natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
By its second question, part (a), the Hoge Raad asks whether ‘direct investment’
Predložitveno sodi�če z drugim vpra�anjem pod (a) spra�uje, ali pojem „neposredne
First, it seeks to ascertain whether it is appropriate to make a distinction between dividends originating in a Member State of the Community or of the European Economic Area (EEA) and dividends originating in a nonmember country.
Prvič, izvedeti želi, ali je treba razlikovati med dividendami iz države članice Skupnosti ali Evropskega gospodarskega prostora (EGS) in dividendami iz tretje države.
It states that it is faced with this question because, during the financial year in question, OESF received dividends from a company established in Switzerland.
Pojasnjuje, da se spra�uje o tem, ker je družba OESF v zadevnem računovodskem letu prejela dividende od družbe s sedežem v Švici.
ORANGE EUROPEAN SMALLCAP FUND within the meaning of Article 57(1) EC, which permits Member States to maintain such restrictions on the movement of capital to or from nonmember countries involving direct investment as existed on 31 December 1993, includes the holding of a block of shares in a company which does not place the holder in a position to exercise a decisive influence over the management or control of the company.
ORANGE EUROPEAN SMALLCAP FUND naložbe“ iz člena 57(1) ES, ki državam članicam dovoljuje ohranitev omejitev pretoka kapitala iz tretjih držav in v njih, ki so obstajale na dan 31. decembra 1993, če vključujejo take naložbe, vključuje lastni�tvo svežnja delnic družbe, ki ne omogoča izvajanja odločilnega vpliva na upravljanje in nadzor te družbe.
The Hoge Raad puts the second question, parts (a) to (c), to the Court in light of the fact that OESF received dividends from a company established in Switzerland.
Predložitveno sodi�če postavlja Sodi�ču drugo vpra�anje pod točkami od (a) do (c) ob upo�tevanju dejstva, da je družba OESF prejela dividende od družbe s sedežem v Švici.
I take the view that that question is inadmissible because it is not necessary for the resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings.
Menim, da to vpra�anje ni dopustno, ker ni potrebno za re�itev spora o glavni stvari.
It is clear from the information provided by the Hoge Raad that the deductions at source made by Switzerland on the dividends paid to OESF originating in that country were taken into account in the calculation of the concession.
Iz navedb predložitvenega sodi�ča namreč izhaja, da so se davki, ki jih je Švica odtegnila pri viru od dividend, izplačanih družbi OESF iz te države, upo�tevali pri izračunu nadomestila.
It also follows from that information that the only deductions at source which were not taken into account were made in Member States, namely Germany and Portugal.
Iz teh navedb je tudi razvidno, da se niso upo�tevali samo davki, ki so bili pri viru odtegnjeni v državah članicah, se pravi v Nemčiji in na Portugalskem.
Finally, by its third question, parts (b) and (c), it asks the Court whether the fact that foreign shareholders of the fiscal investment enterprise in question are resident or established in another Member State or in a country with which the Member State in which the enterprise is established has concluded a convention making provision for the reciprocal offsetting of deductions at source on dividends affects the answers given to the preceding questions.
Nazadnje s tretjim vpra�anjem pod (b) in (c) Sodi�če spra�uje, ali na odgovore na prej�nja vpra�anja vpliva dejstvo, da imajo tuji delničarji zadevnega kolektivnega naložbenega podjema prebivali�če ali sedež v drugi državi članici ali v državi, s katero je država članica, v kateri je sedež tega podjema, sklenila konvencijo, ki na vzajemni podlagi določa odbijanje pri viru odtegnjenega davka na dividende.
In accordance with the caselaw, 33I am therefore of the opinion that there is no need to reply to the second question, part (b), in that it relates to OESF’s investments in Switzerland, or the second question, parts (c) and (a), which refers specifically to those investments.
V skladu s sodno prakso 33 torej menim, da ni treba odgovoriti na drugo vpra�anje pod (b) v delu, ki se nana�a na naložbe družbe OESF v Švici, niti na drugo vpra�anje pod (c) in (a), ki zadeva samo te naložbe.
I shall now examine the second question, part (b), in so far as it refers to the participation in the capital of OESF of shareholders resident or established in nonmember countries, and the third question, parts (b) and (c).
Zdaj bom preučil drugo vpra�anje pod (b) v delu, ki zadeva deleže delničarjev s prebivali�čem ali sedežem v tretjih državah v kapitalu družbe OESF, in tretje vpra�anje pod (b) in (c).
33 — See, in particular, Lenz, paragraph 52, and Case C-152/03 Ritter-Coulais [2006] ECR I-1711, paragraph 15 and the caselaw cited there.
33 – Glej zlasti zgoraj navedeno sodbo Lenz (točka 52) in sodbo z dne 21. februarja 2006 v zadevi Ritter-Coulais (C-152/03, ZOdl, str.
I shall first examine the second question, part (b), in so far as it refers to OESF’s investments in a nonmember country, and the second question, parts (c) and (a), which relates solely to those investments.
Najprej bom preučil drugo vpra�anje pod (b) v delu, ki se nana�a na naložbe družbe OESF v tretje države, in tudi drugo vpra�anje pod (c) in (a), ki zadeva samo te naložbe.
I shall then analyse the second question, part (b), in so far as it takes account of the fact that some of OESF’s shareholders are resident or established in a nonmember country, and the third question, parts (b) and (c), which relates to that situation.
Nato bom preučil drugo vpra�anje pod (b) v delu, ki upo�teva dejstvo, da ima del delničarjev družbe OESF prebivali�če ali sedež v tretji državi, ter tretje vpra�anje pod (b) in (c), ki zadeva ta položaj.
In the light of the grounds on which the Hoge Raad raises these questions, I propose that the Court should examine them together and take them to mean that the Hoge Raad is asking whether the limitations at issue can be justified by the fact that some of the shareholders of the fiscal investment enterprise concerned are not resident or established in another Member State or in a nonmember country with which the Member State in which that enterprise is established has concluded a convention making provision for the reciprocal offsetting of deductions at source on dividends.
Ob upo�tevanju razlogov, zaradi katerih predložitveno sodi�če postavlja ta vpra�anja, Sodi�ču predlagam, naj jih preuči skupaj in jih razume tako, da to sodi�če spra�uje, ali se zadevne omejitve lahko upravičijo z dejstvom, da del delničarjev zadevnega kolektivnega naložbenega podjema nima prebivali�ča ali sedeža v drugi državi članici ali tretji državi, s katero je država članica, v kateri je sedež tega podjema, sklenila konvencijo, ki na vzajemni podlagi določa odbijanje pri viru odtegnjenega davka na dividende.
In any event, I do not believe that, in the circumstances of the present case, the contested limitations can be justified on grounds relating to movements of capital with nonmember countries.
Vsekakor menim, da sporne omejitve v okoli�činah tega primera ne morejo biti upravičene z razlogom, ki zadeva pretok kapitala s tretjimi državami.
As I explained earlier, the contested limitations have the effect of reducing the total amount of profit available for distribution among all shareholders, irrespective of their place of residence or establishment, and thus penalise them without distinction.
Kot sem predstavil zgoraj, je namreč učinek spornih omejitev zmanj�anje skupnega zneska dobička, ki se razdeli med vse delničarje, ne glede na njihovo prebivali�če ali sedež, in tako kaznovanje teh delničarjev brez razlike.
Moreover, it follows from the information provided by the Hoge Raad that some of the foreign shareholders of OESF were resident or established in other Member States during the relevant financial year.
Poleg tega iz informacij, ki jih je predložilo predložitveno sodi�če, izhaja, da je imel del tujih delničarjev družbe OESF v zadevnem računovodskem letu prebivali�če ali sedež v drugih državah članicah.
Admittedly, as I pointed out earlier, the Court has accepted that a restriction on movements of capital to or from nonmember countries may be justified on a particular ground in circumstances in which that ground would not be such as to constitute a valid justification for a restriction on movements of capital between Member States.
Kot sem opozoril že zgoraj, je Sodi�če v tej sodbi seveda priznalo, da ni mogoče izključiti, da je omejevanje pretoka kapitala v tretje države ali iz njih upravičeno z razlogom, danim v okoli�činah, v katerih ta razlog ne bi pomenil veljavne upravičitve omejevanja pretoka kapitala med državami članicami.
Consequently, assuming that the contested limitations could have been justified on grounds relating to movements of capital to and from nonmember countries if all the shareholders of the fiscal investment enterprise concerned had been resident or established in a nonmember country, such a justification cannot be taken into account in this case.
Zato tudi če bi bile sporne omejitve lahko upravičene z razlogom, ki zadeva pretok kapitala v tretje države in iz njih, če bi imeli vsi delničarji zadevnega kolektivnega naložbenega podjema prebivali�če ali sedež v tretji državi, take utemeljitve v obravnavanem primeru ni mogoče upo�tevati.
The Court has given some indications as to which grounds may be relied on.
Sodi�če je navedlo pojasnila glede razlogov, ki se lahko upo�tevajo.
Those grounds follow from the fact that a nonmember country is not bound by Community law, in particular by the full range of obligations relations to cooperation in the provision of information and assistance with recovery.
Ti razlogi izhajajo iz dejstva, da tretje države ne zavezuje pravo Skupnosti, zlasti ne obveznosti o sodelovanju na področju nudenja informacij in pomoči pri izterjavi.
The Netherlands Government submits that those grounds may also be derived from the
Nizozemska vlada
I shall therefore propose that the answer to the second question, part (b), and the third
Predlagam torej, naj se na drugo vpra�anje pod (b) in tretje vpra�anje pod (b) in (c)
I am of the opinion that this fact has no bearing on the answers which I have proposed should be given to the first set of questions referred.
Menim, da ta okoli�čina ne vpliva na odgovore, ki sem jih predlagal za prvi sklop vpra�anj za predhodno odločanje.
question, parts (b) and (c), should be that the limitations at issue cannot be justified by the fact that some of the shareholders of the fiscal investment enterprise concerned are not resident or established in another Member State or in a nonmember country with which the Member State in which that enterprise is established has concluded a convention making provision for the reciprocal offsetting of deductions at source on dividends.
odgovori, da zadevnih omejitev ne upravičuje dejstvo, da del delničarjev zadevnega kolektivnega naložbenega podjema nima prebivali�ča ali sedeža v drugi državi članici ali tretji državi, s katero je država članica, v kateri je sedež tega podjema, sklenila konvencijo, ki na vzajemni podlagi določa odbijanje pri viru odtegnjenih davkov na dividende.
As regards the first limitation, the concession granted by the Kingdom of the Netherlands for deductions at source made in a Member State other than Germany and Portugal is not dependent on the rate of those deductions.
Kar zadeva prvo omejitev, nadomestilo, ki ga Kraljevina Nizozemska odobri iz naslova davka, odtegnjenega pri viru v državi članici, razen v Nemčiji in na Portugalskem, namreč ni odvisno od stopenj teh davkov.
Deductions at source made in Portugal must therefore be afforded equivalent treatment and create an entitlement to a concession, irrespective of the fact that the rate of those deductions is higher than that of the Netherlands tax on dividends distributed to shareholders. 34
Davki, odtegnjeni pri viru na Portugalskem, se morajo torej obravnavati enakovredno in dati pravico do nadomestila, ne glede na to, da je njihova stopnja vi�ja od stopnje nizozemskega pri viru odtegnjenega davka na dividende, ki se razdelijo delničarjem. 34
By its third question, part (a), the Hoge Raad asks whether the fact that the tax deducted in another country on dividends paid from that country is higher than the tax levied on dividends distributed to foreign shareholders in the Member State in which the fiscal investment enterprise is established affects the answers to the preceding questions.
Predložitveno sodi�če s tretjim vpra�anjem pod (a) spra�uje, ali na odgovore na prej�nja vpra�anja vpliva dejstvo, da je davek, ki je bil v drugi državi odtegnjen od dividend, izplačanih iz te države, vi�ji od davka na dividende, razdeljene tujim delničarjem v državi članici, v kateri ima sedež kolektivni naložbeni podjem.
The same reasoning applies to the second limitation.
Isto sklepanje velja za drugo omejitev.
The concession for deductions at source made in another Member State which is granted to a fiscal investment enterprise all of the shareholders of which
Nadomestilo, ki se iz naslova davkov, odtegnjenih pri viru v drugi državi članici, odobri kolektivnemu naložbenemu podjemu, kate-
34 — It should be pointed out in this regard that, contrary to the submissions of OESF at the hearing, the Netherlands Government is not obliged to refund to it the total amount of tax paid in Portugal if the contested tax scheme, as I have understood it, limits the concession intended to take account of tax deducted at source on dividends from abroad to the amount of the Netherlands tax which would be payable on those dividends.
34 – V zvezi s tem je treba natančneje opredeliti, da v nasprotju s tem, kar je družba OESF trdila na obravnavi, nizozemska vlada tej družbi ni dolžna povrniti celotnega davka, plačanega na Portugalskem, če sporni davčni sistem, kot sem ga razumel, omejuje nadomestilo za upo�tevanje pri viru odtegnjenega davka na tuje dividende na znesek nizozemskega davka, ki se plača od teh dividend.
Deductions at source made in Portugal must create an entitlement to a concession under the same conditions as deductions made in the other Member States.
Davki, pri viru odtegnjeni na Portugalskem, morajo dati pravico do nadomestila pod istimi pogoji kot davki, ki se odtegnejo v drugih državah članicah.
The Hoge Raad puts this question to the Court because the rate at which deductions at source were made in Portugal on dividends paid to OESF from that Member State was 17.5%, while the rate of deductions at source made in the Netherlands on dividends distributed to OESF shareholders was 15%.
Predložitveno sodi�če postavlja Sodi�ču to vpra�anje, ker je bila stopnja davka, ki je bil pri viru odtegnjen na Portugalskem na dividende, izplačane družbi OESF iz te države članice, 17,5 %, medtem ko je bila stopnja davka, ki je bil pri viru odtegnjen na Nizozemskem na dividende, razdeljene delničarjem družbe OESF, 15 %.
are resident or established in the Netherlands is likewise not dependent on the rate of that deduction at source. A fiscal investment enterprise all or part of the capital of which is held by foreign shareholders must therefore benefit from that concession irrespective of the rate of the deduction at source in the Member State in which the dividends originate.
Predlagam torej, naj se na tretje vpra�anje pod (a) odgovori, da na odgovore na prej�nja vpra�anja ne vpliva dejstvo, da je davek, ki je bil v drugi državi odtegnjen od dividend, izplačanih iz te države, vi�ji od davka na dividende, razdeljene tujim delničarjem v državi članici, v kateri ima sedež kolektivni naložbeni podjem.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the questions referred by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden should be answered as follows:
Ob upo�tevanju ugotovitev predlagam, naj se na vpra�anja, ki jih je postavilo Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, odgovori:
2008 — CASE C-194/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-194/06
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands), made by decision of 14 April 2006, received at the Court on 26 April 2006, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-194/06, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Nizozemska) z odločbo z dne 14. aprila 2006, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 26. aprila 2006, v postopku
Advocate General: Y. Bot, Registrar: J. Swedenborg, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 24 April 2007, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Bot, sodni tajnik: J. Swedenborg, administrator, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 24. aprila 2007, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
The reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of a rticles 56 EC to 58 EC.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago členov od 56 ES do 58 ES.
This reference has been made in the context of proceedings between the Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Netherlands State Secretary for Finance) and Orange European Smallcap Fund NV (‘OESF’) concerning the amount of the concession to be granted pursuant to the special tax scheme for fiscal investment enterprises provided for under Netherlands legislation in respect of tax deducted abroad on dividends received by OESF during the 1997/1998 financial year.
Ta predlog je bil vložen v sporu med Staatssecretaris van Financiën (državni sekretar za finance) in družbo Orange European Smallcap Fund NV (v nadaljevanju: OESF) glede zneska nadomestila, ki ga je treba dodeliti na podlagi posebne davčne ureditve, ki jo nizozemska zakonodaja določa za kolektivne naložbene podjeme, ki imajo davčni značaj, za davke, ki so bili v tujini odtegnjeni od dividend, ki jih je družba OESF prejela v računovodskem letu 1997/1998.
Such an enterprise is liable to corporation tax, but its profits are taxed at a rate of 0%.
Tak subjekt je zavezan za plačilo davka od dobička pravnih oseb, vendar se njegov dobiček obdavči po stopnji nič.
On pain of losing its status, that enterprise is required to make available, within a particular period of time, its entire profits (less certain amounts which may be legally set aside) for distribution to its shareholders.
Ta subjekt mora v določenem roku svoj celotni dobiček, zmanj�an za določena rezervirana sredstva, ki jih dopu�ča zakon, dati na voljo svojim delničarjem, sicer izgubi svoj položaj.
Where such an enterprise receives dividends distributed by a company established in the Netherlands, tax on those dividends is deducted at source pursuant to Article 1(1)
Če tak subjekt prejme dividende, ki jih razdeli družba s sedežem na Nizozemskem, se od njih odtegne davek pri viru v skladu s členom 1(1) zakona o davku na dividende iz
However, under Article 10(2) of that Law, such an enterprise may, on application made within the period of six months following the end of a financial year, obtain a refund of the tax deducted in respect of those dividends.
