natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the light of the preceding considerations, 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 CFC 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.
Glede na zgornje ugotovitve je treba člena 43 ES in 48 ES razlagati tako, da nasprotujeta temu, da se v davčno osnovo družbe rezidentke s sedežem v državi članici vključi dobiček, ki ga je TOD 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 CFC is actually established in the host Member State and carries on genuine economic activities there (Cadbury Schweppes and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, paragraph 75).
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 TOD kljub razlogom davčne narave resnično name�čena v državi članici gostiteljici in v njej opravlja dejanske gospodarske dejavnosti (zgoraj navedena sodba Cadbury Schweppes in Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, točka 75).
As regards, secondly, compliance requirements to which the exemption for a CFC’s profits in the hands of a resident company is subject, it is appropriate to point out, first, that in Cadbury Schweppes and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, the Court held that the resident company is best placed to establish that it has not entered into 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 and that it must be given an opportunity to produce evidence that the CFC is actually established and that its activities are genuine (Cadbury Schweppes and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, paragraph 70).
Kar zadeva, drugič, zahteve skladnosti, ki veljajo za oprostitev dobička TOD pri družbi rezidentki, je treba navesti, da je po eni strani Sodi�če v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Cadbury Schweppes in Cadbury Schweppes Overseas odločilo, da družba rezidentka najlaže dokaže, da se ni zatekla k povsem umetnim konstruktom, brez gospodarske resničnosti, z namenom, da bi se izognila davku na dobiček, ustvarjenim z dejavnostjo na nacionalnem ozemlju, ki bi ga bilo običajno treba plačati, in da mora biti sposobna predložiti dokaze v zvezi z resničnostjo namestitve TOD in dejanskostjo njenih dejavnosti (zgoraj navedena sodba Cadbury Schweppes in Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, točka 70).
In the present context, those compliance requirements are inherent in the assessment, referred to in paragraph 81 of the present order, on which the compatibility of the legislation on CFCs rests.
V tem okviru so zahteve skladnosti del presoje, navedene v točki 81 tega sklepa, na kateri temelji združljivost zakonodaje o TOD.
Secondly, in Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, the Court held that national legislation which provides for a consideration of objective and verifiable elements in order to determine whether a transaction represents a purely artificial arrangement, entered into for tax reasons alone, is to be considered as not going beyond what is necessary to prevent abusive practices where, on each occasion on which the existence of such an arrangement cannot be ruled out, the taxpayer is given an opportunity, without being subject to undue administrative constraints, to provide evidence of any commercial justification that there may have been for that arrangement (Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, paragraph 82).
Po drugi strani je Sodi�če v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation odločilo, da je treba �teti, da nacionalna zakonodaja, ki temelji na presoji objektivnih in preverljivih dokazov za določitev, ali ima transakcija značaj povsem umetnega konstrukta z izključno davčnimi nameni, ne presega tistega, kar je potrebno za preprečitev zlorab, kadar v vsakem primeru, v katerem obstoja takega konstrukta ni mogoče izključiti, davčnemu zavezancu omogoča, in to brez prekomernih upravnih zahtev, da predloži dokaze v zvezi z morebitnimi poslovnimi razlogi, iz katerih je bila sklenjena ta transakcija (zgoraj navedena sodba Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, točka 82).
Consequently, Articles 43 EC and 48 EC are to be interpreted as not precluding tax legislation of a Member State which imposes certain compliance requirements where the resident company seeks exemption from taxes already paid on the profits of that CFC in the State in which it is resident, provided that the aim of those requirements is to verify that the CFC is actually established and that its economic activities are genuine without that entailing undue administrative constraints.
Zato je treba člena 43 ES in 48 ES razlagati tako, da ne nasprotujeta davčni zakonodaji države članice, v kateri so naložene nekatere zahteve skladnosti, kadar družba rezidentka namerava uporabiti oprostitev za davke, ki so že bili plačani od dobička te TOD v državi, v kateri je rezidentka, če je cilj teh zahtev preveriti resničnost namestitve TOD in dejanskost njenih gospodarskih dejavnosti, ne da bi to vključevalo prekomerne upravne zahteve.
The reply to the third question must therefore be:
Na tretje vpra�anje je torej treba odgovoriti:
— 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 CFC 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 TOD 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 CFC 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 TOD kljub razlogom davčne narave resnično name�čena v državi članici gostiteljici in v njej opravlja dejanske gospodarske dejavnosti;
— however, Articles 43 EC and 48 EC are to be interpreted as not precluding national tax legislation which imposes certain compliance requirements where the resident company seeks exemption from taxes already paid on the profits of that CFC in the State in which it is resident, provided that the aim of those requirements is to verify that the CFC is actually established and that its activities are genuine without that entailing undue administrative constraints.
