natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
At the hearing, the Netherlands Government denied the argument put forward by the Commission that the Netherlands legislation provides for a different method of calculation to be applied according to whether the deceased concerned was resident or not, with the effect that the apportionment of the estate varies for purposes of taxation.
Nizozemska vlada je na obravnavi nasprotovala trditvi Komisije, da je v nizozemski zakonodaji predvideno, da se uporabi različna metoda izračuna glede na to, ali je bil zadevni pokojnik rezident ali ne, tako da se delitev zapu�čine razlikuje za namene obdavčitve.
It admitted, however, that the overall tax burden may differ, mainly due to the incremental nature of the tax applicable.
Priznala pa je, da se lahko skupna davčna obremenitev razlikuje zlasti zaradi progresivnosti davčne stopnje, ki se uporablja.
In the case before the referring court, the deceased being a nonresident, tax on the acquisition
Ker je bil pokojnik v zadevi pred predložitvenim sodi�čem nerezident, se je odmeril davek na pridobitev premoženja z dedovanjem v obliki davka na prenos premoženja od
The Netherlands Government contends, second, that no discrimination is involved in the exercise of the power of taxation in the case before the referring court, as the overendowment debts are not closely linked with
Drugič, nizozemska vlada trdi, da izvr�evanje davčne pristojnosti v zadevi pred predložitvenim sodi�čem ni bilo diskriminacijsko, ker dolgovi zaradi presežne pridobitve
As regards Question 3, the Netherlands Government observes that, in order to determine whether there is an infringement, the Court considers any taxation agreements in force between the Member States concerned.
Nizozemska vlada glede tretjega vpra�anja navaja, da Sodi�če pri odločanju, ali obstaja kr�itev, upo�teva vse veljavne davčne sporazume med zadevnimi državami članicami.
In particular, it follows from Denkavit 13 that, in order to establish whether Community law has been infringed, the Court first assesses the national legislation and only if that is contrary to Community law does it go on to examine, second, whether the disadvantage suffered by the taxable person was in fact neutralised under the terms of an agreement between the Member States in question.
Iz sodbe Denkavit 13izhaja zlasti, da Sodi�če pri ugotavljanju, ali je bilo kr�eno pravo Skupnosti, najprej presodi nacionalno pravo in samo če slednje nasprotuje pravu Skupnosti, preveri, ali je bila neugodnost, ki jo trpi davčni zavezanec, dejansko odpravljena na podlagi določil sporazuma med zadevnimi državami članicami.
For the reasons set out above, that situation is not contrary to the free movement of capital.
Zlasti je treba upo�tevati možnost, da lahko ta država
12 — In that regard, reference is made to Gerritse, cited in footnote 7, and Case C-279/93 Schumacker [1995] ECR I-225.
13 – Sodba z dne 14. decembra 2006 (C-170/05, ZOdl., str. I-11949).
Wholly in the alternative, the Netherlands Government contends in respect of Question 2 that any comparison to be drawn must be confined, in accordance with the parameters of the power of taxation, to the immovable property situated in the Netherlands.
Nizozemska vlada v zvezi z drugim vpra�anjem povsem podrejeno meni, da je treba vsako primerjavo v skladu z merilom davčne pristojnosti omejiti na nepremičnine na Nizozemskem.
Accordingly, no account may be taken of extraneous elements of the inheritance nor of any exemptions from which the estate could have benefited had the deceased been
Zato ni mogoče upo�tevati elementov dedi�čine zunaj Nizozemske in izjem, ki bi lahko veljale za zapu-
be given to the possibility that the latter Member State may, by virtue of its legislation to prevent double taxation, allow only a smaller tax concession in the light of the deduction already granted.
ARENS-SIKKEN članica na podlagi svoje zakonodaje o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja ob upo�tevanju že odobrenega odbitka prizna le manj�o davčno olaj�avo.
It argues, moreover, that only the Member State in which the deceased was resident (‘the Member State of residence’) is in a position to assess his economic situation in its entirety and to take account of all assets and debts in the calculation of the succession duties.
Poleg tega meni, da lahko zgolj država članica, v kateri je pokojnik prebival (v nadaljevanju: država članica prebivali�ča), presodi njegovo celotno premoženjsko stanje in upo�teva vse premoženje in obveznosti pri izračunu davkov na podlagi zapu�čine.
Accordingly, debts such as those at issue are, in principle, always taken into account by the Member State of residence.
Zato tak�ne dolgove, kot so tisti v obravnavani zadevi, načeloma vedno upo�teva država članica prebivali�ča.
Thus, the deduction of such debts in the Member State where the property is situated could in fact lead to double-deduction.
Torej bi lahko odbitek teh dolgov v državi članici, v kateri je nepremičnina, dejansko pripeljal do dvojnega obdavčevanja.
The Belgian Government essentially concurs with the views expressed by the Netherlands Government.
Belgijska vlada se v bistvenem strinja s stali�či nizozemske vlade.
It suggests, moreover, that the debts or charges incumbent upon an estate can be divided into three types: (i) those inherent in the property; (ii) those arising from the acquisition of the property, which is the type of debt at issue in the present case; and (iii) those forming part of the estate, but which are only to a lesser extent — or even not at all — associated with the immovable property concerned, as in Eckelkamp and Others.
Poleg tega predlaga, da je dolgove in bremena na podlagi zapu�čine mogoče razdeliti v tri skupine: (i) tisti, ki so neločljivo povezani s premoženjem; (ii) tisti, ki izhajajo iz pridobitve premoženja, te vrste dolgovi so v obravnavani zadevi; in (iii) tisti, ki so del zapu�čine, vendar so le malo – ali sploh ne – povezani z zadevno nepremičnino, kot v sodbi Eckelkamp.
The Belgian Government contends that, in accordance with Barbier, 14the Member State in which the property is situated need take into account, as regards the assessment to tax of inheritance from a nonresident, only debts of the first type, that is to say, debts intrinsic to the property situated in its territory.
Belgijska vlada trdi, da mora država članica, v kateri je nepremičnina, v skladu s sodbo Barbier 14pri odmeri davka na dedi�čino, podedovano po nerezidentu, upo�tevati samo dolgove iz prve skupine, to je dolgove, ki so povezani z nepremičnino na njenem ozemlju.
It emphasises that in the context of direct taxation, the situations of residents
Poudarja, da položaji rezidentov in nerezidentov v okviru neposrednega obdavčenja praviloma niso primerljivi.
With regard to Question 2, the Belgian Government contends that in the event that the Member State in which the immovable property is situated has to allow the deduction of overendowment debts, such a deduction should only be possible if the proportion of the debt attributable to the domestic property has not already been deducted by the Member State of residence for the purposes of calculating the succession duties due in that State.
Belgijska vlada v zvezi z drugim vpra�anjem meni, da kadar mora država članica, v kateri je nepremičnina, dovoliti odbitek dolgov zaradi presežne pridobitve, bi moral biti tak odbitek mogoč le, če država članica prebivali�ča pri izračunu davkov na podlagi zapu�čine, ki so določeni v tej državi, �e ni odbila deleža dolgov, ki se nana�a na domače premoženje.
Moreover, deduction should be possible only to the extent that transfer duty levied on the domestic property would cause the tax burden to be higher than it would have been if the deceased had resided in the Member State in which the property is situated and, accordingly, inheritance duty had
Poleg tega bi moral biti odbitek mogoč le, če bi davek na prenos premoženja, ki se odmeri od domačega premoženja, povzročil, da bi bila davčna obremenitev vi�ja, kot bi bila, če bi pokojnik prebival v državi članici, v kateri je nepremičnina, in bi se zato namesto njega odmeril davek na dedi-
Finally, as regards the answer to be given to Question 3, the Belgian Government agrees essentially with the Netherlands Government.
Nazadnje se belgijska vlada glede odgovora na tretje vpra�anje v bistvenem strinja z nizozemsko vlado.
The Commission maintains, however — viewing the question from another angle — that the Netherlands legislation at issue is not coherent, in that the calculation of inheritance duty (applicable where the deceased was resident in the Netherlands) would have been based on the assumption that there were several heirs, whereas transfer duty (applicable where the deceased is not resident) may be calculated — as in the present case — on the view that the inheritance had passed to only one person, namely the spouse.
Komisija pa – pri presoji vpra�anja z drugega zornega kota – meni, da sporna nizozemska zakonodaja ni dosledna, ker bi izračun davka na dedi�čino (ki se uporablja, če je pokojnik rezident na Nizozemskem) temeljil na predpostavki, da je bilo več dedičev, davek na prenos premoženja (ki se uporablja, če je pokojnik nerezident) pa bi se izračunal – kot v obravnavani zadevi – na podlagi predpostavke, da je zapu�čina pre�la le na eno osebo, in sicer na zakonca.
Owing to the incremental nature of those taxes, that may lead the overall tax burden on the immovable property to vary according to whether the deceased was resident in the Member State of taxation.
