natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It is necessary therefore to determine whether, in view of the fact that a fiscal investment enterprise established in the Netherlands which receives dividends from companies established in the Netherlands is entitled to a full refund of the Netherlands tax on dividends which is deducted at source by those companies, national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital prohibited by Articles 56 EC and 58 EC.
Treba je torej preveriti, ali nacionalna zakonodaja, kot se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, ob upo�tevanju dejstva, da je kolektivni naložbeni podjem s sedežem na Nizozemskem, ki ima davčni značaj in ki prejme dividende od družb s sedežem v tej državi članici, upravičen do celotnega povračila nizozemskega davka na dividende, ki ga te družbe odtegnejo pri viru, pomeni omejitev prostega pretoka kapitala, ki jo prepovedujeta člena 56 ES in 58 ES.
Therefore, the dividends distributed by a company established in one Member State to a company established in another may be subject to taxation at several levels.
Dividende, ki jih družba s sedežem v državi članici razdeli družbi s sedežem v drugi državi članici, so torej lahko obdavčene na več stopnjah.
First of all, those dividends may be subject to a series of charges to tax in the Member State of establishkment of the distributing company, which occurs where the distributed profits are subject, initially, to the corporation tax owed by that company and,
Prvič, te dividende so lahko obdavčene verižno v državi članici, kjer ima sedež družba razdeljevalka, do česar pride, kadar se razdeljeni dobiček obdavči najprej iz naslova davka od dobička pravnih oseb, ki ga plačajo te družbe, in nato iz naslova davka, odtegnjenega od dividend,
2008 — CASE C-194/06 subsequently, to a tax deducted from the dividends paid to the recipient company.
2008 – ZADEVA C-194/06 izplačanih družbi prejemnici.
Second, those dividends may be subject to juridical double taxation, which occurs when they are taxed again with respect to the recipient company in the State in which it is established.
Drugič, te dividende se lahko pravno dvojno obdavčijo, do česar pride, kadar so ponovno obdavčene pri upravičeni družbi v državi, kjer ima sedež.
Third, the taxation of dividends received by the recipient company in the State in which it is established — where the company distributing the dividends has been taxed on distributed profits — may also give rise to a series of charges to tax in that Member State.
Tretjič, obdavčitev dividend, ki jih njihova prejemnica prejme v državi, kjer ima ta družba sedež, čeprav je bilo premoženje, ki ga je razdelila družba razdeljevalka teh dividend, že obdavčeno, lahko prav tako privede do verižnega obdavčenja v tej državi članici.
Apart from Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p.
I-9569, točka 17). Razen Direktive Sveta 90/435/EGS z dne 23. julija 1990 o skupnem sistemu obdavčitve matičnih družb in odvisnih družb iz različnih držav članic (UL L 225, str.
6), the Convention of 23 July 1990 on the elimination of double taxation in connection with the adjustment of profits of associated enterprises (OJ 1990 L 225, p.
6), Konvencije z dne 23. julija 1990 o odpravi dvojnega obdavčevanja v zvezi s preračunom dobička povezanih podjetij (UL L 225, str. 10) in Direktive Sveta 2003/48/ES z dne 3. junija 2003 o obdavčevanju dohodka od prihrankov v obliki plačil obresti (UL L 157, str.
38), the application of which in the dispute in the main proceedings has not been invoked, no unifying or harmonising measure designed to eliminate cases of double taxation has as yet been adopted at Community-law level.
38), na katero se ni nihče skliceval v postopku v glavni stvari, ni bil do tega dne v okviru prava Skupnosti sprejet noben ukrep poenotenja ali usklajevanja, ki bi sku�al odpraviti dvojno obdavčevanje.
With regard to the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, the Kingdom of the Netherlands decided to make fiscal investment enterprises liable to corporation tax, but at a rate of 0%, provided that all the profits of those enterprises, less certain amounts which may be legally set aside, are distributed to their shareholders.
V zvezi z zakonodajo, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, se je Kraljevina Nizozemska odločila obdavčiti kolektivne naložbene podjeme, ki imajo davčni značaj, z davkom od dobička pravnih oseb, vendar po stopnji nič, če je ves dobiček teh podjemov, razen izjem, ki jih dopu�ča zakon, razdeljen njihovim delničarjem.
As the Advocate General noted at points 85 to 87 of his Opinion, it follows that, whatever the origin of the dividends, enterprises such as OESF are not subject to tax on them under Netherlands law.