– vendar pa je treba člena 43 ES in 48 ES razlagati tako, da ne nasprotujeta nacionalni davčni zakonodaji, ki nalaga nekatere zahteve skladnosti, kadar družba rezidentka namerava uporabiti oprostitev za davke, ki so že bili plačani od dobička te odvisne družbe v državi, v kateri je rezidentka, če je cilj teh zahtev preveriti resničnost namestitve TOD in dejanskost njenih gospodarskih dejavnosti, ne da bi to vključevalo prekomerne upravne zahteve.
By its fourth question, the national court is asking the Court whether the answers to the first to third questions would be different were the nonresident company established in a nonmember country.
Predložitveno sodi�če s četrtim vpra�anjem spra�uje Sodi�če, ali bi bil odgovor na prvo, drugo in tretje vpra�anje drugačen, če bi imela družba nerezidentka sedež v tretji državi.
There is therefore no need, in the light of the answers given to the first to third questions, to reply to the fourth question, other than in respect of measures which Article 56 EC precludes.
Na četrto vpra�anje je torej treba odgovoriti samo v zvezi z ukrepi, ki jim člen 56 ES nasprotuje glede na odgovore na prvo, drugo in tretje vpra�anje.
In that regard, it should be noted that Article 56(1) EC gave effect to the liberalisation of capital movements between the Member States and between Member and nonmember States.
V zvezi s tem je treba spomniti, da je bila s členom 56(1) ES uresničena liberalizacija pretoka kapitala med državami članicami ter med državami članicami in tretjimi državami.
To that end, it provides, in the chapter of the Treaty entitled ‘Capital and payments’, that all restrictions on the movement of capital between Member States and between Member and nonmember States are prohibited (Joined Cases C-163/94, C-165/94 and C-250/94 Sanz de Lera and Others [1995] ECR I-4821, paragraph 19; van Hiltenvan der Heijden, cited above, paragraph 37; and A, cited above, paragraph 20).
V zvezi s tem je v njem določeno, da so v okviru poglavja z naslovom „Kapital in plačila“ prepovedane vse omejitve pretoka kapitala med državami članicami ter med državami članicami in tretjimi državami (sodba z dne 14. decembra 1995 v združenih zadevah Sanz de Lera in drugi, C-163/94, C-165/94 in C-250/94, Recueil, str. I-4821, točka 19, ter zgoraj navedeni sodbi van Hilten-van der Heijden, točka 37, in A, točka 20).
Furthermore, the Court has already held that, as regards the movement of capital between Member and nonmember States, Article 56(1) EC, in conjunction with Articles 57 EC and 58 EC, may be relied on before national courts and may render national rules that are inconsistent with it inapplicable, irrespective of the category of capital movement in question (A, paragraph 27).
Poleg tega je Sodi�če že odločilo, da se je v zvezi s pretokom kapitala med državami članicami in tretjimi državami pred nacionalnim sodi�čem mogoče sklicevati na člen 56(1) ES v povezavi s členoma 57 ES in 58 ES in da lahko privede do neuporabe nacionalnih pravil, ki jim nasprotujejo, ne glede na kategorijo spornega pretoka kapitala (zgoraj navedena sodba A, točka 27).
Admittedly, it is clear from the caselaw of the Court that the extent to which the Member States are authorised to apply certain restrictive measures on the movement
Res je, da iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča izhaja, da obsega, v katerem države članice lahko uporabljajo nekatere omejevalne ukrepe v zvezi s pretokom kapitala, ni mogoče določiti brez upo�tevanja dejstva, da pretok kapitala v tretjo državo ali iz nje poteka v drugačnem pravnem okviru kot pretok kapitala, do katerega pride v Skupnosti.
Accordingly, because of the degree of legal integration that exists between Community Member States, in particular by reason of the presence of Community legislation which seeks to ensure cooperation between national tax authorities, such as Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation (OJ 1977 L 336, p.
Tako zaradi stopnje pravne integracije med državami članicami Unije in zlasti obstoja zakonodajnih ukrepov Skupnosti, ki se nana�ajo na sodelovanje med nacionalnimi davčnimi organi, kot je Direktiva Sveta 77/799/EGS z dne 19. decembra 1977 o medsebojni pomoči pristojnih organov držav članic na področju neposredne obdavčitve (UL L 336, str.
15), the taxation by a Member State of economic activities having cross-border aspects which take place within the Community is not always comparable to that of economic activities involving relations between Member States and third countries (Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 170).
