natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
After observing that such legislation introduces a dierence in treatment between subsidiaries established in the same Member State according to whether or not their parent company has its corporate seat in that State, a dierence which restricts the freedom of establishment, the Court held that the restriction was justied by the need to safeguard the balanced allocation of the power to tax between the Member States in combination with the need to prevent tax avoidance.
Sodišče je zavrnilo trditve o nujnosti ohranitve učinkovitosti davčnega nadzora in preprečevanja davčnega izogibanja ter presodilo, da so za uresničitev teh dveh ciljev na voljo manj omejevalna sredstva.
Taken together, these considerations constitute legitimate objectives compatible with the EC Treaty and justied by overriding reasons in the public interest.
Prav tako ni bilo sprejeto utemeljevanje z doslednostjo davčnega sistema brez dokaza o neposredni povezavi med davčno ugodnostjo in soodvisnim prikrajšanjem, ki ju je treba ohraniti.
According to the Court, to accept that an intragroup cross-border transfer could be deducted would allow groups of companies to choose freely the Member State in which the prots of the subsidiary are to be taxed, by removing them from the basis of assessment of the latter and, where that transfer is regarded as taxable income in the Member State of the parent company transferee, incorporating them in the basis of assessment of the parent company; this would
Edini dejavnik, ki bi lahko negativno vplival na to doslednost, je namreč nepričakovan prenos stalnega prebivališča zavezanca med plačevanjem prispevkov v pokojninski načrt in izplačilom ustreznih dajatev in ne toliko okoliščina, da je pokojninska institucija v drugi državi članici.
Court of Justice undermine the system of the allocation of the power to tax between Member States.
(ES) št. 2007/2004 ga je Svet izključil iz udeležbe pri sprejemanju teh uredb, je zahtevalo, da se ti uredbi razglasita za nični, z obrazložitvijo, da je bil s to izključitvijo kršen Schengenski protokol.
Furthermore, the possibility of transferring the taxable income of a subsidiary to a parent company with its establishment in another Member State carries the risk that, by means of purely articial arrangements, income transfers may be organised within a group of companies towards companies in Member States applying the lowest rates of taxation.
Sodišče je presodilo, da je bil Schengenski protokol pravilno uporabljen in da je treba njegov člen 5(1) razlagati tako, da je udeležba države članice pri sprejetju ukrepa na podlagi tega člena mogoča samo, če to državo zavezuje področje schengenskega pravnega reda, h kateremu spada ukrep – ki se ga namerava sprejeti – ali katerega razvoj pomeni, za kar pa v tem primeru ni šlo.
Finally, the Court held that, even if such legislation is not specically designed to exclude purely articial arrangements from the tax advantage it confers, it may be regarded as proportionate to the above objectives, taken as a whole, since extending the tax advantage to cross-border situations would allow groups of companies to choose freely the Member State in which their prots are to be taxed, to the detriment of the right of the Member State where the subsidiary is located to tax prots generated by activities carried out on its territory.
Po mnenju Sodišča bi bila posledica razlage, ki jo zastopa Združeno kraljestvo, odvzem polnega učinka členu 4 Schengenskega protokola, ker bi Združeno kraljestvo in Irska lahko sodelovala pri vseh predlogih in pobudah za nadgrajevanje schengenskega pravnega reda na podlagi člena 5(1) navedenega protokola, čeprav se ti državi članici pred tem ne bi zavezali upoštevnim določbam tega pravnega reda ali jima ne bi bilo dovoljeno pri tem sodelovati.
In the eld of taxation of individuals, a number of national measures were declared incompatible with the fundamental freedoms in the Treaty because they treated identical situations dierently, without valid justication.
Na področju konkurence vzbujajo pozornost zlasti tri sodbe. Najprej naj opišemo zadevo Autorità garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (sodba z dne 11. decembra 2007, C-280/06), v kateri so predmet obravnave merila za ugotavljanje, katero podjetje je odgovorno za kršitev pravil o konkurenci v primeru nasledstva podjetij, ki sta odvisni od istega javnega organa.
Thus, in Case C-329/05 Meindl [2007] ECR I-1113 the Court ruled that a resident taxpayer cannot be refused, by the Member State of his residence, joint assessment of income tax with his spouse from whom he is not separated and who lives in another Member State on the ground that that spouse received in that Member State both more than 10 % of the household’s income and more than a certain ceiling, where the income received by that spouse in the second Member State is not subject there to income tax.
