natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
DEUTSCHE SHELL tax powers with respect to the results of a permanent establishment which belongs to a company established in the territory of that State in order to justify the refusal to deduct expenditure incurred by that company which, by its nature, cannot be taken into account in the Member State where that establishment is situated.
DEUTSCHE SHELL izvr�evanju svojih davčnih pristojnosti s sklenitvijo dvostranske davčne konvencije, kot je ta, ki velja v sporu o glavni stvari, ne more sklicevati na neobstoj davčnih pristojnosti v zvezi s poslovnimi rezultati stalne poslovne enote, ki pripada družbi s sedežem na ozemlju te države, da bi utemeljila zavrnitev odbitka stro�kov, ki jih je ta družba prikazala in ki se po naravi stvari ne morejo upo�tevati v državi članici, v kateri je ta poslovna enota.
It must be added that the fact that the permanent establishment made profits is irrelevant to Deutsche Shell’s right to deduct all of the currency loss resulting from the repatriation of the startup capital granted to that establishment as company operating expenditure.
Dodati je treba, da je dejstvo, da je stalna poslovna enota ustvarila dobiček, brezpredmetno glede na pravico družbe Deutsche Shell, da v celoti odbije negativno tečajno razliko zaradi vračanja dotacijskega kapitala, odobrenega tej poslovni enoti, kot obratovalni stro�ek podjetja.
If that were not the case, the currency loss could not be taken into account either by the Member State where the company’s registered office is situated or by the Member State in which the permanent establishment is based, since the accounting records in that Member State drawn up in the national currency could not show the currency depreciation of the startup capital.
V nasprotnem primeru negativne tečajne razlike ne bi bilo mogoče upo�tevati niti v državi članici, v kateri je sedež družbe, niti v državi članici, v kateri je stalna poslovna enota, ker v njenih računovodskih izkazih, ki so vodeni v nacionalni valuti, ni mogoče prikazati zmanj�anja vrednosti dotacijskega kapitala.
The answer to the second question must therefore be that it is also contrary to Article 52 in conjunction with Article 58 of the Treaty for a Member State to allow a currency loss to be deducted as operating expenditure in respect of an undertaking with a registered office in a Member State only in so far as its permanent establishment in another Member State does not make any taxfree profits.
Na drugo vpra�anje je torej treba odgovoriti, da člen 52 v povezavi s členom 58 Pogodbe prav tako nasprotuje temu, da se negativna tečajna razlika lahko odtegne kot obratovalni stro�ek podjetja s sedežem v državi članici, le če stalna poslovna enota, ki pripada temu podjetju in ki je v drugi državi članici, ni ustvarila nobenega neobdavčljivega dobička.
It is contrary to Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment Article 43 EC) in conjunction with Article 58 of the EC Treaty (now Article 48 EC) for a Member State, when determining the national basis of assessment, to exclude a currency loss suffered by a company with a registered office in that State upon the repatriation of startup capital granted to its permanent establishment in another Member State.
Člen 52 Pogodbe ES (po spremembi postal člen 43 ES) v povezavi s členom 58 Pogodbe ES (postal člen 48 ES) nasprotuje temu, da država članica za določitev nacionalne davčne osnove izključi negativno tečajno razliko, ki jo je utrpela družba s statutarnim sedežem na ozemlju te države med vračanjem dotacijskega kapitala, odobrenega njeni stalni poslovni enoti v drugi državi članici.
It is also contrary to Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) in conjunction with Article 58 of the EC Treaty (now Article 48 EC) for a Member State to allow a currency loss to be deducted as operating expenditure in respect of an undertaking with a registered office in a Member State only in so far as its permanent establishment in another Member State does not make any taxfree profits.
Člen 52 Pogodbe ES (po spremembi postal člen 43 ES) v povezavi s členom 58 Pogodbe ES (postal člen 48 ES) prav tako nasprotuje temu, da se negativna tečajna razlika lahko odtegne kot obratovalni strošek podjetja s sedežem v državi članici, le če stalna poslovna enota, ki pripada temu podjetju in ki je v drugi državi članici, ni ustvarila nobenega neobdavčljivega dobička.
