natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Spørgsmålet var stillet under en sag, som V. Zardi, der driver en landbrugsbedrift i Copparo (Italien), havde anlagt mod CAPF med påstand om, at CAPF kendtes pligtig at tilbagebetale ham det beløb, som var blevet fratrukket salgsprisen for et parti majs til dækning af den supplerende medansvarsafgift for korn, idet de nærmere regler vedrørende afgiften ifølge sagsøgeren er i strid med de grundlæggende principper om proportionalitet og ligebehandling.
That question was raised in proceedings brought by Mr Zardi, a farmer in Copparo (Italy), against the CAPF for an order requiring the latter to pay him the sum withheld from the sale price for a consignment of maize by way of additional co-responsibility levy on cereals, on the ground that the procedure for collecting that levy was contrary to the fundamental principles of proportionality and equal treatment.
Pretura di Copparo Ønskede bl.a. oplyst, om der i henhold til de fællesskabsretlige bestemmelser lovligt kan pålægges de berørte erhvervsdrivende en Økonomisk byrde svarende til hele den supplerende medansvarsafgift, inden en eventuel afgift og dens størrelse er fastslået og definitiv, samt, om ovennævnte bestemmelser er udtryk for en tilsidesættelse af proportionalitetsprincippet derved, at en sådan økonomisk byrde pålægges allerede på det tidspunkt, da kornet bringes i handelen.
The Pretura asked, in particular, whether, in the first place, Community law could lawfully impose on the traders concerned a financial burden corresponding to the full amount of the additional co-responsibility levy even before the levy and the amount thereof had been ascertained and were definitive; and secondly, whether the relevant provisions were contrary to the principle of proportionality, inasmuch as they imposed a financial burden of that kind as soon as the cereals were marketed.
For så vidt angår den første del af spørgsmålet understregede Domstolen, at den supplerende medansvarsafgift ikke kan kvalificeres som en afgiftsbyrde, og
In those circumstances, a provision to the effect that the levy was to be collected on a provisional basis when the cereals were marketed, subject to repayment, either wholly or 1n part, if it was found at the end of the marketing year in question that the maximum guaranteed quantity had not
­ 9 ­ at spørgsmålet om dens lovlighed ikke bør vurderes på grundlag af afgiftsret lige kriterier.
been exceeded or that the excess was below a certain percentage, was justified by the economic purpose pursued by the Community regulation in question.
Med hensyn til den anden del af det præjudicielle spørgsmål fremhævede Dom­stolen, at i henhold til proportionalitetsprincippet er foranstaltninger, hvorved erhvervsdrivende pålægges Økonomiske byrder, kun lovlige, såfremt de pågældende foranstaltninger er egnede til og nødvendige for at nå de mål, de lovligt forfølges med den pågældende ordning, og at der ­ såfremt der er mulighed for at vælge mellem flere egnede foranstaltninger ­ skal vælges den mindst bebyrdende, ligesom de pålagte byrder ikke må stå i et misforhold til de tilsigtede mål.
With regard to the second limb of the question, the Court pointed out that, according to the principle of proportionality, the legality of measures imposing tax burdens on traders was conditional on those measures being appropriate and necessary for the achievement of objectives legitimately pursued by the legislation in question in view of the fact that, where there was a choice between a number of appropriate measures, recourse should be had to the one that was least restrictive to ensure that the burdens imposed were not disproportionate to the aims pursued.
I den foreliggende sag fandtes fællesskabslovgiver, som har et vidt skøn ind for det pågældende område, ikke at have begået en åbenbar skønsfejl ved at udelukke anvendelse af andre fremgangsmåder, som f.eks. sikkerhedsstillelse eller kaution, som ville have mindre indflydelse på de priser, der udbetales de erhvervsdrivende, og derfor ikke ville have haft den samme præventive virkning som en afgift.
The Court held that, In this case, It did not seem that the Community legislature, which had a broad discretion in the matter, had committed a manifest error of assessment by disregarding other methods, such as the lodging of a deposit or security, which, in view of their lesser impact on the prices paid to farmers, would not have had the same dissuasive effect as the levy.
