natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Fradraget af indgående afgift medfører, at alle mellemled fuldstændig afgiftsfritages, og at forbrugeren i sidste ende pålægges en afgift, som er fuldstændig proportionel med værdien af ydelsen.
Deduction of input tax means that all intermediate stages are relieved entirely of the VAT burden and the consumer is ultimately charged with a tax that is exactly proportionate to the value of the supply.
Domstolen har senere generelt fastslået, at princippet om afgiftsneutralitet er
The Court later deduced, very generally, from the principle of fiscal neutrality
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT KOKOTT — SAG C-309/06 drejninger, der skyldes forskelsbehandling i momsmæssig henseende.
OPINION OF MRS KOKOTT — CASE C-309/06 purposes. Therefore, distortion is established once it has been found that supplies of services are in competition and are treated unequally for the purposes of VAT.
Der foreligger således fordrejninger, når det konstateres, at ydelser, der er i indbyrdes konkurrence, behandles forskelligt med hensyn til momsen 41.
41 that similar — and thus competing — goods must be treated in the same way for VAT purposes.
Denne side af princippet om afgiftsneutralitet har i den hidtidige retspraksis navnlig spillet en rolle ved fastsættelsen af skattepligtige transaktioner og fortolkningen af fritagelsesbestemmelserne i artikel 13 i det sjette direktiv.
39That aspect of the principle of neutrality has been significant in the established caselaw, in particular in determining the taxable transactions and interpreting the constituent elements of exemptions under Article 13 of the Sixth Directive.
Af denne definition af princippet om afgiftsneutralitet fremgår i denne sag, at det er ulovligt at behandle leveringer af (sammenlignelige) småkager skattemæssigt forskelligt.
It follows from that definition of the principle of neutrality, as regards the case here at issue, that it is not permissible to treat supplies of (comparable) teacakes differently for tax purposes.
Bestemmelserne om tilbagebetaling af afgifter må heller ikke efterfølgende føre til en forskellig behandling af leveringer af sammenlignelige produkter.
The provisions on the refund of the tax may also not, at a later stage, lead to different treatment of supplies of comparable products.
Domstolen har i andre afgørelser tillige fastslået, at princippet om afgiftsneutralitet er til hinder for, at erhvervsdrivende, som udfører de samme transaktioner, behandles forskelligt med hensyn til opkrævning af moms 40.
In further decisions, the Court also held that, in accordance with the principle of fiscal neutrality, economic oper- ators carrying out the same transactions may not be treated differently in relation to the levying of VAT.
Selv om ligebehandlingen af forskellige erhvervsdrivende herved tilsyneladende understreges stærkere, forstår jeg denne konstatering således, at det netop er ulovligt at behandle forskellige erhvervsdrivende forskelligt med hensyn til ensartede transaktioner.
40 Although the issue of the equal treatment of different economic operators appears to have acquired greater prominence here, I still understand that finding as meaning that different economic operators may not be treated differently specifically in relation to their similar transactions.
Princippet om afgiftsneutralitet omfatter derimod ikke den generelle forskelsbehandling af forskellige erhvervsdrivende, hvor der ikke er tale om en sammenhæng mellem beskatningen af ensartede transaktioner, men derimod en sammenhæng mellem øvrige egenskaber.
However, the principle of neutrality does not cover general discrimination as between different economic operators which, completely unrelated to the charging of tax on similar transactions, involves other features.
Følgelig er den omstændighed, at Tesco muligvis har modtaget tilbagebetaling af afgifter i forbindelse med andre varer, skønt afgifterne er blevet overvæltet på andre, ikke relevant for anvendelsen af princippet om afgiftsneutralitet.
Therefore, the fact that Tesco might have obtained tax refunds in respect of other goods, although the taxes concerned were passed on, is of no consequence to the application of the principle of neutrality.
Endelig har Domstolen fastslået, at princippet om afgiftsneutralitet omfatter princippet om fjernelse af konkurrencefor-
In the end, the Court held that the principle of fiscal neutrality includes the principle of elimination of distortion in competition as a result of differing treatment for VAT
En tilsidesættelse af princippet om afgiftsneutralitet er godtgjort, når princippet
Infringement of the principle of neutrality is established if the zero-rating
41 — Dommen i sagen JP Morgan Fleming Claverhouse Investment Trust m.fl., nævnt ovenfor i fodnote 27, præmis 47 og den deri nævnte retspraksis.
