natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Second, there is nothing to support the conclusion that measures less restrictive than that requirement could not be adopted to achieve the objective sought.
Sodišče se je sklicevalo na svojo sodno prakso, ki pojasnjuje zahteve, ki izhajajo iz načela prostega pretoka kapitala glede dividend, ki jih družbe nerezidentke izplačajo rezidentom, in zlasti na sodbi Verkooijen (sodba z dne 6. junija 2000, C-35/98, Recueil, str.
Such an obligation, particularly when coupled with a condition that residence be maintained for a number of years, therefore goes beyond that which could be regarded as necessary having regard to the public interest objective pursued.
I-4071) ter Manninen (sodba z dne 7. septembra 2004, C-319/02, ZOdl., str. I-7477) in razsodilo, da nemška davčna zakonodaja omejuje prosti pretok kapitala.
Finally, in Holböck the Court applied Article 57(1) EC which lays down, for restrictions existing on 31 December 1993 that relate to the movement of capital involving direct investment, an exception to the prohibition of restrictions on the movement of capital between Member States and non-member countries.
Ugotovilo je, da je namen odbitka davka, predvidenega v nacionalni zakonodaji, preprečevanje dvojne obdavčitve dobičkov družb, ki se izplačajo v obliki dividend.
The Court noted first of all that the concept of direct investments concerns investments of any kind undertaken by natural or legal persons which serve to establish or maintain lasting and direct links between the persons providing the capital and the undertakings to which that capital is made available in order to carry out an economic activity.
Nato je spomnilo na to, da ker velja odbitek davka zgolj za dividende, ki jih je izplačala družba s sedežem v Nemčiji, taka zakonodaja postavlja osebe, ki so neomejeno zavezane dohodnini v Nemčiji in ki prejemajo dividende od družb s sedežem v drugih državah članicah, v slabši položaj.
As regards shareholdings in undertakings, the objective of establishing or maintaining lasting economic links presupposes that the shares held by the shareholder enable him to participate eectively in the management of the company or in its control.
Te osebe nimajo ugodnosti odbiti od svojega davka davek od dohodka pravnih oseb, ki je naložen tem družbam v državi, v kateri imajo sedež. Poleg tega ta ureditev zadnjenavedenim družbam preprečuje pridobivanje kapitala v Nemčiji.
The Court then stated that Article 57(1) EC also applies to national measures which restrict payments of dividends deriving from investments.
Sodišče je tudi zavrnilo utemeljitev, da naj bi to ureditev utemeljevala nujnost zagotavljanja doslednosti nacionalnega davčnega sistema.
Consequently, the Court held that a restriction on capital movements, such as a less favourable tax treatment of foreign-sourced dividends, comes within the scope of Article 57(1) EC, inasmuch as it relates to holdings acquired with a view to establishing or maintaining lasting and direct economic links between the shareholder and the company concerned and which allow the shareholder to participate eectively in the management of the company or in its control.
Ne da bi podvomilo o doslednosti tega sistema, je poudarilo, da bi zadoščala dodelitev odbitka dohodnine delničarju, ki je v Nemčiji neomejeno davčno zavezan in ima delnice družbe s sedežem v drugi državi članici, pri čemer bi se ta odbitek davka izračunal v sorazmerju z davkom od dohodkov pravnih oseb, ki ga dolguje ta družba v slednji državi članici.
Article 57(1) EC must therefore be interpreted as meaning that Article 56 EC is without prejudice to the application by a Member State of legislation which existed on 31 December 1993 under which a shareholder in receipt of dividends from a company established in a non-member country, who holds two thirds of the share capital in that company, is taxed at a rate higher than that imposed on a shareholder in receipt of dividends from a resident company.
Taka rešitev bi pomenila manjšo omejitev za prosti pretok kapitala. Sodišče je na koncu menilo, da učinkov te sodbe ni treba časovno omejiti, in navedlo, da so bile zahteve, ki izhajajo iz načela prostega pretoka kapitala glede dividend, ki jih družbe nerezidentke izplačajo rezidentom, že pojasnjene v sodbi Verkooijen in da njeni učinki niso bili časovno omejeni.
The Court had many opportunities to consider the powers of direct taxation retained by the Member States and the limits on the exercise of those powers.
Sicer pa so bili določeni ukrepi razglašeni za delno nezdružljive s temeljnimi svoboščinami Pogodbe ali nezdružljive, s pridržkom nadzora sorazmernosti, z zasledovanim legitimnim ciljem.
