natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Whilst the former seek to allow the Contracting States, irrespective of any relevant measure of unification or harmonisation within the Community context, to allocate powers of taxation between them in order to avoid or mitigate double taxation of the same income earned in one or other of those States, 13the latter precludes in principle making persons falling within its scope liable to pay the double social security contributions that would result in respect of the same income from the simultaneous application of two sets of national social security legislation. 14
Namreč, medtem ko prvi državam članicam pogodbenicam dopu�čajo, ne glede na vse upo�tevne ukrepe poenotenja in usklajevanja v skupnostnem okviru, da si porazdelijo davčno pristojnost in se izognejo ali zmanj�ajo dvojno obdavčenje istih dohodkov, prejetih v eni ali drugi od teh držav, 13 drugi načeloma prepovedujejo, da bi morale osebe, ki sodijo na področje uporabe uredbe, dvakrat plačati prispevke za socialno varnost, ki naj bi za isti dohodek izhajali iz sočasne uporabe dveh nacionalnih zakonodaj na področju socialne varnosti. 14
Regulation No 1408/71 introduces a system for coordinating the national social security schemes of the Member States and contains a set of provisions which determine in each particular case the national social security legislation to be applied.
Uredba �t. 1408/71 vzpostavlja sistem usklajevanja nacionalnih sistemov socialne varnosti držav članic in vsebuje vrsto določb, ki za vsak primer določajo nacionalno zakonodajo s področja socialne varnosti, ki jo je treba uporabljati.
The purpose of those provisions is to ensure that a person who has exercised his right to freedom of movement is, in principle, subject to the legislation of only one Member State at a time (the so-called ‘single State principle’) 11and must therefore pay social security contributions only in the Member State whose legislation applies.
Te določbe imajo namen zagotoviti, da za osebo, ki izvr�uje svojo pravico do prostega gibanja, načeloma ne velja zakonodaja ene same države članice (tako imenovano načelo enotnosti uporabljive zakonodaje) 11in mora zato plačati prispevke za socialno varnost le v državi članici, kjer se uporablja ta zakonodaja.
The system for resolving conflicts of social security laws introduced by Regulation 1408/71 seeks in particular, as a corollary, to preclude, in respect of the same income, a person who has exercised his right to freedom of movement being required to pay double contributions. 12
Sistem re�evanja kolizije zakonov na področju socialne varnosti, uveden z Uredbo �t. 1408/71, se dopolnilno nana�a zlasti na prepoved, da bi moral delavec, ki izvr�uje svojo pravico do prostega gibanja, za isti dohodek plačati dvojni prispevek. 12
It might therefore be suggested that the rules for resolving conflicts of laws laid down under those two types of instrument, one international, the other Community, should apply each to the subject to which they relate, without, by deduction, any relationship existing between them and without,
Tako bi bilo mogoče predlagati, da pravila re�evanja kolizije zakonov, ki so opredeljena v okviru obeh vrst pravnih instrumentov – pri čemer je prvi mednarodni, drugi skupnostni –, veljajo na področju, na katero se nana�ata, ne da bi a priori obstajala
The objectives guiding bilateral conventions for the avoidance of double
Cilji, ki usmerjajo dvostranske sporazume o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja dohodkov od poklicnih dejavnosti, niso v
11 — See, in particular, Case C-493/04 Piatkowski [2006] ECR I-2369, paragraph 21.
11 – Glej zlasti sodbo z dne 9. marca 2006 v zadevi Piatkowski (C-493/04, ZOdl., str.
13 — The Court has consistently held that, irrespective of certain Community measures that are not relevant in the present case [Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p.
13 – V składu z ustaljeno sodno prakso, ne glede na določene akte Skupnosti, ki v na�i zadevi niso upo�tevni (Direktiva Sveta 90/435/EGS z dne 23. julija 1990 o skupnem sistemu obdavčitve matičnih družb in odvisnih družb iz različnih držav članic (UL L 225, str.
6); Convention 90/436/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the elimination of double taxation in connection with the adjustment of profits of associated enterprises (OJ 1990 L 225, p.
6); Sporazum 90/436/EGS z dne 23. julija 1990 o odpravi dvojnega obdavčevanja v zvezi s preračunom dobička povezanih podjetij (UL L 225, str. 10) in Direktiva Sveta 2003/48/ES z dne 3. junija 2003 o obdavčevanju dohodka od prihrankov v obliki plačil obresti (UL L 157, str.
14 — See to that effect Piatkowski, paragraphs 24, 27 and 28.
14 – Glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo v zadevi Piatkowski, točke 24, 27 in 28.
for all the greater reason, any relationship of conflict.
proti Franciji, v katerih je Sodi�če menilo, da označitev prispevka v skladu z notranjim pravom kot davka ne pomeni, da oba zadevna prispevka ne bi mogla soditi na področje uporabe Uredbe �t.
The situation is complicated, however, by what some refer to as ‘the move towards funding social security by taxation’, 15a practice or phenomenon which, in essence, consists of financing national social security schemes by means of levies which, at least as far as national law is concerned, have the characteristics of taxes but which, from the point of view of Community law, are such as to fall within the scope of Regulation No 1408/71.
Vendar je položaj zapleten, ker mnogi „progresivno obdavčitev socialnega varstva“ 15imenujejo praksa ali pojav, ki naj bi v bistvu financiral nacionalne sisteme socialne varnosti z dajatvami, ki imajo vsaj v nacionalnem pravu značilnosti davkov, vendar naj bi z vidika prava Skupnosti sodile na področje uporabe Uredbe �t. 1408/71.
In this situation, which is precisely the situation in the case in the main proceedings under consideration, as will be explained in this Opinion, the question arises as to the relationship between Regulation No 1408/71 and double taxation conventions.
V takem primeru, ki je ravno primer obravnavanega postopka o glavni stvari, ki bo naveden v teh sklepnih predlogih, se postavlja vpra�anje součinkovanja Uredbe �t. 1408/71 in sporazumov o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja.
This is indeed not the first time that the Court has heard a case concerning the ques-
Vendar kot v zadevah, v katerih so bile izrečene zgoraj navedene sodbe Komisija
It is sufficient to note in this case, as the French Government moreover conceded at the hearing, that none of the parties submitting observations to the Court in this case
V tem primeru je namreč dovolj opozorilo, kot je med drugim na obravnavi navedla francoska vlada, da nobena stranka, ki je v tej zadevi predložila stali�ča Sodi�ču, ne izpodbija resno, glede na zgoraj navedene sodbe Komisija proti Franciji kot tudi glede CSG, novej�e in nekoliko dvoumnej�e sodbe
15 — To quote the words of the French Government appearing in the grounds of the judgments in Case C-34/98 Commission v France [2000] ECR I-995, paragraph 25 (CRDS), and Case C-169/98 Commission v France [2000] ECR I-1049, paragraph 23 (CSG).
16 – Zgoraj navedeni sodbi Komisija proti Franciji (C-34/98, točke od 34 do 36) in Komisija proti Franciji (C-169/98, točke od 32 do 34).
Nonetheless, the premiss on which the question referred is based is that the CRDS, like the CSG, continues to fall within the substantive scope of Regulation No 1408/71.
DEROUIN rialne uporabe Uredbe �t. 1408/71.
It is therefore from this premiss that the present analysis should start.
Torej je treba za namene obravnavane analize izhajati iz te trditve.
In any event, if, as Mr Derouin has sought to argue before the Court of Justice, since 2002 the CRDS has not met the criteria set out in the Commission v France judgments, it is for the national court to consider whether any changes to that contribution introduced by French regulations are such that the CRDS is no longer allocated specifically and directly to financing social security in France but is designed to cover the general and administrative costs of the public authorities, thereby removing it from the scope of Regulation No 1408/71.
Derouin poudariti pred Sodi�čem, od leta 2002 ne bi ustrezal merilom iz zgoraj navedenih sodb Komisija proti Franciji, bi moralo predložitveno sodi�če preskusiti, ali bi lahko morebitne spremembe glede tega prispevka, vzpostavljene s francoskimi predpisi, povzročile, da CRDS ne bi bil več posebej in neposredno namenjen financiranju francoskega sistema socialne varnosti, ampak bi bil nasprotno namenjen kritju splo�nih stro�kov javnih organov oblasti, pri čemer bi se izognil določbam Uredbe �t. 1408/71.
Moreover, it is to be stated that the Court is not asked — quite correctly — about the interpretation of the Double Taxation Convention, but more specifically whether the CSG and the CRDS fall within the scope of that convention.
Poleg tega je treba pojasniti, da se Sodi�ču – pravilno – ni postavilo vpra�anja o razlagi Sporazuma o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja, oziroma natančneje vpra�anja, ali sodita CSG in CRDS na njegovo področje uporabe.
The Court only has jurisdiction to interpret Community law, even if in order to provide an interpretation of that law that is useful for the national court it may take into account, where appropriate, the provisions of a double taxation convention because the national court includes it among the relevant provisions as regards the case in the main proceedings.
Sodi�če je namreč pristojno zgolj za razlago prava Skupnosti, čeprav lahko pri razlagi tega prava, ki služi nacionalnemu sodi�ču, glede na okoli�čine primera upo�teva določbe Sporazuma o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja, ker ga predložitevno sodi�če predstavlja kot del pravnega okvira, ki se uporablja v postopku v glavni stvari. 18
18 In the present case, in order to provide a useful answer to the question referred by the national court it is appropriate to start from the premiss that the
18 – Glej v tem smislu sodbi z dne 19. januarja 2006 v zadevi Bouanich (C-265/04, ZOdl., str.
18 — See to that effect Case C-265/04 Bouanich [2006] ECR I-923, paragraph 51 and caselaw cited therein, and Case C-170/05 Denkavit Internationaal and Denkavit France [2006] ECR I-11949, paragraph 45 and caselaw cited therein.
I-923, točka 51, in navedena sodna praksa) in z dne 14. decembra 2006 v zadevi Denkavit Internationaal in Denkavit France (C-170/05, ZOdl., str. I-11949, točka 45 in navedena sodna praksa).
See also points 46 and 47 of the Opinion I delivered on 29 March 2007 in Case C-298/05 Columbus Container Services (pending before the Court).
Glej tudi točki 46 in 47 mojih sklepnih predlogov, predstavljenih 29. marca 2007 v zadevi Columbus Container Services (C-298/05), ki �e poteka pred Sodi�čem.
17 — Case C-265/05 [2007] ECR I-347.
17 – Sodba z dne 16. januarja 2007 (C-265/05, ZOdl, str. I- 347).
In order to check whether or not this benefit is contributory the Court, in accordance with its caselaw, considered how the benefit concerned is actually financed, that is to say, whether that financing comes directly or indirectly from social contributions or from public resources.
Da bi preverili, ali se za to dajatev plačujejo prispevki, je Sodi�če na podlagi svoje sodne prakse preskusilo, kako so bile te dajatve dejansko financirane, in sicer, ali je bilo to financiranje, neposredno ali posredno, zagotovljeno s socialnimi prispevki ali javnimi sredstvi.
Since the benefit concerned is financed by the Fonds de solidarité de viellesse (Old-age Solidarity Fund) a beneficiary, as stated above, of the proceeds of the CSG based on occupational income and substitute income, it was necessary, as the Court stated in paragraph 40 of that judgment, to ‘determine’ whether the CSG must be regarded as a social security contribution or as public resources which do not have the characteristics of such a contribution.
Ker je zadevno dajatev financiral Solidarnostni sklad za ostarele, ki prejme, kot smo že videli, izkupiček od CSG, odmerjenega od dohodkov od dejavnosti in enakovrednih dohodkov, je bilo treba, kot je Sodi�če navedlo že v točki 40 navedene sodbe, „odločiti“, ali je treba CSG �teti kot prispevek za socialno varnost ali kot javni prihodek, ki nima značilnosti takega prispevka.
After summarising the essential grounds of the Commission v France judgments, the Court, in the light of a number of considerations concerning in particular the fact that the old-age benefit was not funded exclusively from the CSG but also from levies whose fiscal nature had not been challenged, concluded in paragraph 52 of that judgment that ‘even if the part of the [CSG] based on earned income and substitute income must be regarded as a contribution rather than financing from public resources, the link between that contribution and the supplementary allowance is not sufficiently identifiable for that allowance to be classified as a contributory benefit’ (emphasis added).
Sodi�če je po tem, ko je opozorilo na bistveno obrazložitev zgoraj navedenih sodb Komisija proti Franciji, glede na vrsto ugotovitev, ki se nana�ajo zlasti na dejstvo, da financiranje dodatka za starost ne izvira izključno iz CSG, ampak iz dajatev, katerih davčna narava ni sporna, v točki 52 te sodbe zaključilo, da „tudi če“ je treba del [CSG], ki se odmeri od dohodkov od dejavnosti in enakovrednih dohodkov, �teti kot prispevek, in ne kot financiranje, ki izhaja iz javnih sredstev, se povezava med navedenim prispevkom in dopolnilnim dodatkom ne zdi dovolj opredeljiva, ker bi bilo ta dodatek mogoče označiti za dajatev, za katero se plačujejo prispevki (moj poudarek).
In the light of this last point, it is difficult to reach a definite conclusion on the description of the CSG as a social security contribution.
Glede na zadnjo točko sodbe je težko narediti končni sklep o opredelitvi CSG kot prispevka za socialno varnost.
However, that judgment confirms that the CSG does fall within the substantive scope of Regulation No 1408/71.
Po drugi strani ta sodba potrjuje, da CSG res sodi na materialno področje uporabe Uredbe �t. 1408/71.
CSG and the CRDS are covered by the provisions of the Double Taxation Convention under Article 1(2) of that convention.
V tem primeru je treba, da bi dali vpra�anju, ki ga je postavilo predložitveno sodi�če, polni učinek, izhajati iz postulata, da sta CSG in CRDS predmet določb Sporazuma o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja na podlagi njegovega člena 1(2).
provides that a person who is selfemployed in the territory of one Member State is subject to the legislation of that State even if he resides in the territory of another Member State and, on the other hand, Article 14a(2) of the same regulation which, by way of derogation from Article 13(2)(b), states that a person normally selfemployed in the territory of two or more Member States is subject to the legislation of the Member State in whose territory he resides if he pursues any part of his activity in the territory of that Member State.
sodi�če sklicevalo, prvič, na člen 13(2)(b) navedene uredbe, ki v okviru načela enotnosti veljavne zakonodaje določa, da za osebo, ki opravlja dejavnost kot samozaposlena oseba na področju države članice, velja zakonodaja te države, tudi če prebiva na ozemlju druge države članice, in drugič, na člen 14(a)(2) iste uredbe, ki ob odstopanju od navedenega člena 13(2)(b) določa, da za osebo, ki opravlja dejavnost kot samozaposlena oseba na ozemlju dveh ali več držav članic, velja zakonodaja države članice, na ozemlju katere prebiva, če del svoje dejavnosti opravlja na ozemlju te države članice.
As the French Government and the United Kingdom have appositely observed, the national court did not clearly determine under which provision of Regulation No 1408/71 Mr Derouin would fall within the personal scope of that regulation.
Predložitveno sodi�če, kot sta pravilno opozorili francoska vlada in vlada Združenega kraljestva, ni jasno določilo, na podlagi katere določbe Uredbe �t. 1408/71 naj bi za P.
In that regard, the national court suggested, on the one hand, Article 13(2)(b) of that regulation which, under the single State principle,
Derouina veljalo področje osebne uporabe te uredbe. V zvezi s tem se je predložitevno
This indecision also appears to have been caused by the arguments raised by Mr Derouin, who considers that he pursues his professional activity exclusively in France, thus appearing to contend that the provisions of Regulation No 1408/71 do not apply because he has not exercised the right to freedom of movement, in the present case freedom of establishment.
Derouina, ki meni, da svojo poklicno dejavnost opravlja izključno v Franciji, in pri tem očitno sočasno zanika uporabljivost določb Uredbe �t. 1408/71, ker se ni skliceval na pravico do prostega gibanja, v tem primeru pravico do ustanavljanja.
At the hearing the French Government also queried the applicability of Regulation No 1408/71, if the national court should find that Mr Derouin pursues his professional activity in France alone and merely derives income from the United Kingdom, a situation that would deprive him of the status of a selfemployed
Francoska vlada se je na obravnavi prav tako vpra�ala o uporabljivosti Uredbe �t. 1408/71, če
DEROUIN migrant worker.
DEROUIN bi predložitveno sodi�če izhajalo iz tega, da P.
In the view of that Government, if that were to be the case, the issue of the compatibility of the Double Taxation Convention with Regulation No 1408/71 would no longer arise.
Po mnenju te vlade v takem primeru problema skladnosti Sporazuma o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja z Uredbo �t. 1408/71 ne bi bilo več.
a fixed base regularly available to him in the other Contracting State for the purpose of performing work in a selfemployed capacity.
Združenega kraljestva, če ima francoski rezident običajno v prvi državi pogodbenici plačilno osnovo za opravljanje svojih dejavnosti kot samozaposlena oseba.
It is therefore difficult to suppose that Mr Derouin does not also work in a selfemployed capacity in the United Kingdom, the Member State in which, I would point out, he is registered with the Supreme Court of England and Wales as a registered foreign lawyer.
Torej si ni mogoče predstavljati, da P. Derouin ne opravlja samostojne poklicne dejavnosti tudi v Združenem kraljestvu, v državi članici, v kateri je, ponavljam, vpisan pri Supreme Court of England and Wales kot registered foreign lawyer.
Of course, in the context of proceedings under Article 234 EC it is not for the Court either to determine the facts or to apply the rules of Community law in a particular case, or yet to examine the compatibility of domestic law or a double taxation convention with Community law.
Vendar v okviru postopka iz člena 234 ES Sodi�če ni zavezano niti opredeliti dejstev, niti uporabiti pravil prava Skupnosti v danem primeru, niti preskusiti skladnosti notranjega prava ali Sporazuma o izogibanju dvojnemu obdavčevanju s pravom Skupnost.
If the national court were, however, to confirm the factual circumstances envisaged by Mr Derouin and by the French Government this would, of course, make the interpretation of Community law given by the Court in answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling redundant.
Vendar če bi predložitveno sodi�če potrdilo dejansko hipotezo P. Derouina in francoske vlade, bi to razlagi prava Skupnosti, ki jo je podalo Sodi�če v odgovor na postavljeno vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, zagotovo odvzelo polni učinek.
Finally, the debate between the parties intervening in the present proceedings is completely different.
Razprava med strankami v postopku je navsezadnje povsem drugačna.
It concerns in essence whether the provisions of Regulation No 1408/71 should be interpreted as precluding a Member State, competent by virtue of that regulation to levy contributions such as the CSG and the CRDS on the basis of the income received by a selfemployed person covered by social insurance in that Member State, including the share of that person’s income obtained in another Member State which is subject to tax in that State, 19from refraining from making such a
V bistvu gre za vpra�anje, ali je treba določbe Uredbe �t. 1408/71 razlagati tako, da nasprotujejo temu, da bi se država članica, ki je v skladu s to uredbo pristojna za odmerjanje prispevkov, kot sta CSG in CRDS, ki se odmerita od dohodkov, ki jih prejme samozaposleni delavec, ki je v tej državi članici socialno zavarovan, ki vključujejo del dohodkov navedenega delavca, ki jih prejme v drugi državi članici in so podvrženi davku v tej državi 19,
19 — The French Government does not deny that it is competent to levy such contributions and any other social security contribution on Mr Derouin’s income from the United Kingdom on the basis of objective criteria.
19 – Francoska vlada namreč ne zanika, da naj bi bila pristojna za odmerjanje takih prispevkov, tako kot za vse prispevke za socialno varstvo od dohodkov P. Derouina, ki izhajajo iz Združenega kraljestva, na podlagi objektivnih meril.
This approach seems to be correct in the circumstances of the dispute in the main proceedings.
Ta pristop se zdi v okoli�činah spora o glavni stvari pravilen.
See also, in respect of the situation of a Member State which bases social security contributions on the total income of a resident who is a social security contributor in that Member State from pensions paid both in that State and in another Member State, Case C-50/05 Nikula [2006] ECR I-7029, paragraph 31.
Glej tudi sodbo, v kateri je država članica odmerila socialne prispevke na vse dohodke prebivalca, socialnega zavarovanca v tej državi članici, ki so izvirali iz pokojnin, izplačanih tako v navedeni državi kot tudi v drugi državi članici, sodba z dne 18. julija 2006 v zadevi Nikula (C-50/05, ZOdl., str. I-7029, točka 31).
This risk appears to me to be limited, however, for two main reasons.
To tveganje se mi zdi zaradi dveh bistvenih razlogov vseeno majhno.
First, the national court has already found in its order for reference that Mr Derouin does indeed fall within the personal scope of Regulation No 1408/71, and it is not for the Court of Justice to call that finding into question.
Derouina resnično velja področje osebne uporabe Uredbe �t. 1408/71, ne da bi bilo treba Sodi�ču to presojo prerekati.
Second, it is clear from the documents before the Court that Mr Derouin seeks to benefit under Article 14(1) of the Double Taxation Convention, which provides, in essence, that United Kingdom tax legislation is to apply where a French resident has
Drugič, iz spisa izhaja, da je želel imeti P. Derouin ugodnosti na podlagi člena 14(1) Sporazuma o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja, ki v bistvu predvideva uporabo davčne zakonodaje
In other words, the question is whether Regulation No 1408/71 requires the competent Member State to include in the base on which contributions such as the CSG and the CRDS are assessed, income derived from professional activity in a selfemployed capacity performed in another Member State by a selfemployed person covered by social insurance in the first Member State.
Z drugimi besedami, gre za vpra�anje, ali Uredba �t. 1408/71 pristojni državi članici nalaga, da v osnovo prispevkov, kot sta CSG in CRDS, vključi dohodke, ki izhajajo iz svobodne poklicne dejavnosti, ki jo delavec kot samozaposlena oseba, ki je socialno zavarovana v prvi državi članici, opravlja v drugi državi članici.
B — The obligation to include in the basis for assessment of contributions such as the CSG and the CRDS a selfemployed person’s total income from selfemployment (Article 14d(1) of Regulation No 1408/71)
B – Obveznost, da se v osnovo prispevkov, kot sta CSG in CRDS, vključijo vsi dohodki od svobodnih dejavnosti samozaposlenega delavca (člen 14(d)(1) Uredbe št. 1408/71)
It was pursuant to that caselaw that the Court rejected in Nikula the principle that a Member State cannot assess social contributions on the basis of pensions paid by another Member State.
Na podlagi te sodne prakse je Sodi�če v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Nikula zavrnilo načelo, v skladu s katerim država članica ne bi smela odmeriti socialnih prispevkov od pokojnin, prejetih v drugi državi članici.