natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In Kerkhaert and Morres, the Court held that the Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital do not preclude legislation of a Member State which, in the context of tax on income, makes dividends from shares in companies established in the territory of that State and dividends from shares in companies established in another Member State subject to the same uniform rate of taxation, without providing for the possibility of setting off tax levied by deduction at source in that other Member State.
Sodi�če je v tej sodbi razsodilo, da določbe Pogodbe o prostem pretoku kapitala ne nasprotujejo zakonodaji države članice, ki v okviru dohodnine uporablja isto enotno davčno stopnjo za dividende od delnic družb s sedežem na ozemlju navedene države in dividende od delnic družb s sedežem v drugi državi članici, ne da bi omogočala odbitje davka, odtegnjenega pri viru v tej drugi državi članici.
As I have previously indicated, the freedoms of movement preclude any legislation of a Member State which unjustifiably lays down a different rule for identical situ - ations or lays down the same rule for different situations.
Kot sem navedel zgoraj, pravica do prostega pretoka nasprotuje sleherni zakonodaji države članice, ki brez utemeljitve določa drugačno pravilo za enake položaje in isto pravilo za različne položaje.
As is clear from the judgment in Cadbury Schweppes and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, 30this prohibition of discriminatory measures is not only aimed at differences in treatment between a resident taxpayer who invests in his State of residence and a resident taxpayer who invests in another Member State.
Kot izhaja iz sodbe z dne 12. septembra 2006 v zadevi Cadbury Schweppes in Cadbury Schweppes Overseas 30, se ta prepoved diskriminatornih ukrepov ne nana�a samo na različno obravnavanje davčnega zavezanca rezidenta, ki vlaga v državi članici prebivali�ča, in davčnega zavezanca rezidenta, ki vlaga v drugi državi Unije.
It also applies to national measures which provide for a regime that differentiates between Member States and which treat investments in one Member State less favourably than those in another Member State.
Velja tudi za nacionalne ukrepe, ki določajo različen sistem za države članice in obravnavajo naložbe v državi Unije manj ugodno kot naložbe, izvedene v drugi državi članici.
It appears to me that that response may be transposed to the case at issue here.
Zdi se mi, da lahko ta odgovor uporabimo v obravnavani zadevi.
The fact that the Kingdom of the Netherlands is both the State of residence of the taxpayer, if the contested scheme is examined at the level of the taxation of fiscal investment enterprises, and the source State of the dividends, if the scheme is examined at the level of the taxation of the shareholders in those enterprises, does not alter that analysis.
Dejstvo, da ima Kraljevina Nizozemska hkrati status države prebivali�ča davčnega zavezanca, ko preučujemo sporni sistem na ravni obdavčitve kolektivnih naložbenih podjemov, in status države izvora dividend, ko preučujemo ta sistem v fazi obdavčitve delničarjev teh podjemov, te analize ne spremeni.
It is true that, in the judgment in D., it was held that Community law did not require the Netherlands to extend to D., a German national resident in Germany, the benefit of the bilateral convention concluded between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Kingdom of Belgium.
Seveda je bilo v zgoraj navedeni sodbi D. razsojeno, da pravo Skupnosti Nizozemski ne nalaga, naj na D., ki je nem�ki državljan s prebivali�čem v Nemčiji, raz�iri ugodnost iz dvostranske konvencije, sklenjene med Kraljevino Nizozemsko in Kraljevino Belgijo.
D. was therefore not eligible for the allowance on the wealth tax
D. torej ni mogel uveljavljati pravice do olaj�ave davka od premoženja, ki ga je treba
However, I do not share the view taken by the Nethekrlands Government when it comes to comparing the treatment, under the contested tax scheme, of dividends ori -
Vendar se glede primerjave, kako se v spornem davčnem sistemu obravnavajo
entered into bilaterally which justifies limiting the scope of such conventions to the natural and legal persons covered by them.
njenih zavez upravičuje omejitev področja uporabe takih konvencij na fizične in pravne osebe, ki jih te konvencije zadevajo.
It is therefore that requirement which leads to the conclusion that the difference in treatment thus created between nationals of different Member States who, aside from the provisions of those conventions, are in the same situation is not discriminatory.
Zaradi te zahteve je torej treba sklepati, da tako ustvarjeno različno obravnavanje državljanov različnih držav članic, ki so, če se določbe teh konvencij ne upo�tevajo, v istem položaju, ni diskriminatorno.
In so far as the rule established in D. thus appears to constitute an exception to the principle of nondiscrimination, it must in my view be interpreted strictly.
Če se tako zdi, da je sodna praksa v zgoraj navedeni sodbi D. izjema od načela prepovedi diskriminacije, jo je treba po mojem mnenju razlagati ozko.
That is why I do not believe that that rule can be transposed to the present case.
Zato menim, da te sodne prakse ni mogoče prenesti na obravnavani primer.
In that case, the Court took the view that the difference in treatment thus applied as between D. and a taxable person resident in Belgium was not contrary to Community law because they were not in the same situation.
Sodi�če je v tej zadevi menilo, da različno obravnavanje D. in davčnega zavezanca s prebivali�čem v Belgiji ni v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti, ker nista bila v istem položaju.
The Court based that assessment on two findings: first, that taxable person, as a natural person resident in Belgium, was covered by the aforementioned convention and, second, the fact that the reciprocal rights and obligations provided for under that convention applied solely to persons resident in one of the two contracting Member States was an inherent consequence of bilateral double taxation conventions.
Sodi�če je to presojo oprlo na dve ugotovitvi: na eni strani je navedena konvencija zadevala tega davčnega zavezanca kot fizično osebo s prebivali�čem v Belgiji, na drugi strani pa je bilo dejstvo, da se vzajemne pravice in obveznosti, določene s to konvencijo, uporabljajo izključno za rezidente ene od obeh držav podpisnic, posledica dvostranskih konvencij o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja.
It inferred from this that the provision of the Belgium-Netherlands convention entitling persons resident in Belgium to the allowance was not a benefit separable from the remainder of the convention, but was an integral part thereof and contributed to its overall balance. 31
Iz tega je sklepalo, da določba belgijsko-nizozemske konvencije, ki daje pravico do olaj�ave belgijskemu rezidentu, ni ugodnost, ki jo je mogoče ločiti od nje, ampak je njen sestavni del in prispeva k splo�nemu ravnotežju. 31
After all, an examination of the situation of a fiscal investment enterprise which invests in Germany or Portugal and that of a fiscal investment enterprise which invests in another Member State such as Italy shows that neither the first enterprise nor the second is covered by a bilateral convention for the prevention of double taxation.
Če preučimo položaj kolektivnega naložbenega podjema, ki vlaga v Nemčiji in na Portugalskem, in položaj kolektivnega naložbenega podjema, ki vlaga v drugi državi članici, kot je Italija, namreč ugotovimo, da dvostranska konvencija o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja ne zadeva niti prvega niti drugega podjema.
It follows that it is the need to preserve the balance and reciprocity of commitments
Iz tega sledi, da nujnost ohranjanja ravnotežja in vzajemnosti dvostransko skle-
31 — D., paragraphs 59 to 62.
31 – Zgoraj navedena sodba D. (točke od 59 do 62).
The Court adopted the same analysis in Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation with regard to the difference in treatment applied to companies not resident in the United Kingdom because some of the conventions concluded by that Member State with other Member States provided for a tax credit for companies resident in those Member States, while others did not (paragraphs 84 to 91).
Sodi�če je isto analizo uporabilo v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation v zvezi z različnim obravnavanjem družb nerezidentk v Združenem kraljestvu, ker so nekatere konvencije, ki jih je ta država sklenila z drugimi državami članicami, določale odbitek davka za družbe rezidentke v navedenih državah članicah, medtem ko druge tega odbitka niso določale (točke od 84 do 91).
The fact that the enterprise investing in Italy benefits from a concession for the deduction at source on the dividends ori -
Dejstvo, da je podjem, ki vlaga v Italiji, upravičen do nadomestila za pri viru odtegnjeni davek na dividende iz te države, torej
I therefore propose that the Court’s reply to the first question, part (a), should be that Articles 56 EC and 58 EC must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as the Netherlands legislation at issue, which, in providing for the benefit of fiscal investment enterprises a concession intended to take account of tax levied at source by another Member State on the dividends paid to those enterprises, restricts that concession to the amount which a natural person resident in the territory of the Netherlands could have offset under a convention for the prevention of double taxation concluded with the other Member State.
Posledično Sodi�ču predlagam, naj na prvo vpra�anje pod (a) odgovori, da je treba člena 56 ES in 58 ES razlagati tako, da nasprotujeta zakonodaji države članice, kot je zadevna nizozemska zakonodaja, ki ob tem da v korist kolektivnih naložbenih podjemov določa nadomestilo za upo�tevanje davkov, ki jih druga država članica odtegne pri viru od dividend, izplačanih navedenim podjemom, to nadomestilo omejuje na znesek, ki bi ga fizična oseba s prebivali�čem na nizozemskem ozemlju lahko odbila na podlagi konvencije o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja, sklenjene z drugo državo članico.
ginating in that State does not therefore result from the automatic application of the bilateral convention concluded between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Italian Republic but from a unilateral decision of the Netherlands Government to extend the benefit of that convention to fiscal investment enterprises.
ni posledica avtomatske uporabe dvostranske konvencije, sklenjene med Kraljevino Nizozemsko in Italijansko republiko, ampak enostranske odločitve nizozemske vlade, da ugodnost iz te konvencije raz�iri na kolektivne naložbene podjeme.
It cannot therefore be said that the right of such enterprises to set off the tax deducted at source in a Member State which has concluded a bilateral convention with the Kingdom of the Netherlands forms an integral part of that convention and contributes to its overall balance.
Torej ni mogoče trditi, da je pravica takih podjemov do odbijanja davkov, ki so bili pri viru odtegnjeni v državi članici, ki je sklenila dvostransko konvencijo s Kraljevino Nizozemsko, del te konvencije in prispeva k njenemu splo�nemu ravnotežju.
Extending entitlement to the concession to dividends originating in Germany and Portugal would not therefore jeopardise the balance and reciprocity of the commitments contained in the bilateral conventions concluded by the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Raz�iritev pravice do nadomestila na dividende iz Nemčije in s Portugalske torej ne ogroža ravnotežja in vzajemnosti zavez, ki jih vsebujejo dvostranske konvencije, ki jih je sklenila Kraljevina Nizozemska.
(b) First question, part (b)
b) Prvo vpra�anje pod (b)
By its first question, part (b), the Hoge Raad asks in essence whether Articles 56 EC and 58 EC must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, in providing for the benefit of fiscal investment enterprises a concession intended to take account of tax levied at source by another Member State on the dividends paid to those enterprises, restricts that concession where and to the extent to which the shareholders of the enterprise concerned are made up of natural persons not resident in the Netherlands or enterprises not subject to Netherlands corporation tax.
Predložitveno sodi�če s prvim vpra�anjem pod (b) spra�uje, ali je treba člena 56 ES in 58 ES razlagati tako, da nasprotujeta zakonodaji države članice, ki ob tem da v korist kolektivnih naložbenih podjemov določa nadomestilo za upo�tevanje davkov, ki jih druga država članica odtegne pri viru od dividend, izplačanih navedenim podjemom, to nadomestilo omejuje, če in kolikor so delničarji zadevnega podjema fizične osebe, ki nimajo prebivali�ča na Nizozemskem, ali subjekti, ki niso zavezani nizozemskemu davku od dobička pravnih oseb.
In these circumstances, I take the view that the Court must ensure compliance with the principle of nondiscrimination, which forms the very basis of the internal market and which Member States must observe when exercising their powers in matters of taxation.
V teh okoli�činah menim, da mora Sodi�če zagotoviti upo�tevanje načela prepovedi diskriminacije, ki je temelj notranjega trga in se zahteva od držav članic, ko izvajajo svoje pristojnosti na davčnem področju.
In my opinion, as soon as the Netherlands legislature decided to grant fiscal investment enterprises a concession for deductions at source applied to dividends originating in certain Member States, when, as it itself indicates, it was not required to do so by the bilateral conventions concluded with those States, it could not exclude from that advantage dividends originating in other Member States such as Germany and Portugal.
Po mojem mnenju od trenutka, ko se je nizozemski zakonodajalec odločil, da kolektivnim naložbenim podjemom odobri nadomestilo za davek, ki je bil pri viru odtegnjen od dividend iz nekaterih držav članic, čeprav ga – kot trdi sam – dvostranske konvencije, sklenjene s temi državami, k temu niso zavezovale, iz te ugodnosti ni mogel izključiti dividend iz drugih držav članic, kot sta Nemčija in Portugalska.
By this question, the Hoge Raad seeks to ascertain whether the reduction in the concession granted to OESF in proportion to the holdings in the capital of that enterprise by shareholders resident or established in Member States other than the Netherlands (Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom) and in nonmember countries (the United States and Switzerland) is in accordance with the free movement of capital.
Navedeno sodi�če želi s tem vpra�anjem izvedeti, ali je zmanj�anje nadomestila, odobrenega družbi OESF glede na delež, ki ga imajo v kapitalu te družbe delničarji s prebivali�čem ali sedežem v državah članicah, razen na Nizozemskem (Belgija, Nemčija, Francija, Luksemburg in Združeno kraljestvo), in v tretjih državah (Združene države in Švica), v skladu s prostim pretokom kapitala.
However, I take the view that the contested limitation is contrary to Art -icles 56 EC and 58 EC from the point of view of its effects on movements of capital between a fiscal investment enterprise and its shareholders.
Vendar pa menim, da je sporna omejitev v nasprotju s členoma 56 ES in 58 ES, če preučimo njene učinke na pretok kapitala med kolektivnim naložbenim podjemom in njegovimi delničarji.
The Hoge Raad explains that it is putting this question to the Court in the light of the fact that a fiscal investment enterprise which invests in the Netherlands benefits from the refund of tax deducted at source on nationallysourced dividends irrespective of the place of residence or establishment of its shareholders.
Predložitveno sodi�če navaja, da Sodi�ču postavlja to vpra�anje glede na to, da je kolektivni naložbeni podjem, ki vlaga na Nizozemskem, upravičen do povračila pri viru odtegnjenega davka na nacionalne dividende ne glede na kraj prebivali�ča ali sedeža njegovih delničarjev.
First, the limitation at issue restricts such movements of capital.
Najprej, zadevna omejitev namreč omejuje ta pretok kapitala.
Thus, a fiscal investment enterprise all of the shareholders of which are resident or established in the Netherlands and which invests abroad benefits from a concession for tax deducted at source up to the amount of the Netherlands tax which would be applicable to the foreign dividends.
Tako je kolektivni naložbeni podjem, katerega delničarji imajo vsi prebivali�če ali sedež na Nizozemskem in ki vlaga v tujino, upravičen do nadomestila pri viru odtegnjenih davkov v vi�ini nizozemskega davka, ki bi se uporabil za tuje dividende.
By contrast, a fiscal investment enterprise some of the shareholders of which are foreign has its concession reduced in line with the holdings of those shareholders in its capital.
Nasprotno pa se kolektivnemu naložbenemu podjemu, katerega delničarji so deloma tujci, nadomestilo zmanj�a glede na deleže teh delničarjev v njegovem kapitalu.
Unlike the Commission, I do not believe that the contested scheme is contrary to Community law in this respect.
V nasprotju s Komisijo menim, da sporni sistem s tega vidika ni v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti.
As we saw when examining the compatibility of the first limitation with Community law, the exemption of fiscal investment enterprises from the Netherlands tax on dividends did not oblige the Kingdom of the Netherlands to provide for a system for offsetting tax deducted at source on foreign dividends.
Kot smo videli v okviru preučitve združljivosti prve omejitve s pravom Skupnosti, oprostitev kolektivnih naložbenih podjemov od plačila nizozemskega davka na dividende Kraljevine Nizozemske ni zavezovala, da določi sistem odbijanja pri viru odtegnjenih davkov na tuje dividende.
Consequently, the fact that a fiscal investment enterprise is subjected to a
Zato okoli�čina, da se kolektivnemu naložbenemu podjemu zmanj�a nadomestilo
It should be noted in this respect that, under the tax scheme at issue, the amount of profits distributed to shareholders is
V zvezi s tem je treba spomniti, da se na podlagi zadevnega davčnega sistema znesek
ORANGE EUROPEAN SMALLCAP FUND calculated with reference to the refund of tax deducted at source on dividends paid by companies established in the Netherlands and the concession granted for deductions at source made abroad on dividends originating in other States.
ORANGE EUROPEAN SMALLCAP FUND dobička, ki se razdeli delničarjem, izračuna ob upo�tevanju povračila pri viru odtegnjenega davka na dividende, ki jih izplačajo družbe s sedežem na Nizozemskem, in nadomestila, odobrenega iz naslova davka na dividende iz drugih držav, ki se pri viru odtegne v tujini.
The amount of profit to be distributed, as thus established, is then divided among the shareholders in the fiscal investment enterprise according to their respective holdings in the latter’s capital and those shareholders are taxed on those dividends in the Netherlands in the form of deduction at source by the enterprise.
Tako dobljen znesek dobička, ki ga je treba razdeliti, se nato razdeli med delničarje kolektivnega naložbenega podjema glede na njihove deleže v kapitalu tega podjema, ti delničarji pa so za te dividende na Nizozemskem obdavčeni z davkom, ki ga pri viru odtegne podjem.
As the Hoge Raad points out, all the shareholders of a fiscal investment enterprise are taxed in the Netherlands on the dividends distributed by that enterprise, whatever their place of residence or establishment.
Kot trdi predložitveno sodi�če, so namreč vsi delničarji kolektivnega naložbenega podjema obdavčeni na Nizozemskem za dividende, ki jih razdeli ta podjem, ne glede na kraj njihovega prebivali�ča ali sedeža.
It follows that a fiscal investment enterprise investing abroad, some of the shareholders of which are foreign, is, in this respect, in the same situation as a fiscal investment enterprise investing abroad and all of the shareholders of which are resident or established in the Netherlands.
Iz tega sledi, da je kolektivni naložbeni podjem, ki vlaga v tujini in ima tuje delničarje, v zvezi s tem v istem položaju kot kolektivni naložbeni podjem, ki vlaga v tujini in katerega delničarji imajo vsi prebivali�če ali sedež na Nizozemskem.
It follows that limiting the concession for foreign tax according to the respective holdings of foreign shareholders in the capital of the enterprise concerned indiscriminately penalises all of the latter’s shareholders since it has the effect of reducing the total amount of profit available for distribution.
Iz tega sledi, da omejitev nadomestila tujega davka glede na deleže tujih delničarjev v kapitalu zadevnega podjema brez razlikovanja kaznuje vse njegove delničarje, ker je njena posledica zmanj�anje celotnega zneska dobička, ki ga je treba razdeliti.
As a consequence, and in accordance with the rule established in Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation and Denkavit Internationaal and Denka -vit France, as soon as the Kingdom of the Netherlands decided to grant fiscal investment enterprises a concession for tax deducted abroad and to tax the shareholders of those enterprises irrespective of their place of residence or establishment, it had to extend the benefit of that concession to fiscal investment enterprises some of the shareholders of which are non-resident. 32
Posledično in v skladu s sodno prakso v zgoraj navedenih sodbah Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation ter Denkavit Internationaal in Denkavit France bi morala Kraljevina Nizozemska od trenutka, ko se je odločila, da kolektivnim naložbenim podjemom odobri nadomestilo iz naslova davka, odtegnjenega v tujini, in obdavči delničarje teh podjemov ne glede na kraj njihovega prebivali�ča ali sedeža, pravico do tega nadomestila raz�iriti na kolektivne naložbene podjeme, ki imajo delničarje nerezidente. 32
32 — Denkavit Internationaal and Denkavit France, paragraph 37 and the caselaw cited there.
32 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Denkavit Internationaal in Denkavit France (točka 37 in navedena sodna praksa).
Second, the Hoge Raad raises the question whether the prohibition laid down in Article 56 EC has the same scope with respect to movements of capital from and to nonmember countries as it does within the European Union and the EEA.
Drugič, predložitveno sodi�če se spra�uje, ali ima prepoved iz člena 56 ES isti obseg, kar zadeva pretok kapitala iz tretjih držav in v njih, kot ga ima znotraj Evropske unije in EGS.
It seeks clarification in this regard as to whether that article requires a Member State to waive an advantage within the context of movements of capital with a nonmember country when that country is by definition not bound by the Treaty and does not therefore have an obligation to make a similar concession.
V zvezi s tem bi želelo vedeti, ali ta člen državi članici nalaga, naj se odpove ugodnosti v okviru pretoka kapitala s tretjo državo, čeprav Pogodba te države po sami naravi ne zavezuje in torej ni dolžna storiti take žrtve. Zaradi neobstoja vzajemnosti bi bilo torej treba ugotoviti, ali bi omejitve lahko upravičili razlogi, ki se ne bi upo�tevali v okviru Skupnosti.
The second set of questions referred
Drugi sklop vpra�anj za predhodno odločanje sodi�če ima dve
It is in the light of those considerations that the Hoge Raad asks, by its second question, part (b), whether Article 56 EC has the same scope with respect to movements of capital to and from nonmember countries as within the intraCommunity context, and then, by its second question, part (c), whether, if the answer to the preceding question is in the negative, Article 56 EC precludes the first limitation in so far as the latter is intended to take account of deductions at source made in a nonmember country, when that limitation is based on the fact that some of the shareholders of the enterprise concerned are foreign.
Glede na navedeno predložitveno sodi�če z drugim vpra�anjem pod (b) spra�uje, ali ima člen 56 ES isti obseg, kar zadeva pretok kapitala v tretje države in iz njih, kot ga ima v okviru Skupnosti, nato pa z drugim vpra�anjem pod (c), ali v primeru nikalnega odgovora na prej�nje vpra�anje člen 56 ES nasprotuje prvi omejitvi, če je ta namenjena za upo�tevanje davkov, ki se pri viru odtegnejo v tretji državi, čeprav je ta omejitev utemeljena z dejstvom, da so med delničarji zadevnega podjema tudi tuji delničarji.