natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Second, the act of awarding the contract is notified to all the tenderers, in accordance with Articles 58(1) and (2) of the Law on the common administrative procedure and Article 93(1) of the Law on public procurement.
Drugič, odločbo o oddaji je treba vročiti vsem ponudnikom v skladu z določbami člena 58(1) in (2) zakona o splo�nem upravnem postopku in člena 93(1) zakona o javnih naročilih.
That notification must be made according to the rules of general law applicable to administrative acts, namely within the 10 days following the adoption of that act awarding the contract, and must give details of the possibilities of review.
To vročitev je treba opraviti v skladu s predpisi o splo�nem upravnem postopku, ki veljajo za upravne akte, v desetih dneh po sprejetju tega akta o oddaji, navedena pa mora biti tudi možnost vložitve revizije.
However, inasmuch as the act of awarding the contract leads de jure to the conclusion of the contract, it follows that the decision of the contracting authority, by which it chooses the contractor from amongst the tenderers cannot be the subject of specific review proceedings prior to the conclusion as such of that contract.
Ker dejanje oddaje de iure pomeni sklenitev pogodbe, to pomeni, da odločba naročnika, s katero med ponudniki določi izbranega ponudnika, ne more biti predmet posebne revizije pred sklenitvijo same pogodbe.
Third, it must be pointed out that the finalisation of the contract may be concurrent with the award of the contract concerned, or follow it within a very short period.
Tretjič, poudariti je treba, da se lahko sklenitev pogodbe zgodi sočasno z oddajo javnega naročila, ali pa mu sledi v kratkem roku.
The finalisation as, moreover, the Kingdom of Spain acknowledges, is not subject to any minimum period and may occur from the moment that the contractor demonstrates the provision of a definitive guarantee, since the legislation only requires that it be provided at the latest within 15 days of notification of the award of the contract.
Omenjena sklenitev namreč nima, kot sicer priznava Kraljevina Španija, nobenega najkraj�ega roka za uveljavitev in lahko nastopi takoj, ko izbrani ponudnik predloži dokazilo o zavarovanju resnosti ponudbe, zakonodaja pa zahteva le, da mora izbrani ponudnik omenjeno dokazilo predložiti v petnajstih dneh po vročitvi odločbe o oddaji.
Therefore, the performance of the contract may commence before the award has been the subject of all the notifications required.
Torej se izvr�evanje omenjene pogodbe lahko začne, preden so opravljene vse potrebne vročitve v zvezi z oddajo.
It follows that, in certain cases, no effective review proceedings can be brought against the act of awarding the contract before the performance as such of the contract although the objective of the review directive is to ensure that unlawful decisions taken by the contracting authorities may be reviewed effectively and as rapidly as possible (see, to that effect, Case C-470/99 Universale-Bau and Others [2002] ECR I-11617, paragraph 74).
Iz tega izhaja, da v skladu z nekaterimi primeri ni mogoče zahtevati nobene učinkovite revizije zoper dejanje oddaje pred izvr�evanjem same pogodbe, medtem ko je namen direktive o reviziji zagotoviti, da se lahko nezakonite odločitve, ki jih sprejmejo naročniki, učinkovito in čim hitreje preizkusijo (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 12. decembra 2002 v zadevi Universale-Bau in drugi, C-470/99, Recueil, str. I-11617, točka 74).
Fourth, the fact that there is the option of bringing proceedings for the annulment of the contract itself is not such as to compensate for the impossibility of challenging the mere act of awarding the contract concerned, before the contract is concluded.
Četrtič možnost razpolaganja z zahtevkom za razglasitev ničnosti same pogodbe ne more nadomestiti nezmožnosti ukrepanja zoper zadevno oddajo javnega naročila kot tako, preden je sklenjena pogodba.
Consequently, the legislation at issue does not allow unsuccessful tenderers to bring review proceedings in accordance with the requirements of the review directive against the decision to award a public contract resulting from it.
Zato zadevna zakonodaja ne dovoljuje neizbranim ponudnikom, da vlagajo zahteve za revizijo zoper odločbo o oddaji javnega naročila, preden je sklenjena sama pogodba, ki iz tega izhaja.
The first two pleas are, accordingly, well founded.
Zato sta prva dva očitka utemeljena.
The third plea
Tretji očitek
According to the Commission, the review directive is infringed by the exception which seeks to protect public services provided for in Article 65(3) of the Law on public procurement, according to which, if the administrative declaration of invalidity of a contract seriously disrupts public services, provision may be made for the effects of that contract to continue, on the same conditions, until urgent measures have been taken to avoid any harm.
