natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Han byggede dernæst to beboelsesejendomme, det ene for køberens regning på den del af grunden, som var blevet frasolgt, den anden til sig selv på den anden del af grunden.
He subsequently constructed two dwellings, one on behalf of the purchaser on the land which had been sold, the other for his own use on the other portion of land.
De Jong fradrog som indgående afgift den omsætningsafgift, som han blevet faktureret for de goder og tjenesteydelser, der blev leveret i forbindelse med opførelsen af beboelsesejendommene.
Mr de Jong deducted, as input tax, the turnover tax for which he had been charged in respect of the goods and services used for the construction of the houses.
Da han tog den ene af disse to ejendomme i brug til privat beboelse, opførte han dernæst på sin momsangivelse som forfalden afgift (udgående afgift) et beløb lig med den fradragne afgift (indgående afgift) for de goder og tjenesteydelser, der blev anvendt ved opførelsen af den ejendom, der blev anvendt til private formål.
When he began to use one of those dwellings for private purposes, he entered on his VAT declaration, as tax payable (output tax), an amount equal to the tax deducted (input tax) in respect of the goods and services used for the construction of the dwelling intended for private purposes.
De nederlandske skatte- og afgiftsmynsdigheder fandt imidlertid, at beskatningsgrundlaget i henhold til den nederlandske lovgivning ikke blot skulle omfatte ejendommens værdi, men også værdien af den grund, på hvilken det var bygget, da ejendommen og den tilhørende grund måtte anses som én og samme leverance af goder.
The Netherlands tax authorities, however, took the view that under Netherlands legislation the basis of assessment ought to include not only the value of the house, but also the value of the land on which it had been built, in view of the fact that the house and surrounding land had to be regarded as one and the same supply of goods.
De efteropkrævede derfor et beløb svarende til 18% af grundens værdi i omsætningsafgift.
The authorities thereupon amended the amount corresponding to 18% of the value of the land in respect of turnover tax.
De Jong anfægtede denne efteropkrævning og gjorde gældende, at grunden altid havde været en del af hans privatformue og ikke var overgået til hans erhvervsformue ved opførelsen af ejendommen.
Mr de Jong disputed that amendment and argued that the land had always been part of his private assets and had not become part of his business assets during the construction of the house.
Domstolen bemærkede herom, at når en afgiftspligtig erhverver et gode udelukkende til private formål, handler han som privatmand og ikke som afgiftspligtig efter det sjette momsdirektiv.
"Article 5(6) 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 is to be interpreted as meaning that when a taxable person (a building contractor) acquires land solely for his private use but erects on that land in the pursuit of his business a dwelling for his own use only the house, and not the land, is to be regarded for the purposes of that provision as having been applied for his private use."
Følgelig finder direktivets forskellige bestemmelser om en virksomheds erhvervelse af goder ikke anvendelse.
Mr Advocate General Jacobs delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Third Chamber on 27 February 1992
Med hensyn til beskatning af en grund, som en entreprenør ejer som privatmand, og på hvilken han som led i sin erhvervsvirksomhed opfører en beboelsesejendom til sig selv, følger det af det foregående, at denne grund aldrig har hørt til virksomhedens formue, og at den følgelig ikke kan have været udtaget efter artikel 5, stk. 6, i det sjette momsdirektiv.
"Article 5(6) of the Sixth Directive must be interpreted as meaning that, where a taxable person (a building contractor) acquires land solely for his private use and, in the course of his business, erects a building on that land which he puts to private use, only the building and not the land is to be treated as applied for private use for the purposes of that provision."
Beskatningsgrundlaget er i henhold til artikel 11 A, stk. 1, litra b), i det sjette momsdirektiv udelukkende værdien af den opførte bygning, men ikke grundens værdi.
Joined Cases C-258/90 and C-259/90: Pesquerías de Bermeo SA and Naviera Laida SA ν Commission of the European Communities - 7 May 1992
Domstolen besvarede de forelagte spørgsmål således:
(Agriculture - Fisheries - Project for exploratory fishing voyage - Financial aid) (Second Chamber)
"Artikel 5, stk. 6, 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 når en afgiftspligtig - nemlig en entreprenør - erhverver en grund uden andet formål end at anvende den til privat brug, men på denne grund som led i udøvelse af sit erhverv opfører en beboelsesejendom for selv at bo deri, skal kun huset og ikke grunden anses for udtaget til privat brug som omhandlet i denne bestemmelse."
By applications lodged on 23 August 1990, the above companies, registered in Las Arenas-Guecho (Spain), brought a number of applications for the annulment of the Commission decisions EXP/ES/1/90 and EXP/ES/2/90 finding that projects for exploratory fishing voyages in the waters of the South-West Atlantic Ocean did not fulfil the conditions for the grant of Community financial aid under Council Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86.
Generaladvokat F.G. Jacobs fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 27. februar 1992.
In support of their applications, Naviera and Pesquerías first submitted that the Commission had failed to comply with the two-month period following submission of the project under Article 16(3) of Regulation No 8/86 within which it had to decide whether or not to grant the aid.
Han foreslog Domstolen følgende afgørelse:
The Court was unable to accept that submission.
"Artikel 5, stk. 6, i det sjette momsdirektiv skal fortolkes således, at når en afgiftspligtig (nemlig en entreprenør) erhverver en grund uden andet formål end at anvende den til privat brug og på denne grund som led i udøvelse af sit erhverv opfører en bygning, som han anvender til privat brug, skal alene bygningen og ikke grunden anses for udtaget til privat brug som omhandlet i denne bestemmelse."
It followed from the objectives which the regulation attributed to Commission decisions concerning the grant of incentive premiums that that period was not mandatory, a fact which was in any event confirmed by the provisions of Regulation No 1871/87, under which an applicant for a premium who began an experimental fishing voyage the day after submitting his application, and thus before the expiry
Forenede sager C-258/90 og C-259/90: Pesquerías de Bermeo, SA og Naviera Laida, SA mod Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber 7.5.1992 "Landbrug - fiskeri - projekter vedrørende forsøgstogter -fæl1esskabsstøtte" (Anden Afdeling)
- 5 of the relevant two-month period, did so at his own risk in view of the fact that the Commission might take a decision refusing the aid requested.
Domstolen forkastede også sagsøgernes anbringender om, at Kommissionen havde tilsidesat betingelserne for anvendelse af forordning nr. 4028/86 og kravet om begrundelsespligt.
The Court was also unable to accept the submissions based on infringement of the conditions of application of Regulation No 4028/86 and of the obligation to state reasons.
Domstolen fastslog i den forbindelse først, at Kommissionen i betragtningerne til de anfægtede beslutninger understregede, at Fællesskabets fiskere kender forekomsterne i det pågældende område, at også resultaterne af togterne til det pågældende område kendes, og at der ikke er grundlag for et forsøgstogt med henblik på at vurdere, om en regelmæssig og varig udnyttelse af fiskeriressourcerne i dette område vil være rentabel; Kommissionen tilføjede, at sådanne forsøgstogter derfor ikke opfyldte betingelserne for finansiel fællesskabsstøtte, navnlig betingelserne i forordning nr. 4028/86.
The Court pointed out in that regard that the Commission had stated in the preamble to the contested decisions that Community fishermen were aware of the potential of the fisheries zone in question, that the results of fishing in that zone were known to the operators in question and that there was no justification for an experimental fishing voyage for the purpose of assessing the profitability of regular and permanent fishing in that area; the Commission added that those experimental fishing projects did not satisfy the conditions laid down for Community financial aid, in particular those set out in Regulation No 4028/86.
Domstolen bemærkede for det andet, at Kommissionen på grundlag af resultaterne af 25 forsøgstogter, hvoraf Pesquerías og Naviera i perioden 1987-1989 selv havde gennemført flere i det sydvestlige Atlanterhav, allerede i april 1990 havde tilkendegivet sit standpunkt over for Naviera og Pesquerías.
The Court also noted that the Commission, basing itself on the results of 25 exploratory fishing voyages, a number of which had in any event been made by Naviera and Pesquerías themselves between 1987 and 1989 in the South-West Atlantic, had informed Naviera and Pesquerías of its position as early as April 1990.
Endelig bemærkede Domstolen med hensyn til sagsøgernes anbringende om, at princippet om den berettigede forventning var tilsidesat, at 1 henhold til Domstolens faste praksis kan erhvervsdrivende ikke have nogen berettiget forventning om opretholdelse af en bestående situation, som Fællesskabets institutioner kan ændre ved beslutninger truffet inden for rammerne af deres skøn.
Turning finally to the submission based on an infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, the Court pointed out that it had consistently held that traders could not have a legitimate expectation that an existing situation which was capable of being altered by the Community institutions in the exercise of their discretionary power would be maintained.
Dette gælder også for et område som forsøgstogter, hvis formål forudsætter en kontinuerlig tilpasning, bl.a. ud fra resultaterne af tidligere forsøgstogter.
The same applied to an area such as that of exploratory fishing, the object of which involved constant adaptation based in particular on the results of previous fishing voyages.
De erhvervsdrivende kunne derfor ikke påberåbe sig en berettiget forventning om at opnå tilskyndelsespræmier for projekter med henvisning til, at der var ydet sådanne præmier for tidligere togter.
Traders could not therefore plead a legitimate expectation of receiving incentive premiums for projects by relying on the fact that such premiums had been granted in respect of previous voyages.
Generaladvokat Claus Gulmann havde fremsat følgende forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Anden Afdeling) den 21. januar 1992
Mr Advocate General Gulmann delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Second Chamber on 21 January 1992
"Jeg skal herefter foreslå Domstolen at afvise sagsøgernes påstand om anerkendelse af deres ret til at modtage tilskyndelsespræmie, at frifinde sagsøgte for sagsøgernes øvrige påstande og at lade sagsøgerne bære sagens omkostninger."
"I would accordingly suggest that the Court should dismiss the applicants' claim to recognition of their right to receive incentive premiums, dismiss the
Forenede sager C-251/90 og C-252/90:
- 6 - remaining submissions of the applicants and order them to bear the costs of the proceedings."
Procurator Fiscal, Elgin mod K. Gordon Wood og J. Cowie
Joined Cases C-251/90 and C-252/90: Procurator Fiscal, Elgin, ν Wood and Cowie - 7 May 1992
(Præjudiciel) "Landbrug - fiskeri - licenser - betingelser" (Sjette Afdeling)
By orders of 26 January 1990 and of 12 November 1990, which were received at the Court on 20 August 1990 and 15 November 1990 respectively, the Sheriff Court of Grampian, Highland and Islands at Elgin (Scotland, United Kingdom) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling a number of questions concerning the interpretation of Article 7 of the EEC Treaty and Articles 2 and 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 101/76 laying down a common structural policy for the fishing industry.
Ifølge Domstolens praksis vedrører Traktatens artikel 7 ikke eventuelle forskelle i behandling og de fordrejninger, som for personer og virksomheder omfattet af Fællesskabets jurisdiktion kan følge af, at en medlemsstat anvender strengere bestemmelser end dem, der anvendes på samme område af andre medlemsstater.
Treaty did not apply to any disparities in treatment or distortions which might result for persons and undertakings subject to the jurisdiction of the Community from the application by a Member State of measures that were stricter than those applied in the same sphere by other Member States.
EØF-Traktatens artikel 7 og artikel 2, stk. 1, i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 101/76 skal fortolkes således, at de ikke er til hinder for, at en medlemsstat, som gør adgang til sine fiskekvoter betinget af, at der udstedes en licens, i en sådan licens indsætter en forpligtelse for skipperen på fiskerfartøjer, der fører denne stats flag, til over radioen at melde til myndighederne, at han har til hensigt at sejle fra et ICES-område til et andet, selv om denne betingelse ikke gælder for fiskerfartøjer, der fører andre medlemsstaters flag, og som fisker efter de samme arter i de samme områder.
Article 7 of the EEC Treaty and Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 101/76 are to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State which makes access to its fishing quotas subject to the grant of a licence is not precluded from including in such a licence a provision requiring the master of a vessel flying the flag of that State to report by radio its intention to cross from one ICES area to another, even though that condition does not apply to vessels flying the flag of other Member States fishing for the same species in the same areas.
I henhold til artikel 15 i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 2241/87 af 23. juli 1987 om fastsættelse af visse foranstaltninger til kontrol af fiskeri skal medlemsstaterne meddele Kommissionen en betingelse som den ovenfor beskrevne, der indsættes i licenser, som udstedes til fartøjer, der fører deres flag, og som tillader fiskeri inden for deres kvoter.
Under Article 15 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing certain control measures for fishing activities, Member States are required to notify to the Commission a condition such as that described above which they put in licences which they grant to vessels flying their flag authorizing such vessels to fish against their quotas.
En undladelse af at give Kommissionen meddelelse om en national kontrolforanstaltning som den ovenfor beskrevne betingelse påvirker ikke dens gyldighed i forhold til fællesskabsretten."
control measure such as the condition its validity under Community law."
Generaladvokat Giuseppe Tesauro fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 23. januar 1992.
Mr Advocate General Tesauro delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 23 January 1992
Han foreslog Domstolen at besvare de præjudicielle spørgsmål således:
He proposed that the Court should answer the questions referred as follows:
Traktatens artikel 7 og artikel 2 i forordning nr. 101/76 er ikke til hinder for, at en medlemsstat i de fiskerilicenser, som den udsteder til indenlandske fiskerfartøjer, indsætter en betingelse om, at de over radioen skal meddele, når de overskrider linjen 4 grader vestlig længde, som adskiller ICES-område IV fra ICES-område VI.
Article 7 of the Treaty and Article 2 of Regulation No 101/76 do not prohibit a Member State from incorporating in a fishing licence issued to national fishing vessels a condition requiring reporting by radio of the crossing of the line of longitude 4° west which separates ICES area IV from ICES area VI.
Manglende underretning gør dog ikke de indførte foranstaltninger ugyldige og uanvendelige."
However, the absence of notification does not render the measures adopted invalid and inapplicable."
7.5.1992 (Præjudiciel) "Afgifter - fortolkning af artikel 33 i sjette momsdirektiv" (Sjette Afdeling)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling) (Taxation - Interpretation of Article 33 of the Sixth VAT Directive) (Sixth Chamber)
Domstolen henviste først til sin faste praksis, hvorefter artikel 33 i sjette direktiv ikke er til hinder for opretholdelse eller indførelse af afgifter og skatter, der ikke i det væsentlige har samme beskaffenhed som moms.
The Court first pointed out in that regard that it had consistently held that Article 33 of the Sixth Directive did not preclude the retention or introduction of charges, duties and taxes which did not have the essential characteristics of VAT.
Domstolen fastslog derefter, at en afgift som den, den forelæggende ret havde omtalt i sagen, ikke i det væsentlige var beskaffen som moms.
A payment of the type referred to by the national court in the case did not have those essential characteristics.
Domstolen henviste herved for det første til, at tillægsbidraget ikke udgør en generel afgift.
In the first place, the supplementary contribution did not amount to a general levy.
For dels vedrører lov nr. 576 fra 1980 kun advokater og "procuratori legali", og dels finder den i artikel 11 fastsatte forhøjelse ikke anvendelse på de vederlag, der opkræves for samtlige af advokater og "procuratori legali" præsterede ydelser, men kun på deres virksomhed i • retssager.
Law No 576 of 1980 concerned only advocates and "procuratori legali", and the surcharge provided for in Article 11 of that Law did not apply to fees in respect of all services provided by advocates and "procuratori legali", but only to their legal activities.
Domstolen bemærkede for det andet, at tillægsbidraget ikke altid er proportionalt med det vederlag, klienten skal betale for den faglige ydelse.
Secondly, the Court held that the supplementary contribution was not always proportional to the payment due from the client in respect of the professional service.
Det er nemlig for faglige sammenslutninger og foreninger bestemt, at tillægsbidraget udgør en vis procent af den fortjeneste, den pågældende advokat eller retshjælper opnår. Og for så vidt angår de af CNP's medlemmer, hvis omsætning ikke overstiger et bestemt beløb, skal der kun betales et mindstebidrag med et fast beløb.
In the case of professional associations, it was provided that the supplementary contribution would amount to a percentage of the income of the lawyer concerned; so far as concerned members of the CNP whose turnover was lower than a certain amount, they were required only to pay a minimum contribution calculated on a flat-rate basis.
For det tredje er tillægsbidraget ifølge Domstolen en afgift, der betales på et enkelt trin.
Thirdly, the Court ruled that the supplementary contribution was a charge levied at one stage only.
Det forfalder først til betaling, når en advokat eller en retshjælper sender sin klient en regning.
It was payable only when the lawyer sent a bill to his client.
Endvidere er der ingen fradragsordning for det, da den advokat eller retshjælper, som til CNP skal indbetale det tillægsbidrag, han har opkrævet af sine klienter, ikke har ret til at foretage noget fradrag, der på nogen måde hænger sammen med udgifterne til varer og ydelser, som er anvendt ved deres erhvervsudøvelse.
Furthermore, it did not include any method for deduction, since the lawyer who was required to pay to the CNP the supplementary contribution for which he had billed his clients was not entitled to make any deduction in any way connected to the cost of goods and services used in the pursuit of his activities.
Omvendt kan på tilsvarende måde klienten, hvis han er momspligtig, i den afgift, han skal betale, fradrage det beløb, der er betalt i indgående moms til advokaten, men derimod ikke tillægsbidraget.
Similarly, but conversely, if the client was liable to pay VAT, he was in a position to deduct from the tax payable by him the amount of input VAT paid to his lawyer, but not the supplementary contribution.
"Artikel 33 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 denne bestemmelse ikke er til hinder for indførelse eller opretholdelse af et bidrag som det tillægsbidrag, der er indført i Italien (under betegnelsen "contributo integrativo"), og som skal indbetales til Cassa di Previdenza af advokater og "procuratori legali", med de karakteristika, dette bidrag har".
"Article 33 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 valued added tax, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the introduction or maintenance of contributions having the characteristics of the supplementary contribution ("contributo integrativo")
"Arti kel 33 i sjette momsdirektiv afskærer ikke en medlemsstat fra at bestemme, at advokater og retshjælpere til en pensionskasse skal i indbetale et tillægsbidrag, som det i sagen omhandlede 'contributo integrativo'" vo'"
"Article 33 of the Sixth VAT Directive does not preclude the imposition by a Member State of a requirement that lawyers pay to a provident fund a supplementary contribution such as the contributo integrativo."
Ved kendelse af 21. februar 1991, indgået til Domstolen den 2. april 1991, havde Juzgado de Instrucción nr. 20, Madrid, forelagt to præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af EØF-Traktatens artikel 52 og 57 samt af Rådets direktiv 67/43/EØF om gennemførelsen af etableringsfrihed og fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser for visse former for selvstændig virksomhed.
By order of 21 February 1991, received at the Court on 2 April 1991, the Juzgado de Instrucción No 20, Madrid, referred for a preliminary ruling two questions concerning Articles 52 and 57 of the EEC Treaty and Council Directive 67/43/EEC concerning the attainment of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services in respect of certain activities of selfemployed persons.
Disse spørgsmål var blevet rejst under en straffesag, som Colegio Oficial de Agentes de la Propiedad Immobili ari a - den officielle erhvervssammenslutning for ejendomsmæglere - havde anlagt mod selskabet "Aguirre Newman SA", hvis formål er at drive ejendomsmæglervirksomhed. Sagen var foranlediget af, at den britiske statsborger Stephen Newman, der havde et britisk eksamensbevis som ejendomsmægler og var medlem af bestyrelsen for det omhandlede selskab, ikke var i besiddelse af den offentlige autorisation som ejendomsmægler, der udstedes af vedkommende spanske ministerium efter bestået eksamen, og heller ikke var medlem af Colegio.
Those questions had arisen in the course of criminal proceedings brought by the Colegio Oficial de Agentes de la Propiedad Inmobiliaria, an official association of estate agents, against "Aguirre Newman S.A.", a company operating as an estate agent, on the ground that Mr Stephen Newman, a British national who had a British qualification in estate management and was an executive director of the company in question, did not have an official qualification as an estate agent issued by the competent Spanish ministry following successful completion of selection examinations, and that he was not enrolled with the Colegio.