natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It should be added that any disadvantages encountered in determining the value of assets situated in the territory of another Member State under a special national procedure cannot, in any event, be sufficient to justify restrictions on the free move-
Dodati je treba, da morebitne težave pri določanju vrednosti premoženja, ki se nahaja na ozemlju druge države članice, po posebnem nacionalnem postopku nikakor ne morejo upravičiti omejitev prostega pretoka kapitala, kot so omejitve, ki izhajajo iz ureditve v postopku v glavni stvari, ki ne glede na ta postopek vrednotenja
JÄGER ment of capital such as those arising under the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, which, apart from that assessment procedure, also reserves application of two other tax advantages to assets situated within German territory (see, to that effect, Case C-334/02 Commission v France [2004] ECR I-2229, paragraph 29).
JÄGER za premoženje, ki je na nem�kem ozemlju, prav tako določa uporabo drugih dveh davčnih ugodnosti (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 4. marca 2004 v zadevi Komisija proti Franciji, C-334/02, Recueil, str. I-2229, točka 29).
It must therefore be concluded that, as it has not been established that the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings is justified by overriding reasons in the general interest, Article 73b(1) of the Treaty precludes such legislation.
Zato je treba ugotoviti, da ker ni bilo ugotovljeno, da nacionalno ureditev v postopku v glavni stvari upravičuje nujni razlog v splo�nem interesu, člen 73b(1) Pogodbe nasprotuje taki ureditvi.
In those circumstances, the answer to the question referred must be that Article 73b(1) of the Treaty, read in conjunction with Article 73d thereof, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, for the purposes of calculating the tax on an inheritance consisting of assets situated in that State and agricultural land and forestry situated in another Member State,
V teh okoli�činah je treba na postavljeno vpra�anje odgovoriti, da je treba člen 73b(1) Pogodbe v povezavi s členom 73d Pogodbe razlagati tako, da nasprotuje ureditvi države članice, ki za izračun davka na dedi�čino, sestavljeno iz premoženja, ki je na ozemlju te države, ter premoženja v obliki kmetijskega zemlji�ča in gozdov, ki je v drugi državi članici,
— provides that account be taken of the fair market value of the assets situated in that other Member State, whereas a special valuation procedure exists for identical domestic assets, the results of which amount on average to only 10% of that fair market value, and
— določa, da se pri premoženju, ki je v tej drugi državi članici, upo�teva njegova najvi�ja tržna vrednost, medtem ko se za isto premoženje, ki je na nacionalnem ozemlju, uporablja poseben postopek vrednotenja, katerega rezultati povprečno zna�ajo le 10 % po�tene tržne vrednosti tega premoženja, ter
The costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.
Stro�ki, prigla�eni za predložitev stali�č Sodi�ču, ki niso stro�ki omenjenih strank, se ne povrnejo.
On those grounds, the Court (Second Chamber) hereby rules:
Iz teh razlogov je Sodi�če (drugi senat) razsodilo:
Article 73b(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 56(1) EC), read in conjunction with Article 73d of the EC Treaty (now Article 58 EC), must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, for the purposes of calculating the tax on an inheritance consisting of assets situated in that State and agricultural land and forestry situated in another Member State,
Člen 73b(1) Pogodbe ES (postal člen 56(1) ES) v povezavi s členom 73d Pogod- be ES (postal člen 58 ES) je treba razlagati tako, da nasprotuje ureditvi države članice, ki za izračun davka na dediščino, sestavljeno iz premoženja, ki je na ozemlju te države, ter premoženja v obliki kmetijskega zemljišča in gozdov, ki je v drugi državi članici,
— provides that account be taken of the fair market value of the assets in that other Member State, whereas a special valuation procedure exists for identical domestic assets, the results of which amount on average to only 10% of that fair market value, and
— določa, da se pri premoženju, ki je v tej drugi državi članici, upošteva njegova najvišja tržna vrednost, medtem ko se za enako premoženje, ki je na nacionalnem ozemlju, uporablja poseben postopek vrednotenja, katerega rezultati povprečno znašajo le 10 % poštene tržne vrednosti tega premoženja, ter
— reserves application of a taxfree amount to domestic agricultural land and forestry in relation to those assets and takes account of their remaining value in the amount of only 60% thereof.
— za premoženje v obliki kmetijskega zemljišča in gozdov, ki je na nacionalnem ozemlju, določa uporabo zneskov, oproščenih davka v zvezi s tem premoženjem in upoštevanje preostale vrednosti le v višini 60 %.
Case C-19/07
Zadeva C-19/07
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France))
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Cour de cassation (Francija))
(Approximation of laws — Directive 86/653/EEC — Selfemployed commercial agents — Right of an agent entrusted with a specific geographical area to a commission — Transactions concluded without any action on the part of the principal)
„Približevanje zakonodaj – Direktiva 86/653/EGS – Samozaposleni trgovski zastopniki – Pravica zastopnika, pristojnega za določeno območje, do provizije – Posli, sklenjeni brez posredovanja naročitelja“
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 17 January 2008 . . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (prvi senat) z dne 17. januarja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Selfemployed commercial agents — Directive 86/653
Prosto gibanje oseb – Svoboda ustanavljanja – Samozaposleni trgovski zastopniki – Direktiva 86/653
SUMMARY — CASE C-19/07 the commercial agent can claim commission is indispensable.
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-19/07 naročitelja pri poslih, zaradi katerih lahko trgovski zastopnik zahteva provizijo, nujno potrebna.
That is supported by the wording of Article 11(1) of that directive, according to which the commercial agent’s right to commission can be extinguished only if and to the extent that it is established that the contract between the third party and the principal will not be executed, and that fact is due to a reason for which the principal is not to blame.
To je podkrepljeno s členom 11(1) te direktive, v skladu s katerim pravica trgovskega zastopnika do provizije ugasne, samo in če je dokazano, da pogodba med stranko in naročiteljem ne bo izpolnjena in da za to, da pogodba ne bo izpolnjena, ni kriv naročitelj.
The first indent of Article 7(2) of Directive 86/653 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to selfemployed commercial agents must be interpreted as meaning that a commercial agent entrusted with a specific geographical area does not have the right to a commission for transactions concluded by customers belonging to that area with a third party without any action, direct or indirect, on the part of the principal.
Člen 7(2), prva alinea, Direktive Sve -ta 86/653/EGS z dne 18. decembra 1986 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o samozaposlenih trgovskih zastopnikih je treba razlagati tako, da trgovski zastopnik, pristojen za določeno območje, nima pravice do provizije za posle, ki so jih sklenile stranke, ki pripadajo temu območju, s tretjo osebo brez neposrednega ali posrednega posredovanja naročitelja.
It is for the national court to establish whether or not the evidence before it, assessed in the light of the aim of protecting the commercial agent which is one of the objectives of that directive and of the obligation on the principal to act dutifully and in good faith under Article 4 of that directive, allows it to establish the existence of such action, be that action of a legal nature, for example through the intermediary of a representative, or of a factual nature.
V pristojnosti nacionalnega sodi�ča je ugotoviti, ali mu podatki, ki jih ima – ki se presojajo upo�tevajoč skrb za varstvo trgovskih zastopnikov, ki je eden od ciljev Direktive, in obveznost po�tenosti ter dobre vere, ki je naložena naročitelju v skladu s členom 4 Direktive – omogočajo, da ugotovi obstoj takega posredovanja, pa naj bo to posredovanje pravno, na primer po zastopniku, ali dejansko.
Although that provision merely refers to any ‘transactions concluded during the period covered by the agency contract’, without any other requirement than that those transactions have been entered into with a customer belonging to a geographical area or a group of customers for whom the commercial agent is responsible, it nevertheless follows from the combination of Article 10(1) and Article 10(2) of Directive 86/653 that the commercial agent’s right to commission arises either when the principal has or should have carried out his obligation, or when the third party to the agency contract, that is the customer, has or should have carried out his obligation.
Čeprav se ta določba nana�a zgolj na vse „posl[e, sklenjene] v obdobju, ki ga zajema pogodba o trgovskem zastopanju“, brez drugih pojasnil razen tega o sklenitvi posla s stranko, ki pripada območju ali skupini oseb, za katero je pristojen trgovski zastopnik, pa vseeno iz sinteze odstavkov 1 in 2 člena 10 Direktive izhaja, da pravica trgovskega zastopnika do provizije nastane, bodisi ko naročitelj je ali bi moral izpolniti svojo obveznost bodisi ko tretji pri pogodbi o trgovskem zastopanju, torej stranka, je ali bi moral izpolniti svojo.
(see paras 16, 19-23, operative part)
(Glej točke 16, od 19 do 23 in izrek.)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber)17 January 2008 *
SODBA SODIŠČA (prvi senat) z dne 17. januarja 2008*
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Cour de cassation (France), made by decision of 19 December 2006, received at the Court on 23 January 2007, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-19/07, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Cour de cassation (Francija) z odločbo z dne 19. decembra 2006, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 23. januarja 2007, v postopku
2008 — CASE C-19/07
2008 – ZADEVA C-19/07
Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Registrar: R. Grass, having regard to the written procedure, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, sodni tajnik: R. Grass, na podlagi pisnega postopka, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
— the French Government, by G. de Bergues and A.-L. During, acting as Agents,
— za francosko vlado G. de Bergues in A.-L. During, zastopnika,
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 7(2) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to selfemployed commercial agents (OJ 1986 L 382, p.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago člena 7(2) Direktive Sveta 86/653/EGS z dne 18. decembra 1986 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o samozaposlenih trgovskih zastopnikih (UL L 382, str.
17) (‘Directive 86/653’).
17, v nadaljevanju: Direktiva).
Article 1(2) of Directive 86/653 defines a commercial agent as being ‘a selfemployed intermediary who has continuing authority to negotiate the sale or the purchase of goods on behalf of another person, hereinafter called the “principal”, or to negotiate and conclude such transactions on behalf of and in the name of that principal’.
Člen 1(2) Direktive opredeljuje trgovskega zastopnika kot „tist[ega], ki ima kot samozaposleni posrednik trajno pooblastilo za posredovanje pri prodaji ali nakupu izdelkov za drugo osebo, v nadaljevanju ‚naročitelj‘, ali za posredovanje in sklepanje poslov v imenu naročitelja in za njegov račun“.
Article 4(1) of Directive 86/653 states:
Člen 4(1) Direktive določa:
‘In his relations with his commercial agent a principal must act dutifully and in good faith.’
„Naročitelj mora pri sodelovanju s trgovskim zastopnikom delovati po�teno in v dobri veri.“
Article 7 of that directive provides:
Člen 7 Direktive določa:
A commercial agent shall be entitled to commission on commercial transactions concluded during the period covered by the agency contract:
Za sklenitev posla v obdobju, ki ga zajema pogodba o trgovskem zastopanju, ima trgovski zastopnik pravico do provizije: a) če je bil posel sklenjen zaradi njegovega posredovanja; ali
(b) where the transaction is concluded with a third party whom he has previously acquired as a customer for transactions of the same kind.
CHEVASSUS-MARCHE b) če je bil posel sklenjen s tretjo osebo, ki jo je že prej pridobil kot stranko pri sklepanju podobnih poslov.
A commercial agent shall also be entitled to commission on transactions concluded during the period covered by the agency contract:
Za posel, sklenjen v obdobju, ki ga zajema pogodba o trgovskem zastopanju, ima trgovski zastopnik pravico do provizije tudi:
— either where he is entrusted with a specific geographical area or group of customers,
— če je pristojen za neko območje ali skupino kupcev,
— or where he has an exclusive right to a specific geographical area or group of customers, and where the transaction has been entered into with a customer belonging to that area or group.
— če ima za neko območje ali skupino kupcev izključno pravico in če je bil posel sklenjen s stranko, ki pripada temu območju ali skupini kupcev.
Member State[s] shall include in their legislation one of the possibilities referred to in the above two indents.’
Države članice morajo v svoji zakonodaji predvideti eno od možnosti v zgoraj navedenih alineah.“
As regards the time when the right to commission arises, Article 10(1) and (2) of Directive 86/653 states:
Glede nastanka pravice do provizije člen 10(1) in (2) Direktive določa:
The commission shall become due as soon as and to the extent that one of the following circumstances obtains:
Provizija zapade, takoj ko in kolikor to zagotavljajo naslednje okoli�čine: a) naročitelj je izpeljal posel; ali
2008 — CASE C-19/07
2008 – ZADEVA C-19/07 b) naročitelj bi moral po pogodbi s tretjim izpeljati posel; ali c) posel je izpeljal tretji.
The commission shall become due at the latest when the third party has executed his part of the transaction or should have done so if the principal had executed his part of the transaction, as he should have.’
Provizija zapade najpozneje takrat, ko tretji izpelje svoj del posla ali bi ga moral izpeljati, če bi naročitelj izpeljal svoj del posla.“
As regards the extinguishment of the right to commission, Article 11(1) of that direct ive provides:
Člen 11(1) Direktive v zvezi z ugasnitvijo pravice do provizije določa:
‘The right to commission can be extinguished only if and to the extent that:
„Pravica do provizije ugasne samo in če:
— it is established that the contract between the third party and the principal will not be executed, and
— je dokazano, da pogodba med tretjim in naročiteljem ne bo izpolnjena, in
— that fac[t] is due to a reason for which the principal is not to blame.’
— za to, da pogodba ne bo izpolnjena, ni kriv naročitelj.“
In 1987, BSN, now Groupe Danone, concluded with Mr Chevassus-Marche an exclusive mandate to represent its subsidiaries, Brasseries Kronenberg, now Kro beer brands SA, and Évian eaux minérales d’Évian SA in their dealings with the importers, wholesalers and retailers of their goods in a specific geographical area including the islands of Mayotte and La Réunion (a French overseas collectivity and a French overseas department respectively).
Družba BSN, ki je postala družba Groupe Danone, je leta 1987 s P. Chevassus-Marchejem sklenila pogodbo o izključnem zastopanju svojih hčerinskih družb Brasseries Kronenbourg, ki je postala Kro beer brands SA, in Évian eaux minérales d’Évian SA pri strankah uvoznikov, trgovcev na debelo in na drobno njihovih proizvodov za določeno območje, ki je zajemalo otoka Mayotte (francoska čezmorska skupnost) in Reunion (francoski čezmorski departma).
Following the termination of that contract, Mr Chevassus-Marche requested from Groupe Danone and its subsidiaries the payment of various sums, among which were commissions relating to purchases made by two companies established in his geographical area.
Po odpovedi te pogodbe je P. Chevassus-Marche od družbe Groupe Danone in od njenih hčerinskih družb zahteval plačilo različnih vsot, med katerimi so bile provizije v zvezi z nakupi, ki sta jih opravili dve družbi na njegovem območju.
Those requests were refused on the ground that the purchases concerned had been made from central buying offices or dealers in metropolitan France, outside the control of Groupe Danone and it subsidiaries and without any action on the part of Mr Chevassus-Marche.
Te zahteve so bile zavrnjene, ker so bili zadevni nakupi opravljeni pri nabavnih združenjih ali pri preprodajalcih s sedežem v metropolitanski Franciji zunaj nadzora družbe Groupe Danone in njenih hčerinskih družb ter brez posredovanja P. Chevassus-Marcheja.
Since the Paris Commercial Court and the Paris Court of Appeal dismissed his action insofar as it concerned the payment of those commissions, Mr Chevassus-Marche lodged an appeal at the Cour de Cassation, which was continued by his heirs following his death.
Ker sta Tribunal de commerce de Paris in Cour d’appel de Paris zavrnili tožbo P. Chevassus-Marcheja v delu, v katerem je zahteval plačilo teh provizij, je vložil pritožbo pri Cour de cassation, ta postopek pa so po njegovi smrti nadaljevali njegovi dediči.
The Cour de Cassation considers that in order to give judgment in the main proceedings it requires an interpretation of Article 7(2) of Directive 86/653.
Cour de cassation meni, da odločba, ki jo bo izdalo v postopku v glavni stvari, zahteva razlago člena 7(2) Direktive.
Consequently, it has decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
Zato je prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vpra�anje:
‘Is Article 7(2) of … Directive 86/653/EEC … to be interpreted as meaning that a commercial agent entrusted with a specific geographical area is entitled to commission where a commercial transaction between a third party and a customer belonging to that area has been concluded without any action, either direct or indirect, on the principal’s part?’
„Ali je treba člen 7(2) Direktive […] razlagati tako, da ima trgovski zastopnik, ki ima za neko območje izključno pravico, pravico do provizije, če je bil posel sklenjen med tretjo osebo in stranko, ki pripada temu območju, ne da bi naročitelj pri tem poslu posredno ali neposredno posredoval?“
The question referred for a preliminary ruling
Vprašanje za predhodno odločanje
By that question, the national court asks, in essence, whether the first indent of Article 7(2) of Directive 86/653 should be interpreted as meaning that a commercial agent entrusted with a specific geographical area has the right to a commission for transactions concluded by customers belonging to that area with a third party, without any action, direct or indirect, on the part of the principal.
Predložitveno sodi�če s tem vpra�anjem v bistvu spra�uje, ali je treba člen 7(2), prva alinea, Direktive razlagati tako, da ima trgovski zastopnik, ki ima za neko območje izključno pravico, pravico do provizije za posle, ki so jih sklenile stranke, ki pripadajo temu območju, s tretjimi osebami brez neposrednega ali posrednega posredovanja naročitelja.
In Case C-104/95 Kontogeorgas [1996] ECR I-6643, the Court was called upon to interpret Article 7 of Directive 86/653 in a situation where the principal itself sold its goods to customers belonging to a geographical area which it had entrusted to a commercial agent.
V sodbi z dne 12. decembra 1996 v zadevi Kontogeorgas (C-104/95, Recueil, str. I-6643) je bilo Sodi�če pozvano, naj poda razlago člena 7 Direktive v kontekstu, v katerem je naročitelj sam tržil svoje blago pri strankah, ki so pripadale območju, za katero je bil pristojen trgovski zastopnik.
When asked whether that agent could claim commission for transactions concluded without any action on his part, the Court held, at paragraph 16 of the judgment, that Article 7 of that directive provides for entitlement to commission in two alternative cases.
Sodi�če, ki mu je bilo zastavljeno vpra�anje, ali ta zastopnik lahko zahteva provizijo za posle, ki so bili sklenjeni brez njegovega posredovanja, je v točki 16 te sodbe presodilo, da člen 7 Direktive določa dve alternativni predpostavki v zvezi s pravico do provizije.
Paragraph 1 refers to the agent’s ongoing or previous activities, whereas paragraph 2 provides that a commercial agent is to be remunerated for all transactions entered into with customers belonging to a certain area or group, no mention being made of the need for any particular activity on the part of the agent.
Odstavek 1 meri na primer sedanje ali predhodne dejavnosti zastopnika, medtem ko odstavek 2 določa, da mora biti trgovski zastopnik nagrajen za vse posle, ki so bili opravljeni na določenem območju ali v določeni skupini oseb, ne da bi bila omenjena katerakoli dejavnost zastopnika.
In the situation in question in Kontogeorgas the Court held that the first indent of Article 7(2) of Directive 86/653 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a commercial agent is entrusted with a geographical area, he is entitled to commission on transactions concluded with customers belonging to that area, even if they were concluded without any action on his part (Kontogeorgas, paragraph 19).
V zadevnem primeru v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Kontogeorgas je Sodi�če torej presodilo, da je treba člen 7(2), prva alinea, Direktive razlagati tako, da ima trgovski zastopnik, če je pristojen za določeno območje, pravico do provizije v zvezi s posli, sklenjenimi s strankami, ki pripadajo temu območju, tudi če so bili sklenjeni brez njegovega posredovanja (zgoraj navedena sodba Kontogeorgas, točka 19).
The present order for reference asks whether that interpretation should also apply in a situation, such as that in the dispute in the main proceedings, where the sales of goods concluded with the customers established in the geographical sector entrusted to the relevant commercial agent were concluded not only without any action by that agent but also without any action, direct or indirect, on the part of the principal.
S tem predlogom za sprejetje predhodne odločbe pa je zastavljeno vpra�anje, ali mora ta razlaga prav tako veljati v primeru, kot je v sporu o glavni stvari, ko so bile prodaje blaga, ki so bile sklenjene s strankami s sedežem v območju, ki je v pristojnosti zadevnega trgovskega zastopnika, sklenjene ne samo brez posredovanja tega zastopnika, ampak tudi brez neposrednega ali posrednega posredovanja naročitelja.
In that regard, it must be acknowledged that, as the heirs of Mr Chevassus-Marche have pointed out, Article 7(2) of Directive 86/653 merely refers to any ‘transactions concluded during the period covered by the agency contract’, without any other requirement than that those transactions have been entered into with a customer belonging to a geographical area or a group of customers for whom the commercial agent is responsible.
Glede tega je treba priznati, da, tako kot trdijo dediči P. Chevassus-Marcheja, člen 7(2) meri zgolj na vse „posl[e, sklenjene] v obdobju, ki ga zajema pogodba o trgovskem zastopanju“, brez drugih pojasnil razen tega o sklenitvi posla s stranko, ki pripada območju ali skupini oseb, za katero je pristojen trgovski zastopnik.
There is no more an express requirement for action on the part of the principal than there is for action on the part of the commercial agent.
Posredovanje naročitelja se prav tako kot posredovanje trgovskega zastopnika ne zahteva izrecno.
However, Article 7(2) of Directive 86/653 must be read together with Article 10 of that directive, which specifies the conditions to which the commercial agent’s right to commission is subject.
Vseeno pa je treba člen 7(2) Direktive razumeti skupaj s členom 10, ki natančno določa pogoje za pravico trgovskega zastopnika do provizije.
Article 10 of that directive establishes the circumstances which give rise to that right.
Člen 10 Direktive določa okoli�čine, v katerih nastane ta pravica.