natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Article 14d(1) of Regulation No 1408/71, refers to all the legislation of the competent Member State, including, where appropriate and in the present case, the Double Taxation Convention introduced into French domestic law.
Zato naj bi Republika Francija uporabljala le svojo zakonodajo v skladu z mehanizmom re�evanja kolizije zakonov s področja socialne varnosti, ki je določen v upo�tevnih določbah Uredbe �t. 1408/71.
According to Article 1(j) of Regulation No 1408/71, which defines the term ‘legislation’ for the purposes of implementing that regulation, it means ‘in respect of each Member State statutes, regulations and other provisions and all other implementing measures, present or future, relating to the branches and schemes of social security covered by Article 4 (1) and (2) or those special non-contributory benefits covered by Article 4 (2a)’.
V skladu s členom 1(j) Uredbe �t. 1408/71, ki pojem „zakonodaja“ opredeljuje za namene njene uporabe, ta pojem pomeni „vse zakone, predpise in druge določbe ter vse druge sedanje ali prihodnje izvedbene ukrepe vsake države članice, ki se nana�ajo na področja socialne varnosti in sisteme socialne varnosti, zajete v členu 4(1) in (2), ali na tiste posebne dajatve, za katere se ne plačujejo prispevki iz člena 4(2a)“.
That definition does not therefore mention international conventions in the field of social security 43 or, a fortiori, the provisions of other international conventions which, depending on circumstances, may fall within the substantive scope of Regulation No 1408/71.
Ta pojem torej ne omenja mednarodnih sporazumov s področja socialne varnosti 43ali a fortiori določb drugih mednarodnih sporazumov, ki naj bi glede na okoli�čine primera sodili na področje materialne uporabe Uredbe �t. 1408/71.
This argument fails to convince, for it loses sight of the fact that Regulation No 1408/71 merely designates the social security legislation applicable to employed and selfemployed persons within the European Community who are in a given transborder situation and does not therefore refer to national legislation as a whole, which includes inter alia national employment law and tax laws.
To stali�če ne prepriča, ker ne upo�teva, da Uredba �t. 1408/71 oblikuje le zakonodajo s področja socialne varnosti, ki se uporablja za zaposlene in samozaposlene delavce v okviru Evropske skupnosti, ki so v danem čezmejnem položaju, in se torej ne nana�a na celotno nacionalno zakonodajo, katere del je med drugim nacionalna delovna zakonodaja ali davčna zakonodaja.
Under Article 14d(1) of Regulation No 1408/71, and as the URSSAF considered, the designated social security legislation implementing that provision must base the assessment of contributions falling within the scope of that regulation on the total income from selfemployment by a person in the situation covered by Article 14a(2) of that regulation.
Vendar v skladu s členom 14(d)(1) Uredbe �t. 1408/71, tako je menil Urssaf, mora uporabljiva zakonodaja s področja socialne varnosti, v okviru katere se izvaja ta določba, osnovo prispevkov, ki sodijo na področje uporabe navedene uredbe, odmeriti od vseh dohodkov od poklicnih dejavnosti samozaposlenega delavca, ki je v položaju, urejenem v členu 14(a)(2) te uredbe.
However, as the URSSAF and the Commission have aptly pointed out, social security conventions concluded between two or more Member States and the provisions of any convention which, regardless of the fact that it does not formally govern the area of social security, falls within the scope of Regulation No 1408/71, form the subject of specific provisions of that regulation, that is to say, Articles 6 to 8 thereof.
Po drugi strani, kot sta ustrezno navedla Urssaf in Komisija, so sporazumi s področja socialne varnosti, ki so sklenjeni med dvema ali več državami članicami, in določbe
Even if one were to accept the Commission’s argument, which does in fact have merit, that the provisions of the Double Taxation Convention at issue fall within the substantive scope of Regulation No 1408/71, it would still not mean that those provisions
Četudi bi sprejeli tezo, ki jo sicer utemeljeno zagovarja Komisija, v skladu s katero zadevne določbe Sporazuma o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja sodijo na področje
However, the principle set out in Article 6 of Regulation No 1408/71 is unaffected and remains consistent with the provisions of the EC Treaty when the workers have exercised their right to freedom of movement after the entry into force of that regulation, or at a time when the bilateral social security convention has already been replaced by that regulation, even where the application of that convention would have placed the insured persons in a more favourable position. 45
Po drugi strani ostaja načelo iz člena 6 Uredbe �t. 1408/71 nedotaknjeno in v skladu z določbami Pogodbe, če so delavci izvr�evali svojo pravico do prostega gibanja po začetku veljavnosti te uredbe, torej v času, ko je dvostranski sporazum o socialni varnosti že nadomestila navedena uredba, tudi če bi bila uporaba navedenega sporazuma za zavarovance ugodnej�a. 45
Following this distinction, which it does not appear to me ought to be challenged, Mr Derouin would be unable to rely on the
Na podlagi te delitve, ki je po mojem mnenju ni treba prerekati, se P. Derouin ne bi mogel sklicevati na določbe Sporazuma o
45 — Case C-475/93 Thévenon [1995] ECR I-3813, paragraphs 26 and 28).
45 – Sodba z dne 9. novembra 1995 v zadevi Thévenon (C-475/93, Recueil, str. I-3813, točki 26 in 28).
It should be pointed out that that caselaw was reproduced in essence in Article 8(1) of Regulation No 883/2004, cited above.
Pojasniti je treba, da je bila vsa ta sodna praksa v bistvu povzeta v členu 8(1) Uredbe �t. 883/2004.
DEROUIN provisions of the Double Taxation Convention that fall within the scope of Regulation No 1408/71, inasmuch as it is common ground that he has exercised his right to freedom of movement after that regulation entered into force, which is confirmed by the fact that, as stated at the hearing, the contributions payment of which the URSSAF claims from him in the main proceedings concern various periods between the years 2000 and 2005.
DEROUIN izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja, ki sodijo na področje uporabe Uredbe �t. 1408/71, ker ni sporno, da je svojo pravico do ustanavljanja izvr�eval po začetku veljavnosti te uredbe, kar potrjuje okoli�čina, tako kot je bilo pojasnjeno na obravnavi, da se prispevki, katerih plačilo je od njega zahteval Urssaf v postopku v glavni stvari, nana�ajo na različna obdobja med letoma 2000 in 2005.
consider it unreasonable to allow the benefit of that option afforded to Member States to be extended to international conventions which, although concluded in an area other than that of social security and before the entry into force of that regulation, contain provisions whose novelty and/or the amendments made to which in the context of relations arising from agreements between Member States lead to those provisions falling within the scope of that regulation.
začetkom veljavnosti navedene uredbe, vsebujejo določbe, katerih novosti in/ali spremembe so nastale v okviru pogodbenih odnosov držav članic, zaradi katerih te določbe sodijo na področje uporabe te uredbe.
Nonetheless, as the Commission stated at the hearing, those provisions must always be based on the principles and spirit of Regulation No 1408/71.
Vendar bi morale biti te določbe vedno, kot je zatrjevala Komisija na obravnavi, utemeljene na načelih in v duhu Uredbe �t. 1408/71.
They must also satisfy the formal requirements laid down in Article 8(2) of that regulation, which imposes an obligation on contracting Member States to notify the conventions concerned, in accordance with the provisions of Article 97(1) of that regulation. 48
Prav tako bi morale spo�tovati obličnostne zahteve iz člena 8(2) te uredbe, ki državam članicam pogodbenicam nalaga obveznost notifikacije zadevnih sporazumov v skladu z določbami člena 97(1) uredbe. 48
Next, as the Commission mentioned at the hearing, the present case could involve application of Article 8 of Regulation No 1408/71, paragraph 1 of which, by way of derogation from Article 6, cited above, provides that two or more Member States may conclude ‘conventions with each other based on the principles and in the spirit of [that] regulation’. 46
Dalje, kot je na obravnavi navedla Komisija, bi lahko ta zadeva ogrozila uporabo člena 8 Uredbe �t. 1408/71, katerega prvi odstavek, ob odstopanju od člena 6 iste uredbe, dovoljuje, da lahko dve državi članici ali več sklepajo „sporazume, ki temeljijo na načelih in so v duhu uredbe“. 46
Although Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 concerns ‘new’ conventions only, that is to say, those concluded after the entry into force of that regulation, 47 I do not
Čeprav se člen 8(1) Uredbe �t. 1408/71 ne nana�a na „nove“ sporazume, to je tiste, ki so bili sklenjeni po začetku veljavnosti te uredbe, 47se mi namreč ne zdi nerazumno dopustiti raz�iritev ugodnosti te možnosti držav članic na mednarodne sporazume, ki, čeprav so sklenjeni na drugem področju, kot je področje socialne varnosti, in pred
It is, however, beyond doubt that the provisions of the Double Taxation Convention that fall within the scope of Regulation No 1408/71 were not notified as required, even after the Court delivered the Commission v France judgments, in which it held that the CSG and the CRDS fell within the scope of that regulation, regardless of the fact that French domestic law classifies them as tax measures.
Vendar ni dvoma, da določbe Sporazuma o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja, ki sodijo na področje uporabe Uredbe �t. 1408/71, niso predmet take notifikacije, tudi po razglasitvi zgoraj navedenih sodb Komisija proti Franciji, v katerih je Sodi�če, naj spomnim, menilo, da CSG in CRDS sodita na področje uporabe te uredbe, kljub davčni naravi, ki jima jo priznava francosko notranje pravo.
47 — Grana-Novoa, paragraph 22, and Case C-305/92 Hoorn [1994] ECR I-1525, paragraph 19.
47 – Zgoraj navedena sodba v zdruŽenih zadevah Grana-Novoa (točka 22) in sodba z dne 28. aprila 1994 v zadevi Hoorn (C-305/92, Recueil, str. I-1525, točka 19).
48 — It should be noted that a similar notification requirement is also contained in Article 9(1) of Regulation No 883/2004, cited above.
48 – Opozoriti je treba, da je taka obveznost notifikacije tudi v členu 9(1) Uredbe �t. 883/2004.
That solution does not, in my view, run the risk that a Member State whose legislation is designated in accordance with Regulation No 1408/71 will infringe the provisions of the Treaty, on the ground that the national measures which implement the obligation contained in Article 14d(1) of that regulation hinder the exercise of one of the freedoms of movement provided for by the Treaty.
Taka re�itev za države članice, katere zakonodaja je oblikovana v skladu z Uredbo �t. 1408/71, po mojem mnenju ne pomeni nevarnosti, da bi kr�ile določbe Pogodbe, ker naj bi nacionalni ukrepi za izvedbo obveznosti iz člena 14(d)(1) te uredbe ovirali izvr�evanje pravice do prostega gibanja, ki je določena v navedeni Pogodbi.
In addition, making Mr Derouin liable to the CSG and the CRDS on his UK-source income would not simply result in him paying contributions on which there is no return.
Poleg tega naj naložitev CSG in CRDS P. Derouinu na del njegovih britanskih dohodkov ne bi pripeljala do tega, da bi moral plačati te nepovratne prispevke.
Although payment of those two contributions does not give entitlement to any direct and identifiable social benefits in return, 50the fact remains that, according to the solidarity principle on which those levies are based, the CSG and the CRDS each, respectively, cover the
Kajti čeprav plačilo teh dveh prispevkov ne daje pravice do neposrednih protidajatev, ki jih je mogoče opredeliti kot socialne storitve, 50ostaja dejstvo, da v skladu z načelom solidarnosti, na katerem temeljijo
49 — See to that effect Hervein and Others, paragraph 51, and Piatkowski, paragraph 34.
49 – Glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeni sodbi v zdruŽenih zadevah Hervein in drugi (točka 51) ter Piatkowski (točka 34).
50 — Case C-34/98 Commission v France, paragraph 39, and Case C-169/98 Commission v France, paragraph 37, both judgments cited above.
50 – Zgoraj navedeni sodbi v zdruŽenih zadevah Komisija proti Franciji (C-34/98, točka 39) in v zdruŽenih zadevah Komisija proti Franciji (C-169/98, točka 37).
As the Court has held, the Treaty offers no guarantee to a worker that extending his activities into more than one Member State will be neutral as regards social security.
Pogodba, kot je pojasnilo Sodi�če, delavcu namreč ne zagotavlja, da bi bila raz�iritev njegovih dejavnosti na več kot eno državo članico glede socialne varnosti nevtralna.
Given the disparities in the social security legislation of the Member States, such an extension may be to the worker’s advantage or not, according to circumstance.
Zaradi razlik med zakonodajami držav članic na področju socialne varnosti je lahko taka raz�iritev za tega delavca, glede na vsak primer posebej, bolj ali manj ugodna ali neugodna.
It follows that, even where its application is less
Zato tudi če je njena uporaba manj ugodna, ostaja nacionalna zakonodaja s področja socialne varnosti v skladu z določbami členov 39 ES in 43 ES, če a) zadevnega
DEROUIN the latter to determine the conditions in which eligibility for that derogation would be allowed and, where necessary, to specify those conditions as and when cases were brought before it.
DEROUIN predloženega Sodi�ču, tako, da bi moralo to določiti pogoje, pod katerimi bi bilo to odstopanje dopustno, in glede na okoli�čine primera pojasniti te pogoje hkrati z zadevami, ki so mu predložene.
funding requirements and the debt of the French social security scheme which otherwise would probably have had to be met by increasing social security contributions or by reducing or limiting the payment of social security benefits. 51
te dajatve, CSG in CRDS pokrivata stro�ke financiranja in bremenitev francoske socialne varnosti, ki bi se morali v nasprotnem primeru najverjetneje izravnati bodisi s povečanjem prispevkov za socialno varnost bodisi z zmanj�anjem ali omejitvijo izplačila socialnih dajatev. 51
In addition to the obstacles of a legal nature described above, it does not seem to me advisable to follow that path.
Poleg zgoraj navedenih pravnih ovir se mi zdi zagovarjanje takega stali�ča nesmiselno.
To accept a solution different from that set out in point 78 above would, in my view, entail the real risk, in a situation such as that in the case in the main proceedings, of opening a breach in the equality of treatment provided for in Article 14d(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 ‘for the purposes of application of the legislation laid down’ in the field of social security, between all persons working in a selfemployed capacity in the territory of the Member State concerned.
Drugačna re�itev od te, ki je navedena v točki 78 teh sklepnih predlogov, bi po mojem mnenju pripeljala do dejanskega tveganja, da bi v situaciji, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, pri�lo do vrzeli v enakem obravnavanju, določenem v členu 14(d)(1) Uredbe �t. 1408/71 „za namene uporabe določene zakonodaje s področja [socialne varnosti]“, med vsemi samozaposlenimi delavci, ki opravljajo dejavnost na ozemlju zadevne države članice.
Apart from the derogations expressly provided for by Regulation No 1408/71, such a breach does not appear to have been envisaged by the Community legislature.
Razen odstopanj, ki so izrecno določena v Uredbi �t. 1408/71, naj take vrzeli zakonodajalec Skupnosti ne bi zahteval.
As stated in points 79 to 81 above, nor does it appear to be required by Article 43 EC.
Kot je pojasnjeno v točkah od 79 do 81 teh sklepnih predlogov, naj se ta ne bi zahtevala niti v okviru člena 43 ES.
If the Court were, however, to decide not to apply the analysis set out in this Opinion, it would, to my mind, be appropriate to limit the scope of a derogation provided for in a convention from the obligation provided for in Article 14d(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 to situations in which the principles and spirit of that regulation were not affected.
Če bi se Sodi�če vseeno odločilo, da ne bo upo�tevalo analize iz teh sklepnih predlogov, bi bilo treba po mojem mnenju obseg odstopanja od obveznosti iz člena 14(d)(1) Uredbe �t. 1408/71, ki izhaja iz sporazuma, omejiti na situacije, v katerih se ne posega v načela in v duh te uredbe.
Such a derogation would, therefore, be accepted in particular when, first, the single State principle is preserved, second, the derogation does not have the effect of excluding from the scope of the designated social security legislation persons to whom it applies, 52and third, the derogation does not leave the worker concerned without social security protection 53or reduce the protection
Šlo naj bi torej za dopustitev takega odstopanja, zlasti če se, prvič, ohrani načelo enotnosti veljavne zakonodaje, drugič, če posledica navedenega odstopanja ni izključitev oseb od uporabe določene zakonodaje na področju socialne varnosti, za katere se uporablja, 52in, tretjič, to odstopanje zadevnemu delavcu ne onemogoča za�čite na področju socialne varnosti 53ali ne zmanj-
Moreover, to tolerate such a derogation would amount to making the interpretation of Article 14d(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 dependent on the specific features of the particular cases heard by the Court, requiring
Poleg tega bi dopustitev takega odstopanja pripeljala do tega, da bi bilo treba razlago člena 14(d)(1) Uredbe �t. 1408/71 podrediti posebnosti obravnavanega primera,
52 — See Case C-2/89 Kits van Heijningen [1990] ECR I-1755, paragraph 20.
52 – Glej sodbo z dne 3. maja 1990 v zadevi Kits van Heijningen (C-2/89, Recueil, str.
53 — See Kits van Heijningen, paragraph 12; Case C-275/96 Kuusijärvi [1998] ECR I-3419, paragraph 28, and Case C-227/03 Van Pommeren-Bourgondiën [2005] ECR I-6101, paragraph 34.
51 – Glej točki 9 in 26 sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca La Pergole v zadevah C-34/98 in C-169/98, na podlagi katerih sta bili sprejeti zgoraj navedeni sodbi.
In the light of the above considerations, I propose that the Court should give the following answer to the question referred by the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Paris:
Na podlagi navedenega Sodi�ču predlagam, naj na vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, ki ga je postavilo Tribunal des affaires sociales de Paris, odgovori tako:
DEROUIN as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998 must be interpreted as meaning that it requires that the base for contributions such as French general social contribution and the social debt repayment contribution, calculated on occupational and substitute income and which fall within the scope of that regulation, should include, in a selfemployed person’s occupational income derived from selfemployment, income obtained in a Member State other than the Member State whose social security legislation is applicable, even when the Member States concerned are bound by the provisions of a convention for the avoidance of double taxation of income, such as those of the Convention between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the French Republic of 22 May 1968 for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, and the conditions laid down in Article 8 of Regulation No 1408/71 have not been satisfied.’
DEROUIN okviru določeno, da se osnova za prispevke, kot sta CSG in CRDS, ki se odmerijo od dohodkov od dejavnosti in enakovrednih dohodkov, ki sodijo na področje uporabe te uredbe, izračuna tako, da se v dohodke od poklicnih dejavnosti samozaposlenega delavca vključijo dohodki, prejeti na ozemlju države članice, kjer se zakonodaja s področja socialnega varstva ne uporablja, tudi če zadevne države članice, v tem primeru Republiko Francijo in Združeno kraljestvo Velike Britanije in Severne Irske, zavezujejo določbe Sporazuma o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja na področju davkov na dohodke, ne da bi bili izpolnjeni pogoji iz člena 8 Uredbe �t. 1408/71.
2008 — CASE C-103/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-103/06
3 April 2008 *
SODBA SODIŠČA (tretji senat) z dne 3. aprila 2008 *
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC by the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Paris (France), made by decision of 30 January 2006, received at the Court on 22 February 2006, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-103/06, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Paris (Francija) z odločbo z dne 30. januarja 2006, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 22. februarja 2006, v postopku
DEROUIN
DEROUIN generalni pravobranilec: P. Mengozzi, sodna tajnica: C.
Advocate General: P. Mengozzi, Registrar: C. Strömholm, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 7 March 2007, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Strömholm, administratorka, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 7. marca 2007, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
— the United Kingdom Government, by V. Jackson, acting as Agent, assisted by S. Moore, barrister,
Jackson, zastopnica, skupaj s S. Moore, barrister,
2008 — CASE C-103/06 gives the following
2008 – ZADEVA C-103/06 izreka naslednjo
1, ‘Regulation No 1408/71’).
1, v nadaljevanju: Uredba �t. 1408/71).
Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 states that that regulation is to apply to ‘employed or selfemployed persons and to students who are or have been subject
V skladu s členom 2(1) Uredbe �t. 1408/71 se ta „uporablja za zaposlene ali samozaposlene osebe in �tudente, za katere velja ali je veljala zakonodaja ene ali več držav
DEROUIN to the legislation of one or more Member States and who are nationals of one of the Member States or who are stateless persons or refugees residing within the territory of one of the Member States, as well as to the members of their families and their survivors’.
DEROUIN članic in ki so državljani ene od držav članic, ali osebe brez državljanstva, ali begunce, ki stalno prebivajo na ozemlju ene od držav članic, pa tudi za njihove družinske člane in njihove preživele osebe“.
Article 13 of the regulation states:
Člen 13 navedene uredbe določa:
(b) a person who is selfemployed in the territory of one Member State shall be subject to the legislation of that State even if he resides in the territory of another Member State;
[…] b) za osebo, zaposleno na ozemlju ene države članice, velja zakonodaja te države, tudi če stalno prebiva na ozemlju druge države članice;
Article 14a of the same regulation states:
Člen 14a te uredbe določa:
‘Article 13(2)(b) shall apply subject to the following exceptions and circumstances:
„Člen 13(2)(a) se uporablja v skladu z naslednjimi izjemami in posebnostmi:
(2) A person normally selfemployed in the territory of two or more Member States shall be 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 …
2) Za osebo, ki je običajno samozaposlena na ozemlju dveh ali več držav članic, velja zakonodaja države članice, na ozemlju katere stalno prebiva, če del svoje dejavnosti opravlja na ozemlju te države članice. […]“
Article 14d(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 states:
Člen 14d(1) Uredbe �t. 1408/71 določa:
‘The person referred to in … Article 14a(2), (3) and (4) … shall be treated, for the purposes of application of the legislation laid down in accordance with these provisions, as if he pursued all his professional activity or activities in the territory of the Member State concerned.’
„Za osebo iz člena […] 14a, [točke] 2, 3 in 4, […] se za uporabo zakonodaje, določene v skladu s temi določbami, �teje, kakor da je opravljala poklicno dejavnost ali dejavnosti na ozemlju zadevne države članice.“
The CSG was introduced by Finance Law No 90-1168 of 29 December 1990 (JORF of 30 December 1990, p.
CSG je bil uveden z zakonom o financah �t. 90-1168 z dne 29. decembra 1990 (JORF z dne 30. decembra 1990, str.
16367), the relevant provisions of which were inserted at Articles L. 136-1 and following of the Code de la sécurité sociale (‘the Social Security Code’).
16367), katerega upo�tevne določbe so bile vključene s členom L. 136-1 in naslednjimi zakonika o socialnem varstvu.