natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Schenkungsteuergesetz (Law on inheritance and gift tax; ‘the ErbStG’) in the version applicable in 1998, if a devisor’s final place of residence was in Germany, the heir is liable for payment of German inheritance tax in respect of the entire inherited estate (domestic and foreign).
Schenkungsteuergesetz (zakon o davku na dedi�čino in darila, v nadaljevanju: ErbStG), v različici, ki je veljala leta 1998, je dedič zavezan za plačilo nem�kega davka na dedi�čino za celotno podedovano premoženje (domače in tuje), če je bilo zapustnikovo zadnje prebivali�če v Nemčiji.
‘The Conference affirms that the right of Member States to apply the relevant provisions of their tax law as referred to in Article 73d(1)(a) [EC] will apply only with respect to the relevant provisions which exist at the end of 1993.
„Konferenca potrjuje, da se pravica držav članic, da uporabljajo ustrezne predpise svojega davčnega prava, kot je določeno v členu 73d(1)(a) [ES], nana�a samo na predpise, sprejete do konca leta 1993.
However, this Declaration shall only apply to capital movements between Member States and payments effected between Member States.’
Vendar se ta izjava uporablja samo za pretok kapitala in plačila med državami članicami.“
Inheritances and legacies are listed under ‘D’ of heading XI ‘Personal capital movements’ of Annex I to Council Directive 88/361/EEC. 3
Dedi�čine in zapu�čine so navedene v točki D v naslovu XI, „Osebni pretoki kapitala“, Priloge I k Direktivi Sveta 88/361/EGS. 3
Application of inheritance tax to assets situated in another Member State
Uporaba davka na dedi�čino za premoženje, ki se nahaja v drugi državi članici
2 — This was on the occasion of the signature of the Final Act and Declarations of the Intergovernmental Conferences on the European Union (OJ 1992 C 191, p. 99).
2 — To je bilo ob podpisu sklepne listine in izjav medvladnih konferenc o Evropski Uniji (UL 1992, C 191, str. 99).
3 — Directive 88/361 of 24 June 1988 for the implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty [article repealed by the Treaty of Amsterdam] (OJ 1988 L 178, p. 5).
3 — Direktiva Sveta 88/361 z dne 24. junija 1988 o izvajanju čle -na 67 Pogodbe (člen, razveljavljen z Amsterdamsko pogodbo) (UL 1988, L 178, str 5).
Under the first sentence of Paragraph 21(1) in conjunction with point (a) of the first point of Paragraph 2(1) of the ErbStG — in so far as relevant to the present case — in the case of an heir abroad whose assets held in another country have been made subject to a tax equivalent to German inheritance tax, if the place of residence of the devisor, at the time of his death, was in Germany, the foreign tax is to be offset, on application, against the German inheritance tax in so far as the assets held abroad are also made subject to German inheritance tax, provided that a double-taxation agreement is not applicable.
V skladu s prvim stavkom člena 21(1) v povezavi s točko (a) prve točke člena 2(1) ErbStG – če je to upo�tevno za to zadevo – v primeru dediča, ki živi v tujini, katerega premoženje je bilo v drugi državi predmet davka, ki je enakovreden nem�kemu davku na dedi�čino, če je bil kraj prebivanja zapustnika ob njegovi smrti v Nemčiji, se na zahtevo tuji davek poračuna od nem�kega davka na dedi�čino, če je bilo premoženje v tujini prav tako predmet nem�kega davka na dedi�čino, ni pa mogoče uporabiti konvencije o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja.
Pursuant to the second sentence of Paragraph 21(1) of the ErbStG, if the acquisition consists only partly of assets held abroad, the part-payment of German inheritance tax which is then applicable is to be determined in such a way that the inheritance tax on the total amount of
Če je pridobitev sestavljena le deloma iz premoženja v tujini, se v skladu s drugim stavkom člena 21(1) ErbStG delno plačilo nem�kega davka na dedi�čino, ki se takrat uporabi, določi tako, da se davek na dedi�čino na celotni znesek obdavčljivega premoženja, vključno z obdavčljivim premoženjem v tujini, razdeli glede
Rules for calculation of inheritance tax on agricultural land and forestry taxable assets including taxable assets held abroad is divided up proportionally between the taxable assets held abroad and the total amount of taxable assets.
