natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, as the Advocate General noted at point 107 of his Opinion, the payment of the concession granted in Article 28(1)(b) of the Law on corporation tax, in conjunction with Article 6 of the Royal Decree, results, not from the automatic application of such a bilateral tax convention, but from the unilateral decision of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to extend the benefit of such conventions to fiscal investment enterprises.
Vendar pa, kot je poudaril generalni pravobranilec v točki 107 sklepnih predlogov, plačilo nadomestila iz člena 28(1)(b) zakona o davku od dobička pravnih oseb v povezavi s členom 6 kraljeve uredbe sploh ni posledica avtomatske uporabe take dvostranske davčne konvencije, ampak enostranske odločitve Kraljevine Nizozemske, da ugodnost iz te konvencije raz�iri na kolektivne naložbene podjeme, ki imajo davčni značaj.
While, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 48 and 49 of this judgment, such a unilateral decision cannot, by itself, be regarded as being contrary to Community law, it is necessary to determine whether the resulting difference in treatment entails a restriction on the free movement of capital.
Če iz razlogov, navedenih v točkah 48 in 49 te sodbe, ni mogoče �teti, da taka enostranska odločitev sama po sebi nasprotuje pravu Skupnosti, je treba ugotoviti, ali različno obravnavanje, ki iz nje izhaja, pomeni omejitev prostega pretoka kapitala.
By excluding from the concession (relating to the taxation at source of dividends received abroad) dividends originating in certain Member States, legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings makes investment in those Member States
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da ima zakonodaja, kot se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, z izključitvijo dividend iz določenih držav članic od nadomestila za obdavčitev pri viru dividend, prejetih v tujini, za posledico to, da so naložbe v te
ORANGE EUROPEAN SMALLCAP FUND less appealing than investment in the Member States in which the taxation at source of those dividends gives rise to that concession.
ORANGE EUROPEAN SMALLCAP FUND države članice manj vabljive kot naložbe v države članice, katerih davčni odtegljaji od dividend imajo za posledico to nadomestilo.
Such legislation is therefore liable to deter a collective investment enterprise from investing in the Member States in which the taxation of dividends does not give rise to the concession and accordingly constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital prohibited in principle by Article 56 EC.
Taka zakonodaja lahko zato kolektivni naložbeni podjem odvrne od vlaganja v države članice, katerih odtegljaji od dividend nimajo za posledico nadomestila, tako da pomeni omejitev prostega pretoka kapitala, ki jo člen 56 ES načeloma prepoveduje.
However, Article 58(1)(a) EC provides that ‘[t]he provisions of Article 56 [EC] 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 … the place where their capital is invested’.
Vendar pa člen 58(1)(a) ES določa, 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, v katerem je naložen njihov kapital“.
It must also be noted that the derogation under Article 58(1)(a) EC is itself restricted 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 [EC]’ (see Case C-319/02 Manninen [2004] ECR I-7477, paragraph 28).
Prav tako je treba poudariti, da je odstopanje iz člena 58(1)(a) ES omejeno s členom 58(3) ES, ki določa, da nacionalne določbe iz odstavka 1 tega člena „ne smejo biti sredstvo samovoljne diskriminacije ali prikritega omejevanja prostega pretoka kapitala in plačil iz člena 56 [ES]“ (glej sodbo z dne 7. septembra 2004 v zadevi Manninen, C-319/02, ZOdl., str. I-7477, točka 28).
Therefore, the unequal treatment permitted under Article 58(1)(a) EC must be distinguished from the discrimination prohibited by Article 58(3) EC.
Razlikovati je torej treba med dovoljenim neenakim obravnavanjem iz člena 58(1)(a) ES in diskriminacijo, ki jo prepoveduje odstavek 3 istega člena.
According to caselaw, a national tax provision which distinguishes between taxpayers depending on the place where their capital is invested could be regarded as being compatible with the Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital provided that the
Kajti v skladu s sodno prakso bi se lahko nacionalna davčna zakonodaja, ki razlikuje med davčnimi zavezanci glede na kraj, v katerem je naložen njihov kapital, obravnavala kot združljiva z določbami Pogodbe o prostem pretoku kapitala le takrat, kadar se različno obravnavanje nana�a na položaje, ki med seboj niso objektivno primerljivi, oziroma
As the Netherlands Government explains, by granting the concession, the Netherlands legislation at issue in the main proceedings seeks to make dividends received by a shareholder investing directly subject as far as possible to the same treatment for tax purposes as those received by a shareholder investing through the intermediary of a fiscal investment enterprise, so as to prevent investments abroad by such an enterprise from being regarded as less appealing than direct investments.
Kot navaja nizozemska vlada, je namen nizozemske zakonodaje, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, da z nadomestilom, ki ga določa, davčno obravnavanje dividend, ki jih prejme delničar, ki vlaga neposredno, kolikor je le mogoče izenači z obravnavanjem dividend, ki jih prejme delničar, ki je vlagal prek kolektivnega naložbenega podjema, ki ima davčni značaj, da bi se preprečilo, da bi naložbe v tujino, opravljene prek takega podjema, veljale za manj vabljive kot neposredne naložbe.
However, under such legislation, where a fiscal investment enterprise receives dividends from Member States with which the Kingdom of the Netherlands has concluded a convention providing for shareholders who are natural persons to be entitled to credit the tax which those Member States have deducted from the dividends to the income tax for which those shareholders are liable in the Netherlands, the situation of that enterprise is different from that in which it finds itself when receiving dividends from Member States with which the Kingdom of the Netherlands has not concluded such a convention, as there is no such entitlement in respect of those dividends.
Ob upo�tevanju take zakonodaje se položaj kolektivnega naložbenega podjema, ki ima davčni značaj, ko prejme dividende iz držav članic, s katerimi je Kraljevina Nizozemska podpisala konvencijo, ki delničarjem, ki so fizične osebe, daje pravico, da odbijejo davek na dividende, ki so ga odtegnile te države, od dohodnine, za plačilo katere so zavezane na Nizozemskem, razlikuje od položaja tega podjema, ko prejme dividende iz držav članic, s katerimi Kraljevina Nizozemska ni sklenila take konvencije in za katere ta pravica torej ni določena.
In fact, it is only as regards investments in the Member States with which the Kingdom of the Netherlands has concluded such a bilateral tax convention that, without the concession granted by the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, the decision to invest through the intermediary of a fiscal investment enterprise runs the risk of being less advantageous to a shareholder who is a natural person than direct investment.
Ker namreč nadomestilo ni določeno za razpolaganja, ki se obravnavajo v postopku v glavni stvari, je za delničarja, ki je fizična oseba, izbira vlaganja prek kolektivnega naložbenega podjema, ki ima davčni značaj, lahko manj ugodna kot neposredna naložba le, kadar gre za naložbe v države članice, s katerimi je Kraljevina Nizozemska podpisala tako dvostransko davčno konvencijo.
By contrast, as regards the Member States with which the Kingdom of the Netherlands has not concluded such a convention, the decision, by a natural person, to invest through the intermediary of such an enterprise does not involve the risk of losing a benefit which he could have enjoyed if he had chosen to invest directly in those Member States.
Kadar pa gre za države članice, s katerimi Kraljevina Nizozemska ni sklenila take konvencije, izbira vlaganja prek takega podjema za fizično osebo ne pomeni nevarnosti, da bo izgubila ugodnost, do katere bi bila upravičena, če bi se odločila za neposredno vlaganje v navedenih državah članicah. Ta položaj zato ni objektivno primerljiv s položajem, v katerem je Kraljevina Nizozemska sklenila tako davčno konvencijo.
It follows that, in the case of legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which — in order to make the tax treatment of direct investments and of those made through the intermediary of investment enterprises the same, as far as possible — a Member State has decided to grant those enterprises a concession in respect of tax deducted at source on dividends from Member States vis-à-vis which it has undertaken, under the terms of bilateral agreements, to allow natural persons to credit those deductions to the income tax for which they are liable under national law, Articles 56 EC and 58 EC do not preclude that Member State from withholding that concession in respect of dividends from other Member States with which it has not concluded bilateral agreements containing such provisions, as these are not objectively comparable situations.
Iz tega sledi, da – v primeru nacionalne zakonodaje, kot se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, s katero se je država članica, zato da bi kolikor je le mogoče izenačila davčno obravnavanje neposrednih naložb in naložb prek kolektivnih naložbenih podjemov, odločila, da slednjim podeli nadomestilo za davčne odtegljaje pri viru od dividend, ki izvirajo iz držav članic, glede katerih se je v okviru dvostranskih konvencij zavezala, da bo fizičnim osebam dovolila, da navedene odtegljaje odbijejo od dohodnine, za plačilo katere so zavezane v skladu z nacionalnim pravom – člena 56 ES in 58 ES ne nasprotujeta temu, da ta država članica tega nadomestila ne podeli, kadar gre za dividende iz držav članic, s katerimi ni sklenila dvostranskih konvencij, ki vsebujejo taka določila, ker ne gre za objektivno primerljive položaje.
In the light of the foregoing, the answer to Question 1(a) must be that Articles 56 EC and 58 EC do not preclude legislation of a Member State, such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, which grants a concession to fiscal investment enterprises established in that Member State on account of tax deducted at source in another Member State from dividends received by those enterprises, and restricts that concession to the amount which a natural person resident in the first Member State could have had credited, on account of similar deductions, on the basis of a double taxation convention concluded with that other Member State.
Glede na navedeno je treba na prvo vpra�anje, točka a, odgovoriti, da člena 56 ES in 58 ES ne nasprotujeta zakonodaji države članice, kot se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, ki ob tem, da v korist kolektivnih naložbenih podjemov s sedežem na ozemlju te države članice, ki imajo davčni značaj, določa nadomestilo za upo�tevanje davčnih odtegljajev, ki jih druga država članica odtegne pri viru, od dividend, izplačanih tem podjemom, navedeno nadomestilo omejuje na znesek, ki bi ga fizična oseba s prebivali�čem na navedenem ozemlju zaradi podobnih odtegljajev lahko odbila na podlagi konvencije o izogibanju dvojnemu obdavčevanju, sklenjene s to drugo državo članico.
Question 1(b)
Prvo vprašanje, točka b
By its Question 1(b), the referring court asks, in essence, whether Articles 56 EC and 58 EC must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, like the Netherlands legislation at issue in the main proceedings, grants a concession to fiscal investment enterprises on account of tax deducted at source in another Member State from dividends received by those fiscal investment enterprises, and reduces that concession where and to the extent to which the shareholders of those enterprises are not natural persons resident in the first Member State or bodies subject to corporation tax in that first Member State.
Predložitveno sodi�če s prvim vpra�anjem, točka b, v bistvu spra�uje, ali je treba člena 56 ES in 58 ES razlagati tako, da nasprotujeta zakonodaji države članice, ki, tako kot zakonodaja, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, ob tem da v korist kolektivnih naložbenih podjemov določa nadomestilo za upo�tevanje davčnih odtegljajev, ki jih druga država članica odtegne pri viru, od dividend, izplačanih tem podjemom, to nadomestilo zmanj�a, če in kolikor so delničarji navedenih podjemov fizične osebe, ki ne prebivajo v prvi državi članici, ali subjekti, ki v tej državi niso zavezani za plačilo davka od dobička pravnih oseb.
While it follows from the answer to Question 1(a) that, in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, Community law does not require a Member State to grant a concession to a fiscal investment enterprise on account of tax deducted at source in another Member State from dividends received by that enterprise, where the first Member State has nevertheless decided to grant such a concession, that power must be exercised in accordance with Community law.
Čeprav iz odgovora na prvo vpra�anje, točka a, izhaja, da v okoli�činah, kot so v primeru v glavni stvari, pravo Skupnosti ne nalaga državi članici obveznosti, da v korist kolektivnega naložbenega podjema, ki ima davčni značaj, določi nadomestilo za upo�tevanje davčnih odtegljajev od dividend, izplačanih navedenim podjemom, ki jih druga država članica odtegne pri viru, se mora od takrat, ko je prva država članica vseeno določila tako nadomestilo, ta možnost izvr�evati v skladu s pravom Skupnosti.
As is apparent from the order for reference, OESF shareholders include natural and legal persons who are resident or established in other Member States and in third countries.
Kot izhaja iz predložitvene odločbe, so med delničarji družbe OESF fizične in pravne osebe s prebivali�čem ali sedežem v drugih državah članicah in tretjih državah.
Therefore, it is necessary to examine, first of all, whether the reduction of the concession in proportion to the interest in the fiscal investment enterprise held by shareholders resident or established in other Member States constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital and, if so, whether that restriction can be justified.
Treba je torej ugotoviti, prvič, ali dejstvo, da je nadomestilo zmanj�ano sorazmerno z deležem kapitala, ki ga imajo v kolektivnem naložbenem podjemu, ki ima davčni značaj, delničarji s prebivali�čem ali sedežem v drugih državah članicah, pomeni omejitev prostega pretoka kapitala in, v primeru pritrdilnega odgovora, ali je ta omejitev utemeljena.
