natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Such a classification implies that the Court proceeds to determine, interpret and apply the relevant national law and to examine the facts, tasks which fall within the jurisdiction of the national court, whilst this Court has sole jurisdiction to interpret the concept of State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC in order to provide the national court with the criteria which will enable it to decide the cases before it.
Tako opredeljevanje bi namreč zahtevalo, da Sodi�če ugotovi, kateri nacionalni predpis je treba upo�tevati, odloči o njegovi razlagi in uporabi ter preuči dejansko stanje, kar so naloge, za katere je pristojno predložitveno sodi�če; Sodi�če je pristojno le za razlago pojma državne pomoči v smislu te določbe, s čimer navedenemu sodi�ču zagotovi merila, ki mu omogočijo, da razsodi o zadevah, o katerih odloča.
It must thus be held that, on the basis of the elements examined and all the other elements which the national court considers relevant, it is for that court to determine whether the Historical Territories assume the political and financial consequences of a tax measure adopted within the limits of the powers conferred on them.
Zato je treba skleniti, da mora predložitveno sodi�če na podlagi preučenih dejavnikov in vseh drugih, za katere meni, da so pomembni, preizkusiti, ali zgodovinska ozemlja prevzemajo politične in finančne posledice davčnega ukrepa, ki ga sprejmejo v okviru svojih pristojnosti.
Conclusion as to the three criteria set out in paragraph 51 above
Sklep v zvezi s tremi merili iz točke 51 te sodbe
In order to determine whether the foral laws adopted by the Historical Territories constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, it is necessary to establish whether those Historical Territories and the Autonomous Community of the
Za ugotovitev, ali foralni predpisi, ki so jih sprejela zgodovinska ozemlja, pomenijo državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) ES, je treba preizkusiti, ali imajo zgodovinska ozemlja in Baskovska avtonomna skupnost zadostno institucionalno, procesno in
Basque Country have sufficient institutional, procedural and economic autonomy for a law adopted by those authorities within the limits of the powers conferred on them to be considered as being of general application within that infraState body and as being non-selective within the meaning of the notion of State aid referred to in Article 87(1) EC.
UGT-RIOJA IN DRUGI gospodarsko avtonomijo, da je treba predpis, ki ga ti organi sprejmejo v okviru svojih pristojnosti, obravnavati kot splo�no veljaven v tej poddržavni enoti in ne kot selektiven v smislu pojma državne pomoči iz člena 87(1) ES.
That verification may be carried out only after prior review in order to ensure that the Historical Territories and the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country respect the limits of their areas of competence since the rules on, in particular, financial transfers have been drawn up on the basis of those areas of competence as defined.
Ta preizkus je mogoče opraviti �ele po predhodnem nadzoru, s katerim se ugotovi, ali zgodovinska ozemlja in Baskovska avtonomna skupnost upo�tevata okvire svojih pristojnosti, saj so se pravila, zlasti tista o finančnih transferjih, oblikovala na podlagi teh pristojnosti v obliki, kot so določene.
The finding of infringement of the limits of those areas of competence could call into question the results of the analysis carried out on the basis of Article 87(1) EC, since the reference framework for assessing whether the law of general application in the infraState body is selective is no longer necessarily constituted by the Historical Territories and the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country, but could, where appropriate, be extended to the whole Spanish territory.
Na podlagi ugotovitve, da so bile kr�ene meje pristojnosti, bi bilo namreč mogoče podvomiti o rezultatu analize, opravljene na podlagi člena 87(1) ES, saj referenčnega okvira za presojo selektivnosti pravila splo�ne veljave v poddržavni enoti ne bi več nujno oblikovala zgodovinska ozemlja in Baskovska avtonomna skupnost, temveč bi ga lahko po potrebi raz�irili na celotno �pansko ozemlje.
In the light of all of the foregoing, the answer to the question referred must be that Article 87(1) EC is to be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of assessing whether a measure is selective, account is to be taken of the institutional, procedural and economic autonomy enjoyed by the authority adopting that measure.
Na podlagi vseh teh dejavnikov je treba na zastavljeno vpra�anje odgovoriti, da je treba člen 87(1) ES razlagati tako, da se pri presoji selektivnosti posameznega ukrepa upo�tevajo institucionalna, procesna in gospodarska avtonomija, ki jo ima organ, ki ta ukrep sprejme.
It is for the national court, which alone has jurisdiction to identify the national law applicable and to interpret it, as well as to apply Community law to the cases before it, to determine whether the Historical Territories and the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country have such autonomy, which, if so, would have the result that the laws adopted within the limits of the areas of competence granted to those infraState bodies by the Constitution and the other provisions of Spanish law are not of a selective nature within the meaning of the concept of State aid as referred to in Article 87(1) EC.
