natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
‘Duty on the transfer of property mortis causa shall be payable on all immovable property situated in Belgium and owned by the deceased …, without account being taken of debts and liabilities of the estate.’
„Davek na prehod lastnine mortis causa se plača od vseh nepremičnin, ki so v Belgiji in so v lasti pokojnika […], pri čemer se ne upo�teva dolgov in obveznosti iz zapu�čine.“
‘The following taxes are hereby established:
„S tem predpisom sta določena:
(1) a inheritance duty on the value, after deduction of debts, of the whole of the gathered estate of an inhabitant of the Kingdom of Belgium;
davek na dedi�čino od vrednosti celotne zapu�čine prebivalca Kraljevine Belgije po odbitku dolgov,
Under Article 29 of the WS, in order to be accepted as a liability, a debt must still exist on the day of death, which may be proved by any form of evidence which is admissible in respect of an act granting credit and creating a debt.
V členu 29 WS je določeno, da mora dolg, da se ga upo�teva kot obveznost, obstajati na dan smrti, kar se lahko dokaže s kakr�nim koli dokazom, ki je dopusten za odobritev posojila in nastanek dolga.
(2) a duty on the transfer of property mortis causa on the value of immovable property situated in Belgium and pertaining to the gathered estate of a person who is not an inhabitant of the Kingdom of Belgium.
davek na prehod lastnine mortis causa od vrednosti nepremičnin, ki so v Belgiji, in pripada zapu�čini osebe, ki ni prebivalec Kraljevine Belgije.
A person shall be deemed to be an inhabitant of the Kingdom of Belgium if, at the time of his death, he is domiciled in the Kingdom of Belgium or his assets are based there.’
Šteje se, da je oseba prebivalec Kraljevine Belgije, če ima ob smrti prebivali�če v Kraljevini Belgiji ali je tam njegovo premoženje.“
Article 40 of the WS provides that the period within which a declaration of estate must be filed is five months from the date of death, where death takes place in the Kingdom of Belgium, and six months from the date of death where death takes place in another country in Europe.
Člen 40 WS določa, da mora biti popis zapu�čine vložen v petih mesecih od dneva smrti, če je do smrti pri�lo v Kraljevini Belgiji, in v �estih mesecih od dneva smrti, če je do smrti pri�lo v drugi evropski državi.
Under Article 41 of the WS:
V členu 41 WS je določeno:
Germany for the avoidance of double taxation.
III – Dejansko stanje, postopek in vprašanje za predhodno odločanje
‘The period within which the declaration of estate must be filed may be extended by the Director-General of Registration and Public Property.
„Generalni direktor Urada za register in državno premoženje lahko podalj�a rok, v katerem mora biti vložen popis zapu�čine.
A declaration filed within the period prescribed by statute or extended by the Director-General may be rectified provided that that period has not expired, unless the interested parties have expressly waived that right in a statement lodged in due accordance with legal requirements.’
Hans, Natalie, Monica, Saskia, Thomas, Jessica in Joris Eckelkamp, pritožniki v postopku v glavni stvari (v nadaljevanju: dediči), so dediči Reintges Hildegard Eckelkamp (v nadaljevanju: R. H. Eckelkamp), ki je umrla v Düsseldorfu 30. decembra 2003.
Article 48(1) of the WS provides tables showing the rates which apply to inheritance duty and to the duty on the transfer of property mortis causa (transfer duty).
Člen 48(1) WS določa tabele, ki prikazujejo stopnje, ki veljajo za davek na dedi�čino in davek na prehod lastnine mortis causa (davek na prehod).
The fourth subparagraph of Article 48(2) is worded as follows:
Člen 48(2), četrti pododstavek, določa:
‘Debts and funeral expenses shall be deducted as a matter of priority from the movable property and the assets referred to in Article 60a, unless the declarants prove that a debt was specially incurred for the purpose of acquiring or preserving immovable property.’
