natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Court held, directly following caselaw laid down in Case C-243/01 Gambelli and Others [2003] ECR I-13031, that national legislation which prohibits, on pain of criminal penalties, the pursuit of the activities of collecting, taking, booking and forwarding oers of bets, in particular bets on sporting events, without a licence or a police authorisation issued by the Member State concerned constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, but that that restriction can be justied if, in limiting the number of operators active in the betting and gaming sector, it genuinely contributes to the objective of preventing the exploitation of activities in that sector for criminal or fraudulent purposes, a matter which the Court leaves to national courts to ascertain.
Takega ukrepa – katerega absolutnost, razen ko gre za otroke, mlajše od 14 let, ni v skladu z zasledovanim ciljem – ni mogoče upravičiti z nevarnostjo resne ogrozitve nančnega ravnovesja sistema socialne varnosti, kadar bi bilo mogoče sprejeti milejše ukrepe, ki so bolj skladni s svobodo opravljanja storitev, kot je ureditev predhodne odobritve, ki upošteva zahteve, določene v pravu Skupnosti in, če je to potrebno, določitev tabel tarif za povračilo stroškov zdravljenja.
The Court also held that national legislation which excludes from the betting and gaming sector operators in the form of companies whose shares are quoted on the regulated markets is likewise an obstacle to the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, and stated that such an exclusion goes beyond what is necessary in order to achieve the objective of preventing operators active in the betting and gaming sector from being involved in criminal or fraudulent activities.
Na koncu zahtevata posebno pozornost zadevi Laval un Partneri (sodba z dne 18. decembra 2007, C-341/05) in The International Transport Workers’ Federation in The Finnish Seamen’s Union (sodba z dne 11. decembra 2007, C-438/05) o kolektivnem ukrepu, ki so ga sindikalne organizacije izvajale proti izvajalcu storitev, ki ima sedež ali bi želel imeti sedež v drugi državi članici.
Finally, those freedoms are also restricted by legislation which imposes a criminal penalty on persons for pursuing the organised activity of collecting bets without a licence or a police authorisation as required under the national legislation where those persons were unable to obtain licences or authorisations because that Member State, in breach of Community law, refused to grant licences or authorisations to such persons.
V zadevi The International Transport Workers’ Federation in The Finnish Seamen’s Union je želela finska pomorska družba v Estoniji ustanoviti družbo, da bi zaradi večje konkurenčnosti v njej registrirala eno od svojih ladij, v zadevi Laval pa je latvijska gradbena družba želela izvrševati svojo pravico do svobode opravljanja storitev na Švedskem, zlasti z napotitvijo latvijskih delavcev v eno od svojih odvisnih družb na Švedskem.
Although in principle criminal legislation is a matter for which the Member States are responsible, Community law sets certain limits to their power, and such legislation may not restrict the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Community law.
V obeh zadevah pa sta se zadevni družbi morali pogajati s sindikalnimi organizacijami o svojem spoštovanju in pristopu h kolektivnim pogodbam na zadevnem področju.
The next cases, namely Schwarz and Gootjes-Schwarz, Commission v Germany and Case C-444/05 Stamatelaki (judgment of 19 April 2007), concern payments for school fees or hospital treatment to an establishment in another Member State.
V prvi zadevi je sindikalna organizacija, članica angleškega združenja sindikatov, zahtevala uporabo finske kolektivne pogodbe za osebje ladje, ki bo vpisana v estonski register.
Schwarz and Gootjes-Schwarz and Commission v Germany related to the tax relief granted to German taxpayers in respect of school fees paid for their children’s attendance at private schools in Germany meeting certain conditions.
V drugi zadevi je sindikalna organizacija od latvijske družbe zahtevala, naj zaradi zagotovila glede višine plač pristopi k švedski kolektivni pogodbi in naj jo uporablja za svoje napotene delavce.
This relief did not apply to fees paid to schools in other Member States.
Ker pogajanja v obeh primerih niso bila uspešna, so sindikalne organizacije uporabile pravico do kolektivnih ukrepov, zlasti pravico do stavke, da bi zadevni družbi prisilile k pristopu in uporabi kolektivnih pogodb.
Before ruling on the compatibility of this legislation with Article 49 EC, the Court stated, first, that the concept of services extends to schools essentially nanced by private funds.
Zato sta predložitveni sodišči vprašali Sodišče, ali kolektivni ukrepi pomenijo omejitev v smislu členov 43 ES in 49 ES.
Since the aim of those establishments is to oer a service for remuneration, they can rely on the freedom to provide services.
Sodišče je presodilo, da čeprav je treba torej pravico do kolektivnega ukrepanja, vključno s pravico do stavke, priznati kot temeljno pravico, ki je sestavni del splošnih načel prava Skupnosti, katerih spoštovanje zagotavlja Sodišče, lahko za njeno izvrševanje vseeno veljajo omejitve.
It is not necessary, however, for their nancing to be provided by the pupils or their parents, as Article 50 EC does not require that the service be paid for by those for whom it is performed.
Poleg tega na podlagi ustaljene sodne prakse za izvrševanje zadevnih temeljnih pravic veljajo določbe Pogodbe in je treba njihovo izvrševanje uskladiti z zahtevami pravic, zavarovanih s Pogodbo in načelom sorazmernosti.
On the other hand, schools which are not essentially nanced by private funds, in particular schools forming part of a system of public education, are excluded from the denition of services, given that, by establishing and maintaining a system of public education, nanced as a general rule by the public budget and not by pupils or their parents, the
Zato taki kolektivni ukrepi sindikata ali združenja sindikatov proti podjetju, ki so namenjeni temu, da bi slednjega pripravili do sklenitve kolektivne pogodbe, katere vsebina bi ga odvrnila od izvrševanja svobode ustanavljanja ali svobode opravljanja storitev, pomenijo omejevanje teh svoboščin. Vendar je Sodišče pojasnilo, da so te omejitve lahko načeloma upravičene zaradi varstva iz nujnega razloga v
State simply carries out its task in the social, cultural and educational fields towards its population.
Sodišče splošnem interesu, kot je na primer varstvo delavcev države gostiteljice pred morebitnim socialnim dampingom, če se ugotovi, da so primerne za zagotovitev uresničitve legitimnega cilja in ne presegajo tega, kar je potrebno za zagotovitev tega cilja.
The Court stated, second, that where schools established outside Germany that are essentially nanced by private funds wish to oer education to the children of German residents, the exclusion of those schools’ fees from the benet of the tax relief hinders their freedom to provide services and that, even though the freedom to provide services does not apply to schools established outside Germany which are not essentially nanced from private funds, the tax relief nonetheless may not be refused in respect of those schools’ fees.
V zgoraj navedeni zadevi Laval un Partneri pa je Sodišče presodilo, da zakonodaja, ki ne upošteva kolektivnih pogodb – ne glede na njihovo vsebino –, ki že zavezujejo podjetja, ki napotijo delavce na Švedsko, v državi članici, v kateri imajo sedež, ustvarja diskriminacijo teh podjetij, ker jih obravnava enako kot nacionalna podjetja, ki niso sklenila kolektivne pogodbe.
As has already been noted above, it is the freedom of movement of citizens of the Union which prevents such an exclusion.
Najprej naj omenimo zadevo Komisija proti Nemčiji (sodba z dne 23. oktobra 2007, C-112/05) o zakonu, imenovanem „zakon Volkswagen“.
Accordingly, the Court held that Community law precludes the tax relief from being generally refused in respect of school fees paid to schools in other Member States.
Sodišče je presodilo, da Zvezna republika Nemčija, s tem da je ohranila v veljavi določbe tega zakona, ki z odstopanjem od splošnega prava določajo zgornjo mejo glasovalnih pravic vsakega delničarja družbe Volkswagen na 20 % kapitala družbe, zahtevajo za sprejetje določenih sklepov skupščine delničarjev družbe 80-odstotno večino kapitala družbe ter podeljujejo državi in teritorialni skupnosti pravico, da imenujeta vsaka po dva predstavnika v nadzorni svet družbe, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz člena 56(1) ES.
Finally, such legislation also impedes the freedom of establishment of employees and self-employed persons who have transferred their normal place of residence to, or who work in, Germany and whose children continue to attend a fee-paying school situated in another Member State.
Določitev kvoruma na več kot 80 % kapitala družbe namreč vsakemu delničarju, ki ima 20 % kapitala družbe, omogoča, da ima manjšino, s katero je mogoče preprečiti sprejetje sklepa, in javnim subjektom omogoča, da si z manjšo naložbo, kot se zahteva na podlagi splošnega prava družb, ohranijo možnost nasprotovanja pomembnim odločitvam.
They do not enjoy the tax relief, whereas they would enjoy it if their children attended a school situated in Germany.
Poleg tega ta zakonodaja, s tem da je z njo določena zgornja meja glasovnih pravic na 20 %, prispeva k temu, da se javnim subjektom omogoči izvajanje pomembnega vpliva.
In Stamatelaki, the Court held that the freedom to provide services is impeded by national legislation which excludes all reimbursement by a national social security institution of the costs occasioned by treatment of persons insured with it in private hospitals in another Member State, except those relating to treatment provided to children under 14 years of age.
Te določbe torej omejujejo možnost udeležbe drugih delničarjev v družbi, da bi z njo vzpostavili ter ohranjali trajne in neposredne gospodarske vezi in da bi dejansko sodelovali pri upravljanju ali nadzoru te družbe. Ker ti ukrepi povzročajo manjšanje zanimanja za pridobitev deleža v kapitalu družbe, lahko odvračajo neposredne vlagatelje iz drugih držav članic in torej omejujejo prosti pretok kapitala.
Such a measure, whose absolute nature (except for the case of children under 14 years of age) is not appropriate to the objective pursued, cannot be justied by the risk of seriously undermining the financial balance of a social security system since measures which are less restrictive and more in keeping with the freedom to provide services could be adopted, such as a prior authorisation scheme which complies with the requirements imposed by Community law and, if appropriate, the determination of scales for reimbursement of the costs of treatment.
Enako velja za pravico do imenovanja dveh predstavnikov v nadzorni svet, ki je določena samo za javne subjekte. S tem da daje ta ukrep javnim subjektom možnost, da pomembneje sodelujejo pri dejavnosti nadzornega sveta, jim pravzaprav omogoča izvajanje vpliva, ki presega njihove naložbe in to, kar bi jim njihov status delničarja sicer omogočal.
Finally, Case C-341/05 Laval un Partneri (judgment of 18 December 2007) and Case C-438/05 The International Transport Workers’ Federation and The Finnish Seamen’s Union (judgment of 11 December 2007), relating to collective action engaged in by trade union organisations against a provider of services established or wishing to establish itself in another Member State, deserve particularly close attention.
Drugič, pozornost vzbuja tudi zadeva Festersen (sodba z dne 25. januarja 2007, C-370/05, ZOdl., str.
While in The International Transport Workers’ Federation and The Finnish Seamen’s Union a Finnish maritime transport company wished to establish itself in Estonia so as to register one of its vessels there, in order to be more competitive, in Laval un Partneri a Latvian construction company wished to exercise its freedom to provide services in Sweden, in particular by the posting of Latvian workers to one of its Swedish subsidiaries.
I-1129), v kateri je Sodišče presodilo, da člen 56 ES nasprotuje temu, da nacionalna zakonodaja za nakup kmetijskega posestva določa pogoj, da ima kupec osem let stalno bivališče na tem posestvu, ne glede na posebne okoliščine v zvezi z značilnostmi zadevnega kmetijskega posestva.
In both cases, the companies in question had to negotiate with trade unions in relation to the companies’ signing of, and compliance with, the collective agreements applicable to their respective sectors.
Po mnenju Sodišča je sprejemljivo, da je namen nacionalne ureditve, ki vsebuje tako obveznost, preprečiti nakupovanje kmetijskih zemljišč zgolj zaradi špekulativnih razlogov in olajšati osebam, ki želijo obdelovati kmetijska zemljišča, prednostni nakup teh zemljišč.
In the former case, the trade union, aliated to a federation of trade unions based in the United Kingdom, sought application of the Finnish collective agreement to the crew of the vessel which would be ying the Estonian ag.
Taka zakonodaja tako ustreza cilju v splošnem interesu v državi članici, v kateri so kmetijska zemljišča nesporno omejen naravni vir.
In the latter case, the trade union demanded that the Latvian company should, by way of guarantee as to the rate of pay, sign the Swedish collective agreement and apply it to its posted workers.
Vendar pa je Sodišče ugotovilo, da pomeni obveznost bivanja ukrep, ki presega to, kar je nujno za dosego takega cilja.
Since negotiations were unsuccessful in each case, the trade unions exercised their right of collective action, in particular by use of the right to strike, to compel the companies to sign and implement the collective
Na eni strani je namreč ta obveznost posebno omejevalna, ker ne omejuje samo prostega pretoka kapitala, ampak tudi pravico kupca do svobodne izbire bivališča, ki mu je zagotovljena z Evropsko konvencijo o varstvu človekovih pravic in jo varuje pravni red Skupnosti, s čimer je kršena temeljna pravica. Na drugi strani pa ni nobene
The Court held that, although the right to take collective action must be recognised as a fundamental right that forms an integral part of the general principles of Community law the observance of which the Court ensures, the exercise of that right may nonetheless be subject to certain restrictions.
In tretjič, v zgoraj navedeni zadevi Holböck je Sodišče uporabilo člen 57(1) ES, ki določa izjemo od prepovedi omejevanja prostega pretoka kapitala med državami članicami in tretjimi državami za omejitve, ki veljajo na dan 31. decembra 1993 in se nanašajo na pretok kapitala pri neposrednih naložbah.
Furthermore, in accordance with settled case-law, the exercise of fundamental rights does not fall outside the scope of the provisions of the Treaty, and must be reconciled with the requirements relating to rights protected under the Treaty and be in accordance with the principle of proportionality.
Sodišče je najprej spomnilo na to, da pojem „neposredne naložbe“ zadeva naložbe vseh vrst zičnih ali pravnih oseb, ki so namenjene vzpostavitvi ali ohranjanju trajnih in neposrednih povezav med osebo, ki je zagotovila kapital, in podjetjem, ki je dobilo kapital za izvajanje gospodarske dejavnosti na voljo.
Accordingly, such collective action initiated by a trade union or a group of trade unions against an undertaking in order to induce that undertaking to enter into an agreement, the terms of which are liable to deter it from exercising the freedom of establishment or freedom to provide services, constitutes a restriction on those freedoms.
Cilj vzpostavitve ali ohranjanja trajnih gospodarskih povezav glede deleža v novih ali obstoječih podjetjih predpostavlja, da delnice svojemu imetniku dajejo možnost učinkovito sodelovati pri upravljanju družbe ali njenem nadzoru. Sodišče je nato navedlo, da se člen 57(1) ES uporablja tudi za nacionalne ukrepe, ki omejujejo izplačila dividend, ki izhajajo iz naložb.
However, the Court made it clear that a restriction of that kind may, in principle, be justied by an overriding reason of public interest, such as the protection of the workers of the host State against possible social dumping, provided that it is established that the restriction is suitable for ensuring the attainment of the legitimate objective pursued and does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective.
Sodišče je zato presodilo, da se za tako omejitev pretoka kapitala, kot je manj ugodno davčno obravnavanje tujih dividend, uporablja člen 57(1) ES, ker se omejitev nanaša na prevzem deležev, da bi se vzpostavile ali ohranile trajne in neposredne gospodarske povezave med delničarjem in zadevno družbo, ki delničarju omogočajo učinkovito sodelovanje pri upravljanju družbe ali njenem nadzoru.
On the other hand, the Court held in Laval un Partneri that national rules which fail to take into account, irrespective of their content, collective agreements to which undertakings that post workers to the host Member State are already bound in the Member State in which they are established give rise to discrimination against such undertakings, in so far as under those national rules they are treated in the same way as national undertakings which have not concluded a collective agreement.
Člen 57(1) ES je treba torej razlagati tako, da člen 56 ES ne posega v uporabo zakonodaje s strani države članice, ki velja na dan 31. decembra 1993, ki določa, da se delničarja, ki prejme dividende družbe s sedežem v tretji državi, v kateri ima dve tretjini družbenega kapitala, obdavči po stopnji, ki je višja od stopnje, po kateri se obdavči delničarja, ki prejme dividende družbe rezidentke.
Three judgments concerning the free movement of capital will be accorded particular attention, the first being the judgment of 23 October 2007 in Case C-112/05 Commission v Germany, relating to the law known as the ‘Volkswagen law’.
Sodišče je imelo veliko priložnosti za obravnavanje pristojnosti držav članic na področju neposrednega obdavčenja in omejitev njihovega izvajanja.
The Court held that, by maintaining in force the provisions of this law which, in derogation from the general law, cap the voting rights of any Volkswagen shareholder at 20 % of the share capital, require a majority of more than 80 % of the share capital in order for certain resolutions of the general assembly of shareholders to be passed and confer upon the State and a regional authority the right to appoint two representatives each to the company’s supervisory board, the Federal Republic of Germany had failed to full its obligations under Article 56(1) EC.
Glede tega se je izreklo o različnih nacionalnih davčnih ukrepih v zvezi z obdavčitvijo družb in njihovih delničarjev na eni strani in obdavčitvijo posameznikov na drugi strani.
Furthermore, by capping voting rights at 20 %, the legislation helped to give those authorities the opportunity to exercise considerable inuence.
Najprej naj navedemo, da je bilo na področju obdavčenja družb več nacionalnih ukrepov v celoti razglašenih za nezdružljive s temeljnimi svoboščinami Pogodbe.
Those provisions therefore limited the possibility for other shareholders to participate in the company, to establish or maintain lasting and direct economic links with it and to participate eectively in its management or control.
Tako je v zadevi Geurts in Vogten (sodba z dne 25. oktobra 2007, C-464/05) Sodišče presodilo, da so davčni predpisi države članice na področju davkov na dediščino, ki iz oprostitve plačila teh davkov, predvidene za družinska podjetja, brez utemeljenega razloga izključujejo podjetja, ki so tri leta pred smrtjo zapustnika zaposlovala vsaj pet delavcev v drugi državi članici – medtem ko tako oprostitev dovoljujejo, če so delavci zaposleni v regiji prve države članice – v nasprotju s členom 43 ES.
By diminishing the interest in acquiring a stake in the company’s capital, those measures were liable to deter direct investors from other Member States and thus constituted a restriction on the free movement of capital.
Sodišče je namreč menilo, da pogoj zaposlitve delavcev na ozemlju države članice lahko lažje izpolni družba, ki že ima sedež na ozemlju te države članice, in da zato ti predpisi uvajajo posredno diskriminacijo med davčnimi zavezanci na podlagi kraja zaposlovanja določenega števila delavcev v določenem obdobju.
The same was true of the right, enjoyed by the public authorities alone, to appoint two representatives to the supervisory board.
Nato je Sodišče spomnilo na to, da če je tako obravnavanje upravičeno z razlogi v zvezi s preživetjem malih in srednje velikih podjetij in s potrebo po zaščiti učinkovitosti davčnega nadzora, mora biti tudi primerno za uresničitev teh ciljev in ne sme presegati tega, kar je nujno potrebno za njihovo uresničitev.
By enabling those authorities to participate in a more signicant manner in the activity of the supervisory
Vendar je Sodišče ugotovilo, da so nacionalna in tuja družinska podjetja v primerljivem položaju glede cilja kontinuitete podjetij in da je poleg
Court of Justice board, this measure in fact allowed them to exercise an inuence which exceeded their levels of investment and was greater than their status as shareholders would normally allow.
Sodišče tega učinkovitost davčnega nadzora mogoče zaščititi tako, da se od davčnih zavezancev zahteva, naj sami predložijo dokaze, ki so potrebni za dodelitev davčne ugodnosti, namesto da se družbi, ki ne zaposluje najmanj pet delavcev v zadevni državi članici, kategorično zavrne dodelitev ugodnosti.
Second, Case C-370/05 Festersen [2007] ECR I-1129 should be noted, in which the Court held that Article 56 EC precludes national legislation from laying down as a condition for acquiring an agricultural property the requirement that the acquirer take up his xed residence on that property for a period of eight years, irrespective of particular circumstances relating to individual characteristics of the agricultural land concerned.
V zadevi Elisa (sodba z dne 11. oktobra 2007, C-451/05) je Sodišče presodilo, da člen 56 ES nasprotuje nacionalni zakonodaji, ki družbe s sedežem v tej državi oprošča davka na nepremičnine, ki ležijo v tej državi, medtem ko to oprostitev za družbe s sedežem v drugi državi članici pogojuje z obstojem dvostranske konvencije o boju proti davčnim utajam in izogibanju plačevanja davkov ali z okoliščino, da na podlagi uporabe pogodbe, ki vsebuje klavzulo o nediskriminaciji glede na državljanstvo, te družbe niso bolj obdavčene od družb rezidentk.
According to the Court, it can be accepted that national legislation containing such a residence requirement seeks to avoid the acquisition of agricultural land for purely speculative reasons and is likely to facilitate the preferential appropriation of that land by persons who wish to farm it.
Sodišče je namreč menilo, da so zaradi dodatnih pogojev, ki jih določa nacionalna ureditev za to, da se družbam nerezidentkam prizna davčno oprostitev, naložbe v nepremičnine manj privlačne za te družbe. S to ureditvijo se torej omejuje načelo prostega pretoka kapitala.
Such legislation therefore does pursue a public interest objective in a Member State in which agricultural land is a limited natural resource.
Sodišče je spomnilo, da čeprav je boj proti davčni utaji nujni razlog v splošnem interesu, s katerim je mogoče upravičiti omejitev prostega pretoka, pa mora biti zadevna omejitev primerna za uresničitev zastavljenega cilja in ne sme presegati tega, kar je nujno potrebno za dosego tega cilja.
However, the Court held the residence requirement to be a measure going beyond what is necessary to attain such an objective.
Zadevna nacionalna zakonodaja družbam nerezidentkam ne omogoča, da bi dokazale, da ne zasledujejo goljuvega cilja.
First, it is particularly restrictive in that it limits not only the free movement of capital but also the right of the acquirer to choose his place of residence freely, which is guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights and protected under Community law, thereby adversely aecting a fundamental right.
V zadevi Meilicke in drugi (sodba z dne 6. marca 2007, C-292/04, ZOdl., str. I-1835) je Sodišče presodilo, da država članica ne sme pridržati davčnega odbitka zgolj za dividende, ki jih izplačajo kapitalske družbe s sedežem v tej državi.