natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Hvad angår Republikken Østrig bemærkes desuden, at det ikke på forhånd kan udelukkes, at en i denne henseende afgivet viljeserklæring, selv om den er blevet afgivet med en vis forsinkelse, nemlig først i 1997, ikke desto mindre kan tages i betragtning med henblik på endeligt at godtgøre denne stats vilje til at anerkende Den Tjekkiske Republik som kontraherende part i de omhandlede bilaterale traktater og dermed til i det foreliggende tilfælde at antage, at anvendelsen af disse henhører under anvendelsesområdet for artikel 307, stk. 1, EF.
As regards the Republic of Austria, it should again be made clear that it cannot be ruled out a priori that a declaration of intention in that regard, even where made after a certain delay (that is, not until 1997), can nevertheless be taken into account for the purpose of definitively establishing the intention of that Member State to accept the Czech Republic as contracting party to the bilateral instruments at issue and to find that, in the present case, application of those instruments comes within the scope of the first paragraph of Article 307 EC.
Det ville forholde sig anderledes, hvis Republikken Østrig på et eller andet tidspunkt før forbundskanslerens meddelelse allerede klart havde givet udtryk for, at den havde den modsatte opfattelse.
It would be otherwise if, at any time prior to the Federal Chancellor's communication, the Republic of Austria had already clearly expressed the contrary intention.
Hvis den forelæggende ret efter afslutningen af den prøvelse, som den skal foretage — navnlig med hensyn til de elementer, som fremgår af denne dom — konkluderer, at Republikken Østrig på tidspunktet for sin tiltrædelse af Den Europæiske Union var bundet af de omhandlede bilaterale traktater over for Den Tjekkiske Republik, så følger det heraf, at disse traktater kan anses for at være konventioner indgået før denne tiltrædelse, jf. artikel 307, stk. 1, EF.
If, having carried out the checks that are necessary having regard, in particular, to the criteria set out in this judgment, the national court were to reach the conclusion that at the date of the Republic of Austria's accession to the European Union that Member State was bound to the Czech Republic by the bilateral instruments at issue, it would follow that those instruments can be regarded as acts concluded before the date of the Republic of Austria's accession to the European Union for the purposes of the first paragraph of Article 307 EC.
Det skal tilføjes, at medlemsstaterne i henhold til artikel 307, stk. 2, EF er forpligtede til at bringe alle egnede midler i anvendelse med henblik på at fjerne de uoverensstemmelser, der foreligger mellem en konvention, der er indgået før en medlemsstats tiltrædelse, og traktaten.
It should be added that, in accordance with the second paragraph of that provision, the Member States are required to take all appropriate steps to eliminate the incompatibilities between an agreement concluded before a Member State's accession and the Treaty.
Hvis det viser sig, at det i praksis er umuligt at fortolke en konvention indgået før en medlemsstats tiltrædelse af Den Europæiske Union i overensstemmelse med fællesskabsretten, kan denne stat inden for rammerne af artikel 307 EF træffe de passende foranstaltninger, idet den dog er forpligtet til at fjerne uoverensstemmelserne mellem den tidligere konvention og traktaten.
If it proves impracticable to interpret an agreement concluded prior to a Member State's accession to the European Union in such a way that it is consistent with Community law then, within the framework of Article 307 EC, it is open to that State to take the appropriate steps, while, however, remaining obliged to eliminate any incompatibilities existing between the earlier agreement and the Treaty.
Støder medlemsstaten på problemer, som gør det umuligt at ændre en aftale, kan det derfor ikke udelukkes, at den må opsige aftalen (jf. dom af 4.7.2000, sag C-84/98, Kommissionen mod Portugal, præmis 58).
If that Member State encounters difficulties which make adjustment of an agreement impossible, an obligation to denounce that agreement cannot therefore be excluded (see Case C-84/98 Commission ν Portugal [2000], paragraph 58).
Det bemærkes, at den bilaterale konventions artikel 16, stk. 3, bestemmer, at de to kontraherende parter skriftligt og ad diplomatisk vej kan opsige konventionen under overholdelse af en frist på mindst ét år.
In that regard, its should be noted that Article 16(3) of the bilateral convention provides that the two contracting parties may denounce the convention by giving notice of at least one year, issued in writing and through diplomatic channels.
Indtil et af de midler, der er nævnt i artikel 307, stk. 2, EF, gør det muligt at fjerne eventuelle uoverensstemmelser mellem en konvention, der er indgået forud for vedkommende medlemsstats tiltrædelse af Den Europæiske Union, og traktaten, giver artikel 307, stk. 1, EF staten mulighed for at fortsætte med at anvende en sådan konvention, i det omfang den indeholder forpligtelser, som fortsat er folkeretligt bindende for den.
Pending the success of one of the methods referred to in the second paragraph of Article 307 EC in eliminating any incompatibilities between an agreement predating the accession of the Member State
2) Artikel 28 EF er til hinder for anvendelsen af en bestemmelse i en bilateral traktat, som er indgået mellem en medlemsstat og el tredjeland, og hvorefter en betegnelse, der ideile land hverken direkte eller indirekte henviser til produktets geografiske oprindelse, nyder en beskyttelse i importmedlemsstaten, der er uafhængig af en mulig risiko for vildledning, og som gør det muligt at hindre import af en vare, der lovligt er bragt i omsætning i en anden medlemsstat.
Article 28 EC precludes the application of a provision of a bilateral agreement between a Member State and a nonmember country under which a name which in that country does not directly or indirectly refer to the geographical source of the product that it designates is accorded protection in the importing Member State, whether or not there is any risk of consumers being misled, and the import of a product lawfully marketed in another Member State may be prevented.
3) Artikel 307, stk 1, EF skal fortolkes således, at den gør det muligt for en ret i en medlemsstat — under forbehold for den prøvelse, som den skal foretage, navnlig med hensyn til de elementer, som fremgår af denne dom — at anvende bestemmelser i bilaterale traktater som dem, der er omhandlet i hovedsagen, der er indgået mellem denne stat og et tredjeland, vedrørende beskyttelse af en betegnelse i dette tredjeland, selv hvis disse bestemmelser viser sig at være i strid med EF-traktatens bestemmelser, fordi der er tale om en forpligtelse, der følger af konventioner, som er indgået forud for tidspunktet for den pågældende medlemsstats tiltrædelse af Den Europæiske Union.
The first paragraph of Article 307 EC is to be interpreted as permitting a court of a Member State, subject to the findings to be made by that court having regard inter alia to the criteria set out in this judgment, to apply the provisions of bilateral agreements such as those at issue in the main proceedings, concluded between that State and a nonmember country and according protection to a name from the nonmember country, even where those provisions prove to be contrary to the EC Treaty rules, on the ground that they concern an obligation resulting from agreements concluded before the date of the accession of the Member State concerned to the European Union.
Indtil et af de midler, der er nævnt i artikel 307, stk 2, EF, gør det muligt at fjerne eventuelle uoverensstemmelser mellem en konvention, der er indgået forud f or en sådan tiltrædelse, og traktaten, giver artikel 307, stk 1, EF medlemsstaten mulighed for at fortsætte med at anvende en sådan konvention, i det omfang den indeholder forpligtelser, som fortsat er folkeretligt bindende for den.*
Pending the success of one of the methods referred to in the second paragraph of Article 307 EC in eliminating any incompatibilities between an agreement predating that accession and the Treaty, the first paragraph ofthat article permits that State to continue to apply such an agreement in so far as it contains obligations which remain binding on that State under international law.'
Generaladvokat A. Tizzano fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 22. maj 2003.
Advocate General A. Tizzano delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 22 May 2003.
Sag C-8/01 Assurandør-Societetet / Skatteministeriet Fiskale bestemmelser
Case C-8/01 Assurandør-Societetet ν Skatteministeriet Taxation
Præjudiciel »Sjette momsdirektiv — artikel 13, punkt A, stk 1, litra f), og artikel 13, punkt B, litra a) — fritagelse for tjenesteydelser, som præsteres af selvstændige grupper af personer, under forudsætning af, at fritagelsen ikke vil kunne fremkalde konkurrencefordrejning — fritagelse for forsikringstransaktioner og tjenesteydelser i forbindelse med forsikringstransaktioner, som udføres afforsikringsmæglere ogforsikringsformidlere—taksation afmotorkøretøjsskader, som en forening foretager for forsikringsselskaber, der er medlemmer afforeningen* (Femte Afdeling)
Preliminary ruling (Sixth VAT Directive —Article 13A(l)(f) and 13B(a) — Exemption for services performed by independent groups not likely to give rise to distortions of competition — Exemption for insurance transactions and related services performed by insurance brokers and insurance agents — Assessments of damage caused to motor vehicles carried out by an association on behalf of insurance companies which are members of that association) (Fifth Chamber)
Ved beslutning af 20. december 2000 har Østre Landsret forelagt fem præjudicielle spørgsmål om fortolkningen af artikel 13, punkt A, stk. 1, litra f), og artikel 13, punkt B, litra a), i Rådets sjette direktiv 77/388/EØF af 17. maj 1977 om harmonisering af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om omsætningsafgifter — Det fælles merværdiafgiftssystem: ensartet beregningsgrundlag.