It ruled on various national fiscal measures concerning, first, the taxation of companies and their shareholders and, second, the taxation of individuals.
Najprej naj omenimo zadevo Centro Equestro da Lezíria Grande (sodba z dne 15. februarja 2007, C-345/04, ZOdl., str. I-1425).
Some of these measures were held compatible, and others incompatible, with Community law.
Neka družba je v državi članici, v kateri ni bila rezidentka, izvedla več umetniških predstav, njeni prejemki v tej državi članici pa so bili obdavčeni z davkom, odtegnjenim pri viru.
With regard to the taxation of companies, first, a number of national measures were held entirely incompatible with the fundamental freedoms in the Treaty.
Ker ta družba ni imela sedeža v tej državi članici in je bila torej v njej delno davčno zavezana, je lahko uveljavljala povračilo tako odtegnjenega davka, če so materialni stroški ali poslovni stroški, ki so neposredno gospodarsko povezani s temi prihodki, višji od polovice teh prihodkov.
Thus, the Court held in its judgment of 25 October 2007 in Case C-464/05 Geurts and Vogten that, in the absence of valid justication, Article 43 EC precludes inheritance tax legislation of a Member State which excludes from the exemption from that tax available for family undertakings those undertakings which employ in the three years preceding the date of death of the deceased at least ve workers in another Member State, whereas it grants such an exemption where the workers are employed in a region of the first Member State.
Sodišče je presodilo, da člen 59 Pogodbe ES (po spremembi postal člen 49 ES) ne nasprotuje taki zakonodaji, če ta pogojuje povračilo pri viru odtegnjenega davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb na prihodke, ki jih je pridobil davčni zavezanec, ki je delno davčno zavezan, s tem da so poslovni stroški, za katere ta davčni zavezanec zahteva, da se v ta namen upoštevajo, neposredno gospodarsko povezani s prihodki, pridobljenimi v okviru dejavnosti, opravljene na ozemlju zadevne države članice, ker se kot taki štejejo vsi stroški, ki so nerazdružljivi od te dejavnosti, ne glede na kraj ali čas, v katerem so prikazani.
The Court considered that the condition requiring the employment of workers in the territory of the Member State can be fullled more easily by a company already established there and, consequently, that the legislation in question introduces indirect discrimination between taxpayers on the basis of the place of employment of a certain number of workers in a certain period.
Vendar pa ta člen taki zakonodaji nasprotuje, če slednja povračilo davka temu davčnemu zavezancu pogojuje s tem, da so ti poslovni stroški višji od polovice zadevnih prihodkov.
The Court then pointed out that, while such treatment might be justied by reasons relating to the survival of small and medium-sized undertakings and the need to maintain the eectiveness of fiscal supervision, the treatment must also be appropriate for achieving those objectives and not go beyond what is necessary to attain them.
Drugič, zgoraj navedena sodba Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation se je nanašala na zakonodajo države članice, ki omejuje možnost družbe rezidentke, da za davčne namene odbije obresti, plačane pri vračilu posojila neposredni ali posredni matični družbi rezidentki druge države članice ali družbi, ki je rezidentka druge države članice in jo taka matična družba nadzira, ne da bi to omejitev določala za družbo rezidentko, ki je dala posojilo družbi, ki je prav tako rezidentka.
The Court stated that domestic and foreign family undertakings are in a comparable situation so far as concerns the objective that they should continue to operate and, furthermore, that the eectiveness of fiscal supervision can be maintained by requesting taxpayers to provide the evidence necessary for enjoyment of the tax benet, instead of categorically refusing to grant it to companies not employing at least ve workers in the Member State in question.
Sodišče je najprej ugotovilo, da je zaradi različnega obravnavanja odvisnih družb rezidentk glede na kraj, v katerem ima njuna matična družba sedež, izvajanje svobode ustanavljanja za družbe s sedežem v drugih državah članicah manj zanimivo, nato pa spomnilo na to, da je nacionalni ukrep, ki omejuje svobodo ustanavljanja, lahko upravičen, če je posebej namenjen povsem umetnim konstruktom brez gospodarske resničnosti, katerih cilj je izogibanje zakonodaji zadevne države članice.
Consequently, as the legislation in question does not enable the objective pursued to be achieved and is not proportionate, it is contrary to Article 43 EC.
Tako ravnanje lahko namreč po mnenju Sodišča ogroža pravico držav članic do izvajanja davčne pristojnosti glede dejavnosti, ki se opravljajo na njihovem ozemlju, in s tem škoduje enakomerni porazdelitvi pristojnosti obdavčevanja med državami članicami.