Sodišče je v tej sodbi najprej spomnilo na to, da mora podjetje, kadar krši pravila o konkurenci, v skladu z načelom osebne odgovornosti samo odgovarjati za to kršitev. Kadar je subjekt, ki je kršil pravila o konkurenci, pravno ali organizacijsko spremenjen, ta sprememba nujno ne pomeni ustanovitve novega podjetja, ki ni odgovorno za ravnanja predhodnega subjekta v nasprotju s pravili o konkurenci, če iz gospodarskega vidika med subjektoma obstaja istovetnost.
Such a taxpayer is treated dierently although he is objectively in the same situation as a resident taxpayer whose spouse is resident in the same Member State and receives there only income not subject to tax.
Sodišče je pojasnilo, da kadar dva subjekta sestavljata enoten gospodarski subjekt, dejstvo, da subjekt, ki je storil kršitev, še obstaja, samo po sebi ne preprečuje sankcioniranja subjekta, h kateremu so bile prenesene njegove gospodarske dejavnosti.
The Court also found that the State of residence of such a taxpayer is the only State which can take account of the taxpayer’s personal and family circumstances, since he is not only resident in that State but, additionally, receives the entire taxable income of the household there.
Na koncu je Sodišče poudarilo, da je tako izvajanje sankcije zlasti dopustno, kadar sta ta subjekta pod nadzorom iste osebe in sta glede na tesne vezi na gospodarskem in organizacijskem področju uporabljala v glavnem iste gospodarske smernice.
Thus, in the absence of justication, the fact that that taxpayer is not in any way entitled, in connection with joint assessment, to have his personal and family circumstances taken into account, but on the contrary is subject to the tax applicable to unmarried persons, despite being married, constitutes discrimination prohibited by the principle of freedom of establishment.
Sodišče je zato presodilo, da je v primeru subjektov, ki sta odvisna od istega javnega organa, lahko – kadar je prvi subjekt začel ravnanje, ki pomeni kršitev pravil o konkurenci – drugi subjekt, ki je prvega, ki ni prenehal obstajati, nasledil, a je to ravnanje nadaljeval do konca, sankcioniran za kršitev v celoti, če se dokaže, da sta bila ta subjekta pod nadzorom navedenega organa.
The judgment in Case C-383/05 Talotta [2007] ECR I-2555 provides a further example of a decision declaring a measure relating to income tax incompatible with the EC Treaty because it treats dierently resident and nonresident taxpayers who are in objectively comparable situations.
Kot drugo naj predstavimo zadevo British Airways proti Komisiji (sodba z dne 15. marca 2007, C-95/04 P, ZOdl., str.
The legislation in question provided that, in the absence of evidence, the taxable non-employment income of a resident taxpayer was established by means of a comparison with that of other taxpayers, whereas that of a nonresident taxpayer was determined by reference to a minimum tax base.
I-2331), v kateri je Sodišče opredelilo sistem premij in popustov, ki jih daje podjetje s prevladujočim položajem. Sodišče je presodilo, da je treba pri
The fact that the use of minimum tax bases may often be favourable to nonresident
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 2252/2004 z dne 13. decembra 2004 o standardih za varnostne značilnosti in biometrične podatke v potnih listih in potovalnih dokumentih, ki jih izdajo države članice (UL L 385, str. 1).
Proceedings taxpayers is immaterial in this regard. The Court then explained that, while the need to ensure the eectiveness of fiscal supervision constitutes an overriding reason in the public interest, it cannot justify this indirect discrimination, since the same practical diculties exist for the fiscal supervision of residents and there are other mechanisms enabling the exchange of tax-related information between Member States.
Razvoj in dejavnost ugotavljanju domnevne zlorabe v okviru podjetja s prevladujočim položajem, sistema popustov ali premij, ki ne pomenijo niti količinskih popustov ali premij niti popustov ali premij za zvestobo, presoditi vse okoliščine, zlasti merila in pogoje dodelitve popusta ali premij.
The Court rejected the arguments relating to the need to maintain eective fiscal supervision and to prevent tax avoidance, holding that less restrictive means of achieving those two objectives existed. Nor was a justication relating to the cohesion of the tax system upheld, in the absence of proof of a direct link requiring preservation between a tax advantage and a corresponding disadvantage.
Najprej je treba preveriti, ali imajo lahko ti popusti ali premije učinek izpodrinjenja, to pomeni, ali lahko, prvič, otežijo ali celo onemogočijo konkurentom podjetja s prevladujočim položajem dostop do trga, in drugič, otežijo ali celo onemogočijo njegovim sopogodbenikom izbiro med več oskrbovalnimi viri ali trgovinskimi partnerji.
In Case C-77/05 United Kingdom v Council and Case C-137/05 United Kingdom v Council (judgments of 18 December 2007), the Court had to interpret the Schengen Protocol (18) in relation to the adoption of Regulations No 2007/2004 (19
Nato je treba ugotoviti, ali so dodeljeni popusti in premije objektivno ekonomsko upravičljivi.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which had been excluded by the Council from participating in the adoption of those regulations, sought their annulment, arguing that its exclusion infringed the Schengen Protocol.
Sodišče je opredelilo tudi pogoje za uporabo prepovedi diskriminacije iz člena 82, drugi odstavek, točka (c), ES za premije in popuste, ki jih daje podjetje s prevladujočim položajem, in poudarilo, da je treba ugotoviti, da ravnanje tega podjetja na trgu ni samo diskriminacijsko, ampak tudi to, da se z njim skuša izkriviti razmerje konkurence med sopogodbeniki podjetja.
The Court held that the Schengen Protocol had been applied correctly and that Article 5(1) of the protocol must be interpreted as meaning that the participation of a Member State in the adoption of a measure pursuant to that article is conceivable only to the extent that that State has been authorised by the Council to accept the area of the Schengen
Kot zadnjo naj predstavimo zadevo Cementbouw Handel & Industrie proti Komisiji (sodba z dne 18. decembra 2007, C-202/06 P), v kateri je Sodišče obravnavalo vpliv zavez, ki so jih predlagale stranke, na pristojnost Komisije Evropskih skupnosti na področju nadzora koncentracij. Sodišče je spomnilo na to, da Uredba št. 4064/8921 o nadzoru koncentracij temelji na načelu natančne delitve pristojnosti med nadzornimi nacionalnimi organi in organi Skupnosti. Ta delitev je predvsem izraz skrbi za pravno varnost, ki pomeni, da je mogoče istovetnost organa, pristojnega za nadzor koncentracije, predvidljivo ugotoviti. Zato je zakonodajalec Skupnosti določil natančna in objektivna merila, na podlagi katerih je mogoče ugotoviti, ali transakcija dosega ustrezen gospodarski obseg, da jo lahko štejemo za koncentracijo „z razsežnostjo Skupnosti“ in da tako spada v izključno pristojnost Komisije. Poleg tega zahteva po hitrosti, ki označuje splošno sistematiko Uredbe št. 4064/89 in ki Komisiji nalaga spoštovanje natančno določenih rokov za sprejetje končne odločbe, pomeni, da te pristojnosti ni mogoče nenehno izpodbijati ali stalno spreminjati. Sodišče je torej presodilo, da čeprav Komisija izgubi svojo pristojnost za preizkus koncentracije, če udeležena podjetja popolnoma odstopijo od predloga, to ne velja, kadar stranke predlagajo le delne spremembe. Zaradi takih sprememb Komisija ne more biti zavezana ponovno preučiti svojo pristojnost, da ne bi zadevna podjetja pomembneje motila poteka postopka in učinkovitosti nadzora, ki ga zahteva zakonodajalec. Zaveze, ki jih predlagajo ali sprejmejo podjetja, niso samo dejavniki, ki jih mora Komisija upoštevati v okviru vsebinskega preizkusa, in sicer združljivosti ali nezdružljivosti koncentracije s skupnim trgom, pač pa te zaveze Komisiji ne morejo odvzeti njene pristojnosti, saj se je ta preverila že v prvi fazi postopka. Iz tega izhaja, da je treba pristojnost Komisije za odločanje o koncentraciji za celotno trajanje postopka ugotoviti na določen datum, ki mora biti nujno tesno povezan s priglasitvijo. Obdavčitev
Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union, annexed to the EU Treaty and the EC Treaty by the Treaty of Amsterdam.
Na tem področju je treba omeniti tri zadeve v zvezi z davkom na dodano vrednost (v nadaljevanju: DDV).
Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (OJ 2004 L 349, p. 1).
Uredba Sveta (EGS) št. 4064/89 z dne 21. decembra 1989 o nadzoru koncentracij podjetij (UL L 395, str.
Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States (OJ 2004 L 385, p. 1).
1), kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 1310/97 z dne 30. junija 1997 (UL L 180, str. 1).
Page 34
Sodišče
In Case C-284/04 T-Mobile Austria and Others (judgment of 26 June 2007) and Case C-369/04 Hutchison 3G and Others (judgment of 26 June 2007), the Court had occasion to dene the ambit of the term ‘economic activities’ within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the Sixth
V združenih zadevah T-Mobile Austria in drugi (sodba z dne 26. junija 2007, C-284/04) ter Hutchison 3G in drugi (sodba z dne 26. junija 2007, C-369/04) je Sodišče določilo področje uporabe pojma gospodarske dejavnosti v smislu člena 4(2) Šeste direktive 77/38822.
Directive 77/388 (22).Those two cases concerned the allocation, by auction by the national regulatory authority responsible for spectrum assignment, of rights such as rights to use frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum, with the aim of providing the public with mobile telecommunications services.
Sodišče je menilo, da je treba dodeljevanje takih dovoljenj šteti za nujen prvi pogoj za dostop gospodarskih subjektov do trga mobilnih telekomunikacij, in ne za udeležbo pristojnih nacionalnih organov na navedenem trgu.
The Court considered that the grant of such rights must be regarded as a necessary precondition for access to the mobile telecommunications market, and not as participation in that market by the competent national authority.
Zgolj subjekti, imetniki dodeljenih pravic, namreč z delovanjem na obravnavanem trgu izkoriščajo zadevno premoženje z namenom trajnega doseganja dohodka, kar pa ne velja za pristojne organe.
The fact that the grant of the frequency use rights at issue gives rise to the payment of fees cannot alter that reasoning.
Dejstvo, da je za izdajo zadevnih dovoljenj treba plačati dajatve, ne spremeni tega razlogovanja.
In consequence, such a grant does not constitute an economic activity within the meaning of Article 4(2) and does not, therefore, fall within the scope of Directive 77/388.
Izdajanje takih dovoljenj zato ni gospodarska dejavnost v smislu zgoraj navedenega člena 4(2) in torej ne spada na področje uporabe Šeste direktive 77/388.
In Case C-73/06 Planzer Luxembourg (judgment of 28 June 2007), the Court considered the conditions and detailed rules for refund of VAT such as those laid down by the Eighth Directive 79/1072 (23) and by Thirteenth Directive 86/560 (24).
V zadevi Planzer Luxembourg (sodba z dne 28. junija 2007, C-73/06) je Sodišče obravnavalo pogoje in postopke vračila DDV, kot jih določata Osma direktiva 79/107223in Trinajsta direktiva 86/56024.
This case arose from the refusal of the tax authorities of one Member State to refund to a taxable person having its registered oce in another Member State the VAT paid by that person on goods acquired in the first Member State for its taxable transactions, on the ground that there were doubts concerning the actual place from which the business of the taxable person concerned was managed — in the Member State of its registered oce or from the parent company established outside Community territory — even though the administration of the Member State of the taxable person’s registered oce had issued a certicate concerning that person’s liability to VAT in that State.
Podlaga za to zadevo je bila odločba davčnega organa države članice, s katero je bilo davčnemu zavezancu s sedežem v drugi državi članici zavrnjeno vračilo DDV, ki ga je v prvi državi članici plačal pri nakupu blaga za svoje obdavčljive transakcije, z obrazložitvijo, da obstajajo dvomi o kraju dejanskega poslovanja zadevnega zavezanca – v državi članici njegovega sedeža ali pri njegovi matični družbi s sedežem zunaj ozemlja Skupnosti – in to kljub predložitvi potrdila organa države članice, v kateri ima ta zavezanec sedež, da je zavezan za DDV v tej državi.
First of all, the Court conrmed that a certicate in accordance with the model in Annex B to the Eighth Directive does, as a rule, allow the presumption not only that the person concerned is subject to VAT in the Member State of issue, but also that he is established in that State in one way or another, which as a rule binds in fact and law the authorities of the Member State in which refund is sought.
Sodišče je najprej navedlo, da potrdilo, skladno z obrazcem iz priloge B k Osmi direktivi, načeloma omogoča domnevo, da zadevna oseba ni le davčni zavezanec za DDV v državi članici, ki potrdilo izda, ampak da ima v taki ali drugačni obliki v tej državi sedež, kar načeloma glede dejanskega stanja in prava veže organe države članice, pri katerih se zahteva vračilo davka.
Nevertheless, where they have doubts as to the economic reality of the establishment whose address is given in the certicate issued, the authorities concerned may satisfy themselves of that reality by having recourse to the administrative measures made available for that purpose by Community legislation and, if necessary, refuse the refund applied for by the taxable person, without prejudice to any possible legal action by the latter.The Court then went on to state that a company’s place of business for the purposes of Article 1(1) of the Thirteenth Directive is the place where the essential decisions concerning its general management are taken and where the functions of its central administration are exercised.
Vseeno pa se ob dvomu glede gospodarske stvarnosti sedeža, katerega naslov je naveden v tem potrdilu, zadevni organ o tej stvarnosti lahko prepriča tako, da uporabi upravne ukrepe, ki jih v ta namen določa ureditev Skupnosti, in če je treba, zavrne vračilo, ki ga je zahteval davčni zavezanec, brez poseganja v pravico do tožbe, ki jo ima slednji. Sodišče je nato pojasnilo, da se pojem sedeža gospodarske dejavnosti v smislu člena 1, točka 1, Trinajste direktive nanaša na kraj, kjer se sprejemajo najpomembnejše odločitve glede splošnega vodenja te družbe ali kjer se izvajajo naloge glavne uprave te družbe.
Determination of that place is based on a series of factors, foremost amongst which are its registered oce, the place of its central administration, the place where its directors meet and the place, usually identical, where the general policy
Pri določitvi tega kraja je treba upoštevati veliko dejavnikov, in sicer najprej statutarni sedež, kraj glavne uprave, kraj sestanka vodilnih v družbi in kraj sprejemanja splošne politike te družbe, ki je po navadi isti kraj.
Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).
Šesta direktiva Sveta 77/388/EGS z dne 17. maja 1977 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih – Skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost: enotna osnova za odmero (UL L 145, str. 1).
Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country (OJ 1979 L 331, p. 11).
Osma direktiva Sveta 79/1072/EGS z dne 6. decembra 1979 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic glede prometnih davkov – Postopki vračila davka na dodano vrednost davčnim zavezancem, ki nimajo stalnega prebivališča ali sedeža na ozemlju države (UL L 331, str. 11).
Thirteenth Council Directive 86/560/EEC of 17 November 1986 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in Community territory (OJ 1986 L 326, p. 40).
Trinajsta direktiva Sveta 86/560/EGS z dne 17. novembra 1986 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic glede prometnih davkov – Postopki vračila davka na dodano vrednost davčnim zavezancem, ki nimajo stalnega prebivališča ali sedeža na ozemlju Skupnosti (UL L 326, str. 40).
Proceedings of that company is determined.
Razvoj in dejavnost drugim bančnih, se tudi lahko upoštevajo.
So, a ctitious presence, such as that of a ‘letter- box’ or ‘brass-plate’ company, cannot be described as a place of business for the purposes of Article 1(1) of the Thirteenth Directive.
Tako se navidezne ustanovitve, kot je družba „poštni nabiralnik“ ali„kulisa“, ne morejo opredeliti kot sedež gospodarske dejavnosti v smislu člena 1, točka 1, Trinajste direktive.
Approximation and harmonisation of laws
Približevanje zakonodaj in enotnost zakonodaj
As in the past, this eld has yielded copious decisions, certain among which call for particular mention.
Na tem področju je tako kot v preteklosti nastalo veliko sodne prakse in nekaj zadev zahteva posebno pozornost.
In Case C-470/03 AGM-COS.MET (judgment of 17 April 2007), the question before the Court was whether the conduct of an ocial who, in public statements, warned against the unreliability of certain vehicle lifts, could be attributed to the State.
V zadevi AGM-COS.MET (sodba z dne 17. aprila 2007, C-470/03) je Sodišče odločalo o vprašanju, ali je mogoče šteti, da je za ravnanje uradnika, ki je v javni izjavi razkril krhkost dvigal za servisiranje vozil, odgovorna država.
The Court ruled that an ocial’s statements which, by reason of their form and circumstances, give the persons to whom they are addressed the impression that they are ocial positions taken by the State, not personal opinions of the ocial, are attributable to the State.
Sodišče je presodilo, da je država odgovorna za izjave uradnika, ki zaradi oblike in okoliščin pri naslovnikih ustvarjajo vtis, da gre za uradna stališča države in ne za osebno mnenje uradnika.
The decisive factor is whether the persons to whom those statements are addressed can reasonably suppose, in the given context, that they are positions taken by the ocial with the authority of his oce.
Odločilni dejavnik je, ali lahko v danih okoliščinah naslovniki teh izjav razumno predpostavljajo, da gre za stališča, ki jih uradnik zavzame v okviru svoje funkcije.