natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In relation to the freedom of establishment, Case C-210/06 Cartesio (judgment of 16 December 2008) gave the Court an opportunity to clarify its case-law concerning the right of companies to move their company seat within the Union.
Na področju svobode ustanavljanja je imelo Sodišče v zadevi Cartesio (sodba z dne 16. decembra 2008, C-210/06) priložnost, da natančneje pojasni svojo sodno prakso, ki se nanaša na pravico družb, da preselijo svoj sedež znotraj Unije.
The question referred to the Court for a preliminaryruling concerned the compatibility with Articles 43 EC and 48 EC of Hungarian legislation under which a company incorporated under national law may not transfer its seat to another Member State whilst retaining its status as a company governed by the law of the Member State of incorporation.
Vprašanje za predhodno odločanje, predloženo Sodišču, se je nanašalo na skladnost madžarske zakonodaje, ki družbi, ustanovljeni na podlagi nacionalnega prava, preprečuje prenos sedeža v drugo državo članico, pri čemer bi ohranila subjektiviteto družbe nacionalnega prava države članice, v kateri je bila ustanovljena, s členoma 43 ES in 48 ES.
The Court replied that, as Communitylaw now stands, those articles do not preclude such legislation.
Sodišče je odgovorilo, da glede na trenutno stanje prava Skupnosti navedena člena ne nasprotujeta taki zakonodaji.
In accordance with Article 48 EC, in the absence of a uniform Communitylaw definition of the companies which may enjoy the right of establishment on the basis of a single connecting factor determining the national law applicable to a company, the question whether Article 43 EC applies to a company which seeks to rely on the fundamental freedom enshrined in that article is a preliminary matter which, as Communitylaw now stands, can only be resolved by the applicable national law.
V skladu s členom 48 ES, in ker v pravu Skupnosti ni enotne opredelitve družb, ki jih je mogoče ustanoviti zgolj na podlagi merila tesne povezave, po katerem se opredeli nacionalno pravo, ki se uporabi za družbo, namreč vprašanje, ali se člen 43 ES uporablja za družbo, ki se sklicuje na temeljno svoboščino, določeno s tem členom, pomeni vprašanje za predhodno odločanje, na katerega je, glede na trenutno stanje prava Skupnosti, mogoče najti odgovor le v nacionalnem pravu, ki se uporabi.
In consequence, according to the Court, the question whether the company is faced with a restriction on the freedom of establishment, within the meaning of Article 43 EC, can arise only if it has been established, in the light of the conditions laid down in Article 48 EC, that the company actually has a right to that freedom.
Pomnenju Sodišča se vprašanje, ali se navedeni družbi omejuje ta svoboda v smislu člena 43 ES, postavi le, če je bilo preverjeno, ali ta družba glede na pogoje iz člena 48 ES dejansko uživa svobodo ustanavljanja.
Thus a Member State has the power to define both the connecting factor required of a company if it is to be regarded as incorporated under the law of that Member State and, as such, capable of enjoying the right of establishment, and that required if the company is to be able subsequently to maintain that status.
Država članica ima torej možnost naknadno opredeliti tesno povezavo, ki se zahteva za družbo, da bi se ta lahko štela za ustanovljeno po njenem nacionalnem pravu in iz tega naslova imela ugodnosti na podlagi pravice do ustanavljanja, in ki se zahteva za ohranitev te lastnosti.
That power includes the possibility for that Member State not to permit a company governed by its law to retain that status if the company intends to reorganise itself in another Member State by moving its seat to the territory of the latter, thereby breaking the connecting factor required under the national law of the Member State of incorporation.
Ta možnost obsega možnost zato državo članico, da ne dovoli družbi njenega nacionalnega prava, da obdrži to lastnost, če se namerava reorganizirati v drugi državi članici s preselitvijo svojega sedeža na ozemlje te druge države članice, s čimer prekine tesno zvezo, ki jo določa nacionalno pravo države članice, v kateri je bila ustanovljena.
Also in relation to the freedom of establishment, and equally noteworthy, Case C-414/06 Lidl Belgium (judgment of 15 May 2008) was initiated by a reference for a preliminaryruling concerning the compatibility with Article 43 EC of the German tax regime under which a resident company may not deduct losses relating to a non-resident permanent establishment belonging to it.
