natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Secondly, should the national measures held to be contrary to Articles 43 EC and 48 EC, in the answer given by the Court to the third question, have restrictive effects on the free movement of capital, those effects should be regarded as the unavoidable consequence of such an obstacle to freedom of establishment as there might be, and do not therefore justify an examination of those measures from the point of view of Articles 56 EC to 58 EC (see, to that effect, Cadbury Schweppes and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, paragraph 33; Case C-452/04 Fidium Finanz [2006] ECR I-9521, paragraphs 48 and 49; Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, paragraph 34; and A and B, cited above, paragraph 27).
Po drugi strani, če bi nacionalni ukrepi, za katere se v odgovoru Sodi�ča na tretje vpra�anje �teje, da so v nasprotju s členoma 43 ES in 48 ES, imeli omejujoče učinke na prost pretok kapitala, bi bilo treba take učinke �teti za neizogibno posledico morebitne ovire za svobodo ustanavljanja in ne upravičujejo preučitve navedenih ukrepov glede na člene od 56 ES do 58 ES (v zvezi s tem glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Cadbury Schweppes in Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, točka 33; sodbo z dne 3. oktobra 2006 v zadevi Fidium Finanz, C-452/04, ZOdl., str. I-9521, točki 48 in 49; zgoraj navedeno sodbo Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, točka 34, ter zgoraj navedeni sklep A in B, točka 27).
Consequently, there is no need to reply to the fifth question in so far as it refers to the third question.
Zato ni treba odgovoriti na del petega vpra�anja, ki se nana�a na tretje vpra�anje.
The sixth to twelfth questions
Od šestega do dvanajstega vprašanja
By its sixth to twelfth questions, which should be considered together, the national court is asking the Court, in essence, whether, in the event that the national measures referred to in the preceding questions are incompatible with Community law, claims such as those brought by the claimants in the main proceedings in order to remedy such an incompatibility must be classified as actions for restitution of sums unduly levied or advantages unduly refused or, conversely, as claims for compensation in respect of damage suffered.
Predložitveno sodi�če z vpra�anji od �est do dvanajst, ki jih je treba obravnavati skupaj, v bistvu spra�uje Sodi�če, ali je treba v primeru, če bi bili nacionalni ukrepi, navedeni v predhodnih vpra�anjih, nezdružljivi s pravom Skupnosti, take tožbe, kot so jih vložile tožeče stranke v postopku v glavni stvari za odpravo posledic take nezdružljivosti, opredeliti kot tožbe za vračilo neupravičeno obračunanih zneskov ali neupravičeno zavrnjenih ugodnosti ali nasprotno kot tožbe za povrnitev povzročene �kode.
In the latter case, the national court asks whether it is necessary to satisfy the conditions laid down in paragraphs 51 and 66 of the judgment in Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame, and whether account must be taken, in that regard, of the form in which such claims must be brought under national law.
V tem zadnjem primeru predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje, ali je treba izpolniti pogoje iz sodbe Brasserie du Pêcheur in Factortame (navedena zgoraj, točki 51 in 66) in ali je v zvezi s tem pomembno, da se upo�teva oblika, v kateri morajo biti te tožbe vložene na podlagi nacionalnega prava.
As regards the application of the conditions under which a Member State is liable to make reparation for the loss and damage caused to claimants as a result of an infringement of Community law, the national court asks the Court to provide guidance as to the need for a sufficiently serious breach of that law and as to the need for a causal link between the breach of the obligation imposed on the Member State and the loss and damage suffered by the injured parties.
Glede uporabe pogojev, na podlagi katerih je država članica dolžna povrniti �kodo, ki je bila povzročena posameznikom s kr�itvijo prava Skupnosti, predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje, ali Sodi�če lahko določi usmeritve glede zahteve po dovolj resni kr�itvi navedenega prava in glede zahteve v zvezi z vzročno zvezo med kr�itvijo obveznosti države članice in �kodo, ki so jo utrpeli o�kodovanci.
The national court also asks whether, in determining the losses which are to be reimbursed or in respect of which compensation is to be provided, it is appropriate to have regard to the question whether the injured parties showed reasonable diligence in order to avoid the alleged losses, in particular in bringing actions before the courts.
Predložitveno sodi�če tudi spra�uje, ali je treba pri določitvi izgub, ki jih je treba povrniti ali nadomestiti, upo�tevati to, ali so o�kodovanci ravnali z razumno skrbnostjo, da bi se izognili izgubam, zlasti s tem, da so pri sodi�ču vložili tožbe.
The Court has had the occasion to point out that it is not for it to assign a legal classification to the actions brought before the national court by the claimants in the main proceedings.
Ugotoviti je treba, da je Sodi�če imelo priložnost spomniti na to, da ni naloga Sodi�ča, da pravno opredeli tožbe, ki so jih pri predložitvenem sodi�ču vložile tožeče stranke v postopku v glavni stvari.
It is for the latter to specify the nature and basis of their actions
Naloga slednjih je, da pod nadzorom predložitvenega sodi�ča
The Court has also noted that, according to well-established caselaw, the right to a refund of charges levied in a Member State in breach of the rules of Community law is the consequence and complement of the rights conferred on individuals by Community provisions as interpreted by the Court and that the Member State is therefore required in principle to repay charges levied in breach of Community law (Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 202, and Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, paragraph 110).
Sodi�če je tudi opozorilo, da je v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso pravica do vračila davka, ki je bil v državi članici odmerjen s kr�itvijo pravil prava Skupnosti, posledica in dopolnitev pravic, ki jih posameznikom podeljujejo določbe Skupnosti, kot jih je razlagalo Sodi�če, in da je država članica torej načeloma dolžna vrniti davke, ki so bili odmerjeni s kr�itvijo prava Skupnosti (zgoraj navedeni sodbi Test claimants in the FII Group Litigation, točka 202, ter Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, točka 110).
Indeed, in the absence of Community rules on the refund of national charges levied though not due, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction and to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive from Community law, provided, first, that such rules are not less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and, secondly, that they do not render virtually impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law (principle of effectiveness) (Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 203, and Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, paragraph 111).
Kadar namreč na področju vračila neupravičeno obračunanih nacionalnih dajatev ni predpisov Skupnosti, mora pravni red vsake države članice določiti pristojna sodi�ča in podrobneje urediti postopkovna pravila pravnih sredstev, katerih namen je varstvo pravic, ki za upravičene subjekte izhajajo iz prava Skupnosti, če po eni strani ta pravila niso manj ugodna od tistih, ki veljajo za podobna nacionalna pravna sredstva (načelo enakovrednosti), in če po drugi strani v praksi ne onemogočajo ali znatno otežujejo uveljavljanja pravic, ki jih podeljuje pravni red Skupnosti (načelo učinkovitosti) (zgoraj navedeni sodbi Test claimants in the FII Group Litigation, točka 203, ter Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, točka 111).
In addition, where a Member State has levied charges in breach of the rules of Community law, individuals are entitled to reimbursement not only of the tax unduly levied but also of the amounts paid to that State or retained by it which relate directly to that tax.
Poleg tega imajo upravičeni subjekti, če je država članica pobrala davke s kr�itvijo pravil prava Skupnosti, pravico do vračila ne le neupravičeno obračunanega davka, ampak tudi zneskov, ki so bili tej državi plačani ali jih je zadržala in so neposredno povezani s tem davkom. To zajema tudi izgube, nastale zaradi nedostopnosti denarnih zneskov zaradi predčasne zapadlosti davka (zgoraj navedeni sodbi Test claimants in the FII Group Litigation, točka 205, ter Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, točka 112).
However, the Court stated that neither the reliefs or other tax advantages waived by a resident company in order to be able to offset in full a tax levied unlawfully against an amount due in respect of another tax, nor the expenses incurred by the companies in that group in order to comply with the national legislation at issue, can form the basis of an action under Community law for the reimbursement of the tax unlawfully levied or of sums paid to the Member State concerned or withheld by it directly against that tax (Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, paragraph 113).
Vendar pa je Sodi�če pojasnilo, da niti olaj�av ali drugih davčnih ugodnosti, ki bi se jim družba rezidentka odpovedala, da bi lahko neupravičeno obračunani davek v celoti odbila od zneska iz naslova nekega drugega davka, niti stro�kov, ki so jih imele družbe te skupine zato, da so se uskladile z zadevno nacionalno zakonodajo, ni mogoče ob sklicevanju na pravo Skupnosti nadomestiti z vložitvijo tožbe za vračilo neupravičeno obračunanega davka ali s tem davkom neposredno povezanih zneskov, ki so bili zadevni državi članici plačani ali jih je zadržala (zgoraj navedena sodba Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, točka 113).
In the circumstances of the present case, such expenditure is the result of decisions taken by the claimants in the main proceedings and cannot therefore constitute, on their part, an inevitable consequence of the application of the United Kingdom tax legislation on dividends and CFCs (see, to that effect, Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 207, and Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, paragraph 113).
V okoli�činah te zadeve naj bi taki stro�ki sloneli na odločitvah, ki so jih sprejele tožeče stranke v postopku v glavni stvari, in zanje torej ne pomenijo neizogibne posledice uporabe davčne zakonodaje Združenega kraljestva o dividendah in TOD (v zvezi s tem glej zgoraj navedeni sodbi Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, točka 207, ter Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, točka 113).
It is therefore for the national court to determine whether the expenditure referred to in paragraph 114 of the present order represents, in the case of the companies concerned, financial losses suffered by reason of a breach of Community law for which the Member State in question is responsible (see, to that effect, Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 208, and Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, paragraph 114).
Naloga nacionalnega sodi�ča je, da ugotovi, ali stro�ki, navedeni v točki 114 tega sklepa, za zadevne družbe pomenijo finančne izgube, ki so jih utrpele zaradi kr�itve prava Skupnosti, za katero je odgovorna zadevna država članica (v zvezi s tem glej zgoraj navedeni sodbi Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, točka 208, ter Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, točka 114).
The Court has also observed that, while it has not gone so far as to rule out the possibility of a State being liable in less restrictive conditions on the basis of national law, there are three conditions under which a Member State will be liable to make reparation for loss and damage caused to individuals as a result of breaches of Community law for which it can be held responsible, namely that the rule of law infringed must be intended to confer rights on individuals, that the breach must be sufficiently
Sodi�če je prav tako navedlo, da sicer ni izključeno, da lahko nacionalno pravo za vzpostavitev odgovornosti države določi manj stroge pogoje, vendar pa je država članica dolžna povrniti �kodo, ki je bila povzročena posameznikom s kr�itvijo prava Skupnosti, za katero je odgovorna, če so izpolnjeni trije pogoji, to je, da kr�eno pravno pravilo podeljuje posameznikom pravice, da je kr�itev dovolj resna in da
In that regard, it is, in principle, for the national courts to apply the criteria for establishing the liability of Member States for damage caused to individuals by breaches of Community law, in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Court for the application of those criteria (Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 210, and Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, paragraph 116).
Ali so izpolnjeni pogoji, ki omogočajo ugotovitev odgovornosti držav članic za �kodo, ki je bila posameznikom povzročena s kr�itvami prava Skupnosti, morajo načeloma ugotoviti nacionalna sodi�ča, in sicer v skladu z usmeritvami, ki jih je določilo Sodi�če za ugotavljanje izpolnitve pogojev (zgoraj navedeni sodbi Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, točka 210, ter Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, točka 116).
So far as concerns the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, the first condition is plainly satisfied as regards Articles 43 EC and 56 EC.
V zvezi z zakonodajo, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, je prvi pogoj očitno izpolnjen, kar zadeva člena 43 ES in 56 ES. Učinek teh določb je namreč podelitev pravic posameznikom (zgoraj navedeni sodbi Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, točka 211, ter Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, točka 117).
As regards the second condition laid down, the Court pointed out, first, that a breach of Community law will be sufficiently serious where, in the exercise of its legislative power, a Member State has manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits on its discretion.
Glede drugega pogoja je Sodi�če spomnilo, da je po eni strani kr�itev prava Skupnosti dovolj resna, če je država članica pri izvr�evanju svoje zakonodajne pristojnosti očitno in močno prekoračila omejitve, postavljene pri izvr�evanju njenih pristojnosti.
Secondly, where, at the time when it committed the infringement, the Member State in question had only considerably reduced, or even no, discretion, the mere infringement of Community law may be sufficient to establish the existence of a sufficiently serious breach (Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 212, and Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, paragraph 118).
Če je imela po drugi strani zadevna država članica ob storitvi kr�itve samo izredno omejeno diskrecijsko pravico ali je celo ni imela, lahko že preprosta kr�itev prava Skupnosti zado�ča za ugotovitev obstoja dovolj resne kr�itve (zgoraj navedeni sodbi Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, točka 212, ter Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, točka 118).
In order to determine whether a breach of Community law is sufficiently serious, it is necessary to take account of all the factors which characterise the situation brought before the national court.
Pri ugotavljanju, ali obstaja dovolj resna kr�itev, je treba upo�tevati vse dejavnike, ki so značilni za zadevo, ki je bila predložena nacionalnemu sodi�ču.
Those factors include, in particular, the clarity and precision of the rule infringed, whether the infringement and the damage caused were intentional or involuntary, whether any error of law was excusable or inexcusable, and the fact that the position taken by a Community institution may have contributed to the adoption or maintenance of national measures or practices contrary to Community law (Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 213, and Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, paragraph 119).
Ti dejavniki obsegajo med drugim stopnjo jasnosti in natančnosti kr�enega pravila, namernost ali nenamernost storjene neizpolnitve ali povzročene �kode, opravičljivost ali neopravičljivost morebitne nepravilne uporabe prava in okoli�čino, da so lahko ravnanja institucije Skupnosti prispevala k sprejetju ali ohranitvi nacionalnih ukrepov ali prakse, ki nasprotujejo pravu Skupnosti (zgoraj navedeni sodbi Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, točka 213, ter Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, točka 119).
On any view, the Court has already stated that a breach of Community law will clearly be sufficiently serious if it has persisted despite a judgment finding the infringement in question to be established, or a preliminary ruling or settled caselaw of the Court on the matter, from which it is clear that the conduct in question constituted an infringement (Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 214, and Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, paragraph 120).
Sodi�če je že pojasnilo, da je kr�itev prava Skupnosti vsekakor očitno resna, kadar se je ni odpravilo kljub temu, da je bila razgla�ena sodba, v kateri je bila ugotovljena očitna neizpolnitev, sodba o vpra�anju za predhodno odločanje ali ustaljena sodna praksa Sodi�ča na zadevnem področju, iz katerih izhaja, da je obravnavano ravnanje kr�itev (zgoraj navedeni sodbi Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, točka 214, ter Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, točka 120).
In the present case, in order to determine whether a breach of Article 43 EC or Article 56 EC committed by the Member State concerned is sufficiently serious, the national court must take into account the fact that, in a field such as direct taxation, the consequences arising from the freedoms of movement guaranteed by the Treaty have been only gradually made clear (Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 215, and Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, paragraph 121).
V tej zadevi mora nacionalno sodi�če pri presoji, ali je bila kr�itev člena 43 ES ali člena 56 ES, ki jo je storila zadevna država članica, dovolj resna, upo�tevati dejstvo, da so bile na področju, kot je področje neposrednih davkov, posledice, ki izhajajo iz prostega pretoka in jih zagotavlja Pogodba, le postopno pojasnjene (zgoraj navedeni sodbi Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, točka 215, in Test Claimants ter the Thin Cap Group Litigation, točka 121).
As regards the third condition, namely the requirement for a direct link between the breach of the obligation resting on the State and the loss or damage sustained by the injured parties, it is for the national court to assess whether the loss and damage
Glede tretjega pogoja, to je zahteve po neposredni vzročni zvezi med kr�itvijo obveznosti države in �kodo, ki so jo utrpeli o�kodovanci, je naloga predložitvenega sodi�ča, da preveri, ali zatrjevana �koda izhaja dovolj neposredno iz kr�itve prava
Indeed, subject to the right of reparation which flows directly from Community law where those conditions are satisfied, it is on the basis of the rules of national law on liability that the State must make reparation for the consequences of the loss and damage caused, provided that the conditions for reparation of loss and damage laid down by national law are not less favourable than those relating to similar domestic claims and are not so framed as to make it, in practice, impossible or excessively difficult to obtain reparation (Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 219, and Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, paragraph 123).
Razen pri pravici do od�kodnine, katere neposredna podlaga je pravo Skupnosti, mora namreč država, če so izpolnjeni ti pogoji, posledice povzročene �kode odpraviti v okviru nacionalnih predpisov o odgovornosti, pogoji, ki so jih določile nacionalne zakonodaje na področju povrnitve �kode, pa ne smejo biti manj ugodni od pogojev za podobne zahtevke, ki so nacionalnega značaja, in ne smejo biti oblikovani tako, da v praksi onemogočijo ali preveč otežijo pridobitev od�kodnine (zgoraj navedeni sodbi Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, točka 219, ter Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, točka 123).
The Court also made clear that, in order to determine the loss or damage for which reparation may be granted, the national court may inquire whether the injured person showed reasonable diligence in order to avoid the loss or damage or limit its extent and whether, in particular, he availed himself in time of all the legal remedies available to him (Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, paragraph 124).
Sodi�če je tudi pojasnilo, da lahko nacionalno sodi�če pri določitvi �kode, ki jo je treba povrniti, preveri, ali je o�kodovanec ravnal z razumno skrbnostjo, da bi se izognil �kodi ali da bi zmanj�al njen obseg, in zlasti, ali je pravočasno uporabil vsa pravna sredstva, ki jih je imel na voljo (zgoraj navedena sodba Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, točka 124).
In that regard, the Court recalled that it had held, in paragraph 106 of the judgment in Joined Cases C-397/98 and C-410/98 Metallgesellschaft and Others [2001] ECR I-1727, with respect to tax legislation which did not afford the possibility of benefiting from the group taxation regime to resident subsidiaries of nonresident parent companies, that the exercise of rights conferred on private persons by directly applicable provisions of Community law would be rendered impossible or excessively difficult if their claims for restitution or compensation based on infringement of Community law were rejected or reduced solely because the persons concerned
Glede tega je Sodi�če spomnilo, da je v točki 106 sodbe z dne 8. marca 2001 v združenih zadevah Metallgesellschaft in drugi (C-397/98 in C-410/98, Recueil, str. I-1727) v zvezi z davčno zakonodajo, ki je od matične družbe nerezidentke hčerinskim družbam rezidentkam zavrnila priznanje sistema obdavčenja skupine, razsodilo, da bi izvajanje pravic, ki jih neposredno uporabne določbe prava Skupnosti podeljujejo posameznikom, postalo nemogoče ali preveč oteženo, če bi bilo treba njihove zahtevke za vračilo ali njihove zahtevke za povrnitev �kode, ki bi temeljili na kr�itvi prava Skupnosti, zavrniti ali zmanj�ati samo zato, ker posamezniki niso zahtevali priznanja sistema obdavčenja, ki jim ga nacionalno pravo ni priznavalo,
It is also clear from the Court’s caselaw that the application of the provisions relating to the freedoms of movement would be rendered impossible or excessively difficult if claims for restitution or compensation based on infringement of those provisions had to be rejected or reduced solely because the companies concerned had not applied to the tax authorities for the benefit of a tax regime which national law, combined, where appropriate, with the relevant provisions of the DTCs, denied them (see, to that effect, Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, paragraph 126).
Iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča tudi izhaja, da bi bila uporaba določb, ki se nana�ajo na prosti pretok, nemogoča ali preveč otežena, če bi bilo treba zahtevke za vračilo ali povrnitev �kode, ki bi temeljili na kr�itvi navedenih določb, zavrniti ali zmanj�ati samo zato, ker zadevne družbe od davčne uprave niso zahtevale priznanja sistema obdavčenja, ki jim ga je nacionalna zakonodaja, po potrebi v povezavi z upo�tevnimi določbami SDO, zavrnila (v zvezi s tem glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, točka 126).