natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Præjudiciel »Merværdiafgift - fortolkning af artikel 3, litra a), i ottende direktiv 79/1072/EØF forpligtelse for en afgiftspligtig person, der ikke er etableret i indlandet, til at vedlægge ansøgningen om tilbagebetaling af afgiften de originale fakturaer eller importdokumenter mulighed for at vedlægge en afskrift i tilfælde af bortkomst af originaldokumentet, som ikke kan tilregnes den afgiftspligtige* (Femte Afdeling)
The Kashkaval cheese referred to in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1767/82 of 1 July 1982 layitig down detailed rules for applying specific import levies on certain milk products is Kashkaval cheese made exclusively from sheep's milk.
Sagsøgeren i hovedsagen er et kapitalselskab, som har hjemsted i Frankrig.
He considered that the Court should reply as follows:
Originalfakturaen udstedt af Union Deutsche bortkom efter det af sagsøgeren oplyste, som ikke er blevet bestridt, i posten, efter at sagsøgeren havde sendt den til et advokatfirma, som på selskabets vegne skulle kræve tilbagebetaling af momsen hos Bundesamt.
In Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1767/82 of 1 July 1982 laying down detailed rules for applying specific import levies on certain milk products "Kashkaval" means cheese produced from sheeps' milk exclusively.
Det fremgår således af Domstolens praksis, at den afledte ret skal overholde de generelle retsprincipper og bl.a. proportionalitetsprincippet. I denne sag findes det imidlertid ikke nødvendigt for at hindre svig eller afgiftsunddragelse at udelukke den ovenfor nævnte mulighed.
An IMA 1 certificate issued pursuant to Regulation No 1767/82, but drawn up in disregard of the instructions laid down in Annex XII to the regulation does not satisfy the requirements of Article 1(2) of that regulation and, accordingly, the preferential levy scheme is not applicable to imports carried out by means of such a certificate.'
Sagsøgeren indbragte derfor et søgsmål ved Finanzgericht til prøvelse af Bundesamt's afslag på at yde selskabet den ansøgte godtgørelse ved en rimelighedsforanstaltning som omhandlet i § 163, stk. 1, i AO.
The plaintiff in the main proceedings is a company whose registered office is in France.
Finanzgericht besluttede at udsætte sagen og forelægge Domstolen to præjudicielle spørgsmål:
In connection with the termination of a dealership agreement with Union Deutsche Lebensmittclwcrke GmbH, it entered into an agreement with the latter in January 1989 in which it undertook to pay it DM 3 500 000, together with DM 490 000 by way of VAT.
Det første spørgsmål
The plaintiff claims that the original invoice drawn up by UDL was lost in the post when il
Det fremgår af artikel 3, litra a), og artikel 7, stk. 3 i ottende direktiv, at en ansøgning om
The plaintiff therefore had a duplicate of the original invoice made out by UDL which it submitted to the Bundesamt together with its application for a refund of VAT.
Det bemærkes desuden, at i overensstemmelse med princippet om forbud mod forskelsbehandling i EF-traktatcns artikel 6 angives det udtrykkeligt i det ottende direktivs femte betragtning, at direktivet »ikke [må] medføre, at afgiftspligtige behandles forskelligt, alt efter hvilken medlemsstat de er etableret i«.
The second question asks in essence whether, where a taxpayer established in a Member State may prove his entitlement to a refund of VAT by submitting a duplicate or photocopy of the invoice if the original invoice which he received has subsequently been lost for reasons beyond his control, the principles of non-discrimination and neutrality of VAT require such a possibility to be extended to taxpayers not established in that Member State.
I henhold til fast retspraksis kan forskelsbehandling dog kun bestå i, at der på sammenlignelige situationer anvendes forskellige bestemmelser, eller at den samme bestemmelse anvendes på forskellige situationer.
Even before the proceedings concerning the notice of determination of the refund were concluded, the plaintiff also applied to the Bundesamt for the refund to be granted on equitable grounds in accordance with Paragraph 163(1) of the AO. The Bundesamt refused to grant that application.
Det bemærkes, at disse grunde ikke under nogen omstændigheder kan begrunde en behandling af de afgiftspligtige personer, der er forskellig alt efter, om disse er eller ikke er etableret i den pågældende medlemsstat, når den transaktion, der ligger til grund for ansøgningen om tilbagebetaling, har fundet sted, når bortkomsten af fakturaen eller importdokumentet ikke kan tilregnes den afgiftspligtige person, og når der ikke består risiko for yderligere ansøgninger om tilbagebetaling.
The plaintiff then brought an action before the Finanzgericht challenging the refusal of the Bundesamt to grant a refund on equitable grounds in accordance with Paragraph 163(1) of the AO.
Den tyske regering har herved anført, at det forhold, at der ikke kan undtages fra forpligtelsen til at vedlægge originaldokumentet ved en ikke tilregnelig bortkomst af nævnte dokument, er begrundet i, at der består risiko for svigagtig anvendelse af uoriginale dokumenter ved ansøgninger om tilbagebetaling af moms, som indgives af afgiftspligtige personer, der ikke er etableret i den pågældende medlemsstat, og hvis regnskabs- og forretningsførelse, modsat hvad der gælder for afgiftspligtige personer, som er etableret i staten, ikke kan kontrolleres af de
According to the order making the reference, where the original invoice has been received by an undertaking established in Germany and is subsequently lost for reasons beyond his control, he may deduct input VAT on production of a duplicate or photocopy of the invoice and obtain an equitable result on the basis of the amount shown on the duplicate or photocopy.
»1) Artikel 3, litra a), i Rådets ottende direktiv 79/1072/EØF af 6. december 1979 om harmonisering af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om omsætningsafgifter —foranstaltninger til tilbagebetaling af merværdiafgift til afgiftspligtige personer, der ikke er etableret i indlandet, skal fortolkes således, at den ikke er til hinder for, at en medlemsstat i sin nationale lovgivning giver mulighed for, at en afgiftspligtig person, som ikke er etableret i medlemsstaten, i tilfælde af bortkomst af en faktura eller et importdokument, som ikke kan tilregnes vedkommende, dokumenterer sin ret til tilbagebetaling ved fremlæggelse af en afskrift af fakturaen eller det pågældende importdokument, såfremt den transaktion, som tigger til grund for ansøgningen om tilbagebetaling, har fundet sted, og såfremt der ikke består risiko f or yderligere ansøgninger om tilbagebetaling.
The result of those provisions is that applications for a refund submitted in accordance with the Eighth Directive by a taxpayer who is not established in the Member State concerned must, in principle, be accompanied by the original invoices or import documents establishing lhe amount of VAT in respect of which a refund is sought.
Når en afgiftspligtig person, som er etableret i en medlemsstat, har mulighed for at godtgøre sin ret til tilbagebetaling af merværdiafgiften ved at fremlægge en afskrift eller en fotokopi af fakturaen, når vedkommende har modtaget originaldokumentet, som senere er bortkommet, uden at denne bortkomst kan tilregnes den afgiftspligtige person, følger det af princippet om forbud mod forskelsbehandling i lil·-traktatens artikel 6, der er gentaget i femte betragtning til direktiv 79/1072, at denne mulighed også skal indrømmes en afgiftspligtig person, som ikke er etableret i denne medlemsstat, såfremt
Nevertheless, Article 3(a) of the Eighth Directive cannot be interpreted as precluding Member States from accepting such an application for a refund in exceptional circumstances where there is no doubt that the transaction which led to the application for a refund occurred, where the loss of lhe invoice or import document is not attributable to the taxpayer and where it is established that, in view of the circumstances, there is no risk of further applications lor a refund.
den transaktion, som ligger til grund for ansøgningen om tilbagebetaling, har fundet sted, og såfremt der ikke består risiko f or yderligere ansøgninger om tilbagebetaling.*
Those reasons cannot in any event justify different treatment of taxpayers depending on whether they are established in the Member State concerned or elsewhere, if the transaction which led to the application for a refund occurred, if the loss of the invoice or import document is not attributable to the taxpayer concerned and if there is no risk of further applications for a refund.
Generaladvokat G. Cosmas fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 12. februar 1998.
In so far as in such a situation the principle of non-discrimination requires taxpayers not established in the Member State concerned to be permitted to prove their entitlement to a refund of VAT by submitting a duplicate or photocopy of the invoice under the same conditions as taxpayers established in the Member State concerned, it is not necessary to examine the second question in the light of the principle of neutrality of VAT.
Forenede sager C-176/97 og C-177/97 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Storhertugdømmet Luxembourg Transport
Advocate General G. Cosmas delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 12 February 1998.