„Dolgovi in stro�ki pogreba se prednostno od�tejejo od premičnin in premoženja, navedenega v členu 60a, razen če vlagatelji popisa dokažejo, da je dolg nastal izrecno zaradi pridobitve ali ohranitve nepremičnin.“
As regards succession duties, there is no agreement between Belgium and
Glede davka na dedi�čino med Belgijo in Nemčijo ne obstaja dogovor o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčenja.
On 29 June 2004, the heirs made a declaration of Ms Eckelkamp’s estate (‘the declaration of estate’ or ‘the declaration’) showing, under assets, that property as having a value of EUR 200 000.
Dediči so 29. junija 2004 popisali zapu�čino R. H. Eckelkamp (v nadaljevanju: popis zapu�čine ali popis) in pod sredstva navedli, da je vrednost premoženja 200.000 EUR.
On the basis of the declaration — and thus without taking account of Ms Eckelkamp’s debt to Hans Eckelkamp — the transfer duties payable were estimated by decision of 14 July 2004 at EUR 110 000.04.
Na podlagi popisa – in torej brez upo�tevanje dolga R. H.
ation as a liability in respect of which the rule laid down in Articles 1 and 2 of the WS, read in conjunction with Article 18 thereof, falls not to be applied, as being contrary to Community law.
Eckelkamp do Hansa Eckelkampa – je bil z odločbo z dne 14. julija 2004 odmerjen davek na prehod lastnine v znesku 110.000,04 EUR.
It appears from the file that, before the declaration of estate was made, there had been an exchange of e-mails between the Belgian tax authorities and the heirs, in which the tax authorities indicated that transfer duty (applicable where the deceased was a non-resident) is payable on the value of immovable property in Belgium without deduction of any debts and that, in consequence, the debt in issue should not be mentioned in the declaration.
Iz spisa izhaja, da so si belgijski davčni organi in dediči, preden je bil narejen popis zapu�čine, izmenjali elektronska sporočila, v katerih so davčni organi navedli, da se davek na prehod lastnine (ki se uporablja, kadar pokojnik ni bil rezident) plača od vrednosti nepremičnin, ki so v Belgiji, brez od�tetja kakr�nih koli dolgov, in da naj sporni dolg zato ne bo naveden v popisu.
The heirs thereupon brought appeal proceedings before the Hof van Beroep in respect of the judgment of the Rechtbank.
Dediči so nato zoper sodbo Rechtbank vložili pritožbo na Hof van Beroep.
In support of their appeal, they essentially submit that Community law has direct effect and that administrative authorities are obliged to reconsider decisions taken contrary to Community law.
V podporo pritožbi v bistvu navajajo, da ima pravo Skupnosti neposreden učinek in da morajo upravni organi ponovno preučiti odločitve, ki so v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti.
Article 41 of the WS cannot prevent Community law from producing its full effect.
Člen 41 WS ne more preprečiti pravu Skupnosti, da bi polno učinkoval.
Relying on Barbier, 6they further claim that the distinction drawn in Article 2(1) of the WS, read in conjunction with Article 18 thereof, between residents and nonresidents of Belgium is contrary to the Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital.
Poleg tega s sklicevanjem na zadevo Barbier 6trdijo, da je razlikovanje med belgijskimi rezidenti in nerezidenti iz člena 2(1) WS v povezavi s členom 18 WS v nasprotju z določbami Pogodbe o prostem pretoku kapitala.
They maintain also that those rules of the WS are prejudicial to the freedom to take up residence in another Member State and are contrary to Article 12 EC, read in conjunction with Articles 17 EC and 18 EC.
Trdijo tudi, da ta pravila WS posegajo v svobo�čino prebivanja v drugi državi članici in so v nasprotju s členom 12 ES v povezavi s členoma 17 ES in 18 ES.
The Belgian State, the respondent in the main proceedings, disputes the restriction on the free movement of capital and contends that the situations of residents and nonresidents are not comparable.
Belgijska država, ki je nasprotna stranka v postopku v glavni stvari, oporeka omejitvi prostega pretoka kapitala in trdi, da položaja rezidentov in nerezidentov nista primerljiva.
After they had paid the succession duties, the heirs filed a tax claim on 7 October 2004 seeking, inter alia, annulment of the decision of 14 July 2004.
Potem ko so dediči plačali davek na dedi�čino, so 7. oktobra 2004 vložili davčno tožbo, s katero so med drugim zahtevali razglasitev ničnosti odločbe z dne 14. julija 2004.
That claim was dismissed by judgment of the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Brugge (Court of First Instance, Bruges) of 30 May 2005.
Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Brugge (sodi�če prve stopnje, Bruges) je s sodbo z dne 30. maja 2005 tožbo zavrnilo.
In its judgment, the Rechtbank considered that the period prescribed in Article 40 of the WS for filing a declaration of estate had in any event expired on 1 July 2004, whereas the fiscal claim was not filed until 7 October 2004, which meant that the declaration of estate was final and no account could be taken of a liability which was not mentioned therein.
Rechtbank je v sodbi presodilo, da se je rok iz člena 40 WS za vložitev popisa zapu�čine vsekakor iztekel 1. julija 2004, davčna tožba pa je bila vložena �ele 7. oktobra 2004, kar je pomenilo, da je bil popis zapu�čine dokončen in ni bilo mogoče upo�tevati obveznosti, ki ni bila navedena v njem.
The Rechtbank also took the view that the appellants should have included the debt concerned in the declar-
Rechtbank je tudi zavzelo stali�če, da
ECKELKAMP AND OTHERS which were also represented at the hearing on 13 December 2007.
ECKELKAMP IN DRUGI ki so bili tudi zastopani na obravnavi 13. decembra 2007.
In those circumstances, the Hof van Beroep te Gent decided to stay the proceedings and to request the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on the following question:
V teh okoli�činah je Hof van Beroep te Gent prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vpra�anje:
‘Do Article 12 EC, in conjunction with Art -icles 17 EC and 18 EC, and Article 56 EC, in conjunction with Article 57 EC, preclude national rules of a Member State under which, in the context of the acquisition, through inheritance, of immovable property situated in a Member State (the State in which the property is situated), that State imposes a tax on the value of the immovable property situated in that State, in respect of which that State allows a deduction corresponding to the value of charges on that immovable property (such as debts secured by the right conferred on a creditor to take out a mortgage against that immovable property) if the testator, at the time of his demise, was resident in the State in which the property is situated, but not if the testator, at the time of his demise, was living in a different Member State (the State of residence)?’
„Ali člen 12 ES v povezavi s členoma 17 ES in 18 ES ter člen 56 ES v povezavi s členom 57 ES nasprotujejo nacionalni ureditvi države članice, po kateri v primeru pridobitve nepremičnine, ki je v državi članici (država, kjer je nepremičnina), z dedovanjem ta država naloži davek na vrednost te nepremičnine, ki je v tej državi, pri čemer sicer dopu�ča odbitek v vi�ini vrednosti obveznosti, ki bremenijo to nepremičnino (na primer dolgovi, zavarovani s pravico upnika, da vzame hipoteko na to nepremičnino), če je zapustnik ob smrti prebival v državi, kjer je nepremičnina, vendar pa ne, če je zapustnik ob smrti živel v drugi državi članici (državi članici prebivali�ča)?“
The heirs submit, first, that the Belgian legislation on the taxation of the acquisition of immovable property through inheritance is discriminatory and infringes Article 56 EC, read in conjunction with Article 58 EC, in that — for the purposes of calculating the basis of assessment — it allows account to be taken of certain debts if the deceased was resident in Belgium at the time of death, but not if the deceased was resident elsewhere.
Dediči navajajo, prvič, da je belgijska zakonodaja o obdavčitvi pridobitve nepremičnine z dedovanjem diskriminatorna in kr�i člen 56 ES v povezavi s členom 58 ES, s tem, da – za izračun osnove za odmero – dopu�ča, da se upo�tevajo nekateri dolgovi, če je pokojnik ob smrti prebival v Belgiji, vendar pa ne, če je pokojnik prebival drugje.
The heirs maintain that the situations of a resident and a nonresident are comparable in this context.
Dediči trdijo, da sta položaja rezidenta in nerezidenta v tem kontekstu primerljiva.
They submit in that regard that the Belgian legislation in principle considers both residents and nonresidents to be taxable persons for the purposes of levying succession duties.
V zvezi s tem navajajo, da belgijska zakonodaja načeloma �teje rezidente in nerezidente za davčne zavezance za odmero davkov na dedi�čino.
Referring to the caselaw of the Court, 7the heirs argue that, as a consequence, residents and nonresidents must also be treated alike as regards the deductibility of charges or debts.
Ob sklicevanju na sodno prakso Sodi�ča 7dediči trdijo, da morajo biti zato rezidenti in nerezidenti pri odbitju obveznosti ali dolgov obravnavani enako.
Secondly, the heirs submit — relying mainly on Barbier 8 — that the legisla-
Drugič, dediči navajajo – ob sklicevanju na zadevo Barbier 8– da zadevna zako-
A — Main submissions of the parties tion at issue constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital, as the provisions preventing the deduction of debts relating to immovable property have the effect of reducing the value of the inheritance where
A – Bistvene trditve strank nodaja pomeni omejitev prostega pretoka kapitala, ker se zaradi določb o preprečevanju odbitja dolgov, ki se nana�ajo na
7 — In particular Case 270/83 Commission v France [1986] ECR 273; Case C-307/97 Saint-Gobain [1999] ECR I-6161; and Barbier, cited in footnote 3.
7 – Zlasti sodbi z dne 28. januarja 1986 v zadevi Komisija proti Franciji (270/83, Recueil, str. 273) in z dne 21. septembra 1999 v zadevi Saint-Gobain (C-307/97, Recueil, str.
In the present proceedings, observations have been submitted by the heirs, the Belgian Government and the Commission, all of
V tem postopku so stali�ča predložili dediči, belgijska vlada in Komisija,
9 the deceased was a nonresident, while there is no such reduction if the deceased was resident in Belgium.
9 nepremičnine, zniža vrednost dedi�čine, če je bil pokojnik nerezident, če pa je pokojnik prebival v Belgiji, takega znižanja ni.
Thus, a person resident in another Member State may be discouraged from investing in an immovable property situated in Belgium, knowing that his heirs will have to pay higher succession duties than if he had not invested in Belgium or if he had invested in a different way.
Tako je lahko oseba, ki prebiva v drugi državi članici, odvrnjena od vlaganja v nepremičnine, ki so v Belgiji, saj ve, da bodo morali njeni dediči plačati vi�je davke na dedi�čino, kot če ne bi vlagala v Belgiji ali če bi investirala drugače.
Thirdly, and on the basis of similar arguments, the heirs submit that the Belgian legislation at issue runs counter to the rights of Union citizens, as laid down in Art -icles 12 EC and 18 EC, to take up residence in another Member State and not to be discriminated against.
Tretjič, in na podlagi podobnih trditev, dediči navajajo, da je zadevna belgijska zakonodaja v nasprotju s pravicami državljanov Unije, kot so določene v členih 12 ES in 18 ES, da prebivajo v drugi državi članici in da niso diskriminirani.
The Belgian Government maintains, by contrast, that the present reference for a preliminary ruling should be declared inadmissible on the ground that the question referred is hypothetical and not relevant for the purposes of deciding the dispute in the main proceedings.
Belgijska vlada nasprotno trdi, da je treba ta predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe razglasiti za ničnega, ker je vpra�anje hipotetično in ni koristno za odločitev spora v postopku v glavni stvari.
It emphasises that the debt in question was not mentioned in the declaration of estate, which became final on expiry of the period allowed under the WS for filing it.
Poudarja, da zadevni dolg ni bil omenjen v popisu zapu�čine, ki je postal dokončen z iztekom roka, ki ga WS določa za njegovo vložitev.
Thus the central issue is in fact the expiry of the period for filing or correcting the declaration of estate, and the Hof van Beroep has not shown how, in those circumstances, it could take account of a preliminary ruling on the question referred.
Torej je osrednje vpra�anje dejansko iztek roka za vložitev ali popravo popisa zapu�čine in Hof van Beroep ni razložilo, kako bi v teh okoli�činah lahko upo�tevalo predhodno odločbo glede zastavljenega vpra�anja.
It appears from the caselaw of the Court that, as a rule, Community law does not prevent the application of procedural rules provided for under national law, such as time-limits. 10
Iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča izhaja, da pravo Skupnosti praviloma ne preprečuje uporabe postopkovnih pravil nacionalnega prava, kot so roki. 10
On the substance of the case, the Belgian Government submits that the difference in treatment as regards debts, according to whether it is the inheritance of a resident or a nonresident, does not constitute an infringement of the Treaty provisions invoked in the present case.
Belgijska vlada glede vsebine zadeve navaja, da razlika v obravnavanju v zvezi z dolgovi, glede na to, ali spadajo v zapu�čino rezidenta ali nerezidenta, ni kr�itev določb Pogodbe, ki se obravnavajo v tej zadevi.
It emphasises that in relation to direct taxes, in particular as regards the tax -ation of acquisition through inheritance, the situations of residents and nonresidents are, as a rule, not comparable.
Poudarja, da kadar gre za neposredne davke, zlasti obdavčitev pridobitve z dedovanjem, položaja rezidentov in nerezidentov praviloma nista primerljiva.
9 — In that regard, reference was made to Joined Cases C-181/04 to C-183/04 Elmeka [2006] ECR I-8167.
9 – V zvezi s tem se sklicujejo na sodbo z dne 14. septembra 2006 v združenih zadevah Elmeka (od C-181/04 do C-183/04, ZOdl., str. I-8167).
10 — With reference to Case 45/76 Comet [1976] ECR 2043, paragraph 19.
10 – V zvezi s sodbo z dne 16. decembra 1976 v zadevi Comet (45/76, Recueil, str.
Opposing the argument put forward by the Belgian Government that the present reference for a preliminary ruling should be declared inadmissible, the heirs argued at the oral hearing that the debt at issue is — also according to Belgian law — sufficiently closely linked with the immovable property in question.
Dediči so na obravnavi nasprotovali trditvi belgijske vlade, da bi moral biti ta predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe razgla�en za nedopustnega, in trdili, da je sporni dolg – tudi po belgijskem pravu – dovolj tesno povezan z zadevno nepremičnino.
There is no relevant difference in that regard between a mortgage and the mortgage mandate at issue.
V zvezi s tem ni ustrezne razlike med hipoteko in zadevnim pooblastilom za ustanovitev hipoteke.
They also emphasised that the debt of EUR 220 000 was not included in the declaration because, under Belgian law, it is prohibited to do so where the deceased was a nonresident and, what is more, because they had been told not to by the competent national authority (that being a source of information on which they
Poleg tega so poudarili, da dolg v vi�ini 220.000 EUR ni bil naveden v popisu, ker je v skladu z belgijskim pravom to prepovedano, če pokojnik ni bil rezident, in, kar je pomembnej�e, ker jim je pristojni nacionalni organ naročil, naj tega ne storijo (to naj bi bil vir podatkov, na katerega bi se
In the event that the Member State in which the immovable property is situated should have to allow the deduction of debts attributable to that property, the Belgian Government contends that this should apply only if the debt is closely associated with the immovable property and if it is not also deductible in the Member State of residence of the deceased.
Belgijska vlada trdi, da če bi morala država članica, v kateri je nepremičnina, dovoliti odbitje dolgov, ki se nana�ajo na to nepremičnino, bi to moralo veljati le, če bi bil ta dolg tesno povezan z nepremičnino in če ga ne bi bilo mogoče odbiti tudi v državi članici pokojnikovega prebivali�ča.
