natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As regards the Court of First Instance’s finding that the adoption of the Second and the Third Steel Aid Code led to ambiguity as to whether subsequent application of the ZRFG had to be notified as a ’plan’ within the meaning of Article 6 of that third code, it must, first, be held that that article expressly provides that there is an obligation to inform the Commission of plans to grant aid to the steel industry under schemes on which it has already taken a decision under the EC Treaty.
Glede ugotovitve Sodi�ča prve stopnje, da naj bi sprejetje drugih in tretjih pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu povzročilo dvoumnost zaradi negotovosti glede vpra�anja, ali je treba naknadno uporabo ZRFG priglasiti kot „načrt“ v smislu člena 6 navedenih tretjih pravil, je treba najprej ugotoviti, da je s tem členom izrecno določena obveznost, da se Komisijo obvesti o načrtih za uporabo sistemov pomoči v sektorju jeklarstva, glede katerih se je že izrekla na podlagi določb Pogodbe ES.
Moreover, in contrast to the EC Treaty, the ECSC Treaty does not distinguish between new aid and existing aid. Article 4(c) CS prohibits, purely and simply, aid granted by Member States in any form whatsoever.
Poleg tega Pogodba ESPJ, drugače kot Pogodba ES, ne ločuje med novimi in obstoječimi pomočmi, ker so s členom 4(c) PJ jasno prepovedane kakr�ne koli pomoči, ki jih dajo države članice.
The Court has also held that the compatibility of aid with the common market can be assessed, in the context of the Steel Aid Codes, only in the light of the rules in force on the date on which it is actually paid (Falck and Acciaierie di Bolzano v Commission, paragraph 117).
Sodi�če je prav tako razsodilo, da se združljivost pomoči s skupnim trgom – glede pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu – presoja le na podlagi pravil, ki so veljala takrat, ko so bile pomoči dejansko dodeljene (zgoraj navedena sodba Falck in Acciaierie di Bolzano proti Komisiji, točka 117).
It follows, as the Commission submits, that Article 6 of the Third Steel Aid Code provided clearly and unequivocally that there was an obligation to notify to the Commission aid that might be granted to Salzgitter under the ZRFG as soon as that code came into force.
Iz tega izhaja, kot to zatrjuje Komisija, da člen 6 tretjih pravil o jeklarstvu jasno in nedvoumno določa obveznost, da se Komisiji priglasijo pomoči, ki bi se lahko družbi Salzgitter dodelile na podlagi ZRFG od začetka veljavnosti navedenih pravil.
Consequently, the Court of First Instance committed an error of law in holding, first, that the adoption of the Third Steel Aid Code led, implicitly, to a partial withdrawal of the authorisation of the ZRFG granted by the 1971 Decision and, second, that Article 6 of that code did not make it possible to determine clearly whether application of the ZRFG after adoption of that code was covered by the obligation to notify ’plans’ laid down in that article.
Posledično je Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno uporabilo pravo, ko je razsodilo, da je sprejetje tretjih pravil o pomoči jeklarstvu povzročilo delni implicitni umik odobritve ZRFG, ki izhaja iz odločbe iz leta 1971, ter da člen 6 teh tretjih pravil ni omogočal jasne opredelitve, ali za uporabo ZRFG po sprejetju teh pravil velja obveznost priglasitve „načrtov“, določenih s tem členom.
The Commission’s late reaction
Rok za odziv Komisije
The Commission contests that it had knowledge, prior to the start of 1998, of Salzgitter receiving aid under the ZRFG and, therefore, that it had been slow to react.
Komisija izpodbija, da naj bi bila z uporabo ZRFG za družbo Salzgitter seznanjena pred začetkom leta 1998, in da naj bi se zato prepozno odzvala.
The Commission submits that undertakings to which aid has been granted cannot entertain a legitimate expectation that the aid is lawful unless it has been notified and a diligent businessman is normally able to determine whether that procedure has been followed (C-24/95 Alcan Deutschland [1997] ECR I-1591, paragraph 25).
Komisija navaja, da imajo podjetja, ki jim je bila dodeljena pomoč, legitimno pričakovanje glede zakonitosti te pomoči le, če je bila ta prigla�ena, pri čemer naj bi bil vesten gospodarski subjekt navadno sposoben zagotoviti, da se ta postopek upo�teva (sodba z dne 20. marca 1997 v zadevi Alcan Deutschland, C-24/95, Recueil, str.
Moreover, the approach adopted by the Court of First Instance undermines legal certainty and favours beneficiaries of illegal aid.
