natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In that context, the Commission submits that the change in the respective sales volumes of the two beverages originates in and is explained by the difference in tax treatment instituted between them in 1997, which was clearly intended to afford protection to domestic beer production.
Selles kontekstis leiab komisjon, et nende kahe joogi müügimahtude muutumise põhjuseks ja selgituseks on nende jookide erinev maksualane kohtlemine, mis kehtestati 1997. aastal ja oli selgelt suunatud kodumaise õlletoodangu kaitsmisele.
That protective effect persists today.
Kaitsemõju jätkub senini.
The Commission points out that, although the excise duty applied to wine has also been reduced, that reduction was not on a par with the reduction of the excise duty on beer, and excise duty on wine nevertheless remains significantly higher than excise duty on beer, so that the tax arrangements at issue continue to have the effect of promoting beer over wine.
Komisjon rõhutab, et kuigi ka veiniaktsiisi on alandatud, ei ole seda tehtud samas ulatuses nagu õlle puhul ning vaatamata kõigele on veiniaktsiis oluliselt kõrgem kui õlleaktsiis, nii et kõnesoleva maksusüsteemi tagajärjeks on jätkuvalt õlle propageerimine veini ees.
In conclusion, the Commission maintains that, although the Kingdom of Sweden need not tax beer and wine at a particular rate, it must fix the excise duty on those competing products in such a way that domestic products are not favoured at any level whatsoever.
Kokkuvõtteks märgib komisjon, et Rootsi Kuningriik ei pea maksustama õlut ja veini kindla määraga, kuid ta peab määrama kindlaks nende kahe konkureeriva toote aktsiisimaksud selliselt, et kodumaiseid tooteid ei eelistataks ühelgi tasandil.
In that regard, the Commission stated at the hearing that, in its view, a fresh reduction in the level of taxation of wine — of the same amplitude as that implemented from 1 December 2001 — is necessary.
Sellega seoses täpsustas komisjon kohtuistungil, et tema arvates tuleks veini maksustamist uuesti vähendada samas ulatuses, nagu seda tehti alates 1. detsembrist 2001.
The Kingdom of Sweden disputes that it has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second paragraph of Article 90 EC.
Rootsi Kuningriik eitab EÜ artikli 90 teisest lõigust tulenevate kohustuste rikkumist.
The disputed tax rules for beer and wine — which are not materially identical — have neither the aim nor the effect of indirectly protecting beer sales from competition from wine.
Õllekaubanduse kaudne kaitsmine veini pakutava konkurentsi eest ei ole vaidlusaluste maksusätete — mis ei ole identsed — eesmärk ega tagajärg.
The Kingdom of Sweden takes the view that an assessment of the taxation arrangements at issue in the light of the second paragraph of Article 90 EC must be based on a comparison between, on the one hand, the most widely sold strong beers and, on the other, the most widely sold and least expensive wines with an alcoholic strength of approximately 11% vol.
Rootsi Kuningriik leiab, et vaidlusaluse maksusüsteemi hindamisel EÜ artikli 90 teise lõigu alusel tuleb lähtuda võrdlusest enimmüüdud kangete õllede ja enimmüüdud odavaimate veinide vahel, mille etanoolisisaldus on umbes 11 mahuprotsenti.
According to the Kingdom of Sweden, the essential question is whether or not the taxation imposed on those competing products is such as to have the effect, on the market in question, of reducing the potential consumption of imported products to the advantage of domestic products.
Selle liikmesriigi arvates on otsustava tähtsusega küsimus, kas neil konkureerivatel toodetel lasuv maksukoormus on selline, mis võib mõjutada asjaomast turgu, vähendades imporditud toodete võimalikku tarbimist konkureerivate kodumaiste toodete kasuks.
The effects of the national tax rules should be assessed in two stages.
Siseriiklike maksusätete mõju tuleks hinnata kahes järgus.
First, it is necessary to compare prices in the light of the influence that they exert on consumer
Kõigepealt tuleks võrrelda hindu seoses mõjuga, mis neil on tarbija valikule õlle ja veini vahel, ning seejärel
COMMISSION v SWEDEN choice as between beer and wine and, secondly, to study the statistics on the sales patterns reflecting the choice between those products.
KOMISJON VS. ROOTSI uurida statistikat müügistruktuuri kohta, mis on seotud valikuga nende toodete vahel.
Since, in an action for failure to fulfil obligations, the Commission is required to demonstrate that the alleged failure to fulfil obligations is real, the Kingdom of Sweden does not consider it necessary to explain all the possible ways in which the final selling price of the products in question could be compared.
Kuna liikmesriigi kohustuste rikkumise hagiga seotud menetluses tuleb väidetava rikkumise olemasolu tõendada komisjonil, ei pea kõnesolev liikmesriik vajalikuks kirjeldada kõiki võimalikke kõnesolevate toodete lõpliku müügihinna võrdlusi.
It considers it sufficient to base its arguments in the present case, as in the case which gave rise to the judgment in Case 356/85 Commission v Belgium [1987] ECR 3299, on the results of a comparison between the selling price of a litre of beer and the selling price of a litre of wine.
Ta peab piisavaks lähtuda käesolevas asjas liitri õlle ja liitri veini müügihinna võrdluse tulemustest, nagu kohtuasjas 356/85: komisjon vs. Belgia, milles tehti otsus 9. juulil 1987 (EKL 1987, lk 3299).
In Case 356/85, that comparison also shows that the essential difference between the respective selling prices of beer and wine cannot be disregarded, irrespective of the difference in the taxation of those products.
Selles kohtuasjas ilmnes samuti sellisest võrdlusest, et ei ole võimalik eirata õlle ja veini olulist hinnaerinevust, olenemata neil toodetel lasuva maksukoormuse erinevusest.
The Kingdom of Sweden takes the view that a comparison between the selling price of a litre of the most widely sold strong beer and the selling price of a litre of the most widely sold and least expensive wine, with an alcoholic strength of approximately 11% vol., shows that the difference in the tax imposed on those products is not such that it could be regarded as influencing consumer behaviour.
Rootsi Kuningriik leiab, et liitri enimmüüdud kange õlle ja liitri enimmüüdud odavaima umbes 11 mahuprotsendilise etanoolisisaldusega veini müügihinna võrdlus näitab, et nende toodete maksukoormuse erinevus ei ole selline, et seda võiks pidada tarbija käitumist mõjutavaks.
That wine, even if taxed in exactly the same way as the strong beer which is compared with it, is twice as expensive as the beer.
Kirjeldatud vein oleks isegi sellega võrreldava kange õllega identselt maksustatuna õllest kaks korda kallim.
A relevant comparison of prices cannot therefore support the conclusion that the Swedish tax rules at issue are such as to affect consumer choice by favouring trade in beer, the domestic product, to the detriment of trade in wine, the imported product.
Hindade võrdlus ei saa seega anda alust järelduseks, et vaidlusalused Rootsi maksusätted mõjutavad tarbija valikut, soodustades kodumaise õlle turustamist imporditud veini kahjuks.
The Kingdom of Sweden, supported by the Republic of Latvia, thus contends that the Commission fails to show, through the price comparisons which it makes, that the difference in price between beers and wines of similar quality is so slight that the difference in the taxation of those two products is likely to influence consumer behaviour.
Rootsi Kuningriik, keda toetab Läti Vabariik, on seisukohal, et kasutatud hinnavõrdlusega ei tõenda komisjon, et õlle ja võrreldava kvaliteediga veini müügihindade erinevus oleks niivõrd väike, et nende kahe toote maksukoormuse erinevus mõjutaks tarbija käitumist.
Further, the Kingdom of Sweden contends that the statistics relied on by the Commission to reflect trends in the consumption of beer and wine give no indication regarding the protective effect that the Swedish tax rules are claimed to have on trade in beer.
Seejärel väidab ta, et õlle ja veini tarbimistendentse puudutav statistika, millele komisjon viitab, ei anna kuidagi märku Rootsi maksusätete väidetavast kaitsemõjust õllekaubandusele.
In that regard, the Kingdom of Sweden maintains that a comprehensive examination of the statistics of the Systembolaget, the Skatteverket (Swedish authority responsible for direct and indirect taxation) and the Svenska Bryggareföreningen (Swedish Federation of beer, cider, soda-water and water producers) gives a more accurate picture of the situation.
Sellega seoses väidab Rootsi Kuningriik, et kõige tõepärasema pildi olukorrast annab Systembolageti, Skatteverketi (Rootsi otseste ja kaudsete maksude amet) ja Svenska Bryggareföreningeni (Rootsi karastusjookide, õlle-, siidri- ja veetootjate liit) statistika ühine vaatlus.
It states that, more or less consistently since 1996, the volume of sales of strong beer has exceeded the volume of sales of wine by approximately 100 000 000 litres per year.
Ta täpsustab, et alates 1996. aastast on kange õlle müügimaht suhteliselt püsivalt ületanud veini müügimahtu ligi 100 000 000 liitri võrra aastas.
The Kingdom of Sweden shares the Commission’s view that the sales statistics show that the consumer is, in absolute terms, sensitive to taxation, since it affects the price of the product to which it is applied. At the same time, the Kingdom of Sweden takes the view that pricing is an important instrument for achieving the objectives of its campaign against alcoholism.
See liikmesriik nõustub komisjoni seisukohaga, et müügistatistika näitab, et põhimõtteliselt on tarbija maksustamise suhtes tundlik, kuna maksustamine mõjutab maksustatava toote hinda, leides samas, et hinnad on oluline vahend alkoholismivastase võitluse poliitika eesmärkide saavutamiseks.
However, the fact that the consumer reacts to a reduction in prices by engaging in higher consumption does not show that, by the same token, he changes his behaviour when it comes to choosing between different categories of alcoholic beverage.
Kuid asjaolu, et tarbija reageerib hinnalangusele suurema tarbimisega, ei tõenda, et ta muudaks seetõttu oma käitumist alkohoolsete jookide eri kategooriate vahel valimisel.
On the contrary, sensitivity to price makes it unlikely that a downwards adjustment in the price of wine — as a result of wine and strong beer being made subject to identical levels of taxation — could entail an increase in the consumption of wine to the detriment of beer consumption, since, if wine costs twice as much as strong beer despite a reduction in the taxes imposed on it, a consumer who is sensitive to price will not turn to wine.
Vastupidi, hinnatundlikkus räägib selle vastu, et veinihindade alandamine, mis tuleneb veini ja kange õlle ühesugusest maksustamisest, võiks kaasa tuua veinitarbimise suurenemise õlle arvelt, sest kui hoolimata maksuvähendusest maksab vein kaks korda nii palju kui kange õlu, ei vali hinnatundlik tarbija veini.
For its part, the Republic of Latvia maintains that it is essential to investigate the cross-elasticity of demand between wine and beer.
Läti Vabariik leiab omalt poolt, et esmalt tuleks uurida veini ja õlle nõudluse ristelastsust.
In its opinion, demand for those products is relatively non-elastic, since demand is not price-sensitive.
Tema arvates on nende toodete nõudlus suhteliselt väheelastne, kuna nõudlus ei ole hindade arengu suhtes tundlik.
It infers from this that the price of beer and the price of wine are not determining factors in relation to consumer choice.
Ta järeldab sellest, et õlle ja veini hind ei ole tarbija valikut määrav tegur.
The Kingdom of Sweden considers, moreover, that the Commission’s view of the manner in which excise duty influences consumer choice between beer and wine is too simplistic.
Lisaks leiab Rootsi Kuningriik, et komisjon seisukoht küsimuses, kuidas mõjutavad aktsiisimaksud tarbija valikut õlle ja veini vahel, on liiga lihtsustatud.
Since those two products are not wholly interchangeable, factors other than taxation can influence consumer choice.
Kuna need kaks toodet teineteist vastastikku täielikult ei asenda, võivad tarbija valikut mõjutada ka muud tegurid.
The Kingdom of Sweden, supported by the Republic of Latvia, further contends that the submissions made by the Commission with regard to trends in consumption habits vis-à-vis wine and beer are not sufficient to show for certain that there is a link between the changes in consumption and the fact that wine is subject to a level of taxation which is marginally higher than that imposed on beer.
Rootsi Kuningriik, keda toetab Läti Vabariik, ei pea komisjoni väiteid veini ja õlle tarbimisharjumuste arengu kohta piisavaks, et kindlalt tõendada seose olemasolu tarbimise muutumise ja asjaolu vahel, et veini maksustatakse mõnevõrra kõrgemalt kui õlut.
The Commission has thus failed to establish that the Swedish taxation system has, on the facts, a protective effect for trade in beer.
Seega ei ole komisjon tõendanud, et Rootsi maksusüsteemil oleks õllekaubandusele kaitsev mõju.
As a preliminary point, it should be recalled that, in accordance with established caselaw, Article 95 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 90 EC), as a whole,
Kõigepealt tuleb meenutada, et väljakujunenud kohtupraktika kohaselt on EÜ asutamislepingu artikli 95 (muudetuna EÜ artikkel 90) eesmärk tagada liikmesriikideva-
In that context, the second paragraph of Article 90 EC is intended to prevent any form of indirect fiscal protectionism affecting imported products which, although not similar, within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 90 EC, to domestic products, nevertheless compete with some of them, even if only partially, indirectly or potentially (Commission v Belgium, paragraph 7, and Joined Cases C-367/93 to C-377/93 Roders and Others [1995] ECR I-2229, paragraph 38).
Sellest lähtuvalt on EÜ artikli 90 teise lõigu ülesanne mis tahes maksualase kaudse kaitse takistamine selliste imporditud toodete puhul, mis ei ole küll kodumaiste toodetega samasugused esimese lõigu tähenduses, kuid on siiski mõningatega neist vähemalt osaliselt, kaudselt või potentsiaalselt konkureerivad (eespool viidatud kohtuotsus komisjon vs. Belgia, punkt 7, ja 11. augusti 1995. aasta otsus liidetud kohtuasjades C-367/93–C-377/93: Roders jt, EKL 1995, lk I-2229, punkt 38).
Consequently, for the purposes of examining the compatibility with the second paragraph of Article 90 EC of the taxation arrangements criticised by the Commission, it is appropriate first to determine the extent to which beer and wine may be regarded as competing products in the light of that provision.
Seetõttu tuleb komisjoni kritiseeritud maksusüsteemi EÜ artikli 90 teisele lõigule vastavuse kontrollimisel esmalt täpsustada, mil määral võib õlut ja veini pidada konkureerivateks toodeteks selle sätte seisukohalt.
It is clear from the caselaw that wine and beer are, to a certain extent, capable of meeting identical needs, which means that a certain measure of mutual substitutability must be acknowledged. Nevertheless, the Court has pointed out that, in view of the significant differences in quality — and, accordingly, in price — between wines, the decisive competitive relationship between wine and beer, a popular and widely consumed beverage, must be established by reference to those wines which are the most accessible to the public at large, that is to say, generally speaking, the lightest and least expensive varieties, and it is therefore on that basis that tax comparisons must be made (Commission v Belgium, paragraph 10 and the caselaw cited).
Kohtupraktika kohaselt võimaldab asjaolu, et vein ja õlu võivad teatud osas rahuldada samu vajadusi, järeldada, et need on omavahel teataval määral asendatavad, kusjuures Euroopa Kohus on siiski täpsustanud, et veinide suure kvaliteedi- ja ka hinnaerinevuse tõttu tuleb õlle — mis on populaarne ja laialdaselt tarbitav jook — ja veini vahelise konkurentsi kindlaksmääramisel võtta arvesse üldsusele kõige kättesaadavamaid veine, mis on üldiselt ka kõige lahjemad ja odavamad, ning seega tuleb ka maksuvõrdlused teha sellelt aluselt (vt eespool viidatud otsus komisjon vs. Belgia, punkt 10 ja viidatud kohtupraktika).
Those considerations are also valid in the context of the present case, since the evidence submitted to the Court discloses no special feature of the Swedish market which could justify a different assessment.
Need kaalutlused kehtivad ka käesoleva asja puhul, kuivõrd Euroopa Kohtule edastatud andmetest ei nähtu mingit Rootsi turu eripära, mis õigustaks teistsugust hindamist.
Consequently, it must be found that, in the present case, only wines in the intermediate category, which only Systembolaget can sell on a retail basis, share a sufficient number of characteristics with strong beer — with an alcoholic strength equal to or higher than 3.5% vol. and also available for retail sale only through Systembolaget — to be regarded as being in competition with strong beer for the purposes of the second paragraph of Article 90 EC.
Järelikult tuleb tõdeda, et käesolevas asjas on ainult keskmise kategooria veinidel, mille jaemüügiga võib tegelda vaid Systembolaget, piisavalt ühiseid omadusi kange õllega, mille etanoolisisaldus on 3,5 mahuprotsenti või suurem ja mille jaemüügiõigus on samuti ainult Systembolagetil, et olla tarbija jaoks alternatiiviks ja mida võib seetõttu pidada kange õllega konkureerivaks EÜ artikli 90 teise lõigu seisukohalt.
Secondly, it is appropriate to compare the taxation arrangements for the products at issue in order to determine whether there is any difference in the tax treatment applied to them and, if so, the extent of that difference.
Teiseks tuleb võrrelda nende toodete maksustamist, et teha kindlaks võimalik maksustamiserinevus ja selle ulatus.
The Commission and the Kingdom of Sweden disagree as to the relevance of the application, in the present case, of the methods of comparison used in Commission v United Kingdom and Commission v Belgium in order to assess the taxation relationship between beer and wine.
Komisjon ja Rootsi Kuningriik on eri meelt selles, kuivõrd asjakohased on käesolevas asjas võrdlusmeetodid, mida kasutati eespool viidatud kohtuotsustes komisjon vs. Ühendkuningriik ja komisjon vs. Belgia, et määrata kindlaks õlle ja veini maksustamise suhe.
The Court considers that the most relevant comparison in the present case is between the excise duty applied to wine and the excise duty applied to beer, the rate of duty being determined in each case according to the alcoholic strength by volume of the beverage.
Euroopa Kohus leiab, et käesolevas asjas kõige asjakohasem võrdlus on võrdlus vastavalt nende jookide etanoolisisalduse alusel määratud alkoholiaktsiisile.
It should be noted, as the Advocate General points out in point 54 of his Opinion, that alcoholic strength is the most pertinent criterion of assessment in the present
Nagu kohtujurist oma ettepaneku punktis 54 märkis, kujutab etanoolisisaldus endast kõige asjakohasemat hindamiskriteeriumi käesolevas kohtuasjas, kuna see on Rootsis
In addition, it is an objective criterion which reflects the characteristics of the products in question.
Lisaks on tegemist toote omadusi peegeldava objektiivse kriteeriumiga.
Under Paragraph 2 of the lagen om alkoholskatt, excise duty on beer is fixed, whereas, under Paragraph 3 of that law, excise duty on wine is progressive, varying according to the categories specified in the latter provision.
Alkoholiaktsiisi seaduse artikli 2 alusel on õllel kindel aktsiisimäär, samas kui selle seaduse artikli 3 alusel on veinile kohaldatav aktsiis progresseeruv sõltuvalt selles sättes ette nähtud kategooriatest.
It is common ground, moreover, that for both products the rate of VAT is 25% of the selling price, inclusive of excise duty.
Vaidlust ei ole selles, et mõlema toote puhul on käibemaks 25% müügihinnast koos aktsiisiga.
Wine which is in competition with strong beer is therefore subject to higher taxation than strong beer.
Kange õllega konkureeriv vein on seega maksustatud kõrgemalt kui õlu.
Thirdly, it is appropriate to determine whether the higher taxation of wine as compared with strong beer is such as to have the effect, on the market in question, of reducing potential consumption of imported products to the advantage of competing domestic products (see Commission v Belgium, paragraph 15, and Roders and Others, paragraph 39).
Kolmandaks tuleb kontrollida, kas veini suurem maksukoormus võrreldes kange õllega võib mõjutada asjaomast turgu või mitte, vähendades imporditud toodete võimalikku tarbimist konkureerivate kodumaiste toodete kasuks (vt eespool viidatud otsused komisjon vs. Belgia, punkt 15, ning Roders jt, punkt 39).
In that respect, account must be taken of the difference between the selling prices of the products in question and the impact of that difference on the consumer’s choice, as well as to changes in the consumption of those products (Roders and Others, paragraph 39).
Selle juures tuleb arvesse võtta kõnesolevate toodete müügihindade erinevust ja selle mõju tarbija valikule ning nende toodete tarbimise arengule (eespool viidatud otsus Roders jt, punkt 39).
To arrive at that assessment, a method of comparison finally accepted by both parties, based on a litre of beer and a litre of wine, must be used, since the Commission has failed to establish the relevance to the present case of any other method.
Sellisel hindamisel tuleb valida liitril õllel ja liitril veinil põhinev võrdlusmeetod, millega mõlemad pooled on lõpuks nõustunud, kuivõrd komisjon ei ole tõendanud muu meetodi asjakohasust käesolevas asjas.
In that regard, it must be held that, in the light of the information provided by the Commission and the Kingdom of Sweden, the relationship between the final selling price, inclusive of all taxes, of a litre of strong beer and that of a litre of wine in competition with it is in the order of 1 : 2.
Sellega seoses tuleb tõdeda, et komisjoni ja Rootsi Kuningriigi esitatud andmeid arvestades on liitri kange õlle ja liitri sellega konkureeriva veini lõpliku müügihinna (koos kõigi maksudega) vaheline suhe üks kahele.
As is apparent from the information provided to the Court, even supposing that excise duty as applicable per litre of strong beer — that is to say, SEK 1.47 per percent- age point of alcohol by volume — were to be applied to the wine in competition with strong beer (such as a wine with an alcoholic strength of 12.5% vol.), the reduction in the final selling price, inclusive of all taxes, of a litre of that wine would be SEK 4.63 (EUR 0.5) or 6.65%.
Euroopa Kohtule esitatud andmetest nähtub, et isegi kui eeldada, et kangele õllele kohaldatavat aktsiisi, s.o 1,47 Rootsi krooni etanoolisisalduse ühe mahuprotsendi kohta liitris, kohaldatakse sellega konkureerivale 12,5-mahuprotsendilise etanoolisisaldusega veinile, väheneks liitri veini lõplik müügihind koos kõigi maksudega 4,63 Rootsi krooni (0,5 euro) võrra ehk 6,65%.
Despite that reduction, the relationship between the final selling price, inclusive of all taxes, of a litre of strong beer and that of a litre of wine in competition with strong beer would remain in the order of 1 : 2.
Vaatamata sellele vähenemisele oleks liitri kange õlle ja liitri sellega konkureeriva veini lõpliku müügihinna (koos kõigi maksudega) vaheline suhe üks kahele.
Expressed in more precise terms, the relationship between the final selling prices would be 1 : 2.1 instead of 1 : 2.3.
Täpsemalt, 1 : 2,3 asemel 1 : 2,1.
The comparison of the relationship between the selling prices of a litre of strong beer and a litre of wine in competition with strong beer thus makes it clear that the
Liitri kange õlle ja liitri sellega konkureeriva veini müügihinna võrdlusest nähtub seega, et nende kahe toote hinna lahknevus on enne ja pärast maksustamist peaaegu