The Belgian Government contends that only the Member State in which the deceased was resident 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 succession duties.
Belgijska vlada trdi, da lahko samo država članica, v kateri je pokojnik prebival, oceni ekonomski položaj v celoti in upo�teva vse premoženje in dolgove pri izračunu davkov na dedi�čino.
A debt such as that at issue is thus, in principle, always taken into account by the Member State of residence of the deceased.
Dolg, kot je sporni, praviloma vedno upo�teva država članica pokojnikovega prebivali�ča.
However, there is no legal framework at Community level for the coordination of the powers of the Member States in the area of inheritance taxation.
Vendar pa na ravni skupnosti ne obstaja pravi okvir za usklajevanje pristojnosti držav članic na področju obdavčitve dedovanja.
The deduction of a debt such as that in issue in the Member State where the immovable property is situated could in fact lead to double-deduction, which Member States are allowed to prevent.
Odbitje dolga, kot je sporni, v državi članici, kjer je nepremičnina, bi v bistvu lahko privedlo do dvojnega odbitja, ki so ga države članice upravičene preprečiti.
In the present case, all debts forming part of the estate of the deceased are taken account of in Germany, the Member State where she resided.
V obravnavani zadevi so bili vsi dolgovi, ki so bili del zapu�čine pokojnice, upo�tevani v Nemčiji, državi članici, v kateri je prebivala.
For similar reasons, the Belgian Government takes the view that the Belgian legislation in question is not contrary to Art -icles 12 EC, 17 EC and 18 EC.
Belgijska vlada iz podobnih razlogov meni, da zadevna belgijska zakonodaja ni v nasprotju s členi 12 ES, 17 ES in 18 ES.
The Commission submits that the distinction which is drawn, as regards the calculation of succession duties, between residents and nonresidents of Belgium — with the effect that the inheritance of immovable property from a nonresident is subject to transfer duty without deduction of debts — constitutes a prohibited restriction on the free movement of capital.
Komisija navaja, da je razlikovanje med belgijskimi rezidenti in nerezidenti glede izračuna davkov na dedi�čine – zaradi katerega za dedovanje nepremičnin po nerezidentu velja davek na prehod brez odbitja dolgov – prepovedana omejitev prostega pretoka kapitala.
Such a provision could be regarded as compatible with the free movement of capital only if the difference in treatment applied to situations which are not objectively comparable or if it were justified by overriding reasons in the general interest. 12
Tako določbo se lahko �teje za združljivo s prostim pretokom kapitala, le če se različno obravnavanje uporablja v položajih, ki niso objektivno primerljivi, ali če bi bilo to upravičeno z nujnimi razlogi v splo�nem interesu. 12
According to the Belgian Government, the present case must be distinguished from Barbier 11on the ground that in the latter case the debt that the heirs wanted to deduct constituted an inherent element of the immovable property taxable in the Member State where it was situated.
Po stali�ču belgijske vlade je treba obravnavano zadevo razlikovati od zadeve Barbier, 11ker je bil dolg, ki so ga želeli odbiti zapustniki v slednji zadevi, bistven del nepremičnine, obdavčene v državi članici, v kateri je bila nepremičnina.
In the present case, by contrast, there is no indication that the debt in question — which is only secured by a mortgage mandate and not a mortgage — would be sufficiently closely linked with the immovable property within the meaning of Barbier.
Nasprotno pa v obravnavani zadevi nič ne kaže na to, da bi bil zadevni dolg – ki je le zavarovan s pooblastilom za ustanovitev hipoteke in ne s hipoteko – dovolj tesno povezan z nepremičnino v smislu zadeve Barbier.
That mortgage mandate relates in fact to all present and future estates of the person concerned.
To pooblastilo za ustanovitev hipoteke se v bistvu nana�a na vse sedanje in bodoče premoženje zadevne osebe.
11 — Cited in footnote 3.
12 – Sodba z dne 8. septembra 2005 v zadevi Blanckaert (C-512/03, ZOdl., str.