Kot je navedel generalni pravobranilec v točkah od 85 do 87 sklepnih predlogov, iz tega sledi, da nizozemsko pravo ne obdavči dividend, ne glede na njihov izvor, pri subjektih, kot je družba OESF.
As regards dividends from a company established in the Netherlands, the tax initially deducted from those dividends — which, according to the Netherlands Government’s explanations, constitutes an advance payment of corporation tax — is refunded, given that no amount of corporation tax is due from a fiscal investment enterprise.
Po eni strani gre namreč za dividende družbe s sedežem na Nizozemskem, pri katerih se davek, ki se ga prvotno odtegne in ki predstavlja predplačilo za davek od dobička pravnih oseb, povrne, če kolektivni naložbeni podjem, ki ima davčni značaj, ne dolguje nobenega zneska iz naslova tega davka.
As far as dividends from companies established in Germany or Portugal are concerned, no tax is deducted in the Netherlands with respect to such an enterprise.
Po drugi strani pa pri takem podjemu na Nizozemskem ni odtegnjen noben davek od dividend, ki izvirajo iz družb s sedežem v Nemčiji in na Portugalskem.
Consequently, by not charging fiscal investment enterprises tax on dividends from Germany or Portugal, the Kingdom of the Netherlands treats those dividends in the same way as dividends from Netherlands companies, in respect of which those enterprises are not taxed either.
Kraljevina Nizozemska zato, s tem da pri teh kolektivnih naložbenih podjemih, ki imajo davčni značaj, ne obdavči dividend iz Nemčije in Portugalske, te dividende obravnava enako kot dividende iz nizozemskih družb, pri čemer tudi slednje niso obdavčene pri teh podjemih.
In addition, by refraining from taxing dividends from other Member States, the Kingdom of the Netherlands avoids the imposition of a series of charges to tax arising from the exercise of its own fiscal power, just as it does in respect of dividends paid by Netherlands companies.
Poleg tega Nizozemska, s tem da ne obdavči dividend iz drugih držav članic, preprečuje dvojno verižno obdavčenje, ki je posledica izvajanja njene davčne pristojnosti, kar velja tudi za dividende, ki jih izplačajo nizozemske družbe.
Therefore, contrary to the assertions of OESF and the Commission, Netherlands legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not treat dividends from Germany or Portugal differently from dividends distributed by Netherlands companies.
V nasprotju s tem, kar zatrjujeta družba OESF in Komisija, Nizozemska zakonodaja, kot se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, dividend iz Nemčije in iz Portugalske torej ne obravnava drugače kot dividende, ki jih razdelijo nizozemske družbe.
While, in those circumstances, dividends from Germany or Portugal are subject to a greater tax burden than are dividends distributed by Netherlands companies, that disadvantage is not attributable to the Netherlands legislation at issue in the main proceedings, but is the product of the parallel exercise of fiscal sovereignty by the Member States in which the distributing companies are established and the Member State in which the recipient company is established, whereby the former chose to
Če so v teh okoli�činah dividende iz Nemčije in iz Portugalske davčno bolj obremenjene kot dividende, ki jih razdelijo nizozemske družbe, ta neugodnost ni posledica nizozemske zakonodaje, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, temveč je posledica vzporednega izvajanja davčnih pristojnosti držav članic, v katerih imajo sedež družbe razdeljevalke, in države članice, v kateri ima sedež družba prejemnica, ki jo zaznamuje odločitev prvih, da razdeljene dividende obdavčijo verižno, in odločitev
2008 — CASE C-194/06 impose a series of charges to tax on distributed dividends and the latter opted to refrain from any taxation of dividends with respect to fiscal investment enterprises (see, to that effect, Case C-513/04 Kerckhaert and Morres [2006] ECR I-10967, paragraph 20).
2008 – ZADEVA C-194/06 slednje, da se odreče vsaki obdavčitvi dividend pri kolektivnih naložbenih podjemih, ki imajo davčni značaj (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 14. novembra 2006 v zadevi Kerckhaert in Morres, C-513/04, ZOdl., str. I-10967, točka 20).
The Commission contends, however, that, in its capacity as the Member State of residence of the company in receipt of dividends, it is for the Kingdom of the Netherlands to offset the foreign tax burden on those dividends in the same way as it offsets the domestic tax burden to which those dividends are subject.
