natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
That would not be the case if national or local legislation or even the contracting authorities concerned were to set a reasonable threshold above which abnormally low tenders were automatically excluded on account of there being an unduly large number of tenders, which might oblige those contracting authorities to examine on an inter partes basis such a high number of bids that it would exceed their administrative capacity or might, due to the delay which such an examination would entail, jeopardise the implementation of the project.
To ne bi veljalo, če nacionalna ali lokalna ureditev ali celo sam zadevni naročnik zaradi preveč ponudb – glede na to, da bi se zaradi obveze naročnika, naj kontradiktorno preveri nekatere od teh množičnih ponudb, preseglo upravne zmožnosti omenjenega naročnika ali bi se lahko, zaradi zamude, ki bi jo povzročilo to preverjanje, v nevarnost postavila uresničitev projekta – določi razumen prag, pod vrednostjo katerega bi se uporabila samodejna izključitev neobičajno nizkih ponudb.
The fundamental rules of the EC Treaty on freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services and the general principle of nondiscrimination preclude national legislation which, with regard to contracts with a value below the threshold set by Article 6(1)(a) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997, which are of certain crossborder interest, imposes an absolute duty on the contracting authorities, where the number of valid tenders is greater than five, automatically to exclude tenders considered to be abnormally low in relation to the goods, works or services according to a mathematical criterion laid down by that legislation without allowing those contracting authorities any possibility of verifying the constituent elements of those tenders by requesting the tenderers concerned to provide details of those elements.
Temeljna pravila Pogodbe ES o pravici do ustanavljanja in prostega pretoka storitev kot tudi splošno načelo nediskriminacije nasprotujejo nacionalni ureditvi, ki – kar zadeva razpise, katerih vrednost je manjša od praga, določenega v členu 6(1)(a) Direktive Sveta 93/37/EGS z dne 14. junija 1993 o usklajevanju postopkov za oddajo javnih naročil za gradnje, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 97/52/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 13. oktobra 1997, in ki imajo določen čezmejni interes – obvezuje naročnike, kadar je veljavnih ponudb več kot pet, naj skladno z matematičnim merilom, ki ga predvideva ta ureditev, samodejno izključijo ponudbe, ki se štejejo za neobičajno nizke glede na gradnje, ne da bi omenjenim naročnikom dajala kakršno koli možnost preveriti sestavne dele teh ponudb, ob tem, da bi se od ponudnikov zahtevale podrobnosti glede ponudbe.
That would not be the case if national or local legislation or even the contracting authorities concerned were to set a reasonable threshold above which abnormally low tenders were automatically excluded on account of there being an unduly large number of tenders, which might oblige the contracting authorities to examine on an inter partes basis such a high number of bids that it would exceed their administrative capacity or might, due to the delay which such an examination would entail, jeopardise the implementation of the project.
To ne bi veljalo, če nacionalna ali lokalna ureditev ali celo sam zadevni naročnik zaradi prevelikega števila ponudb, glede na to, da bi se zaradi obveze naročnika, naj kontradiktorno preveri nekatere od teh množičnih ponudb, preseglo upravne zmožnosti omenjenega naročnika ali bi bila lahko zaradi zamude, ki bi jo povzročilo to preverjanje, v nevarnosti uresničitev projekta, določi razumen prag, pod vrednostjo katerega bi se uporabila samodejna izključitev neobičajno nizkih ponudb.
Case C-414/06
Zadeva C-414/06
Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Heilbronn (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof)
Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co. KG proti Finanzamt Heilbronn (Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Bundesfinanzhof)
(Freedom of establishment — Direct taxation — Taking account of losses incurred by a permanent establishment situated in a Member State and belonging to a company which has its registered office in another Member State)
„Svoboda ustanavljanja – Neposredno obdavčenje – Upo�tevanje izgube, ki je nastala stalni poslovni enoti, ki ima sedež v državi članici in ki pripada družbi s sedežem v drugi državi članici“
I - 3605Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 15 May 2008 . . . . . . . . . . .
Sharpston, predstavljeni 14. februarja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — Provisions of the Treaty — Scope
Prosto gibanje oseb – Svoboda ustanavljanja – Prosti pretok kapitala – Določbe Pogodbe – Področje uporabe
(Arts 43 EC and 56 EC)
(člena 43 ES in 56 ES)
SUMMARY — CASE C-414/06
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-414/06
(Art. 43 EC)
Prosto gibanje oseb – Svoboda ustanavljanja – Določbe Pogodbe – Področje uporabe (člen 43 ES)
(Art. 43 EC)
(člen 43 ES)
origin from hindering the establishment in another Member State of one of its nationals or of a company incorporated under its legislation, also apply where a company established in a Member State carries on business in another Member State through a permanent establishment, as defined in a relevant double taxation convention, which constitutes, under tax convention law, an autonomous entity.
državljana ali družbo, ustanovljeno v skladu z njeno zakonodajo, pri ustanavljanju v drugi državi članici, veljajo tudi, če gre za družbo, ki ima sedež v eni državi članici in opravlja dejavnost v drugi državi članici prek stalne poslovne enote, kot je opredeljena v ustrezni konvenciji o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja, ki je v skladu z konvencijskim davčnim pravom samostojna enota.
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.
Dejstvo, da fizična ali pravna oseba, ki ima sedež v državi članici, ustanovi in ima v polni lasti stalno poslovno enoto, ki ni 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, by not allowing a resident company to deduct from its tax base losses relating to a permanent establishment belonging to it and situated in another Member State, the tax regime 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 they do not justify an examination of that regime in the light of Article 56 EC.
Če bi imela davčna ureditev, ki izključuje možnost, da družba rezidentka od svoje davčne osnove odbije izgube, ki so nastale njeni stalni poslovni enoti, ki se nahaja v drugi državi članici, omejevalne učinke na prosti pretok blaga, bi bili taki učinki nujna posledica morebitne ovire za svobodo ustanavljanja in ne bi upravičevali preučitve navedene davčne ureditve z vidika člena 56 ES.
(see paras 15, 16)
(Glej točki 15 in 16.)
The provisions of the EC Treaty concerning freedom of establishment, which prohibit the Member State of
Določbe Pogodbe o svobodi ustanavljanja, ki nasprotujejo temu, da bi matična država članica ovirala svojega
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).
Taka opredelitev stalne poslovne enote kot davčno samostojne družbe je skladna z mednarodno sodno prakso, kot se pokaže v vzorčni konvenciji, ki jo je pripravila Organizacija za gospodarsko sodelovanje in razvoj (OECD).
For the purposes of the allocation of fiscal competence, it is not unreasonable for the Member States to
Za namene razdelitve davčnih pristojnosti je smiselno, da se države članice
LIDL BELGIUM draw guidance from international practice and, particularly, the model conventions drawn up by the OECD.
LIDL BELGIUM zgledujejo po mednarodni praksi in zlasti po vzorčnih konvencijah, ki jih je pripravila OECD.
from carrying on its business through a permanent establishment situated in another Member State.
Drugačno davčno obravnavanje bi lahko družbo rezidentko odvrnilo od opravljanja dejavnosti prek stalne poslovne enote v drugi državi članici.
(see paras 19-22)
(Glej točke od 19 do 22.)
Nevertheless, such a tax regime can, in principle, be justified in the light of the need to safeguard the allocation of the power to tax between the Member States and the need to prevent the danger that the same losses will be taken into account twice which, taken together, pursue legitimate objectives compatible with the Treaty and thus constitute overriding reasons in the public interest, provided that the regime is proportionate to those objectives.
Vendar je taka davčna ureditev načeloma lahko utemeljena glede na potrebo po ohranitvi delitve davčne pristojnosti med državami članicami in potrebo po preprečevanju tveganja dvojnega upo�tevanja izgub, ker – obravnavani skupaj – sledita legitimnim ciljem, ki so skladni s Pogodbo in pomenijo nujne razloge v splo�nem interesu, ker je ta ureditev sorazmerna z navedenimi cilji.
Article 43 EC does not preclude a situation in which a company established in a Member State cannot deduct from its tax base losses relating to a permanent establishment belonging to it and situated in another Member State, to the extent that, by virtue of a double taxation convention, the income of that establishment is taxed in the latter Member State where those losses can be taken into account in the taxation of the income of that permanent establishment in future accounting periods.
Člen 43 ne nasprotuje temu, da družba, ki ima sedež v državi članici, od svoje davčne osnove ne more odbiti izgub, ki so nastale njeni stalni poslovni enoti, ki se nahaja v drugi državi članici, če so na podlagi konvencije o preprečevanju dvojnega obdavčevanja dohodki te enote obdavčeni v slednji državi članici, v kateri se te izgube lahko upo�tevajo v okviru obdavčevanja dohodka te stalne poslovne enote za prihodnja poslovna obdobja.
It is true that such a tax regime involves a restriction on the freedom of establishment, since the tax situation of a company which has its registered office in one Member State and has a permanent establishment in another Member State is less favourable than it would be if the latter were to be established in the first Member State.
Taka davčna ureditev omejuje svobodo ustanavljanja, če je davčni položaj družbe, ki ima statutarni sedež v državi članici 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 državi članici.
With respect to the need to safeguard the allocation of the power to tax between the Member States, the Member State in which the registered office of the company to which the permanent establishment belongs is situated would, in the absence of a double taxation convention, have the right to tax the profits generated by such an entity.
Glede potrebe po ohranitvi delitve davčne pristojnosti med državami članicami bi država članica, v kateri je sedež družbe, ki ji pripada stalna poslovna enota, če ne bi obstajala konvencija o preprečevanju dvojnega obdavčevanja, imela pravico obdavčiti dobičke te enote.
Consequently, the objective of preserving the allocation of the power to impose taxes between the two Member States concerned, which is reflected in the provisions of the convention, is capable of justifying the tax regime at issue, since it safeguards symmetry between the right to tax profits and the right to deduct losses.
Zato cilj ohranitve delitve davčne pristojnosti med zadevnima državama članicama, ki se odraža v določbah konvencije, lahko utemelji zadevno davčno ureditev v postopku v glavni stvari, ob upo�tevanju, da ohranja simetrijo med pravico do obdavčevanja dobičkov in možnostjo odbitka izgub.
In that connection, where
Glede tega,
Member State in which its seat is situated, losses incurred by a permanent establishment belonging to it and situated in another Member State and that, despite such offsetting, the same losses might be taken into account subsequently in the Member State in which the permanent establishment is situated, when that establishment generates profits, thereby preventing the Member State in which the principal company has its seat from taxing that profit.
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-414/06 da bi družba v državi članici, kjer ima sedež, uveljavljala izgube, ki bi naj nastale pripadajoči stalni poslovni enoti v drugi državi članici, in da bi se kljub obdavčitvi upo�tevale iste izgube pozneje v državi članici, v kateri se nahaja stalna poslovna enota, če bi slednja imela dobiček, in bi se tako tudi v državi članici, v kateri ima sedež matična družba, preprečilo obdavčenje tega dobička.
a double taxation convention has given the Member State in which the permanent establishment is situated the power to tax the profits of that establishment, to give the principal company the right to elect to have the losses of that permanent establishment taken into account in the Member State in which it has its seat or in another Member State would seriously undermine a balanced allocation of the power to impose taxes between the Member States concerned.
ker je konvencija za izogibanje dvojnega obdavčevanja državi članici, v kateri se nahaja stalna poslovna enota, priznala pravico do obdavčevanja dohodkov te enote, bi dejstvo, da se da matični družbi možnost izbire, ali bo upo�tevala izgube, ki so nastale tej poslovni enoti, bodisi v državi članici, v kateri ima sedež, bodisi v drugi državi članici, lahko občutno ogrozilo enakomerno porazdelitev pravice do obdavčevanja med zadevnima državama članicama.
As regards the danger that the same losses will be used twice, it is possible that a company might deduct, in the
Glede tveganja, da se ista izguba uveljavlja dvakrat, ni namreč mogoče izključiti,
(see paras 25, 26, 33, 36, 39, 42, 52-54, operative part)
(Glej točke 25, 26, 33, 36, 39, 42, od 52 do 54 in izrek.)
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL
Če je družba rezidentka v Nemčiji, se obdavčen dohodek v Luksemburgu izvzame od obdavčljivega dohodka v Nemčiji.
SHARPSTONdelivered on 14 February 2008
Tako razlagano KDO bom imenoval „izpodbijani ukrep“.
In the present case the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court), Germany, has asked the Court whether it is compatible with Articles 43 and 56 EC for a German company with income from industrial or commercial activities to be precluded, when calculating its 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 Germany.
V tej zadevi je Bundesfinanzhof (zvezno finančno sodi�če), Nemčija, na Sodi�če naslovilo vpra�anje, ali je združljivo s členoma 43 ES in 56 ES, da je nem�kemu podjetju z dohodki iz industrijske ali trgovske dejavnosti pri izračunavanju dobička onemogočeno odbiti izgube, nastale stalni poslovni enoti, ki je v drugi državi članici, ker ustrezni dohodki take stalne poslovne enote v Nemčiji niso obdavčeni na podlagi veljavne konvencije o dvojnem obdavčevanju.
Under the double taxation convention between Germany and Luxembourg (‘the DTC’), 2profits made by the permanent
V skladu s konvencijo o dvojnem obdavčevanju med Nemčijo in Luksemburgom (v nadaljevanju: KDO) 2se dobički, ki so nastali stalni poslovni enoti v državi družbe,
2 — 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, signed in Luxembourg on 23 August 1958 (BGBl. 1959 II, p. 1270).
2 – Konvencija med Velikim vojvodstvom Luksemburg in Zvezno republiko Nemčijo o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja in vzpostavitvi pravil vzajemne upravne pomoči glede davkov na dohodek in na premoženje ter glede davka na trgovino in zemlji�kega davka, podpisana 23. avgusta 1958 v Luxembourgu (BGBl. 1959 II, str. 1270).
Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co. KG (‘Lidl’), established in Germany, carried out its business activities through, inter alia, a permanent establishment situated in Luxembourg. In 1999, the financial year in dispute, Lidl incurred a loss from that establishment in the sum of DEM 163 382 (EUR 83 536), which it initially deducted in calculating its total income. The Finanzamt (Tax Office) I - 3605
Družba Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co. KG (v nadaljevanju: družba Lidl), ki je imela sedež v Nemčiji, je opravljala poslovno dejavnost med drugim tudi prek stalne poslovne enote v Luksemburgu. Leta 1999, ki je sporno finančno leto, je družbi Lidl s to poslovno enoto nastala izguba v vi�ini 163.382 DEM (83.536 EUR), ki jo je na začetku pri izra -čunavanju celotnega dohodka odbila. Finanzamt (davčni urad) je odobritev odbitka I - 3605
The matter came before the Bundesfinanzhof, which has referred the question set out above.
Zadeva je bila predložena Bundesfinanzhof, ki je zgornje vpra�anje predložilo v predhodno odločanje.
Written observations have been submitted by Lidl, the Finnish, French, German, Greek, Netherlands, Swedish and the United Kingdom Governments and the Commission.
Pisna stali�ča so predložili družba Lidl, finska, francoska, nem�ka, gr�ka, nizozemska in �vedska vlada, vlada Združenega kraljestva ter Komisija.
All those parties, with the exception of the United Kingdom but with the addition of the Finanzamt, were represented at the hearing.
Vse stranke razen vlade Združenega kraljestva, tudi Finanzamt, so bile prisotne na obravnavi.
Although France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden submit that there is no infringement of Article 43 EC, I cannot share that view.
Čeprav Francija, Nemčija, Nizozemska in Švedska trdijo, da ne gre za kr�itev člena 43 ES, se s tem ne morem strinjati.
A German company with a permanent establishment in Luxembourg which has made a loss is manifestly treated less favourably than a German company with a domestic permanent establishment which has made a loss: in the latter case, the loss is taken into account in computing the company’s profits, in the former case, it is not.
Nem�ko podjetje s stalno poslovno enoto v Luksemburgu, ki je imela izgubo, se obravnava očitno manj ugodno kot nem�ko podjetje z domačo stalno poslovno enoto, ki je imelo izgubo: v zadnjem primeru se izguba upo�teva pri izračunavanju dobičkov podjetja, v prvem pa ne.
That suffices to trigger Article 43 EC.
To zadostuje za uporabo člena 43 ES.
4 The issue before this Court is whether the contested measure may none the less be justified, and in particular (i) whether the grounds of justification accepted by the Court in Marks & Spencer 5in the context of the deduction of losses made by subsidiaries are applicable 5.
4V sporu pred tem Sodi�čem gre za to, ali se izpodbijani ukrep lahko kljub temu utemelji, in zlasti (i) če se podlaga za to utemeljitev, ki jo je sprejelo Sodi�če v sodbi Marks & Spencer 5, ko je 6.
3 — The French Government has a variation on this theme, simply saying that the analysis and justification are in any event the same in both cases.
3 – Francoska vlada ponuja glede tega različico, ki določa, da sta analiza in upravičenost v obeh primerih enaki.