15), obdavčevanje gospodarskih dejavnosti s čezmejnimi vidiki, ki se opravljajo v Skupnosti, ki ga izvaja država članica, ni vedno primerljivo z obdavčevanjem gospodarskih dejavnosti, ki vsebujejo elemente razmerij med državami članicami in tretjimi državami (zgoraj navedena sodba Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, točka 170).
It may also be that a Member State will be able to demonstrate that a restriction on the movement of capital to or from third countries is justified for a particular reason in circumstances where that reason would not constitute a valid justification for a restriction on capital movements between Member States (A, paragraphs 36 and 37).
Izključiti ni mogoče niti, da bi država članica lahko dokazala, da je omejevanje pretoka kapitala v tretje države ali iz njih upravičeno iz razloga, danega v okoli�činah, v katerih ta razlog ne bi pomenil veljavne utemeljitve za omejevanje pretoka kapitala med državami članicami (zgoraj navedena sodba A, točki 36 in 37).
As regards the grounds advanced by the United Kingdom Government to justify the national measures to which the first and second questions refer, particularly the need to ensure the cohesion of the tax system, that Government put forward no evidence explaining how those grounds justify those measures in relations between a Member State and nonmember countries.
V zvezi z razlogi, ki jih navaja vlada Združenega kraljestva, da bi upravičila nacionalne ukrepe, na katere se nana�ata prvo in drugo vpra�anje, zlasti potrebo po zagotovitvi doslednosti davčnega sistema, je treba ugotoviti, da ta vlada ni navedla nobenega elementa, s katerim bi pojasnila, kako ti razlogi upravičujejo navedene ukrepe v odnosih med državo članico in tretjimi državami.
Moreover, as regards the difficulties associated with the verification of compliance with certain requirements by companies established in third countries, the Court decided, in the context of the free movement of capital, that, where the legislation of a Member State makes the grant of a tax advantage dependent on satisfying requirements, compliance with which can be verified only by obtaining information from the competent authorities of a third country, it is, in principle, legitimate for that Member State to refuse to grant that advantage if, in particular, because that third
Poleg tega je Sodi�če v zvezi s težavami, povezanimi s preverjanjem, ali družbe s sedežem v tretjih državah izpolnjujejo določene pogoje, v okviru prostega pretoka kapitala menilo, da kadar je uporaba davčne ugodnosti v ureditvi države članice odvisna od izpolnitve pogojev, katerih izpolnjevanje se lahko preveri le s pridobitvijo informacij pristojnih organov tretje države, lahko ta država članica načeloma
2008 — CASE C-201/05 country is not under any contractual obligation to provide information, it proves impossible to obtain such information from that country (A, paragraph 63).
2008 – ZADEVA C-201/05 legitimno zavrne odobritev te ugodnosti, če se pridobitev informacij iz te države izkaže za nemogočo, predvsem ker za to tretjo državo ne obstaja pogodbena obveznost predložitve informacij (zgoraj navedena sodba A, točka 63).
Therefore, it follows from that judgment that Articles 56 EC to 58 EC are to be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State under which a tax concession in respect of dividends may be granted only if the distributing company is established in a State within the European Economic Area or a State with which a taxation convention providing for the exchange of information has been concluded by the Member State imposing the tax, where 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 State of establishment of the distributing company (see, to that effect, A, paragraph 67).
Iz te sodbe torej izhaja, da je treba člene od 56 ES do 58 ES razlagati tako, da ne nasprotujejo zakonodaji države članice, na podlagi katere se davčna ugodnost iz naslova davka od dividend lahko odobri le, če ima družba razdeljevalka dividend sedež v državi članici Evropskega gospodarskega prostora ali v državi, s katero je država članica obdavčitve sklenila davčno konvencijo, s katero je določena izmenjava informacij, če za to ugodnost veljajo pogoji, katerih izpolnjevanje lahko pristojni organi te države članice preverijo le s pridobitvijo informacij države, v kateri ima sedež družba razdeljevalka dividend (v zvezi s tem glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo A, točka 67).
Having regard to the foregoing considerations, the reply to the fourth question referred for a preliminary ruling must be that 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 companies but excludes such a concession for dividends received from companies 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.
Glede na zgornje ugotovitve je treba na četrto vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje odgovoriti, da je treba člene od 56 ES do 58 ES 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.
