Eksterna dimenzija sekundarnog prava Evropske Unije o direktnim porezima

Abstract

Samo sloboda kretanja kapitala iz SFEU ima i eksternu dimenziju. Najveći deo prava EU nije sadržan u primarnim izvorima (SEU i SFEU), nego u sekundarnom zakonodavstvu Unije (uredbama, direktivama, odlukama, preporukama i mišljenjima). Poput odredbi konstitutivnih sporazuma, i sekundarno zakonodavstvo ima direktan efekat. Analizi je podvrgnut uticaj direktiva iz domena harmonizacije direktnog oporezivanja na odnose sa trećim državama. Proširenje dejstva direktiva na treću zemlju podrazumeva postojanje posebnog sporazuma između EU i nje. No, direktive podležu implementaciji u državama članicama EU, pa tako postaju deo njihovog zakonodavstva. ESJ smatra da nacionalni sudovi treba da, uzimajući u obzir i svrhu nacionalnog zakona i činjenice slučaja, odluče da li je sloboda kretanja kapitala neposredno primenjiva i da, ukoliko jeste, isključe različit tretman sadržan u zakonu. Opravdanje za nejednak tretman često se nalazi u razlici u integrisanosti koja postoji između država članica EU, sa jedne strane, i tih država i treće zemlje, sa druge strane. Analizirana su i zakonska rešenja koja uređuju situacije u kojima se, u kontekstu s elementom treće države, pojavljuje stalna poslovna jedinica.

Only one of the four freedoms that represent the core of European Union economic and social policy has an external dimension, and that is free movement of capital. The EU law is predominantly contained in the Union’s secondary legislation (regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions), and not in the primary sources of law (TEU and TFEU). Both primary and secondary sources of the EU law may have direct effect. The main focus of this paper is the impact of the EU directives on direct taxation on third countries (i.e. non-member states). This impact is conditional on the existence of a special agreement between the EU and the country in question. However, directives have to be implemented in the member states, thus becoming part of their respective national legislation. It is ECJ’s position that the national courts, taking into consideration both the purpose of the national law and the facts of the case, should decide if the principle of free movement of capital is directly applicable and, if it is, to bar a differential treatment which derives from the law. The justification for an unequal treatment is frequently found in the differences in the degree of integration that exist among the member states, on the one hand, and between them and a third country, on the other. The authors also analyze legislation relating to permanent establishments when a third country is involved.