I-1591, točka 25), ter da re�itev Sodi�ča prve stopnje kr�i načelo pravne varnosti in daje prednost prejemnikom nezakonitih pomoči.
Salzgitter and the German Government contend that the situation in the case that led to the judgment in Alcan Deutschland is different, because the question here is not whether a diligent business man was fully entitled to rely on the legality of measures taken by a national authority, but to determine whether or not the Commission acted in sufficient time.
Družba Salzgitter in nem�ka vlada zatrjujeta, da gre v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Alcan Deutschland za drugačen primer, ker tu ne gre za vpra�anje, ali se je gospodarski subjekt lahko upravičeno zanesel na zakonitost akta nacionalnega organa, ampak za opredelitev, ali je Komisija pravočasno ukrepala ali ne.
In annulling the part of the contested decision relating to the Federal Republic of Germany’s obligation to recover the aid received by Salzgitter, the Court of First Instance again held that the Commission had known of that aid since the end of 1988 and that, given that it did not react until 1998, it had, in taking that decision, breached the principle of legal certainty.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je pri razglasitvi ničnosti dela sporne odločbe v zvezi z obveznostjo Zvezne republike Nemčije, da izterja pomoči, ki jih je prejela družba Salzgitter, tudi upo�tevalo, da je bila Komisija seznanjena o teh pomočeh od konca leta 1988 in da je, ker ni ukrepala pred letom 1998, s sprejetjem te odločbe kr�ila načelo pravne varnosti.
It must be held that the reasoning followed by the judgment under appeal as regards breaching the principle of legal certainty is incorrect, and there is no need to rule on whether the Court of First Instance was entitled to hold that the Commission had knowledge of the aid in issue since the end of 1988, which the latter disputes.
Ne da bi se bilo treba izreči o vpra�anju, ali je Sodi�če prve stopnje lahko upravičeno �telo, da je bila Komisija seznanjena o zadevnih pomočeh iz konca leta 1988, kar Komisija izpodbija, je treba ugotoviti, da je obrazložitev izpodbijane sodbe glede kr�itve načela pravne varnosti napačna.
Admittedly, the Court has held that, even if the Community legislature has not laid down any period of limitation, the fundamental requirement of legal certainty has the effect of preventing the Commission from indefinitely delaying the exercise of its powers (see, to that effect, 52/69 Geigy v Commission [1972] ECR 787, paragraph 21, and, as regards State aid falling within the scope of the ECSC Treaty, Falck and Acciaierie di Bolzano v Commission, paragraphs 140 and 141).
Res je, da je Sodi�če razsodilo, da, tudi če zakonodajalec Skupnosti ni določil zastaral -nega roka, temeljna zahteva po pravni varnosti nasprotuje temu, da bi Komisija lahko neomejeno odla�ala z izvajanjem svojih pooblastil (v tem smislu glej sodbo z dne 14. julija 1972 v zadevi Geigy proti Komisiji, 52/69, Recueil, str. 787, točka 21, ter glede državnih pomoči v okviru Pogodbe ESPJ zgoraj navedeno sodbo Falck in Acciaierie di Bolzano proti Komisiji, točki 140 in 141).
In this respect, it must be held that, as regards State aid falling within the scope of the EC Treaty, Article 10(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da člen 10(1) Uredbe Sveta (ES) �t.
1) provides that, where the Commission has in its possession information from whatever source regarding alleged unlawful aid, it is to examine that information without delay.
659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES (UL L 83, str.1) glede državnih pomoči v okviru Pogodbe ES določa, da če ima Komisija podatke iz katerega koli vira o domnevni nezakoniti pomoči, te podatke brez odla�anja preveri.
Moreover, Article 15 of Regulation No 659/1999 provides that recovery of illegal aid is subject to a limitation period of 10 years, beginning on the day it is granted.
Poleg tega člen 15 Uredbe �t. 659/1999 določa, da za vračilo nezakonitih pomoči velja zastaralni rok deset let, ki začne teči na dan, ko so bile te dodeljene.
As stated in recital 14 of the preamble to that regulation, this limitation period has been established for reasons of legal certainty.
Kot je navedeno v �tirinajsti uvodni izjavi te uredbe, je ta zastaralni rok določen zaradi pravne varnosti.
Even though it is true that, for the purposes of the ECSC Treaty, those rules do not apply as such, they were based, in the domain of State aid, on the fundamental requirement of legal certainty.
Čeprav je res, da se ti predpisi ne uporabljajo na področju uporabe Pogodbe ESPJ, na področju državnih pomoči temeljijo na temeljni zahtevi po pravni varnosti.
It follows that, even in a situation in which the Community legislature has not expressly laid down any period of limitation, the Commission cannot indefinitely delay the exercise of its power.
Iz tega izhaja, da tudi v primeru, ko zakonodajalec Skupnosti ne bi izrecno določil roka zastaranja, Komisija ne sme zavlačevati v nedogled izvr�evanja svojih pristojnosti.
However, it must not be forgotten that the notification of State aid is a central element of Community rules for supervising that aid and that undertakings to which such aid has been granted may not entertain a legitimate expectation that the aid is
Vendar se ne sme pozabiti, da je priglasitev državnih pomoči osrednji element mehanizma Skupnosti za njihov nadzor in da se družbe, ki so prejele te pomoči, ne
2008 — CASE C-408/04 P lawful if it has not been granted in compliance with that procedure (Alcan Deutschland, paragraph 25).
2008 – ZADEVA C-408/04 P morejo sklicevati na legitimno pričakovanje glede njihove zakonitosti, če te niso bile odobrene v skladu s tem postopkom (zgoraj navedena sodba Alcan Deutschland, točka 25).
It must also be taken into consideration that the particularly strict nature of the State aid regime under the ECSC Treaty sets it apart from the State aid regime under the EC Treaty (see, in this respect, Falck and Acciaierie di Bolzano v Commission, paragraphs 101 and 102).
Poleg tega je treba upo�tevati dejstvo, da se sistem, določen za državne pomoči v okviru ESPJ, po njegovi posebni strogosti razlikuje od sistema, ki se uporablja v okviru Pogodbe ES (v zvezi s tem glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Falck in Acciaierie di Bolzano, točki 101 in 102).
It follows from the above that, where aid was granted under the ECSC Treaty without having been notified, a delay by the Commission in exercising its supervisory powers and ordering recovery of the aid does not render that recovery decision unlawful, except in exceptional cases which show that the Commission manifestly failed to act and clearly breached its duty of diligence.
Iz tega izhaja, da če je bila v okviru Pogodbe ESPJ pomoč odobrena, ne da bi bila prigla�ena, zamuda Komisije pri izvajanju njenih pooblastil nadzora in pri odredbi za vračilo te pomoči povzroči nezakonitost te odločbe o vračilu le v izjemnih primerih, kot sta očitno nedelovanje Komisije in očitna kr�itev obveznosti skrbnega ravnanja.
Consequently, even though the Court of First Instance was entitled to hold that a beneficiary of State aid can rely on the principle of legal certainty to support an action for annulment of a decision ordering recovery of that aid, it wrongly applied this principle in the case before it when it failed to examine whether the Commission had manifestly failed to act and clearly breached its duty of diligence in the exercise of its supervisory powers, the sole grounds which, in exceptional cases, can render illegal a Commission decision ordering recovery, under the ECSC Treaty, of non-notified aid.
Čeprav bi Sodi�če prve stopnje lahko veljavno razsodilo, da se prejemnica državne pomoči lahko sklicuje na načelo pravne varnosti za utemeljitev tožbe za razglasitev ničnosti odločbe, ki nalaga vračilo te pomoči, je v zadevi, v kateri je odločalo, napačno uporabilo to načelo, ker ni raziskalo, ali Komisija dejansko ni ukrepala in očitno ni izpolnila dolžnosti skrbnega ravnanja pri izvajanju svojih pooblastil nadzora, kar sta edina temelja, ki v izjemih primerih lahko povzročita nezakonitost odločbe Komisije, s katero se v okviru Pogodbe ESPJ zahteva vračilo pomoči, ki ni bila prigla�ena.
It follows from the above that the main appeal must be upheld and that the judgment under appeal must be set aside to the extent that it annuls Articles 2 and 3 of the contested decision.
Iz zgoraj navedenega izhaja, da je treba ugoditi glavni pritožbi in razveljaviti izpodbijano sodbo v delu, v katerem je bila razgla�ena ničnost členov 2 in 3 sporne odločbe.
Referral of the case to the Court of First Instance
Vrnitev zadeve v odločanje Sodišču prve stopnje
It follows from the present judgment that the Court of First Instance rightly held in the judgment under appeal that, for the purposes of the ECSC Treaty, Salzgitter received illegal aid, but that, on the other hand, that judgment is vitiated by an error of law in so far as it annuls the part of the contested decision ordering recovery of the aid in question.