Domstolen besvarede det forelagte spørgsmål således:
The Court held as follows:
"Gennemgangen af det forelagte spørgsmål har intet frembragt, de kan rejse tvivl om gyldigheden af artikel 4b i Rådets forordnin nr. 2727/75 af 29. oktober 1975 om den fælles markedsordning fo korn, som ændret ved Rådets forordning nr. 1097/88 af 25. april 1988, eller om gyldigheden af Kommissionens forordning nr. 1432/88 af 26. maj 1988 om gennemførelsesbestemmelser for medansvarsafgiften for korn."
"Consideration of the question raised has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 4b of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2727/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organization of the market in cereals, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1097/88 of 25 April 1988, or that of Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 1432/88 of 26 May 1988 laying down detailed rules for applying the co-responsibility levy in the cereals sector."
Generaladvokat Giuseppe Tesauro fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 7. marts
Mr Advocate General G. Tesauro delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 7 March 1990.
Han foreslog følgende besvarelse: "Gennemgangen af det præjudicielle spørgsm har intet frembragt, der kan rejse tvivl om gyldigheden af artikel 4b i Råde forordning (EØF) nr. 2727/75 (som ændret ved Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1097/88) eller af Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 1432/88".
"Consideration of the question submitted has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to call in question the validity of Article 4b of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2727/75 (as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1097/88) or of Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 1432/88."
Ved kendelse af 24. januar 1989, indgået til Domstolen den 3. marts s.a.,, havde Bundesfinanzhof forelagt to præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 4 i Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 1573/80 og af artikel 5, stk. 2, i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1697/79.
3 March 1989, the Bundesfinanzhof referred two questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 1573/80 and Article 5 (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1697/79.
Spørgsmålene var stillet under en tvist mellem selskabet Deutsche Fernsprecher (DF) og Hauptzollamt Giessen (HZA) og drejede sig om, hvorvidt det var berettiget at undlade at foretage efteropkrævning af importafgifter vedrørende visse telefontekniske dele, som i det væsentlige var f remsti l Let veden forudgående passiv forædling, og som DF havde ladet ekspedere til fri omsætning på et toldkontor henhørende under HZA.
Those questions were raised in a dispute between Deutsche Fernsprecher (DF) and Hauptzollamt Giessen as to whether there was any justification for the postclearance recovery of import duties concerning certain parts for telephone installations which had been the subject of prior outward processing and which DF had declared to one of the Hauptzoll amt's departments for entry Into free circulation.
Varerne var i alle tilfælde blevet ekspederet toldfrit, idet toldkontoret havde undladt at medregne forædlingsgodtgØrelsen i værdien af de udførte materialer.
In any event, the goods were exempted from customs duty inasmuch as that department had failed to add to the processing charge the value of the exported materials.
DF fandt det tvivlsomt, om fritagelsen var korrekt meddelt, og havde derfor anmodet HZA om at tage spørgsmålet op til fornyet overvejelse; toldchefen havde siden bekræftet, at der ikke skulle betales told.
Uncertain whether that exemption was justified, DF asked the Hauptzollamt to review the matter; the head of the Hauptzollamt then confirmed the exemption from duty.
Imidlertid besluttede HZA ved to ændringsafgørelser, at der skulle foretages efteropkrævning af et toldbeløb på i alt 27.114,70 DM (+ 13.500 ECU).
However, by two notices of amendment, the Hauptzollamt decided on the postclearance recovery of customs duties totalling DM 27 114.70 (+ 13 500 Ecus).
Herefter anlagde DF sag ved Finanzgericht, som annullerede ændringsafgØrelserne med henvisning til, at artikel 5, stk. 2, i ovennævnte rådsforordning var til hinder for en sådan efteropkrævning.
DF subsequently brought an action before the Finanzgericht, which annulled the aforesaid notices on the ground that Article 5 (2) of the Council regulation precluded such recovery.
Finanzgericht bemærkede, at sagsøgeren ikke kunne forventes at have opdaget den fejl fra toldmyndighedernes side, der bestod i en fejlagtig anvendelse af bestemmelserne om ansættelse af de pågældende varers toldværdi.
According to the Finanzgericht, the plaintiff could not have detected the error of the customs authorities, which was based on the incorrect application of provisions concerning the determination of the value for customs purposes of the goods in question.
I forbindelse med behandlingen af revisionsankesagen til prøvelse af ovennævnte dom Ønskede Bundesfinanzhof Domstolens afgørelse af, om de nationale myndigheder i henhold til artikel 4 i ovennævnte kommissionsforordning er forpligtet til at anmode Kommissionen om at træffe afgøreLse om, hvorvidt tolden ikke skal efteropkræves, såfremt de ikke-opkrævede afgifter er pi 2.000 ECU eller derover, uanset om betingelserne i artikel 5, stk. 2, i ovennævnte rådsforordning efter deres opfattelse ikke er opfyldt, og endvidere, hvilke kriterier der skaL lægges til grund ved afgørelsen af, om der er begået en fejl, som debitor ikke med rimelighed kunne forventes at have opdaget, jfr. artikel 5, stk. 2, i ovennævnte rådsforordning.
In proceedings in which an appeal on a point of law had been lodged by the Hauptzollamt against that judgment, the Bundesfinanzhof asked the Court to ascertain, in the first place, whether, pursuant to Article 4 of the Commission regulation, the national authorities were required to request the Commission to take a decision on the possibility of waiving the postclearance recovery of the customs duties, where the amount of the duties not levied was equal to or greater than 2 000 Ecus, even though they considered that the conditions set out in Article 5 (2) of the Council regulation were not fulfilled; and, subsequently, what criteria had to be applied in order to determine the error that could reasonably have been detected by the person liable within the meaning of Article 5 (2) of the regulation.
Domstolen besvarede de forelagte spørgsmål således:
The Court held as follows:
Artikel 4 i Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 1573/80 af 20. juni 1980 om gennemførelsesbestemmelserne til artikel 5, stk.
Under Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 1573/80 of 20 June 1980 laying down provisions for the implementation of Article 5 (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the postclearance recovery of import duties or export duties which have not been required of the person liable
2, i Rådets forordning nr. 1697/79 om efteropkrævning af import- eller eksportafgifter, der ikke er opkrævet hos debitor for varer, der er angivet til en toldprocedure, som medfører en forpligtelse til at betale sådanne afgifter, skal fortolkes således, at såfremt de ikke-opkrævede afgifter er j 2000 ECU eller derover, er de nationale myndigheder ikke forpligtet til at anmode Kommissionen om at træffe afgørelse om, hvorvidt tolden eventuelt ikke skal efteropkræves, hvis betingelserne i artikel 5, stk. 2, i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1697/79 af 24. juli 1979 efter deres opfattelse ikke er opfyldt.
11 - for payment on goods entered for a customs procedure involving the obligation to pay such duties, properly construed, when the amount of the duties not collected is equal to or greater than 2 000 Ecus, the national authorities are not obliged to request the Commission to take a decision on the possibility of refraining from taking action for the postclearance recovery of customs duties if they consider that the conditions laid down in Article 5 (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 are not fulfilled.
Ved afgørelsen af, om der er begået "en fejl ... som debitor ikke med rimelighed kunne forventes at have opdaget", jfr. artikel 5, stk. 2, i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1697/79 af 24. juli 1979, skal der bl.a. tages hensyn til fejlens karakter, den pågældende erhvervsdrivendes faglige erfaring ( den agtpågivenhed, han har udvist.
In order to determine whether there has been an "error which could not reasonably have been detected by the person Hable" within the meaning of Article 5 (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1697/79 of 24 July 1979, account must be taken inter alia of the nature of the error, the occupational experience of the trader concerned and the care he has exercised.
På grundlag af denne fortolkning tilkommer det den nationale retsinstans at afgøre om debitor herefter kunne forventes at have opdaget den fejl, der har medført, at der ikke er blevet opkrævet told."
It is for the national court to decide, on the basis of that interpretation, whether or not the error out of which the failure to collect customs duties arose could have been detected by the person liable."
Generaladvokat Jean Mischo fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 8. marts 1990.
Mr Advocate General J. Mischo delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 8 March 1990.
Han foreslog følgende besvarelse:
He suggested the following answers:
Artiklerne 2 og 4 i Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 1573/80 af 20. juni 1980 skal fortolkes således, at de nationale myndigheder ikke er forpligtet til at anmode Kommissionen om at træffe afgørelse om, hvorvidl der eventuelt ikke skal efteropkræves told, selv om de ikke-opkrævede afgifter er på 2000 ECU eller derover, hvis de nationale myndigheder finder, at betingelserne vedrørende beskyttelsen af den berettigede forventning, jfr. artikel 5, stk. 2, i forordning (EØF) nr. 1697/79, ikke er opfyldt, og de følgelig bestemmer, at efteropkrævning skal foretages.
Articles 2 and 4 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 1573/80 of 20 June 1980 must be Interpreted as meaning that the national authorities are not required to request the Commission to take a decision on the possibility of refraining from the postclearance recovery of customs duties, even though the amount of the duties not collected is equal to or greater than 2 000 Ecus, where the national authorities consider that the conditions for the protection of legitimate expectations, laid down by Article 5 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No. 1697/79, are not fulfilled and they consequently proceed with such recovery.
Artikel 5, stk. 2, i forordning (EØF) nr. 1697/79 skal fortolkes således, at der ved afgørelsen af, om debitor ikke kunne forventes at opdage fejlen, skal lægges såvel objektive som subjektive kriterier til grund.
Article 5 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No. 1697/79 must be Interpreted as meaning that it is necessary to rely on both objective criteria and subjective criteria in deciding that the error could not have been detected by the person liable.
Den omstændighed, at toldmyndigheden to gange har meddelt debitor den for toldbehandlingen til grund liggende fejlagtige opfattelse, er ikke i sig selv tilstrækkelig til, at debitor ikke kunne forventes at have opdaget fejlen".
The fact that the customs authorities explained on two occasions to the person liable the Incorrect approach which they had adopted and on which the customs treatment applied was based is not in itself sufficient to support the conclusion that the error could not have been detected by the person liable".
Ved dom af 24. maj 1989, indgået til Domstolen den 29. maj s.a., havde Hoge Raad forelagt to præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 15 i Rådets sjette momsdirektiv.
By judgment of 24 May 1989, which was received at the Court on 29 May 1989, the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden [Supreme Court of the Netherlands] referred two questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 15 of the Sixth Council Directive.
Spørgsmålene var blevet rejst under en sag mellem Staatssecretaris van Financiën og selskabet Velker, Rotterdam, i anledning, af en efteropkrævningsansættelse for omsætningsafgift for regnskabsåret 1983.
Those questions were raised in a dispute between the Dutch Secretary of State for Finance and Vel ker International Oil Company Ltd, Rotterdam, as a result of an additional notice of assessment to turnover tax for 1983 which was received by Vel ker.
I 1983 havde Velker til selskabet Forsythe, Haag, solgt to partier bunkerolie, som blev leveret til olietanke, Forsythe havde lejet, og et par dage derefter til søgående fartøjer.
In 1983 Vel ker sold to Forsythe, a company in The Hague, two consignments of bunker oil which were delivered on lighters hired by Forsythe and, some days later, loaded on to seagoing vessels.
På disse to partier, der blev faktureret til Forsythe, anvendte Velker for momsen den såkaldte nulsats.
The two sales invoiced to Forsythe were zero rated by Velker for purposes of VAT.
Da det nederlandske skattevæsen fandt, at disse leveringer af olie ikke kunne fritages for moms, blev Velker ansat med omsætningsafgift ifølge ovennævnte efteropkrævningsansættelse.
The Netherlands tax authorities took the view that those supplies of bunker oil were ineligible for exemption from VAT, whereupon it Issued Velker with the aforesaid notice of assessment.
Ansættelsen blev indbragt for Gerechtshof, Haag, der annullerede afgiftsan— sætteisen med den begrundelse, at den af Velker leverede olie var bestemt til forsyning af søgående fartøjer, og at en sådan levering måtte være fritaget for moms, jfr. artikel 9 i den nederlandske lov om omsætningsafgift, der var vedtaget til gennemførelse af sjette direktivs artikel 15.
In the proceedings instituted before it, the Gerechtshof [Court of Appeal] The Hague quashed the notice of assessment on the ground that the oil supplied by Velker was intended for the fuelling and provisioning of seagoing vessels and that a supply of that kind had to be exempted from VAT, pursuant to Article 9 of the Netherlands law on value added tax implementing the provisions of Article 15 of the Sixth Directive.
Staatssecretaris gjorde gældende, at alene levering af goder, som finder sted samtidig med den almindelige skibsproviantering, med efterfølgende udførsel af goderne, kunne betragtes som levering af goder bestemt til skibsproviantering i den nederlandske lovgivnings betydning.
The Secretary of State contended that only a supply of goods coinciding with the fuelling and provisioning of vessels and followed by the exportation of those goods could be regarded as a supply of goods intended for the fuelling and provisioning of seagoing vessels within the meaning of the Netherlands legislation.
Domstolen bemærkede, at levering af goder til skibsproviantering, jfr. artikel 15, stk. 4, fritages for moms, idet de ligestilles med goder bestemt tiL eksport.
In its first question, the national court asked whether the exemption provided for by Article 15 (4) of the Sixth Directive applied only to supplies of goods to the operator of a vessel who intended to use them for fuelling and provisioning or whether it also extended to supplies made at prior stages in the marketing chain, with the proviso that the goods were ultimately used for the fuelling and provisioning of vessels.
Domstolen tilføjede, at ligesom fritagelse ifølge artikel 15, stk. 1, for eksporttransaktioner kun umiddelbart finder anvendelse på goder, der eksporteres af sælgeren eller for hans regning, således finder fritagelse efter artikel 15, stk. 4, kun anvendelse på levering af goder til en virksomhed, se anvender dem til skibsproviantering, og omfatter således ikke levering af disse goder i et forudgående handelsled.
Just as, in the case of export operations, the automatic exemption provided for In Article 15 (4) applied exclusively to definitive supplies of goods exported by the vendor or on his behalf, so the exemption provided for in Article 15 (4) could apply only to supplies of goods to the operator of a vessel to be used by him for fuelling and provisioning and could not therefore be extended to supplies of those goods made at an earlier marketing stage.
Med det første spørgsmål Ønskede den nationale ret afgjort, om der kun kan meddeles fritagelse, såfremt leveringen til den virksomhed, som skal anvende goderne til skibsproviantering, falder sammen med godernes levering til et bestemt fartøj.
In its second question, the Hoge Raad asked whether, in order to qualify for the exemption, the loading of goods on board vessels had to coincide physically with supplies made to the vessel operator.
Domstolen udtalte, at hverken ordlyden af bestemmelserne, den sammenhæng, hvori de indgår, eller det formål, de forfølger, kan begrunde en sådan fortolkning af bestemmelserne, at der ikke kan meddeles fritagelse, fordi goderne oplagres, inden de endeligt leveres til skibsproviantering.
The Court found that neither the wording of the provisions in question, nor the context in which they were set, nor the objective which they pursued, justified the adoption of an interpretation of those provisions to the effect that the storage of goods, following their supply and before the actual fuelling and provisioning of the vessel, resulted in forfeiture of the right to exemption.
Domskonklusionen lyder således:
The Court held as follows:
"Artikel 15, stk. 4, i Rådets sjette direktiv 77/388/EØF af 17. maj 1977 om harmonisering af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om omsætningsafgifter - Det fælles merværdiafgiftsystem: ensartet beregningsgrundlag, skal fortolkes således, at alene levering ti den virksomhed, som skal anvende goderne til skibsproviantering, kan anses for levering af goder til skibsproviantering, uden at det herved kan kræves, at goderne allerede ved leveringen til virksomheden skal bringes ombord på et bestemt fartøj."
"Under Article 15 (4) of the Sixth Council Directive 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 (77/388/EEC), properly construed, only supplies to a vessel operator of goods to be used by that operator for fuelling and provisioning are to be regarded as supplies of goods for the fuelling and provisioning of vessels, but there is no requirement that the goods should be actually shipped on board the vessels at the time of their supply to the operator."
Generaladvokat Carl Otto Lenz fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 2. maj 199C
Mr Advocate General CO. Lenz delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 2 Mav 1990.
Generaladvokaten foreslog at besvare de forelagte spørgsmål således: "Sjette momsdirektivs artikel 15, stk. 4, skal fortolkes således, at levering af gode til den virksomhed, som efterfølgende anvender dem til skibsproviantering, mi anses for levering af goder bestemt til skibsproviantering.
"Article 15 (4) of the Sixth Directive on value added tax must be Interpreted as meaning that supplies to an undertaking which subsequently uses the goods for the fuelling and provisioning of seagoing vessels must be regarded as supplies of goods for the fuelling and provisioning of the vessels described in that provision.
Det kan ikke herved kræves, at goderne ved leveringen til virksomheden straks bringes ombord på et bestemt fartøj".
It Is unnecessary, for those purposes, for the supply to coincide with the fuelling and provisioning, that 1s to say, for it to take place directly on board the vessel."
(præjudiciel) "Landbrug - tillægsafgift på mælk" (Tredje Afdeling)
Alfons Berkenheide ν Hauptzollamt Münster - 26 June 1990 (Reference for a preliminary ruling) (Agriculture - Additional levy on milk) (Third Chamber)