natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It is therefore necessary to examine the rules at issue, first, from the perspective of the Treaty provisions on freedom of establishment.
Zato je obravnavano ureditev treba najprej preizkusiti z zornega kota določb Pogodbe glede svobode ustanavljanja.
In the case of companies, their registered office for the purposes of Article 48 EC serves, in the same way as nationality in the case of individuals, as the connecting factor with the legal system of a State.
Glede družb je treba navesti, da njihov sedež v smislu člena 48 ES, tako kot državljanstvo pri fizičnih osebah, omogoča, da se določi njihova povezanost s pravnim redom države.
Acceptance of the proposition that the Member State in which a subsidiary seeks to establish itself may freely apply different treatment merely by reason of the fact that the registered office of its parent company is situated in another Member State would deprive Article 43 EC of all meaning (see, to that effect, Case C-330/91 Commerzbank [1993] ECR I-4017, paragraph 13; Metallgesellschaft and Others, paragraph 42; and Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, paragraph 37).
Če bi se priznalo, da lahko država članica, v kateri je hčerinska družba ustanovljena, svobodno uporablja različno obravnavanje za to hčerinsko družbo zgolj zato, ker je sedež njene matične družbe v drugi državi članici, bi člen 43 ES s tem izgubil pomen (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 13. julija 1993 v zadevi Commerzbank, C-330/91, Recueil, str. I-4017, točka 13, ter zgoraj navedeni sodbi Metallgesellschaft in drugi, točka 42, ter Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, točka 37).
Freedom of establishment thus aims to guarantee the benefit of national treatment in the host Member State, by prohibiting any discrimination based on the place in which companies have their seat (see, to that effect, Saint-Gobain ZN, paragraph 35, and Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, paragraph 37).
Cilj svobode ustanavljanja je tako, da se v državi članici sprejema zagotovi nacionalno obravnavanje s prepovedjo kakr�nekoli diskriminacije na podlagi kraja sedeža družb (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeni sodbi Saint-Gobain ZN, točka 35, in Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, točka 37).
In the present case, the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings introduces, as regards the taxation of interest paid by a resident company in respect of
V obravnavanem primeru je treba poudariti, da nacionalna zakonodaja, obravnavana v postopku v glavni stvari, glede obresti, ki jih družba rezidentka na podlagi terjatve
2008 — CASE C-105/07 a claim to a director which is a company, a difference in treatment according to whether or not the latter company has its seat in Belgium.
2008 – ZADEVA C-105/07 izplača upravitelju družbe, ki je družba, povzroča različno obravnavanje slednje glede na to, ali ima sedež v Belgiji ali ne.
It follows from that legislation that interest payments made by a company to a director which is a resident company are not reclassified as dividends and are, on that basis, not taxable, even if they exceed one of the two limits laid down in Article 18(1), point 3, of the ITC 1992.
Iz navedene zakonodaje namreč izhaja, da obresti, ki jih družba izplača upravitelju, ki je družba rezidentka, niso opredeljene kot dividende in zato niso obdavčljive, tudi če presegajo eno od meja iz člena 18, prvi odstavek, točka 3, zakonika o dohodnini iz leta 1992.
By contrast, where they exceed one of those limits, the interest payments made by a company to a director which is a nonresident company are reclassified as dividends and are, on that basis, taxable.
V nasprotju s tem pa so kot dividende opredeljene obresti, ki jih družba izplača upravitelju, ki je družba nerezidentka, in ki presežejo te meje, ter so zato obdavčljive.
Companies managed by a director which is a nonresident company are therefore subject to tax treatment which is less advantageous than that accorded to companies managed by a director which is a resident company.
Družbe, ki jih upravlja družba nerezidentka, so tako obravnavane manj ugodno kot družbe, ki jih upravlja družba rezidentka.
Similarly, in relation to groups of companies within which a parent company takes on management tasks in one of its subsidiaries, such legislation introduces a difference in treatment between resident subsidiaries according to whether or not their parent company has its seat in Belgium, thereby making subsidiaries of a nonresident parent company subject to treatment which is less favourable than that accorded to the subsidiaries of a resident parent company.
Taka zakonodaja tudi za skupine družb, pri katerih matična družba opravlja naloge upravljanja ene svojih hčerinskih družb, povzroča različno obravnavanje hčerinskih družb rezidentk glede na to, ali ima njihova matična družba sedež v Belgiji ali ne, kar povzroča, da so hčerinske družbe matične družbe nerezidentke manj ugodno obravnavane kot hčerinske družbe matične družbe rezidentke.
A difference in treatment between resident companies according to the place of establishment of the company which, as director, has granted them a loan constitutes an obstacle to the freedom of establishment if it makes it less attractive for companies established in other Member States to exercise that freedom and they may, in consequence, refrain from managing a company in the Member State which enacts that measure, or even refrain from acquiring, creating or maintaining a subsidiary in that Member State (see, to that effect, Lankhorst-Hohorst, paragraph 32; Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, paragraph 61; and Case C-231/05 Oy AA [2007] ECR I-6373, paragraph 39).
Poudariti je torej treba, da različno obravnavanje družb rezidentk glede na kraj, v katerem ima njihova matična družba, ki jim je dala posojilo, sedež, pomeni omejevanje svobode ustanavljanja, ker povzroči, da postane izvajanje te svobode ustanavljanja za družbe s sedežem v drugih državah članicah manj privlačno in bi zato te družbe lahko opustile upravljanje družbe v državi članici, ki je sprejela ta ukrep, ter tudi opustile pridobitev, ustanovitev ali ohranitev hčerinske družbe v tej državi članici (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeni sodbi Lankhorst-Hohorst, točka 32, in Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, točka 61, ter sodbo z dne 18. julija 2007 v zadevi Oy AA, C-231/05, ZOdl., str. I-6373, točka 39).
It follows that the difference in treatment to which, under national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, resident companies are subject depending on the place in which their director is established, amounts to a restriction on freedom of establishment which is prohibited, in principle, by Articles 43 EC and 48 EC.
Iz tega sledi, da različno obravnavanje družb rezidentk glede na kraj ustanovitve družbe upraviteljice v okviru nacionalne zakonodaje, kot je nacionalna zakonodaja v postopku v glavni stvari, pomeni omejitev svobode ustanavljanja, ki je načeloma prepovedano s členoma 43 ES in 48 ES.
Such a restriction is permissible only if it pursues a legitimate objective which is compatible with the Treaty and is justified by overriding reasons of public interest.
Taka omejitev je dopustna samo, če sledi legitimnemu cilju, ki je v skladu s Pogodbo, in jo upravičujejo nujni razlogi v splo�nem interesu.
It is further necessary, in such a case, that its application be appropriate to ensuring the attainment of the objective thus pursued and not go beyond what is necessary to attain it (see, inter alia, Case C-446/03 Marks & Spencer [2005] ECR I-10837, paragraph 35, and Cadbury Schweppes and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, paragraph 47). 26
V takem primeru mora biti tudi primerna za zagotavljanje uresničitve zadevnega cilja in ne sme presegati tega, kar je nujno potrebno za njegovo dosego (glej zlasti sodbo z dne 13. decembra 2005 v zadevi Marks & Spencer, C-446/03, ZOdl., str. I-10837, točka 35, ter zgoraj navedeno sodbo Cadbury Schweppes in Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, točka 47). 26
In this respect, it must be pointed out that, according to established caselaw, a national measure restricting freedom of establishment may be justified where it specifically targets wholly artificial arrangements designed to circumvent the legislation of the Member State concerned (Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, paragraph 72 and the caselaw cited).
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da je v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso nacionalni ukrep, ki omejuje svobodo ustanavljanja, lahko upravičen, če je posebej namenjen povsem umetnim konstruktom, katerih cilj je izogibanje zakonodaji zadevne države članice (zgoraj navedena sodba Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, točka 72 in navedena sodna praksa).
The mere fact that a resident company is granted a loan by a related company which is established in another Member State cannot be the basis of a general presumption of abusive practices and justify a measure which compromises the exercise of a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the Treaty (Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, paragraph 73 and the caselaw cited).
Sama okoli�čina, da družba rezidentka prejme posojilo od povezane družbe s sedežem v drugi državi članici, ne ustvarja splo�ne domneve zlorabe in ne upravičuje ukrepa, ki �koduje izvajanju temeljne svobode, ki jo zagotavlja Pogodba (zgoraj navedena sodba Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, točka 73 in navedena sodna praksa).
In order for a restriction on the freedom of establishment to be justified on the ground of prevention of abusive practices, the specific objective of such a restriction
Da bi se omejevanje svobode ustanavljanja lahko upravičilo zaradi boja proti zlorabam, mora biti poseben namen takega omejevanja oviranje ravnanj, ki ustvarjajo
2008 — CASE C-105/07 must be to prevent conduct involving the creation of wholly artificial arrangements which do not reflect economic reality, with a view to escaping the tax normally due on the profits generated by activities carried out on national territory (Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, paragraph 74 and the caselaw cited).
2008 – ZADEVA C-105/07 povsem umetne konstrukte brez gospodarske resničnosti, da se obide davek na dobiček, ustvarjen z opravljanjem dejavnosti na nacionalnem ozemlju, ki ga je ponavadi treba plačati (zgoraj navedena sodba Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, točka 74 in navedena sodna praksa).
At paragraph 80 of its judgment in Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, the Court held that legislation of a Member State may be justified by the need to combat abusive practices where it provides that interest paid by a resident subsidiary to a nonresident parent company is to be treated as a distribution only if, and in so far as, it exceeds what those companies would have agreed upon on an arm’s-length basis, that is to say, the commercial terms which those parties would have accepted if they had not formed part of the same group of companies.
Sodi�če je v točki 80 zgoraj navedene sodbe Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation razsodilo, da zakonodajo države članice lahko upravičuje boj proti zlorabam, kadar zakonodaja določa, da se obresti, ki jih hčerinska družba rezidentka plača matični družbi nerezidentki, opredelijo kot razdeljeni dobiček, samo če presegajo, in v tistem delu, v katerem presegajo to, za kar bi se ti družbi dogovorili v okoli�činah svobodne konkurence, to je pod poslovnimi pogoji, o katerih bi taki družbi lahko sogla�ali, tudi če ne bi bili iz iste skupine družb.
The fact that a resident company has been granted a loan by a nonresident company on terms which do not correspond to those which would have been agreed upon at arm’s length constitutes, for the Member State in which the borrowing company is resident, an objective element which can be independently verified in order to determine whether the transaction in question represents, in whole or in part, a purely artificial arrangement, the essential purpose of which is to circumvent the tax legislation of that Member State.
Okoli�čina, da je družbi rezidentki dala posojilo družba nerezidentka pod pogoji, ki ne ustrezajo tistemu, za kar bi se zadevni družbi dogovorili v okoli�činah svobodne konkurence, za državo članico, v kateri je družba posojilojemalka rezidentka, namreč pomeni dokaz, ki je objektiven in ga lahko preverijo tretje osebe, o tem, ali je zadevna transakcija v celoti ali delno povsem umeten konstrukt, katerega bistveni cilj je obid davčne zakonodaje te države članice.
In that regard, the question is whether, had there been an arm’s-length relationship between the companies concerned, the loan would not have been granted or would have been granted for a different amount or at a different rate of interest (Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, paragraph 81).
Glede tega je pomembno, ali posojilo, če med zadevnima družbama ne bi bilo posebnega razmerja, ne bi bilo dano ali bi bilo dano v drugačnem znesku ali po drugačni obrestni meri (zgoraj navedena sodba Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, točka 81).
In the present case, it is apparent from the order for reference that the interest payments made by the Belgian subsidiary on a loan granted by a nonresident company which is a director were reclassified as dividends because the limit laid down
V obravnavanem primeru iz predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da so bile obresti, ki jih je belgijska hčerinska družba izplačala kot plačilo za posojilo, ki ji ga je dala družba nerezidentka, ki je članica njene uprave, opredeljene kot dividende, ker je
LAMMERS & VAN CLEEFF in the second indent of Article 18(1), point 3, of the ITC 1992 had been exceeded, that is to say, at the beginning of the taxable period the total of the interest-bearing loans was higher than the paid-up capital plus taxed reserves. 32
LAMMERS & VAN CLEEFF bila meja iz člena 18, prvi odstavek, točka 3, druga alinea, zakona o dohodnini iz leta 1992 prekoračena, saj je na začetku davčnega obdobja skupni znesek obrestovanih predujmov presegal prosti kapital, povečan za obdavčene rezerve. 32
It is clear that, even if the application of such a limit seeks to combat abusive practices, it goes in any event beyond what is necessary to attain that objective.
Ugotoviti je treba, da čeprav je cilj take omejitve boj proti zlorabam, ta v vsakem primeru presega tisto, kar je nujno potrebno za dosego tega cilja.
As the Commission of the European Communities stated in its submissions, the limit laid down in the second indent of Article 18(1), point 3, of the ITC 1992 also affects situations in which the transaction concerned cannot be regarded as a purely artificial arrangement.
Kot je poudarila Komisija Evropskih skupnosti v pripombah, meja iz člena 18, prvi odstavek, točka 3, druga alinea, zakonika o dohodnini iz leta 1992 namreč prav tako vpliva na situacije, v katerih zadevne transakcije ni mogoče �teti za povsem umeten konstrukt.
If interest payments made to nonresident companies are reclassified as dividends as soon as they exceed such a limit, it cannot be ruled out that that reclassification will also apply to interest paid on loans granted on an arm’s length basis.
Čeprav so obresti, izplačane družbam nerezidentkam, opredeljene kot dividende, če presežejo tako mejo, ne more biti izključeno, da se ta opredelitev uporablja tudi za obresti, nakazane kot plačilo posojila, danega v okoli�činah svobodne konkurence.
Consequently, the answer to the question submitted must be that Articles 43 EC and 48 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which interest payments made by a company resident in a Member State to a director which is a company established in another Member State are reclassified as dividends and are, on that basis, taxable, where, at the beginning of the taxable period, the total of the interest-bearing loans is higher than the paid-up capital plus taxed reserves, whereas, in the same circumstances, where those interest payments are made to a director which is a company established in the same Member State, those payments are not reclassified as dividends and are, on that basis, not taxable.
Zato je na vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje treba odgovoriti, da je treba člena 43 ES in 48 ES razlagati tako, da nasprotujeta nacionalni zakonodaji, kot je nacionalna zakonodaja v postopku v glavni stvari, na podlagi katere so obresti, ki jih družba, ki je rezidentka države članice, izplača upravitelju družbe, ki je družba, ustanovljena v drugi državi članici, opredeljene kot dividende in so zato obdavčljive, če na začetku davčnega obdobja skupni znesek obrestovanih predujmov presega prosti kapital, povečan za obdavčene rezerve, medtem ko v istih okoli�činah obresti, izplačane upravitelju družbe, ki je družba, ustanovljena v isti državi članici, niso opredeljene kot dividende in zato niso obdavčljive.
Since the Treaty provisions on freedom of establishment thus preclude national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, it is not necessary to examine whether the Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital also preclude that legislation.
Ker določbe Pogodbe glede svobode ustanavljanja nasprotujejo nacionalni zakonodaji, kot je nacionalna zakonodaja iz postopka v glavni stvari, ni treba obravnavati, ali ji nasprotujejo tudi določbe Pogodbe glede prostega pretoka kapitala.
Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.
Ker je postopek za stranki v postopku v glavni stvari ena od stopenj v postopku pred predložitvenim sodi�čem, to odloči o stro�kih.
Articles 43 EC and 48 EC preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which interest payments made by a company resident in a Member State to a director which is a company established in another Member State are reclassified as dividends and are, on that basis, taxable, where, at the beginning of the taxable period, the total of the interest-bearing loans is higher than the paid-up capital plus taxed reserves, whereas, in the same circumstances, where those interest payments are made to a director which is a company established in the same Member State, those payments are not reclassified as dividends and are, on that basis, not taxable.
Člena 43 ES in 48 ES nasprotujeta nacionalni zakonodaji, kot je nacionalna zakonodaja v postopku v glavni stvari, na podlagi katere so obresti, ki jih družba, ki je rezidentka države članice, izplača upravitelju družbe, ki je družba, ustanovljena v drugi državi članici, opredeljene kot dividende in so zato obdavčljive, če na začetku davčnega obdobja skupni znesek obrestovanih predujmov presega prosti kapital, povečan za obdavčene rezerve, medtem ko v istih okoliščinah obresti, izplačane upravitelju družbe, ki je družba, ustanovljena v isti državi članici, niso opredeljene kot dividende in zato niso obdavčljive.
Case C-257/06
Zadeva C-257/06
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Corte suprema di cassazione)
(Article 28 EC — Directive 76/768/EEC — Protection of health — Cosmetic products — Importation — Communication of information on cosmetic products to the authorities of the State of importation)
„Člen 28 ES – Direktiva 76/768/EGS – Varovanje zdravja – Kozmetični izdelki – Uvoz – Sporočanje podatkov v zvezi s kozmetičnimi izdelki organom države uvoznice“
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 24 January 2008 . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (drugi senat) z dne 24. januarja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Approximation of laws — Cosmetic products — Packaging and labelling — Directive 76/768(Art. 30 EC; Council Directive 76/768, Art. 7)
Približevanje zakonodaj – Kozmetični izdelki – Pakiranje in označevanje – Direktiva 76/768(člen 30 ES; Direktiva Sveta 76/768, člen 7)
SUMMARY — CASE C-257/06
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-257/06
Such an obligation to provide information is proportionate to the objective of protecting human health, contained in Article 7(3) of Directive 76/768, since it ensures that the competent national authorities have at their disposal detailed information on the relevant product.
Taka obveznost sporočanja je namreč sorazmerna s ciljem varovanja zdravja ljudi, ki je določen z omenjenim členom 7(3), ker zagotavlja, da imajo pristojni nacionalni organi na voljo podrobne informacije o zadevnem izdelku.
Article 7 of Council Directive 76/768 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products, as amended by Directive 93/35, does not preclude a national provision which, in the interests of prompt and appropriate medical treatment in the event of difficulties, requires the importer of cosmetic products to communicate to the Ministry of Health and to the Region the name or the corporate name of the business, its registered office and that of the manufacturing plant, and a full and detailed list of the substances used and the substances contained in those products.
Člen 7 Direktive 76/768 o približevanju zako -nodaje držav članic v zvezi s kozmetičnimi izdelki, kakor je bila spremenjena z Direk -tivo 93/35, ne nasprotuje nacionalni določbi, ki zaradi hitrega in ustreznega zdravljenja pri zdravstvenih težavah uvoznika kozmetičnih izdelkov obvezuje, da ministrstvu za zdravje in regiji sporoči ime ali firmo podjetja, njegov sedež in sedež proizvodne enote ter popoln in podroben seznam uporabljenih snovi in snovi, ki jih vsebujejo navedeni izdelki.
(see paras 24, 25, operative part)
(Glej točki 24 in 25 ter izrek.)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber)24 January 2008 *
SODBA SODIŠČA (drugi senat) z dne 24. januarja 2008*
* Language of the case: Italian.
* Jezik postopka: italijan�čina.
JUDGMENT OF 24. 1.
SODBA Z DNE 24. 1.
2008 — CASE C-257/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-257/06 generalni pravobranilec: J.
Advocate General: J. Mazák, Registrar: L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 24 May 2007, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Mazák, sodna tajnica: L. Hewlett, glavna administratorka, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 24. maja 2007, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
— the Belgian Government, by L. Van den Broeck, acting as Agent,
— za belgijsko vlado L. Van den Broeck, zastopnica,
ROBY PROFUMI gives the following
ROBY PROFUMI izreka naslednjo
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 28 EC and Article 7 of Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (OJ 1976 L 262, p.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago člena 28 ES in člena 7 Direktive Sveta z dne 27. julija 1976 o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic v zvezi s kozmetičnimi izdelki 76/768/EGS (UL L 262, str.
169), as amended by Council Directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993 (OJ 1993 L 151, p.
169), kakor je bila spremenjena z Direktivo Sveta 93/35/EGS z dne 14. junija 1993 (UL L 151, str.
32) (‘Directive 76/768’).
32, v nadaljevanju: Direktiva 76/768).
The reference has been made in proceedings between the company Roby Profumi Srl (‘Roby Profumi’) and the Comune di Parma (Municipality of Parma) regarding the upholding by the mayor of that municipality of penalties imposed on Roby Profumi by reason of its noncompliance with national laws on cosmetic products.
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med družbo Roby Profumi Srl (v nadaljevanju: Roby Profumi) in Comune di Parma glede tega, da je župan te občine potrdil kazen, ki je bila družbi Roby Profumi naložena zaradi nespo�tovanja nacionalnih določb v zvezi s kozmetičnimi izdelki.
Directive 76/768 has the objective of approximating the laws of the Member States on cosmetic products in order to guarantee the free movement of those products within the European Community.
Cilj Direktive 76/768 je približevanje zakonodaj držav članic v zvezi s kozmetičnimi izdelki, da bi se zagotovil prosti pretok blaga v Evropski skupnosti.