40 — Case C-382/02 Cimber Air [2004] ECR I-8379, paragraphs 23 and 24; Case C-280/04 Jyske Finans [2005] ECR I-10683, paragraph 39; and Case C-169/04 Abbey National and Inscape Investment Fund [2006] ECR I-4027, paragraph 56.
MARKS & SPENCER af sjette momsdirektiv også overholde det almindelige lighedsprincip, hvorefter ensartede forhold ikke må behandles forskelligt, og forskellige forhold ikke må behandles ensartet, medmindre en sådan forskellig behandling er objektivt begrundet 42. om zero-rating på forhånd er blevet anvendt på leveringen af småkager for så vidt angår andre erhvervsdrivende, mens tilsvarende leveringer fra Marks & Spencer er blevet pålagt moms efter normalsatsen. En tilsidesættelse er ligeledes godtgjort, når andre erhvervsdrivende i modsætning til Marks & Spencer efterfølgende har modtaget tilbagebetaling af afgifter som følge af en revurdering i forbindelse med tilsvarende leveringer, uden hensyntagen til indsigelsen om ugrundet berigelse. Der skal ikke nødvendigvis være tale om mere vidtgående økonomiske ulemper. Den forskellige skattemæssige behandling af tilsvarende transaktioner er nemlig en indikation for konkurrenceforvridning. 65.
MARKS & SPENCER implementing the Sixth Directive, must also observe the general principle of equal treatment, under which comparable situations must not be treated differently and different situations must not be treated in the same way unless such treatment is objectively justified. 42 was applied from the outset to the supply of teacakes by other traders whereas corresponding supplies by Marks & Spencer were taxed at the standard rate. The infringement is also established if, in contrast to Marks & Spencer, other traders subsequently obtained a refund of the VAT as a consequence of the reappraisal of the relevant supplies, but no recourse was had to the defence of enrichment. The burden of proof does not call for any further-reaching economic disadvantage. After all, the different tax treatment of similar transactions is sufficient indication that competition has been distorted. 65.
Det Forenede Kongeriges regering har ikke bestridt, at der for så vidt angår indsigelsen om ugrundet berigelse gjaldt forskellige regler for Repayment traders og payment traders frem til ændringen af momsloven i 2005. Regeringen er imidlertid af den opfattelse, at tilbagebetalingskravene i de respektive situationer ikke er sammenlignelige.
The United Kingdom Government does not dispute that different rules applied to repayment traders and payment traders in terms of the defence of enrichment until the Value Added Tax Act was amended in 2005.
Ligesom Kommissionen og Marks & Spencer kan jeg imidlertid ikke finde nogen forskel, der kan være afgørende for anvendelsen, henholdsvis ikke-anvendelsen af indsigelsen om ugrundet berigelse. 63.
I, however, like the Commission and Marks & Spencer, can see no difference that would be material to deciding whether or not to invoke the defence of enrichment. — Principle of equal treatment
I begge tilfælde omfatter prisen for den leverede vare i første omgang momsen.
In each case, the price initially paid for the product supplied includes VAT. The
Ud over princippet om afgiftsneutralitet skal medlemsstaterne ved gennemførelsen
In addition to the principle of fiscal neutrality, Member States, when
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT KOKOTT — SAG C-309/06 krav om tilbagebetaling. Dette var imidlertid ikke tilfældet i henhold til Det Forenede Kongeriges lovgivning frem til ændringen af retsstillingen i 2005.
OPINION OF MRS KOKOTT — CASE C-309/06
Allerede den omstændighed, at lovgiver handlede, antyder, at der forud herfor forelå en åbenbar forskelsbehandling af sammenlignelige situationer.
The action of the legislature in itself suggests that, previously, comparable situations were clearly treated differently.
Hvis situationerne rent faktisk ikke havde været sammenlignelige, ville lovgiver ikke have kunnet anvende indsigelsen om ugrundet berigelse efter section 80, stk. 3, i 2005-momsloven på repayment traders.
If the situations had not actually been comparable, the legislature would not have been allowed to extend the defence of enrichment under section 80(3) of the Value Added Tax Act 2005 to the situation of repayment traders.
Den frem til dette tidspunkt eksisterende forskelsbehandling er så meget mindre forståelig, eftersom det beror på mange forskellige og til enhver tid foranderlige faktorer, såsom produktsortimentets sammensætning, foretagne investeringer osv., om en skattepligtig befinder sig i den ene eller den anden situation inden for en afgiftsperiode.
In that regard, the inequality of treatment presented thus far is all the more unfathomable as the issue whether a taxable person finds himself in either of those situations in a given assessment period depends on all manner of unforeseeable circumstances and factors that could change at any time, such as the composition of the range of products or the investment position.
Viser det sig efterfølgende, at visse transaktioner skulle være blevet pålagt moms efter nulsatsen i stedet for normalsatsen, formindskes en af modregningsposterne.
If it is established at a later stage that certain transactions should have been taxed at the zero rate rather than at the standard rate, one of the offsetting items is thereby reduced.
For en repayment trader medfører dette en forhøjelse af saldoen til dennes fordel, mens det for en payment trader medfører en formindskelse af saldoen til fordel for statskassen.
In the case of a repayment trader, this leads to an increase in the credit to his account whilst leading, in the case of a payment trader, to a reduction in the credit to the tax authority.
Med henblik på at korrigere dette kræves der i begge tilfælde en tilbagebetaling fra statskassen til den afgiftspligtige, som kan føre til en ugrundet berigelse, hvis afgiften for den pågældende udgangstransaktion fuldstændig er blevet overvæltet på kunderne og heller ingen andre øvrige økonomiske ulemper udelukker en berigelse.
To rectify the tax error, the tax authority is required in each case to repay the amount concerned to the taxable person, which can in each case lead to unjust enrichment if the tax in respect of the output concerned has been passed on in full to customers and no other economic disadvantages preclude enrichment.
— Afhjælpning af tilsidesættelser af princippet om afgiftsneutralitet og ligebehandlingsprincippet
— Remedy in the event of infringement of the principles of fiscal neutrality and equal treatment
Da situationen for en repayment trader og en payment trader således er identisk for så vidt angår berigelse, kræver ligebehandlingsprincippet, at indsigelsen om ugrundet berigelse også på samme måde bringes til anvendelse i forbindelse med de respektive
Since the respective situations of repayment and payment traders are, accordingly, the same in terms of enrichment, the principle of equal treatment requires that the defence of enrichment may also be invoked in the same way in the respective claims for refund.
I et sådant tilfælde har den nationale ret pligt til at tilsidesætte enhver national bestemmelse, der er diskriminerende, uden at den behøver at anmode om eller afvente, at bestemmelsen forinden ophæves af lovgiver, og den har pligt til at anvende de samme regler på den gruppe, der forskelsbehandles, som de, der gælder for de øvrige arbejdstagere 46.
In such a situation, a national court must set aside any discriminatory provision of national law, without having to request or await its prior removal by the legislature, and apply to members of the disadvantaged group the same arrangements as those enjoyed by the persons in the other category. 46
Heraf følger, at indsigelsen om ugrundet berigelse ikke kan gøres gældende over for Marks & Spencer, så længe den er i strid med ligebehandlingsprincippet. 73.
It follows that the objection that Marks & Spencer has been enriched cannot be invoked as long as it offends against the principle of equal treatment. 73.
Medlemsstaten kan ganske vist selv afgøre, hvorledes den ønsker at imødegå fremtidige tilsidesættelser af ligebehandlingsprincippet.
Member States have, admittedly, the choice as to how they intend to eliminate infringements of the principle of equal treatment in future.
I princippet kan den ophæve afgiften for den ene gruppe eller på tilsvarende vis udvide den til at omfatte den anden gruppe.
They can, in principle, remove the tax burden for one category or extend its imposition in the same way to the other category.
Hvad fortiden angår må en efterfølgende udvidelse af afgiften imidlertid være i strid med princippet om den berettigede forventning 45.
As to the tax position in the past, retroactive extension of the tax burden would, by contrast, probably offend in general against the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. 45
Det er ganske vist ikke muligt at kræve ligebehandling i forbindelse med retsstridige handlinger 47.
It is true that no person may call for equality in illegality.
44 — Jf. bl.a. dom af 9.9.2003, sag C-198/01, CIF, Sml. I, s. 8055, præmis 48, og dommen i sagen Manfredi m.fl., nævnt ovenfor i fodnote 43, præmis 39.
43 — See, in particular, Case 106/77 Simmenthal [1978] ECR 629, paragraph 16; Case C-213/89 Factortame and Others [1990] ECR I-2433, paragraph 19; Case C-453/99 Courage and Crehan [2001] ECR I-6297, paragraph 25; and Joined Cases C-295/04 to C-298/04 Manfredi and Others [2006] ECR I-6619, paragraph 89.
I, s. 4279, præmis 44-47, og Marks & Spencer I-dommen, nævnt ovenfor i fodnote 9, præmis 45 og 46. 47 — Jf. dom af 9.10.1984, sag 188/83, Witte mod Parlamentet, Sml. s. 3465, præmis 15, og af 4.7.1985, sag 134/84, Williams mod Revisionsretten, Sml. s. 2225, præmis 14.
45 — See Case C-396/98 Schloßstraße [2000] ECR I-4279, paragraphs 44 and 47, and Marks & SpencerI (cited in footnote 9), paragraphs 45 and 46. 47 — See Case 188/83 Witte v Parliament [1984] ECR 3465, paragraph 15, and Case 134/84 Williams v Court of Auditors [1985] ECR 2225, paragraph 14.
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT KOKOTT — SAG C-309/06 for andre virksomheder, er statsstøtte.
OPINION OF MRS KOKOTT — CASE C-309/06 other businesses constitutes State aid; the addition of other undertakings to the circle of potential beneficiaries would not eliminate the effects of aid granted unlawfully but would, on the contrary, lead to an increase in the effects of that aid. 48
Marks & Spencer har navnlig under retsmødet understreget, at afvisningen af tilbagebetalingen på sin side vil medføre en ugrundet berigelse, nemlig af statskassen, mens tilbagebetalingen i realiteten burde komme Marks & Spencers kunder, som i sidste ende har betalt den uretmæssige afgift, til gode. Det Forenede Kongerige har heroverfor indvendt, at staten under alle omstændigheder anvender de med urette opkrævede afgifter til almennyttige formål, hvorfor de således også i sidste ende vil komme Marks & Spencers kunder til gode. 77.
At the hearing, in particular, Marks & Spencer stressed that the refusal to grant it a refund would, in its view, lead to the unjust enrichment of the tax authority itself. After all, the customers of Marks & Spencer who ultimately paid the VAT that was not due would actually be the persons entitled to the refund. Challenging that argument, the United Kingdom maintained that the State none the less used the tax revenue that had been unduly raised in the public interest, with the result that the customers of Marks & Spencer also derived benefit from it. 77.
Ifølge fast retspraksis er medlemsstaterne imidlertid ikke forpligtede til at udelukke tilbagebetaling af afgifter opkrævet i strid med fællesskabsretten, hvis dette vil medføre en ugrundet berigelse.
The Court has consistently held, however, that Member States are not obliged to preclude the refund of charges levied in breach of Community law where it would lead to unjust enrichment.
Tværtimod bør tilbagebetalingen i henhold til retspraksis udgøre reglen, hvorfra der kan fraviges med henblik på at kunne undgå ugrundet berigelse 49.
In fact, according to the caselaw, refund is supposed to be the norm from which a derogation can be made in order to avoid unjust enrichment.
Det er således ikke ulovligt, hvis det i henhold til en national bestemmelse er tilladt at tilbagebetale afgifter opkrævet i strid med fællesskabsretten uden begrænsninger ved en indsigelse om ugrundet berigelse, således som det i Det Forenede Kongerige tilsyneladende var tilfældet med hensyn til repayment traders frem til 2005.
49Consequently, it is not unlawful for a national provision to allow a refund of charges levied in breach of Community law without constraint from an objection of enrichment, as was clearly the case until 2005 in the United Kingdom with regard to repayment traders.
At fjerne forskelsbehandlingen ved ikke at anvende indsigelsen om ugrundet berigelse over for payment traders medfører derfor ikke »ligebehandling i forbindelse med retsstridige handlinger«.
Eliminating unequal treatment by disapplying the defence of enrichment in respect of payment traders does not therefore create ‘equality in illegality’.
Jeg skal i denne sammenhæng påpege, at en medlemsstat principielt ikke kan påberåbe sig en tilsidesættelse af fællesskabsretten med henblik på egen vinding 50.
In that connection, it should be borne in mind that a Member State may not in principle take advantage of its own failure to comply with Community law.
49 — Jf. ovenfor, punkt 48 og 49 og den deri nævnte retspraksis.
49 — See points 48 and 49 above and the caselaw cited there.
MARKS & SPENCER V — Forslag til afgørelse
MARKS & SPENCER V — Conclusion
Som følge af ovenstående foreslår jeg Domstolen at besvare de præjudicielle spørgsmål således:
I accordingly propose that the questions referred for a preliminary ruling be answered as follows:
»1) Hvis en medlemsstat i medfør af sjette momsdirektivs artikel 28, stk. 2, 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 (før og efter ændringen af denne bestemmelse i 1992 ved direktiv 92/77), i sin nationale momslovgivning har opretholdt en fritagelse med tilbagebetaling af indgående afgift for visse leveringer, består der for en erhvervsdrivende, som foretager sådanne leveringer, en ret i henhold til fællesskabsretten, sammenholdt med de almindelige fællesskabsretlige principper, navnlig ligebehandlingsprincippet, neutralitetsprincippet og legalitetsprincippet, til en korrekt anvendelse af denne bestemmelse.
‘(1) Where, under Article 28(2)(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 (both before and after its amendment by Council Directive 92/77/EEC of 19 October 1992), a Member State has maintained in its domestic legislation a tax exemption with refund of input tax in respect of certain supplies, a trader is entitled under the Directive, in conjunction with the general principles of law to be applied in connection with its implementation, in particular the principles of equal treatment, neutrality, the lawfulness of administrative action and legal certainty, to insist on the correct application of that provision.
Hvis skattemyndighederne fejlagtigt har fortolket den nationale lovgivning således, at visse leveringer, som efter den nationale lovgivning er fritaget med ret til tilbagebetaling af indgående afgift, er blevet pålagt afgift til normalsatsen, har en erhvervsdrivende principielt ret til tilbagebetaling af det beløb, som fejlagtigt er opkrævet herfor.
Where the tax authorities have mistakenly interpreted the domestic legislation in such circumstances, with the result that certain supplies benefiting from exemption with refund of input tax under its domestic legislation have been subject to tax at the standard rate, Community law in principle confers on the trader a right to obtain a refund of the VAT wrongly charged.
Ved udformningen af dette krav skal de almindelige fællesskabsretlige principper, inklusive ligebehandlingsprincippet og afgiftsneutralitetsprincippet, overholdes.
When establishing the rules governing that right, the general principles of Community law, including the principles of equal treatment and fiscal neutrality, must be observed.
Det er imidlertid i strid med ligebehandlingsprincippet, som skal anvendes ved gennemførelsen af direktivet, hvis indsigelsen om ugrundet berigelse kun kan anvendes på afgiftspligtige, der i en afgiftsperiode har betalt merværdiafgift, men derimod ikke på afgiftspligtige, hvis fradragsret for indgående merværdiafgift oversteg den merværdiafgift, de skulle betale i udgående transaktioner (repayment traders).
However, it is contrary to the principle of equal treatment, which must be applied when the Directive is being implemented, for the defence of enrichment to apply only in respect of taxable persons who have paid output VAT in a given assessment period and not in respect of taxable persons whose claim to input tax deduction exceeded the VAT payable in respect of their outputs (repayment traders).
Det påhviler de nationale retsinstanser, der inden for rammerne af deres kompetence har til opgave at anvende fællesskabsbestemmelserne, at sikre den fulde virkning af disse bestemmelser og beskytte de rettigheder, som de tillægger borgerne, idet de undlader at anvende nationale bestemmelser, der er i strid med ligebehandlingsprincippet.«
The national courts, which have to apply Community law in cases within their jurisdiction, must guarantee the full effect of that law and protect the rights conferred upon individuals by Community law by disapplying a domestic provision that is contrary to the principle of equal treatment.’
I sag C-309/06, angående en anmodning om præjudiciel afgørelse i henhold til artikel 234 EF, indgivet af House of Lords (Det Forenede Kongerige) ved afgørelse af 12. juli 2006, indgået til Domstolen den 17. juli 2006, i sagen:
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the House of Lords (United Kingdom), made by decision of 12 July 2006, received at the Court on 17 July 2006, in the proceedings
Marks & Spencer plc mod Commissioners of Customs & Excise, har DOMSTOLEN (Tredje Afdeling) sammensat af afdelingsformanden, A. Rosas, og dommerne U. Lõhmus, J. Klučka, P. Lindh og A. Arabadjiev (refererende dommer),
THE COURT (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, U. Lõhmus, J. Klučka, P. Lindh and A. Arabadjiev (Rapporteur), Judges,
DOM AF 10.4.2008 — SAG C-309/06 generaladvokat: J. Kokott justitssekretær: fuldmægtig J. Swedenborg, på grundlag af den skriftlige forhandling og efter retsmødet den 11. oktober 2007, og efter at generaladvokaten har fremsat forslag til afgørelse den 13. december 2007, efter at der er afgivet indlæg af:
Advocate General: J. Kokott, Registrar: J. Swedenborg, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 11 October 2007, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 13 December 2007, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of: