natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As the Court stated in the above judgments, those characteristics are as follows. VAT applies generally to transactions relating to goods or services; it is proportional to the price of those goods or services; it is charged at each stage of the production and distribution process; and finally it is imposed on the added value of goods and services, since the tax payable on a transaction is calculated after deducting the tax paid on the previous transaction. 
Kao što je Sud naveo u gore navedenim presudama, te su osobine sljedeće: PDV se općenito primjenjuje na transakcije povezane s robom ili uslugama; razmjeran je cijeni te robe ili usluga; naplaćuje se u svakoj fazi proizvodnog i distribucijskog procesa; naposljetku, naplaćuje se na dodanu vrijednost robe i usluga zbog toga što se porez koji se plaća na transakciju obračunava nakon odbitka poreza koji je plaćen na prethodnu transakciju.
12 Secondly, it is necessary to examine whether a levy such as the Danish levy exhibits the essential characteristics of VAT, and consequently whether it is to be regarded as a turnover tax. 
12 Zatim valja ispitati ima li doprinos kakav je danski doprinos o kojem je riječ bitne osobine PDV-a i treba li ga slijedom toga smatrati porezom na promet.
It should be noted in that respect that the levy, like VAT, was charged on commercial or industrial activities, whether or not subject to VAT, which consisted in the supply of goods or services for consideration; it was charged at all stages of production and distribution; and it was calculated, in the case of undertakings that were taxable persons for VAT purposes, as a percentage of the value of the goods sold or services provided during a specified period, after deducting purchases of goods and services during that period. 
U vezi s tim treba napomenuti da se taj doprinos, kao i PDV, naplaćivao na komercijalne ili industrijske aktivnosti, bez obzira na to jesu li podlijegale PDV-u ili ne, koje su se sastojale od nabave robe ili usluga koje su se naplaćivale; nadalje, naplaćivao se u svim fazama proizvodnje i distribucije; za poduzetnike koji su bili obveznici plaćanja PDV-a obračunavao se kao postotak vrijednosti prodane robe ili pruženih usluga tijekom određenog razdoblja, nakon odbitka iznosa kupljenih roba i usluga tijekom istog tog razdoblja.
13 Admittedly, as the Danish Government has emphasized, the levy differed from VAT in certain respects. 
13 Istina je, kao što je naglasila danska vlada, da se taj doprinos u određenim vidovima razlikovao od PDV-a.
First, it was imposed on undertakings which were not taxable persons for VAT purposes, in which case the basis of assessment, where it was not possible to apply the method used for undertakings which were taxable persons for VAT purposes, was the total amount paid by the undertaking as wages, increased by 90%. 
Kao prvo, naplaćivao se poduzetnicima koji nisu bili obveznici plaćanja PDV-a i u tom slučaju, s obzirom na to da se nije mogla primijeniti metoda upotrebljavana za poduzetnike koji su obveznici plaćanja PDV-a, osnovica za obračun bio je ukupni iznos plaća koji su isplatili ti poduzetnici, uvećan za 90 %.
Secondly, the levy was not charged on imports, and importing undertakings were not allowed to deduct from the basis for assessment of the levy the value of goods or services imported. 
Kao drugo, taj se doprinos nije naplaćivao na uvoz, a poduzetnici uvoznici nisu smjeli oduzeti vrijednost uvezene robe ili usluga od osnovice za obračun doprinosa.
Finally, it was regarded as part of the cost of the goods or services and for that reason was not indicated separately on invoices. 
Naposljetku, smatrao se dijelom troška robe ili usluga i zbog toga se nije zasebno izražavao na računima.
14 However, for a tax to be characterized as a turnover tax, it is not necessary for it to resemble VAT in every respect; it is sufficient for it to exhibit the essential characteristics of VAT. 
14 Međutim, da bi se porez smatrao porezom na promet nije nužno da u svakom pogledu nalikuje PDV-u; dovoljno je da ima bitne osobine PDV-a.
In the present case, the differences which have been mentioned do not affect the nature of a levy such as the Danish levy, which resembled VAT in all essential respects. 
U ovom predmetu spomenute razlike ne utječu na prirodu doprinosa kakav je danski doprinos o kojem je riječ, koji nalikuje PDV-u u svim bitnim vidovima.
It follows that, notwithstanding those differences, the levy still retained the character of a turnover tax. 
Iz toga slijedi da je bez obzira na te razlike doprinos i dalje imao karakter poreza na promet.
15 Accordingly, the answer to Question 1 must be that 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: 
15 U skladu s tim na prvo pitanje valja odgovoriti da se 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 uvođenje ili zadržavanje doprinosa koji se:
(i) is paid both on activities subject to VAT and on other industrial or commercial activities which consist in the supply of services for consideration; 
(i) plaća i za aktivnosti koje podliježu plaćanju PDV-a i za druge industrijske ili komercijalne aktivnosti koje se sastoje od nabave usluga koje se naplaćuju;
(ii) is charged, in the case of undertakings which are taxable persons for VAT purposes, on the same basis of assessment as that used for VAT, in other words as a percentage of the volume of sales after deduction of purchases; 
(ii) za poduzetnike koji su obveznici plaćanja PDV-a naplaćuje po istoj osnovici koja se upotrebljava za PDV, drugim riječima kao postotak vrijednosti prodaje nakon odbitka iznosa kupnji;
(iii) unlike VAT, is not paid on importation, but is charged on the full sale price of imported goods at the first sale in the Member State concerned; 
(iii) za razliku od PDV-a, ne plaća na uvoz, ali se naplaćuje na punu prodajnu cijenu uvezene robe pri prvoj prodaji u dotičnoj državi članici;
(iv) unlike VAT, does not have to be indicated separately on invoices; and 
(iv) za razliku od PDV-a, ne mora izraziti zasebno na računima; i koji se
(v) is charged alongside VAT. 
(v) obračunava usporedo s PDV-om.
16 With respect to the second question, as to whether Article 33 can be relied upon before the national courts, the Danish Government argued that that provision is purely procedural and was inserted in the Sixth Council Directive exclusively in the interest of the Communities. 
16 Što se tiče drugog pitanja, kojim se pita može li se na članak 33. pozivati pred nacionalnim sudovima, danska vlada izjavila je da je ta odredba isključivo postupovna i da je uvrštena u Šestu direktivu Vijeća isključivo u interesu Zajednica.
It stated at the hearing that only substantive provisions aimed at safeguarding the interests of individuals could have direct effect and that those conditions were not met in the present case. 
Na raspravi je iznijela stav da samo materijalne odredbe čiji je cilj zaštita interesa pojedinaca mogu imati izravan učinak i da u ovom predmetu nisu ispunjeni ti uvjeti.
17 It is sufficient to point out in that regard that, according to the settled case-law of the Court, a provision of a directive can be relied upon by individuals before the national courts if it is clear, precise and unconditional, and that the rule in Article 33, prohibiting Member States from introducing taxes, duties or charges which can be characterized as turnover taxes, satisfies those conditions. 
17 Dovoljno je u tom pogledu istaknuti da se, u skladu s ustaljenom sudskom praksom Suda, na odredbe direktiva pojedinci mogu pozivati pred nacionalnim sudovima ako su te odredbe jasne, precizne i bezuvjetne, te da pravilo iz članka 33., kojim se državama članicama zabranjuje uvođenje poreza, davanja ili nameta koji se mogu odrediti kao porez na promet, ispunjava te uvjete.
18 It follows that the answer to Question 2 must be that Article 33 of the Sixth Council Directive creates rights for the benefit of individuals which the national courts are obliged to protect. 
18 Iz toga slijedi kako na drugo pitanje valja odgovoriti da iz članka 33. Šeste direktive Vijeća proizlaze prava pojedinaca koja moraju štititi nacionalni sudovi.
Questions 3 and 4 
Treće i četvrto pitanje
19 In view of the answers to the Questions 1 and 2, there is no need to deal with Questions 3 and 4. 
19 S obzirom na odgovore na prvo i drugo pitanje, treće i četvrto pitanje su bespredmetni.
Effects of this judgment ratione temporis 
Vremenski učinci ove presude
20 The Danish Government has asked the Court, with reference to the judgments in Case 43/75 Defrenne v Sabena [1976] ECR 455, Case 24/86 Blaizot v University of Liège [1988] ECR 379, and Case C-262/88 Barber v Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group [1990] ECR I-1889, to limit the effects of its judgment ratione temporis in the event of a decision that the levy is incompatible with Community law. 
20 Pozivajući se na presude od 8. travnja 1976., Defrenne (C-43/75, Zb., str. 455.), od 2. veljače 1988., Blaizot (C-24/86, Zb., str. 379.) i od 17. svibnja 1990., Barber (C-262/88, Zb., str. I-1889.), danska vlada tražila je da Sud, ako donese odluku o neusklađenosti doprinosa o kojem je riječ s pravom Zajednice, ograniči vremenske učinke ove presude.
In support of its request it described the extremely serious consequences which such a decision would have for Denmark' s public finances and its judicial system. 
U potporu svog zahtjeva opisala je iznimno ozbiljne posljedice koje bi takva odluka imala za danske javne financije i danski pravosudni sustav.
It explained at the hearing that the amount yielded by the contested levy was approximately 7 000 million ECU, or 4% of Denmark' s revenue during the period in question. 
Na raspravi je objasnila da je iznos naplaćen na temelju osporavanog doprinosa bio otprilike 7 milijardi ECU, odnosno 4 % danskih prihoda u razdoblju o kojem je riječ.
Merely having to consider applications for repayment of the levy, which had moreover been passed on to consumers, from only some of the 150 000 to 200 000 taxable persons would lead to the collapse of the Danish judicial system. 
Kada bi zahtjeve za povrat naplaćenog doprinosa, koji je prenesen na potrošače, podnijeli samo neki od 150 000 do 200 000 poreznih obveznika, već samo razmatranje tih zahtjeva dovelo bi do urušavanja danskog pravosudnog sustava.
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]