natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
National legislation which draws a distinction between taxpayers on the basis of residence or the place where they invest their capital may therefore be considered compatible with Articles 56 EC and 58 EC only if that difference in treatment relates to situations which are not objectively comparable for the purposes of the application of the tax measure in question.
Nacionalni predpisi, ki razlikujejo med davčnimi zavezanci glede na prebivali�če ali kraj, kjer vlagajo svoj kapital, se torej lahko �tejejo za združljive s členoma 56 ES in 58 ES samo, če to različno obravnavanje zadeva položaje, ki niso objektivno primerljivi za namene izvajanja zadevnega davčnega ukrepa.
Failing that, if the situations concerned are objectively comparable, such a distinc-
V nasprotnem primeru, če so zadevni položaji objektivno primerljivi, je na podlagi
On the other hand, national legislation of a Member State which reserves tax advantages for residents of the national territory principally benefits nationals of that State since, most often, the majority of non-resi-dents are nationals of other countries.
Na drugi strani nacionalni predpisi države članice, ki priznavajo davčne ugodnosti rezidentom na svojem nacionalnem ozemlju, koristijo predvsem državljanom te države, ker so nerezidenti večinoma državljani drugih držav. Predpisi, ki
7 — See, as regards natural persons, Schumacker, paragraphs 28 and 29, and, with respect to legal persons, Commerzbank, paragraph 15.
6 – Sodba z dne 14. februarja 1995 v zadevi Schumacker (C-279/93, Recueil, str. I-225, točka 31).
6 — Case C-279/93 Schumacker [1995] ECR I-225, paragraph 31.
7 – Glede fizičnih oseb glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Schumacker (točki 28 in 29), glede pravnih oseb pa zgoraj navedeno sodbo Commerzbank (točka 15).
tion will, according to the caselaw, be in accordance with Community law only if it is justified on one of the grounds set out in Article 58(1)(b) EC or by an overriding reason in the general interest, such as the need to safeguard the coherence of the tax system, and if it does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain the objective of the legislation. 8
sodne prakse tako razlikovanje v skladu s pravom Skupnosti samo, če je upravičeno z razlogi, navedenimi v členu 58(1)(b) ES, ali z nujnim razlogom v splo�nem interesu, kot je nujnost ohranjanja doslednosti davčnega sistema, in če ne presega tega, kar je potrebno, da se doseže cilj zadevnih predpisov. 8
Measures designed to prevent or mitigate double taxation
Ukrepi za preprečevanje ali omilitev dvojnega obdavčevanja
Those profits may also be the subject of ‘juridical double taxation’, where a single taxpayer is taxed twice on the same income.
Ta dobiček je lahko tudi predmet „dvojne pravne obdavčitve“, če je isti davčni zavezanec dvakrat obdavčen za isti dohodek.
This situation may arise where a shareholder who receives dividends is liable, on the one hand, to deduction at source on those dividends by the Member State in which the company making the distribution is established and, on the other hand, to income tax on those dividends in his State of residence.
Ta položaj lahko nastane, na eni strani, če delničarju, ki prejema dividende, te dividende pri viru obdavči država članica, v kateri ima sedež družba, ki izplačuje dividende, in na drugi strani, če je zavezan dohodnini iz naslova teh dividend v državi prebivali�ča.
The Court has specified in a number of judgments the scope of this general framework for the competence of Member States in matters of direct taxation in the case of State or unilateral measures or measures pursuant to agreements designed to prevent or mitigate the double taxation of profits distributed by companies.
Sodi�če je v več sodbah natančno določilo obseg te splo�ne opredelitve pristojnosti držav članic na področju neposrednega obdavčevanja v primerih državnih, enostranskih ali pogodbenih ukrepov, katerih cilj je preprečevanje ali omilitev dvojnega obdavčevanja dobička, ki ga razdelijo družbe.
On the basis of the presentation of the relevant caselaw, it is appropriate to start from the premiss that double taxation is not, generally, contrary to Community law.
Predstavitev sodne prakse na tem področju izhaja iz predpostavke, da dvojna obdavčitev na splo�no ni v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti.
It should be noted at the outset that a company’s profits may be the subject of double taxation in a number of different situations.
V uvodu je treba opozoriti, da je dobiček družbe lahko dvojno obdavčen v različnih primerih.
Thus, they may be the subject of a ‘series of charges to tax’ or ‘economic double taxation’, where they are taxed through two different taxpayers, first the company,
Tako je lahko predmet „verižne obdavčitve“ ali „ekonomske dvojne obdavčitve“, če se obdavči pri dveh različnih davčnih zavezancih, najprej pri družbi v
No measure for the division of powers between Member States aimed at eliminating double taxation has been adopted within the framework of the Treaty.
V Pogodbi namreč ni bil sprejet noben ukrep za delitev pristojnosti med države članice, katerega cilj bi bila odprava dvojnega obdavčevanja.
Double taxation is prohibited only by a number of directives,
Dvojno obdavčevanje prepoveduje samo nekaj direktiv, kot je Direktiva
ORANGE EUROPEAN SMALLCAP FUND such as Council Directive 90/435/EEC, 9which are not relevant in the case at issue. 10 such, constitute an infringement of Community law. 12
ORANGE EUROPEAN SMALLCAP FUND izplačane, v vi�ini teh dividend, kot taka ni kr�itev prava Skupnosti. 12
Moreover, leaving aside Convention 90/436/EEC, 11 Member States have not concluded any multilateral convention to that effect under Article 293 EC.
10 Poleg tega, če se ne upo�teva Konvencija 90/436/EGS 11, države članice niso v ta namen sklenile nobene večstranske konvencije na podlagi člena 293 ES.
Second, in the absence of measures and a multilateral convention to that effect, Member States are free to establish the criteria for the division between them of powers of taxation and to adopt, unilaterally or through bilateral conventions, the measures necessary to prevent cases of double taxation.
Na drugi strani države članice zaradi neobstoja ukrepov in večstranske konvencije v ta namen same določajo merila za delitev pristojnosti za obdavčevanje med njimi ter enostransko ali z dvostranskimi konvencijami sprejmejo potrebne ukrepe za preprečevanje primerov dvojnega obdavčevanja.
However, in exercising that competence, Member States must, within the framework of both unilateral measures and agreements, observe the requirements of Community law and in particular those following from the freedoms of movement. 13
Vendar morajo države članice pri izvajanju te pristojnosti v okviru enostranskih in pogodbenih ukrepov upo�tevati zahteve prava Skupnosti in zlasti zahteve, ki izhajajo iz načel prostega pretoka. 13
First, if double taxation results from the exercise by Member States of their respective powers, such as taxation of the taxpayer by his State of residence on the entirety of his income and taxation of the same taxpayer by the State in whose territory the dividends were released, up to the amount of those dividends, it does not, as
Na eni strani, če je dvojna obdavčitev posledica tega, da države članice izvajajo svoje pristojnosti, kot je obdavčitev davčnega zavezanca za vse dohodke s strani države prebivali�ča in obdavčitev istega davčnega zavezanca s strani države, na ozemlju katere so bile dividende
A number of cases have offered the Court the opportunity to illustrate the scope of that obligation with regard to the taxation by Member States of, on the one hand, incoming dividends, as the State of residence
Več zadev je Sodi�ču omogočilo, da ponazori obseg te obveznosti, kar zadeva na eni strani obdavčitev dividend iz tujine, ki jo
9 — Directive 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. 6).
9 – Direktiva z dne 23. julija 1990 o skupnem sistemu obdavčitve matičnih družb in odvisnih družb iz različnih držav članic (UL L 225, str. 6).
See also Council Directive 2003/48/EC of 3 June 2003 on taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments (OJ 2003 L 157, p.
Glej tudi Direktivo Sveta 2003/48/ES z dne 3. junija 2003 o obdavčevanju dohodka od prihrankov v obliki plačil obresti (UL L 157, str.
38) and Council Directive 2003/49/EC of 3 June 2003 on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States (OJ 2003 L 157, p. 49).
38) in Direktivo Sveta 2003/49/ES z dne 3. junija 2003 o skupnem sistemu obdavčevanja plačil obresti ter licenčnin med povezanimi družbami iz različnih držav članic (UL L 157, str. 49).
10 — Directive 90/435, in the version in force during the financial year in question, was applicable to companies which had a minimum holding of 25% in the capital of a company of another Member State.
10 – Direktiva 90/435 v različici, ki je veljala v zadevnem raču -novodskem letu, se je uporabljala za družbe, ki so imele v kapitalu družbe druge države članice najmanj 25-odstotni delež.
Moreover, pursuant to its Article 2, that directive covers only companies which are subject to corporation tax without being exempt from it, and we know that financial investment enterprises, although liable to corporation tax, are taxed at a zero rate.
Poleg tega v skladu s členom 2 pokriva samo družbe, ki so zavezane davku od dobička pravnih oseb, ne da bi ga bile opro�čene, vemo pa, da so kolektivni finančni podjemi, če so zavezani temu davku, obdavčeni po stopnji nič.
12 — See, on this point, Case C-513/04 Kerckhaert and Morres [2006] ECR I-10967, concerning Belgian legislation which, in the context of income tax, subjects dividends from shares in companies established in Belgium and dividends from shares in companies established in another Member State to the same uniform rate of taxation, without providing for the possibility of setting off the tax levied by deduction at source in that other Member State.
12 – V zvezi s tem glej sodbo z dne 14. novembra 2006 v zadevi Kerckhaert in Morres (C-513/04, ZOdl., str. I-10967) glede belgijske zakonodaje, ki v okviru dohodnine obdavči dividende iz delnic družb s sedežem na ozemlju Belgije in dividende iz delnic družb s sedežem v drugi državi članici po enaki in enotni davčni stopnji, ne da bi pri tem predvidela možnost odbitja pri viru odtegnjenega davka v tej drugi državi članici.
The Court ruled that the tax system at issue made no distinction between the dividends of companies established in Belgium and those of companies established in another Member State.
Sodi�če je ugotovilo, da zadevni davčni sistem ne razlikuje med dividendami družb s sedežem v Belgiji in dividendami družb s sedežem v drugi državi članici.
It held that the adverse consequences which might arise from the application of such a system for a taxpayer receiving dividends which had been subjected to deduction at source in another Member State resulted solely from the exercise in parallel by two Member States of their fiscal sovereignty (paragraph 20).
Menilo je, da negativne posledice, ki bi jih izvajanje takega sistema lahko povzročilo za davčnega zavezanca, ki prejema dividende, za katere je bil davek odtegnjen pri viru v drugi državi članici, izhajajo iz vzporednega izvajanja davčnih pristojnosti dveh držav članic (točka 20).
13 — Case C-307/97 Saint-Gobain ZN [1999] ECR I-6161, paragraphs 57 and 58.
11 – Konvencija z dne 23. julija 1990 o odpravi dvojnega obdavčevanja v zvezi s preračunom dobička povezanih podjetij (UL L 225, str. 10).
situation of a taxpayer receiving dividends originating in other Member States was comparable to that of a taxpayer receiving nationallysourced dividends in so far as, in each case, such dividends were liable to be subject to a series of charges to tax or to double economic taxation, which the said provisions were specifically intended to prevent or mitigate. 15
zavezanca, ki prejema domače dividende, če so te dividende v obeh primerih lahko predmet verižne obdavčitve ali ekonomske dvojne obdavčitve, ki naj bi jih navedeni predpisi preprečevali ali omilili. 15
As regards the taxation of incoming dividends, it follows from the caselaw that, where a Member State taxes resident taxpayers on the entirety of the dividends they receive and adopts provisions to prevent or mitigate the double economic taxation of those dividends, it cannot limit the benefit of those provisions to nationallysourced dividends but must extend that advantage to dividends paid by companies established in other Member States. 14
V zvezi z obdavčitvijo dividend iz tujine iz sodne prakse izhaja, da država članica, če obdavči davčne zavezance rezidente za vse dividende, ki jih prejmejo, in sprejme predpise, da bi preprečila ali omilila ekonomsko dvojno obdavčevanje teh dividend, ne more omejiti veljavnosti teh predpisov za domače dividende, ampak mora to ugodnost raz�iriti na dividende, ki jih izplačajo družbe s sedežem v drugih državah članicah. 14
As regards the taxation of outgoing dividends, it is also settled caselaw that, from the time when a Member State, unilaterally or by agreement, makes not only resident shareholders but also nonresident shareholders liable to income tax on dividends which they receive from a resident company, that State must ensure that, with regard to the mechanism provided for in its domestic law to prevent or mitigate a series of charges to tax, nonresident shareholders are afforded
Kar zadeva obdavčitev dividend v tujini, iz ustaljene sodne prakse prav tako izhaja, da mora država članica od trenutka, ko enostransko ali s pogodbo z dohodnino obdavči ne samo delničarje rezidente, ampak tudi delničarje nerezidente, za dividende, ki jih prejemajo od družbe rezidentke, zagotavljati, da so glede na mehanizem, določen z njenim nacionalnim pravom za izogibanje ali omilitev verižne obdavčitve, delničarji
The Court held that that equal treatment was necessary on the ground that, in the light of the purpose of such provisions, the
Sodi�če je razsodilo, da je to enako obravnavanje potrebno zato, ker je bil zaradi namena takih predpisov položaj davčnega zavezanca, ki prejema dividende iz drugih držav članic, primerljiv s položajem davčnega
The same requirement does not necessarily apply to dividends paid by companies established in nonmember countries.
Ista zahteva se ne postavlja avtomatično za dividende, ki jih izplačajo družbe s sedežem v tretjih državah.
In that judgment, the Court accepted that it cannot be ruled out that a Member State may be able to demonstrate that a restriction on capital movements to or from nonmember countries is justified for a particular reason in circumstances where that reason would not constitute a valid justification for a restriction on capital movements between Member States.
Sodi�če je v tej sodbi priznalo, da ne more biti izključeno, da je omejevanje pretoka kapitala proti tretjim državam ali iz njih upravičeno iz razloga, danega v okoli�činah, v katerih ta razlog ne bi bil tak, da bi pomenil veljavno upravičitev omejevanja pretoka kapitala med državami članicami.
This may be the case, in particular, in a situation involving verification of the tax paid by distributing companies established in nonmember countries since the Community legislation aimed at ensuring cooperation between national tax authorities, such as Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation (OJ 1977 L 336, p.
Tako je zlasti v primeru, ki vključuje preverjanje davka, ki ga plačajo družbe, ki izplačujejo dividende, s sedežem v tretjih državah, če se, ker se zakonodajni ukrepi Skupnosti, ki se nana�ajo na sodelovanje med nacionalnimi davčnimi organi, kot je Direktiva Sveta 77/799/EGS z dne 19. decembra 1977 o medsebojni pomoči pristojnih organov držav članic na področju neposredne obdavčitve (UL L 336, str.
15), is not applicable and thus it may be more difficult to determine the tax paid by those companies in the State in which they are resident than it would be in a purely Community context (paragraphs 169 to 171).
15), ne uporabljajo, preverjanje davka, ki so ga plačale te družbe v državi, v kateri so rezidentke, izkaže za težavnej�e kot v izključnem okviru Skupnosti (točke od 169 do 171).
ORANGE EUROPEAN SMALLCAP FUND treatment that is equivalent to that enjoyed by resident shareholders. 16
ORANGE EUROPEAN SMALLCAP FUND nerezidenti obravnavani enako kot delničarji rezidenti.
18In other words, a Member State may not make those rights subject to a reciprocity agreement entered into with another Member State for the purpose of obtaining corresponding advantages in that State. 19
18 Povedano drugače, država članica teh pravic ne more pogojevati s konvencijo o vzajemnosti, sklenjeno z drugo državo članico, da bi od te države dobila ustrezne ugodnosti. 19
In such a case, equal treatment is required of the Member State which is the source of the dividends because that State has decided to exercise its fiscal powers not only in relation to dividends paid to resident shareholders but also in relation to dividends distributed to nonresident shareholders. 17
V tem primeru se od države članice zahteva, naj enako obravnava izvor dividend, ker se je ta država odločila izvajati davčno pristojnost ne samo v zvezi z dividendami, izplačanimi delničarjem rezidentom, ampak tudi v zvezi z dividendami, razdeljenimi delničarjem nerezidentom. 17
The second lesson is that, where a tax measure introduced by a Member State constitutes an obstacle to a freedom of movement provided for in the Treaty, a bilateral convention may be taken into account when it neutralises that obstacle.
Drugi nauk je, da se, če obstaja davčni ukrep države članice, ki ovira prost pretok, določen s Pogodbo, dvostranska konvencija upo�teva, če nevtralizira to oviro.
20The Court
20Sodi�če
Effect of bilateral conventions examines whether the combined application of the legislation at issue and the bilateral convention allows a restriction on the applicable freedom of movement to continue 21 or refers that assessment to the national court. 22
Vpliv dvostranskih konvencij preuči, ali povezana uporaba zadevne zakonodaje in dvostranske konvencije ohranja v uporabi omejevanje prostega pretoka 21, ali vrne zadevo v presojo nacionalnemu sodi�ču. 22
The third lesson is that, where a nonresident taxpayer is in the same situation as a resident taxpayer, he must, under the principle of national treatment, benefit from the advantages of a bilateral convention
Tretji nauk je, da kadar je davčni zavezanec nerezident v istem položaju kot davčni zavezanec rezident, mora biti v skladu z načelom nacionalne obravnave v istih okoli�činah kot davčni zavezanci rezidenti upra-
20 — Denkavit Internationaal and Denkavit France, paragraph 45 and the caselaw cited.
20 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Denkavit Internationaal in Denkavit France (točka 45 in navedena sodna praksa).
21 — Ibidem, paragraph 47.
21 – Ibidem (točka 47).
I shall now examine the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden in the light of that outline of the case-law.
Na podlagi teh smernic sodne prakse bom preučil vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje, ki jih je postavilo Hoge Raad der Nederlanden.
B — The questions referred
B – Vprašanja za predhodno odločanje
(a) The relevant freedom of movement
Uvod a) Določba o prostem pretoku, ki jo je treba uporabiti
The fourth lesson is that Community law does not require a Member State to extend to a nonresident taxpayer who is not in a situation comparable to that of a resident taxpayer the benefit of a bilateral convention concluded with a country other than that of that nonresident taxpayer.
Četrti nauk je, da pravo Skupnosti državi članici ne nalaga, naj na davčnega zavezanca nerezidenta, ki ni v položaju, primerljivem s položajem davčnega zavezanca rezidenta, raz�iri ugodnost iz dvostranske konvencije, sklenjene z državo, ki ni država tega davčnega zavezanca nerezidenta.
24 In other words, in matters of taxation, Community law does not require a Member State to grant to a resident of another Member State the benefit of the most-favoured-nation clause.
24Z drugimi besedami, pravo Skupnosti na davčnem področju državi članici ne nalaga, naj rezidentu druge države članice odobri ugodnost iz klavzule o priznavanju največjih ugodnosti.
It should be noted at the outset that the receipt, by a shareholder resident or established in a Member State, of dividends from nonresident companies constitutes a movement of capital within the meaning of Article 56 EC. 25
V uvodu je treba opozoriti, da gre pri tem, da delničar s prebivali�čem ali sedežem v državi članici prejema dividende od družb nerezidentk, za pretok kapitala v smislu člena 56 ES. 25
According to the caselaw, national legislation which makes the receipt of dividends liable to tax, where the rate depends
Iz sodne prakse izhaja, da se za nacionalno zakonodajo, po kateri je prejemanje dividend obdavčeno z davkom, katerega stopnja je odvisna od tega, ali so dividende domače ali tuje, ne glede na velikost deleža, ki ga ima delničar v družbi, ki izplačuje
In that case, D., a German national resident in Germany, who held 10% of his wealth in the Netherlands and was liable to wealth tax in that Member State by virtue of the assets he held there, had applied for the allowance provided under Netherlands law for resident taxpayers.
V tej zadevi je nem�ki državljan D. s stalnim prebivali�čem v Nemčiji, ki je imel 10 % svojega premoženja na Nizozemskem in je bil zavezan davku od premoženja v tej državi članici iz naslova premoženja, ki ga je imel, zaprosil, naj se mu prizna pravica do olaj�ave, ki jo nizozemski zakon določa za davčne zavezance rezidente.
The Court held that that wealth tax could be treated in the same way as income tax in that it was established on the basis of the taxpayer’s capacity to pay.
Sodi�če je razsodilo, da je ta davek od premoženja enak dohodnini, ker je bil določen glede na davčno sposobnost davčnega zavezanca.
It inferred from this that a nonresident taxpayer who held only a small portion of his wealth in the Netherlands was not in the same situation as a resident taxpayer, with the result that he was not eligible for the allowance at issue.
Iz tega je sklepalo, da davčni zavezanec nerezident, ki ima samo majhen del svojega premoženja na Nizozemskem, ni v istem položaju kot davčni zavezanec rezident, tako da ne more uveljavljati pravice do zadevne olaj�ave.
The next question was whether D. was the subject of discrimination on the ground that a taxpayer resident in Belgium in a situation similar to his own was eligible for the disputed allowance by virtue of the convention concluded between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Kingdom of Belgium.
Nato se je postavljalo vpra�anje, ali je bil D. žrtev diskriminacije, ker je bil davčni zavezanec s prebivali�čem v Belgiji, ki je bil v enakem položaju kot D., upravičen do sporne olaj�ave na podlagi konvencije, sklenjene med Kraljevino Nizozemsko in Kraljevino Belgijo.
The Court held that such a difference in treatment was not contrary to Community law.
Sodi�če je menilo, da tako različno obravnavanje ni v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti.
See also, to the same effect, Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation, with regard to the difference in circumstances resulting from the fact that only some of the bilateral conventions concluded between Member States and other States provided for a tax credit for residents of the contracting States.
Glej v istem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation v zvezi z različnim položajem, ki je posledica dejstva, da so samo nekatere dvostranske konvencije, sklenjene med državo članico in drugimi državami, določale odbitek davka v korist rezidentov držav podpisnic.
25 — Verkooijen, paragraphs 28 to 30.
25 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Verkooijen (točke od 28 do 30).
ORANGE EUROPEAN SMALLCAP FUND first question, parts (a) and (b), it asks the Court whether the two limitations at issue are compatible with the provisions of Articles 56 EC and 58 EC.
ORANGE EUROPEAN SMALLCAP FUND vpra�anjem pod (a) in (b) spra�uje Sodi�če o združljivosti obeh zadevnih omejitev z določbami členov 56 ES in 58 ES.