natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
local and regional authorities carrying out local or regional activities in which the local council or county council or another council under the Local Government Act [13] or other special local governmental legislation is the supreme body;
lokalni in regionalni organi, ki opravljajo lokalne ali regionalne dejavnosti, pri katerih je v skladu z Zakonom o lokalni samoupravi [13] ali drugo posebno zakonodajo za področje lokalne samouprave najvišji organ lokalni svet ali okrajni svet ali kateri drug svet;
intermunicipal companies established according to the Local Government Act or other special local governmental legislation;
medobčinske gospodarske družbe, ustanovljene v skladu z Zakonom o lokalni samoupravi ali katero drugo posebno zakonodajo za področje lokalne uprave;
private or non-profit undertakings in as far as they carry out health, educational or social services which are statutory obligations of local or regional authorities;
zasebna ali neprofitna podjetja, če izvajajo zdravstvene, izobraževalne ali socialnovarstvene storitve, za katere so zadolženi lokalni ali regionalni organi;
day care institutions as mentioned in Article 6 of the Day Care Act [14];
ustanove za dnevno oskrbo, kakor so navedene v členu 6 Zakona o dnevni oskrbi [14];
Joint Parish Council (Kirkelig fellesråd).
svet krajevne skupnosti (Kirkelig fellesråd).
It follows from Article 3 read in conjunction with Article 4(2) of the VAT Compensation Act, that the Norwegian State compensates input tax paid by taxable persons covered by the VAT Compensation Act when buying goods and services from other taxable persons when they do not have the right to deduct input tax since they are tax exempted according to the VAT Act [15].3.
Če člen 3 beremo v povezavi s členom 4(2) Zakona o nadomestilu DDV, ugotovimo, da norveška država izplačuje nadomestilo vstopnega davka, ki ga plačajo davčni zavezanci, zajeti v Zakonu o nadomestilu DDV, pri nakupu blaga in storitev od drugih davčnih zavezancev, kadar nimajo pravice do odbitka vstopnega davka, saj so oproščeni plačila davka v skladu z Zakonom o DDV [15].3.
The doubts the Authority expressed in the Decision to open the formal investigation procedure
Pomisleki, ki jih je Nadzorni organ izrazil v odločbi o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave
In Decision No 225/06/COL to open the formal investigation procedure with regard to Article 3 of the VAT Compensation Act, the Authority’s preliminary consideration was that the input tax compensation as provided for in Article 3 of the VAT Compensation Act constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
V Odločbi št. 225/06/COL o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave v zvezi s členom 3 Zakona o nadomestilu DDV je Nadzorni organ izrazil predhodno mnenje, da je nadomestilo vstopnega davka, kakor ga predvideva člen 3 Zakona o nadomestilu DDV, državna pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
The Authority considered that the compensation granted under the VAT Compensation Act was granted by the State through state resources from the State Budget.
Nadzorni organ je menil, da je država nadomestilo, ki se dodeljuje v skladu z Zakonom o nadomestilu DDV, dodelila iz državnih sredstev iz državnega proračuna.
In the Authority’s view it was not relevant for this assessment whether or not the State’s cost of the compensation at the central level is counterbalanced by reduced transfers to the local and regional authorities as such.
Po mnenju Nadzornega organa za to oceno ni pomembno, ali je strošek države za nadomestilo na centralni ravni izravnan z znižanimi prenosi na lokalne in regionalne organe kot take.
The Authority further considered that, to the extent that the Norwegian authorities compensate input tax on purchases of goods and services to undertakings not subject to VAT but falling within the scope of Article 2 of the VAT Compensation Act, they grant those undertakings an economic advantage.
Nadzorni organ je menil tudi, da norveški organi do stopnje, kolikor izplačujejo nadomestilo vstopnega davka na nakupe blaga in storitev podjetjem, ki niso zavezanci za DDV, ampak spadajo na področje uporabe člena 2 Zakona o nadomestilu DDV, ta podjetja postavljajo v gospodarsko prednost.
In the assessment of selectivity, the Authority raised doubts as to whether the VAT compensation, which in its view constituted a materially selective measure, could be justified by the nature and logic of the VAT system, i.e., whether it met the objectives inherent in the VAT system itself, or whether it pursued other objectives, external to the VAT system.
Nadzorni organ je pri oceni selektivnosti izrazil dvome, ali je mogoče nadomestilo DDV, ki je po njegovem mnenju v bistvu selektiven ukrep, upravičiti z naravo in logiko sistema DDV, tj. ali izpolnjuje cilje, ki jih že sam po sebi vključuje sistem DDV, in ali mogoče nima drugih ciljev, ki ne spadajo v sistem DDV.
According to the explanations given by the Norwegian authorities, the objective pursued with the introduction of the VAT Compensation Act was to facilitate and encourage the choice by the taxable persons covered by the VAT Compensation Act between self supply and outsourcing of goods and services subject to VAT.
Kakor je mogoče sklepati iz razlag, ki so jih podali norveški organi, je bil cilj uvedbe Zakona o nadomestilu DDV omogočiti in spodbuditi izbiro davčnih zavezancev, ki jih zajema Zakon o nadomestilu DDV, med samooskrbo in zunanjim izvajanjem za blago in storitve, za katere se plačuje DDV.
The Authority had doubts as to whether this purpose could be said to be in the nature and logic of the VAT system itself which is a tax on consumption.
Nadzorni organ dvomi, ali je za ta namen mogoče reči, da spada v naravo in logiko samega sistema DDV, ki je davek na potrošnjo.
In the Authority’s preliminary view, the VAT compensation was not a part of the VAT system, established in 1970, as such but a separate measure, introduced later, to rectify some of the distortions created by the VAT system.
Po predhodnem stališču Nadzornega organa nadomestilo DDV ni bilo del sistema DDV, kakršen je bil vzpostavljen leta 1970, temveč je poseben ukrep, ki je bil uveden pozneje, da bi odpravili nekatera izkrivljanja, ki jih je ustvarjal sistem DDV.
The Authority pointed out that while mitigating distortions for municipal acquisitions, the VAT compensation had created a distortion of competition between undertakings carrying out the same economic activities in sectors exempted from the application of VAT.
Nadzorni organ je opozoril, da je nadomestilo DDV sicer omililo izkrivljanja za občinsko pridobivanje, vendar je ustvarilo izkrivljanje konkurence med podjetji, ki opravljajo enake gospodarske dejavnosti v sektorjih, oproščenih plačila DDV.
The Authority recalled that, in principle, the beneficiaries under the VAT compensation scheme can receive compensation for input VAT under the conditions of the scheme, regardless of whether aid to operators in these sectors would have an effect on trade.
Nadzorni organ je opozoril, da lahko upravičenci po shemi nadomestila DDV načeloma prejmejo nadomestilo vstopnega DDV po pogojih sheme, ne glede na to, ali bi pomoč subjektom v teh sektorjih vplivala na trgovino.
Some of the sectors covered by the VAT Compensation Act are partly or fully open for EEA-wide competition.
Nekaj sektorjev, ki so zajeti v Zakonu o nadomestilu DDV, je polno ali delno odprtih za konkurenco po vsem EGP.
Aid granted to undertakings in these sectors is thus capable of affecting trade between the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement.
Pomoč, ki se dodeli podjetjem v teh sektorjih, tako lahko vpliva na trgovino med pogodbenicami Sporazuma EGP.
The Authority had to assess the scheme as such and not its application to each individual sector covered.
Nadzorni organ je moral oceniti samo shemo, ne pa njene uporabe v vsakem posameznem sektorju, ki ga zajema.
Based on jurisprudence, the Authority’s preliminary conclusion was that, as a general nationwide scheme, the VAT Compensation Act was capable of affecting trade between the Contracting Parties.
Nadzorni organ je na podlagi sodne prakse sprejel predhodno ugotovitev, da Zakon o nadomestilu DDV, kot splošna vsedržavna shema, lahko vpliva na trgovino med pogodbenicami.
Finally, the Authority expressed doubts that the input tax compensation could be considered compatible with the State aid rules of the EEA Agreement following the application of any of the exceptions foreseen under Articles 61(2) and (3) of the said agreement.
Nadzorni organ je nazadnje izrazil dvome, da bi se lahko nadomestilo vstopnega davka štelo za združljivo s pravili državne pomoči po Sporazumu EGP zaradi uporabe katere koli od izjem, predvidenih v členu 61(2) in (3) navedenega sporazuma.
Moreover, although aid could potentially, in some situations, be considered compatible under the derogation foreseen in Article 59(2) of the EEA Agreement, the Authority was of the preliminary view that this provision did not justify the compatibility of the VAT Compensation Act as a scheme.
In ne samo to, čeprav bi lahko v nekaterih položajih mogoče šteli, da je pomoč združljiva v skladu z odstopanjem, predvidenim v členu 59(2) Sporazuma EGP, je Nadzorni organ izrazil predhodno stališče, da ta določba ne upravičuje združljivosti Zakona o nadomestilu DDV kot sheme.
By letter dated 18 September 2006 (Event No 388922), the Norwegian authorities submitted comments to the Authority’s Decision to open the formal investigation procedure.
Norveški organi so predložili pripombe na odločbo Nadzornega organa o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave z dopisom z dne 18. septembra 2006 (dogodek št. 388922).
The comments were divided into three sections:
Pripombe so bile razdeljene na tri oddelke:
The framework of the VAT Compensation scheme
Okvir sheme za nadomestilo DDV
The Norwegian authorities explained that VAT is a general tax that applies, in principle, to all commercial activities involving the production and distribution of goods and the provisions of services.
Norveški organi so pojasnili, da je DDV splošni davek, ki se načeloma nanaša na vse trgovinske dejavnosti, ki vključujejo proizvodnjo in distribucijo blaga ali zagotavljanje storitev.
VAT incurred on expenses is recoverable only to the extent that the tax payer provides services which are subject to VAT.
DDV, ki nastane pri stroških, je mogoče povrniti samo do stopnje, kolikor davkoplačevalec zagotavlja storitve, za katere se plačuje DDV.
Under the current VAT rules, most of the activities in the municipal sector are not subject to VAT:
Po veljavnih pravilih o DDV se za večino dejavnosti v občinskem sektorju DDV ne plačuje:
‘Municipal activity is generally outside the VAT system.
„Občinske dejavnosti na splošno ne spadajo v sistem DDV.
Basic municipal activities such as health services, educational services and social services are not subject to VAT.
Za osnovne občinske dejavnosti, kot so zdravstvene storitve, izobraževalne storitve in socialnovarstvene storitve, se DDV ne plačuje.
Economic activities in which municipalities engage as a “public authority” are outside the scope of VAT.
Gospodarske dejavnosti, v katerih občine sodelujejo kot ‚javni organ‘, so zunaj področja uporabe DDV.
Thus, VAT incurred by the municipalities related to exempt or non-taxable activities is an un-recoverable cost.
Tako je DDV, ki ga morajo občine plačati v zvezi z dejavnostmi, ki so davka oproščene ali so neobdavčljive, strošek, ki ga ni mogoče povrniti.
It may be referred to as a “hidden VAT cost”.
Lahko bi mu rekli ‚skriti strošek DDV‘.
It may also be seen as an anomaly of the VAT system.
Nanj bi lahko gledali tudi kot na nepravilnost sistema DDV.
Since the VAT system is supposed to be governed by a principle of neutrality, the VAT treatment of the municipalities may distort competition.
Ker bi sistem DDV načeloma moralo urejati načelo nevtralnosti, lahko obravnava občin v zvezi z DDV izkrivlja konkurenco.
Due to the fact that the municipalities may not claim back the VAT paid on inputs provided by the private sector, it may also introduce a bias for public authorities towards self-supply of services liable for VAT versus contracting out to the private sector.’
