natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
On 5 March 2003, that is to say, before the deadline for transposition of Directive 2002/74, Camisas Leica was declared insolvent; after the deadline for transposition of the directive, the claimant in the main proceedings maintained, vis-à-vis Fogasa, her claim relating to the debt owing to her in the form of compensation for her dismissal as a result of that insolvency.
Do plačilne nesposobnosti družbe Camisas Leica je namreč pri�lo 5. marca 2003, in sicer pred iztekom roka za prenos te direktive, in tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari je tudi po tem datumu vztrajala pri zahtevi, naslovljeni na sklad Fogasa, v zvezi s terjatvijo, ki jo je imela glede od�kodnine za odpoved pogodbe o zaposlitvi, ki je izhajala iz navedene plačilne nesposobnosti.
In that regard, it is possible to infer from the caselaw of the Court (see, to that effect, Case C-156/91 Hansa Fleisch Ernst Mundt [1992] ECR I-5567, paragraph 20, and Vaneetveld, paragraph 18) that, where a Member State has not transposed Directive 2002/74 within the period allowed, the possible direct effect of that directive can be relied upon, from 8 October 2005, only in relation to cases of insolvency which have occurred after that date, which is not the position in the case before the referring court.
V tem pogledu je mogoče iz sodne praske Sodi�ča sklepati (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 10. novembra 1992 v zadevi Hansa Fleisch Ernst Mundt, C-156/91, Recueil, str. I-5567, točka 20, in zgoraj navedeno sodbo Vaneetveld, točka 18), da če država članica Direktive 2002/74 ni prenesla v določenem roku, se je mogoče na njen morebitni neposredni učinek od 8. oktobra 2005 sklicevati le v zvezi s stanjem plačilne nesposobnosti, do katerega je pri�lo po tem datumu, za kar pa v zadevi v postopku v glavni stvari ne gre.
On that point, it should be noted that, although, clearly, the Member States were under an obligation to bring their national provisions into conformity with
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da so države članice, čeprav imajo obveznost, da sprejmejo nacionalne predpise, ki so potrebni za uskladitev z Direktivo 2002/74, v
Directive 2002/74 before 8 October 2005, they are obliged under the second subparagraph of Article 2(1) of that directive to apply those provisions only to cases of insolvency which have occurred after their entry into force.
2008 – ZADEVA C-246/06 skladu s členom 2(1), drugi pododstavek, te direktive do 8. oktobra 2005 zavezane uporabiti navedene predpise le za stanja plačilne nesposobnosti, do katerih je pri�lo po dnevu začetka veljave teh predpisov.
Thus, the provision made by Directive 2002/74 can cover only insolvencies which have occurred after the transposition of the directive into national law — including those occurring before the deadline for transposition — or, in the absence of transposition, only those which have occurred after that deadline.
Tako so lahko predmet določb Direktive 2002/74 le stanja plačilne nesposobnosti, do katerih je pri�lo ali po njenem prenosu, vključno s tistimi primeri, do katerih je pri�lo pred iztekom roka za prenos, ali po izteku tega roka, če do prenosa ni pri�lo.
The reply to the questions referred must therefore be that, where Directive 2002/74 has not been transposed into national law by 8 October 2005, the possible direct effect of the first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 80/987 cannot, in any event, be relied upon in relation to a state of insolvency which occurred before that date.
Zato je treba na zastavljeni vpra�anji odgovoriti, da se, če do prenosa Direktive 2002/74 v notranje pravo ne pride do 8. oktobra 2005, v zvezi s stanjem plačilne nesposobnosti, do katerega je pri�lo pred tem datumom, nikakor ni mogoče sklicevati na morebiten neposredni učinek člena 3, prvi odstavek, Direktive 80/987.
Breach of the principle of equal treatment
Kršitev načela enakega obravnavanja
Although, by virtue of their wording, the two questions referred to the Court concern solely the direct effect of the first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 80/987, it is important to recall — as regards the period falling between the date of the entry into force of Directive 2002/74 and the deadline for transposition of that directive — that, where national rules fall within the scope of Community law, and reference is made to the Court for a preliminary ruling, the Court must provide all the interpretative criteria needed by the national court for the purposes of determining whether those
Čeprav sta vpra�anji, ki ju je predložitveno Sodi�če zastavilo Sodi�ču, oblikovani tako, da se nana�ata le na neposredni učinek člena 3, prvi odstavek, Direktive 80/987, je treba glede obdobja med datumom začetka veljavnosti Direktive 2002/74 do datuma izteka roka za njen prenos opozoriti, da mora Sodi�če, ki mu je bilo predloženo vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, ko nacionalna ureditev preide na področje uporabe prava Skupnosti, nacionalnemu sodi�ču predložiti vse elemente razlage, ki jih to potrebuje za presojo skladnosti te ureditve s temeljnimi pravicami, katerih
Thus, although Member States are free, within the framework of Directive 80/987, not to provide in national law a guarantee of payment of compensation for dismissal (as the first paragraph of Article 3 of that directive contains no obligation to that effect), rules of national law which do provide for such a guarantee fall, with effect from 8 October 2002 — the date of the entry into force of Directive 2002/74 — within the scope of Community law as regards their application to events subsequent to that date (see, to that effect, Case C-81/05 Cordero Alonso [2006] ECR I-7569, paragraphs 31 and 32).
Čeprav države članice v okviru Direktive 80/987, kakor je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 2002/74, niso zavezane, da v notranjem pravu določijo jamstvo za plačilo od�kodnin za odpovedi pogodbe o zaposlitvi, ker člen 3, prvi odstavek, te direktive dejansko ne zajema nobene obveznosti v tem smislu, pa je nacionalna ureditev, ki določa tako jamstvo, od datuma začetka veljavnosti Direktive 2002/74, in sicer 8. oktobra 2002, pre�la na področje uporabe prava Skupnosti glede njene uporabe za dejstva, ki so nastala po navedenem začetku njene veljavnosti (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 7. septembra 2006 v zadevi Cordero Alonso, C-81/05, ZOdl., str. I-7569, točki 31 in 32).
It should be noted that Article 33(2) of the Workers’ Statute provides such a guarantee of payment, in the event of the insolvency of the employer, of certain compensation provided for under that statute for dismissal or for the termination of an employment contract.
Treba je opozoriti, da člen 33(2) zakona o delovnih razmerjih pri plačilni nesposobnosti delodajalca določa tak�no jamstvo za določene od�kodnine za odpoved ali prenehanje pogodbe o zaposlitvi, ki so določene z istim zakonom.
In consequence, it should be held that, from the date of entry into force of Directive 2002/74, Article 33(2) of the Workers’ Statute is covered by the first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 80/987 and thus falls within the scope of Community law.
Zato je treba ugotoviti, da navedena nacionalna določba od datuma začetka veljavnosti Direktive 2002/74 spada v okvir člena 3, prvi odstavek, Direktive 80/987 in tako preide na področje uporabe prava Skupnosti.
With effect from that date, its lawfulness is therefore conditional upon its compliance with the general principles and fundamental rights recognised in the Community legal order (see, to that effect, Case C-81/05 Cordero Alonso [2006] ECR I-7569, paragraph 37).
Tako mora od tega datuma dalje spo�tovati splo�na načela in temeljne pravice, ki so priznani v pravnem redu Skupnosti (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 7. septembra 2006 v zadevi Cordero Alonso, C-81/05, ZOdl., str. I-7569, točka 37).
It follows that it is for the referring court to interpret the national rules at issue in the main proceedings in accordance with those general principles and fundamental rights as interpreted by the Court and, in particular, the principle of equal treatment (see, to that effect, the order in Guerrero Pecino, paragraph 30, and Cordero Alonso, paragraph 38).
Iz tega izhaja, da mora nacionalno sodi�če nacionalno ureditev v zadevi v postopku v glavni stvari razlagati ob spo�tovanju zgoraj navedenih splo�nih načel in temeljnih pravic, kot jih razlaga Sodi�če, ter zlasti načela enakosti (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeni sklep Guerrero Pecino, točka 30, in zgoraj navedeno sodbo Cordero Alonso, točka 38).
As regards the principle of equal treatment, in accordance with which comparable situations must not be treated differently unless such difference in treatment is object ively justified, the Court has held — in relation to the legislation at issue in the case before the referring court — that workers who have been unfairly dismissed are in a comparable situation in so far as they are entitled to compensation in the event that they are not reinstated (see Rodríguez Caballero, paragraph 33, and Case C-520/03 Olaso Valero [2004] ECR I-12065, paragraphs 34 and 35).
Glede tega načela, v skladu s katerim se primerljive okoli�čine ne smejo obravnavati različno, razen če je razlikovanje objektivno utemeljeno, je Sodi�če v zvezi z ureditvijo v zadevi v postopku v glavni stvari razsodilo, da so protipravno odpu�čeni delavci v primerljivem položaju, ker imajo, če jim ni omogočena vrnitev na delo, pravico do od�kodnine (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Rodríguez Caballero, točka 33, in sodbo z dne 16. decembra 2004 v zadevi Olaso Valero, C-520/03, ZOdl., str. I-12065, točki 34 in 35).
On establishing, in the course of its reasoning, that no persuasive argument had been made to justify the difference in treatment between claims corresponding to compensation for unfair dismissal, awarded by judgment or administrative decision, and claims for compensation for unfair dismissal, established under a conciliation procedure, the Court arrived at the conclusion that legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings is contrary to the principle of equal treatment where it excludes the latter claims for compensation from the responsibilities of the guarantee institutions (see, to that effect, Olaso Valero, paragraphs 36 and 37).
Sodi�če je v nadaljevanju svoje presoje z ugotovitvijo, da ni bila predstavljena nobena prepričljiva trditev za utemeljitev različne obravnave terjatev iz naslova od�kodnin zaradi protipravne odpovedi pogodbe o zaposlitvi, priznanih s sodbo ali z upravno odločbo, in terjatev iz naslova od�kodnin zaradi protipravne odpovedi pogodbe o zaposlitvi, priznanih v postopku sodne poravnave, pri�lo do zaključka, da je taka ureditev, kot je v zadevi v postopku v glavni stvari, v nasprotju z načelom enakosti, če jamstvena ustanova ne izpolni zadnjenavedenih terjatev (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Olaso Valero, točki 36 in 37).
It should be added that, in the face of such discrimination, observance of the principle of equal treatment can be ensured only by granting to persons within the disadvantaged category — for so long as the directive has not been correctly transposed into domestic law by the national legislature — the same advantages as those enjoyed by persons within the favoured category (Rodríguez Caballero, paragraph 42, and Cordero Alonso, paragraph 45).
Treba je dodati, da bi bilo mogoče pri taki diskriminaciji spo�tovanje načela enakosti zagotoviti le tako, da bi se osebam, ki se obravnavajo manj ugodno, priznale enake ugodnosti, kot so tiste, do katerih so upravičene osebe, ki se obravnavajo ugodneje, dokler nacionalni zakonodajalec pravilno ne prenese navedene direktive (zgoraj navedeni sodbi Rodríguez Caballero, točka 42, in Cordero Alonso, točka 45).
It follows from the foregoing that, where rules of national law fall within the scope of Directive 80/987, the national courts are bound, as regards a state of insolvency occurring between the date of the entry into force of Directive 2002/74 and the deadline for transposition of that directive into national law, to ensure that the application of those rules of national law is consistent with the principle of non-discrimination, as recognised by the Community legal order.
Iz navedene presoje izhaja, da mora nacionalno sodi�če, kadar spada nacionalna ureditev na področje uporabe Direktive 80/987, v zvezi s stanjem plačilne nesposobnosti, do katerega je pri�lo med datumom začetka veljavnosti Direktive 2002/74 in datumom izteka roka za njen prenos, zagotoviti uporabo te nacionalne ureditve skladno z načelom prepovedi diskriminacije, kot je priznano s pravnim redom Skupnosti.
On those grounds, the Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby rules:
Iz teh razlogov je Sodi�če (četrti senat) razsodilo:
Where Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 80/987/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protec-
Če do prenosa Direktive 2002/74/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 23. septembra 2002 o spremembi Direktive Sveta 80/987/EGS o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic o varstvu delavcev v primeru plačilne
2008 — CASE C-246/06 tion of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer has not been transposed into national law by 8 October 2005, the possible direct effect of the first paragraph of Article 3 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, as amended by Directive 2002/74, cannot, in any event, be relied upon in relation to a state of insolvency which occurred before that date.
2008 – ZADEVA C-246/06 nesposobnosti njihovega delodajalca v notranje pravo ne pride do 8. oktobra 2005, se v zvezi s stanjem plačilne nesposobnosti, do katerega je prišlo pred tem datumom, nikakor ni mogoče sklicevati na morebiten neposredni učinek člena 3, prvi odstavek, Direktive Sveta 80/987/EGS z dne 20. oktobra 1980 o varstvu delavcev v primeru plačilne nesposobnosti delodajalca.
Where rules of national law fall within the scope of Directive 80/987, as amended by Directive 2002/74, the national courts are bound, as regards a state of insolvency occurring between the date of the entry into force of Directive 2002/74 and the deadline for transposition of that directive into national law, to ensure that the application of those rules of national law is consistent with the principle of non-discrimination, as recognised by the Community legal order.
Kadar spada nacionalna ureditev na področje uporabe Direktive 80/987, kakor je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 2002/74, mora nacionalno sodišče v zvezi s stanjem plačilne nesposobnosti, do katerega je prišlo med datumom začetka veljavnosti Direktive 2002/74 in datumom izteka roka za njen prenos, zagotoviti uporabo te nacionalne ureditve skladno z načelom prepovedi diskriminacije, kot je priznano s pravnim redom Skupnosti.
Case C-256/06
Zadeva C-256/06
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Bundesfinanzhof)
(Free movement of capital — Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 EC and 58 EC) — Inheritance tax — Valuation of assets forming part of the estate — Agricultural and forestry assets in another Member State — Less favourable method of valuation of assets and calculation of the tax payable)
„Prosti pretok kapitala – Člena 73b in 73d Pogodbe ES (postala člena 56 ES in 58 ES) – Davek na dedi�čino – Vrednotenje premoženja, vključenega v dedi�čino – Premoženje v obliki kmetijskega zemlji�ča in gozdov, ki se nahaja v drugi državi članici – Manj ugodna metoda za vrednotenje premoženja in izračun dolgovanega davka“
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 17 January 2008 . . . . . . .
Mazáka, predstavljeni 11. septembra 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Free movement of capital — Restrictions — Inheritance tax(EC Treaty, Art. 73b(1)1, and 73d (now Arts 56(1)EC and 58 EC))
Prosti pretok kapitala – Omejitve – Davek na dediščino(Pogodba ES, člena 73b(1) in 73d (postala člena 56(1) ES in 58 ES))
SUMMARY — CASE C-256/06
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-256/06
Article 73b(1) of the Treaty (now Article 56(1) EC), read in conjunction with Article 73d of the Treaty (now Article 58 EC), must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, for the purposes of calculating the tax on an inheritance consisting of assets situated in that State and agricultural land and forestry situated in another Member State,
Člen 73b(1) Pogodbe (postal člen 56(1) ES) v povezavi s členom 73d Pogodbe (postal člen 58 ES) je treba razlagati tako, da nasprotuje ureditvi države članice, ki za namene izračuna davka na dedi�čino, sestavljeno iz premoženja, ki se nahaja na ozemlju te države, in premoženja v obliki kmetijskega zemlji�ča in gozdov, ki se nahaja v drugi državi članici, zemlji�ča in gozdov, ki se nahaja v drugi državi članici, v prvi državi članici predmet vi�jega davka na dedi�čino, kot bi zna�al dolgovani davek za podedovano premoženje, ki bi se nahajalo izključno na ozemlju slednje države, omejuje pretok kapitala in zmanj�uje vrednost dedi�čine, ki je sestavljena iz takega premoženja, ki se nahaja zunaj nacionalnega ozemlja.
— provides that account be taken of the fair market value of the assets in that other Member State, whereas a special valuation procedure exists for identical domestic assets, the results of which amount on average to only 10% of that fair market value, and
— določa, da se pri premoženju, ki se nahaja v tej drugi državi članici, upo�teva njegova najvi�ja tržna vrednost, medtem ko se za isto premoženje, ki se nahaja na nacionalnem ozemlju, uporablja poseben postopek vrednotenja, katerega rezultati povprečno zna�ajo le 10 % po�tene tržne vrednosti tega premoženja, in
Such national legislation cannot be justified on the ground that it concerns situations which are not objectively comparable since the calculation of inheritance tax is, under that legislation, directly linked to the value of the assets included in the estate, and there is therefore objectively no difference in situation such as to justify unequal tax treatment so far as concerns the level of inheritance tax payable in relation to, respectively, an asset situated in the national territory and an asset situated in another Member State.
Taka nacionalna ureditev ne more biti upravičena, ker se nana�a na položaje, ki niso objektivno primerljivi, saj je izračun davka na dedi�čino z uporabo navedene ureditve namreč neposredno povezan z vrednostjo premoženja, vključenega v dedi�čino, in ker zato objektivno ni razlike med položaji, ki bi lahko upravičila neenakost davčnega obravnavanja glede stopnje davka na dedi�čino, ki ga je treba plačati za premoženje, ki se nahaja na nacionalnem ozemlju, oziroma za premoženje, ki se nahaja v drugi državi članici.
— reserves application of a taxfree amount to domestic agricultural land and forestry in relation to those assets and takes account of their remaining value in the amount of only 60% thereof.
— za premoženje v obliki kmetijskega zemlji�ča in gozdov, ki se nahaja na nacionalnem ozemlju, določa uporabo zneskov, opro�čenih davka v zvezi s tem premoženjem ter upo�tevanje preostale vrednosti zgolj v vi�ini 60 %.
Such provisions, in so far as they result in an inheritance consisting of agricultural land and forestry situated in another Member
Taka ureditev, ki povzroča, da je dedi�čina, sestavljena iz premoženja v obliki kmetijskega
Furthermore, the objective of preventing the tax burden from jeopardising the continuation of the activities of agricultural and forestry holdings, and, thereby, the preservation of the social role of those holdings cannot justify the provisions in question, given that there is no evidence to support a
Poleg tega cilj preprečevanja, da bi davek na dedi�čino ogrozil izvajanje dejavnosti kmetijskih in gozdarskih obratov ter cilj ohranitve socialne funkcije teh obratov ne moreta upravičiti zadevne ureditve, saj na podlagi nobenega dejavnika ni mogoče ugotoviti, da
JÄGER finding that the holdings established in other Member States are not in a comparable situation to that of holdings situated in national territory.
JÄGER se obrati v drugih državah članicah ne nahajajo v primerljivem položaju, kot je položaj obratov, ki so na nacionalnem ozemlju.
to justify a categorical refusal to grant the tax advantage such as that arising under the legislation at issue, which, apart from that assessment procedure, also reserves the application of two other tax advantages to assets situated within the national territory.
morejo upravičiti kategorične zavrnitve podelitve davčne ugodnosti, kot je zavrnitev, ki izhaja iz zadevne ureditve, ki ne glede na ta postopek vrednotenja določa uporabo drugih dveh davčnih ugodnosti tudi za premoženje, ki se nahaja na nacionalnem ozemlju.
The same is true of any difficulties encountered in determining the value of assets situated in the territory of another Member State under a special national procedure, since those difficulties cannot be sufficient
Enako velja glede morebitnih težav pri določanju vrednosti premoženja, ki se nahaja na ozemlju druge države članice, po posebnem nacionalnem postopku, saj te težave ne
(see paras 32, 43, 44, 52, 54, 55, 57, operative part)
(Glej točke 32, 43, 44, 52, 54, 55, 57 in izrek.)
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL
MAZÁKA – ZADEVA C-256/06
MAZÁKdelivered on 11 September 2007
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNEGA PRAVOBRANILCAJÁNA MAZÁKA, predstavljeni 11. septembra 2007 1 državami članicami ter med državami članicami in tretjimi državami.“
In the present case, the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) (Germany) seeks an interpretation of the Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital.
Bundesfinanzhof v tej zadevi spra�uje za razlago določb Pogodbe o prostem pretoku kapitala.
In particular, what is at issue is the application of German inheritance tax law on property in the form of agricultural land and forestry, which differentiates between domestic property and that held in another Member State.
Predvsem je sporna uporaba nem�kega prava o davku na dedi�čino za premoženje v obliki kmetijskega zemlji�ča in gozdov, ki razlikuje med domačim premoženjem in premoženjem v drugi državi članici.
A — Community law
I – Pravni okvir
On the other hand, Article 58 EC (formerly Article 73d of the EC Treaty) stipulates: ‘1.
Člen 58 ES (prej člen 73d ES) pa določa: „1.
The provisions of Article 56 [EC] shall be without prejudice to the right of Member States: (a) to apply the relevant provisions of their tax law which distinguish between taxpayers who are not in the same situation with regard to their place of residence or with regard to the place where their capital is invested … 3.
Določbe člena 56 [ES] ne posegajo v pravice držav članic, da: (a) uporabljajo ustrezne predpise svojega davčnega prava, v katerih so različno obravnavani davčni zavezanci, ki niso v enakem položaju glede na prebivali�če ali kraj, v katerem je naložen njihov kapital […] 3.
The measures and procedures referred to in [paragraph 1] shall not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on the free movement of capital and payments as defined in Article 56 [EC].’
Ukrepi in postopki iz odstavk[a] 1 […] ne smejo biti sredstvo samovoljne diskriminacije ali prikritega omejevanja prostega pretoka kapitala in plačil iz člena 56 [ES].“
Article 56(1) EC (formerly Article 73b(1) of the EC Treaty) provides: ‘Within the framework of the provisions set out in this Chapter, all restrictions on the movement of capital between Member States and between
Člen 56(1) ES (prej člen 73b(1) ES) določa: „V okviru določb tega poglavja so prepovedane vse omejitve pretoka kapitala med
On 7 February 1992, the Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States adopted, inter alia, a
Na konferenci predstavnikov vlad držav članic je bilo 7. februarja 1992 med drugim
JÄGER declaration on Article 73d EC 2 (‘the Declaration’) which is worded as follows:
JÄGER sprejeta izjavo o členu 73d ES 2(v nadaljevanju: izjava), v kateri je navedeno: