natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Med dette spørgsmål ønsker den forelæggende ret nærmere bestemt oplyst, om sjette direktivs artikel 6, stk. 2, første afsnit, litra a), og artikel 13, punkt B, litra b), skal fortolkes således, at de er til hinder for nationale retsforskrifter, der behandler anvendelse af en del af en bygning, der udelukkende er bestemt for virksomheden, til privat brug for den afgiftspligtige person som en tjenesteydelse, der - som bortforpagtning eller udlejning af fast ejendom i nævnte artikel 13, punkt B. litra b)'s forstand er afgiftsfritaget.
By its question the national court is essentially asking whether Articles 6(2)(a) and 13B(b) of the Sixth Directive must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a national law which treats as an exempt supply of services, on the basis that it constitutes a leasing or letting of immovable property within the meaning of Article 13B(b), the private use by a taxable person of part of a building forming, in its entirety, part of the assets of his business.
En afgiftspligtig person, der vælger at bestemme en hel bygning til sin virksomhed, og som derefter anvender en del af denne bygning til privat brug, har på den ene side ret til fradrag af den indgående moms, der er erlagt af de fulde omkostninger ved opførelsen af bygningen, og på den anden side en tilsvarende forpligtelse til at betale moms af de udgifter, der har været afholdt i forbindelse med denne anvendelse.
Where a taxable person chooses to treat an entire building as forming part of the assets of his business and subsequently uses part of that building for private purposes, on the one hand, he is entitled to deduct the
Heraf følger, at anvendelsen til privat brug for den afgiftspligtige person af en bolig i en bygning, som han udelukkende har bestemt for sin virksomhed, ikke henhører under sjette direktivs artikel 13, punkt B, litra b).
input VAT paid on all construction costs relating to that building and, on the other, he is subject to the corresponding obligation to pay VAT on the amount of expenditure incurred to effect such use.
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
The private use by the taxable person of a dwelling in a building which he has treated as forming, in its entirety, part of the assets of his business does not satisfy those conditions.
Generaladvokat F. G. Jacobs fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 16. maj 2002.
It follows that the private use by the taxable person of a dwelling in a building which he has treated as forming, in its entirety, part of the assets of his business does not fall within Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Directive.
»En medlemsstat kan ikke behandle anvendelsen af en bolig til privat brug som afgiftsfritaget i henhold til artikel 13, punkt B, litra b), i Rådets sjette direktiv 77/388/EØF af 17. maj 1977 om harmonisering af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om omsætningsafgifter Det fælles merværdiafgiftssystem: ensartet beregningsgrundlag, når boligen er en del af en forretningsejendom, der udelukkende er bestemt for virksomheden.«
'Articles 6(2)(a) and 13B(b) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which treats as an exempt supply of services, on the basis that it constitutes a leasing or letting of immovable property within the meaning of Article 13B(b), the private use by a taxable person of part of a building which ¿v treated as forming, in its entirety, part of the assets of his business.'
Sag C-438/00 Deutscher Handballbund eV / Maros Kolpak Forbindelserne udadtil
Advocate General F. G. Jacobs delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 16 May 2002.
Præjudiciel »Forbindelser udadtil — associeringsaftale mellem Fællesskaberne og Slovakiet - artikel 38, stk. 1 — arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed — forbud mod forskelsbehandling — håndbold -begrænsning af det antal professionelle spillere fra tredjelande, som kan sættes på holdet i et sportsforbunds mesterholdskampe« (Femte Afdeling)
'A Member State may not treat the use for private residential purposes of a dwelling in business premises forming as a whole part of the assets of the business as tax-exempt in accordance with Article 13(B)(b) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment.'
Maros Kolpak, som er slovakisk statsborger, indgik i marts 1997 en arbejdsaftale, som udløb den 30. juni 2(XX), og i februar 2000 en ny arbejdsaftale, som udløb den 30. juni 2003, om at spille som målmand på det tyske håndboldhold TSV Östringen eV Handball, hvis klub er placeret i anden division.
Mr Kolpak, who is a Slovak national, entered in March 1997 into a fixed-term employment contract expiring on 30 June 2000 and subsequently, in February 2000, entered into a new fixed-term contract expiring on 30 June 2003 for the post of goalkeeper in the German handball team TSV Östringen eV Handball, a club which plays in the German Second Division.
Han får udbetalt en månedlig løn.
Mr Kolpak receives a monthly salary.
