natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Prior review exists in that regard in accordance with the principle of cooperation with the State.
V skladu z načelom sodelovanja z državo naj bi glede tega obstajal predhoden nadzor.
The Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla y León stresses the role of the Coordination and Legislative Evaluation Committee, which is referred to in Articles 63 and 64 of the Economic Agreement.
Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla y León poudarja vlogo komisije za usklajevanje in normativno vrednotenje, ki jo urejata člena 63 in 64 finančnega sporazuma.
Those parties to the main proceedings also claim that the foral authorities must comply with numerous constitutional and other principles, subject to review by the administrative courts.
Te stranke v postopkih v glavni stvari zatrjujejo tudi to, da morajo foralni organi upo�tevati �tevilna ustavna oziroma druga načela, pri čemer jih nadzorujejo upravna sodi�ča.
Those principles constitute significant material limits on the powers of those authorities.
Ta načela naj bi pomenila precej�nje vsebinske omejitve pristojnosti teh organov.
That is the case of the principle of solidarity, enshrined in Article 138 of the Constitution, the principle of fiscal harmonisation, the requirements of which are set out in Article 3 of the Economic Agreement, and the principles of equality, expressed, in particular, in Article 31 of the Constitution, and market unity.
Za tako omejitev naj bi �lo pri načelu solidarnosti iz člena 138 ustave, načelu davčnega usklajevanja, katerega pogoji so urejeni v členu 3 finančnega sporazuma, ter pri načelu enakosti, urejenem zlasti v členu 31 ustave, in načelu enotnosti trga.
The foral authorities and Confebask claim that the State does not intervene in the adoption of foral laws.
Foralni organi in združenje Confebask poudarjajo, da država ne posega v sprejemanje foralnih predpisov.
There is a mechanism for reciprocal communication, but this is merely informative in nature.
Obstajal naj bi sistem vzajemne komunikacije, vendar naj bi bil zgolj informativen.
Even if the Coordination and Legislative Evaluation Committee were to issue a negative decision, that would not prevent the foral laws adopted from entering into force, and that entry into force could not be contested before the national courts.
Tudi če bi komisija za usklajevanje in normativno vrednotenje izdala negativno odločbo, naj to ne bi preprečilo uveljavitve sprejetih foralnih predpisov, ki naj bi jih bilo mogoče izpodbijati le pred nacionalnimi sodi�či.
The United Kingdom, along with the Italian Government, is of the view that conciliation measures are not incompatible with the recognition of procedural autonomy.
Vlada Združenega kraljestva enako kot italijanska vlada meni, da usklajevalni ukrepi niso v neskladju s priznavanjem procesne avtonomije.
According to the United Kingdom, what is important is that the consent of the State is not required for the adoption of a regional tax measure, and that the State has no power to veto that measure or override the position of the regional authority.
Po njenem mnenju je pomembno dejstvo, da sprejetje regionalnega davčnega ukrepa ne zahteva soglasja države in da ta ne more preprečiti sprejetja tega ukrepa ali razveljaviti odločitve regionalnih organov.
Confebask bases its argument — that, when verifying the procedural autonomy criterion, it is of little importance that the local authority is required to take into account national interests — on the difference between the formulation in the Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed in Portugal v Commission and the wording of the judgment in that case.
Združenje Confebask na podlagi razlike med besedilom sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca Geelhoeda v zadevi, iz katere izhaja zgoraj navedena sodba Portugalska proti Komisiji, in besedilom same sodbe opozarja, da za preizkus merila procesne avtonomije ni pomembno, da mora lokalni organ upo�tevati nacionalne interese.
In point 54 of the Opinion, it is written that ‘… The decision must be taken by the local authority pursuant to a procedure where the central government does not have any power to intervene directly in the procedure of setting the tax rate, and without any obligation on the part of the local authority to take the interest of the central State into account in setting the tax rate’.
V točki 54 navedenih sklepnih predlogov je namreč zapisano, da „[…] mora lokalni organ odločitev sprejeti v skladu s postopkom, v katerem osrednja vlada ne more neposredno vplivati na določitev davčne stopnje, lokalnemu organu pa pri določanju davčne stopnje nikakor ni treba upo�tevati nacionalnih interesov“.
However, in paragraph 67 of the judgment, the Court did not retain the last part of the sentence just quoted, limiting itself to indicating that the measure must have been adopted ‘without the central government being able directly to intervene as regards its content’.
V točki 67 pa naj Sodi�če ne bi prevzelo zadnjega dela zgoraj navedene povedi, saj je navedlo le, da mora biti ukrep sprejet, „ne da bi osrednja vlada lahko neposredno posegla v [njegovo] vsebino“.
According to the Commission, the condition of procedural autonomy is not satisfied if the infraState body is subject to the procedural obligation to consult the central government and/or the material obligation to take into account the repercussions of its decisions on the whole territory, for example, for the purpose of complying with the principles of equality, solidarity and equivalence of fiscal pressure.
Ta institucija meni, da naj pogoj procesne avtonomije ne bi bil izpolnjen, če je poddržavni enoti naložena procesna obveznost, da se posvetuje z osrednjo vlado, in/ali vsebinska obveznost, da upo�teva posledice, ki jih bodo imele njene odločitve za celotno ozemlje, na primer za spo�tovanje načel enakosti, solidarnosti ali uravnotežene davčne obremenitve.
The Commission bases its argument in that regard on the final sentence of paragraph 68 of Portugal v Commission, according to which the infraState authority must have fiscal competence ‘regardless of any considerations related to the conduct of the central State’, a detail in the light of which the second condition set out in paragraph 67 of that judgment must be interpreted, namely the condition that the decision taken by the infraState body must have been adopted ‘without the central government being able to directly intervene as regards its content’.
K omisija se v zvezi s tem opira na zadnji stavek v točki 68 zgoraj navedene sodbe Portugalska proti Komisiji, v skladu s katero mora imeti poddržavna enota davčne pristojnosti „neodvisno od kakr�nih koli ugotovitev v zvezi z ravnanjem osrednje države“, kar je ugotovitev, z vidika katere je treba razlagati drugi pogoj iz točke 67 te sodbe, in sicer tistega, da mora poddržavna enota odločbo sprejeti, „ne da bi osrednja vlada lahko neposredno posegla v njeno vsebino“.
As is apparent from paragraph 67 of Portugal v Commission, in order to be adopted in the exercise of powers which are sufficiently autonomous, a decision of an infraState authority must have been taken without the central government being able directly to intervene as regards its content.
Kot izhaja iz točke 67 zgoraj navedene sodbe Portugalska proti Komisiji, mora biti odločba poddržavnega organa, če naj bo sprejeta pri izvajanju dovolj avtonomnih pristojnosti, sprejeta, „ne da bi osrednja vlada lahko neposredno posegla v njeno vsebino“.
Such procedural autonomy does not preclude the establishment of a conciliation procedure in order to avoid conflicts, provided that the final decision taken at the conclusion of that procedure is adopted by the infraState body and not by the central government.
Taka procesna avtonomija ne izključuje uvedbe postopka usklajevanja, da bi se s tem preprečila nesoglasja, če končno odločitev, ki se sprejme na podlagi tega postopka, sprejme poddržavna enota in ne osrednja vlada.
In that regard, it is apparent from Article 4(1) of the Economic Agreement that the foral authorities notify the State administration of drafts of foral laws in the area of taxation and that the State administration does likewise in respect of those authorities.
V zvezi s tem iz člena 4(1) finančnega sporazuma izhaja, da foralni organi državni upravi predložijo osnutke foralnih predpisov z davčnega področja, enako pa v razmerju do teh organov ravna tudi državna uprava.
In accordance with Article 64 of that agreement, a Coordination and Legislative Evaluation Committee composed of an equal number of representatives of the State administration and representatives of the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country may examine draft foral laws and seek, by negotiation, to eliminate any divergences between those draft laws and the tax legislation applicable in the rest of the Spanish territory.
V skladu s členom 64 tega sporazuma lahko komisija za usklajevanje in normativno vrednotenje, v kateri je polovica predstavnikov državne uprave, druga polovica pa so predstavniki Baskovske avtonomne skupnosti, preuči osnutke foralnih predpisov in si prizadeva s pogajanji odpraviti morebitna odstopanja od veljavne davčne zakonodaje na preostalem �panskem ozemlju.
As the Advocate General rightly stated in point 87 of her Opinion, it is not apparent from the Economic Agreement that, in the absence of agreement within the committee, the central government is able to impose the adoption of a law with a particular content.
Generalna pravobranilka v točki 87 sklepnih predlogov upravičeno poudarja, da iz finančnega sporazuma ne izhaja, da bi lahko osrednja vlada, če navedena komisija ne doseže soglasja, vsilila sprejetje določbe z določeno vsebino.
It is necessary to point out, in addition, that the Coordination and Legislative Evaluation Committee may examine not only draft foral laws, but also drafts sent by the State Administration.
Poleg tega je treba opozoriti, da lahko komisija za usklajevanje in normativno vrednotenje preuči ne le osnutke foralnih predpisov, temveč tudi osnutke, ki ji jih posreduje državna uprava.
That possibility suffices to show that that committee is merely a consultation and conciliation body rather than a mechanism by which the central government, in the case of a conflict between a draft foral law and the tax legislation of the Spanish State, could impose its own decision.
Ta možnost dovolj prepričljivo izkazuje, da je navedena komisija le posvetovalni in spravni organ, ne pa sredstvo, s katerim bi osrednja vlada vsilila lastno odločitev, če bi pri�lo do neskladij med osnutkom foralnega predpisa in �pansko državno davčno zakonodajo.
As to the different principles relied on by the Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja, the Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla y León and the Commission, it does not appear that they call into question the decision-making autonomy of the Historical Territories, but rather that they define the limits of that autonomy.
V zvezi z različnimi načeli, na katere se sklicujejo Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja, Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla y León in Komisija, ni videti, da bi posegala v avtonomijo, ki jo imajo zgodovinska ozemlja pri odločanju, temveč opredeljujejo njene meje.
Thus, the principle of solidarity, defined in Article 138 of the Constitution and according to which the State is to ‘guarantee the effective implementation of the principle of solidarity laid down in Article 2 of the Constitution by endeavouring to establish a fair and adequate economic balance between the different parts of Spanish territory …’, does not appear to call into question the procedural autonomy of the Historical Territories.
Zato ne kaže, da bi načelo solidarnosti iz člena 138 ustave, v skladu s katerim „država zagotavlja učinkovito uresničevanje načela solidarnosti, določenega v členu 2 ustave, tako da se zavzema za vzpostavitev primernega in pravičnega gospodarskega ravnotežja med različnimi deli državnega ozemlja […]“, posegalo v procesno avtonomijo zgodovinskih ozemelj.
The requirement for an infraState body to take into account the economic balance between the different parts of the national territory when adopting tax legislation defines the limits of that body’s powers, even if the concepts used to define those limits, such as that of economic balance, may be developed in the context of interpretation as part of judicial review.
Obveznost poddržavne enote, da ob sprejemanju davčnega predpisa upo�teva gospodarsko ravnotežje med različnimi deli državnega ozemlja, namreč opredeljuje meje pristojnosti te enote, čeprav so se pojmi, uporabljeni za opredelitev teh meja, kot na primer pojem gospodarskega ravnotežja, morebiti razvili v okviru razlage, ki izhaja iz sodnega nadzora.
However, as stated in paragraph 81 above, the fact that preestablished limits must be complied with when a decision is adopted does not, in principle, call into question the decisional autonomy of the body adopting that decision.
Kot je navedeno v točki 81 te sodbe, pa dejstvo, da je treba pri sprejemanju odločitve upo�tevati predhodno vzpostavljene meje, načeloma ne pomeni, da je s tem okrnjena avtonomija odločanja subjekta, ki sprejme to odločitev.
As for the principle of fiscal harmonisation laid down in Article 3 of the Economic Agreement, it is necessary, in particular, to maintain ‘an overall effective fiscal pressure equivalent to that in force in the rest of the State’ and to respect and guarantee ‘freedom of movement and of establishment of persons and free movement of goods, capital and services throughout the territory of Spain, without giving rise to discrimination or a restriction of the possibility of commercial competition or distortion in the allocation of resources’.
Načelo davčnega usklajevanja iz člena 3 finančnega sporazuma zahteva zlasti izvajanje „učinkovit[e] skupn[e] davčn[e] obremenit[ve], ki je v skladu s tisto, ki velja na preostalem državnem ozemlju“ in spo�tovanje ter zagotavljanje „prost[ega] gibanj[a] in svobod[e] ustanavljanj[a] ter prost[ega] pretok[a] blaga, kapitala in storitev na celotnem �panskem ozemlju, ne da bi pri tem nastali diskriminacijski učinki, oviranje možnosti za konkurenco med podjetji ali neravnovesje pri dodeljevanju sredstev“.
While it appears to result from that principle that the Historical Territories do not have very extensive competence in respect of the overall fiscal pressure liable to be established by foral laws, since that pressure must be equivalent to that which exists in the rest of the Spanish State, it is, however, not in dispute that overall fiscal pressure is only one of the elements to be taken into consideration when tax laws are being adopted.
Čeprav se morda zdi, da iz takega načela izhaja, da zgodovinska ozemlja nimajo ravno �irokih pristojnosti glede skupne davčne obremenitve, ki jo lahko naložijo s foralnimi zakoni, saj mora biti ta enaka tisti, ki velja na preostalem �panskem ozemlju, se ne izpodbija, da je skupna davčna obremenitev le eden od dejavnikov, ki jih je treba upo�tevati pri sprejemanju davčnega predpisa.
Provided that they comply with that principle, the Historical
V okviru upo�tevanja tega načela
Territories thus have the power to adopt tax provisions which differ in many respects from the provisions applicable in the rest of the State.
2008 – ZADEVA C-428/06 lahko torej zgodovinska ozemlja sprejemajo davčne določbe, ki se v veliko vidikih razlikujejo od veljavnih določb v preostalem delu navedene države.
In any event, as is apparent from paragraph 67 of Portugal v Commission, the essential criterion for the purpose of determining whether procedural autonomy exists is not the extent of the competence which the infraState body is recognised as having, but the possibility for that body, as a result of that competence, to adopt a decision independently, in other words, without the central government being able directly to intervene as regards its content.
Vsekakor pa, kot izhaja iz točke 67 zgoraj navedene sodbe Portugalska proti Komisiji, temeljno merilo za presojo procesne avtonomije ni obseg pristojnosti, ki se priznavajo poddržavni enoti, temveč možnost, da ta na podlagi teh pristojnosti sprejme odločitev neodvisno, torej ne da bi osrednja vlada lahko neposredno posegla v njeno vsebino.
It follows that an infraState body’s obligation to take into consideration the State interest in order to respect the limits of the areas of competence which are accorded to it, does not, generally, constitute an element calling into question the procedural autonomy of that body where it adopts a decision within those limits.
Iz tega izhaja, da obveznost poddržavne enote, da upo�teva državni interes in s tem spo�tuje meje pristojnosti, ki so ji podeljene, načeloma ne pomeni dejavnika, ki bi posegal v procesno avtonomijo te enote, če sprejme odločitev v okviru svojih pristojnosti.
In the cases in the main proceedings, it is necessary to find — as is apparent from the applicable national provisions and, in particular, from Articles 63 and 64 of the Economic Agreement — that it does not appear that the central government is able directly to intervene in the process of adopting a foral law in order to ensure compliance with principles such as the principle of solidarity, that of fiscal harmonisation or the other principles as relied on by the applicants in the main proceedings.
V postopkih v glavni stvari je treba ugotoviti, da kot izhaja iz veljavnih nacionalnih določb in zlasti iz členov 63 in 64 finančnega sporazuma, ni videti, da bi osrednja vlada lahko neposredno posegla v postopek sprejemanja foralnega predpisa, da bi tako zagotovila upo�tevanje načel, kot so načelo solidarnosti, načelo davčnega usklajevanja oziroma druga načela, na primer tista, na katera se sklicujejo tožeče stranke v postopku v glavni stvari.
However, whilst the Court has jurisdiction to interpret Community law, it is the national court which has jurisdiction to identify the national law applicable and to interpret it, as well as to apply Community law to the cases before it.
Sodi�če je sicer pristojno za razlago prava Skupnosti, za ugotavljanje, katero nacionalno pravo je veljavno, ter uporabo tega prava v sporih, o katerih odloča, pa je pristojno nacionalno sodi�če.
It is thus to the national court that it falls, on the basis of the evidence examined and all other evidence which it considers relevant, to determine whether the second criterion laid down in paragraph 67 of Portugal v Commission, namely the procedural autonomy criterion, is satisfied in the cases in the main proceedings.
Zato mora predložitveno sodi�če na podlagi preučenih dejavnikov in vseh drugih, za katere meni, da so pomembni, preizkusiti, ali je v postopkih v glavni stvari izpolnjeno drugo merilo iz točke 67 zgoraj navedene sodbe Portugalska proti Komisiji, in sicer merilo procesne avtonomije.
The economic and financial autonomy criterion
Merilo gospodarske in finančne avtonomije
With regard to this criterion, it is apparent from the observations submitted to the Court that their authors are referring to paragraphs 67 and 68 of Portugal v Commis­sion.
Iz stali�č, predloženih Sodi�ču, v zvezi s tem merilom izhaja, da se udeleženci v postopku, ki so jih predložili, sklicujejo na točki 67 in 68 zgoraj navedene sodbe Portugalska proti Komisiji.
The Court held there, first, that the financial consequences of a reduction of the national tax rate for undertakings in the region must not be offset by aid or subsidies from other regions or central government and, second, that economic autonomy exists only where the infraState body assumes the political and financial consequences of a tax reduction measure.
Sodi�če je v njej odločilo, da finančnih posledic znižanja nacionalne stopnje obdavčitve, ki se uporablja za podjetja v regiji, ni dopustno izravnati s pomočjo ali subvencijami iz drugih regij ali osrednje vlade, ter da gospodarska avtonomija obstaja, le če poddržavni organ prevzame politične in finančne posledice ukrepa znižanja davkov.
A number of the observations submitted to the Court deal with the determination of the quota and the inferences to be drawn from it concerning the economic and financial autonomy of the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country as well as of the Historical Territories.
Več stali�č, predloženih Sodi�ču, obravnava tudi določitev finančnega prispevka in posledice te določitve za gospodarsko in finančno avtonomijo Baskovske avtonomne skupnosti in zgodovinskih ozemelj.
The Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja and the Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla y León claim that the Historical Territories do not have economic autonomy, in particular because of the different principles imposed by the Constitution and the Economic Agreement.
Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja in Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla y León zatrjujeta, da zgodovinska ozemlja nimajo gospodarske avtonomije, in sicer zlasti zaradi različnih načel, ki jih morajo upo�tevati na podlagi ustave in finančnega sporazuma.
The foral authorities, by contrast, contend that the tax system of the Historical Territories is based on two pillars, the first of which represents autonomy and responsibility and the second of which represents the principle of unilateral risk.
Foralni organi pa zatrjujejo, da davčni sistem zgodovinskih ozemelj temelji na dveh stebrih, s katerima sta vzpostavljena, prvič, davčna avtonomija in odgovornost, ter drugič, načelo enostranskega tveganja.
Examining the grounds of the orders for reference, Confebask states that, according to the national court, the economic autonomy criterion requires there to be economic
Iz obrazložitev predložitvenih odločb izhaja, da združenje Confebask poudarja, da naj bi načelo gospodarske avtonomije po mnenju nacionalnega sodi�ča
2008 — JOINED CASES C-428/06 TO C-434/06 differentiation between the autonomous territory and the rest of the Spanish State in the field of taxation, inasmuch as any principle of market unity may call into question the existence of genuine autonomy.
2008 – ZADEVA C-428/06 zahtevalo gospodarsko razlikovanje med avtonomnim ozemljem in preostalim �panskim državnim ozemljem na davčnem področju, pri čemer naj bi morebitno načelo enotnosti trga utemeljevalo dvom o obstoju dejanske avtonomije.
Confebask states, however, that the judgment in Portugal v Commission in no way requires the presence of an element such as a ‘distinct economic framework’, something not even present among the Member States of the European Community, which constitutes a substantially integrated economic and social unit.
Vendar pa združenje Confebask poudarja, da iz zgoraj navedene sodbe Portugalska proti Komisiji nikakor ne izhaja, da bi moral biti navzoč dejavnik, kot je „ločen gospodarski okvir“, kar je realnost, ki ne obstaja niti med državami članicami Evropske skupnosti, ki je precej enoten gospodarski in družbeni subjekt.
The only relevant element is that the lower tax applicable in a particular region must not be financed by a transfer from the central government, which implies that the political and economic risks of the decision taken in the tax field by the infraState body are assumed by the latter, a requirement referred to in Spanish law as the ‘principle of fiscal responsibility’.
Edini pomemben dejavnik naj bi bila zahteva, da se nižje davčne obremenitve, ki velja v določeni regiji, ne sme financirati s transferji osrednje vlade, kar pomeni, da poddržavna enota prevzema politična in gospodarska tveganja odločitev, ki jih sprejema na davčnem področju, to pa je zahteva, ki se v �panskem pravu opredeljuje kot „načelo davčne odgovornosti“.
That, it is submitted, is the case with regard to the Historical Territories, fiscal responsibility being inseparable from the rules contained in the Economic Agreement itself.
Za tak primer naj bi �lo v zvezi z zgodovinskimi ozemlji, saj naj bi bila davčna odgovornost neločljivo povezana s sistemom gospodarskega usklajevanja.