Vendar lahko v skladu s členom 10(2) tega zakona kolektivni naložbeni podjem, ki ima davčni značaj, na pro�njo, vloženo v roku �estih mesecev od konca računovodskega leta, prejme povračilo davka, ki je bil plačan od njegovih dividend.
With regard to dividends received in other States, from which tax has been deducted by those States, as the referring court indicates, Netherlands legislation sets off that foreign taxation against Netherlands corporation tax only up to the amount of Netherlands corporation tax proportionately attributable to the dividends in question.
Predložitveno sodi�če navaja, da v zvezi z dividendami, prejetimi v drugih državah članicah, od katerih so te države odtegnile davek, nizozemska zakonodaja omejuje odbitje tega tujega davka od nizozemskega davka od dobička pravnih oseb v znesku, ki ustreza deležu slednjih in ki se sorazmerno pripi�e zadevnim dividendam.
According to the referring court, since fiscal investment enterprises are taxed at a rate of 0%, no corporation tax is attributable to dividends from abroad, and it is therefore impossible for the foreign tax levied on those dividends to be credited.
Ker se kolektivni naložbeni podjem, ki ima davčni značaj, obdavči po stopnji nič, se po mnenju navedenega predložitvenega sodi�ča od dividend iz tujine ne plača noben davek od dobička pravnih oseb, tako da ni možno odbitje tujega davka, plačanega od teh dividend.
Article 28 of the Law on corporation tax and Article 6 of the Royal Decree on collective investment enterprises (Besluit beleggingsinstellingen) of 29 April 1970 (Stb.
Člen 28 zakona o davku od dobička pravnih oseb ter člen 6 kraljeve uredbe o kolektivnih naložbenih podjemih (Besluit beleggingsinstellingen) z dne 29. aprila 1970 (Stb. 1970, �t.
1970, No 190), in the version in force at the material time (‘the Royal Decree’), set up a special scheme for fiscal investment enterprises.
190), kot je bila v veljavi v času dejanskega stanja v sporu o glavni stvari (v nadaljevanju: kraljeva uredba), določata posebno ureditev za kolektivne naložbene podjeme, ki imajo davčni značaj.
That scheme seeks to make the tax burden on investment proceeds through fiscal investment enterprises the same as that on direct investments by private investors, by establishing a system of concessions designed to take account of foreign tax deducted from dividends issued to those enterprises.
Namen te ureditve je, da se davčna obremenitev prihodka od naložb teh podjemov izenači z davčno obremenitvijo neposrednih naložb posameznikov, s tem da se določi sistem nadomestil, zaradi upo�tevanja tujega davka, odtegnjenega od dividend, ki se razdelijo navedenim podjemom.
Thus, Article 28(1)(b) of the Law on corporation tax, in the version in force at the time of the facts in the main proceedings, allowed the executive to lay down, by a measure of general administration, ‘the rules pursuant to which collective investment enterprises shall receive a concession on account of the deduction outside the Netherlands of tax on the yield from the securities and claims of those enterprises, which may not exceed the amount of tax which, in the event of direct investment, would be deductible from income tax pursuant to the Taxation rules for the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Belastingregeling voor het Koninkrijk) or a treaty for the prevention of double taxation by the holders of shares or units resident or established in the Netherlands’.
Tako je člen 28(1)(b) zakona o davku od dobička pravnih oseb, v različici, ki je bila v veljavi v času dejanskega stanja v sporu o glavni stvari, pooblastil izvr�no oblast, da s splo�nim upravnim ukrepom določi „pravila, na podlagi katerih kolektivni naložbeni podjemi prejmejo nadomestilo zaradi odtegljaja davka na donose prenosnih vrednostnih papirjev in terjatve teh podjemov zunaj Nizozemske, ki ne more preseči zneska davka, ki bi ga imetniki delnic ali deležev, ki imajo prebivali�če ali sedež na Nizozemskem, v primeru neposrednih naložb lahko odbili od davka od dobička na podlagi zakona, ki določa davčni okvir Kraljevine [Belastingregeling voor het Koninkrijk], ali konvencije o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja“.
Article 6 of the Royal Decree is worded as follows:
Člen 6 kraljeve uredbe določa: