natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
22In a case in which an institution of the Member State in whose territory a person resides pays a pension to that person and an institution of the same Member State is responsible for payment of his sickness insurance expenses, the Court held that no provision of Regulation No 1408/71 prohibits that Member State from calculating the amount of the social contributions of that person on the basis of his total income, whether it comes from pensions paid by the Member State of residence or from pensions paid by another Member State.
22Sodi�če je namreč navedlo, da v primeru, ko institucija države članice, na ozemlju katere prebiva oseba, slednji izplača pokojnino in ji institucija iste države članice zagotovi kritje stro�kov iz zdravstvenega zavarovanja, nobena določba Uredbe �t. 1408/71 tej državi članici ne prepoveduje, da bi izračunala znesek socialnih prispevkov te osebe od vseh njenih dohodkov, ki izhajajo iz pokojnin, izplačanih v državi članici prebivali�ča, ali iz pokojnin, izplačanih v drugih državah članicah.
23 The Court, however, made a general observation that it is necessary, when the Member State concerned exercises
23Vendar je Sodi�če na splo�no opozorilo, da
20 — See to that effect, in particular, Joined Cases C-393/99 and C-394/99 Hervein and Others [2002] ECR I-2829, paragraph 52, and Piatkowski, paragraph 20.
20 – Glej v tem smislu zlasti sodbo z dne 19. marca 2002 v zdruŽenih zadevah Hervein in drugi (C-393/99 in C-394/99, Recueil, str. I-2829, točka 52) in zgoraj navedeno sodbo v zadevi Piatkowski, točka 20.
21 — Piatkowski, paragraph 32 and caselaw cited therein.22 — Paragraph 26.23 — Ibid., paragraph 31.
21 – Zgoraj navedena sodba v zdruŽenih zadevah Piatkowski (točka 32 in navedena sodna praksa).
In order to answer the query raised in the preceding point it should be noted first of all that the system put in place by Regulation No 1408/71 is merely a system of coordination, concerning inter alia, in Title II of that regulation (which includes Articles 13 and 14), the determination of the legislation applicable to employed and selfemployed persons who make use, in various circumstances, of their right to freedom of move-
Pri odgovoru na vpra�anje iz prej�nje točke je treba najprej opozoriti, da je sistem, ki ga vzpostavlja Uredba �t. 1408/71, zgolj sistem za usklajevanje, ki se v skladu z naslovom II te uredbe (v okvir katerega sodita člena 13 in 14) nana�a zlasti na opredelitev zakonodaje ali zakonodaj, ki veljajo za zaposlene in samozaposlene delavce, ki
However, with reference in particular to Allard, 26the Urssaf and the Commission system put in place by the Member State of residence should take into account the sickness insurance contributions already paid by pensioners during their working years in a Member State other than the Member State of residence.
Po drugi strani pa Urssaf in Komisija ob sklicevanju zlasti na sodbo Allard 26 je pomembno, da zadevna država članica pri izvajanju svoje pristojnosti spo�tuje pravo Skupnosti, 24 kar bi v tej zadevi pomenilo, da sistem, ki ga je uvedla država članica prebivali�ča, upo�teva prispevke za zdravstveno zavarovanje, ki so jih že plačali prejemniki pokojnin med leti, ko so opravljali dejavnost v državi članici, ki ni država njihovega prebivali�ča. 25 menita, da Uredba �t.
Although, in its written observations, the United Kingdom had supported the same view as that put forward by Mr Derouin and the French Government, at the hearing it concurred with the line of argument put by the Commission, contending, in particular, that Member States must observe Community law when exercising their fiscal competence.
Medtem ko je Združeno kraljestvo v svojih pisnih stali�čih zagovarjalo stali�če, enako stali�ču P. Derouina in francoske vlade, se je na obravnavi znova pridružilo utemeljitvi Komisije, ki med drugim trdi, da morajo države članice pri izvajanju davčne pristojnosti spo�tovati pravo Skupnosti.
24 — Ibid., paragraph 24.
24 – Prav tam (točka 24).
See also Piatkowski, paragraph 33.
Glej tudi zgoraj navedeno sodbo v zdruŽenih zadevah Piatkowski (točka 33).
25 — Nikula, paragraph 33.
25 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Nikula (točka 33).
See also to that effect Case C-302/98 Sehrer [2000] ECR I-4585, paragraph 36.
Glej v tem smislu tudi sodbo z dne 15. junija 2000 v zadevi Sehrer (C-302/98, Recueil, str.
26 — Case C-249/04 [2005] ECR I-4535.27 — Emphasis added.
26 – Sodba z dne 26. maja 2005 (C-249/04, ZOdl., str. I-4535).27 – Moj poudarek.
Article 13 et seq. of Regulation No 1408/71 preclude the imposition of a contribution such as the moderation contribution on the whole of the income of a selfemployed person in respect of professional activities as a selfemployed person both in the State of residence and in another Member State.
Uredbe �t. 1408/71 nasprotujejo pobiranju prispevka, kot je prispevek za uravnavanje od vseh dohodkov, ki jih je prejel samozaposleni delavec za samostojne poklicne dejavnosti, ki jih je opravljal v državi članici prebivali�ča in v drugi državi članici.
The Court upheld this view in its judgment in Allard, delivered on 26 May 2005.
Sodi�če je to presojo potrdilo v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Allard, razgla�eni 26. maja 2005.
In that case Mr Allard, who was resident in Belgium and was in receipt of income from professional activities pursued in a selfemployed capacity in that Member State and in France, contested whether it was possible for the Kingdom of Belgium to assess the so-called ‘moderation contribution’, allocated to the selfemployed persons’ old-age and survivor’s pension scheme, on the basis of all that income, without that contribution giving rise, in return, to any entitlement to benefit. 29
Iz dejanskega stanja, ki je podlaga za to sodbo, izhaja da M. Allard, prebivalec Belgije, ki je prejemal dohodke od poklicnih dejavnosti, ki jih je kot samozaposlena oseba opravljal v tej državi ter v Franciji, prereka možnost, da bi kraljevina Belgija odmerila osnovo za t. i. prispevek za uravnavanje, ki se vplača v sistem pokojninskega zavarovanja in sistem zavarovanja za preživetje samozaposlenih oseb. 29
In a matter referred to it by a Belgian court, the Court was asked mainly whether
Belgijsko sodi�če je Sodi�ču predvsem postavilo vpra�anje, ali člen 13 in naslednji
31 It follows, according to the Court, that a social security contribution such as the moderation contribution payable in Belgium by Mr Allard ‘must be calculated taking into account the income received in France’.
Sodi�če je ob tem, ko je opozorilo, da primer v postopku o glavni stvari sodi na področje materialne in osebne uporabe Uredbe �t. 1408/71 in zlasti, da je za M.
28 — See point 68 of the Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer in Case C-18/95 Terhoeve [1998] ECR I-345); point 41 of his Opinion in Sehrer; point 24 of his Opinion in Commission v Germany, and point 55 of the Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs in Hervein and Others.
28 – Glej točko 68 sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca Dámasa Ruiz-Jaraboja Colomerja, predstavljenih 30. aprila 1998, v katerih je bila izdana sodba v zadevi Terhoeve (sodba z dne 26. januarja 1999, C-18/95, Recueil, str.
See also point 20 of the Opinion of Advocate General Gulmann in Case C-71/93 VanPoucke [1994] ECR I-1101.
Glej tudi točko 20 sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca Gulmanna, predstavljenih 2. februarja 1994, v katerih je bila izdana sodba z dne 24. marca 1994 v zadevi Van Poucke (sodba z dne 24. marca 1994, C-71/93, Recueil, str. I-1101).
29 — As is clear from paragraph 15 of Allard, the nature of that contribution, like the CSG and the CRDS in the present case, appeared to be in dispute because the national court considered that that contribution is more like ‘a form of emergency tax’ than a contribution falling within the substantive scope of Regulation No 1408/71.
29 – Kot izhaja iz točke 15 navedene sodbe, naj bi bila narava tega prispevka, tako kot CSG in CRDS v tej zadevi, sporna, ker je nacionalno sodi�če menilo, da naj bi tak prispevek pomenil prej „obliko kriznega davka“ kot pa prispevek, ki sodi na področje materialne uporabe Uredbe �t. 1408/71.
30 — Allard, paragraphs 18 and 20.31 — Ibid., paragraphs 21 and 22.32 — Ibid., paragraph 23 (emphasis added).
31 – Prav tam (točki 21 in 22).32 – Prav tam (točka 23); moj poudarek.
DEROUIN lated in such a way as to include under the heading of occupational income the income obtained in the territory of a Member State other than the Member State whose social legislation is applicable’ even if payment of that contribution does not give rise to any benefit in return. 33
DEROUIN naslednji Uredbe �t. 1408/71 zahtevajo, da se prispevek, kot je prispevek za uravnavanje, določi tako, da so vanj v�teti dohodki od poklicne dejavnosti, prejeti na ozemlju države članice, kjer se ne uporablja socialna zakonodaja“, čeprav samozaposlena oseba po plačilu tega prispevka nima pravice do nasprotne dajatve. 33
The fact remains, as the Commission has stated, that it follows in particular from the interpretation of Article 14d(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 given in Allard that the Member State whose social security legislation is designated in accordance with Article 14a(2) of Regulation No 1408/71 must levy contributions falling within the scope of that regulation on the total income of a selfemployed person derived from selfemployment both in the Member State whose legislation is designated and in another Member State. 35
Kot je navedla Komisija, ostaja dejstvo, da zlasti iz razlage člena 14(d)(1) Uredbe �t. 1408/71 iz zgoraj navedene sodbe Allard izhaja, da mora država članica, katere zakonodaja na področju socialne varnosti je izoblikovana v skladu s členom 14(a)(2) te uredbe, pobirati prispevke, ki sodijo na področje uporabe navedene uredbe, od vseh dohodkov samozaposlenega delavca, ki jih ta prejme od samostojnih dejavnosti, ki jih opravlja v državi članici, katere zakonodaja se uporablja, in v drugi državi članici. 35
It is somewhat curious that, in the grounds of that judgment, the Court should not have mentioned the part of a sentence in Article 14d(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 that I regard as crucial, which states that it is ‘for the purposes of application of the legislation laid down in accordance with these provisions’ that activities pursued in a selfemployed capacity in another Member State are to be treated in the same way as those pursued in the Member State which is competent according to that regulation to levy social security contributions.
Nekoliko nenavadno je, da v obrazložitvi te sodbe Sodi�če ni opozorilo na del stavka iz člena 14(d)(1) Uredbe �t. 1408/71, ki se mi zdi pomemben, v skladu s katerim so „za uporabo določene zakonodaje“ dejavnosti samozaposlene osebe, ki jih opravlja v drugi državi članici, izenačene s tistimi, ki jih opravlja v državi članici, ki je na podlagi te uredbe pristojna za pobiranje prispevkov za socialno varnost.
34 To have mentioned that sentence would have had the benefit of providing a better relationship between paragraphs 21 to 23 of the grounds of the judgment, by emphasising the fact that Article 14d(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 guarantees the selfemployed person, in particular, that the social security contributions are calculated in accordance with the legislation determined in accordance with Article 14a(2) of that regulation.
34 To opozorilo bi zagotovilo bolj�o povezavo med točkami od 21 do 23 obrazložitve navedene sodbe, s tem da bi jasno opredelilo, da člen 14(d)(1) Uredbe �t. 1408/71 samozaposlenemu delavcu med drugim zagotavlja, da se izračun prispevkov za socialno varnost opravi v skladu z zakonodajo, določeno v členu 14(a)(2) te uredbe.
33 — Ibid., paragraph 24 (emphasis added).
33 – Prav tam (točka 24); moj poudarek.
34 — It is to be noted that paragraph 24 of VanPoucke, to which paragraph 21 of the judgment in Allard refers, does however mention the sentence whose omission is criticised here.
34 – Opozoriti pa je treba, da točka 24 zgoraj navedene sodbe Van Poucke, na katero napotuje točka 21 zgoraj navedene sodbe Allard, navaja del stavka, katerega neupo�tevanje se tu očita.
35 — It may be appropriate to point out that this interpretation was also given in Article 13(5) of Regulation No 883/2004, which provides that persons who pursue activities in two or more Member States are to be treated as though they were pursuing all their activities as employed or selfemployed persons and were receiving all their income in the Member State whose legislation is determined in accordance with Article 13(1) to (4).
35 – Treba je navesti, da je bila ta razlaga povzeta v členu 13(5) Uredbe �t. 883/2004, v skladu s katero se delavci, ki opravljajo dejavnosti v dveh ali več državah članicah, obravnavajo, kot da bi opravljali vse svoje dejavnosti kot zaposlene ali samozaposlene osebe in prejemali vse svoje dohodke v državi članici, katere zakonodaja je določena na podlagi odstavkov od 1 do 4 istega člena 13.
The obligation under Article 14d(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 appears to arise from a concern to ensure, so far as possible, equal treatment in the area of social security between, on the one hand, migrant workers, and, on the other hand, workers in general active in the territory of a Member State.
Obveznost, ki izhaja iz člena 14(d)(1) Uredbe �t. 1408/71, bi se dalo pojasniti s skrbjo, zagotoviti čim bolj enako obravnavanje na področju socialne varnosti med, prvič, delavci migranti in, drugič, vsemi delavci, ki so zaposleni na ozemlju države članice.
application of the social security legislation of two Member States in whose territory a worker pursues activities as an employed and a selfemployed person.
Sodi�če je po tem, ko je bila potrjena veljavnost zgoraj navedenih določb, poudarilo skrb zakonodajalca Skupnosti, udejanjeno v členu 14(d)(1) Uredbe �t.
After confirming the validity of the abovementioned provisions the Court put forward the Community legislature’s concern, expressed clearly in Article 14d(1) of Regulation No 1408/71, to ensure equality of treatment between the workers referred to in Article 14c(a) and (b) of that regulation, so that, unlike those people who fall within the simultaneous application of two national social security legislations under Article 14c(b) in respect of each of their activities, 37those who fall within a single legislation under Article 14c(a) do not avoid all social security legislation as regards a part of their activities.
1408/71, za zagotovitev enakega obravnavanja med delavci, na katere se nana�a člen 14(c)(a) in (b) te uredbe, da se v nasprotju s tistimi, za katere v skladu s točko (b) navedenega člena za vsako od njihovih dejavnosti sočasno veljata dve zakonodaji s področja nacionalne socialne varnosti, 37tisti, za katere velja ena sama zakonodaja v skladu s točko a) istega člena, za del svojih dejavnosti ne bi izognili celotni zakonodaji na področju socialne varnosti.
First of all, as regards equality of treatment between migrant workers, the Court stated in Hervein and Others that Article 14d(1) of Regulation No 1408/71, which applies also to a person who is simultaneously employed and selfemployed in the territory of different Member States by virtue of Article 14c(a) of that regulation, seeks to prevent a situation where that person ‘finds that some of his activities are not covered by any social security legislation’. 36
Najprej, glede enakega obravnavanja med delavci migranti je Sodi�če v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Hervein in drugi pojasnilo, da je namen člena 14(d)(1) Uredbe �t. 1408/71, ki se prav tako uporablja za delavca, ki sočasno opravlja dejavnost kot zaposlena in samozaposlena oseba na ozemlju različnih držav članic, v skladu s členom 14(c)(a) iste uredbe preprečiti, da bi se ta delavec lahko „glede enega dela svojih dejavnosti izognil vsem predpisom na področju socialne varnosti“. 36
However, I do not think that the interpretation of Article 14d(1) of Regulation No 1408/71, read in conjunction with Article 14a(2) of that regulation, can differ fundamentally from that given in Hervein and Others.
Vendar ne menim, da se razlaga člena 14(d)(1) Uredbe �t. 1408/71 v povezavi s členom 14(a)(2) te uredbe ne more bistveno razlikovati od razlage iz zgoraj navedene sodbe Hervein in drugi.
More specifically, the wording of Article 14d(1) of that regulation is sufficiently clear to give legitimate reason to believe that
Natančneje, besedilo člena 14(d)(1) navedene uredbe je dovolj natančno, da lahko upravičeno menimo, da zakonodajalec Skupnosti ni želel, da bi se državi članici dvostransko dogovorili, da bi
In Hervein and Others the Court was questioned on the validity of the derogation from the single State principle contained in Article 14c(b) of Regulation No 1408/71 and Annex VII thereto, a derogation which allows, in the case of the Member States listed in Annex VII to that regulation, simultaneous
Sodi�ču je bilo namreč v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Hervein in drugi postavljeno vpra�anje o veljavnosti odstopanja od načela enotnosti uporabljive zakonodaje, ki je določeno v členu 14(c)(b) Uredbe �t. 1408/71 in njene Priloge VII, pri čemer gre za odstopanje, ki državam članicam, navedenim v tej prilogi, omogoča sočasno uporabo zakonodaj s področja socialne varnosti dveh držav
37 — This statement was made in the judgment in Piatkowski, paragraphs 27 to 29.
37 – To pojasnilo izhaja iz zgoraj navedene sodbe v zdruŽenih zadevah Piatkowski (točke od 27 do 29).
As Regulation No 1408/71 precludes the imposition of double contributions in respect of the same income, in the cases referred to in Annex VII to Regulation No 1408/71 an insured person is subject to the legislation of the Member State in which he pursues an activity as an employed person as regards that activity, and to the legislation of the Member State in which he pursues an activity as a selfemployed person as regards such self-employment.
Ker namreč Uredba 1408/71 za primere iz Priloge VII Uredbe �t. 1408/71 prepoveduje naložitev dvojnih prispevkov za isti dohodek, za zavarovanca velja zakonodaja države članice, kjer opravlja dejavnost kot zaposlena oseba, glede te dejavnosti, in zakonodaja države članice, kjer opravlja dejavnost kot samozaposlena oseba, glede slednje dejavnosti.
36 — Paragraph 60 (emphasis added).
36 – Točka 60; moj poudarek.
DEROUIN those who exercise their right to freedom of movement.
DEROUIN zagotavljanje enakega obravnavanja med vsemi delavci, zaposlenimi na ozemlju države članice, ne da bi kaznoval tiste, ki izvr�ujejo svojo pravico do prostega gibanja.
38 the Community legislature did not intend to allow Member States to agree bilaterally that a person who pursues activities in their respective territories in a selfemployed capacity should avoid all social security legislation as regards a part of his activities.
38 se delavec, ki kot samozaposlena oseba opravlja poklicne dejavnosti na njunem ozemlju, glede dela svojih dejavnosti izognil uporabi vsakr�ne zakonodaje na področju socialne varnosti.
It will also be remembered that the obligation to calculate contributions falling within the scope of Regulation No 1408/71 on the basis of the whole income from activities pursued in a selfemployed capacity by a person in the situation referred to in Article 14a(2) of that regulation was held to be in keeping with Article 43 EC. 39
Vendar je treba prav tako opozoriti, da je v skladu s sodno prakso treba obveznost, da je treba prispevke, ki sodijo na področje uporabe Uredbe �t. 1408/71, izračunati na podlagi vseh dohodkov, ki jih prejme delavec od dejavnosti, ki jih opravlja kot samozaposlena oseba, pri čemer gre za obveznost, ki se nana�a na situacijo v smislu člena 14(a)(2) te uredbe, v skladu s členom 43 ES. 39
Nonetheless, it must be agreed that this is not so in the case in the main proceedings.
Vendar se je treba strinjati, da to ni bil primer v postopku v glavni stvari.
At first sight, and without wishing to undermine the claim that Mr Derouin
Na prvi pogled in ne da bi želeli prerekati trditev, da naj bi bil P. Derouin na podlagi
38 — See to that effect, Allard, paragraph 31.
38 – Glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo v zdruŽenih zadevah Allard (točka 31).
