natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
‘Pursuant to Article 2 and 3 of the VAT Compensation Act, VAT compensation may also be granted to municipalities which carry out non-mandatory activities.
„V skladu s členoma 2 in 3 Zakona o nadomestilu DDV se lahko nadomestilo DDV odobri tudi občinam, ki izvajajo neobvezne dejavnosti.
Besides the special training performed by the topical county municipal schools, the Ministry does, however, not know of any areas outside the scope of the VAT system where it is questioned whether the recipients of VAT compensation perform their services in competition with other undertakings within the EEA.’
Ministrstvo razen posebnega usposabljanja, ki ga izvajajo zadevne okrožne občinske šole, ne ve za nobeno področje zunaj področja uporabe sistema DDV, pri katerem je vprašljivo, ali prejemniki nadomestila DDV opravljajo svoje storitve v konkurenci z drugimi podjetji znotraj EGP.“
The Norwegian authorities consequently believed that in sectors which are exempted from the scope of application of the VAT Act, very few undertakings established in neighbouring European countries would provide services in competition with Norwegian undertakings covered by the VAT Compensation Act.
Norveški organi so zato menili, da bi v sektorjih, ki so izvzeti s področja uporabe Zakona o DDV, izredno malo podjetij s sedeži v sosednjih evropskih državah zagotavljalo storitve v konkurenci z norveškimi podjetji, ki so zajeta v Zakonu o nadomestilu DDV.
Moreover, circumstances such as physical distance to the service provider, language difficulties and other forms of cultural attachment are decisive when a service provider is chosen.
In ne samo to, pri izbiri ponudnika storitev so odločilnega pomena okoliščine, kot je oddaljenost ponudnika storitev, težave z jezikom in druge oblike kulturne povezanosti.
The Norwegian authorities considered that in order to perform a true assessment of the VAT compensation scheme in relation to the criteria set out in Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, it should be relevant that the competition between Norwegian undertakings and other undertakings in the EEA on sectors exempted from the application of VAT is quite marginal.
Norveški organi so menili, da bi moralo biti za izvedbo prave ocene sheme nadomestila DDV v zvezi z merili, določenimi v členu 61(1) EGP, pomembno, da je konkurenca med norveškimi podjetji in drugimi podjetji v EGP v sektorjih, ki so oproščeni plačila DDV, precej zanemarljiva.
Thus, the Norwegian authorities believed that VAT compensation granted to undertakings in sectors exempted from the application of VAT cannot be deemed as capable of affecting trade between the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement.
Zato so norveški organi menili, da se za nadomestilo DDV, ki se dodeli podjetjem v sektorjih, ki so oproščeni plačila DDV, ne more šteti, da vpliva na trgovino med pogodbenicami Sporazuma EGP.
The Norwegian authorities referred to several EU Member States which have introduced refund schemes for the VAT costs on non-taxable or tax-exempt activities for local governments.
Norveški organi so navedli primere več držav članic EU, ki so uvedle sheme vračil za stroške DDV pri dejavnostih za lokalne uprave, ki niso obdavčljive ali so davka oproščene.
In Sweden, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom different schemes which provide for refunds of VAT to local governments have been established to eliminate distortions in the decision making of public authorities between public provision and contracting out of public services.
Na Švedskem, Danskem, Finskem, Nizozemskem in v Združenem kraljestvu so uvedli različne sheme, ki predvidevajo vračilo DDV za lokalne vlade, s katerim bi odpravili izkrivljanja pri odločanju javnih organov med javnim zagotavljanjem javnih storitev ali njihovim zagotavljanjem s sklepanjem pogodb z zunanjimi izvajalci.
Various VAT refund systems of a broadly similar nature are also established in France, Luxembourg, Austria and Portugal.
Različni sistemi za vračilo DDV, ki so na splošno podobni tem, so vzpostavljeni tudi v Franciji, Luksemburgu, Avstriji in na Portugalskem.