Ker občine ne morejo zahtevati nazaj DDV, ki se plača na vložke iz zasebnega sektorja, se lahko javni organi zaradi tega začnejo nagibati k temu, da se s storitvami, za katere se plačuje DDV, oskrbujejo sami, namesto da bi sklepali pogodbe z zasebnim sektorjem.“
By compensating the municipalities for input tax on all goods and services, the Norwegian authorities argued that the purpose of the general VAT compensation scheme is to create a level playing field between self supply and outsourcing:
Norveški organi so trdili, da je bil z izplačevanjem nadomestila vstopnega davka občinam na vse blago in storitve namen splošne sheme nadomestila DDV vzpostaviti enake konkurenčne pogoje za samooskrbo in zunanje izvajanje:
‘The VAT will no longer distort the municipal authorities' incentives when choosing between “in-house” production of services and purchase of services liable for VAT from private service providers.
„DDV ne bo več vplival na pobude občinskih organov, kadar bodo izbirali med notranjim zagotavljanjem storitev in kupovanjem storitev, od katerih se plačuje DDV, od zasebnih ponudnikov storitev.
[…] Neutrality can therefore be deemed as the objective assigned to the VAT compensation scheme.’
[…] Zato lahko štejemo, da je cilj sheme nadomestila za DDV nevtralnost.“
The Norwegian authorities stressed the view already expressed in the preliminary phase of the investigation that the VAT compensation scheme does not constitute an aid measure for the undertakings falling within the scope of Article 2 of the VAT Compensation Act.
Norveški organi so ponovno opozorili na stališče, ki je bilo izraženo že v predhodni fazi preiskave, da shema nadomestila DDV ni ukrep pomoči za podjetja, ki spadajo na področje uporabe člena 2 Zakona o nadomestilu DDV.
The reason for this statement is that when the general VAT compensation scheme was introduced in 2004, the municipal appropriations in the annual fiscal budget were reduced accordingly by the expected amount of input tax compensated.
Ta izjava temelji na stališču, da so se občinska odobrena proračunska sredstva v letnem fiskalnem proračunu z uvedbo splošne sheme nadomestila DDV v letu 2004 znižala za pričakovani znesek vstopnega davka, za katerega naj bi se izplačalo nadomestilo.
The VAT compensation scheme has therefore no revenue effects for the Government.
Shema nadomestila DDV tako nima nikakršnih vplivov na prihodke vlade.
Thus the system may be described as a self-funding system through allocation of a rebate/compensation cost to municipalities.
Tako je sistem mogoče opredeliti kot sistem, ki se z dodeljevanjem odbitka/stroška za nadomestilo občinam financira sam.
In the letter dated 18 September 2006, the Norwegian authorities expressed their disagreement with the assessment of the Authority that the VAT Compensation Act constitutes State aid for the following reasons:
Norveški organi so v dopisu z dne 18. septembra 2006 izrazili nestrinjanje z oceno Nadzornega organa, da gre pri Zakonu o nadomestilu DDV za državno pomoč, iz naslednjih razlogov:
The Norwegian authorities believe that it is not correct to deem the VAT compensation as an ‘advantage’, which relieves undertakings of charges that are normally borne from their budgets.
Po prepričanju norveških organov ni pravilno, da se nadomestilo DDV šteje za „prednost“, ki podjetja odvezuje stroškov, ki se običajno plačujejo iz njihovih proračunov.
Because the municipalities fund the VAT compensation scheme themselves through a reduction of the general grants, no factual economic relief is granted.
Ker občine same financirajo shemo nadomestila DDV z znižanjem splošnih dotacij, dejansko ni nobene gospodarske olajšave.
The VAT compensation scheme neither implies any reduction in the amount of tax nor any kind of tax deferment.
Shema nadomestila DDV niti ne prinaša znižanja davka niti nobene vrste davčnega odloga.
Consequently, in the opinion of the Norwegian authorities, it is wrong to compare the VAT compensation scheme to measures which imply a genuine reduction in the recipient's tax burden.
Zato je po mnenju norveških organov napačno primerjati shemo nadomestila DDV z ukrepi, ki pomenijo dejansko znižanje davčnega bremena prejemnika.
The scope of the VAT Compensation Act is positively defined in that only legal persons falling within Article 2 of the Act can be compensated for input tax on purchases.
Področje uporabe Zakona o nadomestilu DDV je pozitivno opredeljeno, saj lahko dobijo nadomestilo vstopnega davka na nakupe samo pravne osebe, ki spadajo na področje uporabe člena 2 Zakona.
A selective tax measure can nevertheless be justified due to the nature or general scheme of the tax system in question.
Vendar je selektivni davčni ukrep vseeno lahko upravičen zaradi narave ali splošnega sistema zadevnega davčnega sistema.
The Norwegian authorities considered that by stating that the VAT compensation is not a part of the VAT system, the Authority dismissed their argument that the VAT compensation can be deemed to be in line with the nature and logic of the VAT system itself.
Norveški organi so menili, da je Nadzorni organ z izjavo, da nadomestilo DDV ni del sistema DDV, zanemaril njihovo utemeljitev, da je za nadomestilo DDV mogoče šteti, da je v skladu z naravo in logiko samega sistema DDV.
The Norwegian authorities objected to this approach referring to Chapter 17B.3.1 et seq. of the Authority's State Aid Guidelines where various aspects of differential measures are looked into.
Norveški organi so nasprotovali temu pristopu s sklicevanjem na poglavje 17B.3.1 et seq. Smernic Nadzornega organa o državni pomoči, ki obravnavajo različne vidike razlikovalnih ukrepov.
They considered that VAT compensation is justified by the nature or general scheme of the tax system in question and referred to Chapter 17B.3.4 of the State Aid Guidelines ‘Application of State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation’.
Menili so, da nadomestilo DDV upravičuje narava ali splošni sistem zadevnega davčnega sistema, in se sklicevali na poglavje 17B.3.4 Smernic o državni pomoči, „Uporaba pravil o državni pomoči za ukrepe, ki se nanašajo na neposredno obdavčitev podjetja“.
It is a fundamental principle that the VAT system should be neutral and non-discriminatory.
Osnovno načelo je, da mora biti sistem DDV nevtralen in nediskriminatoren.
In the opinion of the Norwegian authorities, neutrality may therefore be seen as inherent in the VAT system itself.
Po mnenju norveških organov je tako mogoče šteti, da je načelo nevtralnosti vključeno že v sam sistem DDV.
Neutrality, which is inherent to the VAT system, is also the objective assigned to the VAT compensation scheme.
Nevtralnost, ki je del sistema DDV, je tudi cilj sheme nadomestila DDV.
Therefore, the Norwegian authorities believed that it is fair to consider the VAT compensation scheme to be in line with the nature and logic of the VAT system itself.
Zato so norveški organi menili, da lahko upravičeno štejejo, da je shema nadomestila DDV v skladu z naravo in logiko samega sistema DDV.
Moreover, they noted that in case the VAT compensation scheme should be phased out, the distortion of competition resulting from the VAT system would be revived: ‘The fact that the municipalities cannot recover VAT on inputs would distort the municipal authorities' incentives when choosing between “in-house” production of services and purchase of services liable for VAT from private service providers.’
Pripomnili so še, da bi se ob morebitni ukinitvi sheme nadomestila DDV spet pojavilo izkrivljanje konkurence zaradi sistema DDV: „Dejstvo, da občine ne morejo dobiti povrnjenega DDV od vložkov, bi vplivalo na odločitve občinskih organov, ko bi izbirali med notranjim zagotavljanjem storitev in kupovanjem storitev, od katerih se plačuje DDV, od zasebnih ponudnikov storitev.“
The Norwegian authorities pointed out that, in order to mitigate distortion of competition resulting from the VAT system, the so-called Rattsø Committee assessed several possible measures before it decided that the VAT compensation scheme would be the most suitable [16].
Norveški organi so poudarili, da je tako imenovani odbor Rattsø poskušal zmanjšati izkrivljanje konkurence zaradi sistema DDV in ocenil več možnih ukrepov, preden se je odločil, da je najprimernejša možnost shema nadomestila DDV [16].
One of the possible measures the Committee assessed was to extend the municipalities’ right to deduct input VAT.
Eden od možnih ukrepov, ki jih je ocenjeval odbor, je bila razširitev pravice občin, da odbijajo vstopni DDV.
Another possible measure would be to make the municipalities subject to VAT in general.
Drugi možni ukrep bi bil, da bi občine na splošno postale zavezanke za DDV.
The Rattsø Committee did not choose to extend the municipalities’ right to deduct input VAT because this measure would imply a disruption to VAT as a general tax.
Odbor Rattsø se ni odločil za širitev pravice občin do odbitka vstopnega DDV, ker bi ta ukrep porušil sistem DDV kot splošnega davka.
It was also taken into consideration that this measure could create pressure from other groups.
Pri tem so tudi upoštevali, da bi tak ukrep lahko povzročil pritiske drugih skupin.
Nor did the Rattsø Committee choose to make the municipalities subject to VAT in general.
Odbor Rattsø se ni odločil niti za to, da bi se za občine uvedla splošna obveznost plačevanja DDV.
Among other factors, the Committee pointed out that because many municipal services are performed free of charge, there is a lack of calculation basis for the VAT: ‘Extension of the municipalities rights to deduction and making the municipalities subject to VAT in general would both be solutions within the VAT system.
Odbor je poleg drugih dejavnikov opozoril na to, da se veliko občinskih storitev opravlja brezplačno, tako da ne bi imeli zadostne podlage za izračunavanje DDV: „Obe rešitvi, razširitev pravic občin do odbitka in uvedba splošne obveznosti DDV za občine, bi bili v okviru sistema DDV.
The motive of these measures, to mitigate the distortion of competition resulting from the VAT system, would, however, be exactly the same as to that of the VAT compensation scheme.
Vendar bi bil namen teh ukrepov, tj. zmanjšanje izkrivljanja konkurence zaradi sistema DDV, točno tak, kot je pri shemi nadomestila DDV.
Moreover, there is in an economic sense no difference between the compensation scheme and extending the municipalities right to deduct input tax.
Poleg tega ni v ekonomskem smislu nobene razlike med shemo nadomestila in razširitvijo pravice občin do odbitka vstopnega davka.
Thus, the Ministry believes that in itself the framing of the VAT compensation scheme can be of no consequence.’
Tako ministrstvo verjame, da vzpostavitev sheme nadomestila DDV sama po sebi ne more imeti nikakršnih posledic.“
The Norwegian authorities criticised the Authority's assessment of the ‘effect on trade’ criteria.
Norveški organi si kritizirali oceno Nadzornega organa o merilih v zvezi z „vplivom na trgovino“.
‘Through the VAT compensation scheme the municipalities are primarily granted refund of input tax on goods and services purchased for their mandatory activities.
„Občine s shemo nadomestila DDV dobijo predvsem vrnjena sredstva za vstopni davek na blago in storitve, ki jih kupijo za opravljanje svojih obveznih dejavnosti.
By law the municipalities are imposed to perform certain services.
Zakonodaja občinam nalaga zagotavljanje nekaterih storitev.
This is specially the case on the education, health and social area.
To zlasti velja za področja izobraževanja, zdravja in socialnega varstva.
For instance, in the health sector the municipalities, among other things, are instructed to provide for general practitioner services, nursing services, midwife services and nursing home services.
Tako morajo občine v zdravstvenem sektorju na primer zagotavljati storitve splošnih zdravnikov, negovalne storitve, babiške storitve in storitve nege na domu.
In the social sector the municipalities are instructed to provide for practical and economic support to the receivers, e.g. social housing.’
V sektorju socialnega varstva morajo občine zagotavljati praktično in ekonomsko podporo prejemnikom, npr. socialna stanovanja.“