natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In my view, the value of the inheritance, seen in the light of economic realities, is also reduced within the meaning of Barbier if the value of the inheritance considered as a whole is, as in the present case, reduced — as compared with a purely domestic situation — as a result of the non-deductibility of overendowment debts incurred when the property was acquired through inheritance.
Po mojem mnenju se vrednost dedi�čine v smislu sodbe Barbier z ekonomskega vidika prav tako zmanj�a, če se vrednost dedi�čine v celoti, kot v obravnavani zadevi, zmanj�a – v primerjavi s popolnoma nacionalnim primerom – ker ni mogoče odbiti dolgov zaradi presežne pridobitve, ki so nastali ob pridobitvi nepremičnine z dedovanjem.
20 — See Opinion of Advocate General Mischo in Barbier, cited in footnote 3, point 30.
20 – Glej v opombi 3 navedene sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca Mischa v zadevi Barbier, točka 30.
19 — See to that effect Barbier, cited in footnote 3, paragraph 62; van Hilten-van der Heijden, cited in footnote 4, paragraph 44; and, most recently, Jäger, cited in footnote 18, paragraph 30.
21 – Glej v tem smislu tudi v opombi 18 navedeno sodbo Jäger, točka 32, v kateri je Sodi�če menilo, da je v zvezi s tem odločilno, da je bila zaradi zadevnih nacionalnih določb dedi�čina obdavčena z davkom na dediščino, ki je višji od davka, ki bi ga bilo treba plačati v popolnoma nacionalnem primeru.
21 — See also to that effect Jäger, cited in footnote 18, paragraph 32, where the Court considered it decisive in this context that the national provisions in question result in an inheritance being subject to inheritance tax that is higher than that which would be payable in a purely domestic situation.
19 – Glej v tem smislu sodbe Barbier, navedeno v opombi 3, točka 62; van Hiltenvan der Heijden, navedeno v opombi 4, točka 44, in nedavno sodbo Jäger, navedeno v opombi 18, točka 30.
Member States remain in principle competent to determine the criteria for taxation and to determine the connecting factors for the purposes of allocating powers of tax -ation, either unilaterally or by international agreements.
ARENS-SIKKEN pristojne za določitev meril za obdavčitev in navezovalnih okoli�čin za razdelitev davčnih pristojnosti enostransko ali z mednarodnimi sporazumi.
24 first, relying on caselaw of the Court, such as Schumacker 22and Gerritse, 23that the respective situations of a resident de cujus and a nonresident de cujus are not comparable as regards the taxation of acquisition through inheritance.
24 s sklicevanjem na sodno prakso Sodi�ča, kot sta sodbi Schumacker 22 in Gerritse 23, trdi, da posamezna položaja zapustnika rezidenta in zapustnika nerezidenta nista primerljiva pri obdavčitvi pridobitve z dedovanjem.
Second, and closely related to that argument, it points out that the non-deductibility of overendowment debts in the case of immovable property inherited from a nonresident is rooted in the principles of international tax law, under which it is for the Member State of residence to take account of personal obligations such as those at issue here.
Drugič, in v tesni povezavi s to trditvijo, poudarja, da je nemožnost odbitka dolgov zaradi presežne pridobitve v primeru nepremičnine, podedovane po nerezidentu, utemeljena z načeli mednarodnega davčnega prava, v skladu s katerimi mora država članica prebivali�ča upo�tevati osebne obveznosti, kot so te v obravnavani zadevi.
One consequence, to which I will have to come back later, is that, as in other areas where there is no Community harmonisation, Article 56 EC does not prohibit restrictions or disadvantages resulting merely from existing disparities between national tax systems and the exercise in parallel by two Member States of their sovereign powers of taxation.
Posledica, ki jo bom obravnaval kasneje, je ta, da, kot na drugih neusklajenih področ - jih v Skupnosti, s členom 56 ES niso prepovedane omejitve ali neugodnosti, ki nastanejo zgolj zaradi neskladij med nacionalnimi davčnimi sistemi in hkratnega izvajanja davčnih pristojnosti dveh držav članic.
25 The implication is that Article 56 EC covers, by contrast, restrictions which are attributable to the tax rules of one Member State.
25 To pomeni, da so s členom 56 ES nasprotno zajete omejitve, ki se lahko pripi�ejo davčnim pravilom ene države članice.
In order to assess whether those considerations can justify the legislation at issue in the present case, it may be useful to recall certain aspects of the ‘legal environment’ in which the Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital operate as regards direct taxation and to recapitulate briefly the caselaw relevant in that context.
Da bi se presodilo, ali lahko ti preudarki upravičijo sporno zakonodajo v obravnavani zadevi, je koristno spomniti na nekatere vidike „pravnega okvira“, v katerem se izvajajo določbe Pogodbe o prostem pretoku kapitala v zvezi z neposrednim obdavčenjem, in na kratko povzeti upo�tevno sodno prakso na tem področju.
Next, it can be said that the Court has in general accepted apportionment criteria following from the principle of territoriality and recognised, in particular, that residence is, for tax purposes, the connecting factor on which international tax law is as a rule founded for the purposes of allocating
Dalje je treba navesti, da je Sodi�če na splo�no sprejelo merila za razdelitev na podlagi načela teritorialnosti in �e posebej priznalo, da je pri obdavčitvi prebivali�če navezna okoli�čina, na kateri praviloma temelji mednarodno davčno pravo za razde-
It must be borne in mind, in particular, that in so far as no unifying or harmonising Community measures have been adopted as regards direct taxation to that effect, the
Zlasti je treba opozoriti, da ukrepi Skupnosti za poenotenje in uskladitev v zvezi z neposrednim obdavčenjem �e niso bili sprejeti, zato ostanejo države članice načeloma
In the same vein, Article 58(1)(a) EC expressly provides that ‘Article 56 [EC] shall be without prejudice to the right of Member States … 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 …’.
V členu 58(1)(a) ES je v enakem smislu izrecno predvideno, da „[d]oločbe člena 56 [ES] ne posegajo v pravice držav članic, da […] uporabljajo ustrezne predpise svojega davčnega prava, v katerih so različno obravnavani davčni zavezanci, ki niso v enakem položaju glede na prebivali�če […]“.
Seen in that light, the place of residence of a taxable person may therefore — as a criterion for the allocation of powers of tax -ation — be objectively relevant as regards the levying of direct taxes.
Tako je lahko s tega vidika prebivali�če davčnega zavezanca – kot merilo za razdelitev davčnih pristojnosti – pri odmeri neposrednih davkov objektivno pomembno.
The Court has repeatedly emphasised, however, that that provision, in so far as it is an exception to the fundamental principle of the free movement of capital, must be interpreted strictly and that not all tax legislation making a distinction between taxpayers based on their place of residence or the Member State in which they invest their capital is automatically compatible with the Treaty. 28
Sodi�če je večkrat poudarilo, da je treba to določbo, kot izjemo od temeljnega načela prostega pretoka kapitala, razlagati ozko in da niso vse davčne zakonodaje, v katerih se razlikuje med davčnimi zavezanci na podlagi njihovega prebivali�ča ali države članice, v kateri vlagajo svoj kapital, samodejno združ -ljive s Pogodbo. 28
It is against that background that, as the Netherlands Government observed, the Court accepted in the Schumacker line of cases that, in relation to direct taxes, the respective situations of residents and nonresidents are not, as a rule, comparable, so that, in tax law, it is possible that the taxpayer’s residence may constitute a factor justifying national rules providing for different treatment as between resident and nonresident taxpayers. 27
Sodi�če je v teh okoli�činah, kot je navedla nizozemska vlada, v sodbah Schumacker glede neposrednih davkov presodilo, da posamezni položaji rezidentov in nerezidentov praviloma niso primerljivi, tako da je v davčnem pravu mogoče, da je prebivali�če davčnega zavezanca dejavnik, ki upravičuje nacionalna pravila, ki določajo različno obravnavanje davčnih zavezancev – rezidentov in nerezidentov. 27
Also, the exception provided for in Article 58(1)(a) EC is itself limited by Article 58(3) EC, which provides that the national provisions referred to in Article 58(1) EC ‘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]’.
Poleg tega je izjema iz člena 58(1)(a) ES omejena s členom 58(3) ES, ki določa, da nacionalni predpisi iz člena 58(1) ES „ne smejo biti sredstvo samovoljne diskriminacije ali prikritega omejevanja prostega pretoka kapitala in plačil iz člena 56 [ES]“.
28 — See, for example, Case C-446/03 Marks & Spencer [2005] ECR I-10837, paragraph 37; Manninen, cited in footnote 17, paragraph 28; and Jäger, cited in footnote 18, paragraph 40. 27 — In Schumacker, cited in footnote 12, the Court held, with regard to income tax, that the situation of a resident is different from that of a nonresident ‘in so far as the major part of his income is normally concentrated in the State of residence.
28 – Glej na primer sodbo z dne 13. decembra 2005 v zadevi Marks & Spencer (C-446/03, ZOdl., str. I-10837, točka 37) ter sodbi Manninen, navedeno v opombi 17, točka 28, in Jäger, navedeno v opombi 18, točka 40. 27 – V sodbi Schumacker, navedeni v opombi 12, je Sodi�če glede dohodnine odločilo, da se primer rezidenta razlikuje od primera nerezidenta, „ker je v državi prebivali�ča praviloma bistveni del njegovih dohodkov.
Moreover, that State generally has available all the information needed to assess the taxpayer’s overall ability to pay, taking account of his personal and family circumstances’ (see paragraphs 31 and 33).
Poleg tega ta država na splo�no razpolaga z vsemi potrebnimi informacijami za presojo celotne davčne sposobnosti davčnega zavezanca ob upo�tevanju njegovega osebnega in družinskega položaja“ (glej točki 31 in 33).
ARENS-SIKKEN difference in treatment concerned, 31the caselaw discloses certain criteria that the Court has applied to establish whether two situations are objectively comparable with regard to a certain taxation measure.
ARENS-SIKKEN različno obravnavanje, 31sodna praksa razkriva nekatera merila, ki jih je uporabilo Sodi�če za ugotovitev, ali sta položaja objektivno primerljiva glede določenega davčnega ukrepa.
A distinction must therefore be drawn between unequal treatment which is permitted under Article 58(1)(a) EC and arbitrary discrimination which is prohibited by Article 58(3) EC.
Razlikovati je torej treba med dovoljenim neenakim obravnavanjem iz člena 58(1)(a)ES in prepovedano samovoljno diskriminacijo iz člena 58(3) ES.
As follows in that regard from the caselaw of the Court, for a national measure to be capable of being regarded as compatible with the Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital, the difference in treatment must concern situations which are not objectively comparable or be justified by overriding reasons in the general interest. 29
Kot izhaja iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča v zvezi s tem, bi se nacionalni ukrep obravnaval kot združljiv z določbami Pogodbe o prostem pretoku kapitala le takrat, kadar se različno obravnavanje nana�a na položaje, ki med seboj niso objektivno primerljivi, oziroma če je to upravičeno z razlogom javnega interesa. 29
It can be noted, first, that the Court attaches importance to consistency in the exercise of taxation powers in that, where a Member State has chosen to impose a particular form of tax on nonresidents as well as residents, it follows that residents and nonresidents must also be considered com -parable as regards any deductions relating to that taxation. 32
Najprej je treba opozoriti, da Sodi�če meni, da je pri izvr�evanju davčnih pristojnosti pomembna doslednost; če je država članica predpisala posebno obliko davka za nerezidente in rezidente, je treba rezidente in nerezidente �teti za primerljive tudi glede kakr�nih koli odbitkov, ki se nana�ajo na to obdavčenje. 32
Although, in principle, it has to be considered in each specific situation whether a distinguishing criterion like residence is a relevant objective element apt to justify the
Čeprav je treba načeloma v vsakem posameznem primeru preučiti, ali je razlikovalno merilo, kot je prebivali�če, upo�teven objektivni dejavnik, ki lahko upraviči zadevno
Thus, in Denkavit, the Court held that as soon as a Member State, either unilaterally or by means of an agreement, imposes a charge to tax on the income, not only of resident shareholders, but also of nonresident shareholders, from dividends which they receive from a resident company, the situation of those nonresident shareholders
Sodi�če je tako v sodbi Denkavit odločilo, da ko neka država članica enostransko ali s sporazumom predpi�e davek od dohodka ne le za delničarje rezidente, ampak tudi za delničarje nerezidente za dividende, ki jih prejmejo od družbe rezidentke, postane položaj omenjenih delničarjev nerezi-
31 — Cf. in that regard Marks & Spencer, cited in footnote 28, paragraph 38. 32 — See, to this effect, Case 270/83 Commission v France [1986] ECR 273, paragraph 20.
30 – Glej v tem smislu v opombi 12 navedeno sodbo Schumacker, točka 30; med drugim glej tudi sodbi z dne 17. julija 1997 v zadevi National Farmers’ Union in drugi (C-354/95, Recueil, str.
See also Opinion of Advocate General Lenz in Case C-250/95 Futura Participations and Singer [1997] ECR I-2471, points 38 and 39.
I-4559, točka 61) in z dne 2. oktobra 2003 v zadevi Garcia Avello (C-148/02, Recueil, str. I-11613, točka 31).
33 payments to shareholders on the occasion of a repurchase of shares, allowed resident shareholders to deduct the cost of acquisition of those shares, whereas such deduction was denied to nonresident shareholders.
33 izplačanih zneskov delničarjem pri povrat- nem nakupu delnic delničarjem rezidentom omogočen odbitek stro�kov pridobitve teh delnic, delničarjem nerezidentom pa je bil ta odbitek zavrnjen.
The Court held that, since the cost of acquisition was directly linked to the payment subject to tax, the two categories of taxpayer were, in that regard, in a comparable situation. 35
Sodi�če je odločilo, da so bili stro�ki pridobitve neposredno povezani z obdavčenim zneskom, zato sta bili ti kategoriji davkoplačevalcev v zvezi s tem v primerljivem položaju. 35
The reasoning of the Court proceeds along similar lines in a number of cases from which it appears that, in so far as the situations of residents and nonresidents are regarded under the tax legislation of a Member State as comparable with regard to a certain form of income, asset or, more generally, taxable event, their situations must also be regarded as comparable when it comes to the taking into account of costs, charges or obligations which are in any way ‘directly linked’ with the income, asset or taxable event on which the tax is levied.
Sodi�če podobno nadaljuje svojo presojo v �tevilnih zadevah, iz katerih izhaja, da če se položaji rezidentov in nerezidentov v skladu z davčno zakonodajo države članice �tejejo za primerljive glede določene oblike dohodka, premoženja ali, na splo�no, obdavčljivega dogodka, je njihove položaje treba �teti za primerljive, tudi kadar gre za upo�tevanje stro�kov, bremen ali obveznosti, ki so kakor koli „neposredno povezani“ z dohodkom, premoženjem ali obdavčljivim dogodkom, na podlagi katerega se odmeri davek.
Against that background it should be noted in the present case, first, that although the applicable succession duties are formally levied on the value of immovable property forming part of the estate of a nonresident, the fact that the inheritance is taxed in the hands of the heirs is not to be overlooked.
V teh okoli�činah je treba v obravnavani zadevi opozoriti, prvič, da čeprav se veljavni davki na podlagi zapu�čine praviloma odmerijo od vrednosti nepremičnine, ki je del zapu�čine nerezidenta, se ne sme spregledati dejstva, da je dedi�čina obdavčena v breme dedičev.
Thus, the case does not exclusively concern the personal situation of the deceased and the responsibility of the Member State of his residence to take account, in accordance with the residence principle invoked by the Netherlands Government, of all his personal circumstances and obligations, as it is the heirs who are the taxable persons under the SW 1956 and liable to tax according to their share in the inheritance.
Tako se zadeva ne nana�a izključno na osebni položaj pokojnika in odgovornost države članice njegovega prebivali�ča, da upo�teva v skladu z načelom prebivali�ča, na katerega se sklicuje nizozemska vlada, vse njegove osebne okoli�čine in obveznosti, ker so dediči na podlagi SW 1956 davčni zavezanci in so dolžni plačati davek glede na svoj dedni delež.
34 Similarly, in Bouanich, the Court examined legislation which, with regard to the taxation of
33 – V opombi 13 navedena sodba Denkavit, točka 35; glej tudi sodbo z dne 12. decembra 2006 v zadevi Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation (C-374/04, ZOdl., str. I-11673, točka 68).
33 — Denkavit, cited in footnote 13, paragraph 35; see also Case C-374/04 Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation [2006] ECR I-11673, paragraph 68.
35 – V opombi 34 navedena sodba Bouanich, točki 39 in 40; glede merila „neposredne povezave“ glej tudi v opombi 18 navedeno sodbo Jäger, točka 44.
34 — See Gerritse, cited in footnote 7, paragraphs 27 and 28.
34 – Glej v opombi 7 navedeno sodbo Gerritse, točki 27 in 28.
See also as to references to a ‘direct link’ Case C-265/04 Bouanich [2006] ECR I-923, paragraph 40, and Jäger, cited in footnote 18, paragraph 44.
Glede „neposredne povezave“ glej tudi sodbo z dne 19. januarja 2006 v zadevi Bouanich (C-265/04, ZOdl., str.
35 — Bouanich, cited in footnote 34, paragraphs 39 and 40; for a further reference to the criterion of ‘direct link’ see also Jäger, cited in footnote 18, paragraph 44.
I-923, točka 40) in v opombi 18 navedeno sodbo Jäger, točka 44.
ARENS-SIKKEN far as it provides (under the SW 1956) for succession duties to be levied in both cases, either in the form of inheritance duty or transfer duty.
ARENS-SIKKEN je (na podlagi SW 1956) odmera davka na dedi�čino določena v obeh primerih, bodisi v obliki davka na dedi�čino ali davka na prenos premoženja.
It is clear from the case-file that, but for the possibilities of deduction, those two taxes are in principle two sides of the same coin.
Iz spisa jasno izhaja, da sta ta davka načeloma, razen glede možnosti odbitka, dve strani iste medalje.
In particular, in a situation where the heirs were themselves resident in the Netherlands, and to whom the same non-deduct-ibility rule would apparently apply as regards the inheritance of immovable property from a nonresident, one might well ask if the State of residence would really be in a better pos -ition to take into account obligations such as that in issue, which are incurred by the heir due to his overendowment. 36
Zlasti v položaju, v katerem bi za dediče, ki prebivajo na Nizozemskem, pri dedovanju nepremičnin po nerezidentu očitno veljalo enako pravilo o nemožnosti odbitka, je vpra�ljivo, ali bi bila država prebivali�ča res v bolj�em položaju, da bi upo�tevala obveznosti, kot so te v obravnavani zadevi in ki jih prevzame dedič zaradi svojih dolgov zaradi presežne pridobitve. 36
Secondly, the occasion on which the overendowment debts are incurred is the acquisition through inheritance on which the transfer duties are levied.
Drugič, dolgovi zaradi presežne pridobitve nastanejo ob pridobitvi z dedovanjem, na podlagi katere se odmeri davek na prenos premoženja.
They are thus directly linked with the transfer to the heirs of the immovable property giving rise to the levying of taxes on inheritance.
Tako so neposredno povezani s prenosom nepremičnine na dediče, ki povzroči odmero davka na dedi�čino.
In those circumstances, it cannot in my view be sustained that, as regards the deductibility of overendowment debts, the situation of a person who inherits immovable property from a nonresident is objectively different from that of a person who inherits from a resident.
V teh okoli�činah po mojem mnenju ni mogoče trditi, da se pri odbitju dolgov zaradi presežne pridobitve položaj osebe, ki deduje nepremičnino po nerezidentu, objektivno razlikuje od položaja osebe, ki deduje po rezidentu.
Accordingly, I fail to see how the mere fact that the deceased was not, at the time of death, resident in the Member State where immovable property forming part of his estate is situated could provide objective justification for denying an heir, in a situation such as that before the referring court, the deduction of overendowment debts incurred on the occasion of the acquisition of that property through inheritance.
Zato ne morem razumeti, kako je mogoče z dejstvom, da pokojnik ob smrti ni prebival v državi članici, v kateri je nepremičnina, ki je del njegove zapu�čine, objektivno upravičiti, da se dediču v položaju, kot je ta pred predložitvenim sodi�čem, zavrne odbitek dolgov zaradi presežne pridobitve, ki so nastali ob pridobitvi te nepremičnine z dedovanjem.
Thirdly, it must be noted that the legislation at issue acknowledges by implication the comparability of the situations where immovable property is inherited from residents and nonresidents respectively, in so
Tretjič, treba je opozoriti, da se z zadevno zakonodajo implicitno priznava primerljivost položajev, v katerih se nepremičnina deduje po rezidentih oziroma nerezidentih, ker
36 — See in this context footnote 27 above.
36 – V zvezi s tem glej opombo 27 zgoraj.
Seen from that perspective, the present situation bears also a resemblance to cases concerning the taxation of foreign-source income, for example from dividends, by the State of residence of the taxable person and in which the Court held that in respect of the tax legislation of his State of residence, the position of a shareholder receiving dividends is not necessarily altered merely by the fact that he receives those dividends from a company established in another Member State, which, in exercising its fiscal sovereignty, makes those dividends subject to a deduction at source by way of income tax.
S tega vidika je obravnavani položaj podoben tudi zadevam, ki se nana�ajo na obdavčitev dohodkov iz tujine, na primer od dividend, s strani države prebivali�ča davčnega zavezanca in v katerih je Sodi�če odločilo, da glede na davčno zakonodajo države prebivali�ča položaj delničarja, ki prejme dividende, ni nujno različen samo zato, ker jih prejme od družbe s sedežem v drugi državi članici, ki pri izvr�evanju svojih davčnih pristojnosti te dividende obdavči z davkom na dohodek, odtegnjenim pri viru.
See to that effect, for example, Kerckhaert and Morres, cited in footnote 25, paragraph 19.
Glej v tem smislu na primer v opombi 25 navedeno sodbo Kerckhaert in Morres, točka 19.
It follows from the foregoing that the difference in fiscal treatment at issue amounts to arbitrary discrimination and is therefore incompatible with the Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital.
Iz navedenega izhaja, da razlika v spornem davčnem obravnavanju pomeni samovoljno diskriminacijo in zato ni v skladu z določbami Pogodbe o prostem pretoku kapitala.
Finally, it should be added that, as the Commission has rightly stated, the question whether or to what extent the Member State of residence of the deceased may grant a tax credit or concession can have no bearing on that finding.
Nazadnje je treba dodati, kot pravilno navaja Komisija, da vpra�anje, ali in v kak�nem obsegu država članica pokojnikovega prebivali�ča priznava davčni dobropis ali davčno olaj�avo, ne vpliva na to ugotovitev.
It is also clear from the caselaw of the Court that, in the case of direct taxation, the possibility that Treaty provisions on freedom of movement have been infringed is as a rule assessed on the basis of a country-by-country approach. 38
Na podlagi sodne prakse Sodi�ča je tudi jasno, da se pri neposredni obdavčitvi možnost, da so bile kr�ene določbe Pogodbe o prostem pretoku, praviloma presoja glede vsake države posebej. 38