natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As regards shareholdings in new or existing undertakings, as those explanatory notes confirm, the objective of establishing or maintaining lasting economic links presupposes that the shares held by the shareholder enable him, either pursuant to the provisions of the national laws relating to companies limited by shares or in some other way, to participate effectively in the management of that company or in its control (Commission v Germany, paragraph 18 and the caselaw cited).
Pri kapitalskih deležih v novih ali že obstoječih podjetjih cilj vzpostaviti ali ohraniti trajne gospodarske vezi predpostavlja, kot izhaja tudi iz pojasnil, da delnice njihovemu imetniku bodisi na podlagi nacionalnih predpisov o delni�kih družbah bodisi kako drugače omogočajo dejansko udeležbo pri upravljanju te družbe ali njenem nadzoru (zgoraj navedena sodba Komisija proti Nemčiji, točka 18 in navedena sodna praksa).
The answer to Question 2(a) must therefore be that a restriction is covered by Article 57(1) EC as being a restriction on the movement of capital involving direct investment in so far as it relates to investments of any kind undertaken by natural or legal persons and which serve to establish or maintain lasting and direct links between the persons providing the capital and the undertakings to which that capital is made available in order to carry out an economic activity.
Na drugo vpra�anje, točka a, je treba torej odgovoriti, da se člen 57(1) ES uporablja za omejitev, kot je omejitev pretoka kapitala, ki vsebuje neposredne naložbe, ker se nana�a na vse vrste naložb fizičnih ali pravnih oseb, ki so namenjene vzpostavitvi ali ohranjanju trajnih in neposrednih razmerij med osebo, ki zagotovi kapital, in podjetjem, ki dobi na razpolago kapital za izvajanje gospodarske dejavnosti.
Question 2(b) and 2(c)
Drugo vprašanje, točki b in c
By its Question 2(b), the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 56 EC has the same effect as regards the movement of capital to or from third countries as it does within the Community, and, by Question 2(c), whether a Member State’s reduction of the concession provided for fiscal investment enterprises established in that Member State with regard to taxation at source of a dividend received from a third country on the basis of the interest in that enterprise of shareholders who are not resident or are not established in the Member State concerned constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital.
Predložitveno sodi�če z drugim vpra�anjem, točka b, v bistvu spra�uje, ali se člen 56 ES uporablja enako za pretoke kapitala v tretje države ali iz njih in za pretoke v okviru Skupnosti; z drugim vpra�anjem, točka c, pa spra�uje, ali dejstvo, da država članica zmanj�a nadomestilo, določeno v korist kolektivnih naložbenih podjemov s sedežem na njenem ozemlju, ki imajo davčni značaj, namenjeno za upo�tevanje davčnih odtegljajev, ki jih tretja država odtegne pri viru od dividend iz tretje države, glede na delež, ki ga imajo delničarji brez prebivali�ča ali sedeža v zadevni državi članici v kapitalu teh podjemov, pomeni omejitev prostega pretoka kapitala.
These questions, which should be considered together, seek to establish whether the answer to Question 1(b) would be different if the dividends are received from a third country instead of from another Member State.
S tema vpra�anjema, ki ju je treba obravnavati skupaj, se spra�uje, ali se odgovor na prvo vpra�anje, točka b, spremeni, če se upo�teva dejstvo, da dividende ne izhajajo iz druge države članice, temveč iz tretjih držav.
In that regard, it is apparent from paragraphs 79 and 96 of this judgment that, as soon as the Kingdom of the Netherlands decided to grant fiscal investment enterprises established on its territory a concession for tax deducted abroad and to exercise its fiscal sovereignty over all dividends distributed by such enterprises to their shareholders, whether resident or established in that Member State or in others, or in third countries, it had to extend the benefit of that concession to fiscal investment enterprises whose shareholders include shareholders who are not resident or are not established in the Netherlands.
V zvezi s tem iz točk 79 in 96 te sodbe izhaja, da mora Kraljevina Nizozemska – od trenutka, ko se je odločila, da kolektivnim naložbenim podjemom, ki imajo davčni značaj, s sedežem na njenem ozemlju, odobri nadomestilo iz naslova davčnih odtegljajev, opravljenih v tujini, in da svojo davčno pristojnost izvr�uje nad vsemi dividendami, ki jih ti podjemi razdelijo svojim delničarjem, ne glede na to, ali imajo prebivali�če ali sedež v tej državi ali v drugih državah članicah – pravico do tega nadomestila raz�iriti na kolektivne naložbene podjeme, ki imajo davčni značaj in delničarje brez prebivali�ča ali sedeža na Nizozemskem.
As has been noted in paragraphs 70 to 96 of this judgment, a rule under which such a concession is reduced in proportion to the interest in the enterprise held by shareholders resident or established in another Member State or in a third country introduces a distinction in the treatment of such enterprises all of whose shareholders are resident or established in the Netherlands and those enterprises whose shareholders include shareholders resident or established in another Member State or in a third country which is not justified by the fact that those bodies are in a different situation or by fiscal-policy objectives such as those put forward by the Netherlands Government.
Kot je bilo navedeno v točkah od 70 do 96 te sodbe, je namreč s pravilom, da se tako nadomestilo, dodeljeno iz naslova davčnih odtegljajev v tujini, zniža sorazmerno z deležem kapitala kolektivnih naložbenih podjemov, ki ga imajo delničarji s prebivali�čem ali sedežem v drugi državi članici ali tretjih državah, uvedeno različno obravnavanje takih podjemov, katerih delničarji imajo vsi prebivali�če ali sedež na Nizozemskem, in podjemov, katerih del delničarjev ima prebivali�če ali sedež v drugi državi članici ali tretjih državah, kar ni upravičeno s tem, da so ti podjemi v drugačnem položaju, niti s cilji davčne politike, na katere se sklicuje nizozemska vlada.
It must be held that such a rule is contrary to Articles 56 EC and 58 EC irrespective of whether the tax revenue giving rise to the concession has been deducted in another Member State or in a third country, inasmuch as, in both cases, there is a difference in the treatment of fiscal investment enterprises all of whose shareholders are resident or established in the Netherlands and those whose shareholders include
Ugotoviti je treba, da je tako pravilo v nasprotju s členoma 56 ES in 58 ES, neodvisno od vpra�anja, ali so bili davčni odtegljaji, ki so podlaga za nadomestilo, odtegnjeni v drugi državi članici ali v tretji državi, saj v obeh primerih obstaja različno obravnavanje takih podjemov, katerih delničarji imajo vsi prebivali�če ali sedež na Nizozemskem, in podjemov, katerih del delničarjev ima prebivali�če ali sedež v drugi državi
2008 — CASE C-194/06 shareholders resident or established in another Member State or in a third country, and the justification put forward does not relate to the State of origin of the dividends received by those enterprises.
2008 – ZADEVA C-194/06 članici ali tretjih državah, in ker se navedene utemeljitve ne nana�ajo na državo, iz katere izvirajo dividende, ki jih prejmejo navedeni podjemi.
The answer to Question 2(b) and 2(c) must therefore be that Articles 56 EC and 58 EC preclude legislation of a Member State, such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, which grants a concession to collective investment enterprises established in that Member State designed to take account of tax deducted at source in a third country from dividends received by those enterprises, and reduces that concession where and to the extent to which the shareholders of those enterprises are natural or legal persons resident or established in other Member States or in third countries, since such a reduction adversely affects all the shareholders of those enterprises without distinction.
Na drugo vpra�anje, točki b in c, je treba torej odgovoriti, da člena 56 ES in 58 ES nasprotujeta zakonodaji države članice, kot je ta, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, ki ob tem da v korist kolektivnih naložbenih podjemov s sedežem na ozemlju te države članice določa nadomestilo za upo�tevanje davčnih odtegljajev, ki jih tretja država odtegne pri viru, od dividend, izplačanih tem podjemom, to nadomestilo zmanj�a, če in kolikor so njihovi delničarji fizične ali pravne osebe s prebivali�čem ali sedežem v drugih državah članicah ali v tretjih državah, ker tako zmanj�anje �koduje brez razlikovanja vsem delničarjem navedenih podjemov.
Question 3(a)
Tretje vprašanje, točka a
By its Question 3(a), the referring court asks whether the fact that the tax deducted in a Member State from dividends received in that Member State by a collective investment enterprise established in another Member State is higher than the tax on the payment of that dividend to foreign shareholders in that second Member State is relevant to the answers to Questions 1 and 2.
Predložitveno sodi�če s tretjim vpra�anjem, točka a, spra�uje, ali dejstvo, da je davčni odtegljaj, ki je bil v drugi državi odtegnjen od dividend, ki jih v tej državi prejme kolektivni naložbeni podjem s sedežem v drugi državi članici, večji od davčnega odtegljaja, ki je v slednji državi članici odtegnjen od dividend, razdeljenih tujim delničarjem, vpliva na odgovor na prvo in drugo vpra�anje.
As the order for reference shows, that question is motivated by the fact that, in the financial year concerned, tax was deducted at source in Portugal from dividends paid to OESF from Portugal at a rate of 17.5%, whereas the rate at which tax was deducted at source in the Netherlands from dividends distributed to OESF shareholders was 15%.
Kot izhaja iz predložitvene odločbe, je to vpra�anje utemeljeno z dejstvom, da je bila v zadevnem računovodskem letu stopnja davka, ki je bil pri viru odtegnjen na Portugalskem od dividend, izplačanih družbi OESF v tej državi članici, 17,5 %, medtem ko je bila stopnja davka, ki je bil pri viru odtegnjen na Nizozemskem od dividend, razdeljenih delničarjem družbe OESF, 15 %.
However, since the dividends from Portugal were not taken into account in the calculation of the concession granted to the fiscal investment enterprise involved in the main proceedings, and in the light of the answer to Question 1(a), there is no need to answer Question 3(a).
Vendar pa glede na to, da dividende iz Portugalske niso bile upo�tevane pri izračunu nadomestila, dodeljenega kolektivnemu naložbenemu podjemu, ki ima davčni značaj in ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, in ob upo�tevanju odgovora na prvo vpra�anje, točka a, ni treba odgovoriti na tretje vpra�anje, točka a.
Question 3(b)
Tretje vprašanje, točka b
By its Question 3(b), the referring court asks whether the answer to Questions 1 and 2 is affected by whether the foreign shareholders of a collective investment enterprise are resident or established in a State with which the Member State of establishment of that enterprise has a convention providing for reciprocal crediting of tax deducted at source from dividends.
Predložitveno sodi�če s tretjim vpra�anjem, točka b, spra�uje, ali na odgovor na prvo in drugo vpra�anje vpliva dejstvo, da imajo tuji delničarji kolektivnega naložbenega podjema prebivali�če ali sedež v državi, s katero je država članica sedeža tega podjema sklenila konvencijo, ki na vzajemni podlagi določa odbitje davčnega odtegljaja od dividend, odtegnjenega pri viru.
However, since the place of residence or establishment of the shareholders of that enterprise is taken into account only for the reduction of the concession in proportion to the interest in the fiscal investment enterprise held by shareholders who are not resident or established in the Member State in which that enterprise is established, this question must be regarded as relating solely to Question 1(b).
Ker pa sta kraj prebivali�ča ali sedeža delničarjev tega podjema upo�tevana le pri zmanj�anju nadomestila sorazmerno z deležem kapitala navedenega podjema, ki ga imajo delničarji brez prebivali�ča ali sedeža v državi članici sedeža tega podjema, je treba to vpra�anje razumeti, kot da se nana�a le na prvo vpra�anje, točka b.
It must be held in that regard that the fact that the State of residence or establishment of the shareholders of the fiscal investment enterprise and the Kingdom of the Netherlands have agreed on the possibility of crediting tax deducted by the latter from the dividends distributed to those shareholders by that enterprise does not in any way alter the fact that the Kingdom of the Netherlands is exercising its fiscal sovereignty by taxing those dividends.
Glede na to je treba ugotoviti, da dejstvo, da sta se država, kjer imajo prebivali�če ali sedež delničarji kolektivnega naložbenega podjema, ki ima davčni značaj, in Kraljevina Nizozemska dogovorili za možnost odbitja davka, ki ga slednja odtegne od dividend, ki jih navedeni podjem razdeli svojim delničarjem, v ničemer ne spremeni okoli�čine, da Kraljevina Nizozemska z obdavčitvijo teh dividend izvaja svojo davčno pristojnost.
As paragraphs 79 and 96 of this judgment show, it is the exercise by a Member State of its fiscal sovereignty over the dividends
Kot izhaja iz točk 79 in 96 te sodbe, prav dejstvo, da država članica izvaja svojo davčno pristojnost na dividendah, ki jih kolektivni naložbeni podjemi, ki imajo davčni značaj in sedež v tej državi članici, izplačajo delničarjem s prebivali�čem ali sedežem v navedeni državi članici in delničarjem s prebivali�čem ali sedežem
2008 — CASE C-194/06 paid by the fiscal investment enterprises established in that Member State both to shareholders resident or established in that Member State and to shareholders resident or established in other Member States or third countries which — where a concession such as that at issue in the main proceedings is provided for — justifies the need to extend it to the fiscal investment enterprises that include shareholders who are not resident or established in that Member State.
2008 – ZADEVA C-194/06 v drugih državah članicah ali tretjih državah, utemeljuje nujnost, da se nadomestilo, kot se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, uporablja tudi za kolektivne naložbene podjeme, ki imajo davčni značaj, katerih delničarji nimajo prebivali�ča ali sedeža v tej državi članici, če je tako nadomestilo določeno.
Accordingly, the answer to Question 3(b) must be that whether the foreign shareholders of a fiscal investment enterprise are resident or established in a State with which the Member State of establishment of that enterprise has concluded a convention providing for reciprocal crediting of tax deducted at source from dividends is irrelevant to the answer given to Question 1(b).
Na tretje vpra�anje, točka b, je treba torej odgovoriti, da dejstvo, da imajo tuji delničarji kolektivnega naložbenega podjema, ki ima davčni značaj, prebivali�če ali sedež v državi, s katero je država članica sedeža tega podjema sklenila konvencijo, ki na vzajemni podlagi določa odbitje davčnega odtegljaja od dividend, odtegnjenega pri viru, ne vpliva na odgovor na prvo vpra�anje, točka b.
Question 3(c)
Tretje vprašanje, točka c
By its Question 3(c), the referring court asks whether, in answering Questions 1 and 2, it is necessary to take into account the fact that the shareholders of the fiscal investment enterprise who have their place of residence outside the Member State of establishment of the fiscal investment enterprise are resident or established in another Member State of the Community.
Predložitveno sodi�če želi s tretjim vpra�anjem, točka c, izvedeti, ali je za odgovor na prvo in drugo vpra�anje treba upo�tevati dejstvo, da imajo tuji delničarji kolektivnega naložbenega podjema, ki ima davčni značaj, prebivali�če ali sedež v drugi državi članici Skupnosti.
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.
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 upoštevanje 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 prebivališčem na navedenem ozemlju zaradi podobnih odtegljajev lahko odbila na podlagi konvencije o izogibanju dvojnemu obdavčevanju, sklenjene s to drugo državo članico.
Articles 56 EC and 58 EC 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 or third country from
Člena 56 ES in 58 ES nasprotujeta zakonodaji države članice, kot je ta, ki 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 upoštevanje davčnih odtegljajev, ki jih druga država članica ali tretja država odtegne pri viru, od dividend, izplačanih tem
2008 — CASE C-194/06 dividends received by those enterprises, and reduces that concession where and to the extent to which the shareholders of those enterprises are natural or legal persons resident or established in other Member States or in third countries, since such a reduction adversely affects all the shareholders of those enterprises without distinction.
2008 – ZADEVA C-194/06 podjemom, to nadomestilo zmanjša, če in kolikor so njihovi delničarji fizične ali pravne osebe s prebivališčem ali sedežem v drugih državah članicah ali tretjih državah, ker tako zmanjšanje škoduje brez razlikovanja vsem delničarjem navedenih podjemov.
In that respect, whether the foreign shareholders of a fiscal investment enterprise are resident or established in a State with which the Member State of establishment of that enterprise has concluded a convention providing for reciprocal crediting of tax deducted at source from dividends is irrelevant.
Na navedeno ne vpliva dejstvo, da imajo tuji delničarji kolektivnega naložbenega podjema, ki ima davčni značaj, prebivališče ali sedež v državi, s katero je država članica sedeža tega podjema sklenila konvencijo, ki na vzajemni podlagi določa odbitje davčnega odtegljaja od dividend, odtegnjenega pri viru.
A restriction is covered by Article 57(1) EC as being a restriction on the movement of capital involving direct investment in so far as it relates to investments of any kind undertaken by natural or legal persons and which serve to establish or maintain lasting and direct links between the persons providing the capital and the undertakings to which that capital is made available in order to carry out an economic activity.
Člen 57(1) ES se uporablja za omejitev, kot je omejitev pretoka kapitala, ki vsebuje neposredne naložbe, ker se nanaša na vse vrste naložb fizičnih ali pravnih oseb, ki so namenjene vzpostavitvi ali ohranjanju trajnih in neposrednih razmerij med osebo, ki zagotovi kapital, in podjetjem, ki dobi na razpolago kapital za izvajanje gospodarske dejavnosti.
Case C-352/06
Zadeva C-352/06
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Finanzgericht Köln)
Opinion of Advocate General Mazák delivered on 29 November 2007 . . . . .
Mazáka, predstavljeni 29. novembra 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Social security for migrant workers — Legislation applicable — Legislation of the Member State of employment
Socialna varnost delavcev migrantov – Zakonodaja, ki se uporablja – Zakonodaja države članice zaposlitve
(Art. 42 EC; Council Regulation No 1408/71, as amended by Regulation No 647/2005, Art. 13(2)(a))
(člen 42 ES; Uredba Sveta št. 1408/71, kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo št. 647/2005, člen 13(2)(a))
SUMMARY — CASE C-352/06 employment, from receiving, pursuant to the national legislation of the Member State of residence, child benefit in the latter State.
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-352/06 članici stalnega prebivali�ča na podlagi nacionalne zakonodaje te države.
It is for the referring court to determine whether the fact that a worker returns at the end of each working day to the family residence in the Member State concerned is relevant for the purposes of deciding whether such a worker satisfies the requirements for the grant of the child benefit in question in that State pursuant to its legislation.
Predložitveno sodi�če se mora opredeliti do tega, ali dejstvo, da se delavec vsak delovni dan vrača domov v zadevno državo članico, upo�tevno pri ugotavljanju, ali tak delavec izpolnjuje pogoje za odobritev zadevne družinske dajatve v tej državi na podlagi njene nacionalne zakonodaje.
Therefore that article does not preclude a migrant worker, who is subject to the social security scheme of the Member State of
Iz tega sledi, da navedeni člen ne nasprotuje temu, da delavec migrant, za katerega velja sistem socialne varnosti države članice zaposlitve, prejema družinske dajatve v državi
(see paras 29, 33, 37, operative part 1, 2)
(Glej točke 29, 33 in 37 ter točki 1 in 2 izreka.)
MAZÁKdelivered on 29 November 2007
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNEGA PRAVOBRANILCAJÁNA MAZÁKA, predstavljeni 29. novembra 2007 1
The questions were raised in proceedings brought by Ms Brigitte Bosmann, a Belgian national residing in Germany and pursuing an occupation in the Netherlands, against the Bundesagentur für Arbeit (Federal Employment Agency, ‘the Bundesagentur’), challenging its refusal to grant her German child benefit for her two dependent children on the grounds that her right to child benefit is governed exclusively by the legislation of the State of employment, in this case the Netherlands.
Ta vpra�anja so se zastavila med postopkom, ki ga je začela B. Bosmann, belgijska državljanka s stalni prebivali�čem v Nemčiji, ki je zaposlena na Nizozemskem, proti Bundesagentur für Arbeit (zvezna agencija za delo) zaradi izpodbijanja tega, da ji ta agencija ni priznala nem�kih družinskih dodatkov za njena vzdrževana otroka, ker njena upravičenost do družinskih dodatkov izhaja izključno iz prava države, v kateri dela, v tem primeru iz nizozemskega prava.
By order of 10 August 2006, received at the Court on 25 August 2006, the Finanzgericht Köln (Finance Court, Cologne) (Germany), referred four questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC.
Finanzgericht Köln (finančno sodi�če iz Kölna) (Nemčija) je z odločbo z dne 10 avgusta 2006, ki je v sodno tajni�tvo Sodi�ča prispela 25. avgusta 2006, vložilo �tiri vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje na podlagi člena 234 ES.
The referring court essentially wishes to ascertain whether in a situation where an employed person does not qualify for child benefit in the State of employment on the grounds of the children’s ages, the law of the
Predložitveno sodi�če želi predvsem zvedeti, ali lahko zaposlena oseba, ko zaradi starosti svojih otrok ne izpolnjuje pogojev
State of residence, under which that person may be entitled to child benefit, may be applied.
V skladu s členi 14 do 17: za družinske dodatke v državi zaposlitve, uporabi zakonodajo države njenega stalnega prebivali�ča, na podlagi katere bi bila ta oseba upravičena do družinskih dodatkov.