natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Belgian State relied before the referring court on the fact that the period prescribed by the Code within which new information could be taken into consideration in determining the basis of assessment of transfer duty had expired, and maintained that, in any event, it had not been proved that the debt at issue still existed at the date of Ms Eckelkamp’s death.
Belgija je pred predložitvenim sodi�čem trdila, da se je rok za upo�tevanje novih podatkov za določanje osnove za izračun davka na prenos lastnine, določen v WS, iztekel, in da nikakor ni dokazano, da je sporni dolg obstajal že ob smrti R. H. Eckelkamp.
Article 58 EC is without prejudice to the right of Member States to apply the relevant provisions of their tax legislation.
Člen 58 ES ne posega v pravico držav članic, da uporabijo upo�tevne določbe svoje davčne zakonodaje.
Taking the view that the dispute in the main proceedings raises questions of interpretation of Community law, the Hof van Beroep te Gent decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
Ker se v sporu v glavni stvari postavljajo vpra�anja o razlagi prava Skupnosti, je Hof van Beroep te Gent prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vpra�anje:
‘Do Article 12 EC, in conjunction with Articles 17 EC and 18 EC, and Article 56 EC, in conjunction with Article 57 EC, preclude national rules of a Member State under which, in the context of the acquisition, through inheritance, of immovable property situated in a Member State (the State in which the property is situated), that State imposes a tax on the value of the immovable property situated in that State, in respect of which that State allows a deduction corresponding to the value of charges on that immovable property (such as debts secured by the right conferred on a creditor to take out a mortgage against that immovable property) if the deceased, at the time of his demise, was resident in the State in which the property is situated, but not if the deceased, at the time of his demise, was living in a different Member State (the State of residence)?’
„Ali povezane določbe členov 12 ES, 17 ES in 18 ES ter povezane določbe členov 56 ES in 58 ES nasprotujejo nacionalni ureditvi države članice, po kateri v primeru pridobitve nepremičnine, ki je v državi članici (država, kjer je nepremičnina), z dedovanjem ta država naloži davek na vrednost te nepremičnine, ki je v tej državi, pri čemer sicer dopu�ča odbitek v vi�ini vrednosti obveznosti, ki bremenijo to nepremičnino (na primer dolgovi, zavarovani s pravico upnika, da vzame hipoteko na to nepremičnino), če je zapustnik ob smrti prebival v državi, kjer je nepremičnina, vendar pa ne, če je zapustnik ob smrti živel v drugi državi članici (državi članici prebivali�ča)?“
Admissibility of the reference for a preliminary ruling
Dopustnost vprašanja za predhodno odločanje
The Belgian Government maintains that the reference for a preliminary ruling is inadmissible.
Belgijska vlada meni, da je vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje nedopustno.
It contends that, owing to the fact that the action for reassessment of the transfer duties in question was brought out of time, the referring court would on no account be able to uphold the claim of the appellants in the main proceedings.
Trdi, da zaradi prepozne vložitve tožbe za ponoven izračun že navedenega davka na prenos lastnine predložitveno sodi�če v nobenem primeru ne bi moglo ugoditi zahtevi tožečih strank iz postopka v glavni stvari.
The period within which they were allowed, under Belgian procedural rules, to amend the particulars on the basis of which transfer duties are assessed had already expired several months earlier.
Rok, v okviru katerega bi v skladu z belgijskimi procesnimi pravili lahko spremenili podatke za določanje osnove za izračun davka na prenos lastnine, se je iztekel že nekaj mesecev prej.
Consequently, an answer to the question referred is not only unnecessary but clearly irrelevant for the purposes of deciding the dispute in the main proceedings.
Zato odgovor na postav -ljeno vpra�anje ni samo nepotreben, ampak tudi očitno nepomemben za odločanje predložitvenega sodi�ča v sporu v glavni stvari.
Moreover, the Belgian Government maintains that, at the stage which the main proceedings have reached, the question referred is purely hypothetical.
Poleg tega ugotavlja, da je glede na stopnjo, na kateri je postopek v glavni stvari, postav -ljeno vpra�anje izključno hipotetično.
At this stage, the referring court has not yet answered any of the questions that are critical for the determination of the dispute in the main proceedings concerning, in particular, the issue whether there is a link between the debt and the immovable property in question such as to indicate the existence of a charge on that property.
Na tej stopnji predložitveno sodi�če ni dalo �e nobenih odgovorov na vpra�anja, odločilna za odločanje v sporu v glavni stvari, zlasti na vpra�anje, ali obstaja povezava med dolgom in sporno nepremičnino, z namenom, da se dokaže, ali je sporna nepremičnina obremenjena z dolgom.
According to the Belgian Government, since a mortgage mandate is no more than a right granted to a third party with a view to the possible registration of a mortgage in respect of some immovable property, and no such registration has taken place, there is no charge on that immovable property within the meaning of the caselaw of the Court.
Po mnenju belgijske vlade je pooblastilo za ustanovitev hipoteke samo pravica, ki tretji stranki daje možnost vpisa hipoteke na nepremično premoženje, in ker v tem primeru ni pri�lo do takega vpisa, zadevna nepremičnina v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodi�ča tudi ne more biti obremenjena. Postavljeno vpra�anje je zato hipotetično.
In that regard, it should be recalled that, in proceedings under Article 234 EC, which are based on a clear separation of functions between the national courts and the Court of Justice, any assessment of the facts in the case is a matter for the national court.
Glede tega je treba opozoriti, da v okviru postopka, določenega v členu 234 ES, ki temelji na jasni ločitvi nalog med nacionalnimi sodi�či in Sodi�čem, presoja dejanskega stanja spada v pristojnost nacionalnega sodi�ča.
Similarly, it is solely for the national court, before which the dispute has been brought and which must assume responsibility for the forthcoming judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court.
Le nacionalno sodi�če, ki odloča o sporu in ki mora prevzeti odgovornost za sodno odločitev, presodi, ob upo�tevanju posebnosti zadeve, tako potrebo po izdaji predhodne odločbe, da bi lahko izdalo sodbo, kot tudi ustreznost vpra�anj, ki jih predloži Sodi�ču.
Consequently, where the questions submitted concern the interpretation of Community law, the Court is in principle
Zato je Sodi�če, kadar se predložena vpra�anja nana�ajo na razlago prava Skupnosti, v načelu dolžno odločati
That is not the case here.
Treba je ugotoviti, da v obravnavanem primeru ni tako.
The Court is being called upon to clarify whether the national courts are required under Community law not to apply certain provisions of the Code relating to the assessment of duties on the transfer of property mortis causa which the appellants in the main proceedings regard as constituting a restriction on the free movement of capital.
Sodi�ču se predlaga, naj pojasni, ali so nacionalna sodi�ča v skladu s pravom Skupnosti dolžna odstopiti od uporabe nekaterih določb WS o izračunu davka na prenos lastnine ob smrti, za katere tožeče stranke v glavni stvari trdijo, da omejujejo prosti pretok kapitala.
Clearly, therefore, the question submitted relates to the subjectmatter of the main proceedings, as defined by the referring court, and the answer to that question may be useful to that court in enabling it to decide whether the provisions of the Code are in conformity with Community law.
Kaže torej, da je postavljeno vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje povezano s predmetom spora v glavni stvari, kot ga je določilo predložitveno sodi�če, in da bi odgovor na to vpra�anje lahko koristil predložitvenemu sodi�ču pri odločanju, ali so določbe WS v skladu s pravom Skupnosti.
However, it must be borne in mind that the national court alone has jurisdiction to find and assess the facts in the case before it and to interpret and apply national law (see Case C-262/96 Sürül [1999] ECR I-2685, paragraph 95).
Kljub temu je treba spomniti, da je samo predložitveno sodi�če pristojno za obravnavo in oceno dejanskega stanja zadeve, ki mu je predložena v odločanje, kot tudi za razlago in uporabo nacionalne zakonodaje (glej sodbo z dne 4. maja 1999 v zadevi Sürül, C-262/96, Recueil, str.
It is for that court, not for the Court of Justice, to determine the scope and effect under Belgian law of a mortgage mandate and the consequences of such a mandate in regard to an immovable property left by way of inheritance and situated in Belgium.
I-2685, točka 95). To sodi�če, in ne Sodi�če, mora določiti obseg in učinek pooblastila za ustanovitev hipoteke, kot tudi posledice takega pooblastila za nepremičnino, ki jo je zapustil pokojnik in ki je v Belgiji.
Furthermore, it is apparent from the case-file submitted to the Court that, first, the absence of a reference to the disputed debt in the declaration filed by the appellants in the main proceedings was based on the provisions of the Code, which make no provision for the inclusion of such debts where the person whose estate is being administered was not residing in Belgium at the time of death — provisions which led the national court to refer a question concerning the interpretation of Community law for a preliminary ruling.
Poleg tega je iz spisa, predloženega Sodi�ču, razvidno, da, prvič, se tožeče stranke v glavni stvari v popisu zapu�čine niso sklicevale na sporni dolg zaradi določb WS, ki ne predvidevajo vključitve takega dolga v popis zapu�čine, kadar zapustnik ob svoji smrti ni prebival v Belgiji – določb, zaradi katerih je nacionalno sodi�če vložilo vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje.
Third, as is apparent from paragraph 19 of the present judgment, that declaration appears to have been made by the appellants in the main proceedings without prejudice to any of their rights.
Tretjič, kot izhaja iz točke 19 te sodbe, so tožeče stranke iz postopka v glavni stvari navedeni popis zapu�čine vložile s pridržkom vseh svojih pravic.
Moreover, the system of references for a preliminary ruling is based on a dialogue between one court and another, the initiation of which depends entirely on the national court’s assessment as to whether a reference is appropriate and necessary (see Case C-2/06 Kempter [2008] ECR I-411, paragraph 42).
Nadalje je treba spomniti, da predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe temelji na izmenjavi mnenj med sodi�či, njegova vložitev pa je v celoti odvisna od tega, kako navedeno sodi�če presodi pomembnost in potrebnost tega predloga (glej sodbo z dne 12. februarja 2008 v zadevi Kempter, C-2/06, ZOdl., str.
It follows that the reference for a preliminary ruling must be considered to be admissible.
Zato je treba predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe �teti za dopusten.
By its question, the referring court asks in essence whether the provisions of Art -icles 12 EC, 17 EC and 18 EC, and those of Articles 56 EC and 58 EC, are to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, concerning the assessment of transfer and inheritance duties payable in respect of an immovable property situated in that Member State which makes no provision for the deductibility of debts secured on such property 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, at the time of death, residing in the firstmentioned State.
S tem vpra�anjem predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali je treba določbe členov 12 ES, 17 ES in 18 ES ter členov 56 ES in 58 ES razlagati tako, da nasprotujejo ureditvi države članice, kot je ureditev, ki je predmet obravnave v postopku v glavni stvari, ki se nana�a na izračun davka na dedi�čino in davka na prenos lastnine v državi članici, ki ne dopu�ča odbitka dolga, ki bremeni celotno nepremičnino, če zapustnik ob smrti ni prebival v državi, kjer je zadevna nepremičnina, pač pa v drugi državi članici, medtem ko je ta odbitek določen, če je zadevna oseba ob svoji smrti prebivala v državi članici, v kateri je zadevna nepremičnina.
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).
Člen 56(1) ES na splo�no prepoveduje 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 that regard, the Court — noting, in particular, that inheritances consisting in the transfer to one or more persons of assets left by a deceased person or, in other words, a transfer to the heirs of ownership of the various items of property, rights, and so
Glede tega je Sodi�če, s tem da je med drugim opozorilo, da dedovanje, ki pomeni prenos zapustnikovega premoženja na eno ali več oseb, ali z drugimi besedami prenos lastnine, pravic itd., ki sestavljajo dedi�čino, na dediče zapustnika, spada pod
2008 — CASE C-11/07 on which make up those assets fall under heading XI of Annex I to Directive 88/361, entitled ‘Personal capital movements’ — has held that an inheritance is a movement of capital for the purposes of Article 56 EC, except in cases where its constituent elements are confined within a single Member State (see Case C-364/01 Barbier [2003] ECR I-15013, paragraph 58; Hilten-van der Heijden, paragraph 42; and Jäger, paragraph 25).
2008 – ZADEVA C-11/07 rubriko XI priloge I k Direktivi 88/361, z naslovom „Osebni pretoki kapitala“, razsodilo, da je dedovanje pretok kapitala v smislu člena 56 ES, razen v primerih, v katerih so temeljni elementi dedovanja omejeni na eno samo državo članico (glej sodbo z dne 11. decembra 2003 v zadevi Barbier, C-364/01, Recueil, str. I-15013, točka 58, in zgoraj navedeni sodbi Hiltenvan der Heijden, točka 42, in Jäger, točka 25).
A situation in which a person resident in Germany at the time of death leaves to persons resident in Germany and in the Netherlands an immovable property situated in Belgium and the subject of a transfer duty assessment in Belgium is certainly not a situation purely internal to a Member State.
Primer, ko oseba, ki ob svoji smrti prebiva v Nemčiji, zapusti drugim osebam, ki prebivajo v Nemčiji in na Nizozemskem, nepremičnino, ki je v Belgiji in je predmet izračuna davka v Belgiji, nikakor ni popolnoma notranji primer.
Consequently, the inheritance at issue in the main proceedings constitutes a movement of capital for the purposes of Article 56(1) EC.
Zato dedovanje v postopku v glavni stvari pomeni pretok kapitala v smislu člena 56(1) ES.
It is necessary to examine, first, whether, as the appellants in the main proceedings and the Commission of the European Communities maintain, national rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings amount to a restriction on the movement of capital.
Najprej je treba ugotoviti, ali, kot trdijo tožeče stranke v glavni stvari in Komisija Evropskih skupnosti, nacionalna ureditev, kot je ureditev v postopku v glavni stvari, pomeni omejitev pretoka kapitala.
In that regard, it should be borne in mind that the effect of national rules which determine the value of immovable property for the purposes of assessing the amount of tax payable when it is acquired through inheritance may be not only to discourage the purchase of immovable property situated in the Member State concerned, but also to reduce the value of the inheritance of a resident of a Member State other than that in which that property is situated (see, to that effect, Barbier, paragraph 62, and Jäger, paragraph 30).
V zvezi s tem je treba spomniti, da nacionalne določbe, ki za namen izračuna vi�ine davka, ki ga je treba plačati pri dedovanju, določajo vrednost nepremičnine, lahko ne le odvrnejo od nakupa nepremičnin, ki so v zadevni državi članici, temveč lahko prav tako zmanj�ajo vrednost dedi�čine rezidenta druge države članice, kot je država članica, v kateri je to premoženje (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedni sodbi Barbier, točka 62, in Jäger, točka 30).
As regards inheritances, the caselaw has confirmed that the measures prohibited by Article 56(1) EC as being restrictions on the movement of capital include those the
Poleg tega je sodna praksa v zvezi z dedovanjem potrdila, da ukrepi, ki so prepove -dani po členu 56(1) ES in pomenijo omejitve pretoka kapitala, obsegajo ukrepe, ki
ECKELKAMP AND OTHERS effect of which is to reduce the value of the inheritance of a resident of a State other than the Member State in which the assets concerned are situated and which taxes the inheritance of those assets (van Hilten-van der Heijden, paragraph 44, and Jäger, paragraph 31).
ECKELKAMP IN DRUGI povzročajo zmanj�anje vrednosti dedi�čine rezidenta države, ki ni država članica, v kateri je zadevno premoženje in ki obdavči dedovanje tega premoženja (zgoraj navedeni sodbi van Hiltenvan der Heijden, točka 44, in Jäger, točka 31).
In the present case, the national rules at issue in the main proceedings — in so far as they result in an inheritance consisting of immovable property situated in the Kingdom of Belgium being subject to transfer duties that are higher than the inheritance duties payable if the person whose estate is being administered had, at the time of death, been residing in that Member State — have the effect of restricting the movement of capital by reducing the value of an inheritance which includes such an asset.
V tem primeru nacionalne določbe, ki so predmet obravnave v postopku v glavni stvari, na podlagi katerih je dedi�čina, ki jo sestavlja nepremičnina, ki je v Kraljevini Belgiji, predmet vi�jega davka na prenos lastnine, kot bi zna�al davek za dedi�čino v primeru zapustnika, ki bi ob svoji smrti prebival v tej državi članici, omejujejo pretok kapitala, s tem da zmanj�ujejo vrednost dedi�čine, ki jo sestavlja taka nepremičnina.
Where those rules make the deductibility of certain debts secured on the immovable property in question dependent on the place where, at the time of death, the person whose estate is being administered was residing, the greater tax burden to which the inheritance of nonresidents is consequently subject constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital.
Ker namreč taka ureditev določa odvisnost odbitka določenih dolgov, ki bremenijo zadevno nepremičnino, od kraja bivanja zapustnika ob njegovi smrti, kar pomeni večje davčno breme za zapu�čino dedičev nerezidentov, je prosti pretok kapitala omejen.
That conclusion cannot be called into question by the Belgian Government’s argument that the Code does not constitute a restriction inasmuch as there is an object- ive difference between the situations of residents and nonresidents as regards the assessment of inheritance and transfer duties, since only the Member State in which the person whose estate is being administered was residing can, logically, be in a position to take account, in the assessment of inheritance tax, of all components of the estate: assets, liabilities, movable property and immovable property.
Te ugotovitve ne more izpodbiti utemeljitev belgijske vlade, da WS ne ustvarja omejitev, ker pri izračunu davka na dedi�čino in davka na prenos lastnine obstaja objektivna razlika med položajem rezidentov in položajem nerezidentov, saj po mnenju belgijske vlade logično samo država članica, na območju katere je prebival zapustnik, pri izračunu davka na dedi�čino lahko upo�teva vse sestavne dele premoženja: sredstva, obveznosti, premičnine in nepremičnine.
That circumstance is irrelevant in the light of the criteria resulting from the caselaw referred to in paragraphs 43 and 44 of the present judgment (see also, to that effect, Jäger, paragraph 34).
Ta okoli�čina namreč, glede na merila, ki izhajajo iz ustaljene sodne prakse, navedene v točkah 43 in 44 te sodbe, ni upo�tevna (glej v tem smislu tudi zgoraj navedeno sodbo Jäger, točka 34).
The Belgian Government contends, however, that, unlike the case which gave rise to the judgment in Barbier, the case in the main proceedings is characterised by the absence of an unconditional obligation to transfer legal title to the immovable
Belgijska vlada kljub temu trdi, da je za zadevo v postopku v glavni stvari, v nasprotju z zadevo, v kateri je bila izdana sodba Barbier, značilna odsotnost nepogojne obvez -nosti prenosa pravnega lastni�tva na zadevni nepremičnini, kot tudi odsotnost
2008 — CASE C-11/07 property in question, and also by the absence both of the prior transfer of financial ownership of that property and of a charge on that property, since the mortgage mandate relied on by the appellants in the main proceedings does not in any way constitute a debt encumbering that immovable property, within the meaning of that judgment.
2008 – ZADEVA C-11/07 predhodnega prenosa ekonomske lastnine ter prenosa dolga, ki obremenjuje to nepremičnino, saj pooblastilo za ustanovitev hipoteke, na katero se sklicujejo tožeče stranke v glavni stvari, nikakor ne ustvarja dolga, ki bi obremenjeval zadevno nepremičnino v smislu navedene sodbe.
It must be borne in mind that, in the case giving rise to the judgment in Barbier, the question referred concerned the assessment of tax payable on the inheritance of immovable property situated in a Member State and the taking into account, for the purposes of assessing the property’s value, of the fact that the holder of the legal title was under an unconditional obligation to transfer that title to a third party who had financial ownership of the property.
Treba je spomniti, da se je v zadevi, v kateri je bila izdana sodba Barbier, postavljeno vpra�anje nana�alo na izračun davka, izterljivega v primeru, da se z dedi�čino pridobi nepremičnina, ki je v državi članici, in upo�tevajoč, za namen izračuna vrednosti premoženja, da je bil imetnik stvarnopravnih pravic nepogojno zavezan te prenesti na tretjo stranko, ki je imela ekonomsko lastnino tega premoženja.
That debt was therefore directly linked to the immovable property included in the estate.
Ta dolg je bil zato neposredno povezan z nepremičnino, vključeno v dedi�čino.
Similarly, in relation to Articles 49 EC and 50 EC, the Court has already held that national rules which, in matters of taxation, refuse to allow nonresidents to deduct business expenses which are directly linked to the activity that generated the taxable income in the Member State concerned, while allowing residents to do so, risk operating mainly to the detriment of nationals of other Member States and are contrary to those articles (see, to that effect, Case C-234/01 Gerritse [2003] ECR I-5933, paragraphs 27 and 28).
Podobno je Sodi�če v zvezi s členoma 49 ES in 50 ES že odločilo, da je pri nacionalni ureditvi, ki v davčnih zadevah ne dovoli nerezidentom, da odbijejo poslovne stro�ke, ki so neposredno povezani z aktivnostjo, na podlagi katere je nastal obdavčljivi dohodek v zadevni državi članici, medtem ko, nasprotno, rezidentom dovoljuje, da to storijo, podano tveganje, da bo delovala v �kodo rezidentov drugih držav članic, in je tak�na ureditev torej v nasprotju z navedenima členoma (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 12. junija 2003 v zadevi Gerritse, C-234/01, Recueil, str. I-5933, točki 27 in 28).