Iz te sodbe izhaja, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje v izpodbijani sodbi pravilno razsodilo, da je družba Salzgitter glede na Pogodbo ESPJ prejela nezakonite pomoči, vendar je bilo v izpodbijani sodbi napačno uporabljeno pravo v delu, v katerem je bila razgla�ena ničnost dela sporne odločbe, s katero je odredila vračilo zadevnih pomoči.
Therefore, the Court of First Instance must rule on the question whether, in the circumstances of the present case, the Commission manifestly failed to act and breached its duty of diligence and, if necessary, examine the other pleas which, quite lawfully, it declined to rule on since it had already annulled Articles 2 and 3 of the contested decision, and which alleged, respectively, that the Commission wrongly considered certain investments as falling under the ECSC Treaty, that part of the aid at issue should have been regarded as aid for environmental protection and that the decisive discount rate selected was wrong.
Torej je naloga Sodi�ča prve stopnje, da se izreče o vpra�anju, ali Komisija v okoli�činah obravnavane zadeve očitno ni ukrepala in očitno ni izpolnila svoje dolžnosti skrbnega ravnanja, ter, če je potrebno, da preizkusi druge pritožbene razloge, glede katerih se je Sodi�če prve stopnje lahko zakonito izognilo odločanju, ker je razglasilo ničnost člena 2 in 3 sporne odločbe na podlagi tega, da naj bi Komisija napačno obravnavala nekatere investicije, kot da sodijo v okvir Pogodbe ESPJ, da bi bilo treba del zadevnih pomoči obravnavati kot pomoči za varovanje okolja, in da naj bi bila ugotovljena napačna odločilna stopnja sedanje vrednosti.
Those different aspects of the case require examination of complex questions of fact based on elements which the Court of First Instance did not assess and which were not discussed before the Court of Justice, so that, as regards those points, the case cannot be decided.
Ti različni vidiki spora namreč vključujejo preizkus zapletenih dejanskih vpra�anj, ki jih Sodi�če prve stopnje ni presojalo in o katerih Sodi�če ni razpravljalo, iz česar torej izhaja, da stanje zadeve ne dopu�ča dokončne odločitve.
Therefore, the case has to be referred back to the Court of First Instance.
Zadevo je treba zato vrniti v odločanje Sodi�ču prve stopnje.
Dismisses the cross-appeal;
Nasprotna pritožba se zavrne.
Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 1 July 2004 in Case T-308/00 Salzgitter v Commission to the extent it annuls Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2000/797/ECSC of 28 June 2000 on State aid granted by the Federal Republic of Germany to Salzgitter AG, Preussag Stahl AG and the group’s steel-industry subsidiaries, now known as Salzgitter AG - Stahl und Technologie (SAG) and makes an order on costs;
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti z dne 1. julija 2004 v zadevi Salzgitter proti Komisiji (T-308/00) se razveljavi v delu, v katerem je bila razglašena ničnost členov 2 in 3 Odločbe Komisije 2000/797/ESPJ z dne 28. junija 2000 o državni pomoči, ki jo Nemčija izvaja v korist družb Salzgitter AG in Preussag Stahl AG ter hčerinskih jeklarskih družb skupine, danes združenih pod imenom Salzgitter AG – Stahl und Technologie (SAG), in v delu, v katerem so bili določeni stroški.
Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities;
Zadeva se vrne v odločanje Sodišču prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti.
Reserves costs.
Odločitev o stroških se pridrži.
Case C-201/05
Zadeva C-201/05
(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — Direct taxation — Corporation tax — Share dividends paid to a resident company by a nonresident company — Rules on controlled foreign companies (‘CFCs’) — Situation as regards a nonmember country — Classification of claims brought against the tax authority — Liability of a Member State for breach of Community law)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division) „Člen 104(3), prvi pododstavek, Poslovnika – Svoboda ustanavljanja – Prosti pretok kapitala – Neposredno obdavčenje – Davek od dohodkov pravnih oseb – Dividende od delnic, ki jih družbi rezidentki izplača družba nerezidentka – Pravila o tujih odvisnih družbah (TOD) – Položaj v zvezi s tretjo državo – Opredelitev tožb zoper davčno upravo – Odgovornost države članice za kr�itev prava Skupnosti“
Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — Exemption of nationally-sourced dividends
Prosto gibanje oseb – Svoboda ustanavljanja – Davčna zakonodaja – Davek od dohodkov pravnih oseb – Oprostitev, določena za domače dividende
SUMMARY — CASE C-201/05
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-201/05
Free movement of capital — Restrictions — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — Exemption of nationally-sourced dividends
Prosti pretok kapitala – Omejitve – Davčna zakonodaja – Davek od dohodkov pravnih oseb – Oprostitev, določena za domače dividende
(Art. 56 EC)
(člen 56 ES)
Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Tax legislation — Taxation of company profits
Prosto gibanje oseb – Svoboda ustanavljanja – Davčna zakonodaja – Davek od dobička pravnih oseb
Community law — Rights conferred on individuals — Infringement by a Member State — Obligation to make good damage caused to individuals
Pravo Skupnosti – Posameznikom podeljene pravice – Kršitev s strani države članice – Obveznost povrnitve škode, povzročene posameznikom
Article 43 EC is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude legislation of a Member State which exempts from corporation tax dividends which a resident company receives from another resident company, when that State imposes corporation tax on dividends which a resident company receives from a nonresident company in which the resident company has a shareholding enabling it to exercise a definite influence over the decisions of that nonresident company and to determine its activities, while at the same time granting a tax credit for the tax actually paid by the company making the distribution in the Member State in which it is resident, provided that the rate of tax applied to foreignsourced dividends is no higher than the rate of tax applied to nation-ally-sourced dividends and that the tax credit is at least equal to the amount paid in the Member State of the company making the distribution, up to the limit
Člen 43 ES je treba razlagati tako, da ne nasprotuje zakonodaji države članice, ki določa oprostitev od davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb za dividende, ki jih družba rezidentka prejme od druge družbe rezidentke, medtem ko s tem davkom obdavči dividende, ki jih družba rezidentka prejme od družbe nerezidentke, v kateri ima družba rezidentka delež, ki ji omogoča določeno vplivanje na odlo- čitve te družbe in določanje njenih dejavnosti, in v tem primeru prizna davčni odbitek iz naslova davka, ki ga je družba razdeljevalka dividend dejansko plačala v državi članici, v kateri je rezidentka, če davčna stopnja za tuje dividende ni vi�ja od davčne stopnje, ki se uporablja za domače dividende, in če je davčni odbitek najmanj enak znesku, ki je bil plačan v državi članici družbe razdelje-
of the amount of the tax charged in the Member State of the company receiving the distribution.
valke dividend, in največ tak kot znesek obdavčitve, ki se uporablja v državi članici družbe prejemnice dividend.
(see para. 43, operative part 1)
(Glej točko 43 in točko 1 izreka.)
Article 56 EC is to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes legislation of a Member State which exempts from corporation tax dividends which a resident company receives from another resident company, where that State levies corporation tax on dividends which a resident company receives from a nonresident company in which it holds less than 10% of the voting rights, without granting the company receiving the dividends a tax credit for the tax actually paid by the company making the distribution in the State in which the latter is resident.
Člen 56 ES je treba razlagati tako, da nasprotuje zakonodaji države članice, ki določa oprostitev od davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb za dividende, ki jih družba rezidentka prejme od druge družbe rezidentke, medtem ko s tem davkom obdavči dividende, ki jih družba rezidentka prejme od družbe nerezidentke, v kateri ima manj kot 10 % glasovalnih pravic, ne da bi ji priznala davčni odbitek iz naslova davka, ki ga je družba razdeljevalka dividend dejansko plačala v državi, v kateri je rezidentka.
The mere fact that it is for a Member State to determine for such holdings whether, and to what extent, the imposition of a series of charges to tax on distributed profits is to be avoided does not of itself mean that it may operate a system under which foreignsourced dividends and nationally-sourced dividends are not treated in the same way.
Zgolj dejstvo, da je pri takih deležih naloga države članice, da določi, ali in v kolik�ni meri se je treba izogniti verižnemu obdavčevanju razdeljenega dobička, namreč kljub temu ne pomeni, da sme izvajati ureditev, v kateri se tuje in domače dividende ne obravnavajo enako.
Irrespective of the fact that a Member State may, in any event, choose between a number of systems in order to prevent or mitigate the imposition of a series of charges to tax on distributed profits, the difficulties that may arise in determining the tax actually paid in another Member State cannot justify a restriction on the free movement of capital such as that which arises under that legislation.
Ne glede na dejstvo, da ima država članica vsekakor na voljo različne možne sisteme za preprečevanje ali zmanj�anje verižnega obdavčevanja razdeljenega dobička, morebitne težave pri določanju dejansko plačanega davka v drugi državi članici ne morejo upravičevati take ovire za prosti pretok kapitala, kot je ovira, ki izhaja iz navedene zakonodaje.