natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Thus, it is for the national court to determine whether, should it be established that the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, combined, where appropriate, with the relevant provisions of the DTCs, constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment prohibited by Article 43 EC, or a restriction on the free movement of capital prohibited by Article 56 EC, the application of that legislation would, on any basis, have led to the failure of the claims of the claimants in the main proceedings before the United Kingdom tax authorities (Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, paragraph 127).
Tako je naloga predložitvenega sodi�ča, da ugotovi, da če se izkaže, da nacionalna zakonodaja, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, po potrebi v povezavi z upo�tevnimi določbami SDO, pomeni omejitev svobode ustanavljanja, ki je prepovedana s členom 43 ES, ali omejitev prostega pretoka kapitala, ki je prepovedana s členom 56 ES, ali bi uporaba te zakonodaje v vsakem primeru privedla do tega, da tožeče stranke v postopku v glavni stvari pri davčni upravi Združenega kraljestva s svojimi zahtevki ne bi uspele (zgoraj navedena sodba Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, točka 127).
In the light of the foregoing, the reply to the sixth to twelfth questions must be as follows:
Glede na zgoraj navedeno je treba na vpra�anja od �est do dvanajst odgovoriti tako:
— In the absence of Community legislation, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction and to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding
– Če ni ureditve Skupnosti, notranji pravni red vsake države članice določi pristojna sodi�ča in postopkovna pravila za pravna sredstva, ki zagotavljajo varovanje pravic, ki jih upravičenim subjektom daje pravo Skupnosti, vključno z
2008 — CASE C-201/05 rights which individuals derive from Community law, including the classification of claims brought by injured parties before national courts and tribunals.
2008 – ZADEVA C-201/05 opredelitvijo tožb, ki jih pri nacionalnih sodi�čih vložijo o�kodovanci.
As regards other loss or damage which a person may have sustained by reason of a breach of Community law for which a Member State is liable, the latter is under a duty to make reparation for the loss or damage caused to individuals under the conditions set out in paragraph 51 of the judgment in Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame, but that does not preclude the State from being liable under less restrictive conditions, where national law so provides.
Glede druge �kode, ki bi jo utrpela oseba zaradi kr�itve prava Skupnosti, za katero je odgovorna država članica, pa je treba ugotoviti, da je ta država članica dolžna povrniti �kodo, ki je bila pod pogoji iz točke 51 zgoraj navedene sodbe Brasserie du Pêcheur in Factortame povzročena posameznikom, kar pa ne izključuje tega, da je na podlagi nacionalnega prava mogoče ugotoviti odgovornost države na podlagi manj omejujočih pogojev.
— Where it is established that the legislation of a Member State constitutes a restriction on freedom of establishment prohibited by Article 43 EC or a restriction on the free movement of capital prohibited by Article 56 EC, the national court may, in order to establish the recoverable losses, determine whether the injured parties have shown reasonable diligence in order to avoid those losses or to limit their extent and whether, in particular, they availed themselves in time of all legal remedies available to them.
– Kadar se izkaže, da zakonodaja države članice pomeni omejitev svobode ustanavljanja, ki je prepovedana s členom 43 ES, ali omejitev prostega pretoka kapitala, ki je prepovedana s členom 56 ES, lahko predložitveno sodi�če pri določitvi �kode, ki jo je treba povrniti, preveri, ali so o�kodovanci ravnali z razumno skrbnostjo, da bi se tej �kodi izognili ali da bi zmanj�ali njen obseg, in zlasti, ali so pravočasno uporabili vsa pravna sredstva, ki so jih imeli na voljo.
However, in order to prevent the exercise of the rights which Articles 43 EC and 56 EC confer on individuals from being rendered impossible or excessively difficult, the national court may determine whether the application of that legislation, coupled, where appropriate, with the relevant provisions of DTCs, would, in any event, have led to the failure of the claims brought by the claimants in the main proceedings before the tax authorities of the Member State concerned.
Vendar pa lahko predložitveno sodi�če zato, da izvajanje pravic, ki se s členoma 43 ES in 56 ES podeljujejo posameznikom, ne bi postalo nemogoče ali preveč oteženo, določi, ali bi uporaba te zakonodaje, po potrebi v povezavi z upo�tevnimi določbami SDO, v vsakem primeru privedla do tega, da tožeče stranke v postopku v glavni stvari pri davčni upravi zadevne države članice s svojimi zahtevki ne bi uspele.