Vendar pa Komisija trdi, da mora Kraljevina Nizozemska, kot država članica, v kateri ima sedež družba prejemnica dividend, določiti nadomestilo za tujo davčno obremenitev teh dividend iz istega naslova, kot določa nadomestilo za notranjo davčno obremenitev, ki velja za navedene dividende.
That argument cannot be accepted.
Te trditve ni mogoče sprejeti.
Admittedly, it follows from the caselaw that, where a Member State has a system for preventing or mitigating a series of charges to tax or economic double taxation for dividends paid to residents by resident companies, it must treat dividends paid to residents by nonresident companies in the same way (Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation, paragraph 55 and the caselaw cited).
Iz sodne prakse res izhaja, da kadar država članica pozna sistem preprečevanja ali zmanj�anja verižne obdavčitve ali ekonomske dvojne obdavčitve za dividende, ki jih družbe rezidentke izplačajo rezidentom, mora enako obravnavati dividende, ki jih rezidentom izplačajo družbe nerezidentke (zgoraj navedena sodba Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation, točka 55, in navedena sodna praksa).
Under such systems, the situation of shareholders resident in a Member State and receiving dividends from a company established in that State is comparable to that of shareholders who are resident in that State and receive dividends from a company established in another Member State, inasmuch as both the dividends deriving from a national source and those deriving from a foreign source may be subject to a series of charges to tax (see Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation, paragraph 56).
V okviru teh sistemov je položaj delničarjev rezidentov države članice, ki prejmejo dividende od družbe s sedežem v tej isti državi, primerljiv s položajem delničarjev rezidentov navedene države, ki dividende prejmejo od družbe s sedežem v drugi državi članici, saj so v primeru družb delničark lahko dividende domačega izvora in dividende tujega izvora predmet verižne obdavčitve (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation, točka 56).
However, the status of Member State of residence of the company in receipt of dividends cannot include the obligation for that Member State to offset a fiscal disadvan-
Vendar to, da ima država članica lastnost države članice sedeža družbe prejemnice dividend, tej državi članici ne nalaga obveznosti, da določi nadomestilo za davčno
ORANGE EUROPEAN SMALLCAP FUND tage arising where a series of charges to tax is imposed entirely by the Member State in which the company distributing those dividends is established, since the dividends received are neither taxed nor treated differently by the first Member State as regards investment enterprises established in that State.
ORANGE EUROPEAN SMALLCAP FUND neugodnost, ki je posledica verižne obdavčitve, ki jo v celoti izvaja država članica, na ozemlju katere ima sedež družba razdeljevalka teh dividend, če prva država članica prejetih dividend ne obdavči in ne upo�teva drugače pri kolektivnih naložbenih podjemih s sedežem na njenem ozemlju.
It follows that, in a situation where the greater tax burden imposed on dividends distributed by companies established in Germany or Portugal to a fiscal investment enterprise established in the Netherlands than that which is imposed on dividends distributed to that same enterprise by companies also established in the Netherlands does not arise as a result of a difference in treatment attributable to the tax regime in the Netherlands, but stems from the decision of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Portuguese Republic to make a deduction at source from those dividends, and from the decision of the Kingdom of the Netherlands not to tax those dividends, the fact that the latter Member State has not granted a concession in respect of the deduction at source for which the first two States have opted does not constitute a restriction on the free movement of capital.
Iz tega sledi, da – kadar večja davčna obremenitev dividend, ki jih družbe s sedežem v Nemčiji in na Portugalskem razdelijo kolektivnemu naložbenemu podjemu s sedežem na Nizozemskem, ki ima davčni značaj, v primerjavi z davčno obremenitvijo dividend, ki jih istemu podjemu razdelijo družbe, ki imajo prav tako sedež v tej zadnji državi članici, ni posledica različnega obravnavanja, ki izhaja iz davčne ureditve te države, temveč odločitve Zvezne republike Nemčije in Portugalske republike, da za te dividende uporabita odtegljaj pri viru, in odločitve Kraljevine Nizozemske, da ne obdavči teh dividend, – dejstvo, da slednja država članica ne določi nadomestila za odtegljaj pri viru, ki ga določita prvi državi članici, ne pomeni omejitve prostega pretoka kapitala.
However, OESF also submits that its investments in Germany and Portugal are treated differently from those made in other Member States in respect of which it is entitled to the concession provided for in Article 28(1)(b) of the Law on corporation tax, in conjunction with Article 6 of the Royal Decree, so as to avoid the imposition of a series of charges to tax incurred in those Member States.