Po mnenju Komisije izhaja kr�itev direktive o reviziji iz izjeme, ki je namenjena varovanju javnih služb v skladu s členom 65(3) zakona o javnih naročilih, v skladu s katerim se lahko pod enakimi pogoji ohranijo učinki pogodbe, če bi upravna razglasitev ničnosti resno ovirala storitve javnih služb, dokler niso sprejeti nujni ukrepi za preprečitev �kode.
The Commission claims that those provisions confer on the contracting authority too wide a discretion in respect of the implementation of the administrative decision annulling the award of a contract and, accordingly, the contract resulting from it.
Komisija meni, da te določbe dajejo naročniku preveliko diskrecijsko pravico v zvezi z izvr�evanjem upravne odločbe za razveljavitev oddaje javnega naročila in s tem pogodbe, ki iz tega izhaja.
It also claims that the provisions at issue may, in a not insignificant number of cases, render ineffective the review proceedings of the unsuccessful tenderers leading to the annulment of the unlawful decisions of the contracting authorities, which is contrary to the Member States’ duty to ensure that the review procedures provided for pursuant to Article 1 of the review directive make it possible to annul or to have annulled the unlawful decisions taken by those authorities.
Prav tako meni, da lahko zadevna določba v �tevilnih primerih neizbranim ponudnikom onemogoči učinkovito vlaganje zahtev za revizijo, ki bi pomenila razveljavitev nezakonitih odločb naročnikov, kar je v nasprotju z obveznostjo držav članic, da skrbijo, da uporaba revizijskih postopkov iz člena 1 direktive o reviziji omogoča razveljavitev ali zagotovitev razveljavitve nezakonitih odločb, ki so jih sprejeli omenjeni naročniki.
The effectiveness of that directive would thus be compromised, inasmuch as the invalidity or the annulment of those decisions would be deprived of any effect.
Prav tako naj bi bil ogrožen polni učinek te direktive, ker naj ničnost ali razveljavitev takih odločb ne bi imeli nobenega učinka.
The Kingdom of Spain contends for its part that the contested provisions envisage proceedings only by way of exception against contracts which are declared invalid for reasons of public interest, subject to review by the courts.
Kraljevina Španija navaja, da sporne določbe ne predvidevajo, da bi lahko izjemoma razveljavili pogodbe zaradi ugotovitve ničnosti v skladu z javnim interesom v okviru sodnega nadzora.
According to that Member State, the Commission has not established that proceedings against the continuation of contracts annulled in this way constitute a normal situation as regards the application of the legislation at issue.
Po mnenju te države članice Komisija ni dokazala, da naj bi bili v okviru zadevne zakonodaje postopki za ohranitev tako razveljavljenih pogodb običajni.
In this case, it is not disputed that the preservation of the effects of a contract subject to an administrative declaration of invalidity such as that provided for in the contested national legislation can only occur in the case of a serious disruption to public services.
V obravnavanem primeru je treba ugotoviti, da se ohranijo učinki pogodbe, za katero velja upravna razglasitev ničnosti v skladu s sporno zakonodajo države članice, le ob resnem oviranju storitev javnih služb.
Consequently, as is clear from the wording of Article 65(3) of the Law on public procurement, such preservation is only intended to apply in exceptional cases and pending the adoption of urgent measures.
Tudi iz besedila člena 65(3) zakona o javnih naročilih izhaja, da lahko taka ohranitev velja le izjemoma in takrat, ko se pričakuje sprejetje nujnih ukrepov.
In addition, that preservation applies, as the Kingdom of Spain has stated without being contradicted by the Commission, subject to review by the courts.
Poleg tega se lahko, kot je omenila Kraljevina Španija, in čemur Komisija ni nasprotovala, ta ohranitev izvaja le pod sodnim nadzorom.
Thus, it appears that the aim of the provision is not to prevent the enforcement of the declaration of invalidity of a specific contract, but to avoid, where the public interest is at stake, excessive and potentially prejudicial consequences of the immediate enforcement of the declaration, pending the adoption of urgent measures, in order to ensure the continuity of public services.
Prav tako je očitno, da namen omenjene določbe ni oviranje izvr�itve razglasitve ničnosti določene pogodbe, ampak, ker je vpleten splo�ni interes, preprečevati prekomerne in �kodljive posledice takoj�njega izvr�evanja omenjene razglasitve, ko se pričakuje sprejetje nujnih ukrepov za zagotovitev neprekinjenega delovanja javnih služb.
In those circumstances, the Commission has not demonstrated that the contested legislation undermines the requirements of the review directive.
V teh okoli�činah Komisija ni dokazala, da sporna zakonodaja nasprotuje zahtevam direktive o reviziji.
Consequently, the third plea must be dismissed as unfounded.
Zato je treba tretji očitek kot neutemeljen zavrniti.
Having regard to the foregoing, it must be declared that, by failing to lay down a mandatory period for the contracting authority to notify the decision on the award of the contract to all the tenderers and by failing to provide for a mandatory waiting period between the award of the contract and its conclusion, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1)(a) and (b) of the review directive.
Glede na navedeno je treba ugotoviti, da Kraljevina Španija s tem, da za naročnika ni določila obveznega roka za vročitev odločbe o oddaji javnega naročila vsem ponudnikom in da ni določila roka, ki mora preteči med oddajo javnega naročila in sklenitvijo pogodbe, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz člena 2(1)(a) in (b) direktive o reviziji.
Under Article 69(3) of those Rules, where each of the parties succeeds on some and fails on other heads, or where the circumstances are exceptional, the Court may order that the costs be shared or that the parties bear their own costs.
V skladu s členom 69(3) istega poslovnika pa lahko Sodi�če odloči, da se stro�ki delijo ali da vsaka stranka nosi svoje stro�ke, če vsaka stranka uspe samo deloma ali v izjemnih okoli�činah.
In this dispute account is to be taken of the fact that the Court has not upheld the Commission’s action for a declaration of failure to fulfil obligations in its entirety.
V tem sporu je treba upo�tevati dejstvo, da tožbi ni bilo ugodeno v celoti glede neizpolnitve obveznosti, kot jo je navajala Komisija.
The Kingdom of Spain must therefore be ordered to pay two thirds of all the costs.
Zato je treba Kraljevini Španiji naložiti plačilo dveh tretjin vseh stro�kov.
The Commission is ordered to pay the other third.
Komisiji pa se naloži plačilo preostale tretjine.
By failing to lay down a mandatory period for the contracting authority to notify the decision on the award of the contract to all the tenderers and by
Kraljevina Španija s tem, da za naročnika ni določila obveznega roka za vročitev odločbe o oddaji javnega naročila vsem ponudnikom in da ni
2008 — CASE C-444/06 failing to provide for a mandatory waiting period between the award of the contract and its conclusion, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33), as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992;
2008 – ZADEVA C-444/06 določila roka, ki mora preteči med oddajo javnega naročila in sklenitvijo pogodbe, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz člena 2(1)(a) in (b) Direktive Sveta 89/665/EGS z dne 21. decembra 1989 o usklajevanju zakonov in drugih predpisov o uporabi revizijskih postopkov oddaje javnih naročil za preskrbo in javnih naročil za gradnje, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo Sveta 92/50/EGS z dne 18. junija 1992.
Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay two thirds of all the costs.
Kraljevina Španija nosi dve tretjini vseh stroškov.
The Commission of the European Communities is ordered to pay the other third.
Komisija Evropskih skupnosti nosi preostalo tretjino.
Case C-27/07
Zadeva C-27/07
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France))
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložil Conseil d’État (Francija))
(Corporation tax — Directive 90/435/EEC — Taxable income of a parent company — Non-deductibility of costs and expenses relating to a holding in a subsidiary — Fixing of costs at a flat rate — Ceiling of 5% of the profits distributed by the subsidiary — Inclusion of tax credits)
„Davek od dohodka pravnih oseb – Direktiva 90/435/EGS – Obdavčljiv dobiček matične družbe – Nemožnost odbijanja pristojbin in stro�kov, ki se nana�ajo na delež v odvisni družbi – Fiksna določitev zneska navedenih stro�kov – Največ 5 % dobička, ki ga je razdelila odvisna družba – Vključevanje davčnih odbitkov“
Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston delivered on 24 January 2008 . . . . .
Sharpston, predstavljeni 24. januarja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I - 2070Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 3 April 2008 . . . . . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (četrti senat) z dne 3. aprila 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Approximation of laws — Common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States — Directive 90/435
Približevanje zakonodaj – Skupni sistem obdavčitve matičnih družb in odvisnih družb iz različnih držav članic – Direktiva 90/435
SUMMARY — CASE C-27/07
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-27/07
The concept of ‘profits distributed by the subsidiary’, within the meaning of the last sentence of Article 4(2) of Directive 90/435 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, is to be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which includes in those profits tax credits which have been granted in order to offset a withholding tax levied by the Member State of the subsidiary in the hands of the parent company.
Pojem „dobič[ek], ki ga distribuira odvisna družba“ v smislu člena 4(2), zadnji stavek, Direktive 90/435 o skupnem sistemu obdavčitve matičnih družb in odvisnih družb iz različnih držav članic, je treba razlagati tako, da ne nasprotuje ureditvi države članice, na podlagi katere so v navedeni dobiček vključeni davčni odbitki, ki so bili priznani kot nadomestilo za davek, ki je bil matični družbi odtegnjen pri viru v državi članici odvisne družbe.
in the end of the day, actually at the parent company’s disposal in respect of that distribution to be reflected, by neutralising the impact of the withholding tax levied in the hands of the parent company by the Member State of the subsidiary.
znesek dobička, ki ga je slednja razdelila, ta znesek pa je enak znesku, ki matični družbi iz tega naslova na koncu dejansko ostane, s čimer se nevtralizira vpliv pri viru odtegnjenega davka, s katerim država članica odvisne družbe obdavči matično družbo.
Thus, the inclusion of tax credits in the fixed amount of the management costs relating to the holding, within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the directive, complies with the objective of neutrality, from the tax point of view, as regards the crossborder distribution of profits from a subsidiary to its parent company established in another Member State.
Tako je vključitev davčnih odbitkov v fiksno določeni znesek stro�kov upravljanja, ki se nana�ajo na delež, v smislu člena 4(2) Direktive v skladu s ciljem davčne nevtralnosti čezmejnega razdeljevanja dobička odvisne družbe svoji matični družbi s sedežem v drugi državi članici.
First, the wording of Article 4(2) of the direct- ive does not preclude the inclusion of tax credits in the fixed amount of the management costs relating to the holding of the parent company in the subsidiary.
Prvič, besedilo člena 4(2) Direktive ne nasprotuje vključitvi davčnih odbitkov v fiksno določeni znesek stro�kov upravljanja, ki se nana�ajo na delež matične družbe v odvisni družbi.
The inclusion of tax credits in the fixed amount of the management costs relating to the holding, within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the directive, means that it is in fact the total amount of profit distributed, within the meaning of that provision, which is received by the parent company and to which the rate of 5% will be applied.
Vključitev davčnih odbitkov v fiksno določeni znesek stro�kov upravljanja, ki se nana�ajo na delež, v smislu člena 4(2) Direktive namreč zagotavlja, da je skupni znesek razdeljenega dobička v smislu te določbe dejansko tisti, ki ga prejme matična družba in glede katerega se bo uporabila 5-odstotna stopnja.
Second, the credits are intended to avoid double taxation of profits distributed by a subsidiary to its parent company, from a juridical perspective.
Drugič, navedeni odbitki so na pravni ravni namenjeni izogibanju dvojnemu obdavčevanju dobička, ki ga odvisna družba razdeli svoji matični družbi.
Consequently, taking into account tax credits granted to the parent company in calculating the proportion of costs and expenses relating to the holding in the subsidiary allows the amount of profits distributed by that subsidiary and the equivalent amount which is,
Zato upo�tevanje davčnih odbitkov, ki so bili priznani matični družbi pri izračunu deleža pristojbin in stro�kov, ki se nana�ajo na delež v odvisni družbi, lahko odraža
Under the scheme laid down by the directive, where a parent company has a holding of at least 25% in the capital of a subsidiary established in another Member State, the imposition of a withholding tax in the latter State is generally prohibited by virtue of Article 5(1) of the directive.
V okviru sistema, ki je bil uveden z Direktivo, je takrat, ko ima matična družba najmanj 25 % kapitala odvisne družbe s sedežem v drugi državi članici, na podlagi člena 5(1) Direktive v tej drugi državi članici načeloma prepovedana obdavčitev s pri viru odtegnjenim davkom.
Certain Member States were permitted, during the transitional periods allowed to them, to levy such a withholding tax in accordance with Article 5(2) to (4) of the directive.
V prehodnem obdobju so nekatere države članice vseeno lahko odmerjale tak pri viru odtegnjeni davek, in sicer na podlagi člena 5, od (2) do (4), Direktive.
The directive does not require a Member State to provide for the set-off of such a withholding tax, where that Member State has, in accordance with Article 4(1) of the directive, opted for the exemption method.
Vendar Direktiva ne določa, da mora država članica predpisati odbijanje takega pri viru odtegnjenega davka, kadar se je ta država članica na podlagi člena 4(1) Direktive odločila za sistem oprostitve.
In that respect, a Member State which has opted for the exemption method cannot be criticised for offsetting the withholding tax charged in the Member State of the subsidiary by the grant of a tax credit, while at the same time limiting the right
V teh okoli�činah državi članici, ki se je odločila za sistem oprostitve, ni mogoče očitati, da kompenzira pri viru odtegnjeni davek v državi članici odvisne
Accordingly, where the Member State has chosen to follow the option provided for in Article 4(2) of the directive by including tax credits in the amount of the distributed profits to which the rate of 5% is to be applied, it cannot be criticised for not making any distinction between cases where tax credits capable of being set off against the tax payable are involved and cases where such tax credits are not involved.
Tako državi članici, ki se je odločila za izvedbo možnosti iz člena 4(2) Direktive in davčne odbitke vključila v znesek razdeljenega dobička, za katerega se bo uporabila 5-odstotna stopnja, ni mogoče očitati, da ne določa razlikovanja po tem, ali gre za davčne odbitke, ki jih je mogoče od�teti od davka, ki ga je treba plačati, ali ne.
to set off the tax credit to cases where the recipient parent company redistributes the dividends received within five years to its own shareholders.
družbe s priznanjem davčnega odbitka in hkrati določa, da je mogoče navedeni davčni odbitek odbiti samo, če matična družba prejemnica prejete dividende v roku petih let razdeli svojim delničarjem.
Moreover, Article 4(2) of the directive allows a Member State to set the management costs which are not deductible at a fixed amount which may not exceed 5% of the profits distributed by the subsidiary, without distinguishing between a situation in which that Member State has opted for the exemption method and one in which it has opted for the credit method.
Poleg tega člen 4(2) Direktive državi članici omogoča, da stro�ke upravljanja, ki jih ni mogoče odbiti, opredeli kot fiksno določeni znesek, ki ne presega 5 % dobička, ki ga razdeli odvisna družba, in pri tem ne razlikuje med primeroma, ko se je ta država članica odločila za sistem oprostitve in ko se je odločila za sistem odbijanja.
It follows that, with respect to the concept of distributed profits, that provision makes no distinction between cases where the State is subject to the requirement to provide for the set-off of the withholding tax charged in the Member State of the subsidiary and cases where it is not subject to such a requirement.
Iz tega sledi, da s to določbo pri pojmu distribuirani dobiček ni določeno razlikovanje po tem, ali je navedena država dolžna predpisati odbijanje pri viru odtegnjenega davka v državi članici odvisne družbe
(see paras 36-40, 42-46, 50, operative part)
(Glej točke od 36 do 40, od 42 do 46, 50 in izrek.)
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERALSHARPSTON delivered on 24 January 2008 1
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNE PRAVOBRANILKEELEANOR SHARPSTON, predstavljeni 24. januarja 2008 1 čile kot dohodek (kot pri vsakem drugem delničarju.
The present reference from the French Conseil d’État (Council of State) seeks an interpretation of Articles 4 and 7(2) of the Parent/Subsidiary Directive 2 (‘the Directive’).
To vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, ki ga je predložilo francosko Conseil d’État (vrhovno upravno sodi�če), se nana�a na razlago členov 4 in 7(2) Direktive o obdavčitvi matičnih in odvisnih družb 2 (v nadaljevanju: Direktiva).
Taxation of intra-group dividends
Obdavčitev dividend znotraj skupine
In order to remedy this double taxation, some Member States have adopted ‘imputation systems’ under which shareholders are granted a tax credit representing all or part of the company tax paid on the profits out of which the dividend is paid.
Da bi se to dvojno obdavčevanje odpravilo, so nekatere države članice sprejele „sisteme odbitka“, v skladu s katerimi se delničarjem podeli davčni odbitek, ki predstavlja ves davek ali del davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb, ki se plača od dobička, iz katerega so izplačane dividende.
The tax credit is set against the shareholders’ tax liability on the dividend, thus eliminating or reducing the double taxation.
Davčni odbitek se vračuna v davek, ki ga mora plačati delničar od dividend, s čimer se odpravi ali zmanj�a dvojno obdavčevanje.
France formerly provided for this type of domestic tax credit, the avoir fiscal. 3
Francija je včasih podeljevala tako vrsto domačega davčnega odbitka, ki se je imenoval avoir fiscal. 3
A subsidiary company pays dividends to its parent.
Odvisna družba izplača dividende matični družbi.
Dividends are paid out of profits.
Dividende so izplačane iz dobička.