Further, the Norwegian authorities quoted former Commissioner Mr Bolkestein.
Norveški organi so poleg tega navedli izjavo nekdanjega komisarja Bolkesteina.
In a letter of 1 February 2000 to Michel Hansenne (Belgium), who had asked the European Parliament whether the VAT compensation scheme in the United Kingdom was in compliance with the sixth VAT Directive, Mr Bolkestein stated that a VAT compensation scheme ‘does not conflict with the sixth VAT Directive’ since ‘it entails a purely financial operation between different public bodies and is governed by the respective national policy for the financing of public authorities’.
Bolkestein je v dopisu z dne 1. februarja 2000 Michelu Hansenneju (Belgija), ki je na Evropski parlament naslovil vprašanje, ali je shema nadomestila DDV v Združenem kraljestvu v skladu s šesto direktivo o DDV, navedel, da shema nadomestila DDV „ni v nasprotju s šesto direktivo o DDV“, saj „vsebuje popolnoma finančno transakcijo med različnimi javnimi organi in jo ureja ustrezna nacionalna politika za financiranje javnih organov“.
Mr Bolkestein also commented on ‘a possible scheme whereby the Irish Government would give a subsidy to Irish charities of an amount equivalent to the non-deductive VAT that they had incurred’.
Bolkestein je komentiral tudi „možnost sheme, po kateri bi irska vlada namenila subvencijo irskim dobrodelnim ustanovam v znesku, ki ustreza DDV, ki ga morajo te ustanove plačati in ga ni mogoče odbiti“.
He stated that ‘the granting of government subsidies is in itself not contrary to the European Union VAT law’.
Izjavil je, da „dodeljevanje vladnih subvencij samo po sebi ni v nasprotju z zakonodajo Evropske unije o DDV“.
The Norwegian authorities admitted that none of these quotations directly addressed the State aid rules.
Norveški organi so priznali, da se nobena od teh navedb ne nanaša neposredno na pravila o državni pomoči.
However, in their opinion, it appears from these quotations that the VAT compensation schemes are not deemed to be in conflict with the sixth VAT Directive.
Vendar po njihovem iz teh navedb izhaja, da sheme nadomestila DDV očitno niso v nasprotju s šesto direktivo o DDV.
In their view, this reflects the fact that VAT compensation schemes are in line with the nature and logic of the VAT system itself.
Po njihovem mnenju to odraža dejstvo, da so sheme nadomestila DDV v skladu z naravo in logiko samega sistema DDV.
The presence of State aid
Obstoj državne pomoči
The Authority would like to make a preliminary remark regarding the scope of the current assessment.
Nadzorni organ bi rad podal predhodno pripombo v zvezi s področjem uporabe te ocene.
This Decision does not address the decision of the Norwegian authorities to exempt certain transactions from the scope of the application of the VAT Act.
Ta odločba se ne nanaša na odločitev norveških organov o izvzetju nekaterih transakcij s področja uporabe Zakona o DDV.
It only concerns the compensation for input tax paid by certain persons falling within the scope of the VAT Compensation Act.
Zadeva samo nadomestilo vstopnega davka, ki ga plačujejo nekatere osebe, ki spadajo na področje uporabe Zakona o nadomestilu DDV.
Further, the Authority would also like to stress three remarks it already made in Decision No 225/06/COL:
Poleg tega bi Nadzorni organ rad opozoril na tri pripombe, ki jih je podal že v Odločbi št. 225/06/COL:
Firstly, as a general rule, the tax system of an EFTA State is not covered by the EEA Agreement.
Prvič, splošno pravilo je, da Sporazum EGP ne zajema davčnega sistema države Efte.
It is for each EFTA State to design and apply a tax system according to its own choices of policy.
Vsaka država Efte sama zasnuje in uporablja davčni sistem v skladu s svojo izbiro politike.
