Go to unilingual display
Hide information about this document

?

Naslov in reference

Title and reference

Zadeva C-269/07: Tožba, vložena 6. junija 2007 – Komisija Evropskih skupnosti proti Zvezni republiki Nemčiji

OJ C 199, 25/08/2007, str. 19–20 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

Case C-269/07: Action brought on 6 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

OJ C 199, 25/08/2007, p. 19–20 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

Datumi

Dates

Datum dokumenta:
25/08/2007; datum objave
Date of document:
25/08/2007; Date of publication

Drugi podatki

Miscellaneous information

Avtor:
Sodišče
Pravna oblika:
Pravosodne informacije
Author:
Court of Justice
Form:
Judicial information

Klasifikacije

Classifications

Besedilo

Text

25.8.2007    | SL | Uradni list Evropske unije | C 199/1925.8.2007    | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 199/19
Tožba, vložena 6. junija 2007 – Komisija Evropskih skupnosti proti Zvezni republiki NemčijiAction brought on 6 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
(Zadeva C-269/07)(Case C-269/07)
(2007/C 199/30)(2007/C 199/30)
Jezik postopka: nemščinaLanguage of the case: German
StrankiParties
Tožeča stranka: Komisija Evropskih skupnosti (zastopnika: R. Lyal in W. Mölls, zastopnika)Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Mölls, acting as Agents)
Tožena stranka: Zvezna republika NemčijaDefendant: Federal Republic of Germany
Predlogi tožeče stranke:Form of order sought
— | Ugotovi naj se, da Zvezna republika Nemčija, s tem da je sprejela in v veljavi obdržala predpise na področju dodatnega pokojninskega varstva, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz člena 39 ES, člena 7 Uredbe Sveta št. 1612/68 z dne 15. oktobra 1968 (1), člena 18 ES in člena 12 ES | v delu, v katerem te določbe: | a) | obmejnim delavcem (in njihovim zakonskim partnerjem) odrekajo pravico do dodatka, ker ti niso neomejeni davčni zavezanci; | b) | ne dopuščajo, da se kapital, ustvarjen v okviru tega sistema, uporabi za nakup stanovanja, v katerem biva lastnik, če se to stanovanje ne nahaja v Nemčiji; | c) | določajo, da je treba pridobljeno pomoč v primeru prenehanja neomejenega obdavčenja povrniti.— | Declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 39 EC, Article 7 of Council Regulation No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 (1), Article 18 EC and Article 12 EC by introducing and maintaining the provisions for second pillar pensions in Paragraphs 79 to 99 of the Einkommensteuergesetz (Law on Income Tax), in so far as those provisions | (a) | deny cross-border workers (and their spouses) the right to an allowance, unless they are fully liable to tax; | (b) | do not permit the capital advanced to be used for an apartment serving as the recipient's own residence in the recipient's own house, unless that house is in Germany; | (c) | require the repayment of financial support on termination of liability to unlimited taxation;
— | Zvezni republiki Nemčiji naj se naloži plačilo stroškov postopka.— | order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
Tožbeni razlogi in bistvene trditvePleas in law and main arguments
Nemčija je leta 2001 uvedla t. i. pokojninski dodatek, s katerim naj bi z izravnavo padca višine zakonskih pokojnin prišlo do vzpostavitve dodatne starostne pokojnine. Ta dodatek pa naj bi se zagotovil le, če je zadevna oseba v Nemčiji neomejeni davčni zavezanec, kar v vsakem primeru obmejne delavce, za katere je na podlagi sporazuma o preprečevanju dvojnega obdavčenja davčno pristojna država prebivališča in ki zaradi tega ne plačujejo davkov v Nemčiji, izključuje od pridobitve tega dodatka. Poleg tega naj bi možnost, da se del kapitala uporabi za nakup stanovanja, obstajala le za premoženje, ki se nahaja v Nemčiji in ne za premoženje, ki se nahaja v tujini, ob meji. Končno, dodatek je treba povrniti, če zadevna oseba izgubi status neomejenega davčnega zavezanca.In 2001, Germany introduced the ‘supplementary pension allowance’ which was intended to encourage the building up of second pillar pensions to compensate for the reduction in the level of the state pension. However, that allowance is granted only if the person concerned is fully liable to tax in Germany, which, certainly as far as cross-border workers are concerned (who are liable to be taxed by the State of residence under a double taxation convention, and who do not therefore pay taxes in Germany), deprives them of the benefit of the allowance. In addition, it is possible to use part of the accumulated capital for the purchase of residential property, but only of property that is situated in Germany, not property that is near the border but abroad. Finally, the allowance is repayable if the person concerned ceases to be fully liable to tax.
Komisija meni, da ti predpisi kršijo določbe prava Skupnosti o prepovedi diskriminacije na podlagi državljanstva, o prostem gibanju delavcev oziroma o enakem obravnavanju delavcev iz drugih držav članic glede socialnih in davčnih ugodnosti. Prepoved diskriminacije delavcev iz drugih držav članic na podlagi državljanstva, naj bi namreč zajemala ne le očitno diskriminacijo na podlagi državljanstva, ampak tudi vse prikrite oblike diskriminacije, ki naj bi z uporabo drugih razlikovalnih meril dejansko privedle do istega rezultata. Poleg tega iz sodne prakse Sodišča izhaja, da lahko tudi obmejnim delavcem pripada pravica do socialnih ugodnosti v skladu s členom 7(2) Uredbe št. 1612/68.In the Commission's opinion, those provisions infringe Community law prohibiting discrimination based on nationality and Community law on the free movement of workers, or rather, on the equal treatment — in terms of social and tax advantages — of workers from other Member States. The prohibition on discrimination against workers from other Member States based on nationality includes not only overt discrimination based on nationality, but also covert forms of discrimination which would in fact produce the same result if other distinguishing criteria were applied. Furthermore, it is clear from the case-law of the Court of Justice that cross-border workers too are entitled to social advantages under Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68.
Ker pokojninski dodatek ustreza opredelitvi „socialne ugodnosti“, ga je treba zagotoviti tudi v primeru, če obmejni delavec in/ali njegov zakonski partner sploh nista davčna zavezanca v Nemčiji. Ugodnost se namreč navezuje na objektivno značilnost delavca zadevnih oseb. Zakonska starostna pokojnina, katere višina naj bi padla in ki naj bi jo dodatek zato dopolnil, naj bi se nanašala predvsem na osebe, ki so v delovnem razmerju, čeprav obenem zadeva tudi druge skupine oseb. Poleg tega pojem socialne ugodnosti zajema tudi take ugodnosti, ki se zagotovijo le zaradi prebivališča prejemnikov na nacionalnem ozemlju. Iz tega je razvidno, da so obmejni delavci na splošno v istem položaju kot delavci, ki prebivajo na domačem ozemlju: na obe skupini je vplivala nižja višina starostnih pokojnin nemškega sistema, kateremu pripadata in v okviru katerega plačujeta prispevke. Obe skupini naj bi imeli interes, da bi za časa njihovega življenja prišlo do vzpostavitve pokojninskega dodatka z izravnavo. Nemško pravilo, v skladu s katerim naj bi bili obmejni delavci, za dohodke katerih davčna pristojnost na podlagi sporazuma o preprečevanju dvojnega obdavčevanja pripada njihovi državi prebivališča, izključeni od ugodnosti, tako pomeni prikrito diskriminacijo in zato nasprotuje členu 39(2) ES in členu 7(2) Uredbe št. 1612/68. Opredelitev pokojninskega dodatka za „obdavčljivo“ ali „socialno“ ugodnost naj na koncu ne bi bila pomembna, ker so obmejni delavci do enakega obravnavanja upravičeni tudi pri „davčnih“ ugodnosti.Since the supplementary pension allowance is within the definition of a ‘social advantage’, it should also be granted where cross-border workers and/or their spouses are not subject to taxation in Germany at all, because the advantage attaches to the objective status of the persons concerned as employed persons. The state pension, which is being reduced and the supplementation of which is therefore being promoted, primarily applies to employed persons, although it may apply incidentally to other categories of persons also. Furthermore, ‘social advantage’ also covers advantages which are bestowed upon recipients merely by virtue of the fact that their place of residence is within the country. It is clear therefore that frontier workers are, as a rule, in the same position as resident employees; both categories are affected by falling pension rates in the German system to which they are linked and to which they have paid contributions. Both have an interest in building up an additional pension during their active working lives to counteract falling pension rates. The German legislation, which precludes frontier workers whose income is subject to taxation by the State of residence under a double taxation convention from claiming the advantage, thus amounts to covert discrimination and, accordingly, infringes Article 39(2) EC and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68. Whether the supplementary pension allowance is categorised as a ‘tax’ or ‘social’ advantage is ultimately unimportant, since cross-border workers are entitled to equal treatment in respect of ‘tax’ advantages too.
Tudi glede prepovedi uporabe tako pridobljenega kapitala za nakup stanovanja, v katerem biva lastnik, če se ta ne nahaja v Nemčiji, velja ugotovitev, da naj bi šlo tu za socialno ugodnost. Tudi če bi šlo za davčno ugodnost, bi bila vseeno podana kršitev prostega gibanja oseb. Ta predpostavka naj bi namreč omejevala možnost izrabe socialne ugodnosti: obmejnim delavcem onemogoča uporabo njihovega privarčevanega kapitala za stanovanje, če bi se to nahajalo v tujini ob meji, kar se pri takih delavcih ponavadi pričakuje. V primerjavi z delavci, ki prebivajo na domačem ozemlju se fleksibilnost, s katero bi lahko značilen obmejni delavec uporabil dodatek, zmanjša, ko je pogodba o pokojninskem dodatku v fazi izplačila. Vrednost tega dodatka kot socialne ugodnosti je tako zmanjšana. Te neugodnosti obmejnih delavcev pomenijo torej tudi prikrito diskriminacijo na podlagi državljanstva, kar je v nasprotju s členom 39(2) ES in členom 7(2) Uredbe št. 1612/68.The notion that what is at issue is a social advantage applies equally to the prohibition on spending the capital advanced on an apartment serving as the recipient's own residence in the recipient's own house (unless it is in Germany). Even if it were not a tax advantage, the freedom of movement for workers would still be infringed, since the opportunity to avail oneself of a social advantage is restricted by that requirement. It makes it impossible for cross-border workers to spend the capital saved on an apartment that is situated nearby but abroad, as such employees would normally be expected to do. A typical frontier worker has less flexibility than domestic employees in the use of the allowance when a contractual pension comes to be paid out. The value of that allowance as a social advantage is thereby reduced. Putting frontier workers at a disadvantage in this way also, therefore, represents covert discrimination based on nationality, which is an infringement of Article 39(2) EC and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68.
Obveznost povrnitve plačila, ki jo določa nemška ureditev, v primeru prenehanja neomejenega obdavčena se nanaša predvsem na tujce. Število tujcev, ki se po koncu svojega poklicnega življenja vrnejo v svojo državo izvora, naj bi bilo namreč mnogo višje od števila Nemcev, ki se kot upokojenci nastanijo v tujini. Poleg tega obveznost vrnitev plačila zadevne osebe odvrača od tega, da bi prestavile svoje stalno prebivališče v drugo državo članico. Povrhu tega bi lahko zadevna ureditev že od začetka znižala vrednost dodatka za delavce migrante v primerjavi z domačimi delavci in tako povzročila prikrito diskriminacijo na ravni zagotavljanja ugodnosti. To se nanaša na primere, ko se želijo delavci migranti že od začetka izogniti vrnitvi plačila in zaradi tega ne vložijo prošnje za dodelitev dodatka. Tudi glede tega ni podanega nobenega utemeljenega razloga. Glede davčne doslednosti, naj bi bila ta zagotovljena že v predpisih, določenih v sporazumih o preprečevanju dvojnega obdavčevanja. Obveznost vrnitve plačila ob prenehanju neomejenega obdavčenja torej tudi pomeni prikrito diskriminacijo na podlagi državljanstva in je tako v nasprotju s členom 39 ES, členom 7(2) Uredbe št. 1612/68 ter členoma 12 in18 ES.The repayment obligation on termination of liability to unlimited taxation that is provided for under German legislation primarily affects foreigners, since the number of foreigners returning to their country of origin after the end of their working lives is much higher than the number of German pensioners moving abroad. Furthermore, the repayment obligation deters those concerned from changing their place of residence to another Member State. Moreover, the legislation at issue here can reduce the value of the allowance for migrant workers from the outset, as against domestic employees, and thus entail covert discrimination at the very point at which the advantage is granted. That applies to those cases in which a migrant worker wishes from the outset to avoid repayment and consequently does not even apply for the allowance. There appears to be no justification for that either. As regards fiscal cohesion, that is already assured by the provisions of double taxation conventions. The repayment obligation on termination of liability to unlimited taxation also therefore represents covert discrimination based on nationality, and consequently infringes Article 39 EC, Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 and Articles 12 EC and 18 EC.
(1)  UL L 257, str. 2.(1)  OJ, English Special Edition I 1968(II), p. 475.