Examples of using Objectively comparable in English and their translations into French
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
SUMMARY- CASE C-43/07 which are not objectively comparable.
In order to bring the prices on an objectively comparable level, all costs are contained in the calculated prices.
First, it must be ascertained whether the situations at issue are objectively comparable.
You can generate error-free and objectively comparable infrared images using its handy functions.
Having regard to the objectives of the CGI at issue in the main proceedings,those situations are thus objectively comparable.
The programme generates objectively comparable performance data for condensing units, which are subject to very narrow tolerances.
The French Government contends, however,that that difference in treatment can be explained by the fact that those two situations are not objectively comparable.
The testo ScaleAssist automatically ensures optimum setting ofthe thermal image scale, which means you generate objectively comparable and error-free thermal images, for example of the thermal insulation behaviour of buildings.
Parent companies established in Germany and those established in other Member States or in States party to the EEA Agreement are,in the Commission's view, in an objectively comparable situation.
Such a restriction is permissible only if it relates to situations which are not objectively comparable or if it is justified by an overriding reason in the public interest judgment in Nordea Bank Danmark, C-48/13, EU: C: 2014:2087, paragraph 23 and the case-law cited.
The testo ScaleAssist function, which automatically ensures optimum setting ofthe thermal image scale, means you get objectively comparable thermal images of buildings.
Such a difference in treatment is permissible only if it relates to situations which are not objectively comparable or if it is justified by an overriding reason in the public interest see, inter alia, judgment in Nordea Bank, C-48/13, EU: C: 2014:2087, paragraph 23.
The Netherlands Government concludes that the difference in treatment at issue in the main proceedings relates to situations which are not objectively comparable and that therefore there is no discrimination.
That court took the view that,although their situations were objectively comparable, Belgian residents were subject to different tax systems depending on whether they received dividends from a company established in Belgium or from a company established in another Member State.
It takes the view that the situation of a permanent establishment located in another Member State is not objectively comparable to that of an establishment located within German territory.
Consequently, according to the German Government, the situation of a company holding shares ina resident company and that of a company holding shares in a non-resident company are not objectively comparable.
Such restrictions are permissible only if they relate to situations which are not objectively comparable or if they are justified by an overriding reason in the public interest see, inter alia, judgment of 17 December 2015 in Timac Agro Deutschland, EU: C: 2015:829, C-388/14, paragraph 26.
Consequently, it must be held that, for the purposes of the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, resident taxpayers andnon-resident taxpayers are in an objectively comparable situation.
The Netherlands, German andPortuguese Governments submit that those two situations are not objectively comparable, as resident subsidiaries and non-resident subsidiaries are not in comparable tax situations with regard to a tax scheme such as that at issue in the main proceedings.
The Commission goes on to submit that the spouses orchildren of deceased persons who do not have any other immovable property find themselves in an objectively comparable situation, whether they are resident or non-resident.
In addition, in order todetermine whether resident taxpayers and non-resident taxpayers are in an objectively comparable situation, it is necessary to take an overall view of the activities of those taxpayers and the income which they derive from them, and not to examine only one single type of transaction.
In order to determine whether such a difference in treatment is discriminatory, it is necessary to consider whether, as regards the measures at issue,the non-resident companies concerned are in an objectively comparable situation.
The Commission maintains, but the Kingdom of the Netherlands denies, that the situation of Icelandic andNorwegian companies is objectively comparable to that of Netherlands companies with regard to the risks of double taxation on the profits of Netherlands companies of which they hold part of the capital.
In that respect, it must be stated that,contrary to the Netherlands Government's contention, that difference in treatment cannot be justified on the ground that it concerns situations which are not objectively comparable.
In order for that difference in treatment to be compatible with the provisions of the Treaty onthe freedom of establishment, it must relate to situations which are not objectively comparable or be justified by an overriding reason in the general interest see judgment in X Holding, C-337/08, EU: C: 2010:89, paragraph 20.
In order to determine whether a difference in tax treatment is discriminatory, it is, however, necessary to consider whether, having regard to the national measure at issue,the companies concerned are in an objectively comparable situation.
In order for such a difference in treatment to be compatible with the provisions of the EC Treaty onthe freedom of establishment, it must relate to situations which are not objectively comparable or be justified by an overriding reason in the general interest see, to that effect, Case C-446/04 Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation[2006] ECR I-11753, paragraph 167.
Thus, in relation to such tax advantages connected with a particular taxpayer's ability to pay tax, the mere fact that a non-resident has received, in the State of employment,income in the same circumstances as a resident of that State does not suffice to make his situation objectively comparable to that of a resident.
It wishes to know whether that measure, which it considers to be a restriction on the freedom of establishment,may nevertheless be justified either on the ground that it relates to situations that are not objectively comparable or by an overriding reason in the general interest.
It follows that national legislation, such as that at issue in the case in the main proceedings, establishes unequal tax treatment to the disadvantage of non-residents in so far as it permits, in the case of realisation of capital gains, heavier taxation andtherefore a tax burden greater than that borne by residents in an objectively comparable situation.