However, application of a tax measure, such as the input tax compensation provided for in Article 3 of the VAT Compensation Act, may have consequences that would bring it within the scope of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Vendar pa ima lahko uvedba davčnega ukrepa, kakršen je nadomestilo vstopnega davka, ki ga predvideva člen 3 Zakona o nadomestilu DDV, posledice, zaradi katerih spada na področje uporabe člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
According to the case-law [17], Article 61(1) does not distinguish between measures of State intervention by reference to their causes or aims but defines them in relation to their effects.Secondly, the question as to whether the measure at issue constitutes State aid arises only in so far as it concerns an economic activity, that is, an activity consisting of offering goods and services on a given market [18].
Kakor kaže sodna praksa [17], člen 61(1) ukrepov državne intervencije ne ločuje glede na njihove vzroke ali cilje, temveč jih opredeljuje glede na njihove učinke.Drugič, vprašanje, ali zadevni ukrep pomeni državno pomoč, se pojavlja samo toliko, kolikor zadeva gospodarsko dejavnost, to je dejavnost, ki sestoji iz tega, da se na določenem trgu ponujajo blago in storitve [18].
A measure constitutes State aid only if it benefits undertakings.
Ukrep pomeni državno pomoč samo, če imajo koristi od njega podjetja.
For the purposes of application of the rules on competition, the concept of an undertaking encompasses entities ‘engaged in an economic activity, regardless of the legal status of the entity and the way in which it is financed’ [19].
Za namene uporabe pravil konkurence pojem podjetja zajema subjekte, „ki se ukvarjajo z gospodarsko dejavnostjo, ne glede na pravni status subjekta in način njegovega financiranja“ [19].
Although some of the entities which receive input tax refunds do not fulfil the condition of being an undertaking, the fact that some beneficiaries of the VAT Compensation Act are undertakings constitutes sufficient grounds to assess the scheme as such for State aid purposes [20].Thirdly, aid may be granted to public undertakings as well as to private undertakings [21].
Čeprav nekateri od subjektov, ki prejemajo vračila vstopnega davka, ne izpolnjujejo pogoja, da bi bili opredeljeni kot podjetja, je dejstvo, da nekateri od upravičencev po Zakonu o nadomestilu DDV so podjetja, zadostna podlaga za oceno sheme kot take za namene državne pomoči [20].Tretjič, pomoč je mogoče dodeliti tako javnim kot zasebnim podjetjem [21].
A public undertaking, in order to be regarded as a recipient of State aid does not necessarily need to have a legal identity separate from the State.
Da se javno podjetje obravnava kot prejemnik državne pomoči, ni nujno, da je pravna oseba, ločena od države.
That an entity is governed by public law and is a non-profit making institution does not necessarily mean that it is not an ‘undertaking’ within the meaning of the State aid rules [22].Fourthly, regarding the general comments from the Norwegian authorities about the existence of similar schemes within the European Union, the Authority would like to note that these systems may be different from the VAT Compensation Act and that it has informed the European Commission about the observations of the Norwegian authorities.
To, da neko pravno osebo ureja javno pravo in da je neprofitna institucija, ne pomeni nujno, da ni „podjetje“ v smislu pravil o državni pomoči [22].Četrtič, Nadzorni organ bi rad v zvezi s splošnimi pripombami norveških organov o obstoju podobnih shem znotraj Evropske unije pripomnil, da se te sheme lahko razlikujejo od Zakona o nadomestilu DDV in da je o pripombah norveških organov obvestil Evropsko komisijo.
Moreover, according to case law ‘any breach by a Member State of an obligation under the Treaty in connection with the prohibition laid down in Article 92 cannot be justified by the fact that other Member States are also failing to fulfil this obligation’ [23]In the following, the Authority will assess whether the VAT Compensation Act as a scheme [24] fulfils the criteria foreseen under Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement to be considered State aid.
In kot poleg tega kaže sodna praksa, „kakršnega koli dejanja, s katerim država članica krši svojo obveznost po Pogodbi, v zvezi s prepovedjo iz člena 92, ni mogoče upravičiti z dejstvom, da te obveznosti ne izpolnjujejo tudi druge države članice“ [23].V nadaljevanju bo Nadzorni organ ocenil, ali Zakon o nadomestilu DDV kot shema [24] izpolnjuje merila iz člena 61(1) sporazuma EGP, tako da se lahko šteje za državno pomoč.
In order to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, the aid must be granted by the State through state resources.
Če naj pomoč pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP, jo mora dodeliti država iz državnih sredstev.
The compensation is granted by the State directly and is therefore granted by the State through state resources.
Nadomestilo dodeljuje neposredno država in ga torej dodeljuje država iz državnih sredstev.
The Norwegian authorities have argued that the VAT compensation scheme does not constitute an aid measure because it is a self-funding system.
Norveški organi so trdili, da shema nadomestila DDV ni ukrep pomoči, ker gre za sistem, ki si sredstva zagotavlja sam.
In their opinion, municipalities fund the VAT Compensation scheme themselves through a reduction of the general transfers from the State budget to the municipalities.
Po njihovem mnenju shemo nadomestila DDV financirajo občine same z znižanjem splošnih prenosov iz državnega proračuna za občine.
With the introduction of the VAT compensation scheme in 2004, the municipal appropriations in the annual fiscal budget were reduced in accordance with the expected amount of input tax compensated.
Ko je bila leta 2004 uvedena shema nadomestila DDV, so se občinska odobrena proračunska sredstva v letnem fiskalnem proračunu znižala v skladu s pričakovanim zneskom vstopnega davka, za katerega naj bi se izplačalo nadomestilo.
The Authority considers that for State aid purposes it is not relevant whether the amount of money received by the municipalities has been diminished or not.
Nadzorni organ meni, da za namene državne pomoči ni pomembno, ali je bil znesek, ki ga prejemajo občine, zmanjšan ali ne.
What is important is whether undertakings within the meaning of the competition rules have received financial support by the State through state resources.
Pomembno je, ali je država podjetjem podelila finančno podporo v smislu pravil konkurence in iz državnih sredstev.
When a municipality acts as an undertaking it should be viewed for State aid purposes separately from the municipality as a public authority.
Kadar občina deluje kot podjetje, jo je treba za namene državne pomoči ločiti od občine kot javnega organa.
Whether the State’s cost of the compensation at the central level is counterbalanced by reduced transfers to the local and regional authorities as such does not alter this conclusion.
Te ugotovitve ne spreminja dejstvo, ali je strošek države za nadomestilo na centralni ravni izravnan z znižanimi prenosi na lokalne in regionalne organe.
The refund for input tax paid is financed from the state budget and therefore constitutes state resources.
Vračilo vstopnega davka se financira iz državnega proračuna, zato so to državna sredstva.
Moreover, in the Authority’s understanding, each municipality does not get a reduction in the state transfer exactly corresponding to the exact VAT compensation it receives.
In kakor poleg tega razume Nadzorni organ, se prenosi iz državnega proračuna za vsako občino ne znižajo v znesku, ki bi natančno ustrezal nadomestilu DDV, ki ga prejme.
A financial measure granted by the State or through state resources to an undertaking which would relieve it from costs which would normally have to be borne by its own budget constitutes an economic advantage [25].The Norwegian authorities have argued that the VAT compensation scheme does not constitute an advantage because the scheme neither entails a reduction in the amount of tax nor any tax deferment.
Finančni ukrep, ki ga podjetju dodeli država ali se mu dodeli iz državnih sredstev in zaradi katerega slednje nima stroškov, ki bi jih običajno krilo iz lastnega proračuna, je gospodarska prednost [25].Norveški organi so trdili, da shema nadomestila DDV ne pomeni prednosti, saj ne prinaša niti znižanja zneska davka niti davčnega odloga.
The VAT compensation scheme does not imply any reduction in the recipient’s tax burden.
Shema nadomestila DDV v ničemer ne znižuje davčne obremenitve prejemnika.
The Authority does not share this approach.
Nadzorni organ se s tem pristopom ne strinja.
In its opinion the Norwegian authorities do not make the necessary differentiation between the various spheres of the State, i.e., in this case the State as tax authority, the municipalities as state bodies and municipal undertakings as separate entities for State aid purposes.
Po njegovem mnenju norveški organi ne ločujejo pravilno med različnimi sferami države, tj. v tem primeru med državo kot davčnim organom, občinami kot državnimi organi in občinskimi podjetji kot posebnimi subjekti za namene državne pomoči.
To determine whether an economic advantage has been granted, the Authority has to assess whether a measure relieves its beneficiaries of charges that they normally bear in the course of their business.
Nadzorni organ mora pri odločanju, ali je bila dodeljena gospodarska prednost, oceniti, ali ukrep upravičence odvezuje stroškov, ki bi jih sicer imeli pri običajnem poslovanju.
The payment of input tax is an operating cost related to purchases in the normal course of an undertakings’ economic activity, which is normally borne by the undertaking itself.
Plačilo vstopnega davka je strošek poslovanja, ki se nanaša na nakupe pri običajni gospodarski dejavnosti nekega podjetja in ga navadno nosi samo podjetje.
To the extent that the Norwegian authorities compensate input tax on purchases of goods and services to undertakings falling within the scope of Article 2 of the VAT Compensation Act, they grant those undertakings an economic advantage.
Norveški organi do stopnje, kolikor izplačujejo nadomestila za vstopni davek na nakupe blaga in storitev podjetjem, ki spadajo na področje uporabe člena 2 Zakona o nadomestilu DDV, tem podjetjem dodeljujejo gospodarsko prednost.
They are granted an advantage because the operating costs which those undertakings will have to put up with are reduced in accordance with the amount of input tax compensated.
Tem podjetjem je dodeljena prednost, ker so stroški poslovanja, ki jih bodo imela, znižani za višino vstopnega davka, za katerega se izplača nadomestilo.
The VAT Compensation Act therefore entails the granting of an economic advantage to the beneficiaries of the scheme.
Zato Zakon o nadomestilu DDV prinaša dodelitev gospodarske prednosti upravičencem sheme.
Further, to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, the aid measure must be selective in that it favours ‘certain undertakings or the production of certain goods’.
Poleg tega mora biti ukrep pomoči, če naj gre za državno pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP, selektiven in mora dajati prednost „posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga“.
In Decision No 225/06/COL, the Authority considered that the VAT Compensation Act constituted a materially selective measure.
Nadzorni organ je v Odločbi št. 225/06/COL menil, da je Zakon o nadomestilu DDV v bistvu selektiven ukrep.
The scope of the VAT Compensation Act is positively defined in that only taxable persons falling within Article 2 of the VAT Compensation Act can be compensated for input tax on purchases.
Področje uporabe Zakona o nadomestilu DDV je pozitivno opredeljeno v smislu, da lahko dobijo nadomestilo vstopnega davka na nakupe samo davčni zavezanci, ki spadajo na področje uporabe člena 2 Zakona o nadomestilu DDV.
The advantage granted under the VAT Compensation Act for undertakings refunded for their input tax implies a relief from the obligation that follows from the general VAT system applicable to all buyers of goods and services.
Prednost, ki se po Zakonu o nadomestilu DDV dodeljuje podjetjem, ki dobijo vračilo za vstopni davek, prinaša oprostitev obveznosti, izhajajoče iz splošnega sistema DDV, ki se uporablja za vse kupce blaga in storitev.
The Court’s jurisprudence has established that a specific tax measure can nevertheless be justified by the internal logic of the tax system if it is consistent with it [26].