In its judgment of 11 October 2007 in Case C-451/05 Elisa, the Court held that Article 56 EC precludes legislation of a Member State which exempts companies established in that State from a tax on immovable property located in its territory, when, in respect of companies established in another Member State, it makes that exemption subject either to the existence of a bilateral convention on combating tax avoidance and tax evasion or to the existence of a requirement in a treaty containing a clause prohibiting discrimination on grounds of nationality to the eect that those companies cannot be more heavily taxed than resident companies.
Sodišče je nato menilo, da je z zadevno zakonodajo, ker onemogoča podkapitalizacijo, mogoče doseči ta cilj, vendar pa se o dejanski sorazmernosti zadevnega ukrepa ni izreklo in je to vprašanje prepustilo nacionalnemu sodišču.
The Court considered that those additional conditions under the national legislation which nonresident companies must meet in order to be able to benet from the tax exemption make investment in immovable property less attractive for those companies.
Navedlo pa je, da je treba šteti, da je nacionalna zakonodaja sorazmerna, če na eni strani davčnemu zavezancu omogoča, da brez prekomernih upravnih zahtev predloži dokaze v zvezi s poslovnimi razlogi, na katerih je temeljila zadevna transakcija, s čimer omogoča objektivno in preverljivo presojo dokazov za določitev, ali ima transakcija značaj povsem umetnega konstrukta z izključno davčnimi nameni, in če na drugi strani ta zakonodaja te obresti opredeli kot razdeljeni dobiček, le če presegajo to, kar bi bilo dogovorjeno v okoliščinah svobodne konkurence.
The legislation therefore restricts the free movement of capital. The Court pointed out that, while the prevention of tax evasion is an overriding requirement of general interest capable of justifying a restriction on freedom of movement, the restriction must be appropriate to the objective pursued and must not go beyond what is necessary to attain that objective.
In tretjič, nekateri nacionalni ukrepi so bili, čeprav so primerljive položaje obravnavali različno, razglašeni za združljive s pravom Skupnosti, ker je bilo to upravičeno z nujnimi razlogi v splošnem interesu.
Since the national legislation in the case in point did not allow nonresident companies to show that their objective was not that of tax evasion, the Court held that the Member State could have adopted less restrictive measures and that, consequently, the tax was not justied in light of the objective of combating tax evasion.
Tako je treba v skladu z zgoraj navedeno sodbo Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation omeniti zadevo Oy AA (sodba z dne 18. julija 2007, C-231/05), ker potrjuje trditve o upravičenosti zaradi nevarnosti davčnemu izogibanju. Ta zadeva se
In Case C-292/04 Meilicke and Others [2007] ECR I-1835, the Court held that a Member State is not to limit the right to a tax credit to dividends of capital companies established in that State.
Sodišče je nanašala na zakonodajo države članice, na podlagi katere lahko odvisna družba, rezidentka te države članice, od svojih obdavčljivih dohodkov odbije prispevek skupine družb, ki ga je plačala matični družbi, le če ima slednja sedež v isti državi članici.
Referring to its caselaw clarifying the requirements arising from the principle of free movement of capital in relation to dividends received by residents from nonresident companies, and in particular to Case C-35/98 Verkooijen [2000] ECR I-4071 and Case C-319/02 Manninen [2004] ECR I-7477, the Court held that German tax legislation restricted the free movement of capital.
Sodišče je najprej poudarilo, da taka zakonodaja uvaja različno obravnavanje odvisnih družb s sedežem v isti državi članici glede na to, ali ima njihova matična družba svoj sedež v isti državi ali ne, kar povzroča omejevanje svobode ustanavljanja, nato pa je ugotovilo, da to omejitev upravičuje povezana nujnost ohranjanja uravnotežene porazdelitve davčnih pristojnosti med državami članicami in preprečevanja davčnega izogibanja.
It stated that the tax credit under the national legislation was designed to prevent the double taxation of companies’ prots distributed in the form of dividends.
Ti ugotovitvi sta namreč skupaj del legitimnih ciljev, ki so združljivi s Pogodbo ES in izhajajo iz nujnih razlogov v splošnem interesu.
It then observed that the legislation, by limiting the tax credit to dividends paid by companies established in Germany, disadvantaged persons who were fully taxable in Germany for income tax purposes and received dividends from companies established in other Member States.
