natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
on whether the source of those dividends is national or otherwise, irrespective of the extent of the holding which the shareholder has in the company making the distribution, may fall within the scope of both Article 43 EC on freedom of establishment and Article 56 EC on free movement of capital.
dividende, lahko uporabljata člen 43 ES o svobodi ustanavljanja in tudi člen 56 ES o prostem pretoku kapitala.
26 However, where the shareholder’s interest in the capital of a company does not give him definite influence over the decisions of that company and does not allow him to determine its activities, the provisions of Article 56 EC alone are applicable. 27
26 Če pa delničarju njegov delež v kapitalu družbe ne omogoča izvajanja določenega vpliva na odločitve te družbe niti na določanje njenih dejavnosti, se uporabljajo samo določbe člena 56 ES. 27
By its second question, parts (a) to (c), to which I attach the third question, parts (b) and (c), the Hoge Raad seeks to ascertain what conclusions should be drawn from the fact that a fiscal investment enterprise such as OESF has invested in nonmember countries and itself has shareholders who are resident or established in nonmember countries.
Z drugim vpra�anjem pod točkami od (a) do (c), h kateremu dodajam tretje vpra�anje pod (b) in (c), želi izvedeti, kaj je treba sklepati iz dejstva, da je kolektivni naložbeni podjem, kot je družba OESF, vlagal v tretje države in ima sam delničarje, ki imajo prebivali�če ali sedež v tretjih državah.
It is clear from the information provided by the referring court that, during the relevant financial year, the interest held by OESF in the capital of the companies making distributions did not permit it to determine the activities of those companies.
Iz podatkov, ki jih je predložilo predložitveno sodi�če, je razvidno, da deleži v kapitalu družb izplačevalk dividend družbi OESF v upo�tevnem računovodskem letu niso omogočali določanja dejavnosti teh družb.
I shall therefore examine the compatibility of the contested limitations with Community law in the light of the Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital, and in the light of those provisions alone.
Torej bom z vidika določb Pogodbe o prostem pretoku kapitala in samo z vidika teh določb preučil združljivost spornih omejitev s pravom Skupnosti.
Finally, by its third question, part (a), the Hoge Raad asks whether the fact that the tax deducted in another country is higher than the tax payable on dividends distributed to foreign shareholders in the Member State in which the fiscal investment enterprise is established affects the answers to the preceding questions.
Nazadnje predložitveno sodi�če s tretjim vpra�anjem pod (a) spra�uje, ali okoli�čina, da je davek, ki je bil odtegnjen v drugi državi, vi�ji od davka na dividende, razdeljene tujim delničarjem v državi članici, v kateri ima sedež kolektivni naložbeni podjem, vpliva na odgovor na prej�nja vpra�anja.
The Hoge Raad has referred three sets of questions for preliminary ruling.
Predložitveno sodi�če postavlja tri sklope vpra�anj za predhodno odločanje. S prvim
26 — Case C-157/05 Holböck [2007] ECR I-4051, paragraph 24 and the caselaw cited.
26 – Sodba z dne 24. marca 2007 v zadevi Holböck (C-157/05, ZOdl., str. I-4051, točka 24 in navedena sodna praksa).
27 — See, to that effect, Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 38.
27 – Glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation (točka 38).
I shall examine those three sets of questions in turn.
Te tri sklope vpra�anj bom preučil zaporedoma.
The first set of questions referred established in the Netherlands enjoys a full refund of the Netherlands tax on dividends deducted at source by those companies.
Prvi sklop vpra�anj za predhodno odločanje je kolektivni naložbeni podjem, ki prejema dividende od družb s sedežem na Nizozemskem, upravičen do celotnega povračila nizozemskega davka na dividende, ki so ga te družbe odtegnile pri viru.
(a) First question, part (a)
a) Prvo vpra�anje pod (a)
OESF and the Commission of the European Communities submit, in the light of that statement, that the contested scheme unjustifiably affords different treatment to tax deducted at source in Germany and Portugal and to tax deducted at source in the Netherlands and that it is therefore contrary to Community law.
Družba OESF in Komisija Evropskih skupnosti na podlagi te ugotovitve trdita, da sporni sistem neupravičeno razlikuje med davki, ki so bili pri viru odtegnjeni v Nemčiji in na Portugalskem, in davki, ki so bili pri viru odtegnjeni na Nizozemskem, ter da je zato v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti.
By its first question, part (a), the Hoge Raad asks in essence whether Articles 56 EC and 58 EC must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as the Netherlands legislation at issue, which, in providing for the benefit of fiscal investment enterprises a concession intended to take account of tax deducted at source by another Member State on dividends paid to those enterprises, restricts that concession to the amount which a natural person resident in the Netherlands could have offset under a convention for the prevention of double taxation concluded with that other Member State.
Predložitveno sodi�če s prvim vpra�anjem pod (a) spra�uje, ali je treba člena 56 ES in 58 ES razlagati tako, da nasprotujeta zakonodaji države članice, kot je zadevna nizozemska zakonodaja, ki ob tem da v korist kolektivnih naložbenih podjemov določa nadomestilo za upo�tevanje davkov, ki jih druga država članica odtegne pri viru od dividend, izplačanih navedenim podjemom, to nadomestilo omejuje na znesek, ki bi ga fizična oseba s prebivali�čem na nizozemskem ozemlju lahko odbila na podlagi konvencije o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja, sklenjene z drugo državo članico.
OESF further submits that the scheme is also contrary to Articles 56 EC and 58 EC because, if it invests in any Member State other than Germany and Portugal, the fiscal investment enterprise receives a concession intended to prevent or mitigate the double taxation of the dividends.
Družba OESF �e trdi, da je ta sistem tudi v nasprotju s členoma 56 ES in 58 ES, ker kolektivni naložbeni podjem v primeru vlaganj v drugi državi članici, razen v Nemčiji in na Portugalskem, prejema nadomestilo za preprečevanje ali omilitev dvojnega obdavčevanja dividend.
By that question, the Hoge Raad seeks to ascertain whether the refusal by the Netherlands tax authority to take account of the tax paid by OESF in Germany and Portugal on dividends originating in those States is contrary to Articles 56 EC and 58 EC.
Navedeno sodi�če želi s tem vpra�anjem izvedeti, ali je to, da je nizozemski davčni organ zavrnil upo�tevanje davkov, ki jih je družba OESF plačala v Nemčiji in na Portugalskem od dividend iz teh držav, v nasprotju s členoma 56 ES in 58 ES.
The Netherlands Government argues that the contested scheme complies with Community law.
Nizozemska vlada trdi, da je sporni sistem v skladu s pravom Skupnosti.
In its opinion, that scheme makes no distinction based on the origin of the dividends because the refund of the Netherlands tax is in reality an exemption, with the result that fiscal investment enter-
Po njenem mnenju ta sistem namreč ne razlikuje glede na izvor dividend, ker je povračilo nizozemskega davka v resnici oprostitev, tako da kolektivni naložbeni podjemi ne bi bili obdavčeni niti za domače niti za tuje dividende. Zato bi bila dvojna obdavčitev,
ORANGE EUROPEAN SMALLCAP FUND prises are taxed neither on national dividends nor on foreign dividends. Consequently, the double taxation of the dividends from Germany and Portugal follows in this case from the exercise by each of those Member States of its respective powers in matters of taxation and the situation in the present case is comparable to that in Kerckhaert and Morres.
ORANGE EUROPEAN SMALLCAP FUND ki bremeni dividende iz Nemčije in s Portugalske, v obravnavanem primeru posledica dejstva, da je vsaka od teh držav članic izvajala svoje pristojnosti na davčnem področju, položaj v obravnavanem primeru pa naj bi bil primerljiv s položajem v zadevi, v kateri je bila izrečena zgoraj navedena sodba Kerckhaert in Morres.
In my opinion, limiting the benefit of the concession provided for under that scheme to taxes deducted at source in Member States other than Germany and Portugal cannot be considered to be a difference in treatment which is inherent in the bilateral conventions concluded between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Member States, within the meaning of the judgment in D.
Po mojem mnenju omejitve pravice do nadomestila, predvidenega s tem sistemom, na davke, odtegnjene pri viru v drugih državah članicah, razen v Nemčiji in na Portugalskem, ni mogoče �teti za različno obravnavanje, ki je značilno za dvostranske konvencije, sklenjene med Kraljevino Nizozemsko in državami članicami, v smislu zgoraj navedene sodbe D.
I shall deal with each of those points in turn.
Vse te točke bom obravnaval zaporedoma.
The Netherlands Government also explains that the fact that the tax deducted in Germany and Portugal does not give rise to a concession, unlike the tax deducted at source in other Member States such as Italy, is inherent in the content of the bilateral conventions concluded with those other States, with the result that, from that point of view, the situation in this case is comparable to that in the judgment in D.
