing to tax the acquisition of immovable property through inheritance, certain charges are not deductible if, at the time of his death, the deceased resided in another Member State.
I – Uvod stavljam sklepne predloge – ki se tudi nana�a na nacionalno zakonodajo, v skladu s katero pri odmeri davka na pridobitev nepremičnine z dedovanjem ni mogoče odbiti nekaterih bremen, če je pokojnik ob smrti prebival v drugi državi članici.
By three questions referred for a prelimin- ary ruling by order of 12 January 2007, the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) essentially wishes to ascertain whether the Dutch legislation relating to the taxation of inheritance is compatible with Articles 56 EC and 58 EC on the free movement of capital.
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Nizozemska) s tremi vpra�anji, ki jih je s sklepom z dne 12. januarja 2007 predložilo v predhodno odločanje, v bistvu spra�uje, ali je nizozemska zakonodaja o obdavčitvi dedi�čine v skladu s členoma 56 ES in 58 ES o prostem pretoku kapitala.
Specifically, the referring court wishes to know whether those Treaty provisions preclude national legislation, under which — for the purposes of determining the basis of assessment of the tax due on the inheritance of an immovable property situated in the territory of the Member State concerned — account may be taken of certain debts arising upon inheritance if the deceased was resident, at the time of death, in that Member State, but not if that person was resident in another Member State.
Natančneje, predložitveno sodi�če želi vedeti, ali te določbe Pogodbe nasprotujejo nacionalni zakonodaji, v skladu s katero se – pri določanju davčne osnove za odmero davka pri dedovanju nepremičnine na ozemlju zadevne države članice – lahko upo�tevajo nekateri dolgovi, ki nastanejo z dedovanjem, če je pokojnik ob smrti prebival v tej državi članici, vendar pa ne, če je prebival v drugi državi članici.
The issues raised in the present case are very similar to those in Case C-11/07 2 —
Sodi�če bo imelo pri odgovarjanju na vpra�anja, postavljena v tej zadevi, prilož -nost razviti obstoječo sodno prakso v zvezi z obdavčitvijo dedi�čine v okviru prostega pretoka kapitala, zlasti tisto, ki izhaja iz zadev
In answering the questions referred in the present proceedings, the Court will have an opportunity to build and elaborate upon the existing caselaw on inheritance taxation in the context of the free movement of capital, in particular that deriving from Barbier 3 and van Hilten-van der Heijden.
Vpra�anja, ki se postavljajo v obravnavani zadevi, so zelo podobna vpra�anjem iz zadeve Eckelkamp 2 – v kateri danes prav tako pred-
4 on which I am also delivering my Opinion
3 – Sodba z dne 11. decembra 2003 (C-364/01, Recueil, str. I-15013).
3 — Case C-364/01 [2003] ECR I-15013.4 — Case C-513/03 [2006] ECR I-1957.
1 – Jezik izvirnika: angle�čina.2 – Zadeva C-11/07, v kateri �e ni odločeno.
1 — Original language: English.2 — Eckelkamp and Others, pending before the Court.
4 – Sodba z dne 23. februarja 2006 (C-513/03, ZOdl., str. I-1957).
II — The relevant legislation situation with regard to their place of residence or with regard to the place where their capital is invested;
II – Upoštevna zakonodaja obravnavani davčni zavezanci, ki niso v enakem položaju glede na prebivali�če ali kraj, v katerem je naložen njihov kapital;
Article 56(1) EC (formerly Article 73b(1) of the EC Treaty) provides:
V členu 56(1) ES (prej člen 73b(1) Pogodbe ES) je določeno:
Article 58 EC (formerly Article 73d of the EC Treaty) provides:
V členu 58 ES (prej člen 73d Pogodbe ES) je določeno:
Annex I to Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988 for the implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty (an article later repealed by the Treaty of Amsterdam), 5 en -titled ‘Nomenclature of the capital movements referred to in Article 1 of the Directive’, refers to 13 different categories of capital movements.
Priloga I k Direktivi Sveta 88/361/EGS z dne 24. junija 1988 o izvajanju člena 67 Pogodbe (ki je bil kasneje razveljavljen z Amsterdamsko pogodbo) 5z naslovom „Nomenklatura pretoka kapitala iz člena 1 Direktive“ se nana�a na trinajst različnih kategorij pretokov kapitala.
Under heading XI, entitled ‘Personal capital movements’, the following are listed:
V poglavju XI z naslovom „Osebni pretoki kapitala“ je navedeno:
(a) to apply the relevant provisions of their tax law which distinguish between taxpayers who are not in the same
(a) uporabljajo ustrezne predpise svojega davčnega prava, v katerih so različno
Transfer duty on the value of the assets set out in Article 5(2) obtained as a gift or inheritance following the death of a person who did not reside in the Netherlands at the time of that gift or that death;
davek na prenos premoženja od vrednosti premoženja, določenega v členu 5(2) ter prejetega na podlagi darila ali dedovanja zaradi smrti osebe, ki ob daritvi ali ob smrti ni prebivala na Nizozemskem;
B — National law
B – Nacionalna zakonodaja
Article 5(2) of the SW 1956 states:
V členu 5(2) SW 1956 je določeno:
Under Netherlands law, every estate is subject to tax.
V skladu z nizozemsko zakonodajo je obdavčena celotna zapu�čina.
Article 1(1) of the 1956 Law on Succession (Successiewet 1956) of 28 June 1956 (‘the SW 1956’) draws a distinction on the basis of whether the person whose estate is being administered resided in the Netherlands or abroad.
Na podlagi člena 1(1) Successiewet 1956 (zakon o dedovanju iz leta 1956) z dne 28. junija 1956 (v nadaljevanju: SW 1956) je treba razlikovati, ali je oseba, po kateri je bilo uvedeno dedovanje, prebivala na Nizozemskem ali v tujini.
That article states:
V tem členu je določeno:
Transfer duty is levied on the value of:
Davek na prenos premoženja se odmeri od vrednosti:
‘In accordance with this law, the following taxes shall be levied:
„Na podlagi tega zakona se odmerita:
the domestic possessions referred to in Article 13 of the Wet op de vermogensbelasting 1964 […], after deducting any debts referred to in that article;
domačega premoženja iz člena 13 Wet op de vermogensbelasting 1964 […] po odbitku vseh dolgov iz tega člena;
Inheritance duty on the value of all the assets transferred by virtue of the right to inherit following the death of a person who resided in the Netherlands at the time of death…
davek na dedi�čino od vrednosti premoženja, ki se prenese na podlagi dedne pravice zaradi smrti osebe, ki je ob smrti prebivala na Nizozemskem […]
III — Factual background, procedure and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
III – Dejansko stanje, postopek in vprašanja za predhodno odločanje
Article 13(1)(b-i) of the 1964 Law on wealth tax (Wet op de vermogensbelasting 1964) of 16 December 1964 (‘the WV 1964’) defines ‘domestic possessions’ as including ‘immovable property situated in the Netherlands or rights relating thereto’ (in so far as they do not belong to a Netherlands undertaking).
V členu 13(1) od (b) do (i) Wet op de vermogensbelasting 1964 (zakon o davku od premoženja iz leta 1964) z dne 16. decembra 1964 (v nadaljevanju: WV 1964) je „domače premoženje“ opredeljeno kot „nepremičnine na ozemlju Nizozemske ali pravice na njih“ (če ne pripadajo nizozemskemu podjetju).
At the time of his death, Mr Arens was residing in Italy and had already been resident outside the Netherlands for more than 10 years.
Ob svoji smrti je prebival v Italiji in že več kot 10 let zunaj Nizozemske.
Under Article 13(2)(b) of the WV 1964, ‘domestic debts’ include debts secured by a mortgage on immovable property situated in the Netherlands to the extent that the interest and charges relating to those debts are taken into account for the purposes of determining gross domestic income under Article 49 of the 1964 Law on income tax (Wet op de Inkomstenbelasting 1964) of 16 December 1964.
„Domači dolgovi“ v skladu s členom 13(2)(b) WV 1964 vključujejo dolgove, zavarovane s hipoteko na nepremičnini na ozemlju Nizozemske, če se v skladu s členom 49 Wet op de Inkomstenbelasting 1964 (zakon o dohodnini iz leta 1964) z dne 16. decembra 1964 pri določanju bruto domačega dohodka upo�tevajo obresti in stro�ki, povezani s temi dolgovi.
Pursuant to Article 49 of the 1964 Law on income tax, ‘gross domestic income’ includes the total net income received by a person not residing in the Netherlands from immovable property situated in that Member State.
„Bruto domači dohodek“ v skladu s členom 49 zakona o dohodnini iz leta 1964 vključuje skupni neto dohodek, ki ga prejme oseba, ki ne prebiva na Nizozemskem, od nepremičnin na ozemlju te države članice.
As regards succession duties, there is no agreement between the Netherlands and Italy for the avoidance of double taxation.
Arens-Sikken kot celota – z vsemi pravicami in obveznostmi – pod pogojem, da kasneje izplača vsakemu od otrok vsoto denarja, ki ustreza vrednosti
or on an acquisition worth HFL 95 000 (the value of a one-fifth share).
ali na podlagi vrednosti 95.000 HFL (vrednost petinskega deleža).
