natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
That is in fact a consequence of the absence of common rules governing the allocation of the Member States’ powers of taxation, 37which — particularly in a case such as this where there is no agreement for the avoidance of double taxation — would make the obligations of a Member State under the Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital randomly dependent on the way in which another Member State chose to make use of its own taxing powers.
To je pravzaprav posledica neobstoja skupnih pravil o razdelitvi davčnih pristojnosti med državami članicami, 37kar bi – zlasti v primerih, kot je ta, v katerem ni sporazuma o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevan- ja – lahko povzročilo, da so obveznosti držav članic na podlagi določb Pogodbe o prostem pretoku kapitala naključno odvisne od načina, kako se druga država članica odloči uporabiti svoje davčne pristojnosti.
Moreover, it would be very difficult to establish systematically in each case, even if the State of residence provided for a concession or credit to be granted, whether the disadvantageous effect of the taxation in the Member State where the property was situated would be fully offset.
Poleg tega bi bilo zelo težko v vsakem primeru sistematično ugotoviti, tudi če bi država prebivali�ča priznala olaj�avo ali dobropis, ali bi bil negativni učinek obdavčitve v državi članici, v kateri je nepremičnina, popolnoma izravnan.
As regards, more particularly, the argument put forward by the Netherlands Government that the taking into account of the overendowment debts at issue might lead to double-deduction, it is settled caselaw that a Community national cannot be deprived of the right to rely on the provisions of the Treaty on the ground that he is profiting from tax advantages which are legally provided by the rules in a Member State other than his State of residence. 39
V zvezi s trditvijo nizozemske vlade, da lahko upo�tevanje zadevnih dolgov zaradi presežne pridobitve privede do dvojnega odbitka, državljanu Skupnosti v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso ni mogoče odvzeti pravice, da se zanese na določbe Pogodbe, ker ima korist od davčnih ugodnosti, ki so zakonito določene v državi članici, ki ni njegova država prebivali�ča. 39
What is more, even if, as regards the present case, the disadvantage suffered by the heir in the Member State where the property is situated would be fully offset by a credit
Še več, tudi če bi se neugodnost, ki jo trpi dedič v državi članici, v kateri je nepremičnina, v obravnavani zadevi popolnoma izravnala z dobropisom ali olaj�avo, ki bi jo
38 — Thus, the Court has not accepted the argument that it is for another State, even if there is a double taxation convention, to rectify the effects of a restriction: see, to that effect, Denkavit, cited in footnote 13, paragraphs 51 and 52, and Case C-379/05 Amurta [2007] ECR I-9569, paragraph 55.
38 – Zato Sodi�če ni sprejelo trditve, da je naloga druge države popraviti učinke omejitve, čeprav obstaja konvencija o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja (glej v tem smislu v opombi 13 navedeno sodbo Denkavit, točki 51 in 52, in sodbo z dne 8. novembra 2007 v zadevi Amurta, C-379/05, ZOdl., str. I-9569, točka 55).
37 — See point 66 above.
37 – Glej točko 66 zgoraj.
It follows that the provisions of the Treaty on the free movement of capital preclude national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which — for the purposes of determining the basis of assessment of the tax due on the inheritance of an immovable property situated in the territory of the Member State concerned — account may be taken of overendowment debts arising from a testamentary parental partition inter vivos, if the person from whom the property has been inherited was resident, at the time of death, in that Member State, but not if that person was resident in another Member State.
Iz tega sledi, da določbe Pogodbe o prostem pretoku kapitala nasprotujejo nacionalni zakonodaji, kot je ta iz postopka v glavni stvari, v skladu s katero se – pri določanju davčne osnove davka pri dedovanju nepremičnine na ozemlju zadevne države članice – lahko upo�tevajo dolgovi zaradi presežne pridobitve, ki izhajajo iz oporočne delitve zapu�čine star�ev inter vivos, če je oseba, katere nepremičnina je bila predmet dedovanja, ob smrti prebivala v tej državi članici, vendar pa ne, če je prebivala v drugi državi članici.
It is not relevant in that regard whether or to what extent the Member State of residence of the deceased may grant a tax concession.
V zvezi s tem ni pomembno, ali in v kak�nem obsegu država članica pokojnikovega prebivali�ča priznava davčno olaj�avo.
The provisions of the Treaty on the free movement of capital preclude national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which — for the purposes of determining the basis of assessment of the tax due on the inheritance of an immovable property situated in the territory of the Member State concerned — account may be taken of overendowment debts arising from a testamentary parental partition inter vivos, if the person from whom the property has been inherited was resident, at the time of death, in that Member State, but not if that person was resident in another Member State.
„Določbe Pogodbe o prostem pretoku kapitala nasprotujejo nacionalni zakonodaji, kot je ta iz postopka v glavni stvari, v skladu s katero se – pri določanju davčne osnove davka pri dedovanju nepremičnine na ozemlju zadevne države članice – lahko upo�tevajo dolgovi zaradi presežne pridobitve, ki izhajajo iz oporočne delitve zapu�čine star�ev inter vivos, če je oseba, katere nepremičnina je bila predmet dedovanja, ob smrti prebivala v tej državi članici, vendar pa ne, če je prebivala v drugi državi članici.
It is not relevant in that regard whether or to what extent the Member State of residence of the deceased may grant a tax concession.
V zvezi s tem ni pomembno, ali in v kak�nem obsegu država članica pokojnikovega prebivali�ča priznava davčno olaj�avo.“
2008 — CASE C-43/07
2008 – ZADEVA C-43/07
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), made by decision of 12 January 2007, received at the Court on 2 February 2007, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-43/07, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Nizozemska) z odločbo z dne 12. januarja 2007, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 2. februarja 2007, v postopku
Advocate General: J. Mazák, Registrar: M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 13 December 2007, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Ferreira, glavna administratorka, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 13. decembra 2007, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
2008 — CASE C-43/07 gives the following
2008 – ZADEVA C-43/07 izreka naslednjo
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 EC and 58 EC respectively) relating to the free movement of capital.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago členov 73b in 73d Pogodbe ES (postala člena 56 ES oziroma 58 ES) v zvezi s prostim pretokom kapitala.
Article 1 of Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988 for the implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty (subsequently, Article 67 of the EC Treaty, repealed by the Treaty of Amsterdam) (OJ 1988 L 178, p.
V členu 1 Direktive Sveta 88/361/EGS z dne 24. junija 1988 o izvajanju člena 67 Pogodbe (postal člen 67 Pogodbe ES (ta pa je bil razveljavljen z Amsterdamsko pogodbo)) (UL L 178, str.
5) provides:
5) je določeno:
Transfers in respect of capital movements shall be made on the same exchange rate conditions as those governing payments relating to current transactions.’
Za prenose v zvezi s pretokom kapitala se uporabljajo enaki pogoji menjalnih tečajev, kot veljajo za plačila v zvezi s tekočimi transakcijami.“
Among the capital movements listed in Annex I to Directive 88/361 are, under heading XI, ‘Personal capital movements’, which include inheritances and legacies.
Med pretoki kapitala, ki so na�teti v prilogi I k Direktivi 88/361, so pod postavko XI zajeti „Osebni pretoki kapitala“, ki vključujejo dedi�čine in zapu�čine.
Under Netherlands law, every estate is subject to tax.
Na podlagi člena 1(1) zakona o dedovanju (Successiewet) z dne 28. junija 1956 (Stb. 1956, �t.
1956, No 362; ‘the SW 1956’) drew a distinction on the basis of whether the person whose estate was being administered resided in the Netherlands or abroad at the time of death.
362, v nadaljevanju: SW 1956) je bilo treba razlikovati, ali je oseba, po kateri je bilo uvedeno dedovanje, ob svoji smrti prebivala na Nizozemskem ali v tujini.
From 1 January 1992 to 31 December 2001, that provision was worded as follows:
V tej določbi je bilo za obdobje med 1. januarjem 1992 in 31. decembrom 2001 določeno:
‘In accordance with this law, the following taxes shall be levied:
„Na podlagi tega zakona se odmerijo:
Article 5(2) of the SW 1956, in the version applicable from 8 December 1995 to 31 December 2000, provided:
V členu 5(2) SW 1956 v različici, ki je veljala od 8. decembra 1995 do 31. decembra 2000, je določeno:
‘Transfer duty is levied on the value of:
„Davek na prenos premoženja se odmeri od vrednosti:
1. the domestic possessions referred to in Article 13 of the Law on the taxation of wealth [Wet op de vermogensbelasting] of 16 December 1964 [Stb.
1. domačega premoženja iz člena 13 zakona o davku od premoženja [Wet op de vermogensbelasting] z dne 16. decembra 1964 [(Stb. 1964, �t.
The first indent of Article 13(1) of the WB 1964, in the version applicable from 1 January 1992 to 31 December 2000, defined ‘domestic possessions’ as including ‘immovable property situated in the Netherlands or rights relating thereto’ (in so far as they do not belong to a Netherlands undertaking).
V členu 13(1), prva alinea, WB 1964 v različici, ki je veljala od 1. januarja 1992 do 31. decembra 2000, je „domače premoženje“ opredeljeno kot „nepremičnine na ozemlju Nizozemske ali pravice na njih“ (če ne pripadajo nizozemskemu podjetju).
Article 13(2)(b) of the WB 1964 allows the deduction of debts secured by a mortgage on immovable property situated in the Netherlands only in so far as the charges and the interest relating to those debts are taken into consideration in calculating gross domestic income under Article 49 of the Law on income tax (Wet op de inkomstenbelasting) of 16 December 1964 (Stb.
V členu 13(2)(b) WB 1964 je priznan le odbitek dolgov, zavarovanih s hipoteko na nepremičnini na ozemlju Nizozemske, če se v skladu s členom 49 zakona o dohodnini (Wet op de Inkomstenbelasting) z dne 16. decembra 1964 (Stb. 1964, �t.
There is no agreement between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Italian Republic for the prevention of double taxation in relation to inheritance duties.
Med Kraljevino Nizozemsko in Italijansko republiko ni sporazuma o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja na področju davka na dedi�čino.
It is also apparent from those observations that, from 1 January 1985, the proportional rate of 6% applicable to transfer duties was replaced with the progressive rate applied to inheritance and gift duties.
Iz navedenih stali�č prav tako izhaja, da je bila od 1. januarja 1985 sorazmerna stopnja 6 %, ki se je uporabljala za davek na prenos premoženja, razveljavljena in da jo je nadomestila progresivna stopnja davka na dedi�čino in darila.
As a consequence, the rate at which transfer duties are applied is also dually progressive, being determined on the basis of the link between the taxpayer and the deceased and, from that date, in accordance with the value of the acquisition.
Davek na prenos premoženja se torej prav tako obračuna na podlagi dvojno progresivne stopnje, ki se določi ob upo�tevanju razmerja med davčnim zavezancem in zapustnikom ter, od tega datuma dalje, glede na vrednost pridobitve.
At the time of his death, he had been living outside the Netherlands for more than 10 years and was residing in Italy.
Ob svoji smrti že več kot deset let ni prebival na Nizozemskem, temveč v Italiji.
As the deceased had made a will, his estate was divided in equal shares between Ms Arens-Sikken and the four children of their marriage.
Ker je zapustnik s svojim premoženjem razpolagal v oporoki, je bila njegova zapu� -čina po enakih delih razdeljena tožeči stranki v postopku v glavni stvari in �tirim otrokom iz zapustnikove zakonske zveze z njo.
According to the order for reference and the observations of the Netherlands Government, Ms Arens-Sikken received, as a result of that partition, assets and liabilities to a value exceeding the value of her legal share of the estate.
Glede na predložitveno odločbo in stali�ča nizozemske vlade je tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari zaradi te delitve prejela pravice in obveznosti, katerih vrednost je presegala vrednost njenega dednega deleža, določenega v skladu z zakonom.
In other words, she received an overendowment.
Pridobila je torej presežek.
Her children, on the other hand, incurred a deficit, as they did not receive any of the assets included in the estate.
Njeni otroci pa so utrpeli primanjkljaj, saj niso dobili nobene stvari iz zapu�čine.
According to the testamentary parental partition inter vivos, Ms Arens-Sikken was obliged to pay her children the
Na podlagi oporočne delitve zapu�čine star�ev inter vivos je tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari morala izplačati svojim otrokom
She therefore assumed an overendowment debt in respect of each of her children, and they had claims against her as a result of their underendowment.
Prevzela je torej dolg, povezan s presežno pridobitvijo, v razmerju do vsakega od svojih otrok, ti pa so postali njeni upniki glede terjatev, ki izhajajo iz primanjkljaja.
The estate included the deceased’s share in an immovable property situated in the Netherlands; that share was worth NLG 475 000.
V zapu�čino je spadal med drugim tudi zapustnikov del nepremičnine na Nizozemskem, katerega vrednost je bila 475.000 NLG.
The deceased’s heirs made a declaration for the purpose of transfer duties, taking as a basis the value of NLG 95 000 acquired by each of them, that is, one-fifth of the value of the immovable property of NLG 475 000.
Zapustnikovi dediči so oddali napoved za odmero davka na prenos premoženja in pri tem kot osnovo upo�tevali vrednost 95.000 NLG, ki jo je vsak od njih prejel, kar je petina vrednosti nepremičnine, ki je vredna 475.000 NLG.
Ms Arens-Sikken’s children were not asked to pay any transfer duty.
Arens-Sikken ni bilo treba plačati nobenega davka na prenos premoženja.
The tax authority’s decision was confirmed following an objection lodged by Ms Arens-Sikken.
Na podlagi ugovora tožeče stranke v postopku v glavni stvari je bila odločba davčne uprave potrjena.
In that appeal, she submitted that she should not be required to pay
V tej tožbi je uveljavljala, da se ji ne bi smelo naložiti plačila davka na prenos
2008 — CASE C-43/07 transfer duty assessed on the basis of a value of NLG 475 000, and that a lower value was appropriate on account of the overendowment debts.
2008 – ZADEVA C-43/07 premoženja, izračunanega na podlagi vrednosti 475.000 NLG, ampak da bi bilo treba zmanj�ati ta znesek zaradi dolgov, povezanih s presežno pridobitvijo.
The Gerechtshof te ’s-Hertogenbosch held that, as far as Ms Arens-Sikken was concerned, the transfer duty attached to the inheritance of the immovable property under inheritance law.
Gerechtshof te ’s-Hertogenbosch je presodilo, da se, kar zadeva tožečo stranko v postopku v glavni stvari, davek na prenos premoženja nana�a na pridobitev nepremičnine na podlagi dednega prava. V okviru delitve zapu�čine star�ev inter vivos je presodilo, da je premoženje, ki ga je dobila tožeča stranka, zapustnikov del zadevne nepremičnine.
In the order for reference, the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden held that the Gerechtshof te ’s-Hertogenbosch was right to rule that, for the purposes of collecting transfer duty, Ms Arens-Sikken was deemed to have acquired, in its entirety, the share in the immovable property assigned to her by virtue of Netherlands inheritance law.
V predložitveni odločbi to ugotavlja, da je Gerechtshof te ’s-Hertogenbosch pravilno odločilo, da se za namen odmere davka na prenos premoženja domneva, da je tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari na podlagi nizozemskega dednega prava pridobila celoten del nepremičnine, ki ji je bil dodeljen.
In those circumstances, the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden was uncertain whether the non-deductibility of overendowment debts in the determination of the basis of assessment for transfer duty amounts to an unlawful restriction on the free movement of capital.
V teh okoli�činah se predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje, ali pomeni nemožnost odbitka dolgov zaradi presežne pridobitve v okviru določanja davčne osnove za davek na prenos premoženja nezakonito omejitev prostega pretoka kapitala.
Since it considered that the dispute raised questions of interpretation of Community law, the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
Ker je Hoge Raad der Nederlanden menilo, da se v sporu zastavljajo vpra�anja o razlagi prava Skupnosti, je prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ta vpra�anja:
Questions 1 and 2
Prvo in drugo vprašanje
By those questions, the referring court asks, in essence, whether the combined provisions of Articles 73b and 73d of the Treaty are to be interpreted as precluding rules of a Member State, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, concerning the assessment of inheritance duties and transfer duties payable in respect of an immovable property situated in that Member State which, for the assessment of those duties, make no provision for the deductibility of overendowment debts resulting from a testamentary parental partition inter vivos where the person whose estate is being administered was residing, at the time of death, not in that State, in which the immovable property is situated, but in another Member State, whereas provision is made for such deductibility where the person concerned was residing, at the time of death, in the firstmentioned State.
S tema vpra�anjema predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali je treba člen 73b skupaj s členom 73d Pogodbe razlagati tako, da nasprotuje tak�ni ureditvi države članice, kot je ureditev iz postopka v glavni stvari, ki se nana�a na izračun davka na dedi�čino in na prenos premoženja, ki ju je treba plačati v zvezi z nepremičnino v tej državi članici, in v kateri pri izračunu navedenih davkov ni predvidena možnost odbitka dolgov zaradi presežne pridobitve, ki so posledica oporočne delitve zapu�čine star�ev inter vivos, kadar oseba, po kateri je uvedeno dedovanje, ob svoji smrti ni bila rezident države, v kateri je ta nepremičnina, ampak druge države članice, medtem ko je tak�na možnost odbitka predvidena, kadar je bila zadevna oseba ob svoji smrti rezident države, v kateri je navedena nepremičnina.
If the answer to that question is in the affirmative and in the light of Gerritse and Barbier, the referring court also asks what method of comparison must be used in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings in order to determine whether the inheritance duty which would have been levied if the person whose estate is being administered had been resident in the Netherlands at the time of death would have been less than the transfer duty.
Če je odgovor na to vpra�anje pritrdilen in ob upo�tevanju zgoraj navedenih sodb Gerritse in Barbier, predložitveno sodi�če poleg tega spra�uje, katera primerjalna metoda se uporabi v tak�nem primeru, kot se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, da bi se ugotovilo, ali bi bil znesek davka na dedi�čino, ki bi se odmeril, če bi oseba, po kateri je bilo uvedeno dedovanje, ob svoji smrti prebivala na Nizozemskem, nižji od zneska davka na prenos premoženja.
Article 56(1) EC lays down a general prohibition on restrictions on the movement of capital between Member States (Joined Cases C-463/04 and C-464/04 Federconsumatori and Others [2007] ECR I-10419, paragraph 19 and the caselaw cited).
Na podlagi člena 56(1) ES so na splo�no prepovedane omejitve pretoka kapitala med državami članicami (sodba z dne 6. decembra 2007 v zadevi Federconsumatori in drugi, C-463/04 in C-464/04, ZOdl., str. I-10419, točka 19, in navedena sodna praksa).
In the absence of a definition in the EC Treaty of ‘movement of capital’ for the purposes of Article 56(1) EC, the Court has previously recognised the nomenclature annexed to Directive 88/361 as having indicative value, even though the latter was adopted on the basis of Articles 69 and 70(1) of the EEC Treaty (subsequently, Art -icles 69 and 70(1) of the EC Treaty, repealed by the Treaty of Amsterdam), subject to the qualification, contained in the introduction to the nomenclature, that the list set out therein is not exhaustive (see, in particular, Case C-513/03 van Hilten-van der Heijden [2006] ECR I-1957, paragraph 39; Case C-452/04 Fidium Finanz [2006] ECR I-9521, paragraph 41; Federconsumatori and Others, paragraph 20; and Case C-256/06 Jäger [2008] ECR I-123, paragraph 24).
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 88/361, ne glede na to, da je bila ta direktiva sprejeta na podlagi členov 69 in 70(1) Pogodbe EGS (postala člena 69 in 70(1) Pogodbe ES, ta pa sta bila razveljav -ljena z Amsterdamsko pogodbo), pri čemer v skladu z njenim uvodom seznam, ki ga vsebuje, ni izčrpen (glej zlasti sodbi z dne 23. februarja 2006 v zadevi van Hiltenvan der Heijden, C-513/03, ZOdl., str.
Consequently, the inheritance at issue in the main proceedings constitutes a movement of capital for the purposes of Article 56(1) EC.
Zato je dedovanje, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, pretok kapitala v smislu člena 56(1) ES.
It is necessary to examine, first, whether, as the Commission of the European Communities maintains, national rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings amount to a restriction on the movement of capital.
Kot poudarja Komisija Evropskih skupnosti, je treba najprej preveriti, ali tak�na nacionalna ureditev, kot je ureditev iz postopka v glavni stvari, pomeni omejitev pretoka kapitala.
Consequently, the transfer duties which Ms Arens-Sikken was required to pay as a result of acquiring the immovable property through inheritance had to be assessed on the basis of a value of NLG 475 000, that is, the full value of that property.
Zato je bilo treba davek na prenos premoženja, ki ga je morala plačati tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari, ker je podedovala nepremičnino, odmeriti od vrednosti 475.000 NLG, kar je celotna vrednost navedene nepremičnine.
By contrast, if the person whose estate is being administered was residing in the Netherlands at the time of death, the assessment of inheritance duties payable in respect of an immovable property acquired by way of inheritance does take such debts into account.
Nasprotno pa se tak�ni dolgovi pri izračunu davka na dedi�čino, ki ga je treba plačati za podedovano nepremičnino, upo�tevajo, kadar je oseba ob svoji smrti prebivala na Nizozemskem.
Thus, in a situation identical to that of Ms Arens-Sikken, in which there are four other heirs and an immovable property worth NLG 475 000 left by way of inheritance, the inheritance duties payable by the spouse assuming the overendowment debts would be assessed on the basis of NLG 95 000, representing one-fifth of the value of that property.
V takem primeru, kot je primer tožeče stranke v postopku v glavni stvari, za katerega sta značilna obstoj �e �tirih drugih dedičev in zapu�čena nepremičnina v vrednosti 475.000 NLG, bi bil davek na dedi�čino, ki bi ga moral plačati zakonec, ki je prevzel dolgove zaradi presežne pridobitve, odmerjen od vrednosti 95.000 NLG, kar je petina vrednosti navedene nepremičnine.