Na področju svobode ustanavljanja je treba ravno tako omeniti zadevo Lidl Belgium (sodba z dne 15. maja 2008, C-414/06), v kateri je bil vložen predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe v zvezi s skladnostjo nemškega davčnega sistema, ki izključuje to, da bi družba rezidentka odbila izgube, ki so nastale njeni stalni poslovni enoti nerezidentki, s členom 43 ES.
The Court first made clear that the scope of application of Article 43 EC extends to the creation and the outright ownership by a natural or legal person established in a Member State of a permanent establishment not having a separate legal personality situated in another Member State, as well as to a company’s activity in another Member State through a permanent establishment, as defined in a relevant double taxation convention, which constitutes, under
Sodišče je naprej pojasnilo, da dejstvo, da ê z ič na ali pravna oseba s prebivališčem ali sedežem v državi članici ustanovi in ima v polni lasti stalno poslovno enoto, ki ni druga pravna oseba, s sedežem v drugi državi članici, spada na področje uporabe člena 43 ES, na njegovo področje uporabe pa spada tudi dejavnost, ki jo družba opravlja v drugi državi članici prek stalne poslovne enote, kot je opredeljena v ustrezni davčni konvenciji opreprečevanju dvojnega obdavčevanja, ki je v skladu z konvencijskim davčnim pravom samostojna enota.
Court of Justice tax convention law, an autonomous entity.
Razvoj in dejavnost vani skupaj – sledita legitimnim ciljem, ki so skladni s Pogodbo in pomenijo nujne razloge v splošnem interesu, ker je ta ureditev sorazmerna z navedenimi cilji.
It is true that such a tax regime gives rise to a difference in tax treatment, by reason of which a resident company could be discouraged from carrying on its business through a permanent establishment situated in another Member State.
Na področju svobodnega opravljanja storitev je treba posvetiti pozornost trem zadevam.
So far as concerns the freedom to provide services, attention must be drawn to three cases in particular.
Na prvem mestu je treba omeniti zadevo Centro Europa 7 (sodba z dne 31. januarja 2008, C-380/05, ZOdl., str.
The first is Case C-380/05 Centro Europa 7 [2008] ECR I-349, concerning an Italian operator in the television broadcasting sector to which broadcasting authorisation had been granted, but which was unable to broadcast without broadcasting radio frequencies allocated to it.
I-349) v zvezi z italijanskim operaterjem, ki opravlja dejavnost v sektorju televizijske radiodifuzije in je imetnik koncesije za odobritev oddajanja ter nikakor nemore oddajati, ker se mu ni dodelilo radijskih frekvenc za oddajanje.
The Court interpreted the Communitylaw provisions (17) relating to the grant of the radio frequencies.
Sodišče je razlagalo določbe prava Skupnosti17 v zvezi z merili dodelitve teh frekvenc.
It observed that the successive application of the transitional arrangements structured, under Italian legislation, in favour of the incumbent networks had the effect of preventing operators without broadcasting radio frequencies from accessing the market.
Poudarilo je, da je zaporedna uporaba prehodnih ureditev, ki so z italijanskim pravom določene v korist obstoječih kanalov, povzročila, da operaterjem, ki niso imeli radijskih frekvenc za oddajanje, ni bil omogočen dostop do zadevnega trga.
The issuing of general authorisation to operate on the broadcasting services market only to the incumbent networks consolidated that restrictive effect.
Splošna odobritev za oddajanje na trgu radijskega oddajanja le za obstoječe kanale je ta restriktivni učinek okrepila.
The consequence of this was to freeze the structures on the national market and to protect the position of those networks.
To je povzročilo ohromitev struktur domačega trga in zavarovanje položaja navedenih kanalov.
The Court stated that a system which restricts the number of operators in the national territory is capable of being justified by general-interest objectives, but it must, in those circumstances, be structured on the basis of objective, transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria.
Sodišče je pojasnilo, da je mogoče ureditev, ki omejuje število operaterjev na nacionalnem ozemlju, upravičiti s cilji v splošnem interesu, vendar mora biti v tem primeru določena na podlagi objektivnih, preglednih, nediskriminatornih in sorazmernih meril.
That is not the cases of ar as concerns a system which allocates broadcasting radio frequencies exclusively, without restriction in time, to a limited number of incumbent operators, without taking account of the criteria referred to above.
Ureditev, ki dodeljuje radijske frekvence za oddajanje izključno in brez časovne omejitve omejenemu številu obstoječih operaterjev, ne da bi upoštevala zgoraj navedena merila, ni taka.