The Gerechtshof dismissed the appeal as unfounded on the grounds, inter alia, that the transfer duty attaches to the inheritance of the immovable property under inheritance law.
Gerechtshof je zavrnilo tožbo kot neutemeljeno, ker se med drugim davek na prenos premoženja na podlagi dednega prava nana�a na dedovanje nepremičnine.
Accordingly, her principal plea in cassation — to the effect that there had been a joint inheritance, followed by a testamentary parental partition inter vivos — could not be upheld.
Zato glavnega razloga njene kasacijske pritožbe – na podlagi katerega naj bi �lo za dedovanje več oseb, čemur je sledila oporočna delitev zapu�čine star�ev inter vivos – ni bilo mogoče obravnavati kot utemeljenega.
ARENS-SIKKEN could be taken of her overendowment debts under the partition inter vivos: those debts cannot be regarded as ‘domestic debts’ within the meaning of Article 13 of the WV 1964 and, in the context of transfer duty, only domestic debts are deductible.
ARENS-SIKKEN upo�tevati njenih dolgov zaradi presežne pridobitve iz delitve inter vivos, ker teh dolgov ni mogoče �teti za „domače dolgove“ v smislu člena 13 WV 1964, in da je v okviru davka na prenos premoženja mogoče odbiti samo domače dolgove.
Against that background, the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
V teh okoli�činah je Hoge Raad der Nederlanden prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje preložilo ta vpra�anja:
However, in so far as the effect of the statutory provisions is ultimately to prevent the deduction of overendowment debts simply because the property was inherited from a person who, at the time of death, was resident outside the Netherlands, the referring court questions whether that consequence is compatible with the free movement of capital as guaranteed by Articles 56 EC and 58 EC.
Če je končni učinek zakonskih določb preprečiti odbitek dolgov zaradi presežne pridobitve, ker je bila nepremičnina podedovana po osebi, ki je ob smrti prebivala zunaj Nizozemske, predložitveno sodi�če vendarle spra�uje, ali je ta posledica skladna s prostim pretokom kapitala, ki je zagotovljen s členoma 56 ES in 58 ES.
In that regard, the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden is asking whether the overendowment debts — bearing in mind that, in its view, they are less closely connected with the immovable property than the obligation to transfer title in Barbier 6 or the acquisition costs in Gerritse 7 — must, as in those cases, be taken into account in the determination of the basis of assessment.
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden v zvezi s tem spra�uje, ali je treba dolgove zaradi presežne pridobit - ve – ob upo�tevanju dejstva, da so po njegovem mnenju manj povezani z nepremičnino in bolj z obveznostjo prenosa stvarne pravice iz zadeve Barbier 6ali s stro�ki pridobitve iz zadeve Gerritse 7 – upo�tevati pri določanju davčne osnove kot v navedenih zadevah.
Must Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 EC and 58 EC respectively) be interpreted as precluding a Member State from taxing the inheritance under inheritance law of immovable property situated in that Member State and forming part of the
Ali je treba člena 73b in 73d Pogodbe ES (sedaj člena 56 ES in 58 ES) razlagati tako, da nasprotujeta temu, da bi država članica obdavčila dedovanje nepremičnine na ozemlju te države članice, ki
In the event that the answer to that question is in the affirmative, two further issues arise: first, concerning the correct method to
Če je odgovor na to vpra�anje pritrdilen, se postavljata nadaljnji vpra�anji: prvo vpra�anje, ki se nana�a na pravilno metodo, ki jo je
8 — In that regard, the referring court compares the approaches defined in Barbier, cited in footnote 3, in particular at paragraph 62, and Gerritse, cited in footnote 7, respectively.
8 – V zvezi s tem predložitveno sodi�če primerja pristopa, ki sta bila opredeljena v sodbah Barbier, navedena v opombi 3, zlasti točka 62, in Gerritse, navedena v opombi 7.
6 — Cited in footnote 3.7 — Case C-234/01 [2003] ECR I-5933.
6 – Navedena v opombi 3.7 – Sodba z dne 12. junija 2003 (C-234/01, Recueil, str. I-5933).
If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative and if it must also be determined by means of a comparison whether and, if so, to what extent overendowment debts must be taken into account, what method of comparison … must be used in a case such as the present to determine whether the inheritance duty which would have been levied if the testator had been resident in the Netherlands at the time of his death would have been less than the transfer duty?