Then, in making selfemployed persons who pursue a professional activity in that capacity in more than one Member State subject to a single system of social legislation in respect of their whole income, Article 14d(1) of Regulation No 1408/71, read in conjunction with Article 14a(2) of that regulation, also seeks to ensure equal treatment of all workers occupied in the territory of a Member State, without penalising
Dalje, ker za delavce, ki opravljajo poklicno dejavnost kot samozaposlene osebe v več državah članicah, glede vseh njihovih dohodkov velja ena sama zakonodaja s področja socialne varnosti, se člen 14(d)(1) Uredbe �t. 1408/71 v povezavi s členom 14(a)(2) iste uredbe nana�a tudi na
However, it comes up against several obstacles, as will be explained below.
Vendar se sooča s �tevilnimi ovirami, kot bo pojasnjeno v naslednjih točkah.
the competence to decide on the criteria for the taxation of income in order, where appropriate by means of a convention, to avoid double taxation.
vanje meril za obdavčevanje dohodkov, da bi se, glede na okoli�čine primera, s sporazumom izognili dvojnemu obdavčevanju.
As I have stated elsewhere, 41the current caselaw of the Court draws a distinction between, on the one hand, the allocation of powers of taxation between Member States and, on the other hand, the exercise of the power of taxation by Member States, including the case where this is the result of a previous allocation of their powers of taxation by bilateral or unilateral agreement, in respect of which the Member States must comply with the Community rules. 42
Kot sem že imel priložnost navesti, 41aktu-alna sodna praksa Sodi�ča postavlja razliko med, prvič, razdelitvijo davčne pristojnosti med države članice in, drugič, izvajanjem davčne pristojnosti s strani držav članic, vključno s primeri, da to izhaja iz predhodne enostranske ali dvostranske razdelitve njihove davčne pristojnosti, za kar se morajo države članice uskladiti s pravili Skupnosti. 42
C — The obstacles to applying a derogation provided for in a convention to the obligation laid down in Article 14d(1) of Regulation No 1408/71
C – Ovire pri uporabi pogodbenega odstopanja od obveznosti iz člena 14(d)(1) Uredbe št. 1408/71
There is, therefore, no question but that, in the exercise of its powers of taxation or, in the present case, as a result of its choice to refrain from assessing the CSG and the CRDS on Mr Derouin’s UK-source income under the Double Taxation Convention, the French Republic must act in accordance with Community law.
Torej ni sporno, da se mora Republika Francija pri izvajanju svoje davčne pristojnosti ali v tem primeru v okviru njene odločitve, da se odpove obračunu CSG in CRDS od britanskih dohodkov P. Derouina, na podlagi Sporazuma o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja uskladiti s pravom Skupnosti.
As the United Kingdom Government and the Commission have rightly maintained, it is settled caselaw that in the exercise of their powers, in particular in the matter of direct taxation, the Member States are required to observe Community law.
Kot sta pravilno trdili vlada Združenega kraljestva in Komisija, iz usklajene sodne prakse izhaja, da morajo države članice pri izvajanju svoje pristojnosti, zlasti na področju neposrednega obdavčevanja, spo�tovati pravo Skupnosti.
40As was stated in point 27 above, with regard to the prevention or avoidance of double taxation, irrespective of any relevant measure of unification or harmonisation within the Community context, Member States retain
40 Kot je bilo navedeno v točki 27 teh sklepnih predlogov, glede preprečevanja ali odpravljanja dvojnega obdavčevanja države članice, ne glede na vse upo�tevne ukrepe poenotenja ali usklajevanja v okviru Skupnosti, ostajajo pristojne za opredelje-
41 — Point 84 of my Opinion in Columbus Container Services.
41 – Točka 84 mojih sklepnih predlogov v zgoraj navedeni zadevi Columbus Container Services.
DEROUIN were covered by the concept of ‘legislation laid down’ used in Article 14d(1) of that regulation.
1408/71, naj iz tega �e ne bi izhajalo, da te določbe sodijo pod pojem „določene zakonodaje“ iz člena 14(d)(1) te uredbe.