natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Domstolen bemærkede hertil, at "rabat og bonus", der i henhold til artikel 11 A, stk. 3, litra b), ikke medregnes i beskatningsgrundlaget, udgør et nedslag i den pris, for hvilken varen normalt udbydes til kunden, eftersom salgeren giver afkald på det beløb, rabatten udgør, netop med henblik på at tilskynde kunden til at købe produktet.
The Court pointed out that the "price discounts and rebates" which, according to Article 11 A 3 (b) of the Sixth Directive, were not to be included in the taxable amount, referred to reductions in the price at which an article was normally offered to the customer, since the retailer agreed to forego receipt of the sum equivalent to the discount, precisely in order to persuade the customer to purchase the article.
Bestemmelen er kun en konsekvens af reglen i artikel 11 A, stk. 3, litra a), således som den er fortolket af Domstolen, hvorefter beskatningsgrundlaget er den modværdi, der faktisk modtages.
That provision was nothing more than an application of the rule established by Article 11 A 1 (a) of the Sixth Directive, as interpreted in the case-law of the Court, according to which the taxable amount consisted of the consideration actually received.
Det Forenede Kongerige havde gjort gældende, at Boots' salgsfremstødsordning burde holdes ude fra den typiske form for rabat og bonus, da den prisnedsættelse, som køberen får ret til, sker ved udveksling af en rabatkupon.
The United Kingdom pointed out that the promotion scheme operated by Boots had to be distinguished from the normal case of a price discount or rebate, since the reduction allowed to the purchaser was granted in exchange for the coupon, which did have a value.
Domstolen tiltrådte ikke denne opfattelse.
The Court was unable to accept that view.
- 6 - ren en rabat, når denne ved køb af en rabatvare overdrager kuponen.
- 6 the fact that a "nominal value" appeared on the coupon, the purchaser had given no consideration for it and it was no more than a document incorporating the undertaking made by Boots to grant to the bearer of the coupon, in exchange, a reduction on the purchase of an article at a reduced price.
Den "nominelle værdi" er derfor kun et udtryk for den rabat, som er stillet i udsigt.
The "nominal value" therefore represented nothing more than the amount of the promised reduction.
"Artikel 11 A, stk. 3, litra b), i Rådets sjette direktiv 77/388/EØF af 17. maj 1977 om harmonisering af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om omsætningsafgifter - Det fælles merværdiafgiftssystem: ensartet beregningsgrundlag, skal fortolkes således, at udtrykket "rabat og bonus, der ydes køberen ... og som opnås på det tidspunkt, hvor transaktionen finder sted", sigter til forskellen mellem de leverede varers detailsalgspris og det pengebeløb, detailhandleren faktisk får for disse varer, når han modtager en rabatkupon, som kunden har erhvervet hos den handlende ved et tidligere køb, der er afviklet til normal detailhandelspris."
"Article 11 A 3 (b) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, must be interpreted as meaning that the expression "price discounts and rebates allowed to the customer and accounted for at the time of the supply" covers the difference between the normal retail selling price of goods supplied and the sum of money actually received by the retailer for those goods where the retailer accepts from the customer a coupon which he gave to the customer upon a previous purchase made at the normal retail selling price."
Generaladvokat Walter Van Gerven fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 24. januar 1990.
Mr Advocate General Walter Van Gerven delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 24 January 1990
Han foreslog domstolen at træffe følgende afgørelse:
He proposed that the Court should reply as follows:
Beskatningsgrundlaget i artikel 11 A, stk. 1, litra a), i sjette direktiv om omsætningsafgift omfatter ikke kun kundens betaling af et pengebeløb.
The taxable amount defined in Article 11 A 1 (a) of the Sixth Directive on turnover taxes does not refer exclusively to the payment of a sum of money by the customer.
En detailhandler, der ved at modtage en kupon uddelt 1 forbindelse med køb af én vare, giver kunden ét på kuponen angivet prisnedslag på en anden vare ved køb af denne, yder en rabat eller bonus efter artikel 11 A, stk. 3, litra b), i sjette direktiv.
A retailer grants a price discount or rebate as defined in Article 11 A 3 (b) of the Sixth Directive when, upon the surrender of a coupon given upon the sale of a first article, he allows a price reduction upon the sale of a second article specified on the coupon.
Kun det vederlag detailhandleren faktisk får for den anden vare indgår 1 beskatningsgrundlag".
Only the price actually received by the retailer for the second article then falls within the taxable amount."
Sag C-9/89: Kongeriget Spanien mod Rådet for De Europæiske Fællesskaber
Case C-9/89: Kingdom of Spain ν Council of the European Communities - 27 March 1990 (Agriculture - Common fisheries policy: catch limitations - Control measures) (Full Court)
27.3.1990 "Fiskeri - fælles fiskeripolitik: begrænsning af fangsterne - kontrolforanstaltninger" (Domstolens plenun)
By application lodged on 17 January 1989 the Kingdom of Spain claimed that the Court should declare void Council Regulation No. 3483/88 amending Regulation No. 2241/87 establishing certain control measures for fishing activities.
Ved stævning, indgivet den 17. jwnumr 1989, havde Kongeriget Spanien anlagt sag med påstand om annullation af Rådets forordning nr. 3483/88 om ændring af forordning nr. 2241/87 om fastsættelse af visse foranstaltninger til kontrol af fiskeri.
According to the recitals in its preamble, the contested regulation was prompted by the need to strengthen the application of the fisheries
Det anførtes 1 betragtningerne til den anfægtede forordning, at det er nødvendigt at skærpe anvendelsen af f1sker1bevaringsbestemmelserne ved at forbedre samarbejdet mellem medlemsstaterne for at hindre overfiskning, og forordningen indeholder i dette øjemed bestemmelser om, at medlemsstaterne efter anmodning hurtigere kan få mere detaljerede oplysninger om deres fartøjers landinger 1 andre medlemsstater.
7 - conservation rules by Improving co-operation between the Member States 1n preventing overfishing and provided for that purpose for Member States to obtain, at their request, more rapid and more detailed Information on the landings of their vessels in another Member State.
Med det første anbringende anfægtede den spanske regering artikel 9a (meddelelse af oplysninger), hvorefter kontrolforpligtelserne på fiskeriområdet pålægges den medlemsstat, hvor landingerne foretages, således at registreringsmed lemsstatens ansvar overføres til landingsstaten.
The Spanish Government's first submission was that Article 9a (provision of Information) placed the duties relating to the control of fishing activities on the Member State in which catches were landed and thus transferred responsibility from the Member State of registration to that of landing.
Kvoterne var nemlig -hævdede den spanske regering - tildelt på grundlag af, hvilket flag fiskerfartøjerne fører, eller hvor de er registreret, og følgelig måtte hver medlemsstat have pligt til at kontrollere sine egne fartøjers aktivitet.
Quotas were allocated in accordance with the flag or registration of the fishing vessels and thus each Member State was required to control the activity of its own vessels.
Domstolen bemærkede hertil først, at Inden den anfægtede forordning trådte 1 kraft, var medlemsstaterne allerede 1 henhold til forordning nr. 2241/87 1 forening ansvarlige for kontrollen af ordningen med begrænsning af fangsterne, samt at artikel 9a kun er en præcisering af de oplysningsforpligtelser, der allerede var fastsat 1 ovennævnte forordnings artikel 1, stk. 3.
In that respect, it had to be remembered first that before the contested regulation entered into force Regulation No. 2241/87 had already established joint responsibility on the part of the Member States for supervising the system of catch limitation and that Article 9a merely specified the obligations to inform already provided for by Article 1 (c) of Regulation No. 2241/87.
Domstolen bemærkede dernæst, at den spanske regering hverken i stavningen eller i retsmødet havde kunnet påvise retlige hindringer for en ændring af kontrolordningen, således som denne oprindelig var fastsat i forordning nr. 2241/87.
In the second place the Spanish Government was unable, either in its application or at the hearing, to state the legal reasons which prevented a change 1n the system of supervision originally provided for by Regulation No. 2241/87.
Som det andet anbringende anførte den spanske regering, at artikel 11a (kontrol af licenser) indebærer en væsentlig ændring af den generelle licensordning, idet landingsstaten herved pålægges tilsynspligt vedrørende en licens ordning, der er indført af en anden medlemsstat.
The Spanish Government's second submission was that Article 11a (checking of licences) appreciably amended the general system of fishing licences by requiring the Member State where landing is made to assume the role of supervisor of the licensing system established by another Member State.
Licensordningen er således ved at udvikle sig til en fællesskabsordning.
The licensing system was thus in the process of "becoming a Community matter".
Domstolen bemærkede, at det fremgår af Rådets forordning nr. 170/83, hvorved der indførtes en "fællesskabsordning" for bevarelse og forvaltning af fiskeressourcerne, at en licens ordning, der indføres af registreringsmedlemsstaten, er en af de metoder, som medlemsstaterne råder over med henblik på at sikre, at den begrænsning af fangstmængderne, der fastsættes som led i den nævnte ordning, overholdes.
It was clear from Council Regulation No. 170/83 establishing a Community system for the conservation and management of fishery resources that a licensing system established by the Member State of registration was one of the methods which the Member States had of ensuring observance of the catch limitations imposed under the said system.
Rådet kunne derfor skærpe kontrollen med licensordningerne ved at udstrække samarbejdspligten til andre medlemsstater end registreringsmedlemsstaten uden derved at overtræde hverken traktatbestemmelser eller retsgrundsætninger.
Accordingly, the Council could strengthen observance of the licensing systems by requiring collaboration between Member States other than that of registration without infringing any rule of the Treaty or principle of law.
Domstolen bemærkede, at den nævnte artikel fastsatte forpligtelse til at have et dokument ombord, hvori det angives, at fartøjet har været inspiceret i løbet af de sidste to måneder, kun omfatter fartøjer, der allerede har overtrådt ordningen med bevaringsforanstaltninger.
The obligation imposed by that Article that there had to be a document on board certifying that the vessel had been Inspected during the previous two months applied only to vessels which had already committed infringements of the conservation system.
Den spanske regering fandtes Ikke at have bevist, hvorledes den nævnte forpligtelse netop skulle kunne hamme udførslerne mellem medlemsstaterne.
In the Court's view, the Spanish Government had not succeeded in showing why that requirement was likely specifically to restrict exports between Member States.
Med hensyn til artikel 11c (forfølgelse af overtrædelser) gjorde den spanske regering først gældende, at landingsstatens myndigheder ikke har kompetence til at retsforfølge udenlandske fartøjer for handlinger, der ikke er begået på deres område, idet en stats strafferetlige kompetence i henhold til folkeretten er territorial. Endvidere anførte den spanske regering, at en afskrivning af ulovligt landede eller omladede fangster på landings- eller omladningsmedlemsstatens kvote ville være en sanktion, der dels ikke står i rimeligt for hold til det forfulgte mål, som er at sikre en korrekt gennemførelse af kvoteordningen, dels ikke er omgærdet med sagsbehandlingsgarantier.
As regards Article lie (prosecution of infringements), the Spanish Government first claimed that the authorities of the State of landing had no jurisdiction to sanction acts of foreign vessels which had not taken place on their territory since a State's power to Impose sanctions pursuant to the rules of public international law was of a territorial nature.
Domstolen bemærkede hertil for det første, at der med artikel 11c ganske vist er sket en styrkelse af kontrolordningen, men at medlemsstaterne ikke derved er forpligtet til at udvide deres kompetence ud over de grænser, der følger af de almindeligt anerkendte principper vedrørende fordelingen af den strafferetlige kompetence staterne Imellem; Domstolen bemærkede for det andet, at det fremgår af artiklerne 1, 6 og 7 i forordning nr. 2241/87, at de overtrædelser af kvoteordningen, som i henhold til artikel 11c skal tages under forfølgning af landings- eller omladningsmedlemsstaten, er dem, der har fundet sted ved landing eller omladning af fangster i en havn i den pågældende medlemsstat eller i de farvande, der henhører under dens højhedsområde eller jurisdiktion.
In that respect it was sufficient to observe in the first place that while Article lie was aimed at strengthening the system of supervision, it did not require Member States to extend their powers beyond the limits imposed by the principles generally accepted in relation to the allocation of penal powers between States; in the second place, it was clear from Articles 1, 6 and 7 of Regulation No. 2241 that the infringements of the quota system which had to be sanctioned by the Member State of landing or transhipment under Article lie were those which had taken place on the landing or transhipment of catches in a port of that Member State or in the maritime waters within its sovereignty or jurisdiction.
Med hensyn til afskrivningen af fangsterne bemærkede Domstolen, at det måtte fastslås, at såfremt overskridelsen skyldes, at landingsmed lemsstaten ikke har truffet de nødvendige kontrolforanstaltninger, og dens myndigheder hverken har anlagt straffesag eller truffet administrative foranstaltninger og heller ikke overdraget en sådan forfølgning til registreringsmedlemsstaten, kan det med rimelighed - uden at komme i konflikt med proportionalitetsprincippet -bestemmes, at de ulovligt landede eller omladede mængder kan afskrives på de kvoter, der er tildelt den medlemsstat, hvor sådanne aktiviteter har fundet sted.
As regards the charging of catches, the Court observed that where the quota had been exceeded because the authorities of the Member State of landing had omitted to take the necessary supervisory measures and had not brought criminal or administrative proceedings or transferred such proceedings to the Member State of registration, 1t might be appropriate to decide, without infringing the principles of proportionality, that the quantities landed or transhipped unlawfully could be deducted from the quotas allocated to the Member State where those activities had taken place.
Domstolen bemærkede afslutningsvis, at en medlmesstat altid kan anfægte en kommissionsbeslutning om nedsættelse af dens kvoter ved at anlægge annullationssøgsmål i henhold til EØF-Traktatens artikel 173, stk. 1.
Moreover any decision by the Commission reducing the quotas of a particular Member State could be challenged by it by means of an action under the first paragraph of Article 173 of the EEC Treaty for a declaration that it was void.
Kongeriget Spanien betaler sagens omkostninger, herunder Kommissionens.
The Kingdom of Spain is ordered to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by the Commission;
Det Forenede Kongerige barer sine omkostninger."
The United Kingdom is ordered to pay its own costs."
Generaladvokat Marco Darmon fremsatte forslag til-afgørelse den 22. februar vm:
Mr Advocate General Marco Darmon delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 22 February 1990.
Han foreslog, at "sagsøgte frifindes i den af Kongeriget Spanien anlagde sag, og at den sagsøgende medlemsstat betaler sagens omkostninger, herunder intervenientens". venientens".
He proposed: "The action brought by the Kingdom of Spain should be dismissed and the latter should be ordered to pay the costs Including those in relation to the intervention."
(Anmodning om præjudiciel afgørelse fra Tribunale di Genova) "Handelspolitik - antidumpingtold" (Tredje Afdeling)
By order of 23 June 1988, received at the Court on 11 July 1988, the Tribunale di Genova [District Court, Genoa] referred for a preliminary ruling three questions on the validity and Interpretation of Council Regulation 551/83.
Disse spørgsmål var blevet rejst under en sag, som selskabet Cartorobica havde anlagt mod det italienske Finansministerium.
The questions were raised in the context of proceedings between Cartorobica S.p.A. and the Italian Ministry of Finance.
Af sagen fremgik, at Cartorobica i 1985 og 1986 fra USA havde indført papir og "kraftliner" uden at betale den ved nævnte forordning nr. 551/83 Indførte an tidumpingtold.
According to the documents before the Court, in 1985 and 1986 Cartorobica had imported kraftliner paper and board from the United States of America without paying the antidumping duties Introduced by the aforesaid Regulation 551/83.
Det italienske Finansministerium ved toldvæsenet forkyndte 1 juni 1987 for det sagsøgende selskab et pålæg om betaling af antidumpingtold med tillag af ren ter.
In June 1987 the customs authorities under the Italian Ministry of Finance served on the company a demand for the payment of the duties in question, together with interest.
Den forelæggende ret anmodede med det tredje af de forelagte spørgsmål Dom stolen om af afgøre, om forordning nr. 551/83 skal fortolkes således, at det er kursværdien af den på datoen for forordningens ikrafttræden gældende tærskelpris, som fastsat ved forordningens artikel 2, der skal anvendes uden hensyn til datoen for varernes indførsel.
In Its third question the national court had asked whether Regulation No. 551/83 should be interpreted as meaning that the exchange rate to be used for converting into the currency of the Member State of Importation the threshold price laid down by Article 2 of the regulation remained the rate applicable on the date on which the regulation had entered into force, irrespective of the date of importation of the goods.
Domstolen bemærkede indledningsvis, at forordning nr. 551/83 ikke indeholder regler om vekselkursen, men at det dog i forordningens artikel 1, stk. 2, er fastsat, at det er de gældende bestemmelser for toldafgifter, der finder an vendelse på den omtvistede told.
The Court noted that, although Regulation No. 551/83 contained no provision regarding the exchange rate, the second paragraph of Article 1 stated that the provisions in force for the application of customs duties were to apply.
Af de gældende bestemmelser følger det imidlertid, at prisen til første køber fastlægges ved omveksling til indførselsmedlemsstatens valuta ved anvendelse af den valutakurs, der finder anvendelse på den dato, som skal benyttes ved fastlæggelsen af de indførte varers toldværdi.
However, those provisions meant that the price charged to the initial purchaser had to be converted into the currency of the Member State of importation according to the exchange rate which applied on whichever date was to be used for the assessment of the customs value of the goods being
Den forelæggende ret havde med de to første spørgsmål anmodet Domstolen om at tage stilling til gyldigheden af forordning nr. 551/83, for så vidt angår dens fastsættelse af en antidumpingtold, der - beregnes på grundlag af en tærskelpris; - skal fastlægges af toldvasenet i medlemsstaterne, - afhænger af en i US$ og Ikke i ECU angivet tærskelpris, og - påvirkes af svingende valutakurser.
- was fixed by reference to a threshold price; - was to be determined by the national customs authorities; - depended on a threshold price expressed in U.S. dollars rather than ECU; - was affected by fluctuations in the exchange rates.
Domstolen fastslog i den forbindelse først og fremmest, at Rådet ikke havde tilsidesat sine skønsbeføjelser ved at indftfre en antidumpingtold fastsat på grundlag af en tarskelpris, der udtrykker varernes normale værdi i Amerikas Forenede Stater, sammenholdt med prisen frit Fællesskabets grænse, og som varierer efter de prisudsving, som følger af varernes pris ved deres indførsel til Fællesskabet.
In that connexion the Court ruled that the Council, by introducing an antidumping duty to be fixed by reference to a threshold price representing the normal value of the goods on the North American market, brought up to a cif Community frontier basis and varying according to the price paid on the importation of the goods into the Community, had not exceeded its discretion.
Domstolen fastslog, at denne beregningsmetode var den mest velegnede med henblik på en udligning af dumpingmargenen og på "at sikre en ligelig behandling af import foretaget til forskellige priser", jfr. sidste betragtning til Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 2133/78, der er blevet afløst af forordning nr. 551/83.
The Court held that such a method of calculation was the one most suitable for offsetting the dumping margin and for "ensuring fair treatment of imports at different prices", according to the last recital in the preamble to Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2133/78, which had preceded Regulation No. 551/83.
Domstolen fastslog dernast, at importprisen, der i forordning nr. 551/83 bestemmes som prisen pr. ton netto frit Fællesskabets grænse, eksklusive told, til den første køber inden for Fællesskabets toldområde, kan fastsættes nøjagtigt og sikkert af medlemsstaternes toldvæsener, og at Cartorobicas udtalelse om, at dette ikke skulle være tilfældet, var ukorrekte.
The Court went on to observe that, contrary to the assertions made by Cartorobica, the import price, defined by Regulation No. 551/83 as the free-at-frontier Community price, duty-unpaid, per tonne net to the first purchaser in the customs territory of the Community, could be fixed accurately and safely by the customs authorities of the Member States.
Nævnte pris svarer nemlig ifølge Domstolen til den pris, der faktisk er betalt eller faktisk skal betales ved den omhandlede Indførsel, og omfatter omkostninger afholdt inden varernes fremkomst til det sted, hvor de indgår på Fællesskabets toldområde, og eksklusive told og afgifter, som forfalder til beta ling på dette område.
The import price was equivalent to the price actually paid or payable for the importation in question, including the costs incurred as far as the place at which the goods were brought into the customs territory of the Community but excluding the duties and charges payable in that territory.
Domstolen bemærkede for det tredje, at der matte lægges vægt på, dels at der ikke i fællesskabsretten findes bestemmelser, hvori der stilles krav om anvendelsen af ECU ved angivelse af kursværdien af den tærskelpris, som danner grundlag for beregning af den omhandlede antidumpingtold, og dels på, at Rådet ikke har overskredet grænserne for det skøn, det råder over på området, ved at bestemme, at tærskelprisen skal udtrykkes i US$ navnlig på baggrund af, at denne pris udtrykker den normale værdi, således som denne har været på USA's marked for varer, der var genstand for dumping.
In the third place, the Court noted that there was no provision of Community law which demanded the use of the ECU for expressing the value of the threshold price used in the calculation of the antidumping duty; it further held that the Council had not exceeded its discretion in the matter in deciding to express the threshold price in U.S. dollars, in order inter alia to take account of the fact that the price in question reflected the normal value of the dumped goods as it prevailed on the United States market.