natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
At the hearing before the Court, both the appellants in the main proceedings and the Commission submitted that, by virtue of the mortgage mandate at issue, there was sufficient connection between the immovable property inherited and the debt in question.
Na obravnavi pred Sodi�čem so tako tožeče stranke iz postopka v glavni stvari kot tudi Komisija trdile, da zaradi obstoja pooblastila za ustanovitev hipoteke med podedovano nepremičnino in spornim dolgom obstaja zadostna povezava.
The Commission acknowledged, however, that, once the mortgage mandate no longer encumbers the immovable property concerned, which is situated in Belgium, but other immovable properties, the link between the debt and that immovable property could be called into question.
Komisija je kljub temu priznala, da bi lahko bila povezava med dolgom in nepremičnino vpra�ljiva, takoj ko pooblastilo za ustanovitev hipoteke ne bi obremenilo zadevne nepremičnine, ki je v Belgiji, ampak druge nepremičnine.
However, according to the wording of the question referred by the national court, a debt secured by a mortgage mandate relating to an immovable property constitutes a charge on that property.
Vendar, v skladu z vpra�anjem, postavljenim s strani predložitvenega sodi�ča, dolg, zavarovan s pooblastilom za ustanovitev hipoteke, na določeni nepremičnini, ustanavlja breme na tej nepremičnini.
In proceedings under Article 234 EC, the Court of Justice is empowered to rule on the interpretation or validity of Community provisions only
V okviru postopkov, predvidenih v členu 234 ES, je Sodi�če pristojno odločati o razlagi ali veljavnosti prava Skupnosti samo na
ECKELKAMP AND OTHERS on the basis of the facts which the national court puts before it (see, to that effect, Case C-235/95 Dumon and Froment [1998] ECR I-4531, paragraph 25).
ECKELKAMP IN DRUGI podlagi dejstev, ki mu jih predloži nacionalno sodi�če (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 16. julija 1998 v zadevi Dumon in Froment, C-235/95, Recueil, str. I-4531, točka 25).
As is apparent from paragraph 32 of the present judgment, it is for the referring court, not for the Court of Justice, to ascertain the nature and effect under Belgian law of a mortgage mandate such as that at issue in the main proceedings, and to determine whether there is in fact a direct link between the debt being relied on and the immovable property to which the assessment of transfer duties that is at issue in the main proceedings relates.
Kot izhaja iz točke 32 te sodbe, mora predložitveno sodi�če, in ne Sodi�če, v skladu z belgijskim pravom potrditi naravo in učinek pooblastila za ustanovitev hipoteke, kot je pooblastilo, obravnavano v postopku v glavni stvari, ter odločiti, ali obstaja neposredna povezava med dolgom, na katerega se sklicujejo tožeče stranke v glavni stvari, ter nepremičnino, na katero se navezuje izračun davka na prenos lastnine v glavni stvari.
In any event, it must be held that the fact that the deductibility of debts secured on an immovable property is conditional upon the person whose estate is being administered having been resident, at the time of death, in the State in which that immovable property is situated constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital which is prohibited, in principle, under Article 56(1) EC.
V vsakem primeru pa je treba poudariti, da pogojevanje odbitka dolgov, ki bremenijo nepremičnino, s tem, da je bil zapustnik ob svoji smrti rezident države članice, v kateri je nepremičnina, pomeni omejitev prostega pretoka kapitala, ki je načeloma prepovedana s členom 56(1) ES.
Next, it is necessary to consider whether the restriction on the free movement of capital thus established can be justified under the provisions of the Treaty.
Nato je treba ugotoviti, ali je ugotovljena omejitev prostega pretoka kapitala lahko utemeljena z določbami prava Pogodbe.
In that respect, it should be noted that, under Article 58(1)(a) EC, ‘Article 56 shall be without prejudice to the right of Member States … to apply the relevant provisions of their tax law which distinguish between taxpayers who are not in the same situation with regard to their place of residence or with regard to the place where their capital is invested’.
V zvezi s tem je treba v skladu s členom 58(1)(a) ES spomniti, da „[d]oločbe člena 56 ne posegajo v pravice držav članic, da […] uporabljajo ustrezne predpise svojega davčnega prava, v katerih so različno obravnavani davčni zavezanci, ki niso v enakem položaju glede na […] kraj bivali�ča ali glede na kraj, v katerem je naložen njihov kapital“.
It cannot therefore be interpreted as meaning that all tax legislation which draws a distinction between taxpayers based on their place of residence or the Member State in which they invest their capital is automatically compatible with the Treaty (see Jäger, paragraph 40).