Case C-446/06
Zadeva C-446/06
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven)
(Beef and veal — Common organisation of the markets — Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 — Article 3(f) — Grant of a suckler cow premium — Conditions consistent with usual animal husbandry practice)
„Goveje in telečje meso – Skupna ureditev trgov – Uredba (ES) �t. 1254/1999 – Člen 3(f) – Odobritev premije za krave dojilje – Pogoji, ki ustrezajo običajni praksi v sektorju vzreje“
(Council Regulation No 1254/1999, Art. 3(f))
Kmetijstvo – Skupna ureditev trgov – Goveje meso – Premija za ohranjanje krav dojilj(Uredba Sveta št. 1254/1999, člen 3(f))
SUMMARY — CASE C-446/06 rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Regulation No 3508/92 it is open to the Member States to provide clarification of that concept by taking as a basis the usual animal husbandry practice within their territory.
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-446/06 in kontrolnega sistema za nekatere programe pomoči Skupnosti, vzpostavljenega z Uredbo �t. 3508/92, lahko države članice podrobneje opredelijo ta pojem, pri čemer se oprejo na običajno prakso v sektorju vzreje na svojem ozemlju.
Moreover, the application of conditions at the level of individual cows rather than at the level of the herd as a whole strengthens legal certainty because it is clear and facilitates the monitoring of the regularity of premium applications by the competent national authorities.
Poleg tega uporaba pogojev glede vsake krave in ne na ravni črede v celoti s svojo jasnostjo potrjuje pravno varnost, ki olaj�uje kontrolo nacionalnih organov, pristojnih za presojo pravilnosti zahtevkov za premije.
In principle, such application is not therefore incompatible with those regulations.
Torej načeloma ne nasprotuje navedenim uredbam.
(see paras 41, 45, 49, operative part)
(Glej točke 41, 45, 49 in izrek.)
BOTdelivered on 6 December 2007
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNEGA PRAVOBRANILCAYVESA BOTA, predstavljeni 6. decembra 2007 1
I — Relevant provisions
I – Pravni okvir
In this reference for a preliminary ruling the Court is being asked to rule on whether, in the context of the system of Community aid introduced by Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999, 2it is possible for a Member State to impose conditions relating to the frequency of calving and the length of suckling for the purposes of granting such aid.
Na podlagi tega predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe mora Sodi�če odločiti, ali ima država članica v okviru sistema pomoči Skupnosti, ki ga ustanavlja Uredba (ES) �t. 1254/1999 2, možnost določiti pogoje za dodelitev teh pomoči, ki se nana�ajo na pogostost telitve in trajanje dojenja.
Regulation No 1254/1999
Uredba �t. 1254/1999
A common organisation of the market in beef and veal was introduced as part of the common agricultural policy in order to stabilise markets in the sector concerned and to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community.
V okviru skupne kmetijske politike je bila vzpostavljena skupna ureditev trga za sektor govejega in telečjega mesa, da bi se stabilizirali trgi v tem sektorju in da bi se kmetom zagotovil primeren življenjski standard.
In this Opinion I shall explain why I consider that Article 3(f) of Regulation No 1254/1999 does not preclude a Member State from making the grant of a suckler cow premium subject to a condition relating to the frequency of calving and a condition that the calf should remain with its mother for at least four months.
V teh sklepnih predlogih bom razložil, zakaj po mojem mnenju člen 3(f) Uredbe �t. 1254/1999 ne nasprotuje temu, da država članica podredi dodelitev premije za kravo dojiljo pogoju, ki se nana�a na pogostost telitve, in pogoju, da tele ob svoji materi ostane vsaj �tiri mesece.
2 — Council Regulation of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (OJ 1999 L 160, p.