•Traktatbrudssøgsmål - Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 4055/86 - fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser inden for søtransport - søfartsaftale indgået med et tredjeland — arrangement om lastfordeling* (Femte Afdeling) arrangementer om lastfordeling i aftalen om søtransport mellem Den Belgisk-Luxembourgske Økonomiske Union og Malaysia, som blev godkendt af Belgien på egne og Storhertugdømmet Luxembourgs vegne og trådte i kraft efter den 1. januar 1987.
'The obligation laid down by Article 3(a) of the Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added lax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country (79/1972/EEC) to annex the original invoice to the application for a refund of tax ceases to apply where, in exceptional circumstances, the taxable person proves that he has lost the original through no fault of his own and produces instead and in place of that original a certified copy or duplicate.
Det er Kommissionens opfattelse, at ifølge aftalens artikel 2, 3 og 16 kan alene de nationale rederier i de kontraherende parter deltage i
Joined Cases C-176/97 and C-l77/97 Commission of the European Communities ν Kingdom of Belgium and Grand Duchy of Luxembourg Transport
ændres for at være i overensstemmelse med de bestemmelser i forordningen, der angår arrangementer om lastfordeling.
The Commission adds that the concept of 'future agreement' in Article 5(1) covers agreements which did not bind Member States at the time when the Regulation entered into force, that is to say, on 1 January 1987.
fragten og handelen ad søvejen mellem disse stater, således at skibe, der anvendes af statsborgere i de øvrige medlemsstater, er udelukket fra denne trafik.
Finally, the Commission argues, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is also a party to the Agreement since, pursuant to Article 31(1) of the Convention, it was represented by the Kingdom of Belgium when the Agreement was concluded and approved.
Aftalen er derfor i strid med forordningens artikel 5, stk. 1, som, bortset fra særlige tilfælde, forbyder arrangementer om lastfordeling i fremtidige aftaler med tredjelande.
The Kingdom of Belgium concedes that the Agreement must be characterised as a future agreement within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the Regulation and that its provisions must be amended to bring them into line with the provisions of the Regulation on cargosharing arrangements.
Kommissionen har tilføjet, at begrebet »fremtidig aftale« i samme bestemmelse tager sigte på de aftaler, som ikke forpligtede medlemsstaterne ved forordningens ikrafttræden den 1. januar 1987.
The Commission submits that, since, under Articles 2, 3 and 16 of the Agreement, only national shipping companies of the contracting parlies can participate in the freight and volume of maritime trade between those Slates, ships operated by nationals of other Member States arc excluded from that traffic.
Det bemærkes for det første, at aftalen da der først i juli 1987 blev givet underretning til de malaysiske myndigheder om den belgiske lov om godkendelse - ifølge sin artikel 21 trådte i kraft efter den 1. januar 1987, datoen for forordningens ikrafttræden.
The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, for its part, acknowledges that it is a party to the Agreement and, for the rest, supports the position of the Kingdom of Belgium.
Der foreligger hermed en »fremtidig aftale« i forordningens artikel 5, stk. l's forstand.
That Agreement is therefore, in ils submission, contrary to Article 5(1) of the Regulation under which, save in exceptional circumstances, cargosharing arrangements in any future agreements with third countries are prohibited.
Endelig er Storhertugdømmet Luxembourg ifølge Kommissionen også part i aftalen, da denne stat i overensstemmelse med konventionens artikel 31, stk. 1, blev repræsenteret af Kongeriget Belgien, da aftalen blev indgået og godkendt.
It must first be observed that, since the Belgian law approving the Agreement was not notified to lhe Malaysian authorities until July 1987, the Agreement, in accordance with Article 21 thereof, entered into force after 1 January 1987, the date on which the Regulation entered into
Det bemærkes for det andet - som de sagsøgte regeringer har erkendt - at aftalen, der binder såvel Kongeriget Belgien som Storhertugdømmet Luxembourg, i artikel 2, 3 og 16 indeholder arrangementer om lastfordeling, der i mangel af en tilladelse i henhold til forordningens artikel 5, stk. 1, strider mod sidstnævnte bestemmelse.
on the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, contains, in Articles 2, 3 and 16, cargosharing arrangements which, in the absence of an authorisation granted under Article 5(1) of the Regulation, are contrary to that provision,
•1) Kongeriget Belgien og Storhertugdømmet Luxembourg har undladt at opfylde deres forpligtelser i henhold til artikel 5 i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 4055/86 af 22. december 1986 om anvendelse af princippet om fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser inden for søtransport mellem medlemsstaterne indbyrdes og mellem medlemsstaterne og tredjelande, idet de har indført og opretholdt en række arrangementer om lastfordeling i aftalen om søtransport mellem Den Belgisk-Luxembourgske Økonomiske Union og Malaysia, som blev godkendt af Kongeriget Belgien på egne og Storhertugdømmet Luxembourgs vegne og trådte i kraft efter den 1. januar 1987.