Article 43 EC is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude legislation of a Member State which exempts from corporation tax dividends which a resident company receives from another resident company, when that State imposes corporation tax on dividends which a resident company receives from a nonresident company in which the resident company has a shareholding enabling it to exercise a definite influence over the decisions of that nonresident company and to determine its activities, while at the same time granting a tax credit for the tax actually paid by the company making the distribution in the Member State in which it is resident, provided that the rate of tax applied to foreignsourced dividends is no higher than the rate of tax applied to nationally-sourced dividends and that the tax credit is at least equal to the amount paid in the Member State of the company making the distribution, up to the limit of the amount of the tax charged in the Member State of the company receiving the distribution.
Člen 43 ES je treba razlagati tako, da ne nasprotuje zakonodaji države članice, ki določa oprostitev od davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb za dividende, ki jih družba rezidentka prejme od druge družbe rezidentke, medtem ko s tem davkom obdavči dividende, ki jih družba rezidentka prejme od družbe nerezidentke, v kateri ima družba rezidentka delež, ki ji omogoča določen vpliv na odločitve te družbe in določanje njenih dejavnosti, in v tem primeru prizna davčni odbitek iz naslova davka, ki ga je družba razdeljevalka dividend dejansko plačala v državi članici, v kateri je rezidentka, če davčna stopnja za tuje dividende ni višja od davčne stopnje, ki se uporablja za domače dividende, in če je davčni odbitek najmanj enak znesku, ki je bil plačan v državi članici družbe razdeljevalke dividend, in največ tak kot znesek obdavčitve, ki se uporablja v državi članici družbe prejemnice dividend.
Article 56 EC is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude legislation of a Member State which exempts from corporation tax dividends which a resident company receives from another resident company, when that State imposes corporation tax on dividends which a resident company receives from a nonresident company in which the resident company holds at least 10% of the voting rights, while granting a tax credit for the tax actually paid by the company making the distribution in the Member State in which it is resident, provided that the rate of tax applied to foreignsourced dividends is no higher than the rate of tax applied to nationally-sourced dividends and that the tax credit is at least equal to the amount paid in the Member State of the company making the distribution, up to the limit of the amount of the tax charged in the Member State of the company receiving the distribution.
Člen 56 ES je treba razlagati tako, da ne nasprotuje zakonodaji države članice, ki določa oprostitev od davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb za dividende, ki jih družba rezidentka prejme od druge družbe rezidentke, medtem ko s tem davkom obdavči dividende, ki jih družba rezidentka prejme od družbe nerezidentke, v kateri ima družba rezidentka najmanj 10 % glasovalnih pravic, in v tem primeru prizna davčni odbitek iz naslova davka, ki ga je družba razdeljevalka dividend dejansko plačala v državi članici, v kateri je rezidentka, če davčna stopnja za tuje dividende ni višja od davčne stopnje, ki se uporablja za domače dividende, in če je davčni odbitek najmanj enak znesku, ki je bil plačan v državi članici družbe razdeljevalke dividend, in največ tak kot znesek obdavčitve, ki se uporablja v državi članici družbe prejemnice dividend.
Article 56 EC is, furthermore, to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes legislation of a Member State which exempts from corporation tax dividends
Člen 56 ES je poleg tega treba razlagati tako, da nasprotuje zakonodaji države članice, ki določa oprostitev od davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb
2008 — CASE C-201/05 which a resident company receives from another resident company, where that State levies corporation tax on dividends which a resident company receives from a nonresident company in which it holds less than 10% of the voting rights, without granting the company receiving the dividends a tax credit for the tax actually paid by the company making the distribution in the State in which the latter is resident.
2008 – ZADEVA C-201/05 za dividende, ki jih družba rezidentka prejme od druge družbe rezidentke, medtem ko s tem davkom obdavči dividende, ki jih družba rezidentka prejme od družbe nerezidentke, v kateri ima manj kot 10 % glasovalnih pravic, ne da bi ji priznala davčni odbitek iz naslova davka, ki ga je družba razdeljevalka dividend dejansko plačala v državi, v kateri je rezidentka.
Article 56 EC is to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes legislation of a Member State which allows an exemption from corporation tax for certain dividends received from resident companies by resident insurance com -panies but excludes such an exemption for similar dividends received from nonresident companies, in so far as it entails less favourable treatment of the latter dividends.
Člen 56 ES je treba razlagati tako, da nasprotuje zakonodaji države članice, ki omogoča oprostitev od davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb za nekatere dividende, ki so jih zavarovalniške družbe rezidentke prejele od družb rezidentk, a izključuje tako oprostitev za podobne dividende, prejete od družb nerezidentk, če to pomeni manj ugodno obravnavo teh zadnjih dividend.
Articles 43 EC and 48 EC must be interpreted as precluding the inclusion in the tax base of a resident company established in a Member State of profits made by a controlled foreign company in another Member State, where those profits are subject in that State to a lower level of taxation than that applicable in the first State, unless such inclusion relates only to wholly artificial arrangements intended to escape the national tax normally payable.
Člena 43 ES in 48 ES je treba razlagati tako, da nasprotujeta temu, da se v davčno osnovo družbe rezidentke s sedežem v državi članici vključi dobiček, ki ga je tuja odvisna družba ustvarila v drugi državi članici, kadar za ta dobiček v njej velja raven obdavčitve, ki je nižja od ravni, ki se uporablja v prvi državi, razen če taka vključitev zadeva le povsem umetne konstrukte, namenjene temu, da se obide nacionalni davek, ki bi ga bilo običajno treba plačati.
Accordingly, such a tax measure must not be applied where it is proven, on the basis of objective factors which are ascertainable by third parties, that despite the existence of tax motives, that controlled foreign company is actually established in the host Member State and carries on genuine economic activities there.
Tak obdavčitveni ukrep se zato ne sme izvesti takrat, ko se na podlagi objektivnih elementov, ki jih tretje osebe lahko preverijo, izkaže, da je navedena tuja odvisna družba kljub razlogom davčne narave resnično nameščena v državi članici gostiteljici in v njej opravlja dejanske gospodarske dejavnosti.
Articles 56 EC to 58 EC are to be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State which grants a corporation tax concession in respect of certain dividends received from resident companies by resident com panies but excludes such a concession for dividends received from com panies established in a nonmember country particularly where the grant of that concession is subject to conditions compliance with which can be verified by the competent authorities of that Member State only by obtaining information from the nonmember country where the distributing company is established.
Člene od 56 ES do 58 ES je treba razlagati tako, da ne nasprotujejo zakonodaji države članice, ki priznava davčno ugodnost iz naslova davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb za nekatere dividende, ki jih družbe rezidentke prejmejo od družb rezidentk, tako ugodnost pa izključuje za dividende, prejete od družb s sedežem v tretji državi, zlasti če za odobritev navedene ugodnosti veljajo pogoji, katerih izpolnjevanje lahko pristojni organi te države članice preverijo le s pridobitvijo informacij tretje države, v kateri ima sedež družba razdeljevalka dividend.
In the absence of Community legislation, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction and to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive from Community law, including the classification of claims brought by injured parties before national courts and tribunals.
Če ni ureditve Skupnosti, notranji pravni red vsake države članice določi pristojna sodišča in postopkovna pravila za pravna sredstva, ki zagotavljajo varovanje pravic, ki jih upravičenim subjektom daje pravo Skupnosti, vključno z opredelitvijo tožb, ki jih pri nacionalnih sodiščih vložijo oškodovanci.
As regards other loss or damage which a person may have sustained by reason of a breach of Community law for which a Member State is liable, the latter is under a duty to make reparation for the loss or damage caused to individuals under the conditions set out in paragraph 51 of the judgment in Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame [1996] ECR I-1029, but that does not preclude the State from being liable under less restrictive conditions, where national law so provides.