2 – Uredba Sveta z dne 17. maja 1999 o skupni ureditvi trga za goveje in telečje meso (UL L 160, str.
21), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1512/2001 of 23 July 2001 (OJ 2001 L 201, p.
21), kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo Sveta (ES) �t. 1512/2001 z dne 23. julija 2001 (UL L 201, str.
1; ‘Regulation No 1254/1999’).
1, v nadaljevanju Uredba �t. 1254/1999).
To that end, Regulation No 1254/1999 introduced a system of support for beef producers.
Zato je Uredba �t. 1254/1999 uvedla podporni sistem za proizvajalce govejega in telečjega mesa.
That system consists in particular of making a direct payment to beef producers of a premium for maintaining a herd of suckler cows, also known as a ‘suckler cow premium’.
Bistveni element tega sistema je, da se proizvajalcem govejega in telečjega mesa v obliki neposrednih plačil izplača premijo za vzdrževanje čred krav dojilj, imenovano tudi „premija za kravo dojiljo“.
The following definition of ‘suckler cow’ is given in Article 3(f) of Regulation No 1254/1999: for at least six consecutive months from the day on which the application is lodged, at least 60% sucker cows and at most 40% heifers.
Krava dojilja je opredeljena v členu 3(f) Uredbe �t. 1254/1999 kot: najmanj �est zaporednih mesecev od dne, ko je bil vložen zahtevek za pridobitev premije za kravo dojiljo.
‘… a cow belonging to a meat breed or born of a cross with a meat breed, and belonging to a herd intended for rearing calves for meat production’.
„[…] krav[a], ki pripada mesni pasmi ali je rojena s križanjem z mesno pasmo in ki pripada čredi, namenjeni za vzrejo telet za prirejo mesa“.
According to Article 3(g) of Regulation No 1254/1999, ‘heifer’ means a female bovine animal from the age of eight months which has not yet calved.
V skladu s členom 3(g) Uredbe �t. 1254/1999 „telica“ pomeni žensko govedo, starej�e od osmih mesecev, ki �e ni telilo.
Article 6(6) of that regulation states that, for the purposes of that provision, only heifers belonging to a meat breed and belonging to a herd intended for rearing calves for meat production are to be taken into account.
V členu 6(6) te uredbe je določeno, da se za namene uporabe te določbe upo�tevajo le telice, ki pripadajo mesni pasmi ali izhajajo iz križanja z mesno pasmo in pripadajo čredi, namenjeni za vzrejo telet za proizvodnjo mesa.
Article 6 of Regulation No 1254/1999 provides that a producer keeping suckler cows on his holding may qualify, under certain conditions, for a suckler cow premium.
V členu 6 Uredbe �t. 1254/1999 je določeno, da lahko proizvajalec, ki ima na svojem gospodarstvu krave dojilje, pod določenimi pogoji pridobi premijo za rejo krav dojilj.
Furthermore, it falls to the Commission of the European Communities to adopt detailed rules for the application of that regulation and, in particular, those relating to the definition of suckler cow. 5
Med drugim je Komisija Evropskih skupnosti pristojna za določitev podrobnih pravil za uporabo te uredbe in zlasti pravil, ki se nana�ajo na opredelitev pojma krava dojilja. 5
Regulation (EC) No 2342/1999
Uredba (ES) �t. 2342/1999
Thus, under Article 6, the suckler cow premium is to be granted to producers who do not supply milk or milk products from their farms for 12 months from the day on which the application is lodged.
Tako se na podlagi določbe tega člena premija za kravo dojiljo dodeli proizvajalcem, ki ne oddajajo mleka ali mlečnih izdelkov s svoje kmetije 12 mesecev od dneva, ko je bil vložen zahtevek.
However, some producers supplying milk or milk products may qualify for the suckler cow premium if the individual reference quantity referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 3 does not exceed 120 000 kilograms. 4
Kljub temu lahko nekateri proizvajalci, ki oddajajo mleko ali mlečne izdelke, pridobijo premijo za kravo dojiljo, če je individualna referenčna količina, ki jo določa člen 4 Uredbe (EGS) �t. 3950/92 3, nižja ali enaka 120.000 kilogramov. 4
When it adopted Regulation (EC) No 2342/1999, 6which lays down detailed
S sprejetjem Uredbe (ES) �t. 2342/1999 6, ki določa podrobnej�a pravila za uporabo
In order to qualify for the suckler cow premium, producers must keep in their herd,
Proizvajalci morajo imeti v svoji čredi najmanj 60 % krav dojilj in največ 40 % telic
5 — Article 6(7) of Regulation No 1254/1999.
5 – Člen 6(7) Uredbe �t. 1254/1999.
3 — Council Regulation of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 1992 L 405, p. 1).
3 – Uredba Sveta z dne 28. decembra 1992 o uvedbi dodatne dajatve v sektorju mleka in mlečnih proizvodov (UL L 405, str. 1).
30; ‘the implementing regulation’).
30, v nadaljevanju: izvedbena uredba).
4 — Article 6(2)(b) of Regulation No 1254/1999.
4 – Člen 6(2)(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 1254/1999.
That system enables Member States to satisfy themselves that transactions financed by Community aid are actually carried out and are executed correctly.
Dejansko člen 14 izvedbene uredbe v kombinaciji s Prilogo I k tej uredbi določa, katere goveje pasme ne spadajo med mesne pasme in torej ne spadajo med krave dojilje v smislu člena 3(f) Uredbe �t. 1254/1999.
rules for the application of Regulation No 1254/1999, the Commission defined the concept of suckler cow.
te uredbe se integrirani upravni in kontrolni sistem uporablja za program premij za kravo dojiljo.
Article 14 of the implementing regulation, read in conjunction with Annex I to that regulation, lists the bovine breeds that cannot be regarded as cows belonging to meat breeds and cannot therefore be considered to be suckler cows within the meaning of Article 3(f) of Regulation No 1254/1999.
Ta sistem državam članicam omogoča, da zagotovijo resničnost in pravilnost operacij, ki jih financirajo pomoči Skupnosti.
Moreover, under Article 45 of the implementing regulation Member States are to adopt all suitable measures necessary to ensure that that regulation is applied properly.
Med drugim morajo države članice na podlagi člena 45 izvedbene uredbe sprejeti vse ustrezne in potrebne ukrepe za zagotovitev pravilne uporabe te uredbe.
Article 36 of Regulation No 2419/2001 provides in particular that aid may not be granted for a number of animals greater than that shown in the aid application.
V členu 36 Uredbe �t. 2419/2001 je določeno predvsem, da pomoč, ki se dodeli, ne more biti dodeljena za �tevilo živali, ki je večje od �tevila, navedenega v zahtevku.
If that is the case the aid is to be calculated on the basis of the number of animals which actually meet all the conditions for granting the aid.
V takem primeru se vi�ina pomoči izračuna na podlagi �tevila živali, ki dejansko izpolnjujejo vse pogoje za dodelitev pomoči.
Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001
Uredba (ES) �t. 2419/2001
Article 38 of the same regulation provides that premiums are to be reduced or excluded where a difference is found between the number of animals which actually meet the conditions and the number of animals for which an application for a premium has been made.
Na podlagi člena 38 te uredbe se lahko zaradi ugotovljene razlike med �tevilom živali, ki dejansko izpolnjujejo pogoje, in �tevilom živali, za katere je bila premija zahtevana, premije znižajo ali izključijo.
8Article 1(1)(b) of Regulation
Na podlagi člena 1(1)(b)
7 — Commission Regulation of 11 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 (OJ 2001 L 327, p. 11).
7 – Uredba Komisije (ES) z dne 11. decembra 2001 o podrobnih pravilih za uporabo integriranega upravnega in kontrolnega sistema za nekatere programe pomoči Skupnosti, vzpostavljenega z Uredbo Sveta (EGS) �t. 3508/92 (UL L 327, str. 11).
8 — Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992 establishing an integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 355, p. 1).
8 – Uredba Sveta z dne 27. novembra 1992 o vzpostavitvi integriranega upravnega in nadzornega sistema za nekatere programe pomoči Skupnosti (UL L 355, str. 1).
Regulation No 1254/1999 was incorporated into Netherlands law by the Regeling on Community animal premiums (Regeling dierlijke EG-premies; ‘the Regeling’). In
Uredba �t. 1254/1999 je bila v nizozemski pravni red prenesena z uredbo o premijah Skupnosti za živali (Regeling dier-
the version in force between 1 August 2002 and 1 June 2003, Article 1 of the Regeling contained the same definition of suckler cow as that given in Article 3(f) of Regulation No 1254/1999.
V različici, ki je veljala med 1. avgustom 2002 in 1. junijem 2003, je člen 1 Regelinga kravo dojiljo opredelil tako, da je prevzel enako opredelitev, kot je navedena v členu 3(f) Uredbe �t. 1254/1999.
With regard to the detailed rules for granting the suckler cow premium, the Regeling provides that a premium is to be granted to a producer only where the suckler cow has calved at least once in the year in question and its calf has remained in the herd for at least four months after its birth.
Glede načina dodelitve premije za kravo dojiljo Regeling določa, da se ta premija dodeli proizvajalcem samo, če se je krava dojilja telila vsaj enkrat v zadevnem letu in če je njeno tele v okviru črede ostalo vsaj �tiri mesece po rojstvu.
Since 2 June 2003, following amendment of the calving requirement, the premium has been granted where the cow has calved at least once in the period beginning 20 months before the date on which the application period started and ending 4 full months after that date.
Od 2. junija 2003 se premija na podlagi spremembe pogoja, ki se nana�a na telitev, dodeli, če se je krava telila najmanj enkrat v obdobju, ki začne teči dvajset mesecev pred dnevom začetka obdobja zadevnega zahtevka in se konča �tiri polne mesece po tem dnevu.
II — The facts in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling
II – Dejansko stanje v postopku v glavni stvari in vprašanje za predhodno odločanje
The premium for the seventh cow was refused on the grounds that the cow concerned had not suckled its calf for four months.
Premija za sedmo kravo je bila zavrnjena, ker ta krava svojega teleta ni dojila �tiri mesece.
‘(1) Are rules which, as regards the right to a suckler cow premium, require, on the basis of the usual animal husbandry practice, that a cow has calved at least once in the period which runs from 20 months before to 4 months after the date on which the application period started and its calf was not removed from the herd within 4 months after its birth, compatible with Article 3(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999?
je začelo teči dvajset mesecev pred dnem začetka obdobja zahteve in se konča �tiri polne mesece po tem datumu, in da njeno tele ni bilo odstranjeno iz črede v �tirih mesecih, ki sledijo njegovemu rojstvu, v skladu s členom 3(f) Uredbe (ES) �t. 1254/1999?
The Minister dismissed that objection by decision of 26 October 2004.
Slednji je ta ugovor zavrnil z odločbo z dne 26. oktobra 2004.
(2) If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, what criteria must be applied to establish whether the herd is intended for rearing calves for meat production and which cows belong to that herd?’
Katera merila je treba uporabiti v primeru nikalnega odgovora na prvo vpra�anje, da se ugotovi, ali je čreda namenjena vzreji telet za proizvodnjo mesa in katere krave pripadajo tej čredi?“
The amendment of the Regeling to include the calving requirement took place on 2 June 2003.
1254/1999, je odločanje prekinilo in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ti vpra�anji:
As the College van Beroep voor het be- drijfsleven was uncertain as to the interpretation of Article 3(f) of Regulation No 1254/1999, it decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court:
Sprememba Regelinga glede pogoja telitve pa je bila sprejeta 2. junija 2003. Za zahtevek na podlagi leta 2002 se torej uporablja Regeling v različici, ki je veljala od 1. avgusta 2002 do 1. junija 2003.
Thus, in order to be regarded as a suckler cow the animal must belong to a meat breed and belong to a herd intended for rearing calves for meat production.
Tako mora žival, da bi spadala med krave dojilje, pripadati mesni pasmi in biti del črede, namenjene za vzrejo telet za prirejo mesa.
I do not think that that amendment relating to the frequency of calving affects the answer that should be given to the question referred.
Mislim, da ta sprememba glede pogostosti telitve ne vpliva na odgovor, ki ga je treba dati na zastavljeno vpra�anje.
The only minor difference lies in the fact that under the Regeling prior to the amendment the cow must have calved at least once during the year concerned, whilst under the Regeling as amended the cow must have calved at least once in the period beginning 20 months before the start of the application period and ending 4 months after that date.
Edini odtenek je v dejstvu, da se je morala v okviru nespremenjenega Regelinga krava teliti vsaj enkrat v zadevnem letu in da se mora v okviru spremenjenega Regelinga krava teliti najmanj enkrat v obdobju, ki začne teči dvajset mesecev pred dnem začetka obdobja zahtevka in se konča �tiri mesece po tem dnevu.
In both cases, the question that arises is whether Article 3(f) of Regulation No 1254/1999 precludes imposition of a condition relating to the frequency of calving for the purposes of obtaining the suckler cow premium.
V obeh primerih se postavlja vpra�anje, ali člen 3(f) Uredbe �t. 1254/1999 nasprotuje temu, da se za pridobitev premije za kravo dojiljo postavi pogoj, ki se nana�a na pogostost telitve.
Furthermore, the Commission adds that the suckler nature must be assessed at the level of the herd as a whole and not as regards individual cows.
Komisija med drugim dodaja, da je treba dojitveno naravo presojati glede na čredo kot celoto, in ne na ravni posamezne krave.
Hence it considers that if there is evidence to indicate that a cow has not suckled its calf it is sufficient to assess whether the suckler nature of the herd has none the less been retained in order for the premium to be granted in respect of that cow.
Tako v primeru kazalcev, ki kažejo na to, da krava svojega teleta ni dojila, zado�ča pregled, ali je bila dojitvena narava črede kljub temu ohranjena, da se premija tej kravi dodeli.
Also, according to the Commission, national conditions such as those laid down in the Regeling fail to take into account justifiable exceptions such as in the event of the death of the calf shortly after birth.
Poleg tega po mnenju Komisije nacionalni pogoji, kakr�ni so bili določeni z Regelingom, ne upo�tevajo izjemnih upravičenih okoli�čin, kot je pogin teleta po njegovem rojstvu.
It is not therefore possible, according to the Commission, for Member States to lay down conditions relating to the frequency of calving and the length of suckling for the purposes of the grant of the suckler cow premium.
Države članice naj tako ne bi imele možnosti določiti pogojev, ki se nana�ajo na pogostost telitve in trajanje dojenja za dodelitev premije za kravo dojiljo.
By its first question, the national court is therefore seeking to ascertain, essentially, whether Article 3(f) of Regulation No 1254/1999 must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a Member State from making the grant of the suckler cow premium subject to a condition relating to the frequency of calving and the condition that the cow should have suckled its calf for at least four months.
Predložitveno sodi�če želi s prvim vpra�anjem v bistvu izvedeti, ali je treba člen 3(f) Uredbe �t. 1254/1999 razumeti tako, da nasprotuje temu, da država članica podredi dodelitev premije za kravo dojiljo pogoju, ki se nana�a na pogostost telitve, in pogoju, da je krava svoje tele dojila vsaj �tiri mesece.
The Commission considers that, in order for a cow to be regarded as a suckler cow
Komisija ocenjuje, da morata biti izpolnjena samo dve merili, ki sta navedeni v členu 3(f) Uredbe �t. 1254/1999, da se lahko