Ti davki lahko zaradi svoje progresivnosti vodijo do spreminjanja skupne davčne obremenitve nepremičnine glede na to, ali je bil pokojnik rezident v državi članici obdavčitve.
At the hearing, the Commission explained that it does not criticise the incremental nature of the tax as such, but rather the fact that, in its view, it is possible that, in cases where the deceased was a nonresident, only the surviving spouse will be regarded as the heir and taxed accordingly, whereas in cases where the deceased was a resident, tax is levied on all the heirs and their respective underendowment claims.
Komisija je na obravnavi pojasnila, da ne nasprotuje progresivnosti davka, temveč bolj dejstvu, da je, po njenem mnenju, mogoče v primerih, kadar je bil pokojnik nerezident, obravnavati kot dediča zgolj preživelega zakonca in ga zato obdavčiti, v primerih, kadar je bil pokojnik rezident, pa se davek odmeri vsem dedičem od njihovih zahtevkov zaradi premajhne pridobitve.
The Commission concludes that, in those circumstances, the tax legislation in question may run counter to the free movement of capital, no valid justification having been put forward by the Netherlands Government.
Komisija sklepa, da lahko sporna davčna zakonodaja v teh okoli�činah ovira prost pretok kapitala, ker nizozemska vlada ni podala utemeljitvenega razloga.
According to the Commission, which answers Questions 1 and 2 together, the situation of a person who is resident in the Netherlands and who, generally speaking, has received most of his income there is not in principle comparable with the situation of a person who is not resident in the Netherlands and possesses only an immovable property there.
Po mnenju Komisije, ki odgovarja na prvo in drugo vpra�anje hkrati, položaj osebe, ki prebiva na Nizozemskem in ki je tam na splo�no prejemala večji del svojega dohodka, načeloma ni primerljiv s položajem osebe, ki ne prebiva na Nizozemskem in ki ima tam v lasti samo nepremičnino.
The Commission agrees with the Belgian and Netherlands Governments that any exemptions should be applied in the Member State of residence and that — unlike the debts in issue in Eckelkamp and Others — overendowment debts are not to be regarded as debts closely linked with the immovable property within the meaning of Barbier.
Komisija se strinja z belgijsko in nizozemsko vlado, da je treba vsako izjemo uporabiti v državi članici prebivali�ča in da dolgov zaradi presežne pridobitve – v nasprotju s spornimi dolgovi v sodbi Eckelkamp in drugi – ni mogoče obravnavati kot dolgove, ki so tesno povezani z nepremičnino, v smislu sodbe Barbier 15.
15 Such debts do not have the effect of reducing the value of the immovable property concerned.
Tak�ni dolgovi nimajo učinka zmanj�anja vrednosti zadevne nepremičnine.
In relation to Question 3, the Commission notes that, as regards succession duties, there is no agreement between the
Komisija v zvezi s tretjim vpra�anjem navaja, da glede davkov na podlagi zapu�čine med Nizozemsko in Italijo ni sporazuma
ARENS-SIKKEN person was resident in another Member State.
ARENS-SIKKEN predložitvenim sodi�čem, če je prebivala v drugi državi članici.
Netherlands and Italy for the avoidance of double taxation.
o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja.
It also argues that a Member State cannot, in order to justify a restriction on the free movement of capital, rely on a tax credit or concession which another Member State may — if it so desires — provide for and which may offset wholly or in part the disadvantage suffered by the taxable person.
Poleg tega trdi, da se država članica ne more sklicevati na davčni dobropis ali olaj�avo, ki ju druga država članica – če želi – lahko prizna in ki lahko deloma ali v celoti popravita neugodnost, ki jo trpi davčni zavezanec, da bi upravičila omejitev prostega pretoka kapitala.
It is thus not relevant for present purposes whether or to what extent the State of residence may grant such a concession.
V obravnavani zadevi torej ni upo�tevno, ali in v kak�nem obsegu država prebivali�ča prizna to olaj�avo.
It may be added with regard to the subjectmatter of the present proceedings that this Court is not concerned with the issue raised in the main proceedings as to whether, for the purposes of levying the transfer duty, the appellant before the referring court is to be regarded as having inherited the immovable property in its entirety or whether there was a joint inheritance.
V zvezi s predmetom obravnavanega postopka je treba dodati, da na presojo Sodi�ča ne vpliva vpra�anje, ki je bilo postav -ljeno v postopku v glavni stvari, ali je pri odmeri davka na prenos premoženja treba �teti, da je pritožnica v postopku v glavni stvari podedovala nepremičnino v celoti ali pa je �lo za dedovanje več oseb.
