natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Moreover, the Danish Government argued that, in the light of the Court' s case-law at the time, the Government had been entitled to consider that the levy contested in the main proceedings did not jeopardize the functioning of the common system of VAT and was thus not prohibited by Article 33.
Osim toga, danska vlada izjavila je da je, s obzirom na sudsku praksu Suda u to doba, imala pravo smatrati da doprinos koji se osporava u glavnom postupku nije ugrozio funkcioniranje zajedničkog sustava PDV-a te da stoga nije bio zabranjen člankom 33.
21 It must be held in that regard that the Danish Government has not shown that at the time when the contested levy was introduced, Community law could reasonably be construed as permitting such a tax.
21 U vezi s tim valja zaključiti da danska vlada nije dokazala kako se u doba uvođenja osporavanog doprinosa moglo razumno protumačiti da je pravo Zajednice dopuštalo takav porez.
The prohibition of turnover taxes contained in Article 33 is quite apparent from the wording of that provision.
Zabrana poreza na promet sadržana u članku 33. jasno proizlazi iz teksta te odredbe.
The scope of that prohibition has already been defined by the Court in the Rousseau Wilmot judgment, cited above, in which it held that Article 33 "seeks to prevent the functioning of the common system of VAT from being compromised by fiscal measures of a Member State levied on the movement of goods and services and charged on commercial transactions in a way comparable to VAT" (paragraph 16).
Područje primjene te zabrane Sud je već utvrdio u gore navedenoj presudi Rousseau Wilmot, u kojoj je zaključio da se člankom 33. „nastoji spriječiti da država članica ugrozi funkcioniranje zajedničkog sustava PDV-a fiskalnim mjerama koje otežavaju kretanje robe i usluga, a na komercijalne transakcije zaračunavaju se na način koji je usporediv s PDV-om" (točka 16.).
It follows that a tax which is levied alongside VAT and which exhibits the essential characteristics of VAT, as specified in paragraph 15 of the Rousseau Wilmot judgment, is charged on commercial transactions in a way comparable to VAT and thus jeopardizes the functioning of the common system.
Iz toga slijedi da se porez koji se naplaćuje usporedo s PDV-om i koji ima bitne osobine PDV-a kako su navedene u točki 15. presude Rousseau Wilmot, na komercijalne transakcije zaračunava na način koji je usporediv s PDV-om te da time ugrožava funkcioniranje zajedničkog sustava.
22 Moreover, the Commission, which had been notified by the Danish Government of its proposal in November 1987, drew that Government' s attention as early as 29 January 1988, only a few weeks after the introduction of the levy, to the problems which that levy could give rise to from the point of view of Article 33.
22 Osim toga, Komisija, koju je danska vlada obavijestila o svojem prijedlogu u studenom 1987., već je 29. siječnja 1988., samo nekoliko tjedana nakon uvođenja spornog doprinosa, upozorila dansku vladu na poteškoće koje bi mogle proizaći s obzirom na članak 33.
23 It follows that in those circumstances it is inappropriate to limit the effects of this judgment ratione temporis.
23 Iz toga slijedi da je u tim okolnostima neprimjereno ograničiti vremenske učinke ove presude.
24 The costs incurred by the Portuguese Government and the Commission of the European Communities, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable.
24 Troškovi portugalske vlade i Komisije Europskih zajednica, koje su podnijele očitovanja Sudu, ne nadoknađuju se.
in answer to the questions referred to it by the OEstre Landsret, by order of 20 June 1990, hereby rules:
odlučujući o pitanjima koja mu je Østre Landsret (Istočni regionalni sud) postavio rješenjem od 20. lipnja 1990., odlučuje:
1. Article 33 of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of VAT: uniform basis of assessment (77/388/EEC) precludes the introduction or maintenance of a fiscal levy which:
1. Člankom 33. Šeste direktive Vijeća 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 (77/388/EEZ) zabranjuje se uvođenje ili zadržavanje doprinosa koji se:
2. Article 33 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC creates rights for the benefit of individuals which the national courts are obliged to protect.
2. Iz članka 33. Šeste direktive Vijeća 77/388/EEZ proizlaze prava pojedinaca koja moraju štititi nacionalni sudovi. [Potpisi]
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 July 1991. Taxable persons for the purposes of VAT - Bodies governed by public law.