LIDL BELGIUM in the context of the deduction of losses made by a permanent establishment and (ii), if so, whether the contested measure is proportionate.
�lo za odbitek izgub, ki so nastale odvisnim družbam, uporabi za odbitke izgub, ki so nastale stalnim poslovnim enotam, in (ii), če je tako, ali je izpodbijani ukrep sorazmeren.
the Netherlands (in the alternative) and the United Kingdom submit, essentially, that the situation of permanent establishments is analogous to that of foreign subsidiaries; there is accordingly no need to distinguish Marks & Spencer. 8.
trdijo, da je položaj stalnih poslovnih enot podoben položaju nerezidenčnih odvisnih družb; tako torej razlikovanje z zadevo Marks & Spencer ni potrebno. 8.
In Marks & Spencer the Court recognised that national legislation which prevented a resident company from deducting from its taxable profits losses incurred by a subsidiary established in another Member State while permitting it to deduct losses incurred by a resident subsidiary amounted to a restriction on the freedom of establishment contrary to Articles 43 and 48 EC. However, the Court went on to hold that the restriction was justified on the grounds of (i) the aim of preserving the allocation of the power to impose taxes, (ii) the danger that losses might be used twice and (iii) the risk of tax avoidance, provided of course that it did not go beyond what was necessary to attain those objectives. 9.
V sodbi Marks & Spencer je Sodi�če priznalo, da nacionalna zakonodaja, ki izključuje možnost družbe rezidentke, da od svojega obdavčljivega dobička odbije izgube, ki so nastale odvisni družbi s sedežem na ozemlju druge države članice, čeprav možnost odbitka izgub dovoli odvisni družbi rezidentki, pomeni omejitev svobode ustanavljanja, ki je v nasprotju s členoma 43 ES in 48 ES. Vendar je Sodi�če nadaljevalo tako, da je bila omejitev utemeljena na podlagi (i) cilja, da se za�čiti enakomerna porazdelitev pristojnosti obdavčitve, (ii) nevarnosti, da bi se izgube lahko upo�tevale dvakrat, in (iii) nevarnosti davčnega izogibanja, pod pogojem, da ni preseglo tega, kar je bilo potrebno za dosego teh ciljev. 9.
Lidl, Germany and the Commission submit 6that those grounds of justification
Družba Lidl, Nemčija in Komisija trdijo, 6da te utemeljitve ne veljajo za zakonodajo, ki omejuje odbitek izgub, ki jih je imela stalna poslovna enota.
In that case the Court prefaced its discussion of the three justifications by stating that, in order to ascertain whether restricting group relief to losses incurred by resident companies was justified, it was ‘necessary to consider what the consequences would be if an advantage such as [group relief] were to be extended unconditionally’.
V tem primeru je Sodi�če uvedlo razpravo o treh utemeljitvah in začelo s tem, da je bilo pri presoji tega, ali je bila omejitev olaj�ave za skupino za izgube, ki so jih imele družbe rezidentke, utemeljena, „treba preučiti posledice brezpogojne raz�iritve take ugodnosti, kot je [olaj�ava za skupino]“.
7It was in that context that the Court considered, and accepted (subject to two provisos reflecting the need for proportionality), the three justifications put forward by the United Kingdom and the other Member States which had submitted observations.
7V teh okoli�činah je Sodi�če menilo in sprejelo (glede na dve določbi, ki izražata potrebo po sorazmernosti), tri dejavnike utemeljitve, na katere opozarjajo Združeno kraljestvo in preostale države članice, ki so predložile stali�ča.
I see no reason for not adopting the same approach when assessing whether a measure limiting relief for losses incurred by a permanent establishment of a resident company to those losses incurred by its resident permanent establishments is compatible with the Treaty.
Ne vidim nobenega razloga, da ne bi prevzeli enakega pristopa pri presoji, ali je ukrep, ki omejuje olaj�ave za izgubo, ki jo je imela stalna poslovna enota družbe rezidentke, na tisto izgubo, ki so jo imele njegove stalne poslovne enote rezidentke, združljiv s Pogodbo.
From the point of view of the company, the ability to deduct losses of a foreign subsidiary by way of group relief is clearly analogous to the ability to deduct losses of a foreign permanent establishment.
S stali�ča družbe je sposobnost odbitka izgube nerezidenčne odvisne družbe z olaj�avo za skupine očitno podobna sposobnosti odbitka izgube nerezidenčne stalne poslovne enote.