natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I accordingly agree with Lidl, the Finnish Government and the Commission that the national legislation goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives of preserving the balanced allocation of the power to impose taxes and of avoiding the danger that losses would be used twice.
Zato se strinjam z družbo Lidl, finsko vlado in Komisijo, da nacionalna zakonodaja presega, kar je potrebno za dosego ciljev ohranitve enakomerne porazdelitve pristojnosti obdavčevanja in izogibanja nevarnosti, da bi se izgube uporabile dvakrat.
Finally, Germany submits in the (further) alternative that, if the Court were to rule that the freedom of establishment has been infringed, it should limit the effects of the judgment in time.
Nazadnje Nemčija (nadalje) podredno navaja, da bi Sodi�če moralo, če bi odločilo, da je kr�ena svoboda ustanavljanja, časovno omejiti učinek sodbe.
Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom argue that significant practical difficulties preclude adopting a system allowing for deduction of losses combined with recapture of loss relief.
Nemčija, Švedska in Združeno kraljestvo ugovarjajo, da bi znatne praktične težave preprečevale sprejetje sistema, ki bi dopu�čal odbitek izgub skupaj z vračilom olaj�ave za izgubo.
However, as indicated above it appears that German legislation previously provided for such a system; indeed Lidl and the Commission have stated without being contradicted that legislation to essentially the same effect was in force in Germany from 1969 26until its repeal in 1999.
Vendar kot je navedeno zgoraj, se izkaže, da je nem�ka zakonodaja prej omogočala ta sistem; dejansko sta družba Lidl in Komisija navedli, in jima pri tem nihče ni oporekal, da je ureditev, ki je imela enak učinek, veljala v Nemčiji od leta 1969 26do razveljavitve leta 1999.
27Moreover, according to a recent Communication from the Commission 28 five Member States currently provide for deduction of losses sustained by permanent establishments situated in another Member State, even though profits are exempted under a double taxation convention.
27 Poleg tega nedavno obvestilo Komisije 28določa, da trenutno pet držav članic zagotavlja odbitek izgub, ki so jih utrpele stalne poslovne enote, ki so v drugi državi članici, čeprav so dobički izvzeti v skladu s konvencijo o dvojnem obdavčevanju.
Against that background it is difficult to take seriously the argument that significant practical difficulties preclude such a system. 29In any event,
S tem ozadjem je težko resno upo�tevati trditev, da znatne praktične težave preprečijo ta sistem.
27 — By the Steuerentlastungsgesetz (Law on tax relief) 1999/2000/2002 of 24 March 1999 (BGBl. 1999 I, p. 402).
27 – Tako Steuerentlastungsgesetz (zakon o davčnih olaj�avah) 1999/2000/2002 z dne 24. marca 1999 (BGBl. 1999 I, str. 402).
28 — Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee on Tax Treatment of Losses in Cross-Border Situations (COM(2006) 824 final, 19 December 2006); see point 2.2(b)(2).
28 – Obvestilo Komisije Svetu, Evropskemu parlamentu in Evropskemu ekonomsko-socialnemu odboru glede davčne obravnave izgub v čezmejnih položajih (COM(2006) 824 konč. z dne 19. decembra 2006); glej točko 2.2(b)(2).
29 — It may be noted that Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation and taxation of insurance premiums (OJ 1977 L 336, p.
29 – Opozorim naj, da Direktiva Sveta 77/799/EGS z dne 19. decembra 1977 o medsebojni pomoči pristojnih organov držav članic na področju neposredne obdavčitve (UL L 336, 27.12.1977, str.
15) allows a Member State to request from the competent authorities of another Member State all the information enabling it to ascertain the correct amount of corporate tax.
15) dopu�ča državi članici, da od pristojnih organov druge države članice zahteva informacije, ki bi jim lahko omogočile pravilno odmero davkov za pravne osebe.
30 — Commission v France, cited in footnote 19, paragraph 29, referring to point 30 of the Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer: ‘Once it has been established that the objective pursued can be fulfilled by other means, the principle of proportionality precludes mere administrative difficulties from being cited as absolute grounds justifying discriminatory treatment which, because it is contrary to the fundamental freedoms, must be based on strong reasons in order to be lawful’. See also Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, cited in footnote 24, paragraphs 155 to 157.
30 – V opombi 19 navedena sodba Komisija proti Franciji, točka 29, se sklicuje na točko 30 sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca Ruiz-Jaraboja Colomerja: „Ko se ugotovi, da se zasledovani cilj lahko doseže z drugimi sredstvi, načelo sorazmernosti izključuje, da so lahko zgolj same upravne težave absolutni razlogi, ki upravičujejo diskriminatorno obravnavanje, ki mora biti, ker je v nasprotju s temeljnimi svobo�činami, podprto z močnimi razlogi, da je zakonito.“ Glej tudi sodbo Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, navedeno v opombi 23, točke od 155 do 157.
31 of the subsidiaries were resident in other Member States was contrary to Article 43 EC 32and that the freedom of companies exercising their right of establishment to choose whether to do so by a subsidiary or branch (permanent establishment) must not be limited by discriminatory tax provisions.
LIDL BELGIUM glede obsega določb člena 43 ES. Sodi�če je že pred letom 1999 odločilo, da je bila nacionalna zakonodaja, ki je odrekla olaj�avo za skupino za izgube, če je bila večina odvisnih družb rezidentk v preostalih državah članicah, v nasprotju s členom 43 ES 32in da ta svoboda podjetij, ki izvr�ujejo pravico do ustanavljanja tako, da izberejo, ali bodo to storila prek odvisne družbe ali prek podružnice (stalne poslovne enote), ne sme biti omejena z diskriminatornimi davčnimi določbami.
33Morever the Proposal for a Council directive concerning arrangements for the taking into account by enterprises of the losses of their permanent establishments and subsidiaries situated in other Member States, 34issued in 1991, makes the Commission’s view clear: national legislation which does not permit enterprises to take into account the losses incurred by their permanent establishments situated in other Member States is incompatible with the internal market. 35
33Poleg tega predlog za direk- tivo Sveta glede dogovorov za to, da podjetja upo�tevajo izgube stalnih poslovnih enot in odvisnih družb, ki so v preostalih državah, 34 predhodnega odločanja, same po sebi ne opravičujejo časovne omejitve učinkov te sodbe, zato se je k tej re�itvi zateklo le v natančno določenih okoli�činah, in sicer ko je (a) obstajalo tveganje hudih gospodarskih posledic, zlasti zaradi velikega �tevila pravnih razmerij, vzpostavljenih v dobri veri na podlagi ureditve, za katero se je �telo, da je veljavno začela veljati, in ko se je (b) zdelo, da so bili posamezniki in nacionalni organi vodeni k ravnanju, ki zaradi objektivne in precej�nje negotovosti glede obsega določb Skupnosti ni bilo v skladu s pravom Skupnosti, in h katerem so morebiti prispevala tudi ravnanja drugih držav članic ali Komisije Evropskih skupnosti.
Accordingly I am not persuaded that there is in the present case any justification for limiting the temporal effects of the ruling.
Zato menim, da v tej zadevi časovno omejevanje sodbe ni upravičeno.
In the present case I agree with Lidl that the second of those cumulative conditions is not satisfied.
V tej zadevi se strinjam z družbo Lidl, da drugemu med temi kumulativnimi pogoji ni zado�čeno.
I cannot accept that, when Germany repealed the earlier legislation and thus in effect reinstated the contested measure, it can plausibly be described as having been led into taking that step by reason of objective, significant uncertainty regarding the implications of Article 43 EC. By 1999 the Court had already ruled that national legislation which essentially denied group loss relief where a majority
Ne morem se strinjati, da je verjetno, da bi Nemčijo, ko je razveljavila prej�njo zakonodajo in tako dejansko obnovila veljavnost izpodbijanega ukrepa, v ta korak vodila objektivna, znatna negotovost
32 — Case C-264/96 ICI [1998] ECR I-4695.
32 – Sodba z dne 16. julija 1998 v zadevi ICI, C-264/96, Recueil, str. I-4695.
33 — Case 270/83 Commission v France [1986] ECR 273, paragraph 22.
33 – Sodba Sodi�ča z dne 28. januarja 1986 v zadevi Komisija proti Francoski republiki, 270/83, Recueil, str. 273, točka 22.
31 — See most recently Case C-313/05 Brzeziński [2007] ECR I-513, paragraphs 57 and 58.
31 – Glej nedavno sodbo z dne 18. januarja 2007 v zadevi Brzeziński, C-313/05, ZOdl., str. I-513, točki 57 in 58.
35 — See the first recital in the preamble and point 1 of the Explanatory Memorandum.
35 – Glej prvo uvodno izjavo in točko 1 obrazložitvenega memoranduma.
In the light of the above I am of the view that the Court should answer the question referred by the Bundesfinanzhof as follows:
Ob upo�tevanju navedenega menim, da bi moralo Sodi�če na vpra�anje, ki mu ga je v predhodno odločanje predložilo Bundesfinanzhof, odgovoriti:
‘It is not compatible with Article 43 EC for a Member State to preclude a company, when calculating its taxable profits, from deducting losses from a permanent establishment in another Member State on the ground that, according to the applicable double taxation convention, the corresponding income from such a permanent establishment is not subject to taxation in the first Member State.’
Ni združljivo s členom 43 ES, da država članica podjetju pri izračunavanju obdavčljivega dobička onemogoči, da odbije izgube, nastale stalni poslovni enoti v drugi državi članici, ker ustrezni dohodki take enote na podlagi veljavne konvencije o dvojnem obdavčevanju v prvi državi članici niso obdavčeni.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)15 May 2008 *
SODBA SODIŠČA (četrti senat) z dne 15. maja 2008 *
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), made by decision of 28 June 2006, received at the Court on 11 October 2006, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-414/06, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Bundesfinanzhof (Nemčija) z odločbo z dne 28. junija 2006, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 11. oktobra 2006, v postopku
2008 — CASE C-414/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-414/06 generalna pravobranilka: E. Sharpston, sodni tajnik: B.
2008 — CASE C-414/06 gives the following
2008 – ZADEVA C-414/06 izreka naslednjo
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 56 EC.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago člena 43 ES in člena 56 ES.
The reference was made in proceedings between Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co. KG (‘Lidl Belgium’) and the Finanzamt Heilbronn (‘the Finanzamt’) relating to the tax treatment by the German competent authorities of losses incurred by a permanent establishment of Lidl Belgium situated in Luxembourg. Legal context
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med družbo Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co. KG (v nadaljevanju: družba Lidl Belgium) in Finanzamt Heilbronn (v nadaljevanju: Finanzamt) glede tega, kako so pristojni nem�ki organi davčno obravnavali izgubo, ki je nastala stalni poslovni enoti, ki pripada tej družbi in se nahaja v Luksemburgu. Pravni okvir
The second subparagraph of the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Convention between the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Federal Republic of Germany for the avoidance of double taxation and relating to mutual administrative and legal assistance in the fields of taxation of income and capital and of business and land taxation of 23 August 1958 (BGBl. II 1959, p.
V skladu s členom 2(1), točka 2, Konvencije o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja in vzpostavitvi pravil vzajemne upravne pomoči glede davkov od dohodka in davkov na premoženje ter glede davka na trgovino in zemlji�kega davka, ki sta jo 23. avgusta 1958 sklenila Veliko vojvodstvo Luksemburg in Zvezna republika Nemčija (BGBl. II 1959, str.
1270), as amended by the additional protocol of 15 June 1973 (‘the Convention’), provides that the expression ‘permanent establishment’ is to mean ‘a fixed place of business at which the undertaking carries on all or part of its activities’.
1270), kot je bila spremenjena z dodatnim protokolom z dne 15. junija 1973 (v nadaljevanju: konvencija), izraz „stalna poslovna enota“ pomeni „stalno mesto poslovanja, v katerem se v celoti ali delno odvijajo posli določenega podjetja“.
The second subparagraph, point (a), of the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Convention lists a number of types of premises which are to be treated as being a permanent establishment for the purposes of the Convention.
V členu 2(1), točka 2(a), konvencije so na�tete enote, ki v smislu konvencije �tejejo za stalne poslovne enote.
Article 5 of the Convention provides:
Člen 5 konvencije določa:
Article 6(1) of the Convention states:
Člen 6(1) konvencije določa:
‘Where an undertaking of one of the Contracting States, by reason of its participation in the management or financial structure of an undertaking of the other State, agrees economic or financial conditions with that undertaking which differ from
„Če se podjetje ene od držav pogodbenic zaradi sodelovanja pri upravljanju ali finančni strukturi podjetja druge države pogodbenice strinja ali temu določi drugačne
2008 — CASE C-414/06 those which would have been agreed with an independent undertaking, or imposes such conditions on it, the income which would in the normal case have been received by one of those undertakings, but which by reason of those conditions was not in fact so paid, may be included in the income of that undertaking and taxed accordingly.’
2008 – ZADEVA C-414/06 tržne ali finančne pogoje, kot bi jih imelo z neodvisnim podjetjem, potem se vse dohodke, ki bi jih eno od teh podjetij imelo, ampak jih zaradi teh pogojev ni imelo, lahko vključi v dohodke tega podjetja in njemu tudi obdavčijo.“
Article 20 of the Convention states:
Člen 20 te konvencije določa:
However, taxes on income or capital which may be taxed in the State of residence shall be levied at the rate applicable to the taxpayer’s total income or total capital.
Vendar pa se dohodki ali premoženje, ki se lahko obdavčijo v državi rezidentstva, odmeri po enaki stopnji, kot je obdavčen celotni dohodek ali celotno premoženje davčnega zavezanca.
Lidl Belgium is a member of the Lidl and Schwarz group and carries on business as a distributor of goods.
Družba Lidl Belgium je del skupine Lidl in Schwarz in opravlja gospodarsko dejavnost distribucije blaga.
Lidl Belgium, which had initially developed its business on the
Družba Lidl Belgium, ki je svojo dejavnost najprej raz�irila
Belgian market, was given the further task of establishing itself in Luxembourg from 1999.
LIDL BELGIUM na belgijski trg, je leta 1999 začela opravljati dejavnost tudi v Luksemburgu.
To that end, Lidl Belgium created a permanent establishment there.
Zato je družba Lidl Belgium tam ustanovila stalno poslovno enoto.
Lidl Belgium is a limited partnership with its registered office in Germany, the partners of which include Lidl Belgium Beteiligungs-GmbH, as a limited partner, and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG, as a general partner. 10
Družba Lidl Belgium je komanditna družba, ki ima sedež družbe v Nemčiji, med njenimi družbeniki pa sta Lidl Belgium Beteiligungs-GmbH, komplementar, in Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG, komanditist. 10
During the 1999 accounting period, which is the period at issue in the main proceedings, Lidl Belgium’s permanent establishment in Luxembourg incurred a loss.
Stalna poslovna enota družbe Lidl Belgium, ki se nahaja v Luksemburgu je imela v spornem poslovnem letu 1999 izgubo.
When calculating its revenue for tax purposes, Lidl Belgium sought to deduct that loss from the amount of its tax base.
Pri davčni napovedi je želela družba Lidl Belgium to izgubo odbiti od davčne osnove.
The Finanzamt disallowed the deduction of that loss on the basis, inter alia, of the exemption of income relating to that permanent establishment by virtue of the provisions of the Convention.
Finanzamt je odbitek te izgube zavrnil, pri čemer se je zlasti skliceval na oprostitev, ki velja za dohodke te stalne poslovne enote, na podlagi določb konvencije.
On 30 June 2004, the Finanzgericht Baden-Würtemberg (Finance Court, Baden-Würtemberg), before which Lidl Belgium had brought proceedings, dismissed the latter’s action against the decision of the Finanzamt.
Finanzgericht Baden-Würtemberg je 30. junija 2004 zavrnilo tožbo, ki jo je vložila družba Lidl Belgium zoper odločbo, ki jo je izdal Finanzamt.
An appeal having been brought before it by Lidl Belgium, the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
Bundesfinanzhof, ki je odločalo o pritožbi družbe Lidl Belgium, je prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vpra�anje:
‘Is it compatible with Articles 43 EC and 56 EC for a German company with income from industrial or commercial activities to be precluded, when calculating its income,
„Ali je združljivo s členom 43 ES in členom 56 ES, da je nem�kemu podjetju z dohodki iz industrijske ali trgovske dejavnosti pri pripravi poslovnih izkazov onemogočeno
2008 — CASE C-414/06 from deducting losses from a permanent establishment in another Member State (in this case, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg) on the ground that, according to [the Convention], the corresponding income from such a permanent establishment is not subject to taxation in Germany?’
2008 – ZADEVA C-414/06 odbiti izgube, nastale stalni poslovni enoti, ki se nahaja v drugi državi članici (v tem primeru Velikem vojvodstvu Luksemburg), ker ustrezni dohodki take stalne poslovne enote na podlagi veljavne konvencije […] niso obdavčeni v Nemčiji […]?“
By its question, the national court essentially asks whether Articles 43 EC and 56 EC preclude a national tax regime which does not allow a resident company, for the purposes of determining its profits and calculating its taxable income, to deduct losses incurred in another Member State by a permanent establishment belonging to it, when that tax regime does allow losses incurred by a resident permanent establishment to deduct those losses.
Predložitveno sodi�če želi v bistvu izvedeti, ali člen 43 ES in člen 56 ES nasprotujeta nacionalni davčni ureditvi, ki izključuje možnost, da lahko družba rezidentka pri pripravi poslovnih izkazov in pri izračunavanju obdavčljivega dohodka uveljavlja izgubo, ki ji je nastala prek svoje stalne poslovne enote v drugi državi članici, čeprav je s to davčno ureditvijo predvidena taka možnost za izgubo, ki je nastala v stalni poslovni enoti rezidentki.
The scope of application of Articles 43 EC and 56 EC
Področje uporabe člena 43 ES in člena 56 ES
As the national court has referred to each of the provisions mentioned above in the question referred, it should be noted that the creation and the outright ownership by a natural or legal person established in a Member State of a permanent establishment not having a separate legal personality situated in another Member State falls within the scope of application ratione materiae of Article 43 EC.
Ker se je predložitveno sodi�če v vpra�anju, ki ga je postavilo, sklicevalo na zgoraj navedeni določbi, je treba opozoriti, da dejstvo, da fizična ali pravna oseba s prebivali�čem ali sedežem v državi članici ustanovi in ima v polni lasti stalno poslovno enoto, ki ni druga pravna oseba in ki se nahaja v drugi državi članici, spada na področje uporabe člena 43 ES.
Even if it were to be accepted that the tax regime at issue in the main proceedings has restrictive effects on the free movement of capital, such effects would have to be seen as an unavoidable consequence of any restriction on freedom of establishment and
Če bi imela zadevna davčna ureditev omejevalne učinke na prosti pretok kapitala, bi bili taki učinki neizogibna posledica morebitne ovire za svobodo ustanavljanja in ne bi upravičevali preučitve navedene davčne ureditve z vidika člena 56 ES (glej
Accordingly, the tax regime at issue in the main proceedings must be assessed in the light of Article 43 EC.
Zato je treba zadevno davčno ureditev v zadevi v postopku o glavni stvari presojati glede na člen 43 ES.
Whether a restriction on the freedom of establishment exists
Obstoj omejitve svobode ustanavljanja
2008 — CASE C-414/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-414/06
Those considerations also apply where a company established in a Member State carries on business in another Member State through a permanent establishment.
Ti preudarki veljajo tudi, če gre za družbo, ki ima sedež v eni državi članici in opravlja dejavnost v drugi državi članici prek stalne poslovne enote.
Indeed, and as is shown by the provisions of the Convention, a permanent establishment constitutes, under tax convention law, an autonomous entity.
Stalna poslovna enota je namreč, tako kot izhaja iz določb konvencije, ob upo�tevanju davčnega prava iz konvencije, samostojna enota.
Thus, those to whom the Convention applies comprise, in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention, not only natural and legal persons, but also all those types of permanent establishment which are listed in the second subparagraph, point (a), of the first paragraph of Article 2, in a manner which distinguishes them from other categories of entity listed in the second subparagraph, point (b), of that article, which are excluded from the definition of permanent establishment under the Convention.
Tako so subjekti, za katere se uporablja konvencija, v skladu s členom 2, poleg fizičnih in pravnih oseb, vse oblike stalnih poslovnih enot, ki so na�tete v členu 2(1), točka 2(a), medtem ko so v odstavku 1, točka 2(b), tega člena na�tete enote, ki v smislu konvencije niso določene kot stalne poslovne enote.
That definition of a permanent establishment as an autonomous fiscal entity is consonant with international legal practice as reflected in the model tax convention drawn up by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), in particular Articles 5 and 7 thereof.
Sodi�če je že imelo priložnost odločiti, da je za namene razdelitve davčnih pristojnosti smiselno, da se države članice zgledujejo po mednarodni praksi in zlasti po vzorčnih konvencijah, ki jih je pripravila OECD (glej sodbi z dne 12. maja 1998 v zadevi Gilly, C-336/96, Recueil, str. I-2793, točka 31, in z dne 23. februarja 2006 v zadevi van Hilten-van der Heijden, C-513/03, ZOdl., str.
As regards the tax regime at issue in the main proceedings, it must be pointed out that a provision which allows losses incurred by a permanent establishment to be taken into account in calculating the profits and taxable income of the principal company constitutes a tax advantage.
V zvezi z zadevno davčno ureditvijo v postopku v glavni stvari je treba povedati, da določba, ki omogoča upo�tevanje izgub stalne poslovne enote pri pripravi poslovnih izkazov in pri izračunavanju obdavčljivega dohodka matične družbe, pomeni davčno ugodnost.
However, the provisions of that tax regime do not grant such a tax advantage where the losses are incurred by a permanent establishment situated in a Member State other than that in which the principal company is established.
Taka davčna ugodnost pa na podlagi določb navedene davčne ureditve ni odobrena, če izgube izhajajo iz stalne poslovne enote, ki se nahaja v drugi državi članici, kot tisti, kjer je sedež matične družbe.
In those circumstances, the tax situation of a company which has its registered office in Germany and has a permanent establishment in another Member State is less favourable than it would be if the latter were to be established in Germany.
V teh okoli�činah je davčni položaj družbe, ki ima statutarni sedež v Nemčiji in ki ima stalno poslovno enoto v drugi državi članici, manj ugoden, kot bi bil njen položaj, če bi imela ta stalna poslovna enota sedež v Nemčiji.