Sodna praksa Sodišča kaže, da je določen davčni ukrep kljub temu mogoče upravičiti z notranjo logiko davčnega sistema, če ji ustreza [26].
Any measure intended partially or wholly to exempt firms in a particular sector from the charges arising from the normal application of the general system constitutes State aid if there is no justification for this exemption on the basis of the nature and logic of the general system [27].The Authority will assess whether the input tax refund provided for in Article 3 of the VAT Compensation Act falls within the logic of the VAT system.
Vsak ukrep, ki je namenjen temu, da delno ali v celoti oprosti podjetja v nekem sektorju stroškov, ki izhajajo iz običajne uporabe splošnega sistema, je državna pomoč in te oprostitve ni mogoče upravičiti z naravo in logiko splošnega sistema [27].Nadzorni organ bo ocenil, ali vračilo vstopnega davka iz člena 3 Zakona o nadomestilu DDV spada v logiko sistema DDV.
For this assessment, the Authority must consider whether the input tax refund meets the objectives inherent in the VAT system itself, or whether it pursues other objectives not enshrined in the VAT system.
Nadzorni organ mora za svojo oceno razmisliti, ali vračilo vstopnega davka ustreza ciljem, ki so del samega sistema DDV, ali pa ima mogoče druge cilje, ki jih sistem DDV ne vključuje.
The primary objective of the VAT system is to tax certain supplies of goods or services.
Prvotni cilj sistema DDV je obdavčitev nekaterih dobav blaga ali storitev.
The VAT is an indirect tax on the consumption of goods and services.
DDV je posredni davek na potrošnjo blaga in storitev.
As a rule, VAT is calculated at all stages of the supply chain and on the import of goods and services from abroad.
DDV se praviloma obračunava na vseh stopnjah dobavne verige ter za uvoz blaga in storitev iz tujine.
The ultimate consumer pays VAT as part of the purchase price, without the right to deduct the tax.
Končni potrošnik plača DDV kot del nakupne cene, ne da bi imel pravico davek odbiti.
Although, in principle, all sales of goods and services are liable to VAT, some transactions may be exempt (and as a consequence without a credit for input tax) which means that such supplies are not taxable.
Čeprav je treba načeloma na vse prodaje blaga in storitev plačati DDV, so nekatere transakcije lahko oproščene (in tako brez knjiženja v dobro za vstopni davek), kar pomeni, da takšne dobave niso obdavčljive.
Articles 5, 5a and 5b in Chapter I of the Norwegian VAT Act exempt transactions such as supply and letting of real estate, supply of health and health-related services, social services, educational services, financial services, etc. The providers of these goods and services are treated as final consumers for VAT purposes since they have to pay input tax without being able to request output tax.
Členi 5, 5a in 5b v poglavju I norveškega Zakona o DDV predvidevajo oprostitev za transakcije, kot so dobava in oddajanje v najem nepremičnin, zagotavljanje zdravstvenih storitev in storitev, povezanih z zdravjem, socialnovarstvenih storitev, izobraževalnih storitev, finančnih storitev itd. Ponudniki tega blaga in storitev se obravnavajo kot končni potrošniki za namene DDV, saj morajo plačati vstopni davek, ne da bi lahko zahtevali izstopni davek.
The consequence of the logic of the system is that exempted supplies of goods and services and final consumers pay input tax without having the possibility to deduct it.
Posledica take logike sistema je, da oproščene dobave blaga in storitev ter končni potrošniki plačajo vstopni davek, ne da bi ga imeli možnost odbiti.
This logical consequence of the VAT system had created, however, a distortion at another level, which the Norwegian authorities have tried to offset with the introduction of the VAT Compensation Act.
Ta logična posledica sistema DDV pa je ustvarila izkrivljanje na drugi ravni, kar so poskušali norveški organi izravnati s sprejetjem Zakona o nadomestilu DDV.