PRESUDA SUDA (peto vijeće) 25. srpnja 1991.() „Obveznici plaćanja poreza na dodanu vrijednost - Javnopravna tijela"
- Case C-202/90.
U predmetu C-202/90,
REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Andalucía (High Court of Justice, Andalusia) 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 Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Andalucía (Vrhovni sud u Andaluziji, Španjolska) (vijeće za upravne sporove), u postupku koji se vodi pred tim sudom između
Ayuntamiento de Sevilla
Ayuntamiento de Sevilla
and Recaudadores de las Zonas Primera y Segunda
i Recaudadores de las Zonas Primera y Segunda,
on the interpretation of Article 4(1), (4) and (5) 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 (Official Journal 1977 L 145, p. 1),
o tumačenju članka 4. stavaka 1., 4. i 5. 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.),
THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),
SUD (peto vijeće),
composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber, G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, Sir Gordon Slynn, F. Grévisse and M. Zuleeg, Judges,
u sastavu: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, predsjednik vijeća, G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, Sir Gordon Slynn, F. Grévisse i M. Zuleeg, suci,
Registrar: D. Louterman, Principal Administrator,
tajnik: D. Louterman, glavna administratorica,
the Ayuntamiento de Sevilla, by E. Barrero González, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent;
za Ayuntamiento de Sevilla (Općina Sevilla), E. Barrero González, član općinske pravne službe, u svojstvu agenta,
the Spanish Government, by Carlos Bastarreche Saguees, Director General de Coordinacíon Jurídica e Institucional Comunitaria, and Antonio Hierro Hernández-Mora, Abogado del Estado, acting as Agents;
za španjolsku vladu, Carlos Bastarreche Saguees, glavni direktor zadužen za pravosudnu i institucijsku koordinaciju Zajednice, i Antonio Hierro Hernández-Mora, Abogado del Estado, u svojstvu agenata,
the Commission of the European Communities, by D. Calleja y Crespo, a member of its Legal Service, acting as Agent,
za Komisiju Europskih zajednica, D. Calleja y Crespo, član pravne službe, u svojstvu agenta,
after hearing the oral observations of the Ayuntamiento de Sevilla, the Spanish Government, represented by Rosario Silva de Lapuerta, Abogado del Estado, acting as Agent, and the Commission at the hearing on 2 May 1991,
saslušavši usmena očitovanja koja su podnijeli Ayuntamiento de Sevilla (Općina Sevilla), španjolska vlada, koju je zastupao Rosario Silva de Lapuerta, Abogado del Estado, u svojstvu agenta, i Komisija na raspravi održanoj 2. svibnja 1991.,
1 By an order of 11 June 1990, which was received at the Court on 2 July 1990, the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Andalucía (High Court of Justice, Andalusia) referred to the Court of Justice under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty two questions on the interpretation of Article 4(1), (4) and (5) 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 (Official Journal L 145, p. 1, hereinafter referred to as "the Sixth Directive").
1 Rješenjem od 11. lipnja 1990., koje je Sud zaprimio 2. srpnja 1990., Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Andalucía (Vrhovni sud u Andaluziji) uputio je Sudu na temelju članka 177. Ugovora o EEZ-u dva prethodna pitanja o tumačenju članka 4. stavaka 1., 4. i 5. 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 between the Ayuntamiento de Sevilla (Commune of Seville) and the Recaudadores de las Zonas Primera y Segunda (tax collectors of the first and second zones).
2 Pitanja su upućena u okviru spora između Ayuntamiento de Sevilla (Općina Sevilla) i Recaudadores de las Zonas Primera y Segunda (poreznici za prvu i drugu zonu).
3 It appears from the documents before the Court that under Spanish legislation the tax collectors for a zone are appointed by the local authority whose taxes they collect and must provide the security fixed by that local authority.
3 Iz spisa proizlazi da u skladu sa španjolskim zakonodavstvom poreznike za određenu zonu imenuju lokalna tijela na čijem području ti poreznici ubiru poreze te da poreznici moraju dati kauciju koju odrede ta lokalna tijela.
In the performance of their functions they are directed by the local authority.
Lokalna tijela usmjeravaju ih u obavljanju funkcija.
They are entitled to remuneration in the form of a collection premium, which is a percentage of the sums recovered without constraint, and a proportion of the supplements added on in the event of enforced recovery.
Imaju pravo na naknadu u obliku premije za naplatu poreza, koja odgovara postotku iznosa naplaćenih bez prinude odnosno udjelu u dodatcima u slučaju prinudne naplate.
Finally, they set up their own offices and recruit their auxiliary staff themselves.
Naposljetku, poreznici osnivaju vlastite urede i sami zapošljavaju pomoćno osoblje.
4 When calculating the collection premium, the tax collectors of the first and second zones added on value added tax (VAT).
4 Pri obračunu premije za naplatu poreza poreznici za prvu i drugu zonu naplaćivali su porez na dodanu vrijednost (u daljnjem tekstu: PDV).
The Commune of Seville lodged a complaint with the Tribunal Económico Administrativo Provincial de Sevilla, which rejected the complaint by a decision of 31 October 1988.
Općina Seville podnijela je prigovor sudu Tribunal Económico Administrativo Provincial de Sevilla (Okružni gospodarski upravni sud u Sevilli), koji ga je odbio odlukom od 31. listopada 1988.
5 An appeal against that decision was lodged with the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Andalucía, which decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
5 U tim okolnostima Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Andalucía (Vrhovni sud u Andaluziji) odlučio je prekinuti postupak i uputiti Sudu sljedeća prethodna pitanja:
"(1) Must Article 4(1) and (4) of Directive 77/388/EEC be interpreted as meaning that the activity carried out by collectors constitutes, having regard to all its characteristics, professional services carried out independently, remunerated on that basis and consequently subject to the tax?
„1. Treba li članak 4. stavke 1. i 4. Direktive 77/388/EEZ tumačiti na način da je aktivnost koju obavljaju poreznici, s obzirom na sve njezine osobine, profesionalna usluga koja se obavlja samostalno, za koju se na temelju toga prima nagrada i koja stoga podliježe oporezivanju?
(2) If that activity is to be regarded as carried out on an independent basis, must it be considered non-taxable because it comprises activities or transactions in which those concerned engage as public authorities, in accordance with Article 4(5) of that directive?"
2. Pod pretpostavkom da je to aktivnost koja se obavlja samostalno, treba li smatrati da je neoporeziva zbog toga što obuhvaća aktivnosti ili transakcije u kojima osobe sudjeluju kao javna tijela, u smislu članka 4. stavka 5. te direktive?"
6 Reference is made to the Report for the Hearing for a fuller account of the facts of the case, the procedure and the written observations submitted to the Court, which are mentioned or discussed hereinafter only in so far as is necessary for the reasoning of the Court.
6 Za potpuniji prikaz činjenica u glavnom postupku, tijeka 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.
7 Article 4(1) of the Sixth Directive provides as follows:
7 Članak 4. stavak 1. Šeste direktive glasi: „1.
"' Taxable person' shall mean any person who independently carries out in any place any economic activity specified in paragraph 2, whatever the purpose or the results of that activity."
Poreznim obveznikom smatra se svaka osoba koja samostalno obavlja bilo koju gospodarsku aktivnost navedenu u stavku 2. i na bilo kojem mjestu, bez obzira na svrhu ili rezultate te aktivnosti." [neslužbeni prijevod]
8 The national court wishes to know what factors must be taken into account in order to decide whether an activity such as that of tax collectors is to be regarded as carried out independently within the meaning of that provision.
8 Nacionalni sud želi znati koje čimbenike treba uzeti u obzir pri odlučivanju o tome treba li aktivnost poreznika smatrati aktivnošću koja se obavlja samostalno u smislu te odredbe.
9 In that regard, the first subparagraph of Article 4(4) states that:
9 U tom pogledu u članku 4. stavku 4. prvom podstavku navodi se:
"The use of the word 'independently' in paragraph 1 shall exclude employed and other persons from the tax in so far as they are bound to an employer by a contract of employment or by any other legal ties creating the relationship of employer and employee as regards working conditions, remuneration and the employer' s liability."
„Uporabom riječi ‚samostalno' u stavku 1. isključuju se iz oporezivanja zaposlene i ostale osobe ukoliko su vezane za poslodavca ugovorom o radu ili bilo kojim drugim pravnim vezama kojima se stvara odnos poslodavca i zaposlenika u pogledu uvjeta rada, nagrađivanja i odgovornosti poslodavca." [neslužbeni prijevod]
10 The documents before the Court show that tax collectors do not receive a salary and are not bound to the Commune by a contract of employment.
10 Iz spisa proizlazi da poreznici ne primaju plaću i nisu vezani za Općinu ugovorom o radu.
It must therefore be considered whether their legal relationship with the Commune nevertheless creates the relationship of employer and employee referred to in Article 4(4) of the directive.
Stoga valja razmotriti čini li njihov pravni odnos s Općinom ipak odnos poslodavca i zaposlenika iz članka 4. stavka 4. direktive.
11 With regard, firstly, to working conditions, there is no relationship of employer and employee since the tax collectors themselves procure and organize independently, within the limits laid down by the law, the staff and the equipment and materials necessary for them to carry out their activities.
11 Kao prvo, s obzirom na uvjete rada, ne postoji odnos poslodavca i zaposlenika, jer sami poreznici samostalno, u granicama propisanim zakonom, nabavljaju i organiziraju osoblje, opremu i materijale koji su im potrebni za obavljanje aktivnosti.
12 That being so, the fact that in the performance of their functions tax collectors are tied to the local authority, which can give them instructions, and the fact that they are subject to disciplinary control by that authority are not decisive for the purpose of defining their legal relationship with the Commune for the purposes of Article 4(4) of the directive (see, with regard to disciplinary control, the judgment of the Court in Case 235/85 Commission v Netherlands [1987] ECR 1471, paragraph 14).
12 S obzirom na to, činjenica da su poreznici u obavljanju svoje funkcije vezani za lokalna tijela, koja im mogu davati upute, i činjenica da podliježu disciplinskom nadzoru tih tijela, nisu odlučujuće pri utvrđivanju njihova pravnog odnosa s Općinom u smislu članka 4. stavka 4. direktive (u pogledu disciplinskog nadzora vidjeti presudu Suda od 26. ožujka 1987., Komisija/Nizozemska, C-235/85, Zb., str. 1471., t. 14.).
13 With regard, secondly, to remuneration, there is no relationship of employer and employee since tax collectors bear the economic risk entailed in their activity in so far as their profit depends not only on the amount of taxes collected but also on the expenses incurred on staff and equipment in connection with their activity.
13 Kao drugo, s obzirom na nagrađivanje, ne postoji odnos zaposlenika i poslodavca, jer poreznici snose gospodarski rizik svoje aktivnosti zbog toga što njihova dobit ne ovisi samo o iznosu poreza koji su naplatili nego i o troškovima osoblja i opreme povezanih s tom aktivnošću.
14 With regard, finally, to employer' s liability, the fact that the Commune can be held liable for the conduct of tax collectors when they act as representatives of the public authority is not sufficient to establish the existence of a relationship of employer and employee.
14 Naposljetku, s obzirom na odgovornost poslodavca, činjenica da se Općinu može smatrati odgovornom za postupanje poreznika kada nastupaju u svojstvu predstavnika javnog tijela nije dovoljna za utvrđivanje postojanja odnosa poslodavca i zaposlenika.
15 The decisive criterion for this purpose is the liability arising from the contractual relationships entered into by tax collectors in the course of their activity and their liability for any damage caused to third parties when they are not acting as representatives of the public authority.
15 Odlučujući kriterij u tom smislu odgovornost je koja proizlazi iz ugovornih odnosa u koje poreznici ulaze tijekom obavljanja aktivnosti i njihova odgovornost za štetu nanesenu trećim osobama kada ne nastupaju u svojstvu predstavnika javnog tijela.
16 The reply to the first question must therefore be that Article 4(1) and (4) of the Sixth Directive must be interpreted as meaning that an activity such as that of tax collectors must be regarded as being carried out independently.
16 Na prvo pitanje stoga valja odgovoriti da članak 4. stavke 1. i 4. Šeste direktive treba tumačiti na način da se aktivnost poreznika smatra aktivnošću koja se obavlja samostalno.
17 The second question concerns the interpretation of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive, the first subparagraph of which provides as follows:
17 Drugo pitanje tiče se tumačenja članka 4. stavka 5. Šeste direktive, čiji prvi podstavak glasi kako slijedi:
"States, regional and local government authorities and other bodies governed by public law shall not be considered taxable persons in respect of the activities or transactions in which they engage as public authorities, even where they collect dues, fees, contributions or payments in connection with these activities or transactions."
„Državne, regionalne i lokalne vlasti i ostali subjekti javnog prava ne smatraju se poreznim obveznicima u pogledu aktivnosti ili transakcija u kojima sudjeluju kao javna tijela, čak i u slučaju gdje ubiru davanja, pristojbe, doprinose ili plaćanja vezano uz te aktivnosti ili transakcije." [neslužbeni prijevod]
18 As the Court has held on numerous occasions, it is clear from that provision, when examined in the light of the aims of the directive, that two conditions must be fulfilled in order for the exemption to apply: the activities must be carried out by a body governed by public law and they must be carried out by that body acting as a public authority (judgments in Case 107/84 Commission v Germany [1985] ECR 2655, paragraph 11; Case 235/85 Commission v Netherlands, cited above, paragraph 21; Joined Cases 231/87 and 129/88 Comune de Carpaneto Piacentino and Others [1989] ECR 3233, paragraph 12).
18 Kao što je Sud već više puta zaključio, kada se ta odredba proučava s obzirom na ciljeve Direktive, iz nje jasno proizlazi da za primjenu izuzeća moraju biti ispunjena kumulativno dva uvjeta: aktivnosti mora obavljati javnopravno tijelo i to ih mora obavljati u svojstvu javnog tijela (presuda od 11. srpnja 1985., Komisija/Njemačka, C-107/84, Zb., str. 2655., t. 11.; gore navedena presuda od 26. ožujka 1987., Komisija/Nizozemska, t. 21.; presuda od 17. listopada 1989., Comune di Carpaneto Piacentino i dr., C-231/87 i C-129/88, Zb., str. 3233., t. 12.).
19 With regard to the first of those two conditions, the Court has already held in its judgment in Commission v Netherlands (at paragraph 21) that an activity carried on by a private individual is not excluded from the scope of VAT merely because it consists in the performance of acts falling within the prerogatives of the public authority.
19 Što se tiče prvoga od ta dva uvjeta, Sud je u presudi Komisija/Nizozemska (u točki 21.) već zaključio da aktivnosti koje obavlja pojedinac ne mogu biti isključene iz područja primjene PDV-a samo zbog toga što obuhvaćaju obavljanje radnji koje ulaze u ovlasti javnih tijela.
20 It follows that, if a commune entrusts the activity of collecting taxes to an independent third party, the exclusion from VAT provided for by the abovementioned provision is not applicable.
20 Iz toga slijedi da se izuzeće od PDV-a propisano gore navedenom odredbom ne primjenjuje ako općina povjeri aktivnost naplate poreza samostalnoj trećoj osobi.
21 The reply to the second question must therefore be that Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive must be interpreted as meaning that that provision is not applicable if the activity of a public authority is not engaged in directly but is entrusted to an independent third party.
21 Stoga na drugo pitanje valja odgovoriti da članak 4. stavak 5. Šeste direktive treba tumačiti na način da se ta odredba ne primjenjuje ako javno tijelo ne obavlja određenu aktivnost neposredno nego ju je povjerilo samostalnoj trećoj osobi.
22 The costs incurred by the Spanish Government and by the Commission of the European Communities, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable.
22 Troškovi podnošenja očitovanja Sudu koje su imale španjolska vlada i Komisija Europskih zajednica ne nadoknađuju se.
As these proceedings are in the nature of a step in the proceedings 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 submitted to it by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Andalucía, by order of 11 June 1990, hereby rules:
odlučujući o pitanjima koja mu je Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Andalucía (Vrhovni sud u Andaluziji) uputio rješenjem od 11. lipnja 1990., odlučuje:
1. Article 4(1) and (4) of the Sixth Directive must be interpreted as meaning that an activity such as that of a tax collector must be regarded as being carried out independently.
1. Članak 4. stavke 1. i 4. Šeste direktive treba tumačiti na način da se aktivnost poreznika smatra aktivnošću koja se obavlja samostalno.
2. Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive must be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable if the activity of a public authority is not exercised directly but is entrusted to an independent third party.
2. Članak 4. stavak 5. Šeste direktive treba tumačiti na način da se ta odredba ne primjenjuje ako javno tijelo ne obavlja određenu aktivnost neposredno nego ju je povjerilo samostalnoj trećoj osobi. [Potpisi]
Judgment of the Court of 4 July 2000.
PRESUDA SUDA 4. srpnja 2000. ()
Financial penalties - Periodic penalty payment - Waste - Directives 75/442/EEC and 78/319/EEC.  In Case C-387/97,
Novčane kazne - Plaćanje periodične novčane kazne - Otpad - Direktive 75/442EEZ i 78/319/EEZ" U predmetu C-387/97,