Sodišče meni, da če bi se dopustila odbitnost čezmejnega prispevka skupine družb, bi se skupinam družb omogočilo, da prosto izberejo državo članico, v kateri se obdavči dobiček odvisne družbe, pri čemer bi bilo mogoče dobiček družbe izvzeti iz njene davčne osnove in ga, ker se ta prispevek šteje za obdavčljiv dohodek v državi članici matične družbe prejemnice, vključiti v davčno osnovo matične družbe, kar bi ogrozilo sam sistem porazdelitve davčnih pristojnosti med državami članicami.
Such persons were not entitled to set o against their tax the corporation tax payable by those companies in their State of establishment.
Poleg tega možnost„pritegniti“ obdavčljiv dohodek odvisne družbe k matični družbi s sedežem v drugi državi članici vključuje nevarnost, da bi bil z umetnim konstruktom znotraj skupine družb organiziran prenos dohodka družbam s sedežem v državah članicah, v katerih so najnižje davčne stopnje.
Furthermore, the legislation constituted for those companies an obstacle to the raising of capital in Germany. The Court rejected the argument that the legislation was justied by the need to safeguard the cohesion of the national tax system.
Sodišče je na koncu menilo, da tudi če taka zakonodaja nima posebnega namena iz predvidene davčne ugodnosti izključiti povsem umetnih konstruktov, se jo lahko šteje za sorazmerno z zgoraj navedenimi cilji, upoštevanimi skupaj, ker bi razširitev davčne ugodnosti na čezmejne primere skupinam družb omogočila prosto izbiro države članice, v kateri se obdavči njihov dobiček, v škodo pravice države članice odvisne družbe do obdavčitve dobička iz dejavnosti, ki se opravljajo na njenem ozemlju.
It observed that it would be sucient, and would not threaten the cohesion of the national tax system, to grant to a taxpayer holding shares in a company established in another Member State a tax credit calculated by reference to the corporation tax payable by that company in that latter Member State.
Na področju obdavčenja posameznikov je bilo več nacionalnih ukrepov razglašenih za nezdružljive s temeljnimi svoboščinami iz Pogodbe, ker brez upravičenega razloga enake položaje obravnavajo različno.
Such a solution would constitute a measure less restrictive of the free movement of capital.
Tako je Sodišče v sodbi Meindl (sodba z dne 25. januarja 2007, C-329/05, ZOdl., str.
Finally, the Court held that it was not appropriate to limit the temporal eects of its judgment, having first pointed out, in particular, that the requirements arising from the principle of free movement of capital in relation to dividends received by residents from nonresident companies had already been claried in Verkooijen and that the temporal eects of that judgment had not been limited.
I-1113) potrdilo, da država članica, v kateri davčni zavezanec rezident prebiva, slednjemu ne sme zavrniti skupne odmere dohodnine z njegovim zakoncem, od katerega ni ločen in ki prebiva v drugi državi članici, z obrazložitvijo, da je ta zakonec v tej drugi državi članici prejel več kot 10 % dohodkov gospodinjstva in več od najviše določenega zneska, če dohodki, ki jih je prejel ta zakonec v omenjeni drugi državi članici, v njej niso obdavčeni z dohodnino.Tega davčnega zavezanca se namreč obravnava drugače, čeprav je objektivno v enakem položaju kot davčni zavezanec rezident, čigar zakonec prebiva v isti državi članici in v njej prejema samo dohodke, ki niso obdavčeni.
Also, certain measures were declared partly incompatible with the fundamental freedoms in the Treaty, or incompatible subject to a review of proportionality with regard to the legitimate objective pursued.
Sodišče je tudi ugotovilo, da je država prebivališča takega davčnega zavezanca edina država, ki lahko upošteva osebni in družinski položaj tega davčnega zavezanca, saj slednji ne le prebiva v tej državi, temveč v njej tudi prejema vse obdavčljive dohodke gospodinjstva.
In this connection, Case C-345/04 Centro Equestro da Lezíria Grande [2007] ECR I-1425 will be considered rst.
To, da davčni zavezanec brez upravičljivega razloga v okviru skupne odmere dohodnine nikakor ne more uveljavljati tega, da naj se upošteva njegov osebni in družinski položaj, ampak se ga, čeprav je poročen, obdavči kot samskega, pomeni diskriminacijo, ki jo prepoveduje načelo svobode ustanavljanja.
A company had given a number of artistic presentations in a Member State where it was not resident and had been taxed, by deduction at source, on the income received in that Member State.
Sodba Talotta (sodba z dne 22. marca 2007, C-383/05, ZOdl., str.
Since the company was not established in that Member State and was therefore subject to limited tax liability, it was entitled to a refund of the tax deducted, subject to the condition that the operating expenses or business costs having a direct economic connection to the taxed income were greater than half of that income.
I-2555) vsebuje drug primer odločitve, s katero je bil ukrep na področju dohodnine razglašen za nezdružljivega s Pogodbo ES, ker je različno obravnaval zavezance rezidente in nerezidente, ki so bili v objektivno primerljivih položajih.
By contrast, that article precludes such national legislation in so far as it makes repayment of that tax to the taxpayer subject to the condition that the operating expenses exceed half of the income.
Zadevna zakonodaja je določala, da se obdavčljivi
Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation concerned legislation of a Member State which restricts the ability of a resident company to deduct, for tax purposes, interest on loan finance granted by a direct or indirect parent company which is resident in another Member State or by a company which is resident in another Member State and is controlled by such a parent company, but does not impose that restriction on loan finance granted by a company which is also resident.
Razvoj in dejavnost dohodki zavezanca rezidenta, ki jih je pridobil v okviru opravljanja dejavnosti kot samozaposlena oseba, ugotavljajo – kadar ni zadostnih dokazov – tako, da se primerjajo z dohodki drugih zavezancev, medtem ko se dohodki davčnega zavezanca nerezidenta določajo glede na najnižjo davčno osnovo.
After finding that the dierence in treatment thereby introduced between resident subsidiaries which is based on the place where their parent company has its seat makes it less attractive for companies established in other Member States to exercise freedom of establishment, the Court pointed out that a national measure restricting freedom of establishment may nevertheless be justied where it specically targets wholly articial arrangements which do not reect economic reality and are designed to circumvent a Member State’s legislation.
Sodišče je presodilo, da tako različno obravnavanje po eni strani pomeni posredno diskriminacijo na podlagi državljanstva, ki je v nasprotju s svobodo ustanavljanja, ker sta dohodek, ki ga prejme davčni zavezanec rezident, in dohodek, ki ga prejme davčni zavezanec nerezident, uvrščena v isto kategorijo dohodkov, in sicer tistih, ki izhajajo iz opravljanja dejavnosti samozaposlene osebe na ozemlju zadevne države članice, in da se lahko po drugi strani s takim obravnavanjem škoduje predvsem državljanom drugih držav članic, saj so nerezidenti v večini primerov tujci.
According to the Court, this type of conduct is such as to undermine the right of the Member States to exercise their tax jurisdiction in relation to the activities carried out in their territory and thus to jeopardise a balanced allocation between Member States of the power to impose taxes.
Pri tem ni pomembno, da uporaba najnižje davčne osnove pogosto koristi zavezancem nerezidentom.
The Court then held that, by preventing the practice of thin capitalisation, legislation of the kind in question is appropriate for attaining that objective, but it did not rule on whether the measure at issue is in fact proportionate, referring this matter to the national court.
Sodišče je nato navedlo, da s potrebo po zagotovitvi učinkovitega davčnega nadzora, čeprav predstavlja nujni razlog v splošnem interesu, ni mogoče upravičiti te posredne diskriminacije, ker obstajajo pri nadzoru rezidentov enake praktične težave, in da so na voljo drugi mehanizmi, ki omogočajo izmenjavo davčnih informacij med državami članicami.
Thus, the judgment of 18 July 2007 in Case C-231/05 Oy AA, which follows the line of caselaw in Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, is worthy of note in that it upholds arguments in justication based on the risk of tax avoidance.
I-1169) pa je Sodišče ugodilo tožbi zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti, ki jo je Komisija vložila proti Kraljevini Danski, in razglasilo, da je zakonodaja – po kateri se pravici do odbitka in do neobdavčitve prispevkov priznata le za prispevke, plačane v okviru pogodb, sklenjenih s pokojninskimi institucijami s sedežem na Danskem, medtem ko se za prispevke, plačane na podlagi pogodb, sklenjenih s pokojninskimi institucijami s sedežem v drugih državah članicah, ne prizna nobena taka davčna olajšava – v nasprotju s členi 39 ES, 43 ES in 49 ES.
The case concerned legislation of a Member State whereby a subsidiary established in that Member State could deduct from its taxable income an intragroup financial transfer in favour of its parent company only if the latter was established in that same Member State.
Sodišče je namreč ugotovilo, da ima lahko taka zakonodaja odvračilni učinek na svobodo opravljanja zavarovalniških storitev pokojninskih institucij druge države članice in na svobodo ustanavljanja ter prosto gibanje delavcev, ki so iz druge države članice ali ki so v drugi državi članici delali in so v njej že sklenili pogodbo za pokojninski načrt.