Predložitveno sodi�če, ki je edino pristojno za opredelitev veljavnega nacionalnega prava, njegovo razlago in uporabo prava Skupnosti v sporih, o katerih odloča, mora preučiti, ali imajo zgodovinska ozemlja in Baskovska avtonomna skupnost tako avtonomijo, kar bi pomenilo, da predpisi, ki jih te poddržavne enote sprejmejo v okviru pristojnosti, ki jih imajo na podlagi ustave in drugih določb �panskega prava, niso selektivni v smislu pojma državne pomoči, kot izhaja iz člena 87(1) ES.
Article 87(1) EC is to be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of assessing whether a measure is selective, account is to be taken of the institutional, procedural and economic autonomy enjoyed by the authority adopting that measure.
Člen 87(1) ES je treba razlagati tako, da se pri presoji selektivnosti posameznega ukrepa upoštevajo institucionalna, procesna in gospodarska avtonomija, ki jo ima organ, ki ta ukrep sprejme.
It is for the national court, which alone has jurisdiction to identify the national law applicable and to interpret it, as well as to apply Community law to the cases before it, to determine whether the Historical Territories and the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country have such autonomy, which, if so, would have the result that the laws adopted within the limits of the areas of competence granted to those infraState bodies by the Spanish Constitution of 1978 and the other provisions of Spanish law are not of a selective nature within the meaning of the concept of State aid as referred to in Article 87(1) EC.
Predložitveno sodišče, ki je edino pristojno za opredelitev veljavnega nacionalnega prava, njegovo razlago in uporabo prava Skupnosti v sporih, o katerih odloča, mora preizkusiti, ali imajo zgodovinska ozemlja in Baskovska avtonomna skupnost tako avtonomijo, kar bi pomenilo, da predpisi, ki jih te poddržavne enote sprejmejo v okviru pristojnosti, ki jih imajo na podlagi španske ustave iz leta 1978 in drugih določb španskega prava, niso selektivni v smislu pojma državne pomoči, kot izhaja iz člena 87(1) ES.
Report 2008-8/9 (A)
Zvezek 2008 – 8/9 (A)
Catalogue number: QD-AB-08-08A-EN-C
Katalo�ka �tevilka: QD-AB-08-08A-SL-C
Catalogue number (A + B): QD-AB-08-008-EN-C
Katalo�ka �tevilka: (A + B) QD-AB-08-008-SL-C
ISSN 1022-842X Catalogue number: QD-AB-08-08B-EN-CCatalogue number (A + B): QD-AB-08-008-EN-C
ISSN 1830-1851Katalo�ka �tevilka: QD-AB-08-08B-SL-CKatalo�ka �tevilka (A + B): QD-AB-08-008-SL-C
Case C-11/07
Zadeva C-11/07
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Hof van Beroep te Gent)
(Free movement of capital — Articles 56 EC and 58 EC — Inheritance tax — National rules concerning the assessment of duties on the transfer of immovable property which do not allow for mortgage-related charges relating to the immovable property to be deducted from the value of that property on the ground that, at the time of death, the person whose estate is being administered was residing in another Member State — Restriction — Justification — None)
„Prosti pretok kapitala – Člena 56 ES in 58 ES – Davek na dedi�čino – Nacionalna ureditev v zvezi z izračunom davka na prenos nepremičnine, ki ne dovoljuje odbitka hipotekarnega dolga na tej nepremičnini od vrednosti nepremičnine, ker je zapustnik ob svoji smrti prebival v drugi državi članici – Omejitev – Utemeljitev – Neobstoj“
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 11 September 2008 . . . . . . . . .
Mazáka, predstavljeni 13. marca 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Preliminary rulings — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Jurisdiction of the national court
Vprašanja za predhodno odločanje – Pristojnost Sodišča – Meje – Pristojnost nacionalnega sodišča
SUMMARY — CASE C-11/07
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-11/07
Preliminary rulings — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Clearly irrelevant questions and hypothetical questions put in a context not permitting a useful answer
Vprašanja za predhodno odločanje – Pristojnost Sodišča – Meje – Očitno neupoštevna vprašanja in hipotetična vprašanja, postavljena v kontekstu, ki izključuje koristen odgovor
Free movement of capital — Restrictions — Inheritance tax (Arts 56 EC and 58 EC)
Prosti pretok kapitala – Omejitve – Davek na dediščino (člena 56 ES in 58 ES)
relation to the facts of the main action or to its subjectmatter, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it.
dejanskim stanjem ali predmetom spora v postopku v glavni stvari, kadar gre za hipotetičen problem oziroma kadar Sodi�če nima na voljo potrebnih dejanskih in pravnih elementov, da bi lahko koristno odgovorilo na postavljena vpra�anja.
In proceedings under Article 234 EC, which are based on a clear separation of functions between the national courts and the Court of Justice, any assessment of the facts in the case is a matter for the national court.
V okviru postopka, določenega v členu 234 ES, ki temelji na jasni ločitvi nalog med nacionalnimi sodi�či in Sodi�čem, spada presoja dejanskega stanja v pristojnost nacionalnega sodi�ča.
The Court of Justice is therefore empowered to rule on the interpretation or validity of Community provisions only on the basis of the facts which the national court puts before it.
Sodi�če je pristojno odločati o razlagi ali veljavnosti prava Skupnosti samo na podlagi dejstev, ki mu jih predloži nacionalno sodi�če.
Similarly, it is solely for the national court, before which the dispute has been brought and which must assume responsibility for the forthcoming judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court.
Le nacionalno sodi�če, ki odloča o sporu in ki mora prevzeti odgovornost za sodno odločitev, ob upo�tevanju posebnosti zadeve presodi tako potrebo po izdaji predhodne odločbe, da bi lahko izdalo sodbo, kot tudi ustreznost vpra�anj, ki jih predloži Sodi�ču.
Consequently, where the questions submitted concern the interpretation of Community law, the Court is in principle bound to give a ruling.
Zato je Sodi�če, kadar se predložena vpra�anja nana�ajo na razlago prava Skupnosti, načeloma dolžno odločati.
(see paras 27, 52)
(Glej točki 27 in 52.)
In proceedings under Article 234 EC, the Court may refuse to rule on a question referred for a preliminary ruling by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of Community law that is sought bears no
V okviru postopka, določenega v členu 234 ES, je sprejetje predhodne odločbe o vpra�anju, ki ga postavi nacionalno sodi�če, mogoče zavrniti le, kadar je očitno, da zahtevana razlaga prava Skupnosti nima nikakr�ne zveze z
The combined provisions of Art -icles 56 EC and 58 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation concerning the assessment of inheritance and transfer duties payable in respect of an immovable property situated in a Member State, which makes no provision for the deductibility of debts secured on such property where the person whose estate is being administered was residing, at the time of death, not in that State but in another Member State, whereas provision is made for such deductibility where that person was, at that time, residing in the firstmentioned Member State, in which the immovable property included in the estate is situated.
Povezani določbi členov 56 ES in 58 ES je treba razlagati tako, da nasprotujeta nacionalni ureditvi o izračunu davka na dedi�čino in davka na prenos lastnine za nepremičnino, ki je v državi članici, ki ne predvideva odbitka dolgov v zvezi s to nepremičnino, če zapustnik ob svoji smrti ni prebival v tej, ampak v drugi državi članici, medtem ko je tak odbitek dovoljen, če je zapustnik ob svoji smrti prebival v prvonavedeni državi članici, v kateri je nepremičnina, ki je predmet dedovanja.
ECKELKAMP AND OTHERS inheritance, the national legislature has in fact admitted that there is no objective difference between them in regard to the detailed rules and conditions relating to that taxation which could justify different treatment.
ECKELKAMP IN DRUGI odbitka dolgov, obravnava enako, nacionalni zakonodajalec dejansko priznava, da med njimi ne obstajajo nobene objektivne razlike glede modalitet in pogojev te obdavčitve, ki bi lahko upravičevali različno obravnavanje.
Where such rules make the deductibility of certain debts secured on the immovable property in question dependent on the place where, at the time of death, the person whose estate is being administered was residing, the greater tax burden to which the inheritance of nonresidents is consequently subject constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital.
Ker namreč taka ureditev določa odvisnost odbitka določenih dolgov, ki bremenijo zadevno nepremičnino, od kraja bivanja zapustnika ob njegovi smrti, kar pomeni večje davčno breme za zapu�čino dedičev nerezidentov, je prosti pretok kapitala omejen.
Moreover, the Member State in which the immovable property included in the estate is situated cannot, in order to justify a restriction on the free movement of capital arising from its legislation, rely on the existence of a possibility, beyond its control, of a tax credit being granted by another Member State — such as the Member State in which the person whose estate is being administered was residing at the time of death — which could, wholly or partly, offset the loss incurred by that person’s heirs as a result of the fact that, in the Member State in which the property inherited is situated, debts secured on that property are not deductible for the purposes of assessing transfer duties.
Poleg tega se država članica, v kateri je nepremičnina, ki je del dedi�čine, za utemeljitev omejitve prostega pretoka kapitala, ki izhaja iz njene ureditve, ne more sklicevati na možnost, ki ni odvisna od njene volje, in sicer davčnega odbitka s strani druge države članice, kot je država članica, katere rezident je bil zapustnik ob svoji smrti, ki bi delno ali v celoti lahko izravnal �kodo, ki bi nastala dedičem te osebe, ker se v državi članici, v kateri je nepremičnina, dolgovi nepremičnine pri izračunu davka na prenos lastnine ne odbijejo.
That difference in treatment cannot be justified on the ground that it concerns situations which are not objectively comparable.
Različno obravnavanje ne more biti utemeljeno zato, ker se nana�a na primere, ki niso objektivno primerljivi.
Where national legislation places the heirs of a person who, at the time of death, had the status of resident and those of a person who, at the time of death, had the status of nonresident on the same footing for the purposes of taxing an inherited immovable property which is situated in the Member State concerned, that legislation cannot, without giving rise to discrimination, treat those heirs differently in the tax -ation of that property so far as concerns the deductibility of charges secured on it.
Kadar nacionalna ureditev dediče oseb, ki so bile ob svoji smrti rezidenti, in dediče oseb, ki ob svoji smrti niso bile rezidenti, pri izračunu davka na podedovano nepremičnino, ki je v zadevni državi članici, postavlja na enako raven, taka ureditev v okviru te iste obdavčitve glede odbitka dolga, ki bremeni to nepremičnino, teh dedičev ne sme, ne da bi bila diskriminatorna, obravnavati različno.
By treating the inheritances of those two categories of persons in the same way (except in relation to the deduction of debts) for the purposes of taxing their
S tem ko dedi�čine teh dveh kategorij oseb za namen obdavčevanja, razen glede
(see paras 46, 60, 63, 68, 71, operative part)
(Glej točke 46, 60, 63, 68, 71 in izrek.)
1 delivered on 13 March 2008
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNEGA PRAVOBRANILCAJÁNA MAZÁKA, predstavljeni 13. marca 2008 1
The issues raised in the present case are very similar to those in Case C-43/07 2 — on which I am also delivering my Opinion today — which also concerns national legislation under which, for the purposes of assessing to tax the acquisition through inheritance of immovable property in the national territory, certain charges are not deductible if, at the time of his death, the deceased resided in another Member State.
Vpra�anja, ki se postavljajo v obravnavani zadevi, so podobna vpra�anjem iz zadeve C-43/07 2– v kateri danes prav tako predstavljam sklepne predloge – ki se tudi nana�a na nacionalno zakonodajo, v skladu s katero pri odmeri davka na dedovanje nepremičnine na nacionalnem ozemlju ni mogoče od�teti nekaterih obveznosti, če je pokojnik ob smrti prebival v drugi državi članici.
In answering the questions referred in the present proceedings, the Court will have an opportunity to build and elaborate upon the existing caselaw on inheritance taxation in the context of the free movement of capital, in particular that deriving from Barbier 3 and van Hilten-van der Heijden. 4
Sodi�če bo imelo pri odgovarjanju na vpra�anja, zastavljena v tej zadevi, priložnost graditi na obstoječi sodni praksi v zvezi z obdavčitvijo dedi�čine in jo razviti v kontekstu prostega pretoka kapitala, zlasti tisto, ki izhaja iz zadev Barbier 3 and van Hiltenvan der Heijden. 4
By the question referred for a preliminary ruling by judgment of 9 January 2007, the Hof van Beroep te Gent (Court of Appeal, Ghent) (Belgium) essentially wishes to ascertain whether the Belgian legislation on the taxation of inheritance is compatible with Articles 56 EC and 58 EC on the free movement of capital and Articles 12 EC, 17 EC and 18 EC on the freedom of the citizens of the Union to take up residence in another Member State.
Hof van Beroep te Gent (vi�je sodi�če, Gent) (Belgija) želi z vpra�anjem za predhodno odločanje, ki ga je vložilo s sodbo z dne 9. januarja 2007, v bistvu ugotoviti, ali je belgijska zakonodaja o obdavčitvi dedi�čine skladna s členoma 56 ES in 58 ES o prostem pretoku kapitala ter členi 12 ES, 17 ES in 18 ES o svobo�čini državljanov Unije, da prebivajo v drugi državi članici.
Specifically, the referring court wishes to know whether those Treaty provisions preclude national legislation under which — for the purposes of determining the basis of assessment of the tax due on the inheritance of an immovable property situated in the territory of the Member State concerned — account may be taken of certain charges, such as debts secured by the right conferred on a creditor to take out a mortgage against that immovable property, if the deceased was resident, at the time of death, in that Member State, but not if that person was resident in another Member State.
Natančneje, predložitveno sodi�če želi vedeti, ali te določbe Pogodbe nasprotujejo nacionalni zakonodaji, v skladu s katero se – za določitev osnove za odmero davka na dedovanje nepremičnine, ki je na ozemlju zadevne države članice, – lahko upo�tevajo nekatera bremena, kot so dolgovi, zavarovani s pravico upnika, da lahko ustanovi hipoteko na nepremičnini, če je pokojnik ob smrti prebival v tej državi članici, vendar ne, če je prebival v drugi državi članici.
2 — Arens-Sikken, pending before the Court.3 — Case C-364/01 [2003] ECR I-15013.4 — Case C-513/03 [2006] ECR I-1957.
3 – Sodba z dne 11. decembra 2003 v zadevi Barbier (C-364/01, Recueil, str. I-15013).
ECKELKAMP AND OTHERS
ECKELKAMP IN DRUGI
II — The relevant legislation
II – Upoštevna zakonodaja
A — Community law
A – Zakonodaja Skupnosti
The measures and procedures referred to in [paragraph 1] shall not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on the free movement of capital and payments as defined in Article 56 [EC].’
Ukrepi in postopki iz [odstavka 1] ne smejo biti sredstvo samovoljne diskriminacije ali prikritega omejevanja prostega pretoka kapitala in plačil iz člena 56 [ES].“
Article 56(1) EC (formerly Article 73b(1) of the EC Treaty) provides:
Člen 56(1) ES (prej člen 73b(1) Pogodbe ES) določa:
‘Within the framework of the provisions set out in this Chapter, all restrictions on the movement of capital between Member States and between Member States and third countries shall be prohibited.’
„V okviru določb tega poglavja so prepovedane vse omejitve pretoka kapitala med državami članicami ter med državami članicami in tretjimi državami.“
Annex I to Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988 for the implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty (an article later repealed by the Treaty of Amsterdam), 5 en -titled ‘Nomenclature of the capital movements referred to in Article 1 of the Directive’, refers to 13 different categories of capital movement.
Priloga I k Direktivi Sveta [88/361/EGS] z dne 24. junija 1988 o izvajanju člena 67 Pogodbe (člen, kasneje razveljavljen z Amsterdamsko pogodbo) 5z naslovom „Nomenklatura pretoka kapitala iz člena 1 Direktive“ se nana�a na trinajst kategorij pretokov kapitala.
Under heading XI, entitled ‘Personal capital movements’, the following are listed:
V rubriki XI, z naslovom „Osebni pretoki kapitala“, je navedeno:
Article 58 EC (formerly Article 73d of the EC Treaty) provides:
Člen 58 ES (prej člen 73d Pogodbe ES) določa:
(a) to apply the relevant provisions of their tax law which distinguish between taxpayers who are not in the same situation with regard to their place of residence or with regard to the place where their capital is invested;
(a) uporabljajo ustrezne predpise svojega davčnega prava, v katerih so različno obravnavani davčni zavezanci, ki niso v enakem položaju glede na prebivali�če ali kraj, v katerem je naložen njihov kapital
Under Article 15 of the WS, inheritance duty is payable, after deduction of debts, on all the property, wherever located, owned by the deceased.
Davek na dedi�čino se v skladu s členom 15 WS plača po odbitku dolgov od celotne lastnine, ki je bila v lasti pokojnika, ne glede na to, kje je lastnina.
In respect of succession duties, competence to establish the rate of taxation, the taxable amount, tax exemptions and tax reductions lies with the various regions of the Kingdom of Belgium.
Različne regije Kraljevine Belgije imajo pristojnost, da za davek na dedi�čino določijo stopnjo obdavčitve, obdavčljiv znesek, davčne oprostitve in znižanja davka.
Article 18 of the WS, relating to nonresidents, is worded as follows:
Člen 18 WS, ki se nana�a na nerezidente, določa:
Article 1 of the Flemish Code of Succession Duties (Wetboek Successierechten, ‘the WS’) draws a distinction, as regards the tax -ation of inheritance, on the basis of whether the person whose estate is being administered was resident, at the time of death, in Belgium or abroad.
Člen 1 flamskega Wetboek Successierechten (zakonik o davkih na dedi�čino, v nadaljevanju: WS) pri obdavčitvi dedovanja razlikuje na podlagi tega, ali je zapustnik ob smrti prebival v Belgiji ali v tujini.
That article states:
Ta člen določa: