natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
By reason of that difference in tax treatment, a German company could be discouraged from carrying on its business through a permanent establishment situated in another Member State.
Drugačno davčno obravnavanje bi lahko nem�ko družbo odvrnilo od opravljanja dejavnosti prek stalne poslovne enote v drugi državi članici.
It must be held that the tax regime at issue in the main proceedings involves a restriction on the freedom of establishment.
Sklenemo lahko, da zadevna davčna ureditev v postopku v glavni stvari pomeni omejitev svobode ustanavljanja.
Whether a justification exists
Obstoj utemeljitve
It is clear from the Court’s caselaw that a restriction on the freedom of establishment is permissible only if it is justified by overriding reasons in the public interest.
Iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča izhaja, da je omejitev svobode ustanavljanja dopustna samo, če jo upravičujejo nujni razlogi v splo�nem interesu.
It is further necessary, in such a case, that its application be appropriate to ensuring the attainment of the objective in question and not go beyond what is necessary to attain it (see Case C-446/03 Marks & Spencer [2005] ECR I-10837, paragraph 35; Cadbury Schweppes and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, paragraph 47; and Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, paragraph 64). 28
V takem primeru mora biti tudi primerna za zagotavljanje uresničitve zadevnega cilja in ne sme presegati tega, kar je nujno potrebno za dosego tega cilja (glej sodbo z dne 13. decembra 2005 v zadevi Marks & Spencer, C-446/03, ZOdl., str. I-10837, točka 35, ter zgoraj navedeni sodbi Cadbury Schweppes in Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, točka 47, in Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, točka 64). 28
In that connection, the national court points out in particular that, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention, the income generated by the permanent establishment in Luxembourg is not taxed in the Member State of residence of the company to which it belongs.
Predložitveno sodi�če v zvezi s tem zlasti poudarja, da se dohodki stalne poslovne enote, ki se nahaja v Luksemburgu, v skladu z določbami konvencije v državi članici rezidentstva družbe, ki ji stalna poslovna enota pripada, ne obdavčijo.
In their observations to the Court, the German, Greek, French, Netherlands, Finnish, Swedish and United Kingdom Governments essentially submit that tax rules which, for the purposes of determining the tax base of a resident company, restrict the possibility for that company to deduct losses incurred by a permanent establishment belonging to it which is situated in another Member State can, as a rule, be justified.
V stali�čih, ki so jih predložile Sodi�ču nem�ka, gr�ka, francoska, nizozemska, finska, �vedska vlada in vlada Združenega kraljestva v bistvu zatrjujejo, da je načeloma mogoče davčno ureditev, ki omejuje možnost, da družba rezidentka uveljavlja izgube, ki so nastale prek njene stalne poslovne enote, ki se nahaja v drugi državi članici, utemeljiti pri določanju davčne osnove te družbe.
Those Governments take the view that the justification for such rules in the light of Community law may be based, first, on the need to preserve the allocation of the power to impose taxes between the Member States concerned and, secondly, on the need to prevent the danger that losses may be taken into account twice.
Navedene vlade menijo, da je mogoče to ureditev utemeljiti glede na pravo Skupnosti, prvič, s potrebo po ohranitvi delitve davčne pristojnosti med zadevnimi državami članicami in, drugič, s potrebo preprečevanja tveganja za dvojno upo�tevanje izgub.
As regards the first of these justifications, it should be noted that the preservation of the allocation of the power to impose taxes between Member States may make it necessary to apply to the economic activities of companies established in one of those States only the tax rules of that State in respect of both profits and losses (see Marks & Spencer, paragraph 45, and Case C-231/05 Oy AA [2007] ECR I-6373, paragraph 54). 32
Glede prvega navedenega dejavnika utemeljitve je treba opozoriti, da lahko ohranitev delitve davčne pristojnosti med državami članicami povzroči, da je treba za gospodarske dejavnosti družb s sedežem v eni od teh držav uporabljati samo davčna pravila te države tako glede dobičkov kot tudi izgub (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Marks & Spencer, točka 45, in sodbo z dne 18. julija 2007 v zadevi Oy AA, C-231/05, ZOdl., str. I-6373, točka 54). 32
To give companies the right to elect to have their losses taken into account in the Member State in which they are established or in another Member State would seriously undermine a balanced allocation of the power to impose taxes between the Member States, since the tax base would be increased in the first State, and reduced in the second, by the amount of the losses surrendered (see Marks & Spencer, paragraph 46, and Oy AA, paragraph 55). 33
Če bi dali namreč družbam možnost izbire, ali bodo upo�tevale svoje izgube, bodisi v državi članici, v kateri imajo sedež, bodisi v drugi državi članici, bi to lahko občutno ogrozilo enakomerno porazdelitev davčne pristojnosti med državami članicami, saj bi se davčna osnova v prvi državi povečala, v drugi pa zmanj�ala v vi�ini prenesenih izgub (glej zgoraj navedeni sodbi Marks & Spencer, točka 46, in Oy AA, točka 55). 33
With respect to the relevance of the first of these justifications in the light of the facts in the main proceedings, it should be pointed out that the Member State in which the registered office of the company to which the permanent establishment belongs is
V zvezi z upo�tevnostjo prvega dejavnika utemeljitve, glede dejanskega stanja v postopku v glavni stvari, je treba opozoriti, da bi država članica, v kateri je sedež družbe, ki ji pripada stalna poslovna enota, če ne bi obstajala konvencija o izogibanju
LIDL BELGIUM situated would, in the absence of a double taxation convention, have the right to tax the profits generated by such an entity.
LIDL BELGIUM dvojnega obdavčevanja, imela pravico obdavčiti dobičke te enote.
Consequently, the objective of preserving the allocation of the power to impose taxes between the two Member States concerned, which is reflected in the provisions of the Convention, is capable of justifying the tax regime at issue in the main proceedings, since it safeguards symmetry between the right to tax profits and the right to deduct losses.
Zato cilj ohranitve delitve davčne pristojnosti med zadevnima državama članicama, ki se odraža v določbah konvencije, lahko utemelji zadevno davčno ureditev v postopku v glavni stvari, ob upo�tevanju, da ohranja simetrijo med pravico do obdavčevanja dobičkov in možnostjo odbitka izgub.
In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, to accept that the losses of a nonresident permanent establishment might be deducted from the taxable income of the principal company would result in allowing that company to choose freely the Member State in which those losses could be deducted (see, to that effect, Oy AA, paragraph 56).
V okoli�činah, kot so te v postopku v glavni stvari, bi priznanje, da se izguba stalne poslovne enote nerezidentke lahko odbije od dohodka matične družbe, povzročilo, da se slednji omogoči, da prosto izbere državo članico, v kateri bo to izgubo uveljavljala (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Oy AA, točka 56).
As regards the second justification put forward in the observations submitted to the Court, which is based on the danger that losses might be taken into account twice, the Court has accepted that the Member States must be able to prevent such a danger (see Marks & Spencer, paragraph 47, and Case C-347/04 Rewe Zentralfinanz [2007] ECR I-2647, paragraph 47). 36
Glede drugega dejavnika utemeljitve, ki je bil podan v stali�čih, predloženih Sodi�ču, v zvezi s tveganjem dvakratnega uveljavljanja izgub je Sodi�če potrdilo, da morajo biti države članice sposobne preprečiti to tveganje (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Marks & Spencer, točka 47, in sodbo z dne 29. marca 2007 v zadevi Rewe Zentralfinanz, C-347/04, ZOdl., str. I-2647, točka 47). 36
In this connection, it must be pointed out that, in circumstances such as those which underlie the main proceedings, there is clearly a danger that the same losses will be used twice (see Marks & Spencer, paragraph 48). It is possible that a company might deduct, in the Member State in which its seat is situated, losses incurred by a permanent establishment belonging to it and situated in another Member State and that, despite such offsetting, the same losses might be taken into account subsequently in the Member State in which the permanent establishment is situated, when that establishment generates profits, thereby preventing the Member State in which the principal company has its seat from taxing that profit. I - 3629
Glede tega je treba opozoriti, da v okoli�činah, kot so te v postopku v glavni stvari, obstaja očitno tveganje, da bi se ista izguba uveljavljala dvakrat (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Marks & Spencer, točka 48). Ni mogoče namreč izključiti, da bi družba v državi članici, kjer ima sedež, uveljavljala izgube, ki bi naj nastale pripadajoči stalni poslovni enoti v drugi državi članici, in da bi se kljub obdavčitvi upo�tevale iste izgube pozneje v državi članici, v kateri se nahaja stalna poslovna enota, če bi slednja imela dobiček, in bi se tako tudi v državi članici, v kateri ima sedež matična družba, preprečilo obdavčenje tega dobička. I - 3629
Consequently, the two justifications put forward must each be considered as being capable of justifying a restriction on the freedom of establishment arising from the tax treatment by the Member State in which the seat of a company is located of losses incurred by a permanent establishment belonging to that company and situated in another Member State.
Zato je mogoče oba navedena dejavnika utemeljitve �teti za taka, da lahko upravičita, da država članica, v kateri se nahaja sedež družbe, omeji svobodo ustanavljanja glede davčnega obravnavanja izgub, ki nastanejo stalni enoti, ki pripada tej družbi in ki se nahaja v drugi državi članici.
The national court asks, however, whether the justifications set out in paragraphs 44 to 50 of the judgment in Marks & Spencer, which also include the need to prevent the risk of tax avoidance, must be understood as being cumulative or whether the existence of only one of those factors is sufficient for the tax regime at issue in the main proceedings to be treated, in principle, as being justified. 39
Predložitveno sodi�če pa želi izvedeti, ali je treba dejavnike utemeljitve iz točk od 44 do 50 zgoraj navedene sodbe Marks & Spencer, ki zajemajo tudi potrebo po preprečevanju tveganja davčne utaje, obravnavati tako, da morajo obstajati vsi dejavniki kumulativno ali pa zadostuje le eden od teh dejavnikov, da je lahko zadevna davčna ureditev utemeljena. 39
It must be pointed out in that regard that, in paragraph 51 of the judgment in Marks & Spencer, the Court held that the three justifications taken together, which underlay the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, pursued legitimate objectives compatible with the Treaty and thus constituted overriding reasons in the public interest 40
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da je Sodi�če v točki 51 zgoraj navedene sodbe Marks & Spencer razsodilo, da so vsi trije dejavniki utemeljitve – obravnavani skupaj – ki so utemeljili ureditev v postopku v glavni stvari, sledili legitimnim ciljem, ki so skladni s Pogodbo in torej pomenijo nujne razloge v splo�nem interesu. 40
However, bearing in mind the wide variety of situations in which a Member State may put forward such reasons, it cannot be necessary for all the justifications referred to in paragraph 51 of the Marks & Spencer judgment to be present in order for national tax rules which restrict the freedom of establishment laid down in Article 43 EC to be capable, in principle, of being justified. 41
Vendar ob upo�tevanju raznolikosti položajev, v katerih država članica lahko uveljavlja te razloge, ni mogoče zahtevati, da morajo biti podani vsi dejavniki utemeljitve, navedeni v točki 51 zgoraj navedene sodbe Marks & Spencer, da bi lahko bila nacionalna davčna ureditev, ki omejuje svobodo ustanavljanja iz člena 43 ES, načeloma utemeljena. 41
Thus, in the judgment in Oy AA, the Court acknowledged in particular that the national tax legislation at issue could, in principle, be justified on the basis of two of the three justifications referred to in paragraph 51 of the judgment in Marks & Spencer, namely the need to safeguard the allocation of the power to tax between the Member States and the need to prevent tax avoidance, taken together (see Oy AA, paragraph 60). I - 3630
Tako je v zadevi, v kateri je bila izdana zgoraj navedena sodba Oy AA, Sodi�če med drugim priznalo, da je načeloma mogoče nacionalno davčno ureditev utemeljiti z dvema od treh dejavnikov utemeljitve iz točke 51 zgoraj navedene sodbe Marks & Spencer, in sicer s potrebo po ohranitvi delitve davčne pristojnosti med državami članicami in s potrebo po preprečevanju davčne utaje, ki ju je treba obravnavati skupaj (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Oy AA, točka 60). I - 3630
Likewise, the tax regime at issue in the main proceedings can, in principle, be justified in the light of two of the factors referred to in paragraph 51 of the judgment in Marks & Spencer, namely the need to safeguard the allocation of the power to tax between the Member States and the need to prevent the danger that the same losses will be taken into account twice. 43
Zadevno davčno ureditev v postopku v glavni stvari je načeloma mogoče utemeljiti glede na oba dejavnika iz navedene točke, zgoraj navedene sodbe Marks & Spencer, in sicer potreba po ohranitvi delitve davčne pristojnosti med državami članicami in potreba po preprečevanju tveganja dvojnega upo�tevanja izgub. 43
It is also not in dispute that that regime is appropriate for ensuring the attainment of the objectives pursued by it.
Res je tudi, da navedena ureditev lahko zagotavlja uresničitev tako predvidenih ciljev.
That being so, it remains necessary to examine whether the tax regime at issue in the main proceedings goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives pursued (see Marks & Spencer, paragraph 53, and Oy AA, paragraph 61). 45
V teh okoli�činah je treba �e preveriti, ali zadevna davčna ureditev v postopku v glavni stvari ne presega tega, kar je nujno za uresničitev zasledovanih ciljev (glej zgoraj navedeni sodbi Marks & Spencer, točka 53, in Oy AA, točka 61). 45
Lidl Belgium and the Commission of the European Communities have referred in particular to the possibility that the right of a principal company to deduct the losses incurred by a permanent establishment belonging to it could be made subject to the condition that the company incorporate in its future profits the subsequent profits of the permanent establishment, to the extent of the losses previously offset.
Lidl Belgium in Komisija Evropskih skupnosti sta se zlasti sklicevala na možnost, da matična družba odbije izgubo, ki je nastala njej pripadajoči stalni poslovni enoti, če v prihodnje izkaze vključi poznej�e dobičke te enote, v vi�ini prej obdavčenih izgub.
In that context, they refer to the system which operated in the Federal Republic of Germany prior to 1999.
V tem kontekstu se sklicujeta na ureditev, ki jo je Zvezna republika Nemčija uporabljala pred letom 1999.
It should be pointed out that reference was made in paragraph 54 of the judgment in Marks & Spencer to the possibility of making the benefit of the tax advantage at issue subject to such a condition, together with the possibility of making the benefit of that advantage conditional upon the subsidiary established in a Member State other than that in which the principal company has its seat having taken full advantage of the possibilities available in its Member State of residence of having the losses taken into account. I - 3631
Treba je opozoriti, da je bila v točki 54 zgoraj navedene sodbe Marks & Spencer navedena možnost, da se prednost zadevne davčne olaj�ave zaveže tak�nemu pogoju, skupaj z možnostjo, da se prednost navedene ugodnosti podredi pogoju, da je hčerinska družba, ki ima sedež v drugi državi članici kot matična družba, popolnoma izkoristila možnosti upo�tevanja izgub, pripisanih v njeni državi članici rezidentstva. I - 3631
In that regard, the Court held in paragraph 55 of the judgment in Marks & Spencer that a measure which restricts the freedom of establishment goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives pursued where a nonresident subsidiary has exhausted the possibilities for having the losses incurred in the Member State where it is situated taken into account for the accounting period concerned and also for previous accounting periods and where there is no possibility for that subsidiary’s losses to be taken into account in that State for future periods. 48
Glede tega je Sodi�če v točki 55 zgoraj navedene sodbe Marks & Spencer ugotovilo, da ukrep, ki omejuje svobodo ustanavljanja, presega tisto, kar je nujno za dosego zasledovanih ciljev v položaju, v katerem je hčerinska družba nerezidentka izčrpala možnosti, da upo�teva izgube, ki so nastale v državi članici rezidentstva za zadevno davčno obdobje in tudi za prej�nja davčna obdobja, in v katerem ni možnosti, da bi se izgube te hčerinske družbe upo�tevale v tej državi za prihodnja obdobja. 48
In paragraph 56 of that judgment, the Court also stated that where, in one Member State, the resident parent company demonstrates to the national tax authorities that those conditions are fulfilled, it is contrary to Article 43 EC to preclude the possibility for the parent company to deduct from its taxable profits in that Member State the losses incurred by its nonresident subsidiary.
Sodi�če je v točki 56 te sodbe pojasnilo tudi, da kadar v državi članici matična družba rezidentka dokaže nacionalni davčni upravi, da so ti pogoji izpolnjeni, je v nasprotju s členom 43 ES, da se izključi možnost matične družbe, da od svojega dobička, obdavčljivega v tej državi članici, odbije izgube, ki jih ima njena odvisna družba nerezidentka.
As regards the main proceedings, it must be pointed out that Luxembourg tax legislation provides for the possibility of deducting a taxpayer’s losses in future tax years for the purposes of calculating the tax base.
V postopku v glavni stvari je treba povedati, da luksembur�ka davčna ureditev predvideva možnost, da se pri izračunavanju davčne osnove uveljavljajo izgube davčnega zavezanca za prihodnja davčna obdobja.
As was confirmed at the hearing before the Court, Lidl Belgium has in fact benefited from such an offsetting of the losses incurred by its permanent establishment in 1999 in a subsequent tax year, namely 2003, in which that entity generated profits.
Kot se je potrdilo na obravnavi pred Sodi�čem, se je družbi Lidl Belgium dejansko v�telo izgube, ki so leta 1999 nastale njeni poslovni enoti, v prihodnja davčna obdobja, in sicer v leto 2003, v katerem je ta enota ustvarila dobiček.
Accordingly, Lidl Belgium has not shown that the conditions laid down in paragraph 55 of the judgment in Marks & Spencer, for establishing the situation in which a measure constituting a restriction on the freedom of establishment for the purposes of Article 43 EC goes beyond what is necessary to attain legitimate objectives recognised by Community law, were satisfied. I - 3632
Družba Lidl Belgium torej ni dokazala, da so bili izpolnjeni pogoji, določeni v točki 55 zgoraj navedene sodbe Marks & Spencer, namenjeni za določanje, v katerem položaju ukrep, ki pomeni omejevanje svobode ustanavljanja v smislu člena 43 ES, presega to, kar je nujno za dosego legitimnih ciljev, ki jih priznava pravo Skupnosti. I - 3632
It must be added that the Court has recognised the legitimate interest which the Member States have in preventing conduct which is liable to undermine the right to exercise the powers of taxation which are vested in them.
Dodati je treba, da je Sodi�če priznalo legitimni interes držav članic, da preprečijo ravnanja, ki bi lahko ogrozila izvajanje njihovih davčnih pristojnosti.
In this connection, where a double taxation convention has given the Member State in which the permanent establishment is situated the power to tax the profits of that establishment, to give the principal company the right to elect to have the losses of that permanent establishment taken into account in the Member State in which it has its seat or in another Member State would seriously undermine a balanced allocation of the power to impose taxes between the Member States concerned (see, to that effect, Oy AA, paragraph 55).
Glede tega, ker je konvencija za izogibanje dvojnega obdavčevanja državi članici, v kateri je stalna poslovna enota, priznala pravico do obdavčevanja dohodkov te enote, bi dejstvo, da se da matični družbi možnost izbire, ali bo upo�tevala izgube, ki so nastale tej poslovni enoti, bodisi v državi članici, v kateri ima sedež, bodisi v drugi državi članici, lahko občutno ogrozilo enakomerno porazdelitev davčne pristojnosti med zadevnima državama članicama (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Oy AA, točka 55).
In the light of all of the above, the tax regime at issue in the main proceedings must be considered to be proportionate to the objectives pursued by it.
Glede na navedeno je treba zadevno davčno ureditev v postopku v glavni stvari obravnavati kot sorazmerno glede na cilje, ki jim sledi.
The answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling must therefore be that Article 43 EC does not preclude a situation in which a company established in a Member State cannot deduct from its tax base losses relating to a permanent establishment belonging to it and situated in another Member State, to the extent that, by virtue of a double taxation convention, the income of that establishment is taxed in the latter Member State where those losses can be taken into account in the taxation of the income of that permanent establishment in future accounting periods.
Na zastavljeno vpra�anje je treba torej odgovoriti tako, da člen 43 ne nasprotuje temu, da družba, ki ima sedež v državi članici, od svoje davčne osnove ne sme odbiti izgub, ki so nastale njeni stalni poslovni enoti, ki se nahaja v drugi državi članici, če so na podlagi konvencije o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja dohodki te enote obdavčeni v slednji državi članici, v kateri se te izgube lahko upo�tevajo v okviru obdavčevanja dohodka te stalne poslovne enote za prihodnja poslovna obdobja.
Article 43 EC does not preclude a situation in which a company established in a Member State cannot deduct from its tax base losses relating to a permanent establishment belonging to it and situated in another Member State, to the extent that, by virtue of a double taxation convention, the income of that establishment is taxed in the latter Member State where those losses can be taken into account in the taxation of the income of that permanent establishment in future accounting periods.
Člen 43 ne nasprotuje temu, da družba, ki ima sedež v državi članici, od svoje davčne osnove ne more odbiti izgub, ki so nastale njeni stalni poslovni enoti, ki se nahaja v drugi državi članici, če so na podlagi konvencije o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja dohodki te enote obdavčeni v slednji državi članici, v kateri se te izgube lahko upoštevajo v okviru obdavčevanja dohodka te stalne poslovne enote za prihodnja poslovna obdobja.
Case C-276/07
Zadeva C-276/07
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Firenze)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Corte d’appello di Firenze)
(Freedom of movement for workers — Discrimination on grounds of nationality — Category of ‘exchange assistants’ — Former foreignlanguage assistants — Recognition of acquired rights)
„Prosto gibanje delavcev – Diskriminacija na podlagi državljanstva – Kategorija ‚lektorji na izmenjavi‘ – Nekdanji lektorji za tuji jezik – Priznanje že pridobljenih pravic“
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber), 15 May 2008 . . . . . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (sedmi senat) z dne 15. maja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Freedom of movement for persons — Workers — Equal treatment — Conditions of employment(Art. 39(2) EC)
Prosto gibanje oseb – Delavci – Enako obravnavanje – Pogoji za zaposlitev(člen 39(2) ES)