Glede druge škode, ki bi jo utrpela oseba zaradi kršitve prava Skupnosti, za katero je odgovorna država članica, pa je treba ugotoviti, da je ta država članica dolžna povrniti škodo, ki je bila pod pogoji iz točke 51 sodbe z dne 5. marca 1996 v združenih zadevah Brasserie du Pęcheur in Factortame (C-46/93 in C-48/93) povzročena posameznikom, kar pa ne izključuje tega, da je na podlagi nacionalnega prava mogoče ugotoviti odgovornost države na podlagi manj omejujočih pogojev.
Where it is established that the legislation of a Member State constitutes a restriction on freedom of establishment prohibited by Article 43 EC or a restriction on the free movement of capital prohibited by Article 56 EC, the national court may, in order to establish the recoverable losses, determine whether the injured parties have shown reasonable diligence in order to avoid those losses or to limit their extent and whether, in particular, they availed themselves in time of all legal remedies available to them.
Kadar se izkaže, da zakonodaja države članice pomeni omejitev svobode ustanavljanja, ki je prepovedana s členom 43 ES, ali omejitev prostega pretoka kapitala, ki je prepovedana s členom 56 ES, lahko predložitveno sodišče pri določitvi škode, ki jo je treba povrniti, preveri, ali so oškodovanci ravnali z razumno skrbnostjo, da bi se tej škodi izognili ali da bi zmanjšali njen obseg, in zlasti, ali so pravočasno uporabili vsa pravna sredstva, ki so jih imeli na voljo.
However, in order to prevent the exercise of the rights which Articles 43 EC and 56 EC confer on individuals from being rendered impossible or excessively difficult, the national court may determine whether the application of that legislation, coupled, where appropriate, with the relevant provisions of Double Taxation Conventions, would, in any event, have led to the failure of the claims brought by the claimants in the main proceedings before the tax authorities of the Member State concerned.
Vendar pa lahko predložitveno sodišče zato, da izvajanje pravic, ki se s členoma 43 ES in 56 ES podeljujejo posameznikom, ne bi postalo nemogoče ali preveč oteženo, določi, ali bi uporaba te zakonodaje, po potrebi v povezavi z upoštevnimi določbami sporazumov o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčenja, v vsakem primeru privedla do tega, da tožeče stranke v postopku v glavni stvari pri davčni upravi zadevne države članice s svojimi zahtevki ne bi uspele.
Case C-55/06
Zadeva C-55/06
(Telecommunications — Regulation (EC) No 2887/2000 — Access to the local loop — Principle of costorientation — Costs — Interest on the capital invested — Depreciation of fixed assets — Valuation of local telecommunications infrastructures — Current costs and historic costs — Calculation basis — Actual costs — Costs already paid and forwardlooking costs — Proof of costs — ‘Bottom-up’ and ‘top-down’ analytical models — Detailed national legislation — Margin of discretion of the national regulatory authorities — Judicial review — Procedural autonomy of the Member States — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness — Challenge by the beneficiaries before the courts of decisions authorising the rates of the notified operator — Burden of proof — Supervisory and judicial procedures)
„Telekomunikacije – Uredba (ES) �t. 2887/2000 – Dostop do krajevne zanke – Načelo stro�kovne naravnanosti cen – Stro�ki – Obresti na vloženi kapital – Amortizacija osnovnih sredstev – Ocena krajevne telekomunikacijske infrastrukture – Tekoči in pretekli stro�ki – Osnova za izračun – Dejanski stro�ki – Plačani in predvideni stro�ki – Izkaz stro�kov – Analitični model od spodaj navzgor in od zgoraj navzdol – Podrobna nacionalna zakonodaja – Diskrecijske pravice nacionalnih regulativnih organov – Sodno varstvo – Procesna avtonomija držav članic – Načeli enakovrednosti in učinkovitosti – Sodno izpodbijanje odločitev o odobritvi cen prigla�enemu obratovalcu s strani upravičencev – Dokazno breme – Nadzorni in sodni postopek“
Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro delivered on 18 July 2007 . . . .
