Pravo direktnih poreza i Sporazum o stabilizaciji i pridruživanju Srbije Evropskoj uniji

Abstract

Iako postupak ratifikacije SSP između EU i njenih država članica i Srbije još nije okončan, autori razmatraju posledice koje će SSP ostaviti - prvenstveno na terenu prava direktnih poreza. S jedne strane, svi ugovori o pridruživanju, pa i SSP, u pravu EU imaju direktan efekat, bez obzira na to što sadrže odredbu o rešavanju sporova o primeni i tumačenju sporazuma kroz Savet za stabilizaciju i pridruživanje i poseban arbitražni postupak. Evropski sud pravde (ESJ) smatra da odredba sporazuma o pridruživanju proizvodi direktan efekat kada, imajući u vidu njenu formulaciju i svrhu, kao i prirodu samog sporazuma, ona sadrži jasnu i preciznu obavezu, koja u svojoj primeni ili dejstvima, ne zahteva usvajanje bilo kakve naknadne mere. Štaviše, ESJ priznaje direktan efekat i aktima Saveta za stabilizaciju i pridruživanje. Od rešenja u domaćem pravu zavisi kako će se u tom pogledu ponašati sudovi u pridruženim državama. Ustav Srbije dopušta neposrednu primenu međunarodnih ugovora. Čl. 73, st. 2 SSP predviđa da će Srbija primenjivati određene propise EU i instrumente tumačenja koje je razvio ESJ. Autori, na kraju, analiziraju različite poreskopravne implikacije SSP, ukazujući na moguće ograničavanje slobode kretanja kapitala u slučaju kada kompanija - rezident Srbije ostvaruje dividende od filijale - rezidenta države članice EU, a učešće u kapitalu joj je manje od 25%; tada je ona lišena prava na poreski kredit, što je ESJ, razmatrajući britanski propis, kod koga je prag bio niži (10%), u slučaju FII Group Litigation ocenio kao diskriminaciju portfolio investicija.

Although the ratification procedure for the SAA between the EU and its Member States, of the one part, and Serbia, of the other, has not been finalized yet, the authors consider the consequences that SAA will create - primarily in the domain of direct taxation. On the one hand, all association agreements, including SAAs, have direct effect within the EU law, regardless of the fact that they contain a provision on the solution of the disputes on application and interpretation of the agreement via the Stabilisation and Association Council and special arbitration procedure. ECJ holds the position that a provision in an association agreement must be regarded as being directly applicable when, regard being had to its wording and the purpose and nature of the agreement itself, the provision contains a clear and precise obligation which is not subject, in its implementation or effects, to the adoption of any subsequent measure. Furthermore, ECJ also recognizes the direct effect of the decisions of the Stabilisation and Association Council. It is up to the solution in the domestic law how the courts in the associated countries would behave in this respect. The Constitution of Serbia provides for direct application of international treaties. Art. 73 (2) of SAA prescribes that Serbia shall apply certain EU rules and interpretative instruments adopted by the ECJ. Finally, the authors analyze various tax law implications of SAA, pointing out to a possible restriction of the free movement of capital in the case where a company - resident of Serbia is receiving dividends from its subsidiary - resident of an EU Member State, whereby its shareholding is less than 25%. Under these circumstances the recipient company is denied the right to a tax credit - the practice which ECJ, while considering a piece of UK legislation involving a lower threshold (10%), declared in FII Group Litigation as discrimination against portfolio investments.