natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
12 — Case C-512/03 Blanckaert [2005] ECR I-7685, paragraph 42.
I-7685, točka 42).
Admissibility of the question referred
Dopustnost odločanje
According to the Commission, the situations of a resident and a nonresident are, for present purposes, wholly comparable.
Po mnenju Komisije sta položaja rezidenta in nerezidenta v obravnavani zadevi popolnoma primerljiva.
In fact, the deceased’s status as a resident or nonresident has no bearing on the value of the immovable property situated in Belgium and the related debts or the inheritance.
Pravzaprav pokojnikov status rezidenta ali nerezidenta nima vpliva na vrednost nepremičnine, ki je v Belgiji, in s tem povezanimi dolgovi ali dedi�čino.
As was clarified at the oral hearing, the Commission considers the debt in the present case to be directly linked, through the mortgage mandate, with the value of the immovable property.
Komisija meni, kot je bilo pojasnjeno na obravnavi, da je dolg v obravnavani zadevi zaradi pooblastila za ustanovitev hipoteke neposredno povezan z vrednostjo nepremičnine.
As to the objection of inadmissibility raised by the Belgian Government, it should be recalled that, according to settled caselaw, it is solely for the national court before which the dispute has been brought, and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court. 13
Glede ugovora o nedopustnosti, ki ga je podala belgijska vlada, je treba opozoriti, da v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso le nacionalno sodi�če, pred katerim poteka spor in ki je pristojno za izdajo sodne odločbe, ob upo�tevanju posebnosti spora, ki poteka pred njim, presodi o nujnosti sprejetja predhodne odločbe za izdajo sodbe ter o pomembnosti vpra�anj, ki jih zastavi Sodi�ču. 13
Moreover, no overriding reason relating to the general interest has been advanced which could justify the difference in treatment at issue.
Poleg tega ni bil podan nujni razlog v splo�nem interesu, ki bi lahko upravičil zadevno različno obravnavanje.
As regards, in particular, the alleged difficulty for the national authorities to verify the existence of debts where the deceased was resident in another Member State, it is in any event for the heirs to provide sufficient proof of such a debt.
Kar zadeva predvsem domnevno težavo nacionalnih organov, da preverijo obstoj dolgov, če je pokojnik prebival v drugi državi članici, morajo ustrezen dokaz za obstoj takega dolga v vsakem primeru predložiti dediči.
The Commission adds that a Member State cannot, in order to justify a restriction on the free movement of capital, rely on a tax credit or concession which another Member State may — if it so desires — provide for.
Komisija dodaja, da se država članica za upravičenje omejitve prostega pretoka kapitala ne more sklicevati na znižanje davka ali na davčno ugodnost, ki bi jo morda določila druga država članica, če tako želi.
Where questions referred by national courts concern the interpretation of a provision of Community law, the Court of Justice is thus bound, in principle, to give a ruling unless it is obvious that the request for a preliminary ruling is in reality designed to induce the Court to give a ruling in a fictitious dispute, or to deliver advisory opinions on general or hypothetical questions, or that the interpretation of Community law requested bears no relation to the actual facts
Če se vpra�anja, ki jih zastavijo nacionalna sodi�ča, nana�ajo na razlago določbe prava Skupnosti, je torej Sodi�če načeloma zavezano, da odloči, razen če je očitno, da je pravi namen predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe prepričati Sodi�če, da odloči v izmi�ljenem sporu ali izda posvetovalna mnenja o splo�nih ali hipotetičnih vpra�anjih, ali če zapro�ena razlaga prava Skupnosti ni povezana s pravimi dejstvi spora ali njegovim
Finally, the Commission does not consider it necessary to answer the question referred with regard to Articles 12 EC, 17 EC or 18 EC.
Nazadnje Komisija meni, da ni treba odgovoriti na zastavljeno vpra�anje v zvezi s členi 12 ES, 17 ES ali 18 ES.
ECKELKAMP AND OTHERS of the main action or its purpose, or that the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it. 14
ECKELKAMP IN DRUGI namenom, ali če Sodi�če nima na voljo dejanskih ali pravnih elementov, ki so nujni za to, da poda ustrezen odgovor na nanj naslovljena vpra�anja. 14
It is clear, however, from the case-file and from the submissions of the heirs that there is more to the present case than the mere fact that the time-limits laid down for the filing of the declaration of estate — which I do not consider to be objectionable as such — have not been complied with by the heirs.
Vendar iz spisa in stali�č dedičev jasno izhaja, da se poleg dejstva, da dediči niso spo�tovali rokov za vložitev popisa zapu�čine – za katere menim, da sami po sebi niso sporni – v obravnavani zadevi skriva �e nekaj drugega.
In particular, the non-inclusion of the debt in question appears to relate to the fact that Belgian inheritance legislation does not provide for the inclusion of such debts and, what is more, to the fact that the heirs were given information to that effect by the Belgian tax authorities.
Predvsem se zdi, da je nenavedba zadevnega dolga povezana z dejstvom, da belgijska dednopravna zakonodaja ne določa navedbe tega dolga in, kar je pomembnej�e, z dejstvom, da so dediče o tem obvestili belgijski davčni organi.
It should be noted that in the present case it is common ground that the debt in question was not mentioned by the heirs within the period allowed under the WS for filing or correcting the declaration of estate, which became final on the expiry of that period.
Opozoriti je treba, da v obravnavani zadevi ni sporno, da dediči niso omenili zadevnega dolga v roku, ki ga WS določa za vložitev ali popravo popisa zapu�čine, ki je z iztekom tega roka postal dokončen.
In the final analysis, therefore, the present dispute turns, rather than on the procedural provisions of the WS, on its ma -terial provisions, which were in turn pos -sibly based, depending on the answer to be given to the question referred for a preliminary ruling, on an erroneous application of Community law. 16
Končno se obravnavana zadeva torej ne nana�a na procesne določbe WS, temveč na njegove vsebinske določbe, ki so morda, odvisno od odgovora na zastavljeno predhodno vpra�anje, temeljile na napačni uporabi prava Skupnosti. 16
The Belgian Government has also pointed out — correctly — that Community law does not, as a rule, prevent the application of such time-limits provided for under national law.
Belgijska vlada je tudi – pravilno – poudarila, da pravo Skupnosti praviloma ne preprečuje uporabe takih rokov, določenih v nacionalnem pravu.
In that regard, it appears from the caselaw that, in principle, both the fixing of reasonable time-limits as regards administrative or judicial proceedings and the rule that an administrative decision becomes final upon the expiry of such a timelimit are consistent with the requirements of the effectiveness of Community law, inasmuch as such procedural rules constitute an application of the fundamental principle of legal certainty. 15
V zvezi s tem izhaja iz sodne prakse, da sta določanje razumnih rokov v upravnih in sodnih postopkih ter pravilo, da upravna odločba z iztekom takega roka postane dokončna, načeloma skladna z zahtevami po učinkovitosti prava Skupnosti, če taka procesna pravila pomenijo uporabo temeljnega načela pravne varnosti. 15
Against that background, it is far from established that, in deciding on the appeal brought by the heirs, the referring court would be prevented — solely on the ground that the declaration of estate became final without the debt in issue being mentioned — from taking account of a preliminary ruling on the question referred.
V teh okoli�činah �e zdaleč ni jasno, da predložitveno sodi�če pri odločanju o pritožbi dedičev ne bi moglo – le zato, ker je popis dedi�čine postal dokončen, ne da bi bil zadevni dolg omenjen – upo�tevati predhodne odločbe glede zastavljenega vpra�anja.
14 — See to that effect, in particular Promusicae, cited in footnote 13, paragraph 37, and Case C-217/05 Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio [2006] ECR I-11987, paragraph 16 and the caselaw cited.
14 – V tem smislu glej predvsem sodbo Promusicae, navedeno v opombi 13, točka 37, in sodbo z dne 14. decembra 2006 v zadevi Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio (C-217/05, ZOdl., str. I-11987, točka 16 in navedena sodna praksa).
16 — In addition, the dispute in the main proceedings may raise, as the heirs have argued, issues of the protection of legitimate expectations.
15 – V tem smislu glej predvsem sodbo Palmisani, navedeno v opombi 13, točka 28, sodbo z dne 13. januarja 2004 v zadevi Kühne & Heitz (C-453/00, Recueil, str. I-837, točka 24) in sodbo Comet, navedeno v opombi 10, točka 18. 16 – Poleg tega lahko spor v postopku v glavni stvari, kot so trdili dediči, porodi vpra�anja o varstvu zaupanja v pravo.
(transfer dent in another Member State 17duty).