By order of 20 December 2000 the Østre Landsret (Eastern Regional Court) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling five questions on the interpretation of Article 13A(l)(f) and 13B(a) of 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.
Hovedsagen og de præjudicielle spørgsmål
The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions submitted for preliminary ruling
Det fremgår af forelæggelsesbeslutningen, at Taksatorringen er en forening, hvis medlemmer er mindre og mellemstore forsikringsselskaber, der har koncession til at tegne motorkøretøjsforsikringer i Danmark.
According to the order for reference, Taksatorringen is an association whose members are small or medium-sized insurance companies authorised to underwrite motor-vehicle insurance policies in Denmark.
Foreningen har ca. 35 medlemmer.
The association has approximately 35 members.
Taksatorringens formål er at foretage taksation af motorkøretøjsskader i Danmark for medlemmerne.
The purpose of Taksatorringen is to assess damage to motor vehicles in Denmark on behalf of its members.
Medlemmerne er forpligtede til at lade de skader, der i Danmark er sket på motorkøretøjer, opgøre af Taksatorringen.
The latter are required to use the services provided by Taksatorringen in respect of damage to motor vehicles incurred within Denmark.
Udgifterne til Taksatorringens virksomhed fordeles mellem medlemmerne, således at det enkelte medlems betaling for ydelser fra foreningen nøjagtig svarer til medlemmets andel i de fælles udgifter.
The expenses involved in Taksatorringen's activity are apportioned among the members in such a way that the payments made by each member for the services provided by the association correspond exactly to that member's share of the joint expenses.
Medlemmerne kan opsige deres medlemskab af Taksatorringen med seks måneders varsel.
Members may withdraw from Taksatorringen by giving six months' notice.
Når en forsikringstagers køretøj er blevet beskadiget og skal repareres for et medlemsselskabs regning, udfærdiger forsikringstageren en skadesanmeldelse, der sammen med det beskadigede køretøj indleveres på et automobilværksted efter forsikringstagerens valg.
In the case where a policy holder's vehicle has been damaged and is to be repaired at the expense of a company affiliated to Taksatorringen, the policy holder draws up a declaration of damage, which he hands over, together with the damaged vehicle, to the car-repair workshop of his choice.
Værkstedet gennemgår det beskadigede køretøj og anmoder efter gennemgangen om, at køretøjet besigtiges af en taksator fra en af Taksatorringens lokale taksatorcentraler.
The workshop examines the damaged vehicle and, on conclusion of its examination, requests that the vehicle be inspected by an assessor ('the expert') from one of Taksatorringen's local assessment centres.
Taksator opgør skaden på motorkøretøjet efter drøftelse med værkstedet.
The expert estimates the damage to the vehicle after consultation with the workshop.
Taksator udarbejder en specificeret taksationsrapport med en arbejdsbeskrivelse og oplysning om de totale omkostninger ved udbedring af skaden.
He compiles a detailed report containing a description of the work to be carried out and information on the total expenses involved in repairing the damage.
Det fremgår ligeledes af forelæggelsesbeslutningen, at Taksatorringen i december 1992 fik en midlertidig tilladelse fra Told- og Skattestyrelsen til, at foreningen kunne udøve sin virksomhed uden krav om momsregistrering.
The order for reference further states that Taksatorringen originally received, in December 1992, from the Told- og Skattestyrelse (Customs and Tax Authority), provisional authorisation to conduct its activities without being subject to prior registration for VAT purposes.
Denne midlertidige tilladelse blev tilbagekaldt den 30. september 1993, efter at en række
Following complaints by several
Den forelæggende ret har imidlertid oplyst, at det har vist sig, at disse virksomheder ikke leverede taksationsydelser eller havde konkrete planer om at levere sådanne ydelser.
The Østre Landsret does, however, point out that it has transpired that the complainant undertakings did not carry out vehicle assessments and did not specifically plan to offer such a service.
Taksatorringen indgav en fornyet ansøgning om afgiftsfritagelse, som blev afslået af Told- og Skatteregion Hvidovre.
Taksatorringen thereupon reapplied for VAT exemption, but its application was turned down by the Toldog Skatteregion Hvidovre (Hvidovre regional customs and tax authority) (Denmark).
Afslaget blev stadfæstet af Told- og Skattestyrelsen, hvorefter Taksatorringen indbragte sagen for Momsnævnet.
That refusal was confirmed by the Told- og Skattestyrelse, following which Taksatorringen brought the matter before the Momsnævn (VAT Tribunal).
Taksatorringen gjorde for Momsnævnet gældende, at den af foreningen udøvede virksomhed skulle anses for momsfritaget i henhold til momslovens § 13, stk. 1, nr. 20.
Before the Momsnævn, Taksatorringen argued that its activity ought to be exempt from VAT on foot of Paragraph 13(1).20 of the Momslov.
Ved afgørelse af 4. april 1997 stadfæstede Momsnævnet Told- og Skattestyrelsens afslag.
By decision of 4 April 1997 the Momsnævn upheld the refusal by the Told- og Skattestyrelse.
Taksatorringen indbragte Momsnævnets afgørelse for Østre Landsret.
Taksatorringen has challenged the decision of the Momsnævn before the Østre Landsret.
Østre Landsret har herefter besluttet at udsætte sagen og forelægge Domstolen følgende fem præjudicielle spørgsmål:
It was in those circumstances that the Østre Landsret decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following five questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
»1) Skal bestemmelserne i Rådets sjette direktiv af 17. maj 1977 om harmonisering af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om omsætningsafgifter — Det fælles merværdiafgiftssystem: ensartet beregningsgrundlag (77/388/EØF), og navnlig bestemmelsen i artikel 13, pkt. Β, litra a), fortolkes således, at taksationsydelser, som en virksomhed yder til sine medlemmer, må anses for omfattet af begrebet »forsikringstransaktion« i bestemmelsens forstand, eller af begrebet »tjenesteydelser i forbindelse med forsikringstransaktioner, som udføres af forsikringsmæglere og -formidlere«?
Must the provisions of 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, and in particular the provision in Article 13B(a) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that assessment services which an undertaking provides for its members are to be regarded as being covered by the term "insurance transactions", within the meaning of that provision, or by the term "related services performed by insurance brokers and insurance agents"?
Skal artikel 13, punkt A, litra f), i sjette momsdirektiv fortolkes således, at der skal indrømmes momsfrihed for ydelser af den art, som en virksomhed — der i øvrigt opfylder bestemmelsens betingelser for momsfritagelse — yder til sine medlemmer, hvis det ikke kan påvises, at afgiftsfritagelse vil medføre nogen aktuel eller konkret truende konkurrencefordrejning, men hvor der kun foreligger en mulighed herfor?
Must Article 13A(l)(f) of the Sixth VAT Directive be interpreted as meaning that exemption from VAT must be granted for services of the type which an undertaking — which otherwise meets the conditions set out in that provision for VAT exemption — provides for its members, in the case where it cannot be demonstrated that the exemption will produce actual or imminent distortion of competition but where there is merely a possibility that this might happen?
Har det nogen betydning ved besvarelsen af spørgsmål 2, hvor fjern muligheden for konkurrencefordrejning må antages at være, eksempelvis hvis muligheden ikke fremstår som realistisk?
Does the issue of how remote the possibility of a distortion of competition may be assumed to be, or whether the possibility seems unrealistic, have any bearing on the answer to Question 2?
Vil det være uforeneligt med artikel 13, punkt A, litra f), i sjette momsdirektiv, såfremt det lægges til grund, at det ifølge national ret er muligt at gøre en afgiftsfritagelse, som meddeles i medfør af førnævnte bestemmelse, tidsbegrænset i de tilfælde, hvor der er tvivl om, hvorvidt fritagelsen vil kunne skabe konkurrencefordrejning på et senere tidspunkt?
Would it be incompatible with Article 13A(l)(f) of the Sixth VAT Directive to proceed on the basis that under national law it is possible to make a tax exemption that is notified pursuant to that provision limited in time in cases where there is doubt as to whether the exemption might at a later stage distort competition?
Har det nogen betydning ved besparelsen af spørgsmål 1 og 2, at taksationsydelser for de største forsikringsselskabers vedkommende leveres af forsikringsselskabernes egne ansatte taksatorer og dermed er fritaget for afgift?«
Does the fact that assessment services are, so far as the largest insurance companies are concerned, provided by assessors employed by those insurance companies themselves and are thus exempt from VAT have any bearing on the answers to Questions 1 and 2?'
Det må konstateres, at der overhovedet ikke består et kontraktforhold mellem en forening som Taksatorringen — hvis medlemmer er forsikringsselskaber, og hvis virksomhed består i for medlemmerne at foretage taksation af motorkøretøjsskader — og de forsikrede.
An association, such as Taksatorringen, whose members are insurance companies and which carries out assessments of damage to motor vehicles on behalf of its members does not have any contractual relationship with the insured parties.
Heraf følger, at det ikke kan have selvstændig betydning for fortolkningen af sjette momsdirektivs artikel 13, punkt A, stk. 1, litra f), og artikel 13, punkt B, litra a), at de største forsikringsselskaber lader taksation af motorkøretøjsskader udføre af deres egne ansatte taksatorer, hvorved de undgår, at der skal svares moms af disse ydelser.
As to whether such services are 'related services performed by insurance brokers and insurance agents', it must be stated that this expression refers only to services provided by professionals who have a relationship with both the insurer and the insured party, it being stressed that the broker is no more than an intermediary.
En national lovgivning, hvorefter det er muligt at indrømme en tidsbegrænset fritagelse — som den i hovedsagen omhandlede — i tilfælde, hvor der er tvivl om, hvorvidt fritagelsen vil kunne fremkalde konkurrencefordrejning på et senere tidspunkt, er forenelig med artikel 13, punkt A, stk 1, litra f), i sjette direktiv 77/388 på betingelse af, at fritagelsen forlænges, så længe den pågældende opfylder bestemmelsens betingelser.
Although a comparative examination of the different language versions of Article 13A(l)(f) of the Sixth Directive shows that the expression 'provided that such exemption is not likely to produce distortion of competition' is not directed solely at distortions of competition which the exemption is likely to produce immediately but also at those to which it may give rise in the future, the risk that the exemption will by itself give rise to distortions of competition must none the less be real.
Det har ikke betydning for besvarelsen af det første, andet og tredje præjudicielle spørgsmål, at de største forsikringsselskaber lader taksation af motorkøretøjsskader udføre af deres egne ansatte taksatorer, hvorved de undgår, at disse tjenesteydelser pålægges merværdiafgift.*
There is nothing in the Sixth Directive to justify the conclusion that national legislation which allows a temporary exemption to be granted where doubt exists as to whether that exemption is liable at a later date to give rise to distortions of competition is incompatible with Article 13A(l)(f) of the Sixth Directive, provided that the exemption is renewed only for as long as the person concerned satisfies the conditions of that provision.
Generaladvokat J. Mischo fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet ("Femte Afdeling) den 3. oktober 2002.
It should be noted in this regard that, in its analysis for the purpose of replying to the first three questions, the Court took account of all aspects of the provision in question and the VAT system in its totality.
Den omstændighed, at de største virksomheder lader egne ansatte udføre de transaktioner, som andre, mindre virksomheder lader udføre gennem grupper af personer, som de har oprettet med henblik herpå, og de største virksomheder dermed — i modsætning til de mindre — er fritaget for merværdiafgift af transaktionerne, kan ikke føre til en anden besvarelse af spørgsmål 1 og 2.«
Article 13A(l)(f) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388 must be construed as meaning that the grant of exemption from value added tax under that provision to an association such as that in issue in the main proceedings and which satisfies all of the other conditions of that provision must be refused if there is a genuine risk that the exemption may by itself, immediately or in the future, give rise to distortions of competition.
Præjudiciel »Fælles toldtarif — toldværdi —fastsættelse af transaktionsværdi — rentebetaling i henhold til en finansieringsordning — manglende inddragelse — betingelser — renter angivet særskut i forhold til den pris, der faktisk er betalt eller skal betales — deklaration uden angivelse af renter, der er betalt eller skal betales* (Femte Afdeling)
Preliminary ruling (Common Customs Tariff — Customs value — Determination of the transaction value — Interest payable under a financing arrangement — Exclusion — Conditions — Interest distinguished from the price actually paid or payable — Declaration not mentioning the interest due or paid) (Fifth Chamber)