natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Having amended the tax assessment notice on 16 November 2001 and 5 August 2003 for reasons which are not relevant to the dispute, the Finanzamt dismissed the objection by decision of 7 August 2003.
Po spremembah navedene odločbe o odmeri davka z dne 16. novembra 2001 in 5. avgusta 2003 iz razlogov, ki niso pomembni za spor o glavni svari, je Finanzamt z odločbo z dne 7. avgusta 2003 zavrnil navedeni ugovor.
It took the view, in particular, that Deutsche Shell
Menil je namreč, da družba Deutsche Shell ni utrpela resnične finančne izgube, da je zmanj�anje vrednosti dota-
2008 — CASE C-293/06 had not suffered real financial loss, that the depreciation in the value of the ‘startup capital’ was merely part of the permanent establishment’s profits and that, even taking account of that depreciation, Deutsche Shell had achieved a positive result in the financial year concerned.
2008 – ZADEVA C-293/06 cijskega kapitala le del poslovnih rezultatov stalne poslovne enote in da je kljub upo�tevanju navedenega zmanj�anja ta družba dosegla pozitivni poslovni rezultat v zadevnem davčnem obdobju.
On 14 August 2003 Deutsche Shell brought an action before the Finanzgericht Hamburg against the dismissal of its objection by the Finanzamt.
Družba Deutsche Shell je 14. avgusta 2003 vložila tožbo pri Finanzgericht Hamburg zoper zavrnitev njenega ugovora s strani Finanzamt.
Before the Finanzgericht Hamburg, Deutsche Shell submitted that the fact that it was unable to deduct the ‘currency loss’ for corporation tax purposes is incompatible with the freedom of establishment.
Pri tem sodi�ču je družba Deutsche Shell trdila, da s svobodo ustanavljanja ni združljivo dejstvo, da negativne tečajne razlike, ki jo je utrpela, ni bilo mogoče odbiti v okviru davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb.
In particular it argued that, in this case, it is placed in a less favourable situation than if the ‘startup capital’ had been invested in a company established in Germany.
Zatrjevala je, da je v tem primeru v slab�em položaju, kot če bi dotacijski kapital vložila v družbo s sedežem v Nemčiji.
In those circumstances, the Finanzgericht, taking the view that the solution to the dispute before it depends on the interpretation of the provisions of the Treaty relating to the freedom of establishment, decided to stay its proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
V teh okoli�činah je Finanzgericht, ki je menilo, da je re�itev spora, ki mu je bil predložen, odvisna od razlage določb Pogodbe v zvezi s svobodo ustanavljanja, prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ti vpra�anji:
DEUTSCHE SHELL profits and to exclude that loss, on the basis of the exemption under Articles 3(1), 3(3) and 11.1(c) of the … Convention … from the basis of assessment for German tax, even though the currency loss cannot form part of the establishment’s profits to be assessed for purposes of taxation in Italy and thus cannot be taken into account in either the State of origin or in the State in which the establishment is situate?
DEUTSCHE SHELL enoti, obravnava kot del dobička te poslovne enote in jo izvzame od davčne osnove nem�kega davka na podlagi oprostitve v skladu s členom 3(1) in (3) ter členom 11(1)(c) konvencije […], čeprav ta negativna tečajna razlika ne more biti del dobička stalne poslovne enote, ki ga je treba ugotoviti za italijansko obdavčitev, in se je tako ne upo�teva niti v državi izvora niti v državi stalne poslovne enote?
By that question, the referring court asks essentially whether it is contrary to Article 52 in conjunction with Article 58 of the Treaty for a Member State to exclude from the basis of assessment for national tax a currency loss suffered by a company with a registered office in that State upon repatriation of startup capital granted to its permanent establishment in another Member State.
S tem vpra�anjem predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali člen 52 v povezavi s členom 58 Pogodbe nasprotuje temu, da država članica za določitev nacionalne davčne osnove izključi negativno tečajno razliko, ki jo je utrpela družba s statutarnim sedežem na ozemlju te države med vračanjem dotacijskega kapitala, odobrenega njeni stalni poslovni enoti v drugi državi članici.
As regards the factual situation giving rise to the dispute which led to the reference for a preliminary ruling, the Finanzamt and the German Government submit that, in this case, there has not been any real financial loss as a result of the exchange rate applicable at the time when the establishment was transferred and when the startup capital was repatriated.
Finanzamt in nem�ka vlada glede dejanskega stanja spora, ki je vodil do vpra�anj za predhodno odločanje, zatrjujeta, da v obravnavanem primeru ni pri�lo do resnične ekonomske izgube zaradi menjalnih tečajev, ki so veljali med prenosom stalne poslovne enote in med vračanjem njenega dotacijskega kapitala.
They also state that Deutsche Shell and the permanent establishment formed a single economic entity and that, on the group balance sheet, there were always economic fluctuations related to changes in the exchange rate.
Prav tako poudarjata, da sta bili družba Deutsche Shell in stalna poslovna enota nedeljiv gospodarski subjekt in da so bila v bilanci skupine vedno finančna nihanja, povezana z gibanjem menjalnega tečaja.
On that point, it must be observed that it is for the national court to determine whether the currency fluctuations alleged in the main proceedings led to a currency loss constituting a real economic loss affecting Deutsche Shell’s results for the financial year concerned.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da je predložitveno sodi�če pristojno za ugotavljanje, ali so zatrjevana nihanja vrednosti denarja v okviru spora o glavni stvari povzročila negativno tečajno razliko, ki pomeni resnično ekonomsko izgubo in ki je vplivala na poslovne rezultate družbe Deutsche Shell v obravnavanem obdobju.
It is, however, for the Court to answer the request for a preliminary ruling on the basis of the assessments made by the national court and to give it all the information necessary for it to resolve the dispute.
Nasprotno pa je Sodi�če pristojno, da odgovori na predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe in se pri tem opre na opažanja predložitvenega sodi�ča ter da slednjemu da uporabne napotke za re�itev spora, ki mu je bil predložen.
In those circumstances, the Court must determine whether, if there was a currency loss constituting a real economic loss, the decision taken by the Finanzamt to exclude such a loss from the calculation of that company’s basis of assessment for tax is liable to constitute an obstacle to the exercise of the freedom of establishment.
V teh okoli�činah mora Sodi�če presoditi, ali je lahko v primeru negativne tečajne razlike, ki pomeni resnično gospodarsko izgubo, odločitev Finanzamt o neupo�tevanju take razlike pri izračunu davčne osnove navedene družbe ovira za izvr�evanje svobode ustanavljanja.
The Court has held in particular that such restrictive effects may arise specifically where, on account of a tax law, a company may be deterred from setting up subsidiary bodies such as permanent establishments in other Member States and from carrying on its activities through such bodies (see Case C-446/03 Marks & Spencer [2005] ECR I-10837, paragraphs 32 and 33, and Case C-471/04 Keller Holding [2006] ECR I-2107, paragraph 35). 30
Sodi�če je namreč presodilo, da se taki omejevalni učinki pojavijo zlasti takrat, kadar je družba zaradi davčne ureditve odvrnjena od ustanavljanja podrejenih subjektov, kot je stalna poslovna enota, v drugih državah članicah in od izvajanja svojih dejavnosti prek takih subjektov (glej sodbi z dne 13. decembra 2005 v zadevi Marks & Spencer, C-446/03, ZOdl., str. I-10837, točki 32 in 33, in z dne 23. februarja 2006 v zadevi Keller Holding, C-471/04, ZOdl., str. I-2107, točka 35). 30
As the Advocate General observed in points 43 and 44 of her Opinion, the tax system concerned in the main proceedings increases the economic risks incurred by a company established in one Member State wishing to set up a body in another Member State where the currency used is different from that of the State of origin.
Kot je opozorila generalna pravobranilka v točkah 43 in 44 sklepnih predlogov, davčni sistem iz postopka v glavni stvari povečuje ekonomsko tveganje, s katerim se srečuje družba, ki želi ustanoviti subjekt v drugi državi članici, če tam velja drugačna valuta kot v državi izvora.
In such a situation, not only does the principal establishment face the normal risks associated with setting up such a body, but it must also face an additional risk of a fiscal nature where it provides startup capital for it.
V takem položaju glavna družba ne naleti zgolj na običajna tveganja v zvezi z ustanavljanjem takega subjekta, ampak mora sprejeti tudi dodatno davčno tveganje pri zagotavljanju dotacijskega kapitala slednjemu.
As regards the case in the main proceedings, it must be observed that because it exercised its freedom of establishment Deutsche Shell suffered financial loss which was not taken into account either by the national tax authorities for the purposes of calculating the basis of assessment for corporation tax in Germany or with respect to the assessment for tax of its permanent establishment in Italy.
V zvezi s postopkom v glavni stvari je treba opozoriti, da je družba Deutsche Shell zaradi izvr�evanja svobode ustanavljanja utrpela finančno izgubo, ki je nacionalni davčni organi niso upo�tevali pri določitvi osnove za davek od dohodkov pravnih oseb v Nemčiji in ki prav tako ni bila upo�tevana v okviru obdavčitve njene stalne poslovne enote v Italiji.
It must be held that the tax system at issue in the main proceedings constitutes an obstacle to the freedom of establishment.
Tako je treba ugotoviti, da sporni davčni sistem pomeni oviro za svobodo ustanavljanja.
As regards a possible justification for such an obstacle, the Finanzamt and the German Government argue in the alternative that it is based on grounds relating to the coherence of the tax rules and the allocation of tax competence between the two Member States concerned.
Finanzamt in nem�ka vlada v zvezi z morebitno utemeljitvijo take ovire podredno uveljavljata, da temelji na eni strani na doslednosti davčnih pravil in na drugi strani na porazdelitvi davčnih pristojnosti med zadevnima državama članicama.
According to the first argument, taking account of the currency loss for the purposes of calculating Deutsche Shell’s basis of assessment in Germany would lead to a noncoherent tax system, since any exchange rate gain obtained in a comparable situation would not be taken into account.
Glede prvega utemeljitvenega razloga se uveljavlja, da bi upo�tevanje negativne tečajne razlike pri določanju davčne osnove za družbo Deutsche Shell v Nemčiji vodilo do nedoslednega davčnega sistema, ker se morebitna pozitivna tečajna razlika v podobnih razmerah prav tako ne bi upo�tevala.
Thus, the detriment resulting from the failure to take account of a currency loss is the corollary to the advantage resulting from the fact that an exchange rate gain would also be excluded from the basis of assessment.
Tako je neugodnost zaradi neupo�tevanja negativne tečajne razlike uravnotežena z ugodnostjo zaradi pozitivne tečajne razlike, ki je prav tako izključena iz davčne osnove.
According to the second argument, the Convention’s allocation of tax powers between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Italian Republic is a legitimate objective.
Z drugim utemeljitvenim razlogom se zatrjuje, da je porazdelitev davčnih pristojnosti med Zvezno republiko Nemčijo in Italijansko republiko, ki je bila določena s konvencijo, legitimni cilj.
Member States are entitled to set down criteria for allocation of tax sovereignty, whether unilaterally or by means of bilateral agreements.
Države članice naj bi bile namreč poobla�čene, da določijo merila za porazdelitev davčne suverenosti enostransko ali z dvostranskimi konvencijami.
By that convention the two Member States concerned decided to exempt permanent establishments situated on the territory of the co-Contracting State from income tax, which excludes the currency loss concerned from being taken into account.
Z navedeno konvencijo naj bi se zadevni državi članici odločili za oprostitev plačila davka od dohodkov stalnih poslovnih enot s sedežem na ozemlju države sopogodbenice, kar naj bi izključilo upo�tevanje zadevne negativne tečajne razlike.
Those two arguments cannot be accepted.
Teh dveh utemeljitvenih razlogov ni mogoče sprejeti.
First, as far as concerns the argument based on the coherence of the tax system, it must be recalled that the Court has acknowledged that the need to preserve such coherence may justify a restriction on the exercise of the fundamental freedoms
Prvič, glede utemeljitve na podlagi doslednosti davčnega sistema je treba opozoriti, da je Sodi�če priznalo, da lahko nujnost ohranitve take doslednosti utemelji omejitev izvr�evanja temeljnih svobo�čin, ki jih zagotavlja Pogodba (glej sodbi z dne
Furthermore, the direct nature of the link must be established, in light of the objective pursued by the tax rules concerned, in relation to the relevant tax payers by a strict correlation between the deductible element and the taxable element (see, to that effect, Case C-80/94 Wielockx [1995] ECR I-2493, paragraph 24).
Poleg tega mora biti glede na cilj, ki ga zasleduje sporna davčna ureditev, na ravni davčnih zavezancev neposrednost take zveze vzpostavljena s strogo medsebojno zvezo med elementom odbitnosti in elementom v zvezi z obdavčitvijo (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 11. avgusta 1995 v zadevi Wielockx, C-80/94, Recueil, str. I-2493, točka 24).
As to the tax system at issue in the main proceedings, it must be stated that the comparison between the currency losses, on one hand, and currency gains, on the other, is irrelevant, since there is no direct relationship between those two elements for the purpose of the caselaw set out in the two preceding paragraphs.
Glede davčnega sistema iz postopka v glavni stvari je treba poudariti, da je primerjava med negativnimi in pozitivnimi tečajnimi razlikami brezpredmetna, ker med tema elementoma ni neposredne zveze v smislu sodne prakse, navedene v prej�njih dveh točkah.
The failure to take account of a currency loss in order to calculate Deutsche Shell’s basis of assessment for the 1992 financial year is not offset by any tax advantage in the Member State where that company has its registered office or in the Member State where its permanent establishment is situated.
Neupo�tevanje negativne tečajne razlike pri določanju davčne osnove za družbo Deutsche Shell za davčno obdobje 1992 namreč ni nadome�čeno z nobeno davčno ugodnostjo v državi članici, v kateri ima ta družba svoj sedež, niti v državi članici, v kateri je stalna poslovna enota.
That competence also implies that a Member State cannot be required to take account, for the purposes of applying its tax law, of the negative results of a permanent establishment situated in another Member State which belongs to a company with a registered office in the first State solely because those negative results are not capable of being taken into account for tax purposes in the Member State where the permanent establishment is situated.
Navedena pristojnost prav tako pomeni, da se od države članice ne more zahtevati, da pri uporabi svoje davčne zakonodaje upo�teva negativne poslovne rezultate stalne poslovne enote, ki ima sedež v drugi državi članici in ki pripada družbi, ki ima sedež na ozemlju prve države, zgolj zato, ker se taki poslovni rezultati ne morejo upo�tevati na ravni obdavčitve v državi članici, v kateri je stalna poslovna enota.
Freedom of establishment cannot be understood as meaning that a Member State is required to draw up its tax rules on the basis of those in another Member State in order to ensure, in all circumstances, taxation which removes any disparities arising from national tax rules, given that the decisions made by a company as to the establishment of commercial structures abroad may be to the company’s advantage or not, according to circumstances (see, by analogy, Case C-403/03 Schempp [2005] ECR I-6421, paragraph 45).
Svobode ustanavljanja se namreč ne more razumeti tako, da je država članica dolžna prilagajati svoja davčna pravila tistim v drugi državi članici, da bi se v vseh položajih zagotovila obdavčitev, ki odpravlja vsakr�no neenakost nacionalnih davčnih ureditev, ker imajo lahko odločitve, ki jih sprejme družba v zvezi z določanjem poslovne strukture v tujini, glede na posamezen primer prednosti ali slabosti za tako družbo (glej po analogiji sodbo z dne 12. julija 2005 v zadevi Schempp, C-403/03, ZOdl., str. I-6421, točka 45).
As far as concerns the main proceedings, it must be noted that the tax disadvantage concerned relates to a specific operational factor which is capable of being taken into consideration only by the German tax authorities.
Glede postopka v glavni stvari je treba poudariti, da se sporna davčna neugodnost nana�a na posebno poslovno okoli�čino, ki jo lahko upo�tevajo samo nem�ki davčni organi.
Although it is true that any Member State which has concluded a double taxation convention must implement it
Čeprav mora vsaka država članica, ki je sklenila konvencijo o izogibanju dvoj-
DEUTSCHE SHELL by applying its own tax law and thereby calculate the income attributable to a permanent establishment, it is unacceptable for a Member State to exclude from the basis of assessment of the principal establishment currency losses which, by their nature, can never be suffered by the permanent establishment.
DEUTSCHE SHELL nega obdavčevanja, izvr�evati tako konvencijo z uporabo svojega davčnega prava in tako določiti prihodke, ki se jih lahko pripi�e stalni poslovni enoti, država članica ne more negativnih tečajnih razlik, ki jih po naravi stvari ne more utrpeti stalna poslovna enota, izključiti iz davčne osnove glavne družbe.
Therefore, the answer to the first question must be that it is contrary to Article 52 in conjunction with Article 58 of the Treaty for a Member State, when determining the national basis of assessment, to exclude a currency loss suffered by a company with a registered office in that State upon repatriation of startup capital granted to its permanent establishment in another Member State.
Na prvo vpra�anje je treba torej odgovoriti tako, da člen 52 v povezavi s členom 58 Pogodbe nasprotuje temu, da država članica za določitev nacionalne davčne osnove izključi negativno tečajno razliko, ki jo je utrpela družba s statutarnim sedežem na ozemlju te države med vračanjem dotacijskega kapitala, odobrenega njeni stalni poslovni enoti v drugi državi članici.
By this question the referring court asks, if the answer to the first question is answered in the affirmative, whether it is also contrary to Article 52 in conjunction with Article 58 of the Treaty if the currency loss concerned is deductible as operating expenditure of an undertaking with its registered office in a Member State only in so far as its permanent establishment in another Member State has not obtained any taxfree profits.
S tem vpra�anjem predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje, ali – če je odgovor na prvo vpra�anje pritrdilen – člen 52 v povezavi s členom 58 Pogodbe prav tako nasprotuje temu, da se sporna negativna tečajna razlika lahko odtegne kot obratovalni stro�ek podjetja s sedežem v državi članici, le če stalna poslovna enota, ki pripada temu podjetju in ki je v drugi državi članici, ni ustvarila nobenega neobdavčljivega dobička.
As is clear from the considerations set out in paragraphs 30 and 31 of this judgment, a limit on the setting-off of currency losses suffered by that permanent establishment according to its results is also liable to dissuade a company from pursuing its crossborder activities in the European Community through such a body and must, therefore, be regarded as an obstacle to the freedom of establishment.
Kot izhaja iz ugotovitev v točkah 30 in 31 te sodbe, lahko omejitev vračunanja negativne tečajne razlike, ki jo je utrpela navedena stalna poslovna enota, glede na njene poslovne rezultate prav tako odvrne družbo, da nadaljuje svoje čezmejne dejavnosti prek takega subjekta znotraj Evropske skupnosti in jo je torej treba obravnavati kot oviro za svobodo ustanavljanja.
As to any justification for that restriction, the Finanzamt and the German Government repeated their argument that the tax system is justified on the grounds of fiscal coherence and the allocation of tax powers between the two Member States concerned, their arguments in that connection being very similar to those mentioned in paragraphs 34 and 35 of this judgment.
Finanzamt in nem�ka vlada sta glede morebitne utemeljitve te omejitve ponovila svoje stali�če, da je davčni sistem utemeljen z razlogi doslednosti davčnih pravil in porazdelitve davčnih pristojnosti med zadevnima državama članicama; pojasnila v zvezi s tem pa so podobna tistim, ki so navedena v točkah 34 in 35 te sodbe.
The Finanzamt and the German Government also take the view that the tax system at issue in the main proceedings is designed to avoid losses being taken into account twice by excluding the deduction of expenditure made for the purposes of generating income abroad, the latter being exempt under the Convention.
Finanzamt in nem�ka vlada prav tako menita, da se sku�a z davčnim sistemom iz postopka v glavni stvari izogniti dvojnemu upo�tevanju izgub s tem, da se ne sme odbiti stro�kov, nastalih pri ustvarjanju dohodkov v tujini, ki so izvzeti na podlagi konvencije.
If the currency loss had to be taken into consideration as operating expenditure in Germany, Deutsche Shell would enjoy a double tax advantage, since the positive result of its permanent establishment is exempt from tax in Germany under the Convention and the currency loss cannot be taken into account for the basis of assessment in Italy.
Če bi bilo namreč treba negativno tečajno razliko upo�tevati na podlagi obratovalnih stro�kov podjetja v Nemčiji, bi družba Deutsche Shell dobila dvojno davčno ugodnost, ker za pozitivni poslovni rezultat njene stalne poslovne enote ni treba plačati davka v Nemčiji na podlagi konvencije, ne da bi bilo mogoče negativno tečajno razliko upo�tevati v okviru italijanske obdavčitve.
In other words, one single economic process is split artificially for the benefit of Deutsche Shell, since the income of the permanent establishment is exempt under the Convention and the currency loss is treated as operating expenditure of the undertaking, separate from the other operating expenditure incurred by it.
Z drugimi besedami, isti ekonomski postopek bi bil umetno razcepljen v korist družbe Deutsche Shell, ker bi bili dohodki stalne poslovne enote izvzeti na podlagi konvencije in bi se negativna tečajna razlika obravnavala kot obratovalni stro�ek podjetja, drugačen od preostalih stro�kov.
Since the two arguments put forward by the Finanzamt and the German Government essentially repeat their arguments with respect to the first question, it is sufficient to refer to paragraphs 37 to 44 of this judgment, from which it is clear that the exclusion of the currency loss cannot be justified by the grounds mentioned in paragraph 48 above.
Ker dve izmed trditev, ki sta jih navedla Finanzamt in nem�ka vlada, v bistvu povzemata njune preudarke v zvezi s prvim vpra�anjem, zado�ča napotitev na točke od 37 do 44 te sodbe, iz katerih izhaja, da neupo�tevanje negativne tečajne razlike ne more biti utemeljeno z razlogi, navedenimi v točki 48 te sodbe.