The Court concluded that national legislation the application of which makes it impossible for an operator holding rights to broadcast in the absence of broadcasting radio frequencies granted on the basis of those criteria is contrary to the principles of the Treaty concerning the freedom to provide services and to the principles laid down by the new common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (18).
Sodišče je sklenilo, da je nacionalna zakonodaja, na podlagi katere operater koncesionar nemore oddajati, ker ni radijskih frekvenc za oddajanje, dodeljenih na podlagi navedenih meril, v nasprotju z načeli Pogodbe o svobodnem opravljanju storitev ter z načeli, ki jih določa novi skupni regulativni okvir za elektronska komunikacijska omrežja in storitve.18
Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (framework directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p.
Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2002/21/ES z dne 7. marca 2002 o skupnem regulativnem okviru za elektronska komunikacijska omrežja in storitve (okvirna direktiva) (UL L 108, str. 33).
21) and Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2002 L 249, p. 21).
21) in Direktiva Komisije 2002/77/ES z dne 16. septembra 2002 o konkurenci na trgih za elektronska komunikacijska omrežja in storitve (UL L 249, str. 21).
Known as ‘the NCRF’, this consists of the framework directive and four specific directives, including the authorisation directive, which are supplemented by Directive 2002/77/EEC.
Znanje pod imenom„NSRO“ in ga sestavljajo„okvirna“ direktiva in štiri posebne direktive, med katerimi je tudi direktiva„o odobritvi“, dopolnjuje pa jih Direktiva 2002/77.
Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1).
Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 96/71/ES z dne 16. decembra 1996 o napotitvi delavcev na delov okviru opravljanja storitev (UL L 18, str. 1).
Court of Justice hoc agent residing in that State, the documents necessary for monitoring compliance with their obligations under national law and to leave them there for an indeterminate period after the provision of services has ceased and, second, sets out in rules of national law establishing a prior notification procedure when workers are posted conditions relating to access to the basic information necessary for monitoring purposes by the competent national authorities within sufficient clarity to ensure legal certainty for undertakings wishing to post workers to the territory of that Member State, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC.
Sodišče predpiše, da lahko za izvedbo javnih naročil za gradnje izbere le podjetja, ki se ob oddaji ponudbe pisno zavežejo, da bodo svojim delavcem za izvajanje zadevnih storitev izplačevala najmanj takšno plačo, kot je določena v navedeni kolektivni pogodbi. Taka zakonodaja pomeni omejitev svobodnega opravljanja storitev iz člena 49 ES, ker lahko ponudnikom storitev s sedežem v drugi državi članici, kjer so minimalne urne postavke nižje, naloži dodatne ekonomske stroške, ki lahko prepovejo, ovirajo ali zmanjšajo privlačnost izvajanja njihovih storitev v državi gostiteljici.
With regard to the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, Case C-347/06 AS M Brescia (judgment of 17 July 2008) relates to Italian legislation adopted in respect of the early cessation, at the end of a transitional period, of concessions for the distribution of natural gas granted without a competitive tendering procedure as envisaged by Directive 2003/55 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30 (21).
Nazadnje je treba omeniti še zadevo Komisija proti Luksemburgu (sodba z dne 19. junija 2008, C 319/06), v kateri je Sodišče razsodilo, da člen 3(10), prva alinea, Direktive 96/71 o napotitvi delavcev na delov okviru opravljanja storitev pomeni izjemo od načela, da so zadeve, v katerih lahko države članice uporabijo svojo zakonodajo za podjetja, ki napotujejo delavce na njeno ozemlje, izčrpno naštete v členu 3(1), prvi pododstavek, te direktive.
The questions referred to the Court for a preliminaryruling related, more specifically, to the compatibility of the extension, on certain conditions, of the length of the transitional period in question with Directive 98/30 and with Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86(1) EC.
Možnost, ki jo ta člen priznava državi članici gostiteljici, da za navedena podjetja nediskriminatorno uporablja pogoje za delo in zaposlitev za druge zadeve kot za tiste, navedene v členu 3(1), prvi pododstavek, iste direktive, če gre za predpise na področju javnega reda, pomeni izjemo od sistema, uvedenega z navedeno direktivo, in prav tako odstopanje od temeljnega načela svobode opravljanja storitev ter mora biti predmet ozke razlage.
The Court held that neither Directive 2003/55 nor Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86(1) EC preclude such national legislation, provided that, as regards compatibility with the articles of the ECTreaty referred to, such an extension can be regarded as being necessary to enable the contracting parties to untie their contractual relations on acceptable terms both from the point of view of the requirements of the public service and from the economic point of view.
Zato je Sodišče ugotovilo, da država članica, s tem da določi, da prisilni predpisi na področju nacionalnega javnega reda pomenijo, prvič, določbe, ki izhajajo zlasti iz splošno veljavnih kolektivnih pogodb, in drugič, določbe, s katerimi se prenaša Direktiva 96/71 in ki zadevna podjetja obvezujejo, prvič, da lahko napotijo le delavce, ki so na podjetje vezani s pisno pogodbo o zaposlitvi ali drugim dokumentom, ki se šteje za podobnega na podlagi Direktive 91/53320, in drugič, k spoštovanju nacionalne zakonodaje s področja dela s krajšim delovnim časom in pogodbo zaposlitvi za določen čas, ne izpolni svojih obveznosti na podlagi člena 3(10), prva alinea, te direktive.
Regarding that last point, the Court considered that, while the Italian legislation establishes a difference in treatment amounting to indirect discrimination on the basis of nationality, that difference in treatment may nevertheless be justified by the necessity of complying with the principle of legal certainty which requires, particularly, that rules of law be clear, precise and predictable in their effects. According to the Court, that principle not only permits but also requires that the termination of such a concession be coupled with a transitional period which enables the contracting parties to untie their contractual relations on acceptable terms both from the point of view of the requirements of the public service and from the economic point of view.
Sodišče je prav tako ugotovilo, da država članica, prvič, s tem da nalaga podjetjem, ki imajo sedež zunaj njenega ozemlja in ki nanj napotijo delavce, obveznost pri ad hoc zastopniku s sedežem na njenem ozemlju pred napotitvijo položiti potrebne dokumente za nadzor obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz uporabe nacionalne zakonodaje, in jih tam pustiti za nedoločen čas po koncu opravljanja storitev, in drugič, s tem da v nacionalnem pravnem redu, s katerim je uveljavljen postopek predhodne prijave napotitve delavcev, določi pogojev zvezi z dostopom pristojnih nacionalnih organov do podatkov, nujno potrebnih za nadzor, ki niso opredeljeni dovolj jasno, da bi zagotavljali pravno varnost podjetij, ki želijo napotiti svoje delavcev omenjeno državo članico, ne izpolni svojih obveznosti iz člena 49 ES.
The Court held that the Treaty provisions on the freemovement of capital preclude such rules insofar as the rules apply a progressive rate of taxation and insofar as the combination of (i) the failure to take into account such debts and (ii) that progressive rate could result in a greater tax burden for heirs who are not in a position to rely on such deductibility. The Court thus rejected the argument that the difference in treatment established concerned situations which were not objectively comparable, since, except in relation to the deduction of debts, the legislation in question treated the inheritances of residents and non-residents in the same way for the purposes of taxing their inheritance.
Na področju svobode ustanavljanja in svobodnega opravljanja storitev se je obravnavala zadeva ASMBrescia (sodba z dne 17. julija 2008, C-347/06), ki se nanaša na italijansko zakonodajo, sprejeto glede na predčasni potek koncesij v prehodnem obdobju za distribucijo zemeljskega plina, podeljenih brez predhodnega javnega razpisa, kot je predviden z Direktivo 2003/55 o skupnih pravilih notranjega trga z zemeljskim plinom in o razveljavitvi Direktive 98/3021.
The Court also stated that, in the absence of a convention on the prevention of double taxation, the Member
Vprašanja za predhodno odločanje, predložena Sodišču, so se
Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57).
Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2003/55/ES z dne 26. junija 2003 o skupnih pravilih notranjega trga z zemeljskim plinom in o razveljavitvi Direktive 98/30/ES (UL L 176, str. 57).
State in which the immovable property is situated cannot, in order to justify a restriction on the freemovement of capital arising from its rules, rely on the existence of a possibility, beyond its control, of a tax credit being granted by the Member State in which the deceased was residing at the time of death, which could, wholly or partly, offset the loss incurred by that person’s heirs as a result of the fact that, for the purposes of assessing transfer duties, no account is taken in the Member State in which that property is situated of overendowment debts resulting from a testamentary parental partition inter vivos.
Razvoj in dejavnost natančneje nanašala na skladnost podaljšanja zadevnega prehodnega obdobja pod določenimi pogoji z navedeno direktivo in členi 43 ES, 49 ES in 86(1) ES. Sodišče je razsodilo, da niti Direktiva 2003/55 niti členi 43 ES, 49 ES in 86(1) ES ne nasprotujejo taki zakonodaji, če bi se – kar zadeva skladnost z zgoraj navedenimi členi Pogodbe ES – tako podaljšanje lahko štelo za potrebno, da bi se sopogodbenikom omogočila ureditev njihovih pogodbenih razmerij ob sprejemljivih pogojih tako z vidika zahtev javnih služb kot z gospodarskega vidika.
In Case C-282/07 Truck Center (judgment of 22 December 2008), the Court responded to a request for interpretation of the Treaty provisions relating to the freemovement of capital in the light of Belgian corporation tax legislation.
V zvezi sto zadnjo točko je Sodiščemenilo, da čeprav se je z italijansko zakonodajo uvedlo tako različno obravnavanje, ki pomeni posredno diskriminacijo glede na državljanstvo, pa je to različno obravnavanje lahko upravičeno s potrebo po spoštovanju načela pravne varnosti, ki zahteva zlasti, da so pravna pravila jasna in natančna in da so njihovi učinki predvidljivi.
Under that legislation, interest paid by a resident company to a recipient company resident in another Member State was subject to a retention at source (withholding tax), whereas interest paid to a resident recipient company was exempt from that retention.
Pomnenju Sodišča to načelo ne le omogoča, ampak tudi določa, da mora biti za odpoved take koncesije določeno prehodno obdobje, ki sopogodbenikom omogoča ureditev njihovih pogodbenih razmerij ob sprejemljivih pogojih tako z vidika zahtev javnih služb kot z gospodarskega vidika.
The Court held that the Treaty provisions relating to the freedom of establishment and the freemovement of capital do not preclude such tax legislation.
Kar zadeva prosti pretok kapitala, je treba omeniti zadevo Arens-Sikken (sodba z dne 11. septembra 2008, C-43/07), v kateri je Sodišče obravnavalo ureditev, ki se nanaša na izračun davka na dediščino in na prenos premoženja, ki ju je treba plačati v zvezi z nepremičnino v državi članici, in ki pri izračunu navedenih davkov ne predvideva možnosti odbitka dolgov zaradi presežne pridobitve, ki so posledica oporočne delitve zapuščine staršev inter vivos, kadar oseba, po kateri je uvedeno dedovanje, ob svoji smrti ni bila rezidentka te države, ampak druge države članice.
After recalling that, in relation to direct taxes, the situations of residents and non-residents are, as a rule, not comparable, the Court found that the difference in treatment at issue, consisting in the application of different taxation arrangements to those companies established in Belgium and to those established in another Member State, relates to situations which are not objectively comparable.
Sodišče je razsodilo, da določbe Pogodbe v zvezi s prostim pretokom kapitala nasprotujejo taki ureditvi, če se uporablja progresivna davčna stopnja in ker lahko neupoštevanje navedenih dolgov skupaj sto progresivno stopnjo povzroči večjo davčno obremenitev dedičev, ki se ne morejo sklicevati na takšno možnost odbitka.
According to the Court, the position of the Belgian State, the types of taxation of interest, which rest on separate legal bases, and the situations in which the companies receiving interest find themselves with regard to recovery of the tax differ according to whether the companies receiving the interest are resident or not.
Sodišče je tako zavrnilo argument, da se uvedeno različno obravnavanje nanaša na položaja, ki nista objektivno primerljiva, če se v zadevni ureditvi dediščine rezidentov in nerezidentov za namene obdavčenja dediščin obravnavajo enako, razen za odbitek dolgov.
The Court also held that the difference in treatment resulting from the legislation at issue does not necessarily procure an advantage for resident recipient companies because, first, those companies are obliged to make advance payments of corporation tax and, second, the amount of withholding tax deducted from the interest paid to a non-resident company is significantly lower than the corporation tax charged on the income of resident companies which receive interest.
Sodišče je prav tako pojasnilo, da se država članica, v kateri je nepremičnina, čeni konvencije o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja, v utemeljitev omejitve prostega pretoka kapitala, ki je posledica njene ureditve, nemore sklicevati na obstoj od njene volje neodvisne možnosti, da bo druga država članica, ki ni država članica, v kateri je pokojni prebival ob smrti, priznala davčni odbitek, ki bi lahko vceloti ali deloma nadomestil škodo, ki je nastala dedičem te osebe, ker država članica, v kateri je navedena nepremičnina, pri izračunu davka na prenos premoženja ni upoštevala dolgov zaradi presežne pridobitve, ki so posledica oporočne delitve zapuščine staršev inter vivos.