natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Denne omstændighed er tværtimod en del af de faktiske forhold, der kan tages i betragtning af den nationale ret ved fastslåeisen af den pågældende transaktions fiktive karakter.
It requires, second, a subjective element consisting in the intention to obtain an advantage from the Community rules by creating artificially
»Artikel 9, stk 1, artikel 10, stk 1, og artikel 20, stk 2, i Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 2730/79 af 29. november 1979 om fælles gennemførelsesbestemmelser for eteportrestitutioner for landbrugsprodukter, som affattet ved Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 568/85 af 4. marts 1985, skal fortolkes således, at en eL·portør i Fællesskabet kan miste sin ret til udbetaling af en udifferentieret eksportrestitution, når det produkt, der blev udbetalt eksportrestitution for, og som blev solgt til en køber, der er etableret i et tredjeland, umiddelbart efter at være blevet angivet til fri omsætning i det pågældende tredjeland ved proceduren med ekstern fællesskabsforsendelse atter blev transporteret til Fællesskabet og dér, uden at der blev konstateret en overtrædelse affowrdnmgsbestemmelserne, under opkrævning af told og importafgift blev angivet til fri omsætning, og at denne transaktion udgør misbrug fra eksportøren i Fællesskabets side.
'Articles 9(1), 10(1) and 20(2) to (6) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2730/79 of 29 November 1979 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, in the version resulting from Commission Regulation (EEC) No 568/85 of 4 March 1985, must be interpreted as meaning that a Community exporter can forfeit his right to payment of a non-differentiated export refund if (a) the product in respect of which the export refund was paid, and which is sold to a purchaser established in a nonmember country, is, immediately after its release for home use in that nonmember country, transported back to the Community under the external Community transit procedure and is there released for home use on payment of import duties, without any infringement being established and (b) that operation constitutes an abuse on the part ofthat Community exporter.
Konstateringen af, at der er tale om misbrug, forudsætter, at der hos eksportøren i Fællesskabet består et ønske om at drage fordel af fællesskabsbestemmelserne ved kunstigt at skabe betingelserne for opnåelse heraf.
A finding that there is an abuse presupposes an intention on the part of the Community exporter to benefit from an advantage as a result of the application of the Community rules by artificially creating the conditions for obtaining it.
Beviset herfor skal føres for den nationale ret i overensstemmelse med nationale retsregler, f eks. ved at fastslå en hemmelig aftale mellem eksportøren og importøren af varen i tredjelandet.
Evidence of this must be placed before the national court in accordance with the rules of national law, for instance by establishing that there was collusion between that exporter and the importer of the goods into the nonmember country.
Den omstændighed, at produktet, inden det genindførtes til Fællesskabet, er blevet solgt af den i det pågældende tredjeland etablerede køber til en virksomhed, der ligeledes er etableret i dette land, og som han er personligt og økonomisk forbundet med, er et af det faktiske elementer, som den nationale ret kan tage i betragtning for at efterprøve, om betingelserne for, at der er en forpligtelse til tilbagebetaling af restitutionerne, er opfyldt.«
The fact that, before being re-imported into the Community, the product was sold by the purchaser established in the nonmember country concerned to an undertaking also established in that country with which he has personal and commercial links is one of the facts which can be taken into account by the national court when ascertaining whether the conditions giving rise to an obligation to repay refunds are fulfilled.'
Generaladvokat S. Alber fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 16. maj 2000.
Advocate General S. Alber delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 16 May 2000.
Sag C-347/99 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Irland Transport
Case C-347/99 Commission of the European Communities ν Ireland Transport
I henhold til direktivets artikel 10, stk. 1, første afsnit, skulle medlemsstaterne sætte de nødvendige love og administrative bestemmelser i kraft for at efterkomme direktiv 95/50 inden den 1. januar 1997 og straks underrette Kommissionen herom.
Under the first subparagraph of Article 10(1) of that directive, Member States are to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 95/50 by 1 January 1997 and are forthwith to inform the Commission thereof.
Ved skrivelse af 26. april 1999 meddelte myndighederne Kommissionen, at Irland endnu ikke havde gennemført direktiv 95/50, og at man følgelig ikke var i stand til at tilstille Kommissionen den årlige rapport vedrørende anvendelsen af direktivet, som er omtalt i direktivets artikel 9, stk. 1.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 20 September 1999, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 95/50/EC of 6 October 1995, or in any event by failing to inform the Commission of those measures, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
Da Kommissionen ikke modtog nogen oplysninger om bestemmelser, som Irland havde fastsat til gennemførelse af direktiv 95/50,
Since it had not received any information concerning measures taken by Ireland to comply with Directive 95/50, the Commission gave Ireland formal notice, by letter of 5 November
Da Kommissionen ikke modtog yderligere oplysninger fra den irske regering om gennemførelsen af direktiv 95/50, besluttede den at anlægge nærværende sag.
yet implemented Directive 95/50 and that, therefore, it was not in a position to submit the annual report on its application as required under Article 9(1) of the directive.
•1) Irland har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser efter Rådets direktiv 95/50/EF af 6. oktober 1995 om indførelse af ensartede kontrolprocedurer i forbindelse med transport af f artigt gods ad vej, idet Mand ikke inden for den fastsatte frist har sat de nødvendige love og administrative bestemmelser i kraft for at efterkomme direktivet.
By letter of 8 September 1998, the Irish authorities directed the attention of the Commission to an attached copy of a letter of 5 January 1998, addressed to the Secretary­General of the Commission, which gave details of arrangements being made and difficulties being encountered in the preparation of legislation to implement Directive 95/50.
Generaladvokat F.G. Jacobs fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Anden Afdeling') den 12. oktober 2000.
Without denying the charge, Ireland merely states, in its defence, that work is continuing on a draft of regulations to implement Directive 95/50.
Præjudiciel »Beskatning — sjette momsdirektiv — afgiftspligtige personer — offentligretlige organer — udlejning af pladser til parkering af køretøjer« (Femte Afdeling) herefter kommunen) mod Fazenda Pública (skattemyndighederne)vedrørendeopkrævningaf merværdiafgift (herefter »moms«) af kommunens udlejning af pladser til parkering af køretøjer.
'(1) declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 95/50/EC of 6 October 1995 on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road, or in any event by failing to inform the Commission of those measures, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
De portugisiske skattemyndigheder opkrævede hos kommunen 98 953 911 PTE i moms af indtægter fra parkometre og parkeringspladser i Porto for årene 1991 og 1992 og for perioden januar til april 1993.
Preliminary ruling (Taxation — Sixth VAT Directive — Taxable persons Bodies governed by public law — Letting of spaces for the parking of vehicles) (Fifth Chamber)
For så vidt angår den sidstnævnte betingelse, skal omfanget af afgiftsfritagelsen for offentlige organer fastlægges på grundlag af, hvilke regler der gælder for udøvelsen af den pågældende virksomhed.
As neither party accepted the part of the judgment which was unfavourable to it, they both appealed to the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo.
Kommunen, der var af den opfattelse, at den ikke var momspligtig heraf, for så vidt som den havde handlet under udøvelse af sine beføjelser som myndighed, anlagde sag ved Tribunal Tributário de Primeira Instância do Porto til prøvelse af afgiftsmyndighedernes afgørelser om opkrævning, som den gjorde gældende var ulovlige.
By order of 28 October 1998, the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Court, Portugal) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling seven questions on the interpretation of Article 4(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977.
Det fremgår af Domstolens faste praksis, at virksomhed, der udøves af offentligretlige organer i deres egenskab af offentlig myndighed i sjette direktivs artikel 4, stk. 5, første afsnits forstand, er virksomhed, som udøves af offentligretlige organer på grundlag af deres særlige retlige status, men ikke virksomhed, som de udøver på samme retlige vilkår som private erhvervsdrivende.
In those circumstances, the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo referred questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling.
Den forelæggende ret må på grundlag af en gennemgang af alle reglerne i national ret om udøvelse af den i hovedsagen omhandlede virksomhed fastslå, om virksomheden udøves inden for rammerne af de særlige retsregler for offentligretlige organer, eller om den derimod udøves på samme retlige vilkår som for private erhvervsdrivende.
Those questions were raised in proceedings between Câmara Municipal do Porto (Oporto City Council, hereinafter 'the CMP') and Fazenda Pública (the Treasury) concerning the liability of the CMP to value added tax (VAT) in respect of its activities of letting spaces for the parking of vehicles.
Begge parterne appellerede dommen til Supremo Tribunal Administrativo og anfægtede den i det omfang, den ikke gav dem medhold.
The main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
På denne baggrund besluttede Supremo Tribunal Administrativo at forelægge Domstolen en række præjudicielle spørgsmål.
By its first question, the national court essentially asks whether the letting of spaces for the parking of vehicles is an activity which, when carried out by a body governed by public law, may be regarded as being engaged in by that body as a public authority, within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive.
Det bemærkes, at den omstændighed, at udøvelsen af virksomhed som den i hovedsagen omhandlede indebærer udøvelse af offentlig myndighed såsom beføjelsen til at tillade eller begrænse parkering på vej, der er offentlig tilgængelig for færdsel, eller at pålægge bøder for overskridelse af den tilladte parkeringstid, kan være grundlag for at fastslå, at der gælder offentligretlige regler for virksomheden.
On this point, it should be noted that, as the Court has held on numerous occasions, it is clear from that provision, when examined in the light of the aims of the Sixth Directive, that two conditions must be fulfilled for the rule of treatment as a non-taxable person to apply: the activities must be carried out by a body governed by public law and they must be carried out by that body acting as a public authority.
Under hensyn til genstanden for den gennemgang, der skal foretages, tilkommer det — som Domstolen allerede har udtalt — den nationale ret at foretage en retlig bedømmelse af den pågældende virksomhed på grundlag af det af Domstolen fastlagte kriterium.
Since it considered that it was not a taxable person for VAT purposes, in that it had acted within the framework of the exercise of its public powers, the CMP brought an action for breach of law before the Tribunal Tributário de Primeira Instância (Tax Court of First Instance), Oporto, against the notices of assessment issued by the VAT authorities.
Med sit første spørgsmål ønsker den forelæggende ret nærmere bestemt oplyst, om udlejning af pladser til parkering af køretøjer er virksomhed som — når den udøves af et offentligretligt organ — kan anses for at være udøvet af det offentligretlige organ i dets egenskab af offentlig myndighed i den forstand, hvori dette udtryk er anvendt i sjette direktivs artikel 4, stk. 5, første afsnit.
As regards the latter condition, it is the way in which the activities are carried out that determines the scope of the treatment of public bodies as non-taxable persons.
Med det fjerde spørgsmål, som skal behandles i umiddelbar forlængelse af det første, ønsker den forelæggende ret oplyst, om sjette direktivs artikel 4, stk. 5, tredje afsnit, skal fortolkes således, at offentligretlige organer nødvendigvis må anses for afgiftspligtige med hensyn til den
It is thus clear from the settled case-law of the Court that activities pursued as public authorities within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive are those engaged in by bodies governed by public law under the special legal regime applicable to them and do not include activities pursued by them under the same legal conditions as those that apply to private economic operators.
Det bemærkes, at som Domstolen gentagne gange har fastslået, fremgår det af en gennemgang af ovennævnte bestemmelse i lyset af sjette direktivs formål, at to kumulative betingelser skal være opfyldt, for at reglen om afgiftsfritagelse finder anvendelse, idet et offentligretligt organ skal have udøvet
By its judgment the Tribunal Tributário granted the CMP's application in so far as it related to its receipts from the operation of the Trindade car park, which was on the public property of the city, and from the operation of parking meters installed on public highways. The court ruled that the application was unfounded, on the other hand, as regards the revenue from the operation of car parks forming part of the city's private property.
herfor på de konkrete sager, når blot myndighedens afgørelser til gennemførelse heraf kan indbringes for de nationale retter til prøvelse.
to bring about significant distortions of competition within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive and, second, the activities which are negligible within the meaning of the third subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive.
virksomhed, de udøver, som ikke er ubetydelig, eller om kriteriet vedrørende virksomhedens ubetydelighed kun skal anvendes på de i bilag D til sjette direktiv opregnede former for virksomhed.
The national court must analyse all the conditions laid down by national law for the pursuit of the activity at issue in the main proceedings, to determine whether that activity is being engaged in under a special legal regime applicable to bodies governed by public law or under the same legal conditions as those that apply to private economic operators.
Det bemærkes, at Domstolen har udtalt, at sjette direktivs artikel 4, stk. 5, tredje afsnit, skal fortolkes således, at medlemsstaterne i medfør af denne bestemmelse har adgang til at indrømme undtagelse fra den obligatoriske momspligt for de i bilag D nævnte former for virksomhed i det omfang, virksomheden kan karakteriseres som ubetydelig, men at de ikke har pligt hertil.
The fact that the pursuit of an activity such as that at issue in the main proceedings involves the use of public powers, such as authorising or restricting parking on a public highway or penalising by a fine the exceeding of the authorised parking time, shows that this activity is subject to a public law regime.
Med det tredje spørgsmål ønsker den forelæggende ret nærmere bestemt oplyst, om den nationale ret skal følge den nationale forfatning eller anvende princippet om fællesskabsrettens forrang i det tilfælde, hvor den nationale bestemmelse, der tillægger finansministeren kompetence til nærmere at fastlægge, hvilken virksomhed der kan fremkalde konkurrencefordrejning af en vis betydning i den forstand, hvori dette udtryk er anvendt i sjette direktivs artikel 4, stk. 5, andet afsnit, er forfatningsstridig, men i overensstemmelse med fællesskabsretten.
In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty (now the third paragraph of Article 249 EC), the Court has already held that the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive, under which the Member States are required to ensure that bodies governed by public law are treated as taxable persons where the contrary would lead to significant distortions of competition, does not, on the other hand, require them to transpose that criterion literally into their national law or to lay down precise quantitative limits for treatment as non-taxable persons.
Medlemsstaten har mulighed for at fastsætte gennemførelsesbestemmelser, som er i overensstemmelse med både reglerne i direktivet og i statens forfatning.
In view of the nature of the analysis to be carried out, however, as the Court has already held, it is for the national court to classify the activities at issue in the light of the criterion adopted by the Court.
Med det andet og femte spørgsmål, som undersøges under et, ønsker den forelæggende ret nærmere bestemt oplyst, om en national lov kan give finansministeren i en medlemsstat hjemmel til nærmere at fastlægge, dels hvilke former for virksomhed der kan føre til konkurrencefordrejning af en vis betydning i den forstand, hvori dette udtryk er anvendt i sjette direktivs artikel 4, stk. 5, andet afsnit, dels hvilken virksomhed der udøves i ubetydeligt omfang, i den forstand, hvori dette udtryk er anvendt i sjette direktivs artikel 4, stk. 5, tredje afsnit.
Similarly, Member States are free to choose, from the various methods of achieving the results defined by the second and third subparagraphs of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive, that of entrusting an administrative body with the task of specifying the situations in which an activity carried on by a body governed by public law may be regarded as bringing about significant distortions of competition or as being negligible and of applying those criteria to individual cases, provided that its decisions on application may be reviewed by the national courts.
Der findes derfor ikke at være en sådan uforenelighed mellem sjette direktivs artikel 4, stk. 5, andet afsnit, og den nationale forfatning, som den forelæggende ret har forudsat. Det er derfor ufornødent at besvare spørgsmålet.
By its fourth question, which should be examined immediately after the first, the national court seeks to know whether the third subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive must be interpreted as meaning that bodies governed by public law are necessarily regarded as taxable persons in respect of their non-negligible activities, or whether the criterion of the negligible scale of those activities applies only to the activities listed in Annex D to the Sixth Directive.
I overensstemmelse med EF-traktatens artikel 189, stk. 3 (nu artikel 249, stk. 3, EF) har Domstolen allerede udtalt, at sjette direktivs artikel 4, stk. 5, andet afsnit, hvorefter medlemsstaterne har pligt til at sikre, at der opkræves moms hos offentligretlige organer, såfremt afgiftsfritagelse for dem vil kunne føre til konkurrencefordrejning af en vis betydning, dog ikke pålægger medlemsstaterne en pligt til ordret at indføre dette kriterium i national ret eller til kvantitativt at angive grænserne for afgiftsfritagelse (dom af 17.10.1989 i sagen Comune di Carpaneto Piacentino m.fl.).
On this point, the Court has held that the third subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive must be interpreted as meaning that under that provision the Member States are free to exclude the activities listed in Annex D from the scope of compulsory tax liability in so far as they are negligible, but are not required to do so.
Med det sjette spørgsmål ønsker den forelæggende ret oplyst, om sjette direktivs artikel 4, stk. 5, fjerde afsnit, skal fortolkes således, at den omstændighed, at udlejning af pladser til parkering af køretøjer i medfør af direktivets artikel 13, punkt B, litra b), ikke er momsfritaget, udelukker, at medlemsstaterne, når virksomheden udøves af et offentligretligt organ, kan behandle denne virksomhed som virksomhed udøvet af organet i dets egenskab af offentlig myndighed.
By its third question, the national court essentially asks the Court whether, if the provision of national law which gives the Finance Minister power to specify the activities which may lead to significant distortions of competition within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive is unconstitutional, although consistent with Community law, the national court must comply with the national constitution or apply the principle of the primacy of Community law.
Det kan ikke af sjette direktivs artikel 4, stk. 5, fjerde afsnit, sammenholdt med artikel 13, punkt B, litra b), nr. 2, udledes, at virksomhed, der består i at stille parkeringspladser til rådighed, aldrig kan være offentlig myndighedsudøvelse, for når denne virksomhed udøves af et offentligt organ i dets egenskab af offentlig myndighed, er
By its second and fifth questions, which should be examined together, the national court essentially asks whether the Finance Minister of a Member State may be authorised by a national law to define, first, the activities which are liable
Det står ligeledes medlemsstaterne frit for blandt de forskellige midler til at nå det tilsigtede mål i sjette direktivs artikel 4, stk. 5, andet og tredje afsnit, at vælge at overlade det til en administrativ myndighed nærmere at fastlægge, i hvilke tilfælde et offentligretligt organs virksomhed kan anses for at medføre konkurrencefordrejning af en vis betydning eller for at være ubetydelig, og at anvende kriterierne
It is possible for a Member State to adopt methods of transposition which are consistent both with the Sixth Directive and with the Member State's constitution.
det alene på grundlag af sjette direktivs artikel 4, stk. 5, første afsnit, at der ikke er momspligt.
In those circumstances, there is no incompatibility as contemplated by the national court between the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive and the national constitution.
Det bemærkes, at det fremgår af Domstolens faste praksis, at de nationale retter har mulighed for og i givet fald pligt til at forelægge Domstolen et spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen eller gyldigheden af fællesskabsretten enten af egen drift eller på begæring af parterne i hovedsagen, hvis de finder, at Domstolens afgørelse af dette spørgsmål er nødvendig, for at de kan afsige deres dom.
The national court's seventh question should be understood as asking whether a national court may decide of its own motion to refer a question of interpretation of the Sixth Directive to the Court and whether, after having done so, it must draw the consequences of the Court's decision in the main proceedings.
Det syvende præjudicielle spørgsmål må forstås således, at den forelæggende ret ønsker oplyst, om den nationale ret af egen drift kan beslutte at forelægge Domstolen et spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af sjette direktiv, og om den, når den har forelagt spørgsmålet, skal lade Domstolens afgørelse få konsekvenser for tvisten i hovedsagen.
By its sixth question, the national court seeks to know whether the fourth subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive must be interpreted as meaning that the absence of an exemption for the letting of spaces for the parking of vehicles, which follows from Article 13B(b) of that directive, prohibits the Member States from treating that activity, when engaged in by a body governed by public law, as one engaged in by that body as a public authority.