Nizozemska vlada tudi pojasnjuje, da naj bi bila okoli�čina, da davek, odtegnjen v Nemčiji in na Portugalskem, ne povzroči nadomestila, v nasprotju z davki, ki se pri viru odtegnejo v drugih državah članicah, kot je Italija, povezana z vsebino dvostranskih konvencij, sklenjenih z drugimi državami članicami, tako da bi bil s tega vidika položaj v obravnavanem primeru primerljiv s položajem v zadevi, v kateri je bila izrečena zgoraj navedena sodba D.
I share the opinion of the Netherlands Government with regard to the first part of its analysis.
Strinjam se z mnenjem nizozemske vlade, kar zadeva prvi del njene analize.
Unlike OESF and the Commission, I do not believe that the contested tax scheme must be considered contrary to Community law when the treatment afforded under that scheme to dividends from Germany and Portugal is compared with that afforded to dividends originating in the Netherlands.
V nasprotju z družbo OESF in Komisijo menim, da spornega davčnega sistema ni treba obravnavati, kot da je v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti, če obravnavanje dividend iz Nemčije in s Portugalske po tem sistemu primerjam z obravnavanjem dividend iz Nizozemske.
It should be noted at the outset that, under the contested tax scheme, a fiscal investment enterprise is taxed on its profits at a zero rate and that its shareholders are taxed on the entirety of the profits distributed to them by that enterprise irrespective of their origin, that is to say, both dividends paid by companies established in the Netherlands and foreign-sourced dividends.
V uvodu je treba opozoriti, da je kolektivni naložbeni podjem v skladu s spornim davčnim sistemom obdavčen od dobička po stopnji nič in da so delničarji obdavčeni za celoten dobiček, ki jim ga razdeli ta podjem, ne glede na izvor dobička, se pravi, za dividende, ki jih izplačajo družbe s sedežem na Nizozemskem in v tujini.
The profits distributed to a fiscal investment enterprise by companies established in Germany and Portugal therefore form part of the profits taxed in the Netherlands on their distribution to the shareholders of that enterprise by means of deduction at source by the latter.
Dobiček, ki ga kolektivnemu naložbenemu podjemu izplačajo družbe s sedežem v Nemčiji in na Portugalskem, je torej del dobička, ki se na Nizozemskem obdavči ob razdelitvi delničarjem tega podjema z davkom, ki ga pri viru odtegne ta podjem.
It is also common ground that the Netherlands tax on dividends, which is deducted at source by companies established in the Netherlands, is refunded to the fiscal investment enterprise and that that enterprise receives from the Kingdom of the Netherlands a concession for taxes deducted at source in Member States other than Germany and Portugal.
Prav tako ni sporno, da se davek na nizozemske dividende, ki ga družbe s sedežem na Nizozemskem odtegnejo pri viru, povrne kolektivnemu naložbenemu podjemu in da ta podjem od Kraljevine Nizozemske prejme nadomestilo iz naslova davka, ki je bil pri viru odtegnjen v državah članicah, razen v Nemčiji in na Portugalskem.
A comparison of the treatment afforded under the contested tax scheme to dividends originating in Germany and Portugal and that afforded to dividends originating in the Netherlands shows that, at the level of the fiscal investment enterprise, those dividends, whatever their origin, are not taxed under Netherlands law.
Če primerjamo, kako se v spornem davčnem sistemu obravnavajo dividende iz Nemčije in s Portugalske in kako nizozemske dividende, in če se postavimo v položaj kolektivnega naložbenega podjema, ugotovimo, da te dividende ne glede na njihov izvor po nizozemskem pravu niso obdavčene.
In those circumstances, it is more advantageous for a fiscal investment enterprise to invest in companies established in the Netherlands and in Member States other than Germany and Portugal than to invest in companies established in the latter two Member States.
V teh okoli�činah je za kolektivni naložbeni podjem ugodneje vlagati v družbe s sedežem na Nizozemskem in tudi v drugih državah članicah, razen v Nemčiji in na Portugalskem, kot v družbe s sedežem v obeh zadnjenavedenih državah.
While dividends originating in the Netherlands are taxed only once at the level of the shareholders, and while dividends originating in Member States other than Germany and Portugal give rise to a concession in respect of the tax deducted at source, dividends from the latter two Member States still remain subject to double taxation.
Medtem ko se dividende iz Nizozemske obdavčijo samo enkrat na ravni delničarjev in dividende iz drugih držav članic, razen iz Nemčije in s Portugalske, dajejo pravico do nadomestila iz naslova pri viru odtegnjenega davka, ostajajo dividende iz teh dveh držav dvojno obdavčene.
Indeed, as the Netherlands Government states, refunding the Netherlands tax on dividends, levied in the form of a deduction at source by the distributing companies established in the Netherlands, is in reality tantamount to exempting the fiscal investment enterprise from that tax.
Kot navaja nizozemska vlada, je povračilo nizozemskega davka na dividende, ki so ga pri viru odtegnile družbe s sedežem na Nizozemskem, ki izplačujejo dividende, v resnici oprostitev kolektivnega naložbenega podjema od plačila tega davka.
Deduction at source by those companies is, after all, no more than a means of recovering the tax on dividends owed by the person receiving them.
Davek, ki ga pri viru odtegnejo navedene družbe, je namreč samo način izterjave davka na dividende, ki so ga dolžni plačati njihovi prejemniki.
28 In so far as a fiscal investment enter-
28Če se dobiček kolektivnega
28 — The purpose of this system of deduction at source, according to the explanations provided by the Netherlands Government, is to collect in advance the income tax or corporation tax payable on dividends in order to avoid any concealment on the part of shareholders.
28 – Glede na pojasnila nizozemske vlade je namen tega sistema pri viru odtegnjenega davka vnaprej pobrati dohodnino ali davek od dobička pravnih oseb, ki se plača od dividend, da se prepreči sleherno prikrivanje s strani delničarjev.
However, in accordance with the caselaw, such restrictions are contrary to the
To različno obravnavanje torej lahko kolektivne naložbene podjeme odvrne od vlaganj v Nemčiji in na Portugalskem in ovira družbe s sedežem v teh dveh državah članicah pri zbiranju kapitala na Nizozemskem pri takih podjemih.
ORANGE EUROPEAN SMALLCAP FUND prise is taxed on its profits at a zero rate, it is logical that such deductions at source should be refunded to it. 29
ORANGE EUROPEAN SMALLCAP FUND naložbenega podjema obdavči po stopnji nič, je logično, da se mu ta pri viru odtegnjeni davek povrne. 29
Similarly, the dividends paid to such an enterprise by companies established in Germany and Portugal are not taxed at the level of the enterprise under Netherlands law.
Prav tako se po nizozemskem pravu dividende, ki jih takemu podjemu izplačajo družbe s sedežem v Nemčiji in na Portugalskem, ne obdavčijo na ravni tega podjema.
At this stage, Netherlands law does not therefore apply to dividends originating in Germany and Portugal treatment differing from that afforded to Netherlands dividends.
Nizozemsko pravo v tej fazi dividend iz Nemčije in s Portugalske ne obravnava drugače kot nizozemske dividende.
The situation in this case is therefore different, in my view, from that at issue in Manninen, which was referred to both by the Hoge Raad and by OESF and the Commission. In Manninen, the Finnish rules granted to persons primarily taxable in Finland a tax credit in respect of dividends paid by companies established in that Member State.
Položaj v obravnavanem primeru se torej po mojem razlikuje od položaja, ki se obravnava v zadevi, v kateri je bila izrečena zgoraj navedena sodba Manninen, na katero se sklicujejo predložitevno sodi�če ter družba OESF in Komisija.
The tax credit was intended to prevent the economic double taxation of those dividends.
V tej zadevi so namreč finski predpisi osebam, ki so bile primarni davčni zavezanci na Finskem, odobrile odbitek davka iz naslova dividend, ki so jih izplačale družbe s sedežem v tej državi.
It involved setting off the tax payable in the form of corporation tax by the company distributing the dividends against that payable by the shareholder in the form of income tax.
Cilj tega odbitka davka je izogibanje ekonomskega dvojnega obdavčevanja teh dividend.
At this stage too, the scheme does not contain different rules for dividends originating in Germany and Portugal and for those originating in the Netherlands.
Davek, ki ga mora družba, ki izplačuje dividende, plačati od navedenih dividend iz naslova davka od dobička pravnih oseb, se odbije od davka, ki ga mora delničar plačati iz naslova dohodnine.
That tax credit differs in two ways from the refund system at issue in the present case.
Navedeni odbitek davka se z dveh vidikov razlikuje od zadevnega sistema povračila v tej zadevi.
In the light of this analysis, the fact that dividends originating in Germany and
Navedeni sistem v tej fazi tudi ne določa različnih pravil za dividende iz Nemčije in s Portugalske ter za nizozemske dividende.
29 — The Netherlands Government explained in its written observations that its legislation initially provided for an exemption from the tax on dividends but that that exemption had had to be replaced by the contested scheme because of the administrative constraints which it imposed on the fiscal investment enterprises in terms of justifying their situation to the companies making a distribution prior to each dividend payment.
