natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the light of the foregoing, the answer to Question 1 must be that Articles 73b and 73d of the Treaty must be interpreted as precluding national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, concerning the assessment of inheritance duties and transfer duties payable in respect of an immovable property situated in a Member State, which, for the assessment of those duties, make no provision for the deductibility of overendowment debts resulting from a testamentary parental partition inter vivos where the person whose estate is being administered was residing, at the time of death, not in that State but in another Member State, whereas provision is made for such deductibility where that person was residing, at the time of death, in the firstmentioned Member State, in which the immovable property included in the estate is situated, in so far as such rules apply a progressive rate of taxation and in so far as the combination of (i) the failure to take into account such debts and (ii) that progressive rate could result in a greater tax burden for heirs who are not in a position to rely on such deductibility.
Glede na navedeno je treba na prvo vpra�anje odgovoriti, da je treba člena 73b in 73d Pogodbe razlagati tako, da nasprotujeta nacionalni ureditvi, kot je ureditev iz postopka v glavni stvari, ki se nana�a na izračun davka na dedi�čino in na prenos premoženja, ki ju je treba plačati v zvezi z nepremičnino v državi članici, in v kateri pri izračunu navedenih davkov ni predvidena možnost odbitka dolgov zaradi presežne pridobitve, ki so posledica oporočne delitve zapu�čine star�ev inter vivos, kadar oseba, po kateri je uvedeno dedovanje, ob svoji smrti ni bila rezident te države, ampak druge države članice, medtem ko je ta možnost odbitka predvidena, kadar je bila ta oseba ob svoji smrti rezident države, v kateri je podedovana nepremičnina, če se uporablja progresivna davčna stopnja in ker ima lahko neupo�tevanje navedenih dolgov skupaj s to progresivno stopnjo za posledico večjo davčno obremenitev dedičev, ki se ne morejo sklicevati na tak�no možnost odbitka.
By this question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether the answer to Question 1 might be different if the Member State in which the person whose estate is being administered was residing at the time of death grants, under rules applicable in its territory on the prevention of double taxation, a tax credit in respect of inheritance duties payable in another Member State on assets situated in the territory of that other State.
S tem vpra�anjem predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali bi lahko bil odgovor na prvo vpra�anje drugačen, če država članica, v kateri je ob svoji smrti prebivala oseba, po kateri je uvedeno dedovanje, na podlagi ureditve o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja, ki velja na njenem ozemlju, prizna davčni odbitek na podlagi davka na dedi�čino, ki ga je treba plačati v drugi državi članici v zvezi s premoženjem na ozemlju te druge države.
It is clear from the caselaw of the Court that, under the second indent of Article 293 EC, the abolition of double taxation is one of the objectives of the European Community to be attained by the Member States.
Iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča izhaja, da je odprava dvojnega obdavčevanja eden od ciljev Evropske skupnosti, katerega uresničitev je na podlagi člena 293, druga alinea, ES, odvisna od držav članic.
In the absence of unifying or harmonising measures at Community level for the elimination of double taxation, the Member States retain competence for determining the criteria for taxation on income and wealth with a view to eliminating double taxation by means, inter alia, of international agreements.
V tem okviru lahko države članice z dvostranskimi konvencijami prosto določijo navezovalne okoli�čine za porazdelitev davčne pristojnosti (glej sodbe z dne 12. maja 1998 v zadevi Gilly, C-336/96, Recueil, str. I-2793, točki 24 in 30; z dne 21. septembra 1999 v zadevi Saint-Gobain ZN, C-307/97, Recueil, str.
In those circumstances, the Member States remain at liberty to determine the connecting factors for the allocation of fiscal jurisdiction by means of bilateral agreements (see Case C-336/96 Gilly [1998] ECR I-2793, paragraphs 24 and 30; Case C-307/97 Saint-Gobain ZN [1999] ECR I-6161, paragraph 57; Case C-265/04 Bouanich [2006] ECR I-923, paragraph 49; and also Denkavit Internationaal and Denkavit France, paragraph 43).
I-6161, točka 57; z dne 19. januarja 2006 v zadevi Bouanich, C-265/04, ZOdl., str. I-923, točka 49, in zgoraj navedeno sodbo Denkavit Internationaal in Denkavit France, točka 43).
As regards the exercise of the power of taxation so allocated, the Member States may not, however, disregard Community rules (Saint-Gobain ZN, paragraph 58; Bouanich, paragraph 50; and also Denkavit Internationaal and Denkavit France, paragraph 44).
Glede tako porazdeljenega izvajanja davčne pristojnosti morajo države članice kljub temu spo�tovati pravila Skupnosti (glej zgoraj navedene sodbe Saint-Gobain ZN, točka 58; Bouanich, točka 50, in Denkavit Internationaal in Denkavit France, točka 44).
Nevertheless, even on the assumption that such a bilateral agreement between the Member State in which the person whose estate is being administered was residing at the time of death, and the State in which the immovable property inherited under the laws of the latter State is situated, could neutralise the effects of the restriction on the free movement of capital identified in the context of the answer to Question 1, it must be noted that there is no agreement between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Italian Republic for the prevention of double taxation of succession duties.
Tudi če bi tak�na dvostranska konvencija med državo članico, v kateri je ob svoji smrti prebivala oseba, po kateri je uvedeno dedovanje, in državo, v kateri je nepremičnina, ki je bila v slednji državi predmet zapu�čine, lahko nevtralizirala učinke omejitve prostega pretoka kapitala, ki je bila izpostavljena v okviru odgovora na prvo vpra�anje, je vendar treba ugotoviti, da med Kraljevino Nizozemsko in Italijansko republiko ni dvostranske konvencije na področju izogibanja dvojnega obdavčevanja dedi�čine.
In those circumstances, it is sufficient to note that the Member State in which the immovable property is situated cannot, in order to justify a restriction on the free movement of capital arising from its rules, rely on the existence of a possibility, beyond its control, of a tax credit being granted by another Member State — such as the Member State in which the person whose estate is being administered was residing at the time of death — which could, wholly or partly, offset the loss incurred by that person’s heirs as a result of the fact that, for the purposes of assessing transfer
V teh okoli�činah je dovolj ugotovitev, da se država članica, v kateri je nepremičnina, v utemeljitev omejitve prostega pretoka kapitala, ki je posledica njene ureditve, ne more sklicevati na obstoj od njene volje neodvisne možnosti, da bo druga država članica, kot je država članica, v kateri je oseba, po kateri je bilo uvedeno dedovanje, prebivala ob svoji smrti, priznala davčni odbitek, ki bi lahko v celoti ali deloma nadomestil �kodo, ki je nastala dedičem te osebe, ker država članica, v kateri je navedena
ARENS-SIKKEN duties, no account is taken in the Member State in which that property is situated of overendowment debts resulting from a testamentary parental partition inter vivos (see, to that effect, Eckelkamp and Others, paragraph 68).
ARENS-SIKKEN nepremičnina, pri izračunu davka na prenos premoženja ni upo�tevala dolgov zaradi presežne pridobitve, ki so posledica oporočne delitve zapu�čine star�ev inter vivos (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Eckelkamp in drugi, točka 68).
A Member State cannot rely on the existence of a tax advantage granted unilaterally by another Member State — in the present case, the Member State in which the person concerned was residing at the time of his death — in order to escape its obligations under the Treaty and, in particular, under the Treaty provisions relating to the free movement of capital (see, to that effect, Case C-379/05 Amurta [2007] ECR I-9569, paragraph 78).
Država članica se namreč ne more sklicevati na obstoj ugodnosti, ki jih je enostransko dodelila druga država članica – v obravnavanem primeru država članica, v kateri je zadevna oseba ob svoji smrti prebivala – da bi se izognila obveznostim, ki jih ima na podlagi Pogodbe, med drugim na podlagi njenih določb o prostem pretoku kapitala (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 8. novembra 2007 v zadevi Amurta, C-379/05, ZOdl., str. I-9569, točka 78).
In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to Question 3 must be that the answer to Question 1 is not affected by the fact that the rules of the Member State in which the person whose estate is being administered was residing at the time of death provide unilaterally for the possibility that a tax credit may be granted in respect of inheritance duties payable in another Member State on immovable property situated in that other State.
Glede na navedeno je treba na tretje vpra�anje odgovoriti, da okoli�čina, da je v ureditvi države članice, v kateri je ob svoji smrti prebivala oseba, po kateri je uvedeno dedovanje, enostransko predvidena možnost odobritve davčnega odbitka na podlagi davka na dedi�čino, ki ga je treba plačati v drugi državi članici v zvezi z nepremičninami v tej drugi državi, ne vpliva na odgovor na prvo vpra�anje.