Vendar družba OESF poudarja tudi, da so njene naložbe v Nemčiji in na Portugalskem obravnavane drugače kot naložbe v drugih državah članicah, za katere se lahko dobi nadomestilo iz člena 28(1)(b) zakona o davku od dobička pravnih oseb v povezavi s členom 6 kraljeve uredbe, da se prepreči verižno obdavčitev v teh državah članicah.
According to OESF, Articles 56 EC and 58 EC prohibit such a difference in treatment on the basis of the seat of the company distributing the dividends.
Po mnenju družbe OESF člena 56 ES in 58 ES prepovedujeta tako različno obravnavanje na podlagi sedeža družbe razdeljevalke dividend.
The Netherlands Government observes that, since a fiscal investment enterprise is taxed at a rate of 0%, no corporation tax is attributable to dividends from another Member State, thus making it impossible for that enterprise to credit the tax deducted at source from those dividends.
Nizozemska vlada opozarja, da se, ker je kolektivni naložbeni podjem, ki ima davčni značaj, obdavčen po stopnji nič, od dividend iz druge države članice ne plača nobenega davka od dobička pravnih oseb, kar temu podjemu onemogoči, da bi odbil odtegljaj pri viru, ki je bil plačan od njegovih dividend.
In order to prevent investments abroad
Da bi preprečili, da bi naložbe
2008 — CASE C-194/06 which are made through such an enterprise from being regarded as less appealing than direct investment, the aim of that concession is to make the tax burden on the proceeds from investments made through fiscal investment enterprises the same as that on direct investments made by individuals.
2008 – ZADEVA C-194/06 v tujino, opravljene prek takega podjema, veljale za manj vabljive kot neposredne naložbe, je namen navedenega nadomestila, da se davčna obremenitev prihodka od naložb kolektivnih naložbenih podjemov, ki imajo davčni značaj, izenači z davčno obremenitvijo neposrednih naložb posameznikov.
Consequently, in order to calculate the amount of the concession in question, the legislature took as a basis the situation in which investments are made without such an enterprise acting as intermediary.
Zakonodajalec naj bi zato za referenco za izračun zneska navedenega nadomestila vzel primer, v katerem so bile naložbe opravljene brez posredovanja takega podjema.
For that reason, in the case of dividends received abroad, that concession is restricted to the circumstances in which there is, as a result of a tax convention, a right to credit the foreign tax deducted against Netherlands taxation.
V primeru dividend, prejetih v tujini, naj bi bilo to nadomestilo zato omejeno na primer, ko v skladu z davčno konvencijo obstaja pravica do odbitja tujih davčnih odtegljajev od nizozemskih davkov.
Since the concession to be granted is indissociably linked to the right of the shareholder of a fiscal investment enterprise, pursuant to such a convention, to set off the foreign tax deducted at source, that concession should, like the right of set-off, be regarded as an integral part of that convention, rather than as a benefit which is separable from it.
Ker je nadomestilo, ki ga je treba dodeliti, neločljivo povezano s pravico delničarja kolektivnega naložbenega podjema, ki ima davčni značaj, da na podlagi take konvencije odbije tuj davek, odtegnjen pri viru, bi se moralo �teti, da je to nadomestilo, kot to velja za pravico do odbitja, sestavni del te konvencije in ne ugodnost, ki se lahko iz nje izloči.
As is apparent from paragraph 42 of this judgment, Community law does not require a Member State to grant a concession in response to offset the disadvantage resulting from a series of charges to tax that is exclusively due to the parallel exercise of the various Member States’ fiscal sovereignty.
Kot izhaja iz točke 42 te sodbe, pravo Skupnosti državi članici ne nalaga obveznosti, da določi nadomestilo za neugodnosti, ki so posledica verižnega obdavčenja, ki izhaja izključno iz sočasnega izvajanja davčnih pristojnosti, ki jih imajo različne države članice.
However, where that Member State has decided to grant such a concession, that power must be exercised in accordance with Community law.
Ker pa je ta država članica določila tako nadomestilo, je treba to možnost izvajati v skladu s pravom Skupnosti.
