natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
(EC Treaty, Art. 52 (now, after amendment, Art. 43 EC) and Art. 58 (now Art. 48 EC))
(člen 52 Pogodbe ES (po spremembi postal člen 43 ES) in člen 58 Pogodbe ES (postal člen 48 ES))
SUMMARY — CASE C-293/06 circumstances, taxation which removes any disparities arising from national tax rules, given that the decisions made by a company as to the establishment of commercial structures abroad may be to the company’s advantage or not, according to circumstances.
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-293/06 imajo lahko odločitve, ki jih sprejme družba v zvezi z določanjem poslovne strukture v tujini, glede na posamezen primer prednosti ali slabosti za tako družbo.
However, the tax disadvantage concerned relates to a specific operational factor which is capable of being taken into consideration only by the tax authorities of the principal undertaking.
Vendar se sporna davčna neugodnost nana�a na posebno poslovno okoli�čino, ki jo lahko upo�tevajo samo davčni organi države članice, v kateri je glavna družba.
It is contrary to Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) in conjunction with Article 58 of the EC Treaty (now Article 48 EC) for a Member State, when determining the national basis of assessment, to exclude a currency loss suffered by a company with a registered office in that State upon the repatriation of startup capital granted to its permanent establishment in another Member State.
Člen 52 Pogodbe ES (po spremembi postal člen 43 ES) v povezavi s členom 58 Pogodbe ES (postal člen 48 ES) nasprotuje temu, da država članica za določitev nacionalne davčne osnove izključi negativno tečajno razliko, ki jo je utrpela družba s statutarnim sedežem na ozemlju te države med vračanjem dotacijskega kapitala, odobrenega njeni stalni poslovni enoti v drugi državi članici.
It is also contrary to those provisions for a Member State to allow a currency loss to be deducted as operating expenditure in respect of an undertaking with a registered office in a Member State only in so far as its permanent establishment in another Member State does not make any taxfree profits.
Ti določbi prav tako nasprotujeta temu, da se negativna tečajna razlika lahko odtegne kot obratovalni stro�ek podjetja s sedežem v državi članici, le če stalna poslovna enota, ki pripada temu podjetju in ki je v drugi državi članici, ni ustvarila nobenega neobdavčljivega dobička.
A limit on the setting-off of currency losses suffered by that permanent establishment according to its results cannot be justified by the argument that the undertaking which owns that establishment would be likely to benefit from a double advantage from the currency loss.
Omejitev vračunanja negativne tečajne razlike, ki jo je utrpela navedena stalna poslovna enota, glede na njene poslovne rezultate se prav tako ne more utemeljiti s trditvijo, da bi družba, ki ima to poslovno enoto, lahko dobila dvojno ugodnost na podlagi negativne tečajne razlike.
A Member State which has waived its tax powers by concluding a double taxation convention cannot rely on the lack of tax powers with respect to the results of a permanent establishment which belongs to a company established in the territory of that State in order to justify the refusal to deduct expenditure incurred by that company which, by its nature, cannot be taken into account in the Member State where that establishment is situated.
Država članica, ki se odpove izvr�evanju svojih davčnih pristojnosti s sklenitvijo dvostranske konvencije o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja, se namreč ne more sklicevati na neobstoj davčnih pristojnosti v zvezi s poslovnimi rezultati stalne poslovne enote, ki pripada družbi s sedežem na ozemlju te države, da bi utemeljila zavrnitev odbitka stro�kov, ki jih je ta družba prikazala in ki se po naravi stvari ne morejo upo�tevati v državi članici, v kateri je ta poslovna enota.
Such a tax system increases the economic risks incurred by a company established in one Member State wishing to set up a body in another Member State where the currency used is different from that of the State of origin and thereby constitutes an obstacle to the freedom of establishment.
Tak�en davčni sistem namreč povečuje ekonomsko tveganje, s katerim se srečuje družba, ki želi ustanoviti subjekt v drugi državi članici, če tam velja drugačna valuta kot v državi izvora, in tako predstavlja oviro za svobodo ustanavljanja.
It is not justified by the need to maintain the cohesion of the tax system since there is no direct relationship between the currency losses, on one hand, and currency gains, on the other.
Ta ni utemeljena z nujnostjo ohranitve doslednosti davčnega sistema, ker ni neposredne zveze med negativnimi in pozitivnimi tečajnimi razlikami.
Furthermore, that obstacle cannot be justified by the existence of a double taxation convention.
Ta ovira poleg tega ne more biti utemeljena z obstojem konvencije o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja.
It is true that freedom of establishment cannot be understood as meaning that a Member State is required to draw up its tax rules on the basis of those in another Member State in order to ensure, in all
Svobode ustanavljanja se res ne more razumeti tako, da je država članica dolžna prilagajati svoja davčna pravila tistim v drugi državi članici, da bi se v vseh položajih zagotovila obdavčitev, ki odpravlja vsakr�no neenakost nacionalnih davčnih ureditev, ker
(see paras 30, 32, 40, 43-45, 47, 50, 51, 53, operative part 1, 2)
(Glej točke 30, 32, 40, od 43 do 45, 47, 50, 51, 53 ter točki 1 in 2 izreka.)
SHARPSTONdelivered on 8 November 2007
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNE PRAVOBRANILKEELEANOR SHARPSTON, predstavljeni 8. novembra 2007 1
Pursuant to the 1925 Double Taxation Convention (‘the 1925 Convention’) between Germany and Italy, that rule is mitigated with regard to ‘income obtained through the activity of’ an Italian establishment 3 of a German company.
Na podlagi Konvencije o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja med Nemčijo in Italijo iz leta 1925 (v nadaljevanju: Konvencija iz leta 1925) je to načelo omejeno v zvezi z „dohodkom, pridobljenim z dejavnostjo“ stalne poslovne enote 3nem�ke družbe v Italiji.
According to Article 3(1) of the 1925 Convention, such income is subject to tax in Italy only.
V skladu s členom 3(1) Konvencije iz leta 1925 se tak dohodek obdavči zgolj v Italiji.
In the present case the Finanzgericht (Finance Court) Hamburg, Germany, has asked the Court whether it is contrary to the freedom of establishment for Member State A to treat a currency loss resulting from the repatriation of startup capital granted by a company established in that State to a permanent establishment in Member State B with a different currency as being part of the establishment’s profits and to exclude that loss, on the basis of a double taxation convention, from the company’s basis of assessment for tax in Member State A, even though the currency loss cannot form part of the establishment’s profits to be assessed for the purposes of tax in Member State B and thus cannot be taken into account in either Member State.
Finanzgericht (finančno sodi�če) Hamburg, Nemčija, v tej zadevi spra�uje Sodi�če, ali je v nasprotju s svobodo ustanavljanja, če država članica A negativno tečajno razliko iz vračanja dotacijskega kapitala, ki ga je stalni poslovni enoti (v nadaljevanju: obrat) v državi članici B podelila družba s sedežem v državi članici A v drugačni valuti, obravnava kot del dobička obrata in jo na podlagi konvencije o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja izvzame od davčne osnove družbe v državi članici A, čeprav negativne tečajne razlike ni mogoče vključiti v dobiček obrata, ki ga je treba ugotoviti zaradi obdavčenja v državi članici B, in je zato ni mogoče upo�tevati v nobeni izmed držav članic.
Relevant legislation
Upoštevna zakonodaja
A company established in Germany is in principle subject to tax in Germany on its worldwide income. 2
Svetovni dohodek družbe s sedežem v Nemčiji se po načelu obdavči v Nemčiji 2.
Under German law, a person exempted by a double taxation convention from tax on ‘income deriving from a commercial activity’ of a foreign branch may deduct any loss arising in connection with that income in so far as such loss (i) could be deducted if the
V skladu z nem�kim pravom lahko oseba, ki je na podlagi Konvencije o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja izvzeta od plačila davka na „dohodek iz trgovske dejavnosti“ obrata
3 — For simplicity, I will use the term ‘branch’ in this opinion when referring to such a permanent establishment.
3 – Zaradi preprostosti bom za tako stalno poslovno enoto v teh sklepnih predlogih uporabljala izraz „obrat“.
Deutsche Shell provided its branch with startup capital, which was entered in the separate German commercial and tax account with the DEM exchange rate obtaining at the time of each payment made in ITL.
Družba Deutsche Shell je svojemu obratu podelila dotacijski kapital, ki je bil nakazan na poseben nem�ki trgovski in davčni račun; pri tem računu je bilo vsako plačilo v ITL pretvorjeno v DEM po takrat veljavnem menjalnem tečaju.
During the course of the branch’s lifespan, some of this startup capital was repaid through the repatriation of profits, which were deducted from the adjusted startup capital.
V času, ko je obrat obstajal, je bil del dotacijskega kapitala vrnjen prek vračanja dobičkov, ki so bili odbiti od prilagojenega dotacijskega kapitala.
These transactions were carried out in accordance with the exchange rate between the ITL and the DEM on the relevant transaction payment dates.
Te transakcije so bile izpeljane v skladu z menjalnim tečajem med ITL in DEM, ki je veljal v dneh transakcijskih plačil.
What counts as income and how income is to be ascertained is to be determined in accordance with the EStG.
Kaj velja kot dohodek in kako ga je treba ugotoviti, se določi v skladu z EStG 5.
5That law provides that ‘[i]n so far as it has a direct economic link to taxfree income, expenditure may not be deducted as constituting operating expenditure for the determination of the basis of assessment’. 6
V tem zakonu je določeno, da „[č]e je stro�ek v neposredni ekonomski zvezi z dohodkom, ki je opro�čen davka, ga zaradi določitve davčne osnove ni dovoljeno odbiti kot stro�ek poslovanja“ 6.
Background to the main proceedings
Dejansko stanje v postopku v glavni stvari
On 28 February 1992 Deutsche Shell transferred the assets of the branch to a wholly-owned subsidiary (Sierra Gas SrL.: ‘Sierra’) and closed down the branch.
Družba Deutsche Shell je 28. februarja 1992 prenesla sredstva obrata v polno lastni�tvo hčerinske družbe (Sierra Gas S.r.L., v nadaljevanju: Sierra) in obrat zaprla.
Deutsche Shell then sold the shares acquired through that transfer to an independent Italian company (Edison Gas SpA.: ‘Edison’).
Družba Deutsche Shell je nato prodala delnice, ki jih je pridobila pri tem prenosu, na samostojno italijansko družbo (Edison Gas S.p.A., v nadaljevanju: Edison).
According to the facts as stated by the referring court, the claimant before that court, Deutsche Shell GmbH (‘Deutsche Shell’), is a company which has its seat and principal place of business in Germany.
V skladu z dejanskim stanjem, kot ga je predstavilo predložitveno sodi�če, je tožeča stranka v sporu pred tem sodi�čem družba Deutsche Shell GmbH (v nadaljevanju: Deutsche Shell) s sedežem in z glavno poslovno enoto v Nemčiji.
In 1974, Deutsche Shell set up a branch in Italy.
Družba Deutsche Shell je leta 1974 ustanovila obrat v Italiji.
The proceeds generated by that branch were recorded, in accordance with Italian law, in a commercial and tax account drawn up in Italian currency and, for Deutsche Shell, in a separate German commercial and tax account.
Dohodki tega obrata so bili v skladu z italijanskim pravom evidentirani na trgovskem in davčnem računu z italijansko valuto in, za družbo Deutsche Shell, na posebnem nem�kem trgovskem in davčnem računu.
4 — Paragraph 2a(3) of the Einkommensteurergesetz (Income tax code) 1992 (‘EStG’), first sentence.
4 – Odstavek 2a(3), prvi stavek, Einkommensteurergesetz (zakon o dohodnini) iz leta 1992 (v nadaljevanju: EStG).
5 — Paragraph 8(1) of the KStG.
5 – Odstavek 8(1) KStG.
6 — Paragraph 3c.
6 – Odstavek 3c.
On 17 July 1992, the monies realised on the sale of the shares to Edison were transferred to Deutsche Shell.
Zneski iz prodaje delnic družbi Edison so bili 17. julija 1992 nakazani na račun družbe Deutsche Shell. Celotni nakazani znesek je po pretvorbi iz ITL v DEM zna�al 139.507.643 DEM (približno 71,3 milijona EUR).
Of those funds before conversion, ITL 83 658 896 927 was used to repay the outstanding startup capital.
Pred pretvorbo tega zneska je bilo 83.658.896.927 ITL uporabljenih za povračilo dolgovanega dotacijskega kapitala.
That amount produced the sum of DEM 111 868 677 (approximately
Ta znesek je po pretvorbi na podlagi menjalnega tečaja, kot je veljal 17. julija 1992 (1000 ITL = 1,3372 DEM), zna�al 111.868.677
EUR 57 milllion) on the basis of the exchange rate in force on 17 July 1992 (ITL 1000 = DEM 1.3372).
DEM (približno 57 milijonov EUR).
When this sum was set against the historic acquisition costs of the repaid startup capital the result for the claimant was a currency loss of DEM 122 698 502 (approximately EUR 62.7 million).
Tožeča stranka je ob primerjavi tega zneska z dejanskimi stro�ki nabave izplačanega dotacijskega kapitala utrpela negativno tečajno razliko v vrednosti 122.698.502 DEM (približno 62,7 milijona eurov).
of national law. Given the terms of that Convention and its normal application in German law, it considered that there was no scope for the disputed DEM 122 698 502 exchange rate loss to be brought into the computation of Deutsche Shell’s tax liability in Germany.
pri izračunu davčne obveznosti družbe Deutsche Shell v Nemčiji.
That was because that loss arose — albeit indirectly — ‘through the activity of’ the branch in Italy and was therefore regarded as part of its ‘income’.
Negativna razlika naj bi nastala – čeprav le posredno – „z dejavnostjo“ italijanskega obrata in se je zato �tela kot del njegovega „dohodka“.
It could therefore be taken into account for tax purposes only in that Member State.
Zato bi jo bilo mogoče v davčne namene upo�tevati zgolj v tej državi članici.
The profits from the transfer of the Italian branch to, and subsequent sale of shares in, Sierra were taxed in Italy.
Dobički iz prenosa italijanskega obrata na družbo Sierra in poznej�a prodaja delnic v družbi Sierra so bili obdavčeni v Italiji.
However, as this was done in ITL, the currency loss was not seen, and was not taken into account for the purposes of assessing the amount subject to Italian tax.
Ker pa je bilo to storjeno v ITL, negativna tečajna razlika ni bila razvidna in se ni upo�tevala pri ugotovitvi v Italiji obdavčljivega zneska.
The Finanzgericht was unsure, however, whether its interpretation and application of the law were compatible with Community law and with the freedom of establishment guaranteed in Article 43 EC. It accordingly decided to stay the proceedings before it and referred the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
Finanzgericht ni bilo prepričano, ali je njegova razlaga in uporaba prava združljiva s pravom Skupnosti in s svobodo ustanavljanja, zagotovljeno s členom 43 ES, zato je prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ti vpra�anji:
The claimant argued that, of the DEM 139 507 643 transferred, the currency loss of DEM 122 698 502 should be taken into account and set off against its profits when calculating its liability to tax in Germany.
Tožeča stranka je trdila, da bi bilo treba pri prenosu 139.507.643 DEM upo�tevati negativno tečajno razliko v vi�ini 122.698.502 DEM in jo v Nemčiji pri izračunu njene davčne obveznosti odbiti od njenih dobičkov.
The German tax authorities (‘the Finanzamt’) refused to do so.
Nem�ki davčni organi (nem�ki davčni urad, v nadaljevanju: Finanzamt) tega niso naredili. Zadeva je bila predložena Finanzgericht (finančno sodi�če) Hamburg.
The Finanzgericht concluded that the Finanzamt had applied the 1925 Convention correctly when viewed from the perspective
Finanzgericht je ugotovilo, da je Finanzamt z vidika nacionalnega prava pravilno uporabil Konvencijo iz leta 1925.
‘(1) Is it contrary to Article 52, in conjunction with Article 58, of the EC Treaty (now Article 43 EC, in conjunction with Article 48 EC) for the Federal Republic of Germany, as the State of origin, to treat a currency loss of a German parent company resulting from the repatriation of so-called startup capital granted to an Italian establishment as being part of that establishment’s profits and to exclude that loss, on the basis of the exemption under Articles 3(1), 3(3) and 11.1(c) of the 1925 Double Taxation Convention
Ali je v nasprotju s členom 52 v povezavi s členom 58 Pogodbe ES starega �tevilčenja (sedaj člen 43 v povezavi s čle -nom 48 Pogodbe ES novega �tevilčenja), če Zvezna republika Nemčija kot država izvora negativno tečajno razliko notranje matične družbe iz vračanja tako imenovanega dotacijskega kapitala, podeljenega italijanskemu obratu, obravnava kot del dobička obrata in jo izvzame na podlagi oprostitve v skladu s čle -
The Finanzamt argues that that the description of the facts given by Deutsche Shell is largely fictive, as is the currency loss itself.
Finanzamt trdi, da sta opis dejanskega stanja družbe Deutsche Shell in sama negativna tečajna razlika v veliki meri fiktivna.
The repatriated profits (which were taxed in Italy) constituted an internal flow of payments, made for the sake of transparency.
Vrnjeni dobički (ki so bili obdavčeni v Italiji) naj bi bili del notranjega toka plačil, ki so bila opravljena zaradi preglednosti.
The startup capital was simply absorbed into the Italian branch’s operational capital.
Dotacijski kapital naj bi pritekal v poslovni kapital italijanskega obrata.
Since there was an internal compensation account, the monies paid to the parent company were not the same monies as those received as startup capital.
Ker je obstajal notranji izravnalni račun, zneski, ki so bili plačani matični družbi, niso bili enaki zneskom, ki jih je obrat prejel kot dotacijski kapital.
(2) If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: is it contrary to Article 52, in conjunction with Article 58, of the EC Treaty (now Article 43 EC, in conjunction with Article 48 EC) if the currency loss mentioned above is to be included in the basis for assessment of the German tax but may be deducted as operating expenditure only in so far as no taxfree profits are obtained from the Italian establishment?’
Če je odgovor na prvo vpra�anje pritrdilen: ali je v nasprotju s členom 52 v povezavi s členom 58 Pogodbe ES starega �tevilčenja (člen 43 v povezavi s členom 48 Pogodbe ES novega �tevilčenja), če je zgoraj navedeno negativno tečajno razliko sicer treba vključiti v davčno osnovo nem�kega davka, vendar jo je mogoče odtegniti kot poslovni stro�ek zgolj, če italijanski obrat ni pridobil opro�čenih dobičkov?
The actual value of the capital assets was not reduced by the devaluation of the Italian lira, and the internal value of the startup capital therefore remained constant when assessed in DEM and fluctuated when assessed in ITL, rather than the other way round.
Dejanska vrednost osnovnih sredstev se zaradi znižanja vrednosti italijanske lire ni zmanj�ala in notranja vrednost dotacijskega kapitala je ob določitvi v DEM ostala enaka ter je nihala, ko je bil ta določen v ITL, in ne obratno.
A note on the facts of the case
Opomba v zvezi z dejanskim stanjem zadeve
Germany argues that Deutsche Shell is seeking to offset the taxation of the sales profit in Italy (which amounted to DEM 95 551 905 of tax) by a corresponding deduction of cherry-picked and wholly fictive ‘losses’ in Germany (which amounted to DEM 122 698 502).
Nemčija trdi, da družba Deutsche Shell želi obdavčenje dobičkov pri prodaji v Italiji (v vrednosti 95.551.905 DEM davka) izravnati z ustreznim odbitjem izbranih in povsem fiktivnih „izgub“ v Nemčiji (v vrednosti 122.698.502 DEM).
It contends that the claimant is seeking to divide, artificially, the profit received from the sale of the Italian establishment, by allocating some of it to a repatriation of startup capital.
Trdi, da ima tožeča stranka namen umetno razdeliti dobiček iz prodaje italijanskega obrata s tem, da je del tega dobička namenila vračilu dotacijskega kapitala.
In their observations, both the Finanz- amt and Germany have disputed the facts as stated in the Finanzgericht’s reference.
Finanzamt in Nemčija sta v svojih stali�čih izpodbijala dejansko stanje, kot ga je predstavilo Finanzgericht.
The unusual factual circumstances of this case prompted a question from the Court, in which Deutsche Shell and the Finanzamt were asked to provide details of the repatriation of profits.
Sodi�če je družbi Deutsche Shell in Finanzamtu zaradi nenavadnih okoli�čin dejanskega stanja v tej zadevi postavilo vpra�anje, v katerem je od njiju zahtevalo podrobnosti v zvezi z vračanjem dobičkov.
Whether the facts are indeed as stated in the order for reference is a matter for the national court to determine.
Nacionalno sodi�če je pristojno za ugotovitev resničnosti v predložitveni odločbi predstavljenega dejanskega stanja.
If the facts differ from those which have been set out before the Court of Justice, then it would be proper for the national court to take that difference into account when it ultimately decides on the outcome of the case. 7
Če se dejansko stanje razlikuje od tega, kar je bilo predstavljeno Sodi�ču, potem bi moralo nacionalno sodi�če ta odmik upo�tevati pri svoji končni odločitvi o sporu 7.
Deutsche Shell argues that there is nothing ‘fictive’ about a situation in which, due to the devaluation of the ITL against the DEM, a sum by way of startup capital denominated in ITL halves in value, when converted back into DEM.
Družba Deutsche Shell temu nasprotuje in trdi, da ni nič „fiktivnega“ v položaju, v katerem se zaradi znižanja vrednosti ITL v razmerju z DEM znesek dotacijskega kapitala ob pretvorbi iz ITL v DEM zmanj�a za polovico.
The resulting currency loss of DEM 122 698 502 should have been taken into consideration when assessing Deutsche Shell’s global profits.
Izhajajočo negativno tečajno razliko v vi�ini 122.698.502 DEM bi bilo treba upo�tevati pri določitvi skupnega dobička družbe Deutsche Shell.
The role of the Court of Justice in a reference under Article 234 EC is to provide guidance as to the law.
Na podlagi člena 234 ES je naloga Sodi�ča pri predlogu za sprejetje predhodne odločbe usmerjati v zvezi s pravnimi vpra�anji.
Germany has submitted that this case is completely without foundation, that the loss is fictitious, and that Deutsche Shell’s misstatement of the facts has produced the appearance of a problem which does not really exist.
Nemčija trdi, da je ta tožba popolnoma neutemeljena, da je izguba fiktivna in da je napačna predstavitev dejanskega stanja s strani družbe Deutsche Shell povzročila navidezno težavo, ki v resnici sploh ne obstaja.
It therefore argues that the Court should declare the reference inadmissible.
Zato trdi, da bi Sodi�če moralo razglasiti predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe za nedopustnega.
I therefore consider that the reference is admissible.
Zato menim, da je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe dopusten.
7 — For further guidance see the Information note on references from national courts for a preliminary ruling (OJ 2005 C 143, pp. 1 and 2).
7 – Za nadaljnje orientiranje glej Informativni zapis v zvezi s predlogi za sprejetje predhodne odločbe nacionalnih sodi�č (UL C 143, str. 1 in 2).
However, despite the intensity of the argument over the facts, it has not been shown that the proceedings are manifestly without foundation.
I-2305, točki 16 in 17; z dne 1. decembra 1998 v zadevi Levez proti Jennings Ltd, C-326/96, Recueil, str.
It seems to me that the true dispute between the parties may lie more in how particular facts should be interpreted than in whether the facts, as, such, exist.
I-7835, točki 25 in 26; z dne 29. aprila 1982 v zadevi Pabst & Richarz KG proti Hauptzollamt Oldenburg, 17/81, Recueil, str. 1331, točka 12; in z dne 16. septembra 1999 v zadevi WWF in drugi, C-435/97, Recueil, str. I-5613. 20.