Second, it is necessary to determine whether the answer given in relation to situ-
Drugič, preveriti je treba, ali odgovor v zvezi s položaji, v katerih
ORANGE EUROPEAN SMALLCAP FUND ations in which the shareholders of such an enterprise are resident or established in other Member States applies equally to situations in which those shareholders are resident or established in third countries.
ORANGE EUROPEAN SMALLCAP FUND imajo delničarji takega podjema prebivali�če ali sedež v drugih državah članicah, velja tudi za položaje, v katerih imajo navedeni delničarji prebivali�če ali sedež v tretjih državah.
It must be noted that, as regards the calculation of the amount of the concession granted in accordance with the provisions at issue in the main proceedings in order to take account of tax deducted at source from the dividends from other Member States, Netherlands legislation draws a distinction between the treatment of fiscal investment enterprises whose shareholders are all resident or established in the Netherlands, and bodies, such as OESF, some of whose shareholders are resident or established in another Member State.
Ugotoviti je treba, da nizozemska zakonodaja v zvezi z izračunom zneska nadomestila, dodeljenega v skladu z določbami, obravnavanimi v postopku v glavni stvari, zaradi upo�tevanja davčnih odtegljajev pri viru od dividend, ki izvirajo iz drugih držav članic, določa različno obravnavanje kolektivnih naložbenih podjemov, ki imajo davčni značaj, katerih delničarji imajo vsi prebivali�če ali sedež na Nizozemskem, in podjemov, kot je družba OESF, katerih del delničarjev ima prebivali�če ali sedež v drugi državi članici.
In the first case, that concession corresponds, under Article 6(1) of the Royal Decree, to the amount that a natural person resident in the Netherlands could have had credited, on account of those deductions, to the income tax for which he is liable in that Member State.
V prvem primeru navedeno nadomestilo ustreza, v skladu s členom 6(1) kraljeve uredbe, znesku, ki bi ga fizična oseba s prebivali�čem na Nizozemskem lahko odbila iz naslova navedenih odtegljajev od dohodnine, za plačilo katere je zavezana v tej državi članici.
In the second case, pursuant to Article 6(2) of the Royal Decree, that amount is reduced in proportion to the interest of the shareholders from other Member States in the enterprises concerned.
V drugem primeru, v skladu s členom 6(2) kraljeve uredbe, je ta znesek zmanj�an sorazmerno z deležem delničarjev iz drugih držav članic v kapitalu zadevnih podjemov.
The concession thus granted in respect of tax deducted abroad at source from the dividends from other Member States is included in the profit to be distributed to the shareholders of the fiscal investment enterprise concerned, which is allocated among them on the basis of their respective interests in that enterprise.
Tako določeno nadomestilo iz naslova davčnih odtegljajev pri viru od dividend iz drugih držav članic je del zneska dobička, ki se ga razdeli delničarjem zadevnega kolektivnega naložbenega podjema, ki ima davčni značaj, ki se mednje razdeli glede na njihove ustrezne deleže v kapitalu tega podjema.
As the Advocate General observed at point 118 of his Opinion, it follows that the reduction of the concession for foreign tax in proportion to the interest in such an enterprise held by shareholders who are resident or established in another Member State adversely affects all that enterprise’s shareholders without distinction, since it has the effect of reducing the total amount of profit for distribution.
Kot je poudaril generalni pravobranilec v točki 118 sklepnih predlogov, iz tega sledi, da zmanj�anje nadomestila, ki se nana�a na tuji davek, sorazmerno z deležem delničarjev, ki prebivajo ali imajo sedež v drugi državi članici, v kapitalu takega podjema �koduje brez razlikovanja vsem njegovim delničarjem, ker povzroči zmanj�anje skupnega zneska dobička, ki se ga lahko razdeli.
Consequently, within a legislative context such as that at issue in the main proceedings, it is of greater benefit for a fiscal investment enterprise to attract shareholders who are resident or established in the Member State in which that enterprise itself is established, since the smaller the interest in that enterprise of shareholders who are resident or established in other Member States, the greater will be the profit available for distribution to shareholders.
V zakonodajnih okoli�činah, kot so obravnavane v postopku v glavni stvari, je za kolektivni naložbeni podjem, ki ima davčni značaj, ugodneje, da pritegne delničarje s prebivali�čem ali sedežem v državi članici njegovega sedeža, ker manj�i kot je delež delničarjev s prebivali�čem ali sedežem v drugih državah članicah v njegovem kapitalu, večji je dobiček, ki se ga razdeli delničarjem.
Such a reduction therefore creates a restriction on the free movement of capital, which is prohibited in principle by Article 56 EC, in so far as it is liable to impede the raising of capital by a fiscal investment enterprise in Member States other than that in which that enterprise is established, and is also liable to deter investors from those other Member States from acquiring shares in that enterprise.
Tako zmanj�anje torej pomeni omejitev prostega pretoka kapitala, ki jo člen 56 ES načeloma prepoveduje, saj lahko kolektivni naložbeni podjem, ki ima davčni značaj, pomeni oviro pri zbiranju kapitala v drugih državah članicah, kot je država njegovega sedeža, in lahko poleg tega odvrne vlagatelje iz teh drugih držav članic, da si pridobijo deleže v njegovem kapitalu.
The Netherlands Government observes, however, that, with regard to calculating the amount of the concession to be granted to a fiscal investment enterprise, Article 28(1)(b) of the Law on corporation tax refers to a situation in which a shareholder makes a direct investment abroad.
Vendar nizozemska vlada v zvezi z izračunom zneska nadomestila, ki ga je treba dodeliti kolektivnemu naložbenemu podjemu, ki ima davčni značaj, opozarja, da se člen 28(1)(b) zakona o davku od dobička pravnih oseb nana�a na položaj, ki bi bil položaj delničarja, ki neposredno vlaga v tujino.
According to the Netherlands Government, as regards the possibility of crediting the tax deducted at source from dividends received abroad, the situation of a Netherlands resident who is liable to Netherlands income or corporation tax differs from that of a nonresident who is not liable to those taxes, since only shareholders liable to income or corporation tax in the Netherlands may credit the tax thus deducted.
Glede možnosti odbitja odtegljajev pri viru od dividend, prejetih v tujini, ta vlada meni, da se položaj nizozemskega prebivalca, ki je zavezan za plačilo nizozemske dohodnine ali nizozemskega davka od dobička pravnih oseb, razlikuje od položaja nerezidenta, ki ni zavezan za plačilo teh davkov, saj lahko le delničarji, ki so na Nizozemskem zavezani za plačilo dohodnine ali davka od dobička pravnih oseb, odbijejo navedene odtegljaje.
Accordingly, it would be consonant with Article 56 EC, in conjunction with Article 58(1)(a) EC — in so far as the latter provision authorises the Member States to distinguish between taxpayers who are not in the same situation with regard to their place of residence — to draw a distinction as regards the amount of the concession granted to a fiscal investment enterprise, according to whether the shareholders of that enterprise are, or are not, liable to income or corporation tax in the Netherlands in respect of the dividends received.
Razlikovanje v zvezi z zneskom navedenega nadomestila, ki se ga dodeli kolektivnemu naložbenemu podjemu, ki ima davčni značaj, na podlagi tega, ali so njegovi delničarji, kar zadeva prejete dividende, na Nizozemskem zavezani za plačilo dohodnine ali davka od dobička pravnih oseb ali ne, bi bilo torej skladno s členom 56 ES v povezavi s členom 58(1)(a) ES, saj slednja določba državam članicam dopu�ča, da različno obravnavajo davčne zavezance, ki niso v enakem položaju glede na prebivali�če.
In that respect, it must be noted that, as the Netherlands Government itself points out, the Kingdom of the Netherlands taxes dividends which are distributed by a fiscal investment enterprise to its shareholders who are resident or established in the Netherlands as well as to those who are resident or established in another Member State.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, kot je navedla nizozemska vlada, da Kraljevina Nizozemska dividende, ki jih razdeli kolektivni naložbeni podjem, ki ima davčni značaj, obdavčuje pri njegovih delničarjih s prebivali�čem ali sedežem na Nizozemskem in tudi pri tistih, ki prebivajo ali imajo sedež v drugi državi članici.
Therefore, such an enterprise, whose shares are partly held by shareholders resident or established in other Member States, cannot be regarded as being in a different position from that of an enterprise whose shareholders are all resident or established in the Netherlands.
Ne more se torej �teti, da je tak podjem, katerega kapital imajo delno delničarji s prebivali�čem ali sedežem v drugih državah članicah, v drugačnem položaju kot podjem, katerega vsi delničarji imajo prebivali�če ali sedež na Nizozemskem.