In that respect, it must be noted that, as has been observed in paragraphs 30 and 32 of this judgment, it is for the Member States to organise their systems for taxing distributed profits and to define, in that context, the tax base and the tax rate which apply to the shareholder receiving them, and that, in the absence of any unifying or harmonising Community measures, Member States retain the power to define, by treaty or unilaterally, the criteria for allocating their powers of taxation.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, kot je bilo navedeno v točkah 30 in 32 te sodbe, da je naloga držav članic, da uredijo svoje sisteme obdavčevanja razdeljenega dobička in v tem okviru opredelijo davčno osnovo ter davčno stopnjo, ki se uporabljata za delničarja, ki prejme dobiček, in da če ne obstajajo ukrepi Skupnosti za poenotenje in uskladitev, ostanejo države članice pristojne, da s konvencijo ali enostransko opredelijo merila za porazdelitev svoje davčne pristojnosti.
Consequently, given the resulting disparities between the tax laws of the various Member States, a Member State may find it necessary, by treaty or unilaterally, to treat dividends from the various Member States differently so as to take account of those disparities.
V primeru razlik med davčnimi zakonodajami različnih držav članic, ki izhajajo iz teh okoli�čin, lahko zato država članica ob upo�tevanju teh razlik dividende iz različnih držav članic obravnava različno na podlagi konvencije ali enostransko.
As regards the bilateral tax conventions concluded by the Member States, the Court has previously noted that the scope of such a convention is limited to the natural or legal persons referred to in it (see D., paragraph 54, and Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation, paragraph 84).
Sodi�če je glede dvostranskih davčnih konvencij, ki so jih sklenile države članice, že poudarilo, da je področje uporabe take konvencije omejeno na fizične in pravne osebe, ki so v njej na�tete (glej zgoraj navedeni sodbi D., točka 54, in Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation, točka 84).
In those judgments, the Court held that, where a benefit granted by a bilateral tax convention cannot be classified as a benefit that is separable from that convention, but contributes to its overall balance (the fact that the reciprocal rights and obligations arising under that convention apply only to persons resident in one of the two contracting Member States being an inherent consequence of bilateral conventions), Community law does not preclude the benefit in question from not being conferred on the resident of a third Member State, in so far as that resident is not in a situation comparable to that of residents covered by the convention in question (see, to that effect, D., paragraphs 59 to 63, and Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation, paragraphs 88 to 93).
V teh sodbah je Sodi�če presodilo, da – kadar ugodnosti, določene v dvostranski davčni konvenciji, ni mogoče oceniti kot ugodnosti, ki jo je mogoče iz te konvencije izločiti, pač pa prispeva k njenemu splo�nemu ravnotežju, pri tem pa je dejstvo, da se vzajemne pravice in obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz te konvencije, uporabljajo le za osebe s prebivali�čem v eni od držav članic pogodbenic, neizogibna posledica dvostranskih konvencij – pravo Skupnosti ne nasprotuje temu, da se zadevne ugodnosti ne dodelijo prebivalcu tretje države članice, ker ta ni v položaju, ki bi bil primerljiv s položajem prebivalcev, na katere se nana�a navedena konvencija (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeni sodbi D., točke od 59 do 63, in Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation, točke od 88 do 93).
In the present case, as regards the payment of a concession in respect of a deduction made at source in another Member State from the dividends received by a fiscal investment enterprise established in the Netherlands, the application of Article 28(1)(b) of the Law on corporation tax results in different treatment of dividends from different Member States.
Kar se v obravnavani zadevi tiče plačila nadomestila za odtegljaj pri viru v drugi državi članici od dividend, ki jih prejme kolektivni naložbeni podjem s sedežem na Nizozemskem, ki ima davčni značaj, je posledica uporabe člena 28(1)(b) zakona o davku od dobička pravnih oseb različno obravnavanje dividend iz različnih držav članic.
It is common ground, in the particular legal context of the case in the main proceedings, that a concession is granted in those situations in which the Kingdom of the Netherlands has, under the terms of a tax convention concluded with the Member State which made the deduction at source, undertaken to allow natural persons to credit that deduction to the Netherlands income tax for which they are liable.
V pravnih okoli�činah, ki določajo spor o glavni stvari, ni sporno, da so primeri, v katerih je dodeljeno nadomestilo, tisti, v katerih se je Kraljevina Nizozemska v okviru davčne konvencije, sklenjene z državo članico, ki izvr�i odtegljaj pri viru, zavezala, da bo fizičnim osebam dovolila odbiti navedeni odtegljaj od nizozemske dohodnine, za plačilo katere so zavezane.