That is a matter for the national law on succession, which moreover appears from the order for reference to have been answered by the referring court to the effect that the appellant had inherited the immovable property as a whole.
To je vpra�anje nacionalnega dednega prava, glede katerega iz predložitvenega sklepa poleg tega izhaja, da je predložitveno sodi�če nanj odgovorilo tako, da je pritožnica podedovala celotno nepremičnino.
Next, it should be recalled that, according to well-established caselaw, although direct taxation falls within the competence of the Member States, they must none the less exercise that competence consistently with Community law.
Dalje je treba opozoriti, da morajo države članice v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso, čeprav je neposredno obdavčenje v njihovi pristojnosti, to pristojnost vendarle izvr�evati v skladu s pravom Skupnosti. 17
16 — In particular, as will become apparent from the following assessment, the question whether or not there is a restriction or discrimination prohibited by the provisions on the free movement of capital cannot be answered without a point of reference or a method of comparison to be applied.
16 – Kot bo postalo jasno iz nadaljnje presoje, brez oporne točke ali uporabe primerjalne metode zlasti ni mogoče odgovoriti na vpra�anje, ali obstaja omejitev ali diskriminacija, ki ju prepovedujejo določbe o prostem pretoku kapitala.
It is thus necessary to examine whether national legislation such as that at issue amounts to a prohibited restriction on the free movement of capital.
Treba je torej preučiti, ali nacionalna zakonodaja, kot je ta v obravnavani zadevi, pomeni prepovedano omejitev prostega pretoka kapitala.
As regards, more particularly, the applic -ability ratione materiae of the Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital to a situation such as that at issue — which has not, in fact, been contested by the parties to the present proceedings — it is settled caselaw that an inheritance is a movement of capital within the meaning of Article 56 EC (formerly Article 73b of the EC Treaty), except in cases where its constitu- ent elements are confined within a single Member State. 18
Glede veljavnosti ratione materiae določb Pogodbe o prostem pretoku kapitala v primeru, kot je tisti v obravnavani zadevi, ki za stranke tega postopka pravzaprav ni sporen, je dedovanje v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso pretok kapitala v smislu člena 56 ES (prej člen 73b Pogodbe ES), razen kadar so njegovi elementi omejeni na eno državo članico. 18
At issue in the present case is the distinction drawn by the Netherlands tax legislation, as regards the taxation of inheritance, between two situations: (i) where immovable property situated in the Netherlands is inherited from a nonresident and (ii) where such property is inherited from a resident.
V obravnavani zadevi je sporno razlikovanje med dvema primeroma, ki je pri obdavčitvi dedovanja urejeno z nizozemsko davčno zakonodajo: (i) nepremičnina na ozemlju Nizozemske se deduje po nerezidentu in (ii) taka nepremičnina se deduje po rezidentu.
It suffices to note in that regard that the situation in the case before the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden is clearly not purely domestic in that it concerns the taxation of the acquisition of an immovable property through inheritance from a person resident, at the time of death, in a Member State other than the Netherlands, that is to say, other than the Member State in which the immovable property is situated.
V zvezi s tem je dovolj, če se poudari, da položaj v zadevi pred Hoge Raad der Nederlanden očitno ni popolnoma nacionalen, saj se nana�a na obdavčitev pridobitve nepremičnine z dedovanjem po osebi, ki je ob smrti prebivala v državi članici, ki ni Nizozemska, to je v drugi državi članici kot v tisti, v kateri je nepremičnina.
The inheritance at issue in the main proceedings therefore falls within the scope of the Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital.
Zadevna dedi�čina iz postopka v glavni stvari zato spada na področje uporabe določb Pogodbe o prostem pretoku kapitala.
18 — See, to that effect, inter alia Case C-256/06 Jäger [2008] ECR I-123, paragraph 25, and van Hilten-van der Heijden, cited in footnote 4, paragraph 42.
18 – Glej v tem smislu med drugim sodbo z dne 17. januarja 2008 v zadevi Jäger (C-256/06, ZOdl., str. I-123, točka 25) in v opombi 4 navedeno sodbo van Hiltenvan der Heijden, točka 42.
Transfer duty is thus levied on the value of the property concerned without deduction.
Davek na prenos premoženja se torej odmeri od vrednosti zadevne nepremičnine brez odbitka.
By contrast, in case (ii), the acquisition through inheritance of the immovable property is subject instead to inheritance duty, which means that overendowment debts will be taken into account in the determination of the basis of assessment.