Han er bosat i Tyskland og har gyldig opholdstilladelse.
He is resident in Germany and holds a valid residence permit.
DHB, som arrangerer mesterskabs- og pokalkampe på forbundsniveau, har i henhold til § 15 i Spielordnung (forbundsregler vedrørende kampe, herefter »SpO«) udstedt en spilletilladelse til ham med et »A« på grund af hans slovakiske statsborgerskab.
The DHB, which organises league and cup matches at federal level, issued to him, under Rule 15 of the Spielordnung (federal regulations governing competitive games) (the SpO'), a player's licence marked with the letter A on the ground of his Slovak nationality.
Kolpak havde imidlertid anmodet om en spilletilladelse uden den angivelse, som anvendes for statsborgere fra tredjelande, og anlagde sag ved Landgericht Dortmund (Tyskland), hvorunder han anfægtede Deutscher Handballbund eV (det tyske håndboldforbund, herefter »DHB«)'s afgørelse.
Mr Kolpak, who had requested that he be issued with a player's licence which did not feature the specific reference to nationals of non-member countries, brought an action before the Landgericht (Regional Court) Dortmund (Germany) challenging that decision of the Deutscher Handballbund eV (the German Handball Federation) (the DHB').
Han gjorde gældende, at Den Slovakiske Republik hører til de tredjelande, hvis statsborgere i medfør af forbuddet mod forskelsbehandling efter EF-traktaten, jf. associeringsaftalen Fællesskaberne-Slovakiet, kan gøre krav på at deltage i kampe uden restriktioner på samme betingelser som tyske spillere og spillere fra de øvrige EF-lande.
He argued that the Slovak Republic is one of the non-member countries nationals of which are entitled to participate without restriction in competitions under the same conditions as German and Community players by reason of the prohibition of discrimination resulting from the combined provisions of the EC Treaty and the Association Agreement with Slovakia.
Landgericht dømte DHB til at udstede en spilletilladelse til Maros Kolpak uden betegnelsen »A« med den begrundelse, at Kolpak ifølge SpO's § 15 ikke bør ligestilles med spillere, som er statsborgere i et tredjeland. DHB har appelleret denne dom til Oberlandesgericht Hamm.
The Landgericht ordered the DHB to issue Mr Kolpak with a player's licence not marked with an A on the ground that, under Rule 15 of the SpO, Mr Kolpak was not to be treated in the same way as a player who was a national of a non-member country.
Oberlandesgericht Hamm har derfor besluttet at udsætte sagen og at forelægge Domstolen et præjudicielt spørgsmål.
In those circumstances, the Oberlandesgericht Hamm has decided to stay the proceedings and to refer a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling.
Spørgsmålet, om artikel 38, stk. 1, første led, i associeringsaftalen Fællesskaberne-Slovakiet kan anvendes på en bestemmelse, der er vedtaget af et sportsforbund
By its question the Oberlandesgericht Hamm is asking, essentially, whether the first indent of Article 38(1) of the Association Agreement with Slovakia is to be construed as precluding the application to a professional sportsman who is a Slovak national and is lawfully employed by a club established in a Member State of a rule drawn up by a sports federation in that State under which clubs are authorised, during league or cup matches, to field only a limited number of players from non-member countries that are not parties to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (the EEA').
Det bemærkes, at hvad angår traktatens artikel 48, stk. 2, fremgår det af præmis 87 i dommen af 15. december 1995, Bosman (sag C-415/93, Sml.
The direct effect of the first indent of Article 38(1) of the Association Agreement with Slovakia
I, s. 4921). at forbuddet mod forskelsbehandling i denne bestemmelse finder anvendelse på regler, som er fastsat af sportsforbund, og som indeholder betingelser for udøvelse af professionelle sportsfolks lønnede virksomhed.
It should be noted at the outset that, in paragraph 30 of its judgment in Case C-162/00 Pokrzeptowicz-Meyer [2002], the Court has already recognised the first indent of Article 37(1) of the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Poland, of the other part.
Den fortolkning af traktatens artikel 48, stk. 2, som Domstolen har anlagt i Bosman-dommen, og som er gengivet ovenfor i den foreliggende doms præmis 31 og 32. kan overføres på artikel 38, stk. 1, første led, i associeringsaftalen Fællesskaberne-Slovakiet.
It is to be observed, first, that the wording of the first indent of Article 38(1) of the Association Agreement with Slovakia and that of the first indent of Article 37(1) of the Association Agreement with Poland is identical.
Rækkevidden af forbuddet mod forskelsbehandling i anikel 38, stk. 1, første led, i associeringsaftalen Fællesskaberne-Slovakiet
In those circumstances, the first indent of Article 38(1) of the Association Agreement with Slovakia must be recognised as having direct effect, with the result that Slovak nationals who invoke it are entitled to rely on it before national courts of the host Member State.
En regel om sportsudøvelse som den i hovedsagen omhandlede angår arbejdsvilkår i den forstand, hvori dette udtryk anvendes i artikel 38, stk. 1, første led, i associeringsaftalen Fællesskaberne-Slovakiet, i det omfang den direkte påvirker muligheden for en professionel slovakisk spiller, der i forvejen er lovligt beskæftiget i henhold til værtsmedlemsstatens nationale retsforskrifter, for at deltage i mesterskabs- og pokalkampe.
The question whether the first indent of Article 38(1) of the Association Agreement with Slovakia applies to a rule laid down by a sports federation
Den fortolkning af traktatens artikel 48, stk. 2, som Domstolen har anlagt i Bosman-dommen, og som er gengivet ovenfor i den foreliggende doms præmis 48, kan overføres til artikel 38, stk. 1, første led, i associeringsaftalen Fællesskaberne-Slovakiet.
It should be observed that, in regard to Article 48(2) of the Treaty, it follows from paragraph 87 of the Court's judgment in Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] that the prohibition of discrimination laid down in that provision applies to rules laid down by sporting associations which determine the conditions under which professional sportsmen can engage in gainful employment.
Følgelig er artikel 38, stk. 1, første led, i associeringsaftalen Fællesskaberne-Slovakiet til hinder for at anvende en regel som SpO's § 15, stk. 1, litra b), og stk. 2, på Kolpak, da den medfører, at han som slovakisk statsborger, selv om han er lovligt beskæftiget i en medlemsstat, i princippet kun har en begrænset adgang i forhold til spillere, som er statsborgere i medlemsstaterne eller i en EØS-medlemsstat, til at deltage i visse kampe, nemlig mesterskabs- og pokalkampe i forbundsligaen og regionalligaerne, hvilke kampe i øvrigt udgør hans hovedbeskæftigelse som professionel spiller.
The interpretation of Article 48(2) of the Treaty adopted by the Court in Bosman and referred to in paragraphs 31 and 32 of the present judgment may be transposed to the first indent of Article 38(1) of the Association Agreement with Slovakia.
Den forskelsbehandling, som SpO's § 15, stk. 1, litra b), og stk. 2, medfører i den foreliggende sag, kan ikke anses for at være begrundet udelukkende i sportslige hensyn, da det fremgår af disse bestemmelser, at klubberne har mulighed for i kampe, der arrangeres af DHB, at benytte et ubegrænset antal spillere, som er statsborgere i en EØS-medlemsstat.
A sports rule such as that in issue in the main proceedings relates to working conditions within the meaning of the first indent of Article 38(1) of the Association Agreement with Slovakia inasmuch as it directly affects participation in league and cup matches of a Slovak professional player who is already lawfully employed under the national provisions of the host Member State.
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
The interpretation of Article 48(2) of the Treaty applied by the Court in Bosman and set out in paragraph 48 of the present judgment can be transposed to the first indent of Article 38(1) of the Association Agreement with Slovakia.
»Artikel 38, stk 1, første led, i Europaaftalen om oprettelse af en associering mellem De Europæiske Fællesskaber og medlemsstaterne på den ene side og Den Slovakiske Republik på den anden side, som blev undertegnet i Luxembourg den 4. oktober 1993 og godkendt på Fællesskabernes vegne ved Rådets og Kommissionens afgørelse 94/909/EKSF, EF, Euratom af 19. december 1994, skal fortolkes således, at den er til hinder for, at et sportsforbund i en medlemsstat anvender en af forbundet vedtaget bestemmelse på en professionel spiller af slovakisk nationalitet, som er lovligt beskæftiget af en klub i samme medlemsstat, hvorefter klubberne ved mesterskabs- og pokalkampe kun må indsætte et begrænset antal spulere fra tredjelande, som ikke er parter i aftalen om Det Europæiske Økonomiske Samarbejdsområde. «
Thus, the first indent of Article 38(1) of the Association Agreement with Slovakia precludes any application to Mr Kolpak of a rule such as that laid down in Rule 15(l)(b) and 15(2) of the SpO in so far as that rule gives rise to a situation in which Mr Kolpak, in his capacity as a Slovak national, although
Generaladvokat C. Stix-Hackl fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 11. juli 2002.
lawfully employed in a Member State, has, in principle, merely a limited opportunity, in comparison with players who are nationals of Member States or of EEA Member States, to participate in certain matches, that is to say, league and cup matches of the German federal or regional leagues, which constitute, moreover, the essential purpose of his activity as a professional player.
»Artikel 38, stk. 1, i Europaaftalen om oprettelse af en associering mellem De Europæiske Fællesskaber og medlemsstaterne på den ene side og Den Slovakiske Republik på den anden side har direkte virkning og er til hinder for, at et sportsforbund anvender en bestemmelse på en slovakisk statsborger som den i hovedsagen omhandlede, hvorefter klubberne ved mesterskabs- og pokalkampe kun må indsætte et begrænset antal spillere fra tredjelande uden for Det Europæiske Økonomiske Samarbejdsområde (EØS).«
The discrimination arising in the present case from Rule 15(l)(b) and 15(2) of the SpO cannot be regarded as justified on exclusively sporting grounds inasmuch as it follows from those rules that, during matches organised by the DHB, clubs are free to field an unlimited number of nationals of EEA Member States.
Ved kendelse af 22. februar 2001 har Oberster Gerichtshof i medfør af protokollen af 3. juni 1971 vedrørende Domstolens fortolkning af konventionen af 27. september 1968 om retternes kompetence og om fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser i borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager (herefter »protokollen«), forelagt tre præjudicielle spørgsmål om fortolkningen af artikel 21 i konventionen af 27. september 1968.
'The first indent of Article 38(1) of the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Slovak Republic, of the other part, signed in Luxembourg on 4 October 1993 and approved on behalf of the Communities by Decision 94/909/ECSC, EEC, Euratom of the Council and the Commission of 19 December 1994, must be construed as precluding the application to a professional sportsman of Slovak nationality, who is lawfully employed by a club established in a Member State, of a rule drawn up by a sports federation in that State under which clubs are authorised to field, during league or cup matches, only a limited number of players from non-member countries that are not parties to the Agreement on the European Economic Area.'
Mellem Gantner og Basch bestod der et forretningsforhold, hvorefter Gantner leverede sine varer til Basch til salg i Nederlandene.
Advocate General C. Stix-Hackl delivered her Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 11 July 2002.
Da Gantner fandt, at Basch ikke havde erlagt købesummen for vareleverancer, der var foretaget og faktureret indtil juni 1999, afbrød Gantner forretningsforholdet.
She proposed that the Court should answer as follows:
Ved stævning indleveret den 7. september 1999 og forkyndt for Gantner den 2. december 1999 — anlagde Basch sag mod Gantner ved Arrondissementsrechtbank te Dordrecht (Nederlandene) med principal påstand om tilkendelse af en erstatning på 5 555 143,60 NLG (2 520 814,26 EUR). Til støtte for kravet gjorde Basch gældende, at Gantner havde bragt et forretningsforhold, der havde bestået i over 40 år, til ophør, og at der skulle være givet et længere opsigelsesvarsel.
'Article 38(1) of the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Slovak Republic, of the other part, which is directly applicable, precludes the application to a Slovak national, as in this case, of a rule adopted by a sports federation under which clubs may field in league and cup matches only a limited number of players who come from non-member countries outside the European Economic Area (EEA).'
købesummen på 11 523 703,30 ATS (837 460,18 EUR) for vareleverancer, der var foretaget indtil juni 1999, og som ikke var betalt.
Case C-lll/01 Gantner Electronic GmbH ν Basch Exploitatie Maatschappij BV Judgments Convention/Enforcement of judgments
Basch gjorde gældende, at den del af Gantners krav, som Basch fandt godtgjort, dvs. 170 852,34 EUR, var ophørt ved udenretlig modregning i Nederlandene.
Preliminary ruling (Brussels Convention — Article 21 — Lis pendens — Set-off) (Fifth Chamber)
Landesgericht tog ikke sagsøgtes begæring om udsættelse af hele sagen til følge, men udsatte sagens behandling for så vidt angik den modregning, Basch havde fremsat indsigelse om, og som var genstand for den for Arrondissementsrechtbank te Dordrecht verserende sag.
By order of 22 February 2001 the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austrian Supreme Court) referred for a preliminary ruling under the Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (the Protocol'), three questions on the interpretation of Article 21 of the abovementioned Convention of 27 September 1968.
Basch kærede Landesgerichts afgørelse om ikke at udsætte sagen i dens helhed til Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck (Østrig).
The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for preliminary ruling
Derimod forkastede Oberlandesgericht kæremålet ved retskraftig beslutning for så vidt angik konventionens artikel 22.
In the course of its commercial relations with Basch, it supplied Basch with its goods for resale in the Netherlands.
Oberster Gerichtshof har besluttet at udsætte sagen og forelægge Domstolen tre præjudicielle spørgsmål.
By document of 7 September 1999, notified to Gantner on 2 December 1999, Basch brought an action before the Arrondissementsrechtbank (District Court) Dordrecht (Netherlands) in which it sought an order requiring Gantner to pay to it NLG 5 555 143.60 (EUR 2 520 814.26), primarily in respect of damages.
Første og andet præjudicielle spørgsmål
In the proceedings before the Arrondissementsrechtbank Dordrecht, Gantner did not plead a counterclaim in its defence against Basch.
Med de to første spørgsmål, som bør behandles samlet, ønsker Oberster Gerichtshof nærmere bestemt oplyst, om konventionens artikel 21 skal fortolkes således, at der med henblik på at bedømme, om to krav, der er fremsat mellem de samme parter ved retter i forskellige kontraherende stater, har samme genstand, skal tages hensyn til ikke blot de respektive sagsøgeres krav, men også til sagsøgtes indsigelser.
By document of 22 September 1999, notified to Basch on 21 December 1999, Gantner brought an action before the Landesgericht (Regional Court) Feldkirch (Austria) for an order requiring Basch to pay to it ATS 11 523 703.30 (EUR 837 460.18), corresponding to the sales price of the goods delivered to Basch up to 1999 which remained unpaid.
Formålet med konventionens artikel 21 ville ikke blive nået, hvis indholdet og karakteren af kravene kunne ændres af de indsigelser, sagsøgte fremsætter på et tidspunkt, der nødvendigvis er senere.
It contended that the portion of Gantner's claim that it considered to be justified, that is to say, EUR 170 852.34, was extinguished by the extra-judicial set-off that it had effected in the Netherlands.
Ud over forsinkelser og omkostninger ville en sådan løsning kunne føre til, at den ret, som oprindelig er udpeget som kompetent, i medfør af denne artikel efterfølgende skulle erklære sig inkompetent.
In regard to the balance of Gantner's claim (EUR 666 607.84), Basch argued that if, contrary to all probability, that claim was upheld, it would in any event be set off by the balance of its own claim for damages, which was the subject-matter of the dispute pending before the Arrondissementsrechtbank Dordrecht.
Det følger heraf, at med henblik på at bedømme, om der er litispendens mellem to sager, kan sagsøgtes indsigelser ikke tages i betragtning, uanset hvilke indsigelser der er tale om, og navnlig ikke indsigelser om modregning, som en sagsøgt måtte fremføre, efter at sagen er endeligt anlagt ved en ret i henhold til de nationale regler, der gælder for den pågældende ret.
Furthermore, Basch asked the Landesgericht to stay proceedings on the ground of lis pendens under Article 21, or on the ground that the proceedings constituted related actions within the meaning of Article 22 of the Convention.
Generaladvokat P. Léger fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den : > . december 2002.
Basch appealed to the Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Innsbruck (Austria) against the Landesgericht's decision not to stay the proceedings in their entirety.
Dansk tekst foreligger endnu ikke.
Gantner appealed against that decision to the Oberster Gerichtshof.
Sag C-384/01 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Den Franske Republik Fiskale bestemmelser
The Oberster Gerichtshof decided to stay proceedings and to refer a number of questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
»Traktatbrud — sjette momsdirektiv artikel 12, stk. 3, litra a) og b) — levering af gas og elektricitet fra offentlige net - abonnement på distributionsnet reduceret sats« (Femte Afdeling)
By its first two questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the national court seeks to ascertain, essentially, whether Article 21 of the Convention must be construed as meaning that, in order to determine whether two claims brought between the same parties before the courts of different Contracting States have the same subject-matter, account must be taken not only of the claims of the respective applicants but also of the grounds of defence raised by a defendant.