Articles 73b and 73d of the Treaty (subsequently, Articles 56 EC and 58 EC respectively) must be interpreted as precluding national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, concerning the assessment of inheritance duties and transfer duties payable in respect of an immovable property situated in a Member State, which, for the assessment of those duties, makes no provision for the deductibility of overendowment debts resulting from a testamentary parental partition inter vivos where the person whose estate is being administered was residing, at the time of death, not in that State but in another Member State, whereas provision is made for such deductibility where that person was residing, at the time of death, in the firstmentioned Member State, in which the immovable property included in the estate is situated, in so far as such rules apply a progressive rate of taxation and in so far as the combination of (i) the failure to take into account such debts and (ii) that progressive rate could result in a greater tax burden for heirs who are not in a position to rely on such deductibility.
Člena 73b in 73d Pogodbe ES (postala člena 56 ES in 58 ES) je treba razlagati tako, da nasprotujeta nacionalni ureditvi, kot je ureditev iz postopka v glavni stvari, ki se nanaša na izračun davka na dediščino in na prenos premoženja, ki ju je treba plačati v zvezi z nepremičnino v državi članici, in v kateri pri izračunu navedenih davkov ni predvidena možnost odbitka dolgov zaradi presežne pridobitve, ki so posledica oporočne delitve zapuščine staršev inter vivos, kadar oseba, po kateri je uvedeno dedovanje, ob svoji smrti ni bila rezident te države, ampak druge države članice, medtem ko je ta možnost odbitka predvidena, kadar je bila ta oseba ob svoji smrti rezident države, v kateri je podedovana nepremičnina, če se uporablja progresivna davčna stopnja in ker ima lahko neupoštevanje navedenih dolgov skupaj s to progresivno stopnjo za posledico večjo davčno obremenitev dedičev, ki se ne morejo sklicevati na takšno možnost odbitka.
The answer set out in point 1 of the operative part of this judgment is not affected by the fact that the rules of the Member State in which the person whose estate is being administered was residing at the time of death provide unilaterally for the possibility that a tax credit may be granted in respect of inheritance duties payable in another Member State on immovable property situated in that other State.
Okoliščina, da je v ureditvi države članice, v kateri je ob svoji smrti prebivala oseba, po kateri je uvedeno dedovanje, enostransko predvidena možnost odobritve davčnega odbitka na podlagi davka na dediščino, ki ga je treba plačati v drugi državi članici v zvezi z nepremičninami v tej drugi državi, ne vpliva na odgovor iz točke 1 izreka te sodbe.
Case C-141/07
Zadeva C-141/07
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Measures having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction — Protection of public health — Justification — Pharmacies — Supply of medicinal products directly to hospitals — Proximity to the hospital concerned)
„Neizpolnitev obveznosti države – Ukrepi z enakim učinkom kot količinske omejitve – Varovanje javnega zdravja – Utemeljitev – Lekarne – Neposredna dostava farmacevtskih proizvodov bolni�nicam – Bližina zadevne bolni�nice“
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 11 September 2008 . . . . . . . .
Bota, predstavljeni 10. aprila 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Action for failure to fulfil obligations — Subjectmatter of the dispute — Division of powers between the Member States and the Community in the area of public health — Conditions for intervention by the Commission
Tožba zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti – Predmet spora – Delitev pristojnosti med državami članicami in Skupnostjo na področju javnega zdravja – Pogoji za poseg Komisije
(Arts 152(5) EC and 211 EC)
(člena 152(5) ES in 211 ES)
Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent effect — Obstacles resulting from national provisions regulating selling arrangements in a non-discrim-inatory way
Prosti pretok blaga – Količinske omejitve – Ukrepi z enakim učinkom – Ovire, ki izhajajo iz nacionalnih določb, ki nediskriminatorno urejajo načine prodaje
(Arts 28 EC and 30 EC)
(člena 28 ES in 30 ES)
SUMMARY — CASE C-141/07
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-141/07
continue to be empowered to lay down rules on that subject, subject to compliance with the provisions of the Treaty, in particular the provisions on the free movement of goods.
ravni Skupnosti, določitev pravil na tem področju pristojnost držav članic, če so spo�tovane določbe Pogodbe in zlasti tiste o prostem pretoku blaga.
Community law does not detract from the power of the Member States to organise their social security systems and to adopt, in particular, provisions intended to govern the consumption of pharmaceutical products in order to promote the financial stability of their healthcare insurance schemes and the organisation and delivery of health ser -vices and medical care.
