natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
15 So far as the second part of Question 1 is concerned, it should be pointed out that a holding company does not lose its status as a non-taxable person by reason of the fact that it belongs to a world-wide group, where the company confines its activities to the mere acquisition of financial holdings.
15 Što se tiče drugog dijela prvog pitanja, treba naglasiti da holding društvo neće izgubiti status neoporezive osobe zbog činjenice da pripada svjetskoj grupaciji ako je to društvo ograničilo aktivnosti samo na stjecanje financijskih udjela.
According to the second subparagraph of Article 4(4) of the Sixth Directive, persons who, while legally independent, are closely bound to one another by financial, economic and organizational links may only be treated as a single taxable person where they are established in the territory of one and the same Member State.
U skladu s člankom 4. stavkom 4. drugim podstavkom Šeste direktive, osobe koje su, iako pravno samostalne, međusobno usko povezane financijskim, gospodarskim i organizacijskim vezama mogu se smatrati jedinstvenim poreznim obveznikom samo ako imaju poslovni nastan na državnom području jedne te iste države članice.
16 Accordingly, the fact that a holding company belongs to a world-wide group which in the main outwardly appears under a single name is not to be taken into account in classifying that company as a taxable person for the purposes of value added tax.
16 U skladu s tim, činjenica da holding društvo pripada svjetskoj grupaciji koja uglavnom nastupa pod jedinstvenim imenom ne uzima se u obzir pri klasificiranju tog društva kao poreznog obveznika za potrebe poreza na dodanu vrijednost.
17 The answer to Question 1 must therefore be that Article 4 of the Sixth Directive is to be interpreted as meaning that a holding company whose sole purpose is to acquire holdings in other undertakings, without involving itself directly or indirectly in the management of those undertakings, without prejudice to its rights as a shareholder, does not have the status of a taxable person for the purposes of value added tax and therefore has no right to deduct tax under Article 17 of the Sixth Directive.
17 Stoga na prvo pitanje valja odgovoriti da članak 4. Šeste direktive treba tumačiti na način da holding društvo čija je jedina svrha stjecati udjele u drugim poduzećima i koje se ne uključuje ni izravno ni neizravno u upravljanje tim poduzećima, ne dovodeći u pitanje njegova prava kao dioničara, nema status poreznog obveznika za potrebe poreza na dodanu vrijednost te stoga nema pravo na odbitak poreza na temelju članka 17. Šeste direktive.
The fact that the holding company belongs to a world-wide group of undertakings, which appears outwardly under a single name, is not relevant to the company' s classification as a taxable person for the purposes of value added tax.
Činjenica da to holding društvo pripada svjetskoj grupaciji koja nastupa pod jedinstvenim imenom ne uzima se u obzir pri klasificiranju tog društva kao poreznog obveznika za potrebe poreza na dodanu vrijednost.
18 In view of the answer to Question 1, Question 2 is redundant.
18 S obzirom na odgovor na prvo pitanje, drugo je pitanje bespredmetno.
19 The costs incurred by the French Government, the Netherlands Government and the Commission of the European Communities, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable.
19 Troškovi podnošenja očitovanja Sudu koje su imale francuska vlada, nizozemska vlada i Komisija Europskih zajednica ne nadoknađuju se.
Since these proceedings are, in so far as the parties to the main proceedings are concerned, in the nature of a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Operative part
Budući da ovaj postupak ima značaj prethodnog pitanja za stranke glavnog postupka pred sudom koji je uputio zahtjev, na tom je sudu da odluči o troškovima postupka.
in answer to the questions referred to it by the Gerechtshof Arnhem, by decision of 30 January 1990, hereby rules:
odlučujući o pitanjima koja mu je Gerechtshof (Regionalni žalbeni sud) u Arnhemu uputio odlukom od 30. siječnja 1990., odlučuje:
Article 4 of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977, on the harmonization 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 meaning that a holding company whose sole purpose is to acquire holdings in other undertakings, without involving itself directly or indirectly in the management of those undertakings, without prejudice to its rights as shareholder, does not have the status of a taxable person for the purposes of value added tax and therefore has no right to deduct tax under Article 17 of the Sixth Directive.
Članak 4. Šeste direktive Vijeća 77/388/EEZ od 17. svibnja 1977. o usklađivanju zakonodavstava država članica koja se odnose na poreze na promet - zajednički sustav poreza na dodanu vrijednost: jedinstvena osnovica za razrezivanje treba tumačiti na način da holding društvo čija je jedina svrha stjecati udjele u drugim poduzećima i koje se ne uključuje ni izravno ni neizravno u upravljanje tim poduzećima, ne dovodeći u pitanje njegova prava kao dioničara, nema status poreznog obveznika za potrebe poreza na dodanu vrijednost te stoga nema pravo na odbitak poreza na temelju članka 17.
The fact that the holding company belongs to a world-wide group of undertakings, which appears outwardly under a single name, is not relevant to the company' s classification as a taxable person for the purposes of value added tax.
Šeste direktive. Činjenica da to holding društvo pripada svjetskoj grupaciji koja nastupa pod jedinstvenim imenom ne uzima se u obzir pri klasificiranju tog društva kao poreznog obveznika za potrebe poreza na dodanu vrijednost. [Potpisi]
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 July 1991. VAT - Deduction of the tax paid on capital goods. - Case C-97/90.
PRESUDA SUDA (šesto vijeće) 11. srpnja 1991.() „PDV - Odbitak poreza plaćenog na kapitalna dobra"
REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Finanzgericht Muenchen (Finance Court, Munich) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
povodom zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku na temelju članka 177. Ugovora o EEZ-u, koji je uputio Finanzgericht München (Financijski sud u Münchenu, Njemačka), u postupku koji se vodi pred tim sudom između
H. Lennartz, Munich, and
H. Lennartz, München,
Finanzamt Muenchen III,
i Finanzamt München III,
on the interpretation of Article 20(2) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on harmonization of the laws of the Member States concerning turnover taxes: uniform basis of assessment (Official Journal 1977 L 145, p. 1),
o tumačenju članka 20. stavka 2. Šeste direktive Vijeća (77/388/EEZ) od 17. svibnja 1977. o usklađivanju zakonodavstava država članica koja se odnose na poreze na promet - zajednički sustav poreza na dodanu vrijednost: jedinstvena osnovica za razrezivanje (SL L 145, str. 1.),
composed of: G.F. Mancini, President of the Chamber, T.F. O' Higgins, C.N. Kakouris, F.A. Schockweiler and P.J.G. Kapteyn, Judges,
u sastavu: G. F. Mancini, predsjednik vijeća, T. F. O' Higgins, C. N. Kakouris, F. A. Schockweiler i P. J. G. Kapteyn, suci,
Advocate General: F.G. Jacobs,
nezavisni odvjetnik: F. G. Jacobs,
Registrar: V. Di Bucci, Administrator,
tajnik: V. Di Bucci, administrator,
the German Government, by Ernst Roeder and Joachim Karl, of the Bundesministerium fuer Wirtschaft, acting as Agents,
za njemačku vladu, Ernst Röder i Joachim Karl iz Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft (Savezno ministarstvo gospodarstva), u svojstvu agenata,
the French Government, by Edwige Belliard, acting as Agent, and Géraud de Bergues, acting as Assistant Agent, of the Directorate for Legal Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
za francusku vladu, Edwige Belliard, u svojstvu agenta, i Géraud de Bergues, u svojstvu zamjenskog agenta, iz Uprave za pravne poslove Ministarstva vanjskih poslova,
the United Kingdom, by John Collins, Treasury Solicitor, acting as Agent,
za vladu Ujedinjene Kraljevine, John Collins, Treasory Solicitor, u svojstvu agenta,
the Commission of the European Communities, by Henri Étienne, Legal Adviser to the Commission, acting as Agent,
za Komisiju Europskih zajednica, Henri Étienne, pravni savjetnik Komisije, u svojstvu agenta,
after hearing the oral observations of the German Government, represented by Claus-Dieter Quassowski, of the Bundesministerium fuer Wirtschaft, acting as Agent, the United Kingdom, represented by David Anderson, Barrister, and the Commission, at the hearing on 7 March 1991,
saslušavši usmena očitovanja njemačke vlade, koju zastupa Claus-Dieter Quassowski iz Saveznog ministarstva za gospodarstvo, u svojstvu agenta; Ujedinjene Kraljevine, koju zastupa David Anderson, Barrister; i Komisije na raspravi održanoj 7. ožujka 1991.,
1 By order of 24 January 1990, which was received at the Court on 10 April 1990, the Finanzgericht Muenchen referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty a number of questions on the interpretation of Article 20(2) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on harmonization of the laws of the Member States concerning turnover taxes: uniform basis of assessment (Official Journal 1977 L 145, p. 1, hereinafter referred to as "the Sixth Directive").
1 Rješenjem od 24. siječnja 1990., koje je Sud zaprimio 10. travnja 1990., Finanzgericht München (Financijski sud u Münchenu), uputio je Sudu na temelju članka 177. Ugovora o EEZ-u nekoliko prethodnih pitanja o tumačenju članka 20. stavka 2. Šeste direktive Vijeća 77/388/EEZ od 17. svibnja 1977. o usklađivanju zakonodavstava država članica koja se odnose na poreze na promet - zajednički sustav poreza na dodanu vrijednost: jedinstvena osnovica za razrezivanje (SL L 145, str. 1., u daljnjem tekstu: Šesta direktiva).
2 Those questions were raised in proceedings instituted by H. Lennartz, a tax consultant in Munich, concerning the refusal of the Finanzamt (Finance Office), Munich III, to allow a retrospective adjustment of the VAT declaration submitted by him for 1985.
2 Ta su pitanja upućena u okviru spora koji je pokrenuo H. Lennartz, porezni savjetnik u Münchenu, a tiču se odbijanja Finanzamta (Porezna uprava) München III da mu odobri naknadan ispravak prijave PDV-a koju je podnio za 1985.
3 In 1985 and 1986, Mr Lennartz worked partly as an employed person and partly as a self-employed tax consultant.
3 H. Lennartz radio je 1985. i 1986. djelomično kao zaposlenik, a djelomično kao samozaposleni porezni savjetnik.
He submitted annual VAT declarations for that period in respect of his self-employed activity.
Za to razdoblje podnio je godišnje prijave PDV-a za djelatnost koju je obavljao kao samozaposlena osoba.
In 1985, Mr Lennartz purchased a car for DM 20 206.15, plus VAT of DM 2 826.86.
Godine 1985. kupio je automobil za iznos od 20 206,15 DEM plus PDV u iznosu od 2826,86 DEM.
In 1985 he used his car mainly for private purposes and only to a limited extent - about 8% - for business purposes.
Tijekom 1985. automobil je upotrebljavao uglavnom za osobne potrebe, a samo u ograničenom opsegu - otprilike 8 % vremena - za poslovne potrebe.
On 1 July 1986 he opened his own tax consultancy office and contributed the motor car to the business.
Dana 1. srpnja 1986. otvorio je vlastiti ured za porezno savjetovanje i uveo motorno vozilo u imovinu poslovne djelatnosti.
In his VAT declaration for 1986 he claimed retroactively, on the basis of Paragraph 15(a) of the 1980 Umsatzsteuergesetz (German Law on turnover tax, hereinafter referred to as "the UStG"), which implements Article 20(2) of the Sixth Directive, a deduction of DM 282.98 for the purchase of a car, being 6/60ths of the total VAT which he had paid on the car.
U poreznoj prijavi za 1986. retroaktivno je, na temelju članka 15. stavka (a) Umsatzsteuergesetza (Zakon o porezu na promet, u daljnjem tekstu: UStG) iz 1980., kojim se provodi članak 20. stavak 2. Šeste direktive, zatražio odbitak iznosa od 282,98 DEM za kupnju automobila, što je 6/60 ukupnog PDV-a koji je platio na automobil.
4 The Finanzgericht decided that Mr Lennartz should be regarded as having initially acquired the car solely for private purposes and that he was not therefore entitled to any adjustments under Paragraph 15(a) of the UStG if the car was subsequently used for business purposes.
4 Finanzgericht (Financijski sud) zaključio je da treba smatrati kako je H. Lennartz prvo kupio automobil samo za osobne potrebe te da zbog toga u skladu s člankom 15. točkom (a) UStG-a nema pravo na ispravak ako je naknadno upotrebljavao automobil u poslovne svrhe.
The Finanzamt based its view that the car was used initially only for private purposes on an administrative practice followed by the German tax authorities whereby in general no account is taken of the business use of goods where such use accounts for less than 10% of total use.
Svoj stav o tome da je automobil isprva upotrebljavan samo za privatne potrebe porezna uprava zasnovala je na upravnoj praksi njemačkih poreznih tijela u skladu s kojom se poslovna uporaba dobara općenito ne uzima u obzir ako iznosi manje od 10 % ukupne uporabe.
Consequently, the Finanzamt refused to grant Mr Lennartz a retrospective adjustment of the VAT declaration filed by him for 1985.
Slijedom toga Porezna uprava odbila je odobriti H. Lennartzu naknadni ispravak porezne prijave koju je podnio za 1985.
5 According to the Finanzgericht, the interpretation of Paragraph 15(a) of the UStG whereby capital goods which have initially been put to private use by a taxable person and then, in subsequent years, to business use qualify for no VAT deduction whatsoever raises certain doubts with respect to the Sixth Directive, since the latter does not exclude the right to such a deduction.
5 Prema tvrdnji Finanzgerichta (Financijski sud), tumačenje članka 15. točke (a) UStG-a, prema kojem kapitalna dobra koja je porezni obveznik u početku upotrebljavao za privatne potrebe, a potom u narednim godinama za poslovne potrebe, uopće ne ispunjavaju uvjete za odbitak PDV-a pobuđuje sumnje u vezi sa Šestom direktivom, jer ta direktiva ne isključuje pravo na odbitak te vrste.
The national court therefore decided to stay the proceedings before it and refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
Nacionalni sud stoga je odlučio prekinuti postupak i postaviti Sudu sljedeća prethodna pitanja:
"1. Is Article 20(2) of the Sixth Directive applicable to all capital goods which
„1. Primjenjuje li se članak 20. stavak 2. Šeste direktive na sva kapitalna dobra:
(a) were supplied by one taxable person to another taxable person and at some point within a period of five years, including the year in which the goods were acquired, are used by the recipient for the purposes of his taxable transactions,
(a) koja je jedan porezni obveznik isporučio drugom poreznom obvezniku i koja primatelj u nekom trenutku tijekom razdoblja od pet godina, uključujući godinu u kojoj su nabavljena, upotrebljava u svrhu svojih oporezivih transakcija,
or is it also necessary for the capital goods in question to have been
ili je također nužno da su kapitalna dobra o kojima je riječ:
(b) used from the time of acquisition for the purposes of the taxable or exempted transactions (business purposes) of the taxable person, or
(b) od trenutka nabave upotrebljavana u svrhu oporezivih transakcija ili transakcija oslobođenih poreza (u poslovne svrhe) poreznog obveznika, ili
(c) applied at the time of acquisition for the purposes of the business of the taxable person?
(c) u trenutku nabave bila namijenjena za poslovne svrhe poreznog obveznika?
2. If alternative (b) is correct:
2. Ako je odgovor na prvo pitanje pod (b) potvrdan,
Does the application of Article 20(2) of the Sixth Directive to capital goods which are used by a taxable person both for business purposes and for other, in particular private, purposes (mixed use) depend on their having been used to a specific minimum extent for business purposes in the year in which they were acquired and, if so, how is that minimum to be defined?
ovisi li primjena članka 20. stavka 2. Šeste direktive na kapitalna dobra koja porezni obveznik upotrebljava i u poslovne i u druge, osobito osobne svrhe (mješovita uporaba), o tome jesu li ta dobra upotrebljavana u poslovne svrhe u određenom minimalnom opsegu u godini u kojoj su nabavljena; ako ovisi, na koji se način određuje taj minimum?
3. If alternative (c) is correct:
3. Ako je odgovor na prvo pitanje pod (c) potvrdan,
Is the application of the capital goods a matter for the taxable person' s discretion or does it presuppose that the taxable person
može li porezni obveznik slobodno odlučiti o namjeni kapitalnih dobara ili se pretpostavlja:
(a) acquires them with the intention of using them for business purposes and, if so, must that use be intended to begin
(a) da ih porezni obveznik nabavlja s namjerom uporabe u poslovne svrhe; ako je tako, mora li namjeravana uporaba započeti
immediately from the time of acquisition, or
od trenutka nabave, ili
from some point within the year of acquisition, or
od nekog trenutka tijekom prve godine od nabave, ili
from some point before the expiry of a period of five years, including the year of acquisition?
od nekog trenutka prije isteka razdoblja od pet godina, uključujući godinu nabave?
(b) actually uses the capital goods for business purposes and, if so, does it matter whether such use begins
(b) da ih porezni obveznik doista upotrebljava u poslovne svrhe; ako je tako, je li važno započinje li ta uporaba
from the time of acquisition, or
od trenutka nabave, ili
within the year in which the capital goods were acquired, or
unutar razdoblja od godine dana od trenutka nabave, ili
within the period of five years, including the year in which the goods were acquired?
unutar razdoblja od pet godina, uključujući godinu nabave?
As far as Questions 3(a) and (b) are concerned:
Što se tiče trećeg pitanja pod (a) i (b):
Where the capital goods are used for mixed purposes, must the intended use or actual use (or both) for business purposes attain a specific minimum proportion and, if so, how is that minimum to be defined?"
Ako se kapitalna dobra upotrebljavaju u mješovite svrhe, mora li namjeravana uporaba ili stvarna uporaba (ili obje) u poslovne svrhe doseći određeni minimalni opseg i ako mora, kako se određuje taj minimum?"
6 Reference is made to the Report for the Hearing for a fuller account of the legal background and of the circumstances of the case before the national court, the procedure and the written observations submitted to the Court, which are mentioned or discussed hereinafter only so far as is necessary for the reasoning of the Court.
6 Za potpuniji prikaz pravnog okvira i okolnosti postupka pred nacionalnim sudom te postupka i pisanih očitovanja podnesenih Sudu upućuje se na izvještaj za raspravu. Ti dijelovi spisa u nastavku se spominju ili razmatraju samo u mjeri u kojoj je to potrebno za obrazloženje odluke Suda.
The scope of Article 20(2) of the Sixth Directive (first question)
Područje primjene članka 20. stavka 2. Šeste direktive (prvo pitanje)
7 The purpose of the first part of this question is, essentially, to determine whether the rules for the adjustment of input tax laid down in Article 20(2) of the Sixth Directive apply where a taxable person initially acquires goods wholly for private use but later uses them for business purposes during the five-year adjustment period.
7 Svrha prvog dijela prvog pitanja u biti je utvrditi primjenjuju li se pravila za ispravak ulaznog poreza propisana člankom 20. stavkom 2. Šeste direktive ako je porezni obveznik isprva nabavio dobra isključivo za osobne potrebe, ali ih poslije, tijekom petogodišnjeg razdoblja ispravka, upotrebljava za poslovne potrebe.
In the second part, the Court is asked whether it is sufficient, for the application of Article 20(2), for a person to acquire goods as a taxable person or whether there must be immediate use of the goods for the purposes of economic activities within the meaning of Article 4 of the Sixth Directive.
U drugom dijelu od Suda se traži odgovor na pitanje je li za primjenu članka 20. stavka 2. dovoljno da osoba nabavi dobra u svojstvu poreznog obveznika ili mora odmah početi upotrebljavati ta dobra za gospodarsku aktivnost u smislu članka 4.
The first part of the first question
Šeste direktive. Prvi dio prvog pitanja
8 Pursuant to Article 17(1) of the Sixth Directive, which is entitled "Origin and scope of the right to deduct", the right to deduct arises at the time when the deductible tax becomes chargeable.
8 U skladu s člankom 17. stavkom 1. Šeste direktive, koji je naslovljen „Porijeklo i opseg prava na odbitak" [neslužbeni prijevod], pravo na odbitak nastaje u trenutku kada nastaje obveza obračuna poreza koji se može odbiti.
Consequently, only the capacity in which a person is acting at that time can determine the existence of the right to deduct.
Slijedom toga, postojanje prava na odbitak može se odrediti samo na temelju svojstva osobe u tom trenutku.
By virtue of Article 17(2), in so far as a taxable person, acting as such, uses the goods for the purposes of his taxable transactions, he is entitled to deduct the tax due or paid in respect of those goods.
U skladu s člankom 17. stavkom 2., ako porezni obveznik u tom svojstvu upotrebljava dobra u svrhu svojih oporezovanih transakcija, on ima pravo odbiti porez koji je dužan platiti ili koji je platio na ta dobra.
9 Conversely, where the goods are not used for the taxable person' s economic activities within the meaning of Article 4 but are used by him for his private consumption, no right to deduct can arise.
9 Suprotno tomu, ako se dobra ne upotrebljavaju za gospodarske aktivnosti poreznog obveznika u smislu članka 4. nego ih on upotrebljava za osobnu potrošnju, pravo na odbitak ne može se ostvariti.
10 Moreover, where a taxable person acquires goods in his private capacity, he does not meet the administrative and accounting requirements governing the exercise of the right to deduct provided for in Articles 18 and 22 of the Sixth Directive.
10 Osim toga, ako porezni obveznik nabavi dobra u privatne svrhe, on ne ispunjava administrativne i računovodstvene zahtjeve kojima se uređuje pravo na odbitak iz članaka 18. i 22. Šeste direktive.
11 The very wording of paragraph 2 of Article 20, which is entitled "Adjustments of deductions", confirms that interpretation.
11 Sam tekst stavka 2. članka 20., koji je naslovljen „Ispravci odbitaka" [neslužbeni prijevod], potvrđuje to tumačenje.
That article contains no provision concerning the origin of any right to deduct.
Taj članak ne sadržava nijednu odredbu o porijeklu prava na odbitak.
Since it does no more than refer to adjustments of deductions provided for in respect of capital goods it must be concluded that the origin of the right to make such deductions is dealt with in other provisions of the Sixth Directive.
Budući da se u njemu samo upućuje na ispravke odbitaka u odnosu na kapitalna dobra, valja zaključiti da se porijeklom prava na takve odbitke bave druge odredbe Šeste direktive.
12 It is apparent from the scheme of the Sixth Directive and from the actual wording of Article 20(2) that the latter provision does no more than establish the procedure for calculating the adjustments to the initial deduction.
12 Iz sustava Šeste direktive i iz teksta članka 20. stavka 2. proizlazi da se potonjom odredbom samo utvrđuje postupak izračuna ispravaka početnih odbitaka.
It cannot therefore give rise to any right to deduct or convert the tax paid by a taxable person in respect of his non-taxable transactions into a tax that is deductible within the meaning of Article 17.
Iz te odredbe stoga ne može proizaći pravo poreznog obveznika na odbitak ili na pretvorbu poreza koji je platio za neoporezive transakcije u porez koji se može odbiti u smislu članka 17.
The second part of the first question
Drugi dio prvog pitanja