MAZÁKA – ZADEVA C-11/07 čino), vendar ne, če je prebival v drugi državi članici 17 (davek na prehod lastnine).
Accordingly, it is not obvious, within the meaning of the abovementioned caselaw, that the question referred in the present proceedings is — as the Belgian Government contends — hypothetical or irrelevant for the purposes of delivering judgment in the main action.
Torej v skladu z navedeno sodno prakso ni očitno, da je zastavljeno vpra�anje v obravnavani zadevi – kot trdi belgijska vlada – hipotetično ali nepomembno za izdajo sodbe v postopku v glavni stvari.
As suggested by the parties to the present proceedings and in conformity with the relevant caselaw of the Court concerning the taxation of acquisition through inheritance, I shall start by examining that question in relation to the free movement of capital. 18
Obravnavanje tega vpra�anja bom začel z vidika prostega pretoka kapitala, kot so predlagale stranke v tem postopku in v skladu z upo�tevno sodno prakso Sodi�ča o obdavčitvi pridobitve z dedovanjem. 18
To my mind, the question referred for a preliminary ruling is therefore admissible.
Po mojem mnenju je zastavljeno vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje zato dopustno.
As a preliminary point it should also be noted that, as the Commission rightly observed, the Treaty provision most relevant to the circumstances of this case is Article 58 EC, read in conjunction with Article 56 EC, rather than Article 57 EC as suggested in the question referred.
Najprej je treba poudariti, da je najbolj relevantna določba Pogodbe za okoli�čine te zadeve, kot je pravilno pripomnila Komisija, člen 58 ES v povezavi s členom 56 ES, ne pa člen 57 ES, kot je navedeno v zastavljenem vpra�anju.
It should be recalled at the outset that, according to well-established caselaw, although direct taxation falls within the competence of the Member States, they
Uvodoma je treba opozoriti, da morajo države članice v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso, čeprav je neposredno obdavčenje v
17 — That is to say, resident at the time of death in a Member State other than the Member State where the immovable property concerned is situated.
17 – Torej je ob smrti prebival v državi članici, ki ni država članica, v kateri je zadevna nepremičnina.
18 — Cf. in that regard inter alia Barbier, cited in footnote 3, paragraphs 57, 58 and 75.
18 – V tem smislu glej med drugim sodbo Barbier, navedeno v opombi 3, točke 57, 58 in 75.
The following assessment corresponds, in so far as the two cases are structurally similar, essentially to that in my Opinion in Arens-Sikken, cited in footnote 2, to which I may refer where appropriate.
Če sta primera strukturno podobna, ta ocena v bistvu ustreza oceni iz mojih sklepnih predlogov v zadevi Arens-Sikken, navedenih v opombi 2, na katere sem bom skliceval, kjer bo to primerno.
By its question, the referring court is essentially asking whether Community law, in particular the Treaty provisions relating to the freedom of Union citizens to take up residence in another Member State and to the free movement of capital, preclude national legislation on the taxation of inheritance, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which — for the purposes of determining the basis of assessment for the tax due on the inheritance of immovable property situated in the territory of the Member State concerned — account may be taken of certain charges, such as debts secured by the right conferred on a creditor to take out a mortgage against that immovable property, if the person from whom the immovable property has been inherited was resident, at the time of death, in that Member State (inheritance duty), but not if that person was resi-
Predložitveno sodi�če z vpra�anjem v bistvu spra�uje, ali pravo Skupnosti, predvsem določbe Pogodbe o svobo�čini držav -ljanov Unije, da prebivajo v drugi državi članici, in o prostem pretoku kapitala, nasprotuje nacionalni zakonodaji o davku na dedi�čino, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, v skladu s katero se lahko – za določitev osnove za odmero davka na dedovanje nepremičnin, ki so na ozemlju zadevne države članice – lahko upo�tevajo nekatere obveznosti, kot so dolgovi, zavarovani s pravico upnika, da lahko vzame hipoteko na nepremičnino, če je zapustnik ob smrti prebival v tej državi članici (davek na dedi� -
ECKELKAMP AND OTHERS must none the less exercise that competence consistently with Community law.
ECKELKAMP IN DRUGI njihovi pristojnosti, to pristojnost vendarle izvr�evati ob spo�tovanju prava Skupnosti. 19
It is thus necessary to examine whether national legislation such as that at issue amounts to a prohibited restriction on the free movement of capital.
Torej je treba preučiti, ali nacionalna zakonodaja, kot je zadevna, pomeni prepovedano omejitev prostega pretoka kapitala.
As regards, more particularly, the applicability ratione materiae of the Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital to a situation such at that at issue — which has not, in fact, been contested by the parties to the present proceedings — it is settled caselaw that an inheritance is a movement of capital within the meaning of Article 56 EC (formerly Article 73b of the EC Treaty), except in cases where its constituent elements are confined within a single Member State. 20
Kar podrobneje zadeva veljavnost ratione materiae določb Pogodbe o prostem pretoku kapitala za položaj, kot je obravnavani – ki za stranke tega postopka dejansko ni sporen – je ustaljena sodna praksa, da je dedovanje pretok kapitala v smislu člena 56 ES (prej člen 73b Pogodbe ES), razen če so njegovi sestavni elementi omejeni na eno državo članico. 20
In that regard, it should be noted that the Court held in Barbier — which also concerned the taxation of an immovable property acquired through inheritance from a nonresident — that measures prohibited by Article 56 EC as being restrictions on the movement of capital include those whose effect is to reduce the value of the inheritance of a resident of a State other than the Member State in which the assets concerned are situated and which taxes the inheritance of those assets. 21
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da je sodi�če v zadevi Barbier – ki se prav tako nana�al na obdavčitev nepremičnine, pridobljene z dedovanjem po nerezidentu – odločilo, da ukrepi, ki jih člen 56 ES prepoveduje, ker omejujejo pretok kapitala, zajemajo tiste, zaradi katerih se zmanj�a vrednost dedi�čine rezidenta države, ki ni država članica, v kateri je zadevno premoženje, in ki obdavči dedovanje tega premoženja. 21
It suffices to note in that regard that the situation in the case before the Hof van Beroep te Gent is clearly not purely domestic in that it concerns the taxation of the acquisition of an immovable property through inheritance from a person resident, at the time of death, in a Member State other than Belgium, that is to say, other than the Member State in which the immovable property is situated.
V zvezi s tem je dovolj, da poudarim, da položaj v zadevi, ki je pred Hof van Beroep te Gent, očitno ni popolnoma notranji, saj zadeva obdavčitev pridobitve nepremičnine z dedovanjem po osebi, ki je ob smrti prebivala v državi članici, ki ni Belgija, torej ne v državi članici, v kateri je nepremičnina.
The inheritance at issue in the main proceedings therefore falls within the scope
Za zadevno dedovanje iz postopka v glavni stvari se zato uporabljajo določbe Pogodbe o prostem pretoku kapitala.
In the present case it has not been disputed that — as the heirs and the Commission have submitted — the effect of the legislation under which debts such as those in issue in the main proceedings are not deductible in relation to immovable property inherited from a nonresident is to reduce the value of the inheritance in so far as it causes the inheritance to be subject, in
V obravnavani zadevi ni sporno – kot so navedli dediči in Komisija –, da je učinek zakonodaje, v skladu s katero se dolgovi, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, ne smejo uporabiti kot odbitek v zvezi z nepremičnino, podedovano po nerezidentu, zmanj�anje vrednosti dedi�čine, v delu, v katerem določa, da se v Belgiji za dedi�čino zaračuna vi�ji
20 — See, to that effect, inter alia Case C-256/06 Jäger [2008] ECR I-123, paragraph 25, and van Hilten-van der Heijden, cited in footnote 4, paragraph 42.
20 – V tem smislu glej med drugim sodbo z dne 17. januarja 2008 v zadevi Jäger (C-256/06, ZOdl., str. I-123, točka 25) in v opombi 4 navedeno sodbo van Hiltenvan der Heijden, točka 42.
21 — 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 20, paragraph 30.
21 – V tem smislu glej 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 20, točka 30.
it points out that, according to the rules on the allocation of powers of taxation, it falls to the Member State of residence of the deceased — which alone is in a position to assess his economic position in its entirety — to take account of all assets and debts relating to the inheritance, including debts such as those at issue.
o delitvi davčnih pristojnosti država članica prebivali�ča pokojnika – ki edina lahko oceni ekonomski položaj v celoti – upo�tevati vse premoženje in dolgove, povezane z dedi� -čino, vključno z dolgovi, kot je sporni.
