natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission is right to point out that the analysis taking the inheritance by the applicant as the relevant movement of capital is confirmed not only by the grounds in Barbier but also by the facts of that case: there the inheritance took place in 1993, after the transposition of Directive 88/361; however, the acquisition transactions that the deceased made in his lifetime took place between 1970 and 1988, that is to say before the implementation of that directive.
Komisija pravilno poudarja, da analizo, ki �teje dedi�čino tožeče stranke za upo�teven pretok kapitala, potrjujejo ne samo razlogi v sodbi Barbier, ampak tudi dejstva te zadeve: tam je bilo dedovanje leta 1993, po prenosu Direktive 88/361, vendar so se transakcije pridobitve, ki jih je pokojni opravil, ko je bil �e živ, zgodile med letoma 1970 in 1988, to je pred uveljavitvijo te direktive.
It follows that the situation at issue must be assessed under the provisions governing the free movement of capital and that the applicant can derive rights from Directive 88/361 and from the Treaty.
Iz tega sledi, da je treba sporni položaj presojati glede na določbe, ki urejajo prosti pretok kapitala, in da tožeča stranka lahko uživa pravice iz Direktive 88/361 in iz Pogodbe.
As regards the time of acquisition and the argument put forward by the German Government that the property at issue was originally acquired (that is to say, purchased) before the date of implementation of Directive 88/361 (1 July 1990), which would thus prevent the applicant from deriving rights from that directive and the Treaty, to my mind, there are in fact three distinctive acquisitions in the case in the main proceedings.
Glede časa pridobitve in trditve nem�ke vlade, da je bilo zadevno zemlji�če prvotno pridobljeno (to pomeni kupljeno) pred datumom uveljavitve Direktive 88/361 (1. julija 1990), kar naj bi torej preprečilo tožeči stranki, da uveljavlja pravice iz te direktive in Pogodbe, gre po mojem mnenju v postopku v glavni stvari dejansko za tri različne pridobitve.
The first is the purchase of the property by the applicant’s father; the second is the acquisition of the property by way of inheritance by the applicant’s mother, and the third is the discussed acquisition by inheritance by the applicant himself.
Prva je nakup zemlji�ča očeta tožeče stranke; druga je pridobitev zemlji�ča z dedovanjem matere tožeče stranke in tretja je obravnavana pridobitev z dedovanjem tožeče stranke same.
The national legislation as a restriction on the movement of capital
Nacionalna pretoka kapitala
It is necessary to examine whether national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings constitutes a restriction on the movement of capital.
Preučiti je torej treba, ali pomeni taka nacionalna zakonodaja, kakr�na je v postopku v glavni stvari, omejevanje pretoka kapitala.
For the purposes of the Court’s analysis, the critical facts of the case, that is to say the death of the devisor of the applicant, therefore occurred in 1998.
Za namene presoje Sodi�ča so odločilna dejstva zadeve, to pomeni smrt zapustnika tožeče stranke, nastala leta 1998.
Hence the decisive time for assessing the inheritance situation in the main proceedings was indeed the date of the acquisition of property, but the acquisition by the applicant himself, which was the day on which his mother died.
Torej je odločilen čas za presojo dedi�činskega položaja v postopku v glavni stvari dejansko datum pridobitve zemlji�ča, vendar pridobitev tožečega, kar je bilo na dan, ko je umrla njegova mati.
12 — See in that context Barbier, cited in footnote 4, paragraph 58, and Van Hilten-van der Heijden, cited in footnote 8, paragraph 42.
12 — V zvezi s tem glej sodbi Barbier (navedena v opombi 4, točka 58) in Van Hilten-van der Heijden (navedena v opombi 8, točka 42).
In that regard, it follows from settled caselaw that the measures prohibited by
V zvezi s tem iz ustaljene sodne prakse izhaja, da ukrepi, ki so prepovedani po
Article 56(1) EC as being restrictions on the movement of capital include those which are likely to discourage nonresidents from making investments in a Member State or to discourage that Member State’s residents to do so in other States, or, in the case of inheritances, those whose effect is to reduce the value of the inheritance of a resident of a State other than the Member State in which the assets concerned are situated and which taxes the inheritance of those assets.
MAZÁKA – ZADEVA C-256/06 členu 56(1) ES, ker gre za omejitve pretoka kapitala, obsegajo vse ukrepe, ki bi lahko odvrnili naložbe nerezidentov v državi članici ali bi lahko odvrnili rezidente omenjene države članice, da to storijo v drugih državah, oziroma ob dedovanju ukrepi, katerih posledica je zmanj�anje vrednosti dedi�čine rezidenta države, ki ni država članica, kjer se nahaja zadevno premoženje, in ki obdavči dedovanje omenjenega premoženja.
13 in the national territory or abroad.
13 ali v tujini.
The result of such a distinction, which consists primarily in different methods of valuation of the property at issue, is that higher inheritance tax is imposed on the applicant only because a part of the inherited property is situated in another Member State.
Posledica takega razlikovanja, ki zajema predvsem različne metode vrednotenja zadevnega premoženja, je, da se tožeči stranki naloži vi�ji davek na dedi�čino le zato, ker je del podedovanega premoženja v drugi državi članici.
In addition, the laws in question prevent the applicant from benefiting from the reduced valuation rate in relation to the part of the inheritance located in France.
Poleg tega zadevni zakoni preprečujejo tožeči stranki, da bi imela korist od znižane stopnje vrednotenja v zvezi z delom dedi�čine, ki je v Franciji.
As the national court explained in the reference, the very denial of the advantages of the various German provisions discussed herein, relating to the agricultural land and forestry held in the national territory, leads to higher taxation of property situated in another Member State.
Kot je nacionalno sodi�če pojasnilo v predlogu, samo zanikanje ugodnosti iz raznih nem�kih določb, ki se obravnavajo tu, v zvezi s kmetijskim zemlji�čem in gozdovi, ki se nahajajo na nacionalnem ozemlju, pelje do vi�je obdavčitve premoženja, ki se nahaja v drugi državi članici.
As Advocate General Mischo pointed out in his Opinion in Barbier, 14 even though, naturally, the effects on inheritance tax of exercising the right to free movement of capital are no longer, by definition, of direct interest to the deceased person concerned, the fact remains, however, that those effects are likely to constitute an obstacle to the exercise of the abovementioned right.
Kot je generalni pravobranilec Mischo izpostavil v sklepnih predlogih v sodbi Barbier, 14 da čeprav učinki izvajanja pravice do prostega pretoka kapitala na davek na dedi�čino niso več per definitionem neposredno zanimivi za zadevno pokojno osebo, vseeno ostaja dejstvo, da ti učinki verjetno lahko pomenijo oviro za izvajanje zgoraj omenjene pravice.
Those effects are among the considerations that must be taken into account by any interested person when deciding whether or not to exercise the right to free movement of capital.
Ti učinki sodijo k razmi�ljanju, ki ga mora upo�tevati vsaka zainteresirana oseba, kadar se odloča, ali bo izvajala pravico do prostega pretoka kapitala ali ne.
In addition, where inheritances situated abroad are concerned, the value of the inherited property in question is reduced, as compared to a situation involving only a domestic inheritance.
Poleg tega, kadar je dedi�čina v tujini, je vrednost zadevnega podedovanega premoženja zmanj�ana v primerjavi s položajem, ki zajema samo domačo dedi�čino.
This is a result of the heavier tax resulting from provisions such as those in question in the main proceedings. 15
To je posledica vi�jega davka, ki izhaja iz določb, kot so te v postopku v glavni stvari. 15
It follows from the Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital and from
Iz določb Pogodbe o prostem pretoku kapitala in iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča izhaja, da
The ErbStG (Law on inheritance and gift tax) in conjunction with the BewG (Law on valuation), as they were applied in the present case, make a distinction with regard to whether the inherited property is situated
ErbStG (zakon o davku na dedi�čino in darila) v povezavi z BewG (zakon o vrednotenju), kot sta bila uporabljena v tej zadevi, razlikujeta glede na to, ali se podedovano premoženje nahaja na nacionalnem ozemlju
13 — See, to that effect, Van Hilten-van der Heijden, cited in footnote 8, paragraph 44.
13 — Glej v tem smislu sodbo Van Hilten-van der Heijden (navedena v opombi 8, točka 44).
15 — In other words, the applicant would have received by way of inheritance from his mother property of a higher value, had the latter been subject to a lower tax burden — that is to say, were the advantageous provisions that apply to the domestic property also applicable to the property held abroad.
14 — Sklepni predlogi generalnega pravobranilca Mischoja v zadevi Barbier (navedena v opombi 4, točki 30 in 31).
14 — Opinion of Advocate General Mischo in Barbier, cited in footnote 4, points 30 and 31.
15 — Z drugimi besedami, tožeča stranka bi prejela z dedi�čino od svoje matere premoženje v visoki vrednosti, če bi bila mati manj obdavčena – to pomeni, če bi se lahko ugodne določbe, ki veljajo za domače premoženje, uporabile tudi za premoženje v tujini.
JÄGER the Court’s caselaw that what ought to be prevented is the diminution of economic value of those transfers of property by way of inheritance which involve a crossborder element, as compared with transfers confined within one Member State.
JÄGER bi bilo treba preprečiti manj�anje ekonomske vrednosti teh prenosov premoženja z dedi�čino, ki zajemajo čezmejni dejavnik v primerjavi s prenosi, ki so omejeni na eno državo članico.
of capital, Article 58(1)(a) EC makes it clear that that prohibition is without prejudice to the right of the Member States to apply relevant provisions of their tax law which distinguish between taxpayers with regard to their place of residence or with regard to the place where capital is invested.
člen 58(1)(a) ES jasno določa, da prepoved ne posega 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 prebivali�če ali kraj, v katerem je naložen njihov kapital.
That right is, however, limited in itself by Article 58(3) EC, which specifies that the distinctions that Member States make between taxpayers with regard to their place of residence or the place where their capital is invested may not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on the free movement of capital. 16
Ta pravica je sama omejena s členom 58(3) ES, ki natančneje določa, da razlike, ki jih države članice delajo med davčnimi zavezanci glede na njihovo prebivali�če ali kraj, v katerem je naložen njihov kapital, ne smejo biti sredstvo samovoljne diskriminacije ali prikritega omejevanja prostega pretoka kapitala. 16
The provisions at issue have the effect of making investments in property located in another Member State by persons residing in Germany less attractive than investments of a similar character in the national territory.
Sporne določbe imajo tak učinek, da so naložbe v lastnino v drugi državi članici, ki bi jih opravile osebe, ki so rezidenti Nemčije, manj privlačne od podobnih naložb na nacionalnem ozemlju.
This is the case in respect of the valuation of the property, the application of the object-specific exemption, and the taxfree amount under Paragraph 13a of the ErbStG.
Za to gre pri vrednotenju premoženja, uporabi oprostitve, ki se nana�a na točno določen predmet, in neobdavčenem znesku v skladu s členom 13a ErbStG.
It follows that the national provisions at issue in the main proceedings have the effect of restricting the free movement of capital.
Iz tega sledi, da imajo nacionalne določbe, ki so sporne v postopku v glavni stvari, učinek omejevanja prostega pretoka kapitala.
In order for national tax legislation which distinguishes between taxpayers according to the place in which their capital is invested to be regarded as compatible with the Treaty provisions 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, such as the need to safeguard the coherence of the tax system or effective fiscal supervision. 17
Da bi se nacionalna davčna zakonodaja, ki razlikuje med davčnimi zavezanci glede na kraj, v katerem je naložen njihov kapital, lahko obravnavala kot skladna z določbami Pogodbe o prostem pretoku kapitala, se mora razlikovanje v obravnavanju nana�ati na položaje, ki niso objektivno primerljivi, ali pa mora biti upravičeno z nujnimi razlogi v splo�nem interesu, kot sta potreba po varovanju doslednosti davčnega sistema in učinkovitost davčnega nadzora. 17
Justification of the restriction
Utemeljitev omejitve
17 — See, to that effect, Case C-35/98 Verkooijen [2000] ECR I-4071, paragraph 43; Manninen, cited in footnote 16, paragraph 29; and Centro di Musicologia Walter Stauffer, cited in footnote 16, paragraph 32.
17 — Glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 6. junija 2000 v zadevi Verkooijen (C-35/98, Recueil, str. I-4071, točka 43) ter sodbi Manninen (navedena v opombi 16, točka 29) in Centro di Musicologia Stauffer (navedena v opombi 16, točka 32).
While Article 56 EC contains a general prohibition of restrictions on the movement
Medtem ko člen 56 ES vsebuje splo�no prepoved omejevanja pretoka kapitala,
Moreover, in order to be justified, the difference in treatment between taxpayers with regard to the place in which their capital is invested must not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain the objective of the legislation in question. 18
Poleg tega, da bi bilo razlikovanje v obravnavanju davčnih zavezancev glede na kraj, v katerem je naložen njihov kapital, utemeljeno, ne sme presegati tega, kar je nujno za dosego cilja, ki mu sledi zadevna zakonodaja. 18
As regards Paragraph 31 of the BewG, the referring court submits that since the valuation of domestic assets consisting of agricultural land and forestry for the purposes of inheritance tax by means of point 36 of Article 1 of the Jahressteuergesetz (Annual Tax Act) 1997 19 is now regulated, with retroactive effect from 1 January 1996, elsewhere, namely in Paragraph 140 et seq. of the BewG, it is doubtful whether Article 58(1)(a) EC may be relied upon.
Predložitveno sodi�če v zvezi s čle -nom 136 31 BewG trdi, da ker je vrednotenje domačega premoženja, ki je sestavljeno iz kmetijskega zemlji�ča in gozdov, za namene davka na dedi�čino na podlagi točke 36 člena 1 Jahressteuergesetz (zakon o letnem davku) 1997 19 urejeno z retroaktivnim učinkom od 1. januarja 1996, je drugje, namreč v členu 140 in naslednjih BewG, dvomljivo, ali se lahko sklicuje na člen 58(1)(a) ES.
Although the content of the new provision has a partial connection with the previous regulatory provision in Paragraph 36 et seq. of the BewG, that provision should be seen as arising only after 1993.
Čeprav je vsebina nove določbe deloma povezana s prej�njo določbo v členu 36 in naslednjih BewG, je treba to določbo obravnavati, kot da je nastala �ele po letu 1993.
As I mentioned in point 4 above, pursuant to the Declaration, Member States may rely on Article 58(1)(a) EC only with regard to relevant provisions which existed at the end of 1993.
Kot sem omenil v točki 4 zgoraj, se lahko v skladu z izjavo države članice sklicujejo na člen 58(1)(a) ES samo v zvezi z upo�tevnimi določbami, ki so obstajale na koncu leta 1993.
Therefore, in my view, that in itself prevents the provisions at issue from justification under Article 58 EC.
Po mojem mnenju to samo po sebi preprečuje, da bi bile sporne določbe utemeljene s členom 58 ES.
In the present case, reliance on the exception provided for in Article 58(1)(a) EC is already excluded on the grounds that, as follows from the order for reference, both Paragraph 13a of the ErbStG and Paragraph 31 of the BewG were amended in 1996.
V tej zadevi je sklicevanje na izjemo, določeno s členom 58(1)(a) ES, izključeno že zato, ker – kot sledi iz predložitvene odločbe – sta bila oba, člen 13 a ErbStG in člen 31 BewG, spremenjena leta 1996.
With regard to the former, the referring court clearly states that it was not until after 1993 that the tax advantages provided therein were extended to assets consisting of agricultural land and forestry and broadened still further, which means that Article 58(1)(a) EC plays no role.
Predložitveno sodi�če v zvezi s prvim jasno navaja, da so se davčne ugodnosti, določene tam, �ele po letu 1993 raz�irile na premoženje, ki je sestavljeno iz kmetijskega zemlji�ča in gozdov, in se �e naprej raz�irile, kar pomeni, da člen 58(1)(a) ni upo�teven.
In any event, as regards the possibility of justification by overriding reasons in the general interest, first, as mentioned above, it must be established whether the difference in treatment concerns situations which are not objectively comparable or whether that treatment may be objectively justified by any overriding reason in the general interest.
V vsakem primeru je treba glede možnosti utemeljitve nujnih razlogov v splo�nem interesu, prvič, kot je bilo omenjeno zgoraj, ugotoviti, ali se razlikovanje v obravnavanju nana�a na položaje, ki niso objektivno primerljivi, ali pa je to obravnavanje mogoče objektivno utemeljiti z nujnimi razlogi v splo�nem interesu.
18 — See, to that effect, Verkooijen, cited in footnote 17, paragraph 43; Manninen, cited in footnote 16, paragraph 29; and Centro di Musicologia Walter Stauffer, cited in footnote 16, paragraph 32.
18 — Glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedene sodbe Verkooijen, toč -ka 43, Manninen, točka 29, in Centro di Musicologia Stauffer, točka 32.
JÄGER up of agricultural land and forestry companies, which guarantee productivity and jobs and must fulfil their obligations deriving from the national legal order.
JÄGER gozdarskih obratov, ki zagotavljajo produktivnost in delovna mesta in morajo izpolniti svoje obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz nacionalnega pravnega reda.
It appears that that advantage is intended to be reserved for companies which are located in the national territory to the exclusion of those in other Member States.
Zdi se, da je ta ugodnost pridržana obratom, ki se nahajajo na nacionalnem ozemlju, in so izključeni tisti, ki so v drugih državah članicah.
The heirs of a property located in the national territory and the heirs of a property located in another Member State are in a comparable situation.
Dediči premoženja, ki se nahaja na na -cionalnem ozemlju, in dediči premoženja, ki se nahaja v drugi državi članici, so v primerljivem položaju.
In its submission, the German Government did not appear to contest that view.
Zdi se, da nem�ka vlada v svojih stali�čih tega ni izpodbijala.
If a devisor’s final place of residence was in Germany, the heir is liable for payment of German inheritance tax in respect of the entire inherited estate (domestic and foreign).
Če je bilo zapustnikovo zadnje prebivali�če v Nemčiji, je dedič zavezan za plačilo nem�kega davka na dedi�čino za celotno podedovano premoženje (domače in tuje).
It is clear from the preliminary reference that the heirs of a property located in another Member State are more heavily taxed as a result of the different valuation methods than the heirs of property located in Germany.
Iz predložitvene odločbe jasno izhaja, da so dediči premoženja, ki se nahaja v drugi državi članici, vi�je obdavčeni zaradi različnih metod vrednotenja kot dediči premoženja, ki se nahaja v Nemčiji.
In addition, the German Government and the Finanzamt refer to the same contentions indicated by the national court in the reference as a consideration formulated by the Finanzgericht: on the one hand, ‘the abovementioned social responsibility of a business dealing with agricultural land and forestry is not comparable in any other EU Member State’ and, on the other, ‘the German authorities did not have to take into account, to the same extent, any other comparable public policy considerations which may exist in other Member States’.
Poleg tega se nem�ka vlada in Finanzamt sklicujeta na enake trditve, ki jih je navedlo predložitveno sodi�če v predložitveni odločbi kot ugotovitve Finanzgericht: na eni strani „zgoraj omenjena socialna funkcija kmetijskega in gozdarskega obrata ne obstaja v enakem pomenu v nobeni drugi državi članici“ in na drugi strani „nem�ki organi niso bili dolžni upo�tevati v enakem obsegu nobenega drugega primerljivega javnega interesa druge države članice“.
As regards the condition relating to the pursuance of an objective in the general interest, the German Government, and to a certain extent the Finanzamt, essentially submit that the national legislation seeks, first, to compensate for the disadvantages arising directly for the undertaking which is subject to inheritance tax — that is to say, to take into account an heir’s reduced financial capacity where he did not inherit liquid funds but property that is linked to an agricultural company and that he should not be forced to sell or give up so as to pay the inheritance tax 20 — and, secondly, to prevent the break-
Glede pogoja v zvezi s sledenjem cilja v splo�nem interesu nem�ka vlada in delno tudi Finanzamt trdita, da nacionalna zakonodaja sku�a, prvič, izravnati neugodnosti, ki se neposredno nana�ajo na obrat, ki je obdavčen z davkom na dedi�čino – to je, upo�teva se dedičeva zmanj�anja finančna zmožnost, kadar ne podeduje likvidnih sredstev, ampak premoženje, ki je povezano s kmetijskim gospodarstvom, in da ga ne bi bil prisiljen prodati ali se mu odpovedati, da bi lahko plačal davek na dedi�čino 20 – in, drugič, preprečiti propad kmetijskih in
20 — Even though the preservation of the coherence of the tax system does not appear to be argued per se, the German Government considers it comparable to the general objective of seeking ‘to compensate for the disadvantages arising directly for the undertaking which is subject to inheritance tax’.
20 — Čeprav nem�ka vlada ne navaja per se kot argument ohranitve doslednosti davčnega sistema, meni, da je primerljiv s splo�nim ciljem, da se sku�a „izravnati neugodnosti, ki se neposredno nana�ajo na obrat, ki je obdavčen z davkom na dedi�čino“.
As regards the contention that the German authorities did not have to take into account any other comparable public policy considerations in other Member States, I share the Commission’s view that it is based on the premiss that Member States may, in the framework of provisions concerning the free movement of capital, specifically promote their own economy.
Glede trditve, da nem�ki organi niso bili dolžni upo�tevati nobenega drugega primerljivega javnega interesa druge države članice, delim mnenje Komisije, ki temelji na premisi, da lahko države članice v okviru določb o prostem pretoku kapitala spodbujajo le lastno gospodarstvo.
To my mind, promoting agricultural land and forestry situated in the national territory is not a justification for a restriction of capital movements.
Po mojem mnenju podpiranje kmetijskih zemlji�č in gozdov, ki se nahajajo na nacionalnem ozemlju, ni utemeljitev za omejevanje pretoka kapitala.
Although preserving jobs, productivity and preventing the break-up of such companies may well serve the general interest, they do not justify a restriction of the movement of capital.
Čeprav ohranjanje delovnih mest ter produktivnosti in preprečevanje tega, da bi taka podjetja propadla, lahko služi splo�nemu interesu, to ne utemeljuje omejitve pretoka kapitala.
The argument that the German national administration does not have available the data concerning property situated in other Member States also fails to convince me.
Tudi argument, da nem�ka nacionalna uprava nima na voljo podatkov v zvezi s premoženjem v drugih državah članicah, me ne prepriča.
The Court has held that possible difficulties or disadvantages of a purely administrative nature in determining the tax are not sufficient to justify a restriction on the movement of capital.
Sodi�če je razsodilo, da možne upravne težave ali neugodnosti pri določanju davka ne zadostujejo za utemeljitev omejitve pretoka blaga.