Zato te določbe ni mogoče razlagati tako, da naj bi bila vsaka davčna zakonodaja, ki različno obravnava davčne zavezance glede na kraj prebivali�ča ali glede na državo članico, v katero vlagajo svoj kapital, avtomatično združljiva s Pogodbo (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Jäger, točka 40).
The derogation provided for in Article 58(1)(a) EC is itself limited by Article 58(3) EC, which provides that the national provisions referred to in paragraph 1 of that article ‘shall not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on the free movement of capital and payments as defined in Article 56’ (see Case C-35/98 Verkooijen [2000] ECR I-4071, paragraph 44; Case C-319/02 Manninen [2004] ECR I-7477, paragraph 28; and Jäger, paragraph 41).
Izjema, določena v členu 58(1)(a) ES, je namreč omejena s členom 58(3) ES, ki določa, da nacionalne določbe, navedene v odstavku 1 tega člena, „ne smejo biti sredstvo samovoljne diskriminacije ali prikritega omejevanja prostega pretoka kapitala in plačil iz člena 56“ (glej sodbi z dne 6. junija 2000 v zadevi Verkooijen, C-35/98, Recueil, str. I-4071, točka 44, in z dne 7. septembra 2004 v zadevi Manninen, C-319/02, ZOdl., str.
Moreover, in order to be justified, the difference in treatment established in relation to inheritance and transfer duties payable in respect of an immovable property situated in the Kingdom of Belgium between the person who, at the time of death, was residing in that Member State and the person who, at the time of death, was residing in another Member State, must not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective pursued by the legislation at issue.
I-7477, točka 28, ter zgoraj navedeno sodbo Jäger, točka 41). Da bi bilo upravičeno različno obravnavanje oseb, ki so ob svoji smrti prebivale na območju države članice, v kateri je nepremičnina, ki je predmet davka na dedi� -čino ali davka na prenos lastnine, in oseb, ki so ob svoji smrti prebivale v drugi državi članici, ne sme preseči tistega, kar je potrebno za dosego cilja, ki ga zasleduje omenjena ureditev.
A distinction must therefore be made between the unequal treatment permitted under Article 58(1)(a) EC and the arbitrary discrimination prohibited under Article 58(3) EC.
Treba je torej razlikovati med dovoljenim neenakim obravnavanjem iz člena 58(1)(a) ES in prepovedano samovoljno diskriminacijo iz člena 58(3) ES.
According to the caselaw, in order for national tax legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings — which, for the purposes of assessing inheritance tax, makes a distinction with regard to the deductibility of debts secured on an immovable property situated in the Member State concerned according to whether the person whose estate is being administered was residing in that Member State or in another Member State at the time of death — to be considered compatible with the provisions of the Treaty on the free movement of capital, the difference in treatment must concern situations which are not objectively comparable or be justified by overriding reasons in the general interest (see Verkooijen, paragraph 43; Manninen, paragraph 29; and Jäger, paragraph 43).
V skladu s sodno prakso bi se lahko nacionalna davčna ureditev, kot je tista v postopku v glavni stvari, ki pri izračunu davka na dedi�čino glede odbitka dolgov, ki bremenijo nepremičnino, ki je v zadevni državi članici, dela razliko med tem, ali je zapustnik ob svoji smrti živel v tej državi članici ali v drugi državi članici, obravnavala kot združljiva z določbami Pogodbe o prostem pretoku kapitala le takrat, kadar se razlika v obravnavi nana�a na primere, ki med seboj niso objektivno primerljivi, oziroma če je to upravičeno z nujnim razlogom v splo�nem interesu (glej zgoraj navedene sodbe Verkooijen, točka 43; Manninen, točka 29, in Jäger, točka 43).
In that respect, it must be stated first that, contrary to the Belgian Government’s contention, which is set out in paragraph 47 of the present judgment, that difference in treatment cannot be justified on the ground that it concerns situations which are not objectively comparable.
V tem pogledu je treba najprej ugotoviti, da, v nasprotju s trditvami belgijske vlade, navedenimi v točki 47 te sodbe, različno obravnavanje ne more biti utemeljeno zato, ker se nana�a na primere, ki niso objektivno primerljivi.
Subject to the investigations to be undertaken by the national court as to the nature and effect of a mortgage mandate and as to whether the mandate at issue in the main proceedings constitutes a charge on the immovable property in question — as it would appear on the basis of the case-file — the assessment of inheritance and
Z morebitno izjemo preizkusa, ki ga mora predložitveno sodi�če opraviti glede narave in učinka pooblastila za ustanovitev hipoteke in vpra�anja, ali zadevno pooblastilo bremeni sporno nepremičnino, ki je del zapu�čine, kar se zdi, da izhaja iz spisa, je namreč izračun davka na dedi�čino in davka na prenos lastnine, v skladu
ECKELKAMP AND OTHERS transfer duties is, under that legislation, directly linked to the value of that immovable property.
ECKELKAMP IN DRUGI s to zakonodajo, neposredno povezan z vrednostjo te nepremičnine.
In that case, there cannot objectively be any difference in situation such as to justify unequal tax treatment so far as concerns the level of inheritance and transfer duties payable in relation to, respectively, an immovable property situated in Belgium which belongs to a person residing in that Member State at the time of death, and an immovable property belonging to a person residing in another Member State at the time of death.
V tem primeru objektivno ni nobene razlike med položajema nepremičnine v Belgiji, ki pripada osebi, ki ob svoji smrti prebiva v tej državi, in nepremičnine, ki pripada osebi, ki ob svoji smrti prebiva v drugi državi članici, ki bi lahko upravičila neenakost dav -čnega obravnavanja glede vi�ine davka na dedi�čino in davka na prenos lastnine glede premoženja. Zato je primer dedičev R. H.
As the appellants in the main proceedings have stated, the Belgian legislation deems, in principle, both the heirs of resident persons and the heirs of persons who were nonresident at the time of death to be taxable persons for the purposes of collecting inheritance and/or transfer duties on immovable properties situated in Belgium.
Kot so navedle tožeče stranke iz postopka v glavni stvari, upo�tevna belgijska ureditev, v načelu, tako dediče rezidentov kot tudi dediče oseb, ki ob svoji smrti niso bile rezidenti, �teje za davčne zavezance za pobiranje davka na dedi�čino in/ali davka na prenos lastnine za nepremičnino, ki je v Belgiji.
It is only in respect of the deduction of debts from the inheritance of nonresidents that nonresidents and residents are treated differently.
Razlika v obravnavi rezidentov in nerezidentov se pojavi samo pri odbitku dolgov od zapu�čine nerezidentov.
Where national legislation places the heirs of a person who, at the time of death, had the status of resident and those of a person who, at the time of death, had the status of nonresident on the same footing for the purposes of taxing an inherited immovable property which is situated in the Member State concerned, that legislation cannot, without giving rise to discrimination, treat those heirs differently in the taxation of that property so far as concerns the deductibility of charges secured on it.
Kadar nacionalna ureditev dediče oseb, ki so bile ob svoji smrti rezidenti, in dediče oseb, ki ob svoji smrti niso bile rezidenti, pri izračunu davka na podedovano nepremičnino, ki je v zadevni državi članici, postavlja na isto raven, taka ureditev v okviru te iste obdavčitve, glede odbitka dolga, ki bremeni to nepremičnino, teh dedičev ne sme, ne da bi bila diskriminatorna, obravnavati različno.
It is necessary, finally, to examine whether the restriction on the movement of capital resulting from legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings may be ob -jectively justified by an overriding reason in the general interest.
Nazadnje je treba raziskati, ali je omejitev pretoka kapitala, ki izhaja iz ureditve, kot je ureditev v postopku v glavni stvari, lahko objektivno upravičena zaradi nujnega razloga v splo�nem interesu.
The Belgian Government contends that, in view of the German legislation applicable to a deceased’s assets, the debt in respect of which the appellants are claiming a deduction in Belgium would, in practice, be deducted twice, which, according to the caselaw of the Court of Justice (Case C-446/03 Marks & Spencer [2005] ECR I-10837), is to be avoided. 66
Belgijska vlada trdi, da bi bil v skladu z nem�ko zakonodajo, ki se uporabi za zapustničino premoženje, dolg, katerega odbitek tožeče stranke zahtevajo v Belgiji, praktično odbit dvakrat, čemur bi se v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodi�ča morali izogibati (sodba z dne 13. decembra 2005 v zadevi Marks & Spencer, C-446/03, ZOdl., str. I-10837). 66
In that regard, it must be borne in mind, first of all, that the Court has, in its caselaw on the free movement of capital and inheritance duties, held that a citizen cannot be deprived of the right to rely on the provisions of the Treaty on the ground that he is profiting from tax advantages which are legally provided for by the rules in force in a Member State other than his State of residence (Barbier, paragraph 71).