It follows that the national legislation on succession duties at issue — in so far as it makes the deductibility of certain debts conditional upon the immovable property concerned having been inherited from a person resident in that Member State — is, in principle, liable to restrict the free movement of capital.
Iz tega sledi, da se z zadevno nacionalno zakonodajo o davku na dedi�čino – ker je pogoj za odbitje določenih dolgov ta, da je bila zadevna nepremičnina podedovana po osebi, ki je prebivala v tej državi članici – načeloma omejuje prost pretok kapitala.
It is therefore necessary to examine whether that restriction may be justified having regard to the provisions of the Treaty.
Torej je treba preučiti, ali je ta omejitev lahko upravičena ob upo�tevanju določb Pogodbe.
In that respect, it is correct that, as the Belgian Government observed, the Court accepted in the Schumacker line of cases — thereby recognising the role of the criterion of residence as a connecting factor for purposes of the allocation of taxing powers — 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 which entail different treatment as between resident and nonresident taxpayers. 23
V zvezi s tem je res, kot je navedla belgijska vlada, da je Sodi�če v vrsti zadev Schumacker odločilo – s čimer je priznalo vlogo merila prebivali�ča kot veznega dejavnika pri delitvi davčnih pristojnosti – da položaja rezidentov in nerezidentov pri neposrednih davkih praviloma nista primerljiva, tako da je v davčnem pravu mogoče, da je prebivali�če davčnega zavezanca dejavnik, ki upravičuje nacionalna pravila, ki vsebujejo različno obravnavanje davčnih zavezancev, ki so rezidenti, in tistih, ki so nerezidenti. 23
The Belgian Government relies essentially on two main arguments in order to show that the legislation at issue is compatible with the Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital and that the distinction on which it is based is justified.
Belgijska vlada se v bistvu opira na dve glavni trditvi, da bi dokazala, da je sporna zakonodaja skladna z določbami Pogodbe o prostem pretoku kapitala in da je razlikovanje, na katerem temelji, utemeljeno.
It maintains, first, relying on the Schumacker 22case-law, that the differential treatment in question reflects an objective difference between the situations of a resident and a non-resident.
Prvič, s sklicevanjem na zadevo Schumacker 22 trdi, da zadevno različno obravnavanje odraža objektivno razliko med položajema rezidenta in nerezidenta.
Second, and closely related to that argument,
Drugič, in v tesni povezavi s to trditvijo, poudarja, da mora v skladu s pravili
22 — Case C-279/93 [1995] ECR I-225.
22 – Sodba z dne 14. februarja 1995 v zadevi Schumacker (C-279/93, Recueil, str. I-225).
ECKELKAMP AND OTHERS not objectively comparable or be justified by overriding reasons in the general interest. 25
ECKELKAMP IN DRUGI nacionalni ukrep velja za skladnega z določbami Pogodbe o prostem pretoku kapitala. 25
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. 24
Vendar je Sodi�če večkrat poudarilo, da je treba to določbo, ker gre za izjemo od temeljnega načela prostega pretoka kapitala, razlagati ozko in da ni vsaka zakonodaja, ki različno obravnava davčne zavezance glede na njihov kraj prebivali�ča ali glede na državo članico, v kateri vlagajo svoj kapital, avtomatično združljiva s Pogodbo. 24
As to the identification of situations which are objectively comparable with regard to a specific national tax measure, 26 it appears from the caselaw, in particular, 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 comparable as regards any deductions relating to that taxation.
Glede ugotavljanja položajev, ki so objektivno primerljivi z vidika posebnih nacionalnih davčnih ukrepov, 26iz sodne prakse izhaja predvsem, da če je država članica izbrala določeno obliko davka za nerezidente in rezidente, je treba nerezidente in rezidente �teti za primerljive tudi, kar zadeva kakr�ne koli odbitke, ki se nana�ajo na to obdavčenje.
27 In the same context, the Court also considered it relevant to determine whether costs, charges or obligations, whose deductibility or taking into account with regard to a tax is at issue, are in a way ‘directly linked’ with the income, asset or taxable event on which that tax is levied. 28
27Sodi�če je v istem kontekstu �telo za pomembno tudi, da se ugotovi, ali so stro�ki, bremena in obveznosti, ki se jih odbije ali upo�teva pri davku, kakor koli „neposredno povezani“ z dohodkom, premoženjem ali obdavčljivim dogodkom, od katerega se odmeri davek. 28