BORGARTING LAGMANNSRETT - Domstolene
BORGARTING LAGMANNSRETT - Domstolene
BORGARTING LAGMANNSRETT - Domstolene
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
hensyn til hva som kan begrunnes ut fra sammenhengen i skattesystemet og at<br />
generaladvokater nå argumenterer for en rehabilitering av begrepet. Lagmannsretten<br />
gjengir følgende:<br />
In this respect the Court can be critized for creating an unacceptable level of<br />
unpredictability, in particular as the concept of restriction in not the only source of<br />
uncertainty. Confusion seems to extend to the issue of justification where the Court<br />
accepted the fiscal cohesion justification in the case of Bachmann but made it to a<br />
large extent redundant in later cases such as Baars and Verkooijen, with the result<br />
that Advocates General have started to argue for its rehabilitation. Yet, as stated by<br />
Advocate General Geelhoed, ´predictability and legal certainty are crucially<br />
important´ for this area of law, as Member States need to be able to plan their<br />
budgets and design their ´tax systems on the basis of relatively reliable revenue<br />
predictions.´<br />
I samme retning går Suzanne Kingston i ”Common Market Law Review 44” for 2007 fra<br />
side 1321 i en artikkel med tittel ”A light in the darkness: Recent Developments in the<br />
ECJ`s direct Tax Jurisprudence”. Hennes synspunkt er at skatt har vært ansett for å høre til<br />
den nasjonale suverenitet, at det har vært en rask utvikling og ofte på en uforutsigbar måte,<br />
samt at statene ikke kunne forventes å forutse utviklingen, og også at konsekvensene av de<br />
frie friheter bare gradvis har blitt klarlagt. Hun konkluderer med at før EF-domstolens dom<br />
avsagt 11. mars 2004 i sak C-9/02 de Lasteyrie de Saillant – dommen er nevnt som en den<br />
gang utrykt dom i Fokus Bank premiss 32, men lagmannsretten finner ikke grunn til å<br />
gjengi noe fra denne dommen – var brudd på fellesskapsrettens kildeskattregler ikke<br />
”tilstrekkelig alvorlig” til å utløse ansvar. Det samme mener hun gjelder<br />
forskjellsbehandling med hensyn til godtgjørelsesfradrag før Verkooijen, Lenz og<br />
Manninen, dommer som hun altså ser i sammenheng:<br />
(…) As well known, direct tax remains one of the most closely-protected areas of<br />
Member State competence, considered by many to be central to national<br />
sovereignty.<br />
(…)<br />
In recent years, however, the area has been pushed into the spotlight for two,<br />
perhaps not unrelated reson: first, there has been an explosion in the number of<br />
direct tax cases lodged before the Court (almost all of them preliminary references);<br />
second, certain of the Court´s judgements have been viewed as worringly unclear<br />
and have been subject to trenchant criticism. (side 1321 og 1322)<br />
(…)<br />
(…) Significantly, the fact that the Court`s direct tax case law has evolved rapidly<br />
(and often in a rather unpredictable manner) since the mid-1990s, has led it to<br />
indicate, in those cases where the issue has arisen, that the breach was unlikely to<br />
be ”sufficiently serioues”. This is on the ground that the relevant Member State<br />
could not, in the light of the Court`s case law at the time when the national rules<br />
where in force, have been expected to predict that such national legislation would<br />
subsequently be held to contravene Community law. As the Court held in FII Test<br />
Claimants, in deciding whether a breach is sufficiently seroious, ”the national court<br />
must take into account the fact that, in a field such as direct taxation, the<br />
- 69 - Feil! Ukjent dokumentegenskapsnavn.