By its fifth question, the national court is asking, in essence, whether, where a Member State adopted, prior to 31 December 1993, the measures outlined in the
Predložitveno sodi�če s petim vpra�anjem v bistvu spra�uje, ali je treba, če je država članica pred 31. decembrom 1993 sprejela ukrepe, opisane v prvem, drugem in
TEST CLAIMANTS IN THE CFC AND DIVIDEND GROUP LITIGATION first to third questions and, after that date, amended those measures in the manner described in the decision making the reference and, if those measures, as amended, constitute restrictions prohibited by Article 56 EC, are those restrictions to be taken to be restrictions which did not exist on 31 December 1993 for the purposes of Article 57 EC.
TEST CLAIMANTS IN THE CFC AND DIVIDEND GROUP LITIGATION tretjem vpra�anju, in po tem datumu te ukrepe spremenila na način, opisan v predložitveni odločbi, in če ti ukrepi, kot so bili spremenjeni, pomenijo omejitve, prepovedane s členom 56 ES, te omejitve �teti kot omejitve, ki niso obstajale 31. decembra 1993 v smislu člena 57 ES.
In that regard, first, pursuant to Article 57(1) EC, the provisions of Article 56 EC are without prejudice to the application to third countries of any restrictions which existed on 31 December 1993 under national or Community law adopted in respect of the movement of capital to or from third countries involving direct investment — including in real estate —, establishment, the provision of financial services or the admission of securities to capital markets.
V zvezi s tem je treba, prvič, spomniti, da v skladu s členom 57(1) ES člen 56 ES ne posega v uporabo tistih omejitev za tretje države, ki veljajo po notranjem pravu ali pravu Skupnosti na dan 31. decembra 1993 in so bile sprejete glede pretoka kapitala v tretje države ali iz njih, nana�ajo pa se na neposredne naložbe, tudi naložbe v nepremičnine, ustanavljanje, opravljanje finančnih storitev ali na sprejetje vrednostnih papirjev na trge kapitala.
There is therefore no need, in the light of the answers given to the first to third questions, to reply to the fifth question, other than in respect of measures which Article 56 EC precludes.
Na peto vpra�anje je torej treba odgovoriti samo v zvezi z ukrepi, ki jim člen 56 ES nasprotuje glede na odgovore na prvo, drugo in tretje vpra�anje.
On the basis of the information provided by the national court as to the national legal provisions applicable in the main proceedings, the fifth question arises, as the Commission pointed out in the observations it submitted to the Court, only in relation to the third question.
Ugotoviti je treba, da se peto vpra�anje na podlagi informacij, ki jih je zagotovilo predložitveno sodi�če o nacionalnem pravnem okviru, ki se uporablja v zadevi v glavni stvari, postavlja, kot je navedla Komisija v stali�čih, predloženih Sodi�ču, samo v zvezi s tretjim vpra�anjem.
As regards the national measures held to be contrary to Article 56 EC in the answers given to the first and second questions, the referring court provides no information enabling it to be established whether those measures were adopted before 31 December 1993 and amended after that date in a way that might be relevant for the purposes of applying Article 57(1) EC.
Kar zadeva nacionalne ukrepe, za katere se v odgovorih na prvo in drugo vpra�anje �teje, da so v nasprotju s členom 56 ES, predložitveno sodi�če namreč ni predložilo nobenega podatka, na podlagi katerega bi bilo mogoče preveriti, da so bili navedeni ukrepi sprejeti pred 31. decembrom 1993 in spremenjeni po tem datumu na način, ki bi bil primeren za namene uporabe člena 57(1) ES.
There is therefore no need to reply to the fifth question in so far as it refers to the first and second questions.
Zato ni treba odgovoriti na peto vpra�anje v delu, ki se nana�a na prvo in drugo vpra�anje.
As regards, secondly, the fifth question in so far as it refers to the third question, it must be recalled that, in the answer given to the latter question in the present order, it was stated that since the legislation on CFCs concerns the taxation, under certain conditions, of the profits of subsidiary companies established outside the United Kingdom in which a resident company has a controlling holding, that legislation must be examined in the light of Articles 43 EC and 48 EC.
Kar zadeva, drugič, peto vpra�anje, v delu, ki se nana�a na tretje vpra�anje, je treba spomniti, da je bilo v odgovoru na to zadnje vpra�anje v tem sklepu pojasnjeno, da je treba zakonodajo o TOD, ker se pod določenimi pogoji nana�a na obdavčitev dobička hčerinskih družb s sedežem zunaj Združenega kraljestva, v katerih ima družba rezidentka delež, ki ji zagotavlja nadzor nad njimi, preučiti glede na člena 43 ES in 48 ES.
Thus, first, the answer given by the Court to the third question makes no reference whatsoever to Article 56 EC.
Tako se po eni strani odgovor Sodi�ča na tretje vpra�anje nikakor ne nana�a na člen 56 ES.