29 – Nizozemska vlada je v pisnih izjavah navedla, da je njena zakonodaja prvotno določala oprostitev davka na dividende, vendar je morala namesto tega uvesti sporni sistem zaradi upravnih zahtev, ki jih je ta oprostitev nalagala kolektivnim naložbenim podjemom, v smislu dokazovanja svojega položaja pri družbah izplačevalkah dividend pred vsakim izplačilom dividend.
First, as has been seen, the purpose of the refund is not to take account of the corporation tax payable by companies established
Na eni strani, kot smo videli, ni namen tega povračila upo�tevanje davka od dobička
in the Netherlands but to exempt a fiscal investment enterprise from tax on dividends.
pravnih oseb, ki ga morajo plačati družbe s sedežem na Nizozemskem, ampak oprostitev kolektivnega naložbenega podjema od plačila davka na dividende.
Second, the legislation at issue in Manninen provided for different treatment in comparable situations in that the tax credit was reserved for dividends paid by national companies, while a Finnish shareholder was also taxed in Finland on dividends originating in other Member States and there was no provision in Finnish law to take account of the corporation tax paid by companies making distributions abroad.
Na drugi strani zakonodaja, ki se obravnava v zgoraj navedeni zadevi Manninen, določa drugačno obravnavanje primerljivih položajev, ker je bil odbitek davka pridržan za dividende, ki jih izplačajo nacionalne družbe, medtem ko je bil finski delničar na Finskem obdavčen tudi za dividende iz drugih držav članic in ker v finski zakonodaji ni bil sprejet noben predpis za upo�tevanje davka od dobička pravnih oseb, ki ga plačajo družbe, ki izplačujejo dividende v tujini.
Likewise, the exemption which results from the scheme at issue here is different from that provided for by the Netherlands legislation at issue in Verkooijen, to which OESF and the Commission have also made reference.
Prav tako se oprostitev, ki izhaja iz spornega sistema, razlikuje od oprostitve, določene z nizozemskim zakonom, ki se obravnava v zadevi, v kateri je bila izrečena zgoraj navedena sodba Verkooijen, na katero sta se družba OESF in Komisija prav tako sklicevali.
That legislation provided for an exemption from the income tax payable on dividends paid to natural persons who were shareholders on condition that the dividends were distributed by companies which had their seat in the Netherlands.
Ta zakon namreč določa oprostitev plačila dohodnine, s katero so obdavčene dividende, ki se izplačajo fizičnim osebam delničarjem, če dividende izplačujejo družbe s sedežem na Nizozemskem.
In so far as those shareholders were taxed in the Netherlands on the totality of the dividends which they received, including those originating in other Member States, the limitation of the exemption to national dividends did indeed constitute a difference in treatment between national dividends and
Če so ti delničarji obdavčeni na Nizozemskem za vse dividende, ki jih prejmejo, vključno z dividendami iz drugih držav članic, omejitev oprostitve na nacionalne
I do not believe this is so because, in such a situation, Community law does not oblige either Germany and Portugal, on the one hand, or the Netherlands, on the other, to waive their respective powers of taxation.
Tega ne mislim, ker pravo Skupnosti v takem položaju ne zavezuje niti Nemčije niti Portugalske niti Nizozemske, da se odrečejo svojemu pooblastilu za obdavčevanje.
Like the Netherlands Government, I take the view that the situation in this case may be likened to that in Kerckhaert and Morres.
Enako kot nizozemska vlada menim, da se položaj v obravnavanem primeru lahko primerja z zadevo, v kateri je bila izrečena zgoraj navedena sodba Kerckhaert in Morres.
ORANGE EUROPEAN SMALLCAP FUND ginating in Germany and Portugal with that of dividends originating in other Member States.
ORANGE EUROPEAN SMALLCAP FUND dividende iz Nemčije in s Portugalske in kako dividende iz drugih držav članic, ne strinjam s stali�čem nizozemske vlade.
As in Kerkhaert and Morres, the present case concerns a situation in which dividends originating in other Member States are treated identically by the contested national legislation and are subject to double taxation because of the exercise by those other States of their respective powers of taxation at source.
Enako kot v tej zadevi se tu ukvarjamo s položajem, v katerem sporna nacionalna zakonodaja enako obravnava dividende iz drugih držav članic, ki so dvojno obdavčene, ker te države izvajajo svoje pooblastilo za obdavčitev pri viru.