natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Since, in the present case, questions of interpretation similar to those covered by the questions referred for a preliminary ruling in the cases which, in due course, gave rise to the judgments in Case C-196/04 Cadbury Schweppes and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas [2006] ECR I-7995; Case C-374/04 Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT
Ker so bila v tej zadevi postavljena vpra�anja o razlagi, ki so podobna vpra�anjem, postavljenim v zadevah, v katerih so bile izrečene sodbe z dne 12. septembra 2006 v zadevi Cadbury Schweppes in Cadbury Schweppes Overseas (C-196/04, ZOdl., str. I-7995), z dne 12. decembra 2006 v zadevi Test Claimants in Class IV of the
By letter of 12 June 2007, the referring court informed the Court that it was maintaining its reference.
Predložitveno sodi�če je z dopisom z dne 12. junija 2007 Sodi�če obvestilo, da vztraja pri svojem predlogu.
Under the first subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure, where a question referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling is identical to a question on which the Court has already ruled, or where the answer to such a question may be clearly deduced from existing caselaw, the Court may, after hearing the Advocate General, at any time give its decision by reasoned order.
Člen 104(3), prvi pododstavek, Poslovnika, določa, da če je Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predloženo vpra�anje enako tistemu, o katerem je Sodi�če že odločalo, ali če je iz obstoječe sodne prakse mogoče jasno sklepati, kak�en bo odgovor na tako vpra�anje, lahko Sodi�če po opredelitvi generalnega pravobranilca kadar koli odloči z obrazloženim sklepom.
By its first question, the national court is asking, in essence, whether Articles 43 EC and 56 EC preclude legislation of a Member State which exempts from corporation tax dividends received by a resident company from a company which is also resident in that State (‘nationally-sourced dividends’), when it imposes that tax on dividends received by a resident company from a company which is not resident in that State (‘foreign-sourced dividends’), particularly if it is a nonresident company controlled by that resident company, while granting relief for all withholding tax levied in the State in which the company making the distribution is resident and, where the resident company receiving the dividends holds, directly or indirectly, not less than 10% of the voting power in the company making the distribution, relief against corporation tax paid by the company making the distribution on the profits underlying the dividends distributed.
Predložitveno sodi�če s prvim vpra�anjem v bistvu spra�uje, ali člena 43 ES in 56 ES nasprotujeta zakonodaji države članice, ki določa oprostitev od davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb za dividende, ki jih družba rezidentka prejme od družbe, ki je tudi rezidentka te države članice (v nadaljevanju: domače dividende), medtem ko ta davek določa za dividende, ki jih je prejela družba rezidentka od družbe, ki ni rezidentka te države članice (v nadaljevanju: tuje dividende), in v tem primeru priznava davčno olaj�avo za vsak pri viru odtegnjeni davek, zaračunan v državi, v kateri je družba razdeljevalka dividend rezidentka, in tudi, kadar ima družba rezidentka prejemnica dividend neposredno ali posredno 10 % ali več glasovalnih pravic v družbi razdeljevalki dividend, olaj�avo za davek od dohodkov pravnih oseb, ki ga je plačala družba razdeljevalka dividend od dobička, ki je bil podlaga za razdeljene dividende.
The Court has already examined that question in Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, cited above. Consequently, the reply given by the Court in that judgment is fully applicable to the first question referred by the national court in this case.
Ugotoviti je treba, da je Sodi�če v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation že preučilo to vpra�anje in da je zato odgovor, ki ga je Sodi�če dalo v navedeni sodbi, mogoče v celoti prenesti na prvo vpra�anje predložitvenega sodi�ča v tej zadevi.
In that judgment, the Court observed that Community law does not, in principle, prohibit a Member State from avoiding the imposition of a series of charges to tax on dividends received by a resident company by applying rules which exempt those dividends from tax when they are paid by a resident company, while preventing, through an imputation system, those dividends from being liable to a series of charges to tax when they are paid by a nonresident company (Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 48).
Sodi�če je v tej sodbi navedlo, da pravo Skupnosti državi članici načeloma ne prepoveduje, da bi verižno obdavčevanje dividend, ki jih prejme družba rezidentka, preprečila z uporabo pravil, ki za te dividende določajo davčno oprostitev, kadar jih izplača družba rezidentka, in hkrati s sistemom odbitka preprečila verižno obdavčevanje navedenih dividend, kadar jih izplača družba nerezidentka (zgoraj navedena sodba Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, točka 48).
As regards, in the first place, dividends received by a resident company from a nonresident company in which it has a shareholding enabling it to exercise a definite influence over the decisions of that nonresident company and to determine its activities, the Court held that the fact that nationally-sourced dividends are subject to an exemption system and foreignsourced dividends are subject to an imputation system does not contravene the principle of freedom of establishment laid down under Article 43 EC, provided that the tax rate applied to foreignsourced dividends is not higher than the rate applied to nationally-sourced dividends and that the tax credit is at least equal to the amount paid in the Member State of the company making the distribution, up to the limit of the tax charged in the Member State of the company receiving the dividends (Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 57).
Kar zadeva, prvič, dividende, ki jih družba rezidentka prejme od družbe nerezidentke, v kateri ima delež, ki ji omogoča določeno vplivanje na odločitve te družbe nerezidentke in določanje njenih dejavnosti, je Sodi�če odločilo, da dejstvo, da se za domače dividende uporablja sistem oprostitev, za tuje dividende pa sistem odbitka, ni v nasprotju z načelom svobode ustanavljanja, ki ga določa člen 43 ES, če stopnja davka od tujih dividend ni vi�ja od davčne stopnje, ki se uporablja za domače dividende, in če je davčni odbitek najmanj enak znesku, ki je bil plačan v državi članici družbe razdeljevalke dividend, in največ tak kot znesek obdavčitve, ki se uporablja v državi članici družbe prejemnice dividend (zgoraj navedena sodba Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, točka 57).
With respect, in the second place, to dividends paid to resident companies by a company in which they hold 10% or more of the voting rights, without that holding conferring on them a definite influence over the decisions of that company or allowing them to determine its activities, it follows from the Court’s caselaw that, in the case of the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, the fact that nationally-sourced dividends are subject to an exemption system and foreignsourced dividends are subject to an imputation system does not contravene the principle of free movement of capital laid down under Article 56 EC, provided that the tax rate applied to foreignsourced dividends is not higher than the rate applied to nationally-sourced dividends and that the tax credit is at least equal to the amount paid in the Member State of the company making the distribution, up to the limit of the tax charged in the Member State of the company receiving the dividends (see, to that effect, Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 60).
Kar zadeva, drugič, družbe rezidentke, ki so prejele dividende družbe, v kateri imajo 10 % ali več glasovalnih pravic, ne da bi jim ta delež dajal določen vpliv na odločitve te družbe in določanje njenih dejavnosti, iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča izhaja, da na podlagi nacionalne zakonodaje, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, dejstvo, da se za domače dividende uporablja sistem oprostitev, za tuje dividende pa sistem odbitka, ni v nasprotju z načelom prostega pretoka kapitala, ki je določen v čle -nu 56 ES, če stopnja davka od tujih dividend ni vi�ja od davčne stopnje, ki se uporablja za domače dividende, in če je davčni odbitek najmanj enak znesku, ki je bil plačan v državi članici družbe razdeljevalke dividend, in največ tak kot znesek obdavčitve, ki se uporablja v državi članici družbe prejemnice dividend (v zvezi s tem glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, točka 60).
As regards, thirdly and lastly, resident companies which received dividends from companies in which they hold fewer than 10% of the voting rights, after noting that nationally-sourced dividends are exempt from corporation tax, whilst foreignsourced dividends are subject to that tax and are entitled to relief only as regards any withholding tax charged on those dividends in the State in which the company
Kar zadeva, tretjič in zadnjič, družbe rezidentke, ki so prejele dividende družb, v katerih imajo manj kot 10 % glasovalnih pravic, je Sodi�če, potem ko je navedlo, da so domače dividende opro�čene davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb, medtem ko so tuje dividende zavezane plačilu tega davka in dajejo pravico samo do olaj�ave za morebitni pri viru odtegnjeni davek od teh istih dividend v državi, v kateri je družba
2008 — CASE C-201/05 making the distribution is resident (Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 61), the Court held that the difference in treatment arising from legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings as regards dividends received by resident companies from nonresident companies in which they hold fewer than 10% of the voting rights constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital which is, in principle, prohibited by Article 56 EC (Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 65).
2008 – ZADEVA C-201/05 razdeljevalka dividend rezidentka (zgoraj navedena sodba Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, točka 61), odločilo, da različno obravnavanje v zakonodaji, kot se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, glede dividend, ki jih prejmejo družbe rezidentke od družb nerezidentk, v katerih imajo manj kot 10 % glasovalnih pravic, pomeni omejevanje prostega pretoka kapitala, ki je načelno prepovedano s čle -nom 56 ES (zgoraj navedena sodba Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, točka 65).
The Court went on to hold that the mere fact that it is for a Member State to determine for such holdings whether, and to what extent, the imposition of a series of charges to tax on distributed profits is to be avoided does not of itself mean that it may operate a system under which foreignsourced dividends and nationally-sourced dividends are not treated in the same way (Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 69), and that, irrespective of the fact that a Member State may, in any event, choose between a number of systems in order to prevent or mitigate the imposition of a series of charges to tax on distributed profits, the difficulties that may arise in determining the tax actually paid in another Member State cannot justify a restriction on the free movement of capital such as that which arises under the legislation at issue in the main proceedings (Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 70).
V nadaljevanju je Sodi�če odločilo, da zgolj dejstvo, da je pri takih deležih naloga države članice, da določi, ali in v kolik�ni meri se je treba izogniti verižnemu obdavčevanju razdeljenega dobička, kljub temu ne pomeni, da sme izvajati ureditev, v kateri se tuje in domače dividende ne obravnavajo enako (zgoraj navedena sodba Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, točka 69), in da ne glede na dejstvo, da ima država članica vsekakor na voljo različne možne sisteme za preprečevanje ali zmanj�anje verižnega obdavčevanja razdeljenega dobička, morebitne težave pri določanju dejansko plačanega davka v drugi državi članici ne morejo upravičevati take ovire za prost pretok kapitala, kot je ovira, ki izhaja iz zakonodaje, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari (zgoraj navedena sodba Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, točka 70).
Therefore, the Court held that Article 56 EC precludes legislation of a Member State which exempts from corporation tax dividends which a resident company receives from another resident company, where that State levies corporation tax on dividends which a resident company receives from a nonresident company in which it holds less than 10% of the voting rights, without granting the company receiving the dividends a tax credit for the tax actually paid by the company making the distribution in the State in which the latter is resident (Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 74).
Zato je Sodi�če razsodilo, da člen 56 ES nasprotuje zakonodaji države članice, ki določa oprostitev od davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb za dividende, ki jih družba rezidentka prejme od druge družbe rezidentke, medtem ko s tem davkom obdavči dividende, ki jih družba rezidentka prejme od družbe nerezidentke, v kateri ima manj kot 10 % glasovalnih pravic, ne da bi ji priznala davčni odbitek iz naslova davka, ki ga je družba razdeljevalka dividend dejansko plačala v državi, v kateri je rezidentka (zgoraj navedena sodba Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, točka 74).
Having regard to the foregoing, the reply to the first question must be:
Glede na zgoraj navedeno je treba na prvo vpra�anje odgovoriti:
— Article 43 EC is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude legislation of a Member State which exempts from corporation tax dividends which a resident company receives from another resident company, when that State imposes corporation tax on dividends which a resident company receives from a nonresident company in which the resident company has a shareholding enabling it to exercise a definite influence over the decisions of that nonresident company and to determine its activities, while at the same time granting a tax credit for the tax actually paid by the company making the distribution in the Member State in which it is resident, provided that the rate of tax applied to foreignsourced dividends is no higher than the rate of tax applied to nationally-sourced dividends and that the tax credit is at least equal to the amount paid in the Member State of the company making the distribution, up to the limit of the amount of the tax charged in the Member State of the company receiving the distribution;
– člen 43 ES je treba razlagati tako, da ne nasprotuje zakonodaji države članice, ki določa oprostitev od davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb za dividende, ki jih družba rezidentka prejme od druge družbe rezidentke, medtem ko s tem davkom obdavči dividende, ki jih družba rezidentka prejme od družbe nerezidentke, v kateri ima družba rezidentka delež, ki ji omogoča določeno vplivanje na odločitve te družbe in določanje njenih dejavnosti, in v tem primeru prizna davčni odbitek iz naslova davka, ki ga je družba razdeljevalka dividend dejansko plačala v državi članici, v kateri je rezidentka, če davčna stopnja za tuje dividende ni vi�ja od davčne stopnje, ki se uporablja za domače dividende, in če je davčni odbitek najmanj enak znesku, ki je bil plačan v državi članici družbe razdeljevalke dividend, in največ tak kot znesek obdavčitve, ki se uporablja v državi članici družbe prejemnice dividend;
— Article 56 EC is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude legislation of a Member State which exempts from corporation tax dividends which a resident company receives from another resident company, when that State imposes corporation tax on dividends which a resident company receives from a nonresident company in which the resident company holds at least 10% of the voting rights, while granting a tax credit for the tax actually paid by the company making the distribution in the Member State in which it is resident, provided that the rate of tax applied to foreignsourced dividends is no higher than the rate of tax applied to nationally-sourced dividends and that the tax credit is at least equal to the amount paid in the Member State of the company making the distribution, up to the limit of the amount of the tax charged in the Member State of the company receiving the distribution;
– člen 56 ES je treba razlagati tako, da ne nasprotuje zakonodaji države članice, ki določa oprostitev od davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb za dividende, ki jih družba rezidentka prejme od druge družbe rezidentke, medtem ko s tem davkom obdavči dividende, ki jih družba rezidentka prejme od družbe nerezidentke, v kateri ima družba rezidentka najmanj 10 % glasovalnih pravic, in v tem primeru prizna davčni odbitek iz naslova davka, ki ga je družba razdeljevalka dividend dejansko plačala v državi članici, v kateri je rezidentka, če davčna stopnja za tuje dividende ni vi�ja od davčne stopnje, ki se uporablja za domače dividende, in če je davčni odbitek najmanj enak znesku, ki je bil plačan v državi članici družbe razdeljevalke dividend, in največ tak kot znesek obdavčitve, ki se uporablja v državi članici družbe prejemnice dividend;
— Article 56 EC is, furthermore, to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes legislation of a Member State which exempts from corporation tax dividends which a resident company receives from another resident company, where that State
– člen 56 ES je poleg tega treba razlagati tako, da nasprotuje zakonodaji države članice, ki določa oprostitev od davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb za dividende, ki jih družba rezidentka prejme od druge družbe rezidentke, medtem ko s tem
2008 — CASE C-201/05 levies corporation tax on dividends which a resident company receives from a nonresident company in which it holds less than 10% of the voting rights, without granting the company receiving the dividends a tax credit for the tax actually paid by the company making the distribution in the State in which the latter is resident.
2008 – ZADEVA C-201/05 davkom obdavči dividende, ki jih družba rezidentka prejme od družbe nerezidentke, v kateri ima manj kot 10 % glasovalnih pravic, ne da bi ji priznala davčni odbitek iz naslova davka, ki ga je družba razdeljevalka dividend dejansko plačala v državi, v kateri je rezidentka.
By its second question, the national court is asking the Court, in essence, whether Articles 43 EC, 49 EC or 56 EC are to be interpreted as meaning that they preclude legislation of a Member State which allows an exemption from corporation tax for certain dividends received from resident companies by resident insurance companies but excludes such an exemption for similar dividends received from nonresident companies.
Predložitveno sodi�če z drugim vpra�anjem v bistvu spra�uje Sodi�če, ali je treba člene 43 ES, 49 ES ali 56 ES razlagati tako, da nasprotujejo zakonodaji države članice, ki omogoča oprostitev od davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb za nekatere dividende, ki so jih zavarovalni�ke družbe rezidentke prejele od družb rezidentk, tako oprostitev pa izključuje za enake dividende, prejete od družb nerezidentk.
In that regard, it is clear from the caselaw that freedom of establishment includes the right to set up and manage undertakings, in particular companies or firms, in a Member State by a national of another Member State.
V zvezi s tem iz sodne prakse izhaja, da pravica do ustanavljanja zajema pravico državljanov države članice do ustanovitve in vodenja podjetij, zlasti družb, v drugi državi članici.
So, a national of a Member State who has a holding in the capital of a company established in another Member State which gives him definite influence over the company’s decisions and allows him to determine its activities is exercising his right of establishment (Case C-251/98 Baars [2000] ECR I-2787, paragraph 22; Cadbury Schweppes and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, paragraph 31; and Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, paragraph 27).
Svojo pravico do ustanavljanja tako uresničuje državljan države članice, ki ima v kapitalu družbe s sedežem v drugi državi članici delež, ki mu omogoča določeno vplivanje na odločitve te družbe in določanje njenih dejavnosti (sodba z dne 13. aprila 2000 v zadevi Baars, C-251/98, Recueil, str. I-2787, točka 22; zgoraj navedena sodba Cadbury Schweppes in Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, točka 31, ter zgoraj navedena sodba Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, točka 27).
In principle, the acquisition by one or more persons residing in a Member State of shares in a company incorporated and established in another Member State, where such a shareholding does not confer on those persons definite influence over the company’s decisions or allow them to determine its activities, falls within the scope
Načeloma, kadar ena ali več oseb s stalnim prebivali�čem v državi članici pridobi deleže v družbi, ki je ustanovljena in ima sedež v drugi državi članici, in če tak delež tem osebam ne omogoča določenega vplivanja na odločitve družbe niti določanja njenih dejavnosti, se uporabljajo določbe Pogodbe ES o prostem pretoku kapitala
TEST CLAIMANTS IN THE CFC AND DIVIDEND GROUP LITIGATION of the provisions of the EC Treaty on the free movement of capital (see, to that effect, Baars, cited above, paragraph 22; Cadbury Schweppes and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, paragraph 31; and Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, paragraph 27).
(v zvezi s tem glej zgoraj navedene sodbe Baars, točka 22; Cadbury Schweppes in Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, točka 31, ter Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, točka 27).
In this case, it is clear from the order making the reference that the claimants in the main proceedings who are subject to the legislation in question in connection with the second question referred did not own a controlling shareholding in the capital of the companies from which they received dividends, but only a portfolio holding, held for investment purposes, of less than 10%.
V obravnavanem primeru iz predložitvenega sklepa izhaja, da tožeče stranke v postopku v glavni stvari, za katere velja zakonodaja iz drugega vpra�anja, v kapitalu družb, od katerih so prejele dividende, niso imele nadzornega deleža, ampak samo portfeljski delež v vi�ini manj kot 10 % za naložbene namene.
There is therefore no need to reply to the second question in so far as it refers to Article 43 EC.
Zato ni treba odgovoriti na drugo vpra�anje v delu, ki se nana�a na člen 43 ES.
The same applies in so far as that question refers to Article 49 EC.
Enako velja za del vpra�anja, ki se nana�a na člen 49 ES.
Indeed, Article 50 EC provides that services are to be considered to be ‘services’ within the meaning of the Treaty where they are normally provided for remuneration, in so far as they are not governed by the provisions relating to the free movement of capital.
Iz člena 50 ES namreč izhaja, da so v smislu Pogodbe storitve razumljene kot storitve takrat, kadar se praviloma opravljajo za plačilo in kolikor jih ne urejajo določbe, ki se nana�ajo na prost pretok kapitala.
Consequently, since the receipt of dividends on shares in a company established in a Member State by a national of another Member State is indissociable from a capital movement (Case C-35/98 Verkooijen [2000] ECR I-4071, paragraphs 29 and 30), that transaction is not covered by Article 49 EC.
Ker pa je prejetje dividend od delnic družbe s sedežem v državi članici s strani državljana druge države članice neločljivo povezano s pretokom kapitala (sodba z dne 6. junija 2000 v zadevi Verkooijen, C-35/98, Recueil, str. I-4071, točki 29 in 30), se za to transakcijo ne uporablja člen 49 ES.
For the purposes of the legislation applicable to the main proceedings, section 208 of ICTA does not apply, as a rule, either to pensions business or overseas life assurance business, with the result that dividends from portfolio investments linked to such business are subject to United Kingdom tax.
Na podlagi zakonodaje, ki se uporablja za postopek v glavni stvari, se člen 208 ICTA načeloma ne uporablja niti za pokojninske posle niti za posle življenjskega zavarovanja v tujini, zaradi česar so dividende iz portfeljskih naložb, povezanih s temi posli, zavezane plačilu davka v Združenem kraljestvu.