Pravila za izračun davka na dedi�čino na kmetijsko zemlji�če in gozdove na razmerje med obdavčljivim premoženjem v tujini in celotnim zneskom obdavčljivega premoženja.
The ErbStG also provides for taxfree amounts in relation to specific objects.
ErbStG tudi določa zneske, opro�čene davka, v zvezi z določenim premoženjem.
Accordingly, in respect of the acquisition of agricultural land and forestry resulting from death, the first point of Paragraph 13a(1) of the ErbStG in the version applicable in 1998 provides for a taxfree amount of DEM 500 000 (EUR 256 000).
Tako člen 13a(1) ErbStG, v različici, ki je veljala leta 1998, v zvezi s pridobitvijo kmetijskega zemlji�ča in gozdov na podlagi dedovanja določa znesek 500.000 DEM (256.000 EUR), ki je opro�čen davka.
Rules for valuation of agricultural assets and forestry
Pravila za vrednotenje premoženja in gozdov
Under Paragraph 13a(2) of the ErbStG in the version applicable in 1998, the value of assets consisting of agricultural land and forestry, which is the amount remaining after the (object-specific) taxfree amount under the aforesaid paragraph has been deducted, is to be assessed only at 60%.
V skladu s členom 13a(2) ErbStG, v različici, ki je veljala leta 1998, se vrednost premoženja, sestavljenega iz kmetijskega zemlji�ča in gozdov, ki je znesek, ki ostane po tem, ko je bil (za določene posebne predmete) znesek, neobdavčen v skladu s prej omenjenim odstavkom, odbit, določa le na 60 %.
Finally, Paragraph 13a(4) of that law restricts both abovementioned advantages to specific cases, that is to say that the advantages do not apply, inter alia, to agricultural land and forestry situated abroad.
Končno, člen 13a(4) tega zakona omejuje obe zgoraj omenjeni ugodnosti na posebne primere, to pomeni, da ugodnosti ni mogoče uporabiti, med drugim, za kmetijsko zemlji�če in gozdove, ki se nahajajo v tujini.
In accordance with Paragraph 12(6) of the ErbStG in conjunction with Paragraphs 31 and 9 of the Bewertungsgesetz (Law on valuation; ‘the BewG’), assets consisting of agricultural land and forestry held abroad and assets consisting of real estate or business assets held abroad are to be valued according to their fair market value which, under Paragraph 9(2) of the BewG, is determined according to the price achievable in the ordinary course of business for assets in their condition if they were to be sold.
V skladu s členom 12(6) ErbStG v povezavi s členoma 31 in 9 Bewertungsgesetz (zakon o vrednotenju, v nadaljevanju: BewG) se premoženje v tujini, ki je sestavljeno iz kmetijskega zemlji�ča in gozdov, in premoženje v tujini, ki je sestavljeno iz nepremičnin ali poslovnih sredstev, ovrednoti glede na njihovo tržno vrednost, ki se v skladu s členom 9(2) BewG določi glede na ceno, ki bi jo bilo mogoče doseči v rednem poslovanju glede na stanje blaga pri prodaji.
C — International law
C – Mednarodno pravo
In contrast, under Paragraph 12(3) of the ErbStG domestic assets consisting of agricultural land and forestry acquired after 31 December 1995 are to be valued under the special procedure laid down in Paragraphs 140 to 144 of the BewG, the results of which amount on average to merely 10% of the current market value.
Med Nemčijo in Francijo ni nobenega sporazuma o izogibanju dvojnega davčnega bremena na dedi�čino.
There is no agreement between Germany and France on the avoidance of a double inheritance tax burden.
Nasprotno se v skladu s členom 12(3) ErbStG domače premoženje, ki je sestavljeno iz kmetijskega zemlji�ča in gozdov, pridobljeno po 31. decembru 1995, ovrednoti po posebnem postopku, določenem v členih od 140 do 144 BewG, katerega rezultati zna�ajo povprečno le 10 % trenutne tržne vrednosti.
II — Factual and procedural background and the question referred for a preliminary ruling down sum of DEM 1 337 100 remained.
II – Dejansko stanje, postopek in vprašanje za predhodno odločanje
Following the applicant’s application under Paragraph 21 of the ErbStG, the French inheritance tax of DEM 354 306.38 (FRF 1 192 148 x 0.2972) was credited, in the amount of DEM 236 644, against the DEM 254 049 of tax due.
ErbStG se je francoski davek na dedi�čino v znesku 354.306,38DEM (1.192.148 FRF x 0,2972) poračunal v vi�ini 236.644 DEM z 254.049 DEM dolgovanega davka.
His mother died in 1998 and was last living in Landau/Pfalz (Germany).
Njegova mati je umrla leta 1998 in je živela v Landauu na Pfal�kem (Nemčija).
The estate contained land situated in France which was used for agriculture and forestry and, under German income tax law, that land was part of the assets of two agriculture and forestry companies at the time when the land belonged to the deceased.
Premoženje je zajemalo zemlji�ko posest v Franciji, ki se je uporabljala za kmetijstvo in gozdarstvo; to zemlji�če je bilo v skladu z nem�kim pravom o davku na donos del sredstev dveh kmetijskih in gozdarskih obratov, ko je zemlji�če pripadalo materi.
The applicant’s objection to the Finanzamt’s tax assessment and his appeal before the Finanzgericht (Finance Court) were unsuccessful.
Ugovor tožeče stranke zoper davčno odločbo Finanzamt in njena tožba pri Finanzgericht (finančno sodi�če) sta bila neuspe�na.
He then appealed on points of law against the decision of the Finanzgericht to the Bundesfinanzhof, which takes the view that, at least since the judgment of the Court in Barbier, 4it has become doubtful whether the German provisions, 5to the extent that they differentiate according to the place in which the estate or a part thereof is located at the time of death of the devisor, are reconcilable with the free movement of capital.
Nato se je pritožila glede pravnih vpra�anj zoper odločitev Finanzgericht pri Bundesfinanzhof (zvezno finančno sodi�če), ki meni, da je vsaj od sodbe Sodi�ča v zadevi Barbier 4postalo dvomljivo, ali so nem�ke določbe 5, če razlikujejo glede na kraj, v katerem je premoženje ali del premoženja ob smrti zapustnika, skladne s prostim pretokom kapitala.
By order of 11 April 2006, the Bundesfinanzhof therefore stayed the proceedings and referred the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
Z odredbo z dne 11. aprila 2006 je Bundesfinanzhof prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vpra�anje:
The acquisition of that land in France, valued at FRF 5 444 666 (DEM 1 618 152), was subject to inheritance tax in France of FRF 1 192 148.
Pridobitev tega zemlji�ča v Franciji, ki je bilo ocenjeno na 5.444.666 FRF (1.618.152 DEM), je bila predmet davka na dedi�čino v Franciji v vi�ini 1.192.148 FRF.
By decision of 3 January 2000 the Finanzamt (Tax Office) Kusel-Landstuhl (Germany) (‘the Finanzamt’) set the inheritance tax due from the applicant at DEM 17 405.
Finanzamt Kusel-Landstuhl (v nadaljevanju: Finanzamt) je z odločbo z dne 3. januarja 2000 določil davek na dedi�čino, ki ga je tožeča stranka dolžna plačati, na 17.405 DEM. Ta odločba je temeljila na neto zapu�čini 1.737.167 DEM, od tega je premoženje v tujini zna�alo 1.618.152 DEM. Preostalih 119.015 DEM je izhajalo iz domačega premoženja.
‘Is it compatible with Article 73b(1) [EC]
„Ali je s členom 73b(1) [ES] (zdaj člen 56(1) ES) združljivo, da se za namen davka na dedi�čino:
4 — Case C-364/01 [2003] ECR I-15013.
4 — Sodba z dne 11. decembra 2003 (C-364/01, Recueil, str. I-15013).
5 — Namely the legal consequences of the application of Paragraph 31 of the BewG and the non-applicability of Paragraph 13a of the ErbStG to land held abroad for the taxation of domestic assets.
5 — Namreč pravne posledice uporabe člena 31 BewG in neuporaba člena 13a ErbStG za zemlji�če v tujini za obdavčitev domačega premoženja.
After deduction of the personal taxfree amount of DEM 400 000, the rounded
Po odbitku osebnega neobdavčenega zneska v vi�ini 400.000 DEM je ostala navzdol zaokrožena vsota 1.337.100 DEM.
(now Article 56(1) EC) that for inheritance tax purposes:
MAZÁKA – ZADEVA C-256/06
Written observations were submitted by the applicant, the Finanzamt, the German Government and the Commission.
Pisna stali�ča so predložili tožeča stranka, Finanzamt, nem�ka vlada in Komisija.
No hearing has been requested by the parties, and none has been held.
Nobena stranka ni zahtevala ustne obravnave, in te ni bilo.
(a) assets (held abroad) consisting of agricultural land and forestry situated in another Member State are valued in accordance with their fair market value (current market value), whereas a special valuation procedure exists for domestic assets consisting of agricultural land and forestry, the results of which amount on average to only 10% of their fair market value, and
a) premoženje (v tujini), sestavljeno iz kmetijskega zemlji�ča in gozdov, ki leži v drugi državi članici, ovrednoti glede na tržno vrednost (trenutna tržna vrednost), medtem ko za domače premoženje, sestavljeno iz kmetijskega zemlji�ča in gozdov, obstaja poseben postopek ovrednotenja, katerega rezultati povprečno zna�ajo le 10 % po�tene tržne vrednosti, in
(b) assessment of the acquisition of domestic assets consisting of agricultural land and forestry is excluded up to a special taxfree amount and the remaining value is assessed merely at 60%,
A – Bistvene trditve strank b) vrednotenje pridobitve domačega premoženja, sestavljenega iz kmetijskega zemlji�ča in gozdov, izključi v vi�ini posebnega neobdavčenega zneska in se preostala vrednost vrednoti le na 60 odstotkov,
The applicant essentially submits that owing to the mere partial offsetting of the tax on the assets held abroad the domestic inheritance was more heavily taxed 6and that this constitutes double taxation in violation of Article 293 EC.
Tožeča stranka v bistvu trdi, da je bila domača dedi�čina zaradi le delnega odbitka davka na premoženje v tujini vi�je obdavčena 6in da to pomeni dvojno obdavčitev ob kr�itvi člena 293 ES.
He contends that the German inheritance tax on domestic assets is higher than it would be if the land held abroad in question were actually situated in Germany and as a result restricts the free movement of capital.
Navaja, da je nem�ki davek na dedi�čino vi�ji, kot bi bil, če bi bilo zadevno zemlji�če v tujini dejansko v Nemčiji in zato omejuje prosti pretok kapitala.
7 Finally, the applicant argues that the provisions in question may
7Končno, tožeča stranka trdi, da zadevne določbe ne morejo biti zajete s členom 58 ES,
6 — This would not have been the case if part of the inheritance had comprised neither land held abroad nor corresponding land in Germany.
6 — Za to bi �lo, če del dedi�čine ne bi zajemal niti zemlji�ča v tujini niti zemlji�ča v Nemčiji.
7 — The referring court explains that, taking the same factual setting of the present case as an example, but substituting France for Germany as the location of the land, the effect of an increased tax burden on domestic assets is apparent.