Če je odgovor na prej�nje vpra�anje pritrdilen in če je treba poleg tega s primerjavo ugotoviti, ali in v kak�nem obsegu je treba upo�tevati dolgove zaradi presežne pridobitve, katero primerjalno metodo […] je treba uporabiti v takem primeru, kot je obravnavani, da bi se ugotovilo, ali bi bil davek na dedi�čino, ki bi se odmeril, če bi oporočitelj ob svoji smrti prebival na Nizozemskem, nižji od davka na prenos premoženja?
In the present proceedings, observations have been submitted by the Governments of the Netherlands and Belgium as well as by the Commission, all of which were also represented at the hearing held on 13 December 2007.
V tem postopku so stali�ča predložile nizozemska in belgijska vlada ter Komisija, ki so bile tudi zastopane na obravnavi 13. decembra 2007.
Does it make any difference to the ana -lysis of the obligation possibly imposed by the EC Treaty on the Member State in which the immovable property is situated to permit the deduction of the overendowment debts in whole or in part whether that deduction leads to a smaller concession to prevent double taxation in the Member State which considers itself to have authority to tax
Ali na presojo morebitne obveznosti, ki jo ima na podlagi Pogodbe ES država članica, v kateri leži nepremičnina, da deloma ali v celoti dovoli odbitek dolgov zaradi presežne pridobitve, vpliva dejstvo, da ta odbitek vodi do nižje olaj�ave zaradi izogibanja dvojnega obdavčevanja v državi članici, ki meni, da je
After setting out the Netherlands legislation concerning the taxation of inheritance and, in particular, after clarifying the difference between inheritance duty and transfer duty, the Netherlands Government contends that Question 1 should be answered in the negative.
Nizozemska vlada po opredelitvi nizozemske zakonodaje, ki se nana�a na obdavčitev dedi�čine, in zlasti po pojasnitvi razlike med davkom na dedi�čino in davkom na prenos premoženja, navaja, da je treba na prvo vpra�anje odgovoriti nikalno.
ARENS-SIKKEN the immovable property within the meaning of Gerritse. 10
ARENS-SIKKEN niso tesno povezani z nepremičnino v smislu sodbe Gerritse. 10
In its view, that position entails neither discrimination nor any obstacle to the free movement of capital.
Po njenem mnenju to stali�če ni diskriminacijsko in ne pomeni ovire za prost pretok kapitala.
It argues, third, that such debts do not therefore have the effect of reducing the value of the estate, as referred to in Barbier. 11
Tretjič, nizozemska vlada zatrjuje, da ti dolgovi zato ne povzročijo zmanj�anja vrednosti zapu�čine kot v sodbi Barbier. 11
A reduction in value is the decisive criterion for identifying a sufficient link between a debt and an immovable property.
Zmanj�anje vrednosti je odločilno merilo za ugotovitev zadostne povezave med dolgom in nepremičnino.
Unlike the obligation to transfer title at issue in Barbier, the overendowment debts in the present case are not linked specifically to the immovable property as such, but rather to the inheritance as a whole.
V nasprotju z obveznostjo prenosa stvarne pravice v sodbi Barbier dolgovi zaradi presežne pridobitve v obravnavani zadevi niso posebej povezani z nepremičnino, temveč bolj z dedi�čino kot celoto.
In that regard, the Netherlands Government contends, first — relying on van Hilten-van der Heijden 9 — that the fact that the overendowment debts are not deductible (for the purposes of transfer duty) if the deceased was not resident in the Netherlands at the time of death, but deductible (for the purposes of inheritance duty) if he was so resident, is no more than a distinction which flows naturally from the way in which powers of taxation are allocated between the Member States.
Prvič, nizozemska vlada v zvezi s tem trdi – ob sklicevanju na sodbo van Hiltenvan der Heijden 9– da dejstvo, da dolgov zaradi presežne pridobitve ni mogoče odbiti (pri odmeri davka na prenos premoženja), če pokojnik ob smrti ni imel prebivali�ča na Nizozemskem, temveč jih je mogoče odbiti (pri odmeri davka na dedi�čino), če je tam prebival, pomeni le razlikovanje, ki izhaja iz načina razdelitve davčnih pristojnosti med državami članicami.
The Netherlands are competent only to tax the acquisition of domestic property, in this case the immovable property.
Nizozemska je pristojna le za obdavčitev pridobitve domačega premoženja, v tem primeru nepremičnine.
For the purposes of the tax -ation of acquisition through inheritance, the situation where the deceased was resident in the Netherlands and the situation where he was resident elsewhere are quite distinct and cannot be compared.
Položaj, v katerem je pokojnik prebival na Nizozemskem, in položaj, v katerem je prebival drugje, se pri obdavčitvi pridobitve z dedovanjem bistveno razlikujeta in ju ni mogoče primerjati.