V tem pogledu je treba najprej spomniti, da ustaljena sodna praksa o prostem pretoku kapitala in davku na dedi�čino določa, da državljana Skupnosti ni mogoče prikraj�ati za pravico, da se sklicuje na določbe Pogodbe, ker ima korist od davčnih ugodnosti, ki so zakonito določene v državi članici, ki ni država prebivali�ča (zgoraj navedena sodba Barbier, točka 71).
Next, as has been noted in paragraph 13 of the present judgment, there is no agreement between the Kingdom of Belgium and the Federal Republic of Germany for the prevention of double taxation of succession duties.
Nato je treba spomniti, da kot izhaja iz točke 13 te sodbe, med Kraljevino Belgijo in Zvezno republiko Nemčijo ne obstaja konvencija o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja dedi�čine.
The Member State in which the immovable property included in the estate is situated cannot, in order to justify a restriction on the free movement of capital arising from its legislation, rely on the existence of a possibility, beyond its control, of a tax credit being granted by another Member State — such as the Member State in which the person whose estate is being administered was residing at the time of death — which could, wholly or partly, offset the loss incurred by that person’s heirs as a result of the fact that, in the Member State in which the property inherited is situated, debts secured on that property are not deductible for the purposes of assessing transfer duties (see, to that effect, Arens-Sikken, paragraph 65).
Država članica, v kateri je nepremičnina, ki je del dedi�čine, se za utemeljitev omejitve prostega pretoka kapitala, ki izhaja iz njene ureditve, ne more sklicevati na možnost, ki ni odvisna od njene volje, in sicer davčnega odbitka s strani druge države članice, kot je država članica, katere rezident je bil zapustnik ob svoji smrti, ki bi delno ali v celoti lahko izravnal �kodo, ki bi nastala dedičem te osebe, ker se v državi članici, v kateri je nepremičnina, dolgovi nepremičnine pri izračunu davka na prenos lastnine ne odbijejo (glej v tem smislu tudi zgoraj navedeno sodbo Arens-Sikken, točka 65).
A Member State cannot rely on the existence of a tax advantage granted unilaterally by another Member State — in the present case, the Member State in which the person concerned was residing at the time of her death — in order to escape its obligations under the Treaty and, in particular, under the Treaty provisions relating to the free movement of capital (see, to that effect, Case C-379/05 Amurta [2007] ECR I-9569, paragraph 78).
Država članica se namreč ne more zana�ati na davčne ugodnosti, ki jih enostransko zagotavlja druga država članica, v tem primeru država članica, katere rezidentka je bila zapustnica ob svoji smrti, da bi se izognila obveznostim iz Pogodbe in, zlasti, določbam Pogodbe, ki se nana�ajo na prosti pretok kapitala (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 8. novembra 2007 v zadevi Amurta, C-379/05, ZOdl., str. I-9569, točka 78).
Finally, it is apparent from the case-file submitted to the Court that, in relation to the assessment of transfer duties, the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings simply excludes altogether the deduction of debts secured on immovable property left as inheritance where the person concerned was not, at the time of death, residing in that Member State, in which the property included in the estate is situated, without the treatment of those debts and, in particular, the absence of a tax credit in another Member State, such as the Member State in which the deceased was residing, being taken into consideration.
Končno, iz spisa, predloženega Sodi�ču, v zvezi z izračunom davka na prenos lastnine izhaja, da nacionalna ureditev, ki je predmet postopka v glavni stvari, preprosto izključuje odbitek dolgov, ki bremenijo nepremičnino, ki je predmet dedovanja, če zapustnik ob svoji smrti ni bil rezident države članice, v kateri je nepremičnina, ki je predmet dedovanja, pri čemer se obravnava teh dolgov, zlasti odsotnosti davčnega odbitka v drugi državi članici, kot je država članica, v kateri je prebival zapustnik, ne upo�teva.
The answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling must therefore be that the combined provisions of Articles 56 EC and 58 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, concerning the assessment of inheritance and transfer duties payable in respect of an immovable property situated in a Member State, which makes no provision for the deductibility of debts secured on such property where the person whose estate is being administered was residing, at the time of death, not in that State but in another Member State, whereas provision is made for such deductibility where that person was, at that time, residing in the firstmentioned Member State, in which the immovable property included in the estate is situated.
Zato je treba na vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje odgovoriti, da je treba povezani določbi členov 56 ES in 58 ES razlagati tako, da nasprotujeta nacionalni ureditvi, kot je ta, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, o izračunu davka na dedi�čino in davka na prenos lastnine za nepremičnino, ki je v državi članici, ki ne predvideva odbitka dolgov v zvezi s to nepremičnino, če zapustnik ob svoji smrti ni prebival v tej, ampak v drugi državi članici, medtem ko je tak odbitek dovoljen, če je zapustnik ob svoji smrti prebival v prvonavedeni državi članici, v kateri je nepremičnina, ki je predmet dedovanja.
Having regard to the foregoing, there is no need to answer the question referred for a preliminary ruling in so far as it concerns the interpretation of Articles 12 EC, 17 EC and 18 EC.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno ni treba odgovoriti na vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje v delu, ki se nana�a na razlago členov 12 ES, 17 ES in 18 ES.
The combined provisions of Articles 56 EC and 58 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, concerning the assessment of inheritance and transfer duties payable in respect of an immovable property situated in a Member State, which makes no provision for the deductibility of debts secured on such property where the person whose estate is being administered was residing, at the time of death, not in that State but in another Member State, whereas provision is made for such deductibility where that person was, at that time, residing in the firstmentioned Member State, in which the immovable property included in the estate is situated.
Povezani določbi členov 56 ES in 58 ES je treba razlagati tako, da nasprotujeta nacionalni ureditvi, kot je ta, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, o izračunu davka na dediščino in davka na prenos lastnine za nepremičnino, ki je v državi članici, ki ne predvideva odbitka dolgov v zvezi s to nepremičnino, če zapustnik ob svoji smrti ni prebival v tej, ampak v drugi državi članici, medtem ko je tak odbitek dovoljen, če je zapustnik ob svoji smrti prebival v prvonavedeni državi članici, v kateri je nepremičnina, ki je predmet dedovanja.
Case C-43/07
Zadeva C-43/07
(Free movement of capital — Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 EC and 58 EC respectively) — National rules concerning inheritance duties and transfer duties which do not provide for the deduction, in the assessment of those duties, of overendowment debts resulting from a testamentary parental partition inter vivos where the person whose estate is being administered was not residing, at the time of death, in the Member State in which the immovable property included in the estate is situated — Restriction — Justification — None — No bilateral agreement for the prevention of double taxation — Consequences for the restriction of the free movement of capital of a lower level of compensation to prevent double taxation in that person’s Member State of residence)
„Prosti pretok kapitala – Člena 73b in 73d Pogodbe ES (postala člena 56 ES in 58 ES) – Nacionalna ureditev, ki se nana�a na davek na dedi�čino in na prenos premoženja in v kateri pri izračunu navedenih davkov ni predviden odbitek dolgov zaradi presežne pridobitve, ki so posledica oporočne delitve zapu�čine star�ev inter vivos, kadar oseba, po kateri je uvedeno dedovanje, ob svoji smrti ni prebivala v državi članici, v kateri je podedovana nepremičnina – Omejitev – Utemeljitev – Neobstoj – Neobstoj dvostranske konvencije o izogibanju dvojnemu obdavčevanju – Učinki nižje olaj�ave v državi članici, kjer ima navedena oseba prebivali�če, uvedene z namenom izogibanja dvojnemu obdavčevanju, na omejitev prostega pretoka kapitala“
Free movement of capital — Restrictions — Inheritance tax(EC Treaty, Arts 73b and 73d (now Arts 56 EC and 58 EC))
Prosti pretok kapitala – Omejitve – Davek na dediščino(Pogodba ES, člena 73b in 73d (postala člena 56 ES in 58 ES))
SUMMARY — CASE C-43/07 which are not objectively comparable.
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-43/07 objektivno primerljiva.
Where national legislation places the heirs of a person who, at the time of death, had the status of resident and those of a person who, at the time of death, had the status of nonresident on the same footing for the purposes of taxing an inherited immovable property which is situated in the Member State concerned, that legislation cannot, without giving rise to discrimination, treat those heirs differently in the taxation of that property so far as concerns the deductibility of charges secured on it.
Če so v nacionalni ureditvi dediči osebe, ki je bila ob svoji smrti rezident, in osebe, ki je bila ob svoji smrti nerezident, glede obdavčitve podedovane nepremičnine, ki je v zadevni državi članici, postavljeni v isti položaj, se ne morejo v okviru iste obdavčitve glede možnosti odbitka stro�kov, povezanih s to nepremičnino, različno obravnavati, ne da bi to povzročilo diskriminacijo.