Pravo Skupnosti ne vpliva na pristojnosti držav članic, da organizirajo svoje sisteme socialne varnosti in da sprejmejo zlasti pravila, ki so namenjena ureditvi porabe farmacevtskih proizvodov v interesu finančnega ravnovesja njihovih sistemov zagotavljanja zdravstvenega skrbstva, ter da organizirajo in zagotav -ljajo zdravstvene storitve in zdravstveno varstvo.
(see paras 22-25)
(Glej točke od 22 do 25.)
However, in exercising that power, the Member States must comply with Community law, in particular the provisions of the Treaty on the free movement of goods.
Vendar pa morajo države članice pri izvr�evanju te pristojnosti spo�tovati pravo Skupnosti, predvsem določbe Pogodbe o prostem pretoku blaga.
Those provisions prohibit the Member States from introducing or maintaining unjustified restrictions on the exercise of that freedom in the healthcare sector.
Omenjene določbe državam članicam predvsem prepovedujejo, da bi uvedle ali ohranile neupravičene omejitve pri izvajanju prostega pretoka blaga na področju zdravstvenega varstva.
Accordingly, the Commission’s action, as part of the performance of its tasks, which, under Article 211 EC, include ensuring that the provisions of the Treaty are applied, is restricted to determining whether the Member States have acted in compliance with the rules of that Treaty relating to the free movement of goods.
Tako se tožba Komisije v okviru izpolnjevanja njenih nalog, ki na podlagi člena 211 ES med drugim vključujejo skrb glede uporabe določb Pogodbe, omejuje na preverjanje, ali so države članice delovale skladno s pravili te pogodbe, ki se nana�ajo na prosti pretok blaga.
Furthermore, as Community law stands at present, since there has been no harmonisation at Community level of the rules on the provision of medicinal products to hospitals, the Member States
Med drugim je v sedanjem pravu Skupnosti, v katerem oskrba bolni�nic z zdravili ni predmet usklajevanja na
National provisions which determine the requirements which external pharmacies must meet if they are to be eligible to supply medicinal products to hospitals and which do not concern the characteristics of the medicinal products, but concern solely the arrangements permitting their sale, must be regarded as concerning selling arrangements.
Za nacionalne določbe, ki določajo zahteve, ki jih morajo zunanje lekarne izpolnjevati, ko se potegujejo za oskrbo bolni�nic z zdravili, in ki se ne nana�ajo na lastnosti zdravil, ampak samo na načine, kako se lahko prodajajo, je treba �teti, da se nana�ajo na načine prodaje.
Although such provisions apply indiscriminately to all the operators concerned who carry out their business on the territory of the Member State which has adopted them, they are such as to make the supply of medicinal products to hospitals in that Member State more difficult and more costly for pharmacies established in other Member States than for pharmacies established in the Member State concerned, since they lay down a series of cumulative criteria which in practice require a degree of geographical proximity between the pharmacy supplying the medicinal products and the hospital for which those products are intended.
Čeprav se te določbe uporabljajo brez razlikovanja za vse zadevne subjekte, ki opravljajo dejavnost na ozemlju države članice, ki jih je sprejela, pa lekarnam, ustanovljenim v drugih državah članicah, ne v tej državi članici, povzročajo težavnej�o in dražjo oskrbo bolni�nic te države članice z zdravili kot lekarnam, ustanov -ljenim v tej državi članici, ker uvajajo niz kumulativnih pogojev, s katerimi se de facto zahteva določena geografska bližina med lekarno, ki dobavlja zdravila, in bolni�nico, ki so ji namenjena.
Consequently, such provisions are liable to hinder intraCommunity trade and constitute a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports prohibited by Article 28 EC.
Zato lahko take določbe ovirajo trgovino znotraj Skupnosti in pomenijo ukrep z enakim učinkom kot količinska omejitev pri uvozu, prepovedan s členom 28 ES.
COMMISSION v GERMANY one pharmacist who is, first, responsible for the supply of medicinal products and, secondly, generally and quickly available in situ, those provisions ensure that all the elements of the system for the sup -ply of medicinal products to hospitals in the Member State concerned are equivalent and mutually compatible, and thereby guarantee the unity and balance of that system.
KOMISIJA PROTI NEMČIJI drugi strani zadostno in hitro na voljo na kraju samem, te določbe zagotavljajo enakovrednost in združljivost med vsemi elementi sistema oskrbe bolni�nic z zdravili v zadevni državi članici in tako zagotavljajo enotnost in ravnovesje tega sistema.
Accordingly, those provisions can be seen to be necessary to the achievement of the objective of ensuring a high level of public health protection and clearly do not go beyond what is necessary.
Zato so te določbe nujne za uresničitev cilja o zagotovitvi vi�je ravni varovanja javnega zdravja in ne presegajo okvirov tak�ne nujnosti.
However, legislation which is such as to restrict a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the Treaty, such as the free movement of goods, can be justified on grounds of the protection of public health if it is appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective pursued and does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it.
Vendar je predpis, s katerim se omejuje s Pogodbo zagotovljena temeljna svobo� -čina, kakr�en je prosti pretok blaga, mogoče utemeljiti z varovanjem javnega zdravja, če je primeren za uresničitev zasledovanega cilja in ne preseže okvirov, nujnih za doseganje tega cilja.
In that regard, first, the provisions in question are such as to achieve the objective of ensuring that the supply of products to the hospitals of the Member State concerned is reliable and of good quality and therefore of protecting public health.
Po eni strani se z zadevnimi določbami uresničuje cilj zagotovitve zanesljive in kakovostne oskrbe bolni�nic zadevne države članice in zato varuje javno zdravje.
Secondly, the fact of the matter is that the provisions in question transpose to the system of external provision of supplies requirements analogous to those which characterise the system of internal provision of supplies.
Po drugi strani se z njimi v sistem z zunanjo oskrbo prena�ajo zahteve, analogne tistim, ki so značilne za sistem z interno oskrbo.
To the extent that conclusion of the supply contract with the pharmacy of another hospital or with an external pharmacy is subject to the provisions in question, which lay down conditions analogous to those applicable in the system of internal provision of supplies, namely the requirement that there be
Če je sklenitev pogodbe o oskrbi z lekarno druge bolni�nice ali zunanjo lekarno odvisna od zadevnih določb, ki določajo pogoje, analogne tistim, ki veljajo v okviru sistema z interno oskrbo, torej zahtevo, da je lekarnar po eni strani odgovoren za oskrbo z zdravili in po
(see paras 30, 31, 33-35, 44, 48, 49, 55-57)
(Glej točke 30, 31, od 33 do 35, 44, 48, 49 in od 55 do 57.)
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERALBOT delivered on 10 April 2008 1
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNEGA PRAVOBRANILCAYVESA BOTA, predstavljeni 10. aprila 2008 1
It is common ground that those cumulative requirements (‘the contested requirements’) can be met only by a pharmacy in the geographical vicinity of the hospital concerned.
Nedvomno so ti kumulativni pogoji (v nadaljevanju: sporni pogoji) lahko izpolnjeni samo, če je lekarna geografsko blizu bolni�nice.
This action for failure to fulfil obligations concerns whether the provisions of German law applying when a hospital decides to obtain its supplies of medicinal products from an external pharmacy are compatible with the EC Treaty rules on the free movement of goods.
Ta tožba zastavlja vpra�anje skladnosti določb nem�ke zakonodaje, ki se uporabljajo, če se bolni�nica odloči oskrbovanje z zdravili zaupati zunanji lekarni, s predpisi Pogodbe ES, ki se nana�ajo na prosti pretok blaga.
The Commission of the European Communities contends that, by maintaining in force that law, which makes it impossible in practice for pharmacies established in other Member States to supply medicinal products to a hospital in Germany, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC.
Komisija Evropskih skupnosti trdi, da je Zvezna republika Nemčija, s tem ko vzdržuje tak�no zakonodajo, ki lekarnam iz drugih držav članic praktično onemogoča oskrbovanje bolni�nice z zdravili, kr�ila obveznosti iz člena 28 ES in člena 30 ES.
In this Opinion I shall explain in what way the contested requirements, although they should be regarded as selling arrangements within the meaning of Keck and Mithouard, 2constitute a measure having an equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports.
V teh sklepnih predlogih bom razložil, v čem so sporni pogoji, čeprav jih je treba analizirati kot pogoje prodaje v smislu sodbe z dne 24. novembra 1993 v zadevi Keck in Mithouard, 2ukrep, ki ima enak učinek kot količinska omejitev pri uvozu.
Under German law, a hospital located in Germany may obtain supplies of medicinal products either from an internal pharmacy within the hospital or from a pharmacy in another hospital or from an external pharmacy.
Skladno z nem�ko zakonodajo lahko bolni�nico v Nemčiji z zdravili oskrbuje ali bolni�nična interna lekarna, ali lekarna druge bolni�nice ali zunanja lekarna.