7 — Predložitveno sodi�če razloži, da če bi vzeli enako dejansko stanje te zadeve kot primer, vendar bi nadomestili Francijo z Nemčijo kot kraj, kjer je zemlji�če, bi bil učinek vi�jega davčnega bremena na domače premoženje očiten.
if, in the case of an heir inheriting an estate made up of both domestic assets and foreign assets consisting of agricultural land and forestry, this results in a situation whereby, as a result of the fact that the assets consisting of agricultural land and forestry are situated abroad, the acquisition of the domestic assets is subject to higher inheritance tax than would be applicable if the assets consisting of agricultural land and forestry were also domestic assets?’
kadar to pri dediču dedi�čine, sestavljene iz domačega premoženja in tujega premoženja v obliki kmetijskega zemlji�ča in gozdov, pripelje do tega, da se zaradi tega, ker so kmetijsko zemlji�če in gozdovi v tujini, pridobitev obdavči z vi�jim davkom na dedi�čino, kot bi bil, če bi se premoženje, sestavljeno iz kmetijskega zemlji�ča in gozdov, nahajalo v domači državi?“
JÄGER provided for by Article 58(1)(a) EC is itself limited by Article 58(3) EC, according to which the national provisions shall not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on the free movement of capital.
JÄGER členom 58(1)(a) ES, omejeno s členom 58(3) ES, v skladu s katerim nacionalne določbe ne smejo biti sredstvo samovoljne diskriminacije ali prikritega omejevanja prostega pretoka kapitala.
not be covered by Article 58 EC because they were introduced after 1993 and, at any rate, they would constitute a disguised restriction within the meaning of paragraph 3 of that article.
ker so bile uvedene po 1993, in bi vsekakor pomenile prikrito omejitev v smislu odstavka 3 tega člena.
There is no consideration which would justify a comparatively less favourable treatment of agricultural land and forestry held in another Member State.
Nobeno razmi�ljanje ne more utemeljiti primerjalno manj ugodnega obravnavanja kmetijskega zemlji�ča in gozdov v drugi državi članici.
In response to the written question of the Court concerning the precise date of the original acquisition at issue, the applicant confirmed that his father had purchased the first property concerned on 9 August 1988 and the second property concerned on 26 January 1990.
Tožeča stranka je v odgovoru na pisno vpra�anje Sodi�ča v zvezi s točnim datumom zadevne prvotne pridobitve potrdila, da je njegov oče kupil prvo zadevno zemlji� -če 9. avgusta 1988 in drugo zadevno zemlji� -če 26. januarja 1990.
The Finanzamt and the German Government contend, in essence, that the national provisions in question do not constitute an infringement of the free movement of capital and do not constitute a restriction on the movement of capital.
Finanzamt in nem�ka vlada v bistvu trdita, da zadevne nacionalne določbe ne pomenijo kr�itve prostega pretoka kapitala in omejitve pretoka kapitala.
The German Government argues that the impact of the difference in valuation is too indirect to have an effect on the purchase decision.
Nem�ka vlada navaja, da je vpliv razlike pri ovrednotenju preveč posreden, da bi vplival na odločitev o nakupu.
The effect of the provisions in question would in any event be an inevitable consequence of the lawful coexistence of national fiscal regimes.
Učinek zadevnih določb bi bil v vsakem primeru neizogibna posledica zakonitega soobstoja nacionalnih davčnih sistemov.
Finally, the German Government contends that the value which was determined by German law for the land situated in France corresponds to that determined by French tax provisions on inheritances.
Končno, nem�ka vlada trdi, da vrednost, ki je bila določena z nem�kim pravom za zemlji�če, ki leži v Franciji, ustreza vrednosti, določeni s francoskimi določbami o davku na dedi�čino.
The Commission comes to the conclusion that the free movement of capital is restricted in so far as property situated in another Member State is hit with inheritance tax which is higher than that imposed on a property held in the national territory.
Komisija sklepa, da je prosti pretok kapitala omejen, če je premoženje, ki se nahaja v drugi državi članici, obdavčeno z davkom na dedi�čino, ki je vi�ji od davka, ki se ga naloži na premoženje, ki je na nacionalnem ozemlju. Glede obstoja utemeljitve Komisija navaja, da je odstopanje, predvideno s
As a preliminary remark, I note that the Bundesfinanzhof’s preliminary question does not concern the national provision in Paragraph 21 of the ErbStG concerning the offsetting of the foreign (French) inheritance tax against the national (German) inheritance tax.
Za začetek opažam, da se vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje Bundesfinanzhof ne nana�a na nacionalno določbo v členu 21 ErbStG v zvezi s poračunanjem tujega (francoskega) davka na dedi�čino z nacionalnim (nem�kim) davkom na dedi�čino.
Therefore, even though the applicant argues that that provision infringes Article 293 EC, in the present case the Court has not been asked to assess whether or not such offsetting of the tax is compatible with Community law.
Zato, čeprav tožeča stranka navaja, da ta določba kr�i člen 293 ES, v tej zadevi Sodi�če ni bilo zapro�eno, naj presodi, ali je tako poračunanje davka skladno s pravom Skupnosti ali ne.
The inheritance at issue as movement of capital even though that directive was adopted on the basis of Articles 69 and 70(1) of the EEC Treaty (Articles 67 to 73 of the EEC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 73b to 73g of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 EC to 60 EC)), the nomenclature in respect of ‘movements of capital’ annexed to that directive still has the same indicative value for the purposes of defining the notion of capital movements. 10
Zadevna dedi�čina kot pretok kapitala od 67 do 73 Pogodbe EGS so zamenjali členi od 73b do 73g Pogodbe ES, ki so postali členi od 56 do 60 ES), je njej priložena nomenklatura „pretoka kapitala“ v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso obdržala naravo napotila za opredelitev pojma pretoka kapitala. 10
It should be noted that, according to well-established caselaw, although direct taxation falls within their competence, the Member States must none the less exercise that competence consistently with Community law, 8 including the provisions which lay down the principle of the free movement of capital.
Treba je opozoriti, da morajo države članice v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso, čeprav je neposredno obdavčenje v njihovi pristojnosti, to pristojnost vseeno izvr�evati ob spo�tovanju prava Skupnosti 8, vključno z določbami, v katerih je zapisano načelo prostega pretoka kapitala.
As I mentioned in point 5 above, inheritances and legacies are listed under ‘D’ of heading XI ‘Personal capital movements’ of Annex I to Directive 88/361.
Kot je omenjeno v točki 5 zgoraj, so dedi�čine in zapu�čine navedene v točki D v naslovu XI, „Osebni pretoki kapitala“, Priloge I k Direktivi Sveta 88/361.
In addition, in view of the current caselaw of the Court, 11there is no question as to whether inheritances constitute movements of capital within the meaning of Article 56 EC, except in cases where the constituent elements of the inheritance are confined within a single Member State.
Poleg tega glede na trenutno sodno prakso Sodi�ča 11 ni vpra�ljivo, ali pomeni dedi�čina pretok kapitala v smislu člena 56 ES, razen v primerih, ko so sestavni deli dedi�čine omejeni na eno državo članico.
It must be borne in mind that Article 73b(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 56(1) EC) gives effect to the free movement of capital between the Member States and between Member and nonmember States.
Opozoriti je tudi treba, da člen 73b (1) ES (zdaj člen 56(1) ES) Pogodbe uresničuje prosti pretok kapitala med državami članicami ter med državami članicami in tretjimi državami.
To that end, it provides, in the chapter of the Treaty entitled ‘Capital and payments’, that all restrictions on the movement of capital between Member States and between Member and nonmember States are to be prohibited. 9
Zato določa v okviru določb poglavja Pogodbe z naslovom „Kapital in plačila“, da so prepovedane vse omejitve pretoka kapitala med državami članicami ter med državami članicami in tretjimi državami. 9
It is also clear from the facts of the case in the main proceedings as set out above
Iz dejstev v postopku v glavni stvari, kot so opisana zgoraj, je tudi jasno, da
As regards the notion of ‘capital movements’, there is no definition thereof in the Treaty.
Pogodba ne opredeljuje pojma „pretok kapitala“.
It is settled caselaw that, inasmuch as Article 56 EC essentially reproduces the contents of Article 1 of Directive 88/361, and
Člen 56 ES je v bistvu prevzel besedilo člena 1 Direktive 88/361 in ne glede na to, da je bila ta direktiva sprejeta na podlagi členov 69 in 70(1) Pogodbe EGS (člene