natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
`No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted within the Union in accordance with the law.'
„Nikome se ne može ponovno suditi niti ga se može kazniti u kaznenom postupku za kazneno djelo za koje je već pravomoćno oslobođen ili osuđen u Uniji u skladu sa zakonom."
5 Article 51 defines the Charter's field of application in the following terms:
5 U članku 51. definirano je područje primjene Povelje kako slijedi:
`1. The provisions of this Charter are addressed to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law.
„1. Odredbe ove Povelje odnose se na institucije, tijela, urede i agencije Unije, uz poštovanje načela supsidijarnosti, te na države članice samo kada provode pravo Unije.
They shall therefore respect the rights, observe the principles and promote the application thereof in accordance with their respective powers and respecting the limits of the powers of the Union as conferred on it in the Treaties.
Oni stoga moraju poštovati prava i držati se načela te promicati njihovu primjenu u skladu sa svojim ovlastima i poštujući ograničenja nadležnosti Unije koje su joj dodijeljene u Ugovorima.
2. The Charter does not extend the field of application of Union law beyond the powers of the Union or establish any new power or task for the Union, or modify powers and tasks as defined in the Treaties.'
2. Poveljom se ne proširuje područje primjene prava Unije izvan ovlasti Unije, ne uspostavlja se nova ovlast ni zadaća za Uniju niti se mijenjaju ovlasti i zadaće kako su utvrđene Ugovorima."
Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC
Šesta direktiva 77/388/EEZ
6 Article 22 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1 [HYPERLINK: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:L:1977:145:TOC]; `the Sixth Directive'), in the version resulting from Article 28h thereof, states:
6 Članak 22. Šeste direktive Vijeća 77/388/EEZ od 17. svibnja 1977. o usklađivanju zakonodavstava država članica o porezima na promet - zajednički sustav poreza na dodanu vrijednost: jedinstvena osnovica za određivanje poreza (SL L 145, str. 1., u daljnjem tekstu: Šesta direktiva), u verziji koja proizlazi iz članka 28.h Šeste direktive, određuje:
(a) Every taxable person shall submit a return by a deadline to be determined by Member States. ...
4. (a) Svaki porezni obveznik dužan je predati poreznu prijavu do roka koji odrede države članice. [...]
... 8. Member States may impose other obligations which they deem necessary for the correct collection of the tax and for the prevention of evasion ...
[...] 8. Države članice mogu uvesti druge obveze koje smatraju potrebnima za uredno biranje poreza i sprječavanje utaje [...]"
...'
[...]
Swedish law
7 Članak 2.
7 Paragraph 2 of Law 1971:69 on tax offences (skattebrottslagen (1971:69); `the skattebrottslagen') is worded as follows:
Zakona 1971:69 o poreznim kaznenim djelima [skattebrottslagen (1971:69), u daljnjem tekstu: skattebrottslagen] glasi kako slijedi:
`Any person who intentionally provides false information to the authorities, other than orally, or fails to submit to the authorities declarations, statements of income or other required information and thereby creates the risk that tax will be withheld from the community or will be wrongly credited or repaid to him or a third party shall be sentenced to a maximum of two years' imprisonment for tax offences.'
„Svaka osoba koja namjerno dostavi lažne podatke nadležnim tijelima, osim usmeno, ili nadležnim tijelima ne podnese izjave, račun dobiti i gubitka ili druge predviđene podatke i na taj način stvori rizik da proračun ostane uskraćen za porez ili da porez bude pogrešno upisan u korist te osobe ili vraćen toj ili trećoj osobi, bit će osuđena na najviše dvije godine kazne zatvora za utaju poreza."
8 Paragraph 4 of the skattebrottslagen states:
8 Članak 4. skattebrottslagena predviđa:
`If an offence within the meaning of Paragraph 2 is to be regarded as serious, the sentence for such a tax offence shall be a minimum of six months' imprisonment and a maximum of six years.
„Ako se kazneno djelo iz članka 2. smatra ozbiljnim, kazna za ozbiljnu utaju poreza jest kazna zatvora od najmanje šest mjeseci do najviše šest godina.
In determining whether the offence is serious, particular regard shall be had to whether it relates to very large amounts, whether the perpetrator used false documents or misleading accounts or whether the conduct formed part of a criminal activity which was committed systematically or on a large scale or was otherwise particularly grave.'
Pri utvrđivanju stupnja ozbiljnosti poreznog kaznenog djela posebno se uzima u obzir radi li se o vrlo velikim iznosima, je li počinitelj koristio lažne isprave ili vodio obmanjujuće račune, je li postupanje bilo dijelom kaznenog djelovanja koje je provođeno sustavno ili u velikom opsegu ili je li na drugi način posebno ozbiljno."
9 Law 1990:324 on tax assessment (taxeringslagen (1990:324); `the taxeringslagen') provides, in Paragraph 1 of Chapter 5:
9 Zakon 1990:324 o porezu na dohodak [taxeringslagen (1990:324), (u daljnjem tekstu: taxeringslagen] u članku 1. poglavlja 5. predviđa:
`If, during the procedure, the taxable person has provided false information, other than orally, for the purposes of the tax assessment, a special charge (tax surcharge) shall be levied.
„Ako tijekom postupka porezni obveznik dostavi lažne podatke, osim usmeno, za potrebe određivanja iznosa poreza, izriče mu se porezna kazna (dodatna porezna naknada).
The same shall apply if the taxable person has provided such information in legal proceedings relating to taxation and the information has not been accepted following a substantive examination.
Isto se primjenjuje ako porezni obveznik dostavi takve podatke u sudskom postupku u odnosu na oporezivanje, a ti podaci nisu bili odbijeni nakon ispitivanja o meritumu.
Information shall be regarded as false if it is clear that information provided by the taxable person is inaccurate or that the taxable person has omitted information for the purposes of the tax assessment which he was required to provide.
Podaci se smatraju lažnima ako je jasno da su podaci koje je porezni obveznik dostavio netočni ili da je porezni obveznik ispustio podatke za potrebe određivanja poreza koje je bio dužan dostaviti.
However, information shall not be regarded as false if the information, together with other information provided, constitutes a sufficient basis for a correct decision.
Međutim, podaci se ne smatraju lažnima ako podaci zajedno s ostalim dostavljenim podacima predstavljaju dovoljnu osnovu za ispravnu odluku.
Information also shall not be regarded as false if the information is so unreasonable that it manifestly cannot form the basis for a decision.'
Podaci se također ne smatraju lažnima ako su podaci u tolikoj mjeri pogrešni da očigledno ne mogu predstavljati osnovu za odluku."
10 Paragraph 4 of Chapter 5 of the taxeringslagen states:
10 Članak 4. poglavlja 5. taxeringslagena glasi:
`If false information has been provided, the tax surcharge shall be 40% of the tax referred to in points 1 to 5 of the first subparagraph of Paragraph 1 of Chapter 1 which, if the false information had been accepted, would not have been charged to the taxable person or his spouse.
„Ako su dostavljeni lažni podaci, porezna kazna iznosi 40 % poreza iz točaka od 1. do 5. prvog stavka članka 1. poglavlja 1., a koja se, da su lažni podaci bili prihvaćeni, ne bi obračunala poreznom obvezniku ili njegovom bračnom drugu.
With regard to value added tax, the tax surcharge shall be 20% of the tax which would have been wrongly credited to the taxable person.
U odnosu na porez na dodanu vrijednost, porezna kazna iznosi 20 % poreza koji bi pogrešno bio upisan u korist poreznog obveznika.
The tax surcharge shall be calculated at 10% or, with regard to value added tax, 5% where the false information was corrected or could have been corrected with the aid of confirming documents which are normally available to the Skatteverket [(Tax Board)] and which were available to the Skatteverket before the end of November of the tax year.'
Porezna kazna iznosi 10 % ili, u odnosu na porez na dodanu vrijednost, 5 % ako su lažni podaci ispravljeni ili su mogli biti ispravljeni uz pomoć isprava koje su redovno na raspolaganju Skatteverketu [(Porezna uprava)] i koje su bile na raspolaganju Skatteverketu prije kraja studenoga te porezne godine."
`The taxable person shall be exempted wholly or partially from special charges if errors or omissions become evident which are excusable or if it would be otherwise unreasonable to levy the charge at the full amount.
„Porezni obveznik oslobađa se u cijelosti ili dijelom porezne kazne ako su pogreške ili propusti oprostivi ili ako bi na drugi način bilo nerazumno obračunati mu cijeli iznos naknade.
If the taxable person is exempted partially from the charge, it shall be reduced to a half or a quarter.
Ako je porezni obveznik djelomično oslobođen naknade, iznos naknade se umanjuje na polovicu ili četvrtinu.
... In assessing whether it would be otherwise unreasonable to levy the charge at the full amount, particular regard shall be had to whether:
[...] Kod utvrđivanja bi li na drugi način bilo nerazumno obračunati naknadu u cijelom iznosu, posebno se uzima u obzir sljedeće:
... 3. errors or omissions have also resulted in the taxable person becoming liable for offences under the skattebrottslagen ... or becoming the subject of forfeiture of proceeds of criminal activity within the meaning of Paragraph 1b of Chapter 36 of the Criminal Code (brottsbalken).'
[...] 3. pogreške ili propusti također su doveli do toga da je porezni obveznik osuđen za kaznena djela na temelju skattebrottslagena ili podliježe zapljeni dobiti stečene kaznenim djelima u smislu članka 1.b poglavlja 36.
The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
Kaznenog zakona (brottsbalken)." Glavni postupak i prethodna pitanja
12 Mr Åkerberg Fransson was summoned to appear before the Haparanda tingsrätt (Haparanda District Court) on 9 June 2009, in particular on charges of serious tax offences.
12 Åkerberg Fransson pozvan je pred Haparanda tingsrätt (Okružni sud u Haparandi) 9. lipnja 2009., a u vezi s optužbama za ozbiljnu utaju poreza.
He was accused of having provided, in his tax returns for 2004 and 2005, false information which exposed the national exchequer to a loss of revenue linked to the levying of income tax and value added tax (`VAT'), amounting to SEK 319 143 for 2004, of which SEK 60 000 was in respect of VAT, and to SEK 307 633 for 2005, of which SEK 87 550 was in respect of VAT.
Optužen je da je u poreznim prijavama za 2004. i 2005. dostavio lažne podatke, čime je državnu riznicu oštetio za porez na dohodak i porez na dodanu vrijednost (dalje u tekstu: „PDV") u iznosu od 319 143 SEK za 2004., od čega 60 000 SEK za PDV, i 307 633 SEK za poreznu godinu 2005., od čega 87 550 SEK za PDV.
Mr Åkerberg Fransson was also prosecuted for failing to declare employers' contributions for the accounting periods from October 2004 and October 2005, which exposed the social security bodies to a loss of revenue amounting to SEK 35 690 and SEK 35 862 respectively.
Åkerberg Fransson također podliježe progonu zbog toga što nije prijavio doprinose poslodavca za računovodstvena razdoblja za listopad 2004. i listopad 2005., čime je oštetio tijela iz sustava socijalne sigurnosti u iznosu od 35 690 SEK i 35 862 SEK.
According to the indictment, the offences were to be regarded as serious, first, because they related to very large amounts and, second, because they formed part of a criminal activity committed systematically on a large scale.
Prema optužnici, kaznena djela trebala su se smatrati ozbiljnima prvenstveno jer se odnose na vrlo velike iznose te, kao drugo, jer su bila dio kaznene djelatnosti koja je provođena sustavno i u velikom opsegu.
13 By decision of 24 May 2007, the Skatteverket had ordered Mr Åkerberg Fransson to pay, for the 2004 tax year, a tax surcharge of SEK 35 542 in respect of income from his economic activity, of SEK 4 872 in respect of VAT and of SEK 7 138 in respect of employers' contributions.
13 Odlukom od 24. svibnja 2007. Skatteverket je odredio da Åkerberg Fransson mora platiti poreznu kaznu za poreznu godinu 2004. u iznosu od 35 542 SEK za dohodak od svoje gospodarske djelatnosti, 4 872 SEK za PDV i 7 138 SEK za doprinose poslodavca.
By the same decision it had also imposed for the 2005 tax year a tax surcharge of SEK 54 240 in respect of income from his economic activity, of SEK 3 255 in respect of VAT and of SEK 7 172 in respect of employers' contributions.
Istom odlukom također je odredio poreznu kaznu za poreznu godinu 2005. u iznosu od 54 240 SEK za dohodak od svoje gospodarske djelatnosti, 3 255 SEK za PDV i 7 172 SEK za doprinose poslodavca.
Interest was payable on those penalties.
Na te se kazne obračunava i pripadajuća kamata.
Proceedings challenging the penalties were not brought before the administrative courts, the period prescribed for this purpose expiring on 31 December 2010 in relation to the 2004 tax year and on 31 December 2011 in relation to the 2005 tax year.
Postupak za osporavanje kazni nije pokrenut na upravnom sudu, s time da je zastara za poreznu godinu 2004. nastupila 31. prosinca 2010. a za poreznu godinu 2005. 31. prosinca 2011.
The decision imposing the penalties was based on the same acts of providing false information as those relied upon by the Public Prosecutor's Office in the criminal proceedings.
Odluka o izricanju poreznih kazni zasnivala se na istim radnjama davanja lažnih izjava na koje se državno odvjetništvo oslonilo u kaznenom postupku.
14 Before the referring court, the question arises as to whether the charges brought against Mr Åkerberg Fransson must be dismissed on the ground that he has already been punished for the same acts in other proceedings, as the prohibition on being punished twice laid down by Article 4 of Protocol No 7 to the ECHR and Article 50 of the Charter would be infringed.
14 Pred sudom koji je uputio zahtjev postavlja se pitanje trebaju li optužbe protiv Åkerberga Franssona biti odbačene uz obrazloženje da je već kažnjen za iste radnje u drugom postupku jer bi inače došlo do povrede zabrane dvostrukog kažnjavanja utvrđene člankom 4. Protokola br. 7. uz EKLJP i člankom 50. Povelje.
15 It is in those circumstances that the Haparanda tingsrätt decided to stay proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
15 U tim je okolnostima Haparanda tingsrätt odlučio prekinuti postupak i Sudu postaviti sljedeća prethodna pitanja:
`1. Under Swedish law there must be clear support in the [ECHR] or the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights for a national court to be able to disapply national provisions which may be suspected of infringing the ne bis in idem principle under Article 4 of Protocol No 7 to the ECHR and may also therefore be suspected of infringing Article 50 of the [Charter].
„1. Prema švedskom pravu, u [EKLJP-u] ili sudskoj praksi Europskog suda za ljudska prava mora postojati jasni temelj da bi nacionalni sud mogao izuzeti od primjene nacionalne odredbe za koje se sumnja da krše načelo ne bis in idem na temelju članka 4. Protokola br. 7 uz [EKLJP] i za koje se shodno tome može sumnjati da krše članak 50.
Is such a condition under national law for disapplying national provisions compatible with European Union law and in particular its general principles, including the primacy and direct effect of European Union law?
[Povelje]. Je li takav uvjet nacionalnog prava za izuzeće od primjene nacionalnih odredaba u skladu s pravom Unije te posebno njegovim općim načelima, uključujući prvenstvo i izravni učinak prava Unije?
2. Does the admissibility of a charge of tax offences come under the ne bis in idem principle under Article 4 of Protocol No 7 to the ECHR and Article 50 of the Charter where a certain financial penalty (tax surcharge) was previously imposed on the defendant in administrative proceedings by reason of the same act of providing false information?
2. Je li dopuštenost optužbe zbog utaje poreza obuhvaćena načelom ne bis in idem iz članka 4. Protokola br. 7 uz EKLJP i članka 50. Povelje u slučaju kada je novčana kazna (porezna kazna) već izrečena tuženiku u upravnom postupku zbog iste radnje davanja lažnih izjava?
3. Is the answer to Question 2 affected by the fact that there must be coordination of these sanctions in such a way that ordinary courts are able to reduce the penalty in the criminal proceedings because a tax surcharge has also been imposed on the defendant by reason of the same act of providing false information?
3. Utječe li na odgovor na drugo pitanje činjenica da mora postojati usklađenost između ovih sankcija i to tako da redovni sudovi mogu smanjiti kaznenu sankciju jer je tuženiku također određena porezna kazna zbog iste radnje davanja lažnih izjava?
4. Under certain circumstances it may be permitted, within the scope of the ne bis in idem principle ..., to order further sanctions in fresh proceedings in respect of the same conduct which was examined and led to a decision to impose sanctions on the individual.
4. U određenim okolnostima može u okviru načela ne bis in idem [...] biti dopušteno odrediti daljnje sankcije u novom postupku u odnosu na isto postupanje koje je ispitano i koje je dovelo do odluke o određivanju sankcija protiv pojedinca.
If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative, are the conditions under the ne bis in idem principle for the imposition of several sanctions in separate proceedings satisfied where in the later proceedings there is an examination of the circumstances of the case which is fresh and independent of the earlier proceedings?
Ako je odgovor na drugo pitanje potvrdan, jesu li ispunjeni uvjeti načela ne bis in idem za određivanje nekoliko sankcija u odvojenom postupku ako je u kasnijem postupku provedeno novo ispitivanje okolnosti slučaja neovisno o prethodnom postupku?
5. The Swedish system of imposing tax surcharges and examining liability for tax offences in separate proceedings is motivated by a number of reasons of general interest ...
5. Švedski sustav određivanja poreznih kazni i ispitivanja odgovornosti za ista djela utaje poreza u odvojenim postupcima temelji se na više razloga od općeg interesa [...]
If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative, is a system like the Swedish one compatible with the ne bis in idem principle when it would be possible to establish a system which would not come under the ne bis in idem principle without it being necessary to refrain from either imposing tax surcharges or ruling on liability for tax offences by, if liability for tax offences is relevant, transferring the decision on the imposition of tax surcharges from the Skatteverket and, where appropriate, administrative courts to ordinary courts in connection with their examination of the charge of tax offences?'
Ako je odgovor na drugo pitanje potvrdan, je li sustav poput švedskog usklađen s načelom ne bis in idem ako bi bilo moguće uspostaviti sustav koji ne bi bio suprotan načelu ne bis in idem a da nije potrebno suzdržati se od određivanja poreznih kazni ni kaznenih sankcija za utaju poreza na način da se u predmetima utaje poreza nadležnost u pogledu određivanja poreznih kazni prenese sa Skatteverketa te, gdje je to primjenjivo, s upravnih sudova na redovne sudove?"
Jurisdiction of the Court
Nadležnost Suda
16 The Swedish, Czech and Danish Governments, Ireland, the Netherlands Government and the European Commission dispute the admissibility of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling.
16 Švedska, češka i danska vlada, Irska, nizozemska vlada i Europska komisija osporavaju dopuštenost prethodnih pitanja.
In their submission, the Court would have jurisdiction to answer them only if the tax penalties imposed on Mr Åkerberg Fransson and the criminal proceedings brought against him that are the subject-matter of the main proceedings arose from implementation of European Union law.
Prema njihovim tvrdnjama, Sud bi im bio nadležan odgovoriti samo jesu li porezne kazne izrečene protiv Åkerberga Franssona i kazneni postupak koji je protiv njega pokrenut te koji su predmet glavnog postupka proizašli iz provedbe prava Unije.
However, that is not so in the case of either the national legislation on whose basis the tax penalties were ordered to be paid or the national legislation upon which the criminal proceedings are founded.
Međutim, to nije slučaj ni u nacionalnom zakonodavstvu na temelju kojeg je određeno plaćanje poreznih kazni niti u nacionalnom zakonodavstvu na kojem se temelji kazneni postupak.
In accordance with Article 51(1) of the Charter, those penalties and proceedings therefore do not come under the ne bis in idem principle secured by Article 50 of the Charter.
U skladu s člankom 51. stavkom 1. Povelje, te kazne i postupci stoga nisu obuhvaćeni načelom ne bis in idem, koje je zajamčeno člankom 50. Povelje.
17 It is to be recalled in respect of those submissions that the Charter's field of application so far as concerns action of the Member States is defined in Article 51(1) thereof, according to which the provisions of the Charter are addressed to the Member States only when they are implementing European Union law.
17 U tom pogledu valja podsjetiti da je područje primjene Povelje, što se tiče djelovanja država članica, definirano u njezinom članku 51. stavku 1., prema kojem se odredbe Povelje odnose na države članice samo kada primjenjuju pravo Unije.
18 That article of the Charter thus confirms the Court's case-law relating to the extent to which actions of the Member States must comply with the requirements flowing from the fundamental rights guaranteed in the legal order of the European Union.
18 Tim se člankom Povelje stoga potvrđuje sudska praksa Suda u odnosu na mjeru u kojoj djelovanja država članica moraju biti u skladu sa zahtjevima koji proizlaze iz temeljnih prava zajamčenih pravnim poretkom Unije.
19 The Court's settled case-law indeed states, in essence, that the fundamental rights guaranteed in the legal order of the European Union are applicable in all situations governed by European Union law, but not outside such situations.
19 Iz ustaljene sudske prakse Suda u biti proizlazi da su temeljna prava zajamčena pravnim poretkom Unije primjenjiva u svim situacijama uređenima pravom Unije, ali ne izvan takvih situacija.
In this respect the Court has already observed that it has no power to examine the compatibility with the Charter of national legislation lying outside the scope of European Union law.
U tom pogledu Sud je već podsjetio da ne može s obzirom na Povelju ocjenjivati nacionalni propis koji ne ulazi u okvir prava Unije.