Nasprotno je v drugem primeru (ii) pridobitev nepremičnine z dedovanjem obdavčena z davkom na dedi�čino, kar pomeni, da se bodo pri določanju davčne osnove upo�tevali dolgovi zaradi presežne pridobitve.
Moreover, that finding is not called into question by the fact that, as the Netherlands Government has contended, the immovable property transferred as such is assessed at the same value in either case.
Poleg tega te ugotovitve ne izpodbija niti dejstvo, da se, kot je navedla nizozemska vlada, v obeh primerih upo�teva enaka vrednost prenesene nepremičnine.
It is thus clear that, under the Netherlands legislation on succession duties, an inheritance such as that in issue, acquired from a nonresident, receives less favourable tax treatment as compared with such an inheritance acquired from a resident.
Očitno je torej, da je v skladu z nizozemsko zakonodajo o davku na podlagi zapu�čine dedi�čina, kot je ta v obravnavani zadevi, pridobljena od nerezidenta, davčno manj ugodno obravnavana v primerjavi s tako dedi�čino, pridobljeno od rezidenta.
In that regard, it should be noted that the Court held in Barbier — which also concerned the taxation of an immovable property acquired through inheritance from a nonresident — that measures prohibited by Article 56 EC as being restrictions on the movement of capital include those whose effect is to reduce the value of the inheritance of a resident of a State other than the Member State in which the assets concerned
Glede tega je treba opozoriti, da je Sodi�če v zadevi Barbier – ki se je ravno tako nana�ala na obdavčitev nepremičnine, pridobljene z dedovanjem po nerezidentu – odločilo, da so s členom 56 ES, ker omejujejo pretok kapitala, prepovedani tisti ukrepi, ki povzročajo zmanj�anje vrednosti dedi�čine
Both from the point of view of a (prospect- ive) testator — who takes such fiscal effects into account when taking up residence in a Member State other than his Member State of origin where he owns immovable property or when acquiring immovable property in the latter State while residing in another Member State 20 — and, a fortiori, from the perspective of the heirs, the decisive question is not at which point in the determination of the tax due ‘technically’ an obligation or another factor capable of reducing the tax amount will not be taken into account, but rather the question whether the overall tax burden will be higher, with the effect that the total value of the inheritance finally received will be reduced. 21
Z vidika (bodočega) oporočitelja – ki upo�teva take davčne učinke, ko začne prebivati v državi članici, ki ni njegova država članica izvora, v kateri ima v lasti nepremičnino, ali ko v tej državi pridobiva nepremičnino, medtem ko prebiva v drugi državi članici 20– in a fortiori z vidika dedičev ni odločilno vpra�anje, v kateri točki se pri določanju davka „tehnično“ ne bosta upo�tevala obveznost ali drug dejavnik, ki lahko zmanj�a znesek davka, temveč vpra�anje, ali bo skupna davčna obremenitev vi�ja, kar bo povzročilo zmanj�anje končne skupne vrednosti pridobljene dedi�čine. 21
The Netherlands Government submitted in that regard that the present case must be distinguished from Barbier, in that the legislation at issue here does not have the effect of reducing the value of the inheritance within the meaning of the above ruling, since, unlike the obligation to transfer title at issue in Barbier, the obligation at issue in the present case is not connected with the immovable property in such a way that it would affect the value as such at which the property is assessed, whether for transfer duty or inheritance duty.
Nizozemska vlada je v zvezi s tem navedla, da je treba obravnavano zadevo razlikovati od sodbe Barbier, ker se z zakonodajo v obravnavani zadevi ne povzroča zmanj�anja vrednosti dedi�čine v smislu zgoraj navedene sodbe, saj drugače kakor zadevna obveznost prenosa stvarne pravice iz sodbe Barbier sporna obveznost v obravnavani zadevi ni povezana z nepremičnino tako, da bi vplivala na njeno vrednost, na podlagi katere se nepremičnina obdavči z davkom na prenos premoženja ali z davkom na dedi�čino.
It follows that the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings is, in principle, liable to restrict the free movement of capital.
Iz tega sledi, da sporna nacionalna zakonodaja iz postopka v glavni stvari načeloma lahko omejuje prost pretok kapitala.
However, the Netherlands Government, supported by the Belgian Government, relies essentially on two main arguments in order to show that that legislation is compatible with the Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital and that the distinction on
Nizozemska vlada, s katero se strinja belgijska vlada, pa se v bistvu opira na dve glavni trditvi, da bi dokazala, da je ta zakonodaja v skladu z določbami Pogodbe o prostem pretoku kapitala in da je razlikovanje, na katerem temelji, upravičeno. Prvič,