Declares that, by introducing and maintaining in force cargosharing arrangements, in the Agreement between lhe Belgo-Luxembourg Economic Union and Malaysia on maritime transport which was approved by the Kingdom of Belgium both in its own name and on behalf of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and which entered into force after 1 January 1987, the Kingdom of Belgium and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg have failed to fulfil their obligations under Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member States and third countries;
Kongeriget Belgien og Storhertugdømmet Luxembourg betaler sagens omkostninger.*
Orders the Kingdom of Belgium and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.'
Generaladvokat A. La Pergola fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet ("Femte Afdeling) den 5. marts 1998.
Advocate General A. La Pergola delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 5 March 1998.
Han foreslog Domstolen
He proposed that the Court:
» at fastslå, at Kongeriget Belgien har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser efter artikel 5 i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 4055/86 af 22. december 1986 om anvendelse af princippet om fri udveksling al tjenesteydelser inden for søtransport mellem medlemsstaterne indbyrdes og mellem medlemsstaterne og tredjelande, da det ved en aftale mellem Den Belgisk-Luxembourgskc Økonomiske Union og
Declare that, by introducing and maintaining in force cargosharing arrangements, in the Agreement between the Belgo-Luxembourg Economic Union and Malaysia, which entered into force on 17 August 1987, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member States and third countries;
Malaysia, som trådte i kraft den 17. august 1987, har indført og opretholdt arrangementer om lastfordeling; at fastslå, at Storhertugdømmet Luxembourg har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser efter artikel 5 i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 4055/86 af 22. december 1986 om anvendelse af princippet om fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser inden for søtransport mellem medlemsstaterne indbyrdes og mellem medlemsstaterne og tredjelande, da det ved en aftale mellem Den Belgisk-Luxembourgskc Økonomiske Union og Malaysia, som trådte i kraft den 17. august 1987, har indført og opretholdt arrangementer om lastfordeling;
Declare that, by introducing and maintaining in force cargosharing arrangements, in the Agreement between the Belgo-Luxembourg Economic Union and Malaysia, which entered into force on 17 August 1987, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member States and third countries;
> P at tilpligte Kongeriget Belgien og Storhertugdømmet Luxembourg at betale sagens omkostninger.«
Order the Kingdom of Belgium and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.'
Ved skrivelse af 20. juni 1994 udpegede Domstolens præsident på embeds vegne en læge.
By letter of 20 June 1994 the President of the Court of Justice appointed a doctor.
Ved skrivelse af samme dag gav den læge, som Kommissionen havde udpeget, sagsøgeren meddelelse om, at der var nedsat et Invaliditetsudvalg, og om dette udvalgs sammensætning.
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 5 August 1997, Mrs Η brought an appeal against the judgment of 3 June 1997 in Η ν Commission (hereinafter 'the contested judgment') in which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action she had brought against the Commission's decision of 27 September 1994 requiring her to take retirement.
Da Retten undersøgte de oplysninger i sagens akter, som den havde fået forelagt, og da Retten konkluderede, at Η utvivlsomt havde haft fuldt kendskab til Kommissionens beslutning om at ville forelægge sagen for Invaliditetsudvalget og om nedsættelsen heraf, foretog Retten en bedømmelse af faktiske omstændigheder, som ikke er undergivet Domstolens prøvelsesret.
Also by letter of 20 June 1994, the doctor appointed by the Commission informed the applicant of the establishment and composition of the Invalidity Committee.
Invaliditetsudvalget konkluderede, at sagsøgeren '[var] ramt af en vedvarende invaliditet, som [måtte] anses for fuldstændig, og som [medførte], at hun [var] ude af stand til at gøre tjeneste i en stilling i hendes stillingsgruppe'.
The Invalidity Committee concluded that the applicant "[was] suffering from total permanent invalidity preventing her from performing the duties corresponding to a post in her career bracket".
Ved afgøreise af 27. september 1994 besluttede ansættelsesmyndigheden at pensionere sagsøgeren (herefter 'ansættelsesmyndighedens afgørelse' eller 'den anfægtede afgørelse').
The applicant, a former Grade Β 3 official of the Commission was required to take sick leave by decision of 17 March 1993 of the Commission's Medical Officer, pursuant to Article 59(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (hereinafter "the Staff Regulations").
I øvrigt antog Retten med føje, at Kommissionen var berettiget til at anmode Domstolens præsident om at udpege en læge til at repræsentere Η i Invaliditetsudvalget under hensyn til, at sagsøgeren ikke havde besvaret Kommissionens skrivelser.
By decision of 27 September 1994, the appointing authority, referring to the opinion of the Invalidity Committee, decided to retire the applicant with effect from 1 October 1994 in accordance with Article 53 of the Staff Regulations (hereinafter "the appointing authority's decision" or "the contested decision").
Det ville have været i strid med formålet med artikel 7, stk. 2, i vedtægtens bilag II som er at afhjælpe passivitet fra en tjenestemands side ­ såfremt det var blevet antaget, at proceduren for udpegelsen af en læge burde have haft en »kontradiktorisk« karakter.
According to the Commission, a letter, accompanied by the contested decision and containing an acknowledgement of receipt, was delivered that day to the applicant's private address by officials of the security office. Since they did not meet the applicant, the acknowledgement of receipt was not signed by her.
Den 6. april 1995 indgav hun en klage over den anfægtede afgørelse.
On 6 April 1995 she submitted a complaint directed against the contested decision.
Appellantens andet anbringende, som støttes på, at artikel 9, stk. 1, i vedtægtens bilag II er tilsidesat, er, at Retten fejlagtigt har antaget, at hun var i stand til at gøre brug af sine rettigheder efter denne vedtægtsbestemmelsc.
Since the applicant had not appointed a doctor of her choice, by letter dated 17 December 1993 the Commission asked the President of the Court of Justice to appoint a doctor in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 7 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations.
Ved afgørelse af 27. juni 1995 afviste Kommissionen klagen af 6. april 1995.«
By decision of 27 June 1995 the Commission rejected the complaint of 6 April 1995.'
Ved stævning af 17. oktober 1995 anlagde Η derpå sag ved Retten i Første Instans med påstand om annullation.
In those circumstances, by application dated 17 October 1995, Mrs H brought an action before the Court of First Instance for annulment.
H's første anbringende under appelsagen er, at Invaliditetsudvalgets sammensætning og funktion ­ som er reguleret i artikel 7 i vedtægtens bilag II ­ var behæftet med en proceduremangel.
In her appeal, Mrs H first raises a plea alleging procedural irregularities in the composition and work of the Invalidity Committee referred to by Article 7 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations.
Efter appellantens opfattelse har Retten på den ene
In considering the material in lhe file submitted to it and in concluding that Mrs Η had undoubtedly been fully aware of the decision to refer her case to the Invalidity Committee and of the constitution of that Committee, the Court of First Instance carried out a factual assessment which is not open to review by lhe Court of Justice.
Det må i så henseende fastslås, at Retten undersøgte de oplysninger i sagens akter, som den havde fået forelagt, og i den forbindelse dels konkluderede, at appellanten havde nægtet at sætte sig i forbindelse med Invaliditetsudvalgets medlemmer, selv om hun var blevet skriftligt indkaldt, dels at hun havde haft mulighed for at tilsende Invaliditetsudvalget de lægeerklæringer, som hun fandt relevante, men at hun havde afstået herfra.
Furthermore, the Court of First Instance was right to consider that, in the absence of any reply by the applicant to the Commission's letters, the latter was entitled to request the President of the Court of Justice to appoint a doctor to represent Mrs Η on the Invalidity Committee. To accept that the appointment procedure should be inter partes would have been contrary to the purpose of the second paragraph of Article 7 of Annex 11 to the Staff Regulations, which is to rectify a failure on the part of the official.
Generaladvokat S. Alber fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdelingl den 5. marts 1998.
Advocate General S. Alber delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 5 March 1998.
Han foreslog Domstolen følgende afgørelse:
He proposed that the Court rule as follows:
»1) Den anfægtede dom, som er afsagt den 3. juni 1997 i sag T-196/97, ophæves.
The contested judgment of 3 June 1997 in Case T-196/95 is set aside.