Poiaresa Madura, predstavljeni 18. julija 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I - 2938Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 24 April 2008 . . . . . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (četrti senat) z dne 24. aprila 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SUMMARY — CASE C-55/06
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-55/06
Approximation of laws — Telecommunications sector — Unbundled access to the local loop — Regulation No 2887/2000 — Principle that rates for unbundled access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation
Približevanje zakonodaj – Sektor za telekomunikacije – Razvezan dostop do krajevne zanke – Uredba št. 2887/2000 – Načelo stroškovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2887/2000, Art. 3(3))
(Uredba Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta št. 2887/2000, člen 3(3))
Approximation of laws — Telecommunications sector — Unbundled access to the local loop — Regulation No 2887/2000 — Principle that rates for unbundled access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation — Costs
Približevanje zakonodaj – Sektor za telekomunikacije – Razvezan dostop do krajevne zanke – Uredba št. 2887/2000 – Načelo stroškovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke – Stroški
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2887/2000, Art. 4(2)(b))
(Uredba Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta št. 2887/2000, člen 4(2)(b))
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2887/2000, Arts 1(4), and 3(3))
(Uredba Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta št. 2887/2000, člena 1(4) in 3(3))
Approximation of laws — Telecommunications sector — Unbundled access to the local loop — Regulation No 2887/2000 — Principle that rates for unbundled access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation — Monitoring by the national regulatory authorities
Približevanje zakonodaj – Sektor za telekomunikacije – Razvezan dostop do krajevne zanke – Uredba št. 2887/2000 – Načelo stroškovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke – Nadzor, ki ga izvaja nacionalni regulativni organ
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2887/2000, Arts 3(3) and 4(1) and (2))
(Uredba Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta št. 2887/2000, člen. 3(3), in 4(1) in 2)
Approximation of laws — Telecommunications sector — Unbundled access to the local loop — Regulation No 2887/2000 — Principle that rates for unbundled access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation — Application
Približevanje zakonodaj – Sektor za telekomunikacije – Razvezan dostop do krajevne zanke – Uredba št. 2887/2000 – Načelo stroškovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke – Uporaba
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2887/2000, Arts 3(3) and 4(1) and 3))
(Uredba Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta št. 2887/2000, člena 3(3) in 4(1) in (3))
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2887/2000, Arts 3(3) and 4(1); Council Directive 90/387, Art. 5a(3))
(Uredba Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta št. 2887/2000, člena 3(3) in 4(1); Direktiva Sveta 90/387, člen 5a(3))
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2887/2000, Arts 3(3) and 4)
(Uredba Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta št. 2887/2000, člena 3(3) in 4)
upgrading of existing telecommunications infrastructures.
razvoj in nadgradnjo obstoječe telekomunikacijske infrastrukture.
(see paras 60, 61, 64, 69)
(Glej točke 60, 61, 64 in 69.)
The principle that rates for unbundled access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of cost orientation, laid down in Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2887/2000 on unbundled access to the local loop, does not follow the rules of an open competitive market driven by the rules of supply and demand, in the context of which rates for access to the local loop are to be fixed freely on the basis of free competition.
Načelo stro�kovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke, določeno v členu 3(3) Uredbe �t.
On the other hand, in the course of the gradual opening of the telecommunications market to competition, this principle requires notified operators to set the rates for access to the local loop in accordance with the costs incurred in putting it in place, while deriving a reasonable return from the setting of those rates in order to ensure the longterm development and
2887/2000 o razvezanem dostopu do krajevne zanke, ne sledi pravilom odprtega konkurenčnega trga, ki ga narekujejo pravila ponudbe in povpra�evanja, v okviru katerega se cene razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke prosto oblikujejo v skladu s pravili igre proste konkurence.
The interest on the capital invested and the depreciation of the fixed assets deployed for the initial implementation of the local loop are among the costs to be taken into account in accordance with
Nasprotno pa v okviru postopnega odpiranja telekomunikacijskega trga za konkurenco to načelo prigla�enim obratovalcem nalaga obveznost, da cene razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke oblikujejo glede na stro�ke, ki jih imajo za vzpostavitev krajevne zanke, pri čemer jim morajo navedene cene omogočati primeren donos, s katerim zagotavljajo dolgoročni
the principle that rates for unbundled access to the local loop are to be set on the basis of costorientation, laid down in Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2887/2000 on unbundled access to the local loop.
v skladu z načelom stro�kovne naravnanosti cen razvezanega dostopa do krajevne zanke iz člena 3(3) Uredbe �t. 2887/2000 o razvezanem dostopu do krajevne zanke.