natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Therefore, as the Advocate General noted at point 121 of his Opinion, as soon as the Kingdom of the Netherlands decided to grant fiscal investment enterprises established within its territory a concession for tax deducted abroad and to exercise its fiscal sovereignty over all dividends distributed by such enterprises to their shareholders, whether resident or established in that Member State or in others, it had to extend the benefit of that concession to fiscal investment enterprises which included shareholders not resident or established in that Member State (see, to that effect, Case C-170/05 Denkavit Internationaal and Denkavit France [2006] ECR I-11949, paragraph 37 and the caselaw cited).
Kot je navedel generalni pravobranilec v točki 121 sklepnih predlogov, mora kraljevina Nizozemska – od trenutka, ko se je odločila, da kolektivnim naložbenim podjemom, ki imajo davčni značaj, s sedežem na njenem ozemlju, odobri nadomestilo iz naslova davčnih odtegljajev, opravljenih v tujini, in da svojo davčno pristojnost izvr�uje nad vsemi dividendami, ki jih ti podjemi razdelijo svojim delničarjem, ne glede na to, ali imajo prebivali�če ali sedež v tej državi ali v drugih državah članicah, – pravico do tega nadomestila raz�iriti na kolektivne naložbene podjeme, ki imajo davčni značaj in delničarje brez prebivali�ča ali sedeža v navedeni državi članici (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 14. decembra 2006 v zadevi Denkavit Internationaal in Denkavit France, C-170/05, ZOdl., str. I-11949, točka 37 in navedena sodna praksa).
The Netherlands Government further submits that, in so far as the concession granted to such bodies is distributed to their shareholders and included in the latters’
Poleg tega nizozemska vlada trdi, da bi, če bi se nadomestilo, dodeljeno navedenim podjemom, razdelilo njihovim delničarjem in se zaradi odmere in pobiranja davka
2008 — CASE C-194/06 income for taxation purposes, the factors included in the formula for calculating that concession are related to the rates at which the dividends which such a body distributes to its shareholders are taxed in the Netherlands.
2008 – ZADEVA C-194/06 zajelo v njihov dohodek, dejavniki, ki se upo�tevajo v formuli za izračun tega nadomestila, ustrezali stopnjam davka, pobranega na Nizozemskem od dividend, ki jih tak podjem razdeli svojim delničarjem.
According to the Netherlands Government, the rates at which the Kingdom of the Netherlands taxes companies’ profit distributions to their shareholders who are resident or established in that Member State and who are subject, respectively, to income tax or corporation tax in that Member State, are higher than the rates of taxation applicable to shareholders who are resident or established abroad.
Po mnenju te vlade so davčne stopnje, s katerimi Kraljevina Nizozemska obdavči razdelitev dobička podjetij pri njihovih delničarjih s prebivali�čem ali sedežem v tej državi članici in so njej zavezani za plačilo dohodnine ali davka od dobička pravnih oseb, vi�je od davčne stopnje za obdavčitev delničarjev s prebivali�čem ali sedežem v tujini.
The latter pay tax on dividends only at a reduced rate in the Netherlands, corresponding generally to 15%, as a result of tax conventions, which explains the reduction in the amount of the concession to be granted to a fiscal investment enterprise in proportion to the interest in the fiscal investment enterprise held by shareholders resident or established in other Member States.
Slednji naj bi namreč na Nizozemskem plačali le davek od dividend po znižani davčni stopnji, ki v skladu z davčnimi konvencijami na splo�no ustreza 15 %. To dejstvo naj bi obrazložilo zmanj�anje zneska nadomestila, ki ga je treba dodeliti kolektivnim naložbenim podjemom, ki imajo davčni značaj, sorazmerno z deležem, ki ga imajo v njem delničarji s prebivali�čem ali sedežem v drugih državah članicah.
Even though the legislation at issue in the main proceedings seeks to distinguish between shareholders of collective investment enterprises according to whether they are resident and non-resident, so that the concession granted to them by means of a profit distribution by those enterprises corresponds to the rates of taxation to which those shareholders are respectively subject in the Netherlands, it must be noted that that objective cannot be achieved by a reduction of that concession in proportion to the interest in those enterprises held by shareholders resident or established in other Member States.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da čeprav bi bil namen zakonodaje, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, razlikovati med delničarji kolektivnih naložbenih podjemov glede na to, ali so rezidenti ali ne, zato, da bi nadomestilo, do katerega so njihovi delničarji upravičeni na podlagi razdelitve dobička s strani teh podjemov, ustrezalo davčnim stopnjam, ki veljajo za navedene delničarje na Nizozemskem, zmanj�anje tega nadomestila sorazmerno z deležem kapitala teh podjemov, ki ga imajo delničarji s prebivali�čem ali s sedežem v drugih državah članicah, ne omogoča izpolnitve takega cilja.
As has been noted in paragraph 72 of this judgment, such a reduction adversely affects all the shareholders of fiscal investment enterprises without distinction, as it has the effect of reducing the total amount of profit for distribution.
Kot je bilo navedeno v točki 72 te sodbe, tako zmanj�anje namreč �koduje brez razlikovanja vsem delničarjem kolektivnih naložbenih podjemov, ki imajo davčni značaj, ker ima za posledico zmanj�anje skupnega zneska dobička, ki se ga lahko razdeli.
By contrast, the reduction of the concession in proportion to the interest in the fiscal investment enterprise held by shareholders resident or established in other Member
Nasprotno pa zmanj�anje nadomestila sorazmerno z deležem kapitala kolektivnih naložbenih podjemov, ki imajo davčni značaj, ki ga imajo delničarji s prebivali�čem ali s sedežem v drugih državah članicah, omogoča, da se prepreči zmanj�anje davčnih
States has the effect of avoiding a reduction in tax revenue in relation to dividends distributed by fiscal investment enterprises, which, for the Kingdom of the Netherlands, would mean granting that concession without having regard to the presence, among the shareholders of those enterprises, of non-residents subject — as regards the dividends distributed by those bodies — to tax at a lower rate than that applicable to resident shareholders.
ORANGE EUROPEAN SMALLCAP FUND prihodkov od dividend, ki jih izplačajo kolektivni naložbeni podjemi, ki imajo davčni značaj, kar bi za Kraljevino Nizozemsko pomenilo, da to nadomestilo dodeli ne glede na to, ali so med delničarji teh podjemov delničarji nerezidenti, ki so glede dividend, ki jih razdelijo ti podjemi, zavezani za plačilo davka, katerega stopnja je nižja od tiste, ki velja za delničarje rezidente.
However, it has been consistently held in the caselaw that a reduction in tax revenue cannot be regarded as an overriding reason in the public interest which may be relied on to justify a measure which is, in principle, contrary to a fundamental freedom (see, inter alia, Manninen, paragraph 49 and the caselaw cited).
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso pa se zmanj�anja davčnih prihodkov ne morejo �teti za nujen razlog v javnem interesu, na katerega se je mogoče sklicevati za utemeljevanje ukrepa, ki načeloma nasprotuje temeljni svobo�čini (glej predvsem zgoraj navedeno sodbo Manninen, točka 49 in navedena sodna praksa).
It follows that Articles 56 EC and 58 EC preclude legislation of a Member State, such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, which grants a concession to fiscal investment enterprises established in that Member State designed to take account of tax deducted at source in another Member State from dividends received by those enterprises, and reduces that concession where and to the extent to which the shareholders of those enterprises are natural or legal persons resident or established in other Member States, in so far as such a reduction adversely affects all the shareholders of those enterprises without distinction.
Iz tega sledi, da člena 56 ES in 58 ES nasprotujeta zakonodaji države članice, kot je ta, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, ki ob tem, da v korist kolektivnih naložbenih podjemov s sedežem na njenem ozemlju določa nadomestilo za upo�tevanje davčnih odtegljajev, ki jih druga država članica odtegne pri viru, od dividend, izplačanih tem podjemom, to nadomestilo zmanj�a, če in kolikor so njihovi delničarji fizične ali pravne osebe s prebivali�čem ali sedežem v drugih državah članicah, ker tako zmanj�anje �koduje brez razlikovanja vsem delničarjem navedenih podjemov.
With regard to the question whether the answer given in the preceding paragraph may be extended to situations in which foreign shareholders in a collective investment enterprise are resident or established in a third country, the Netherlands Government takes the view that a Member State may draw a distinction between that situation and the situation in which the shareholders are resident or established in another Member State.
V zvezi z vpra�anjem, ali odgovor iz prej�nje točke lahko velja za položaje, v katerih imajo tuji delničarji kolektivnega naložbenega podjema prebivali�če ali sedež v tretji državi, nizozemska vlada meni, da država članica lahko razlikuje med takim položajem in položajem, v katerem imajo delničarji prebivali�če ali sedež v drugi državi članici.
In that regard, as the Court held in paragraph 31 of the judgment in Case C-101/05 A [2007] ECR I-11531, even if the liberalisation of the movement of capital with third countries may pursue objectives other than that of establishing the internal market, such as, in particular, that of ensuring the credibility of the single Community currency on world financial markets and maintaining financial centres with a worldwide dimension within the Member States, it is clear that, when the principle of free movement of capital was extended, pursuant to Article 56(1) EC, to movements of capital between third countries and the Member States, the latter chose to enshrine that principle in that article and in the same terms for movements of capital taking place within the Community and for those relating to relations with third countries.
Kot je navedlo Sodi�če v točki 31 sodbe z dne 18. decembra 2007 v zadevi A (C-101/05, ZOdl., str. I-11531, ), je treba, čeprav bi liberalizacija pretoka kapitala s tretjimi državami res lahko zasledovala druge cilje, kot je uresničitev notranjega trga, na primer predvsem zagotovitev kredibilnosti enotne valute Skupnosti na svetovnih finančnih trgih in ohranitev finančnih sredi�č svetovnega pomena v državah članicah, ugotoviti, da so države članice, ko je člen 56(1) ES raz�iril načelo prostega pretoka kapitala na pretok kapitala med tretjimi državami in državami članicami, izbrale potrditev tega načela v istem členu in z istimi besedami za pretok kapitala v Skupnosti in pretok kapitala, ki zadeva razmerja s tretjimi državami.
The Court also held that the argument that, if the concept of restrictions on movements of capital were interpreted in the same manner with regard to relations between Member States and third countries as it is with regard to relations between Member States, the Community would unilaterally open up the Community market to third countries without retaining the means of negotiation necessary to achieve such liberalisation on the part of those countries, cannot be regarded as decisive (see A, paragraph 38).
Sodi�če je prav tako presodilo, da se ne more �teti za odločilno trditev, v skladu s katero bi, če bi se pojem omejitev pretoka kapitala razlagal enako v razmerjih med državami članicami in tretjimi državami kot v razmerjih med državami članicami, Skupnost enostransko odprla svoj trg tretjim državam, ne da bi ohranila pogajalska sredstva, potrebna za zagotovitev take liberalizacije s strani tretjih držav (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo A, točka 38).
However, the Court found that movements of capital to or from third countries take place in a different legal context from that which occurs within the Community (see A, paragraph 36).
Vendar je Sodi�če potrdilo, da pretok kapitala v tretje države in iz njih poteka v drugačnih pravnih okoli�činah kot tisti, ki poteka v Skupnosti (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo A, točka 36).
Indeed, because of the degree of legal integration that exists between Member States of the European Union, in particular by reason of the presence of Community legislation which seeks to ensure cooperation between national tax authorities, such as Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation (OJ 1977 L 336, p.
Iz razloga stopnje pravne integracije med državami članicami Evropske unije, zlasti iz razloga zakonodajnih ukrepov Skupnosti, ki se nana�ajo na sodelovanje med nacionalnimi davčnimi organi, kot je Direktiva Sveta [77/799/EGS] z dne 19. decembra 1977 o medsebojni pomoči pristojnih organov držav članic na področju neposredne obdavčitve (UL L 336, str.
15), the taxation by a Member State of economic activities having crossborder aspects which take place within the Community is not always comparable to that of economic activities involving relations between Member States and third countries (Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 170, and A, paragraph 37).
15), obdavčevanje gospodarskih dejavnosti s čezmejnimi vidiki, ki se opravljajo v Skupnosti, ki ga izvaja država članica, namreč ni vedno primerljivo z obdavčevanjem gospodarskih dejavnosti, ki vsebujejo elemente razmerij med državami članicami in tretjimi državami (glej zgoraj navedeni sodbi Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, točka 170, in A, točka 37).
It may also be that a Member State will be able to demonstrate that a restriction on the movement of capital to or from third countries is justified for a particular reason in circumstances where that reason would not constitute a valid justification for a restriction on capital movements between Member States (Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 171, and A, paragraph 37).
Izključiti ni mogoče niti, da bo država članica lahko dokazala, da je omejevanje pretoka kapitala v tretje države ali iz njih upravičeno iz razloga, danega v okoli�činah, v katerih ta razlog ne bi pomenil veljavne utemeljitve za omejevanje pretoka kapitala med državami članicami (zgoraj navedeni sodbi Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, točka 171, in A, točka 37).
In the present case, both the Netherlands Government and the Commission submitted inter alia that the Member States must be able to rely on the need to guarantee the effectiveness of fiscal supervision as an overriding requirement of general interest capable of justifying a restriction on the movement of capital to or from third countries.
V obravnavani zadevi sta nizozemska vlada in Komisija trdili, da morajo države članice imeti možnost, da se lahko sklicujejo na nujnost, da se zagotovi učinkovitost davčnega nadzora, kot nujen razlog v splo�nem interesu, ki utemelji omejitev pretoka kapitala v tretje države ali iz njih.
In that regard, it must be noted, on the one hand, that the Kingdom of the Netherlands imposes a dividend tax on dividends distributed by a fiscal investment enterprise established in the Netherlands to shareholders who are resident or established in third countries.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da Kraljevina Nizozemska z davkom na dividende obdavči dividende, ki jih kolektivni naložbeni podjem, ki ima davčni značaj, s sedežem na njenem ozemlju, razdeli delničarjem s prebivali�čem ali sedežem v tretjih državah.
On the other hand, the concession granted to such an enterprise is reduced in proportion to the interest in that fiscal investment enterprise held by shareholders resident in third countries, without the fiscal treatment of those shareholders in the third countries being relevant in that regard.
Treba je ugotoviti tudi, da je nadomestilo, ki se dodeli takemu podjemu, zmanj�ano sorazmerno z deležem njegovega kapitala, ki ga imajo taki delničarji, ne da bi se upo�tevalo davčno obravnavanje teh delničarjev v tretjih državah.
The need to guarantee the effectiveness of fiscal supervision cannot therefore be relied upon in the present case.
V obravnavani zadevi se torej ni mogoče sklicevati na nujnost, da se zagotovi učinkovitost davčnega nadzora.
The Netherlands Government also takes the view that the need to avoid a reduction in tax revenue must be capable of being relied upon as justification for a restriction on the movement of capital to or from third countries.
Nizozemska vlada prav tako meni, da mora obstajati možnost sklicevati se na nujnost, da se omeji zmanj�anje davčnih prihodkov, zato da se upraviči omejevanje pretoka kapitala v tretje države ali iz njih.
While the problems connected in particular with the reduction in the basis of assessment could be resolved by strengthening the harmonisation of the Member States’ tax legislation at Community level, there is no comparable possibility of harmonising tax legislation in relation to third countries.
Tudi če bi bilo z okrepljenim usklajevanjem davčne zakonodaje držav članic na ravni Skupnosti mogoče re�iti težave, povezane zlasti z zniževanjem davčne osnove, ne bi obstajala primerljiva možnost usklajevanja davčnih zakonodaj na področju odnosov s tretjimi državami.
It must, however, be borne in mind that the reduction of the concession in proportion to the interest in the fiscal investment enterprise held by shareholders resident or established in third countries has the effect of reducing the total amount of profit available for distribution to the shareholders of that enterprise.
Vendar je treba poudariti, da je posledica zmanj�anja nadomestila sorazmerno z deležem kapitala kolektivnega naložbenega podjema, ki ima davčni značaj, ki ga imajo delničarji s prebivali�čem ali sedežem v drugih državah članicah, zmanj�anje skupnega zneska dobička, ki se ga lahko razdeli delničarjem tega podjema.
Consequently, on the assumption that such a ground may be relied upon as justification for a restriction on the movement of capital to or from third countries, such a justification cannot be taken into consideration in the present case, inasmuch as that reduction affects all shareholders of the collective investment enterprise concerned without distinction, whether resident or established in the Member States or in third countries.
Tudi če obstaja možnost za sklicevanje na ta razlog, zato da se upraviči omejevanje pretoka kapitala v tretje države ali iz njih, take utemeljitve ni mogoče upo�tevati v obravnavani zadevi, saj navedeno znižanje vpliva brez razlikovanja na vse delničarje kolektivnega naložbenega podjema, ne glede na to, ali imajo prebivali�če ali sedež v državah članicah ali v tretjih državah.
It follows that, in a legal context such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the answer given in relation to situations in which shareholders of a fiscal investment enterprise are resident or established in another Member State applies equally to situations in which shareholders of a collective investment enterprise are resident or established in third countries.
Iz tega sledi, da v pravnih okoli�činah, kot so obravnavane v glavni stvari, odgovor v zvezi s položaji, v katerih imajo delničarji takega podjema prebivali�če ali sedež v drugi državi članici, velja tudi za položaje, v katerih imajo delničarji kolektivnega naložbenega podjema prebivali�če ali sedež v tretjih državah.
In view of the foregoing, the answer to Question 1(b) must be that Articles 56 EC and 58 EC preclude legislation of a Member State, such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, which grants a concession to fiscal investment enterprises established in that Member State on account of tax deducted at source in another Member State from dividends received by those enterprises, and reduces that concession where and to the extent to which the shareholders of those enterprises are natural or legal persons resident or established in other Member States or in third countries, since such a reduction adversely affects all the shareholders of those enterprises without distinction.
Glede na navedeno je treba na prvo vpra�anje, točka b, odgovoriti, da člena 56 ES in 58 ES nasprotujeta zakonodaji države članice, kot je ta, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, ki ob tem, da v korist kolektivnih naložbenih podjemov s sedežem na ozemlju te države članice, ki imajo davčni značaj, določa nadomestilo za upo�tevanje davčnih odtegljajev, ki jih druga država članica odtegne pri viru, od dividend, izplačanih tem podjemom, to nadomestilo zmanj�a, če in kolikor so njihovi delničarji fizične ali pravne osebe s prebivali�čem ali sedežem v drugih državah članicah ali tretjih državah, ker tako zmanj�anje �koduje brez razlikovanja vsem delničarjem navedenih podjemov.
Question 2(a)
Drugo vprašanje, točka a
By its Question 2(a), the referring court asks whether ‘direct investment’ within the meaning of Article 57(1) EC covers the holding of a block of shares in a company which does not put the holder in a position to exercise a decisive influence over the management or control of that company.
Predložitveno sodi�če z drugim vpra�anjem, točka a, spra�uje, ali pojem „neposredne naložbe“ iz člena 57(1) ES vključuje lastni�tvo svežnja delnic družbe, ki ne omogoča izvajanja odločilnega vpliva na njeno upravljanje in nadzor.
Under Article 57(1) EC, the provisions of Article 56 EC are without prejudice to the application to third countries of any restrictions which existed on 31 December 1993 under national or Community law adopted in respect of the movement of capital to or from third countries involving direct investment — including investment in real estate — establishment, the provision of financial services or the admission of securities to capital markets.
Člen 57(1) ES določa, da člen 56 ES ne posega v uporabo tistih omejitev za tretje države, ki veljajo po notranjem pravu ali pravu Skupnosti na dan 31. decembra 1993 in so bile sprejete glede pretoka kapitala v tretje države ali iz njih, nana�ajo pa se na neposredne naložbe, tudi naložbe v nepremičnine, ustanavljanje, opravljanje finančnih storitev ali na sprejem vrednostnih papirjev na trge kapitala.
In the absence of a Treaty definition of ‘movement of capital’ for the purposes of Article 56(1) EC, the Court has previously recognised the nomenclature annexed to Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988 for the implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty [article repealed by the Treaty of Amsterdam] (OJ 1988 L 178, p.
Ker v Pogodbi ni opredeljen pojem „pretok kapitala“ v smislu člena 56(1) ES, je Sodi�če že pred tem priznalo informativno vrednost nomenklaturi, priloženi k Direktivi Sveta 88/361/EGS z dne 24. junija 1988 o izvajanju člena 67 Pogodbe (ta člen je bil razveljavljen na podlagi Amsterdamske pogodbe) (UL L 178, str. 5).
Movements of capital within the meaning of Article 56(1) EC therefore include direct investments, that is to say, as that nomenclature and the related explanatory notes show, investments of any kind undertaken by natural or legal persons and which serve to establish or maintain lasting and direct links between the persons providing the capital and the undertakings to which that capital is made available in order to carry out an economic activity (see, to that effect, Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraphs 179 to 181; Case C-112/05 Commission v Germany [2007] ECR I-8995, paragraph 18; and A, paragraph 46).
Pretok kapitala v smislu člena 56(1) ES so zlasti neposredne naložbe, torej, kot izhaja iz te nomenklature in pripadajočih pojasnil, naložbe vseh vrst fizičnih in pravnih oseb, ki so namenjene vzpostavitvi ali ohranjanju trajnih in neposrednih vezi med osebo, ki je zagotovila kapital, in podjetjem, ki je dobilo na voljo kapital za izvajanje gospodarske dejavnosti (v tem smislu glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, točke od 179 do 181, sodbo z dne 23. oktobra 2007 v zadevi Komisija proti Nemčiji, C-112/05, ZOdl., str. I-8995, točka 18, in zgoraj navedeno sodbo A, točka 46).