natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
If a trader makes intra-Community supplies, he has the right to obtain a refund of the input VAT. 
Če trgovec blago dobavi znotraj Skupnosti, ima pravico do uveljavljanja vračila vstopnega DDV.
The VAT due is then payable by the trader in the Member State of destination. 
Dolgovani DDV nato plača trgovec v namembni državi članici.
Cooperation between Member StatesŐ authorities is therefore necessary in order to exchange the information needed to assess VAT correctly. 
Zato je potrebno sodelovanje med organi držav članic za izmenjavo informacij, potrebnih za pravilno odmero DDV.
The common system for the exchange of information between the Member States is governed by Council Regulation (EC) 1798/2003 of 7 October 2003 on administrative cooperation in the field of value added tax (9) (hereafter called the regulation), which entered into force on 1 January 2004, repealing the former Regulation (EEC) No 218/92 (10). 
Skupni sistem izmenjave informacij med državami članicami ureja Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 1798/2003 z dne 7. oktobra 2003 o upravnem sodelovanju na področju davka na dodano vrednost (9) (v nadaljnjem besedilu „uredba“), ki je začela veljati 1. januarja 2004 in razveljavlja prejšnjo Uredbo (EGS) št.
The regulation lays down the conditions under which tax authorities in the Member States are to cooperate with one another and with the Commission. 
Uredba določa pogoje za medsebojno sodelovanje davčnih organov v državah članicah in njihovo sodelovanje s Komisijo.
The regulation does not preclude more comprehensive mutual assistance on the basis of other legal acts, including bilateral or multilateral agreements. 
Uredba ne izključuje izčrpnejše medsebojne pomoči na podlagi drugih pravnih aktov, vključno z dvostranskimi ali večstranskimi sporazumi.
Where Member States conclude additional bilateral arrangements on administrative cooperation, they are required to inform the Commission and the other Member States thereof without delay. 
Če države članice sklenejo dodatne dvostranske sporazume o upravnem sodelovanju, morajo o tem nemudoma obvestiti Komisijo in druge države članice.
(7) See glossary. 
(7) Glej glosar.
(8) See Eurojust press release dated 13 March 2007. 
(8) Glej izjavo Eurojusta za tisk z dne 13. marca 2007.
(9) OJ L 264, 15.10.2003, p. 
(9) UL L 264, 15.10.2003, str.
(10) OJ L 24, 1.2.1992, p. 
(10) UL L 24, 1.2.1992, str.
25.1.2008 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 20/7 6. 
25.1.2008 SL Uradni list Evropske unije C 20/7 6.
When adopting the regulation in October 2003, the Council stated (1) that there had been until then an under-use of the arrangements for administrative cooperation. 
Ob sprejetju uredbe oktobra 2003 je Svet izjavil (1), da so se ureditve za upravno sodelovanje do takrat premalo uporabljale.
The Council called for exchange of information to be made more intensive to combat fraud more effectively. 
Pozval je k intenzivnejši izmenjavi informacij, da bo boj proti goljufijam bolj učinkovit.
Three types of exchange of information are foreseen under the regulation (see Figure 1): (a) Exchange of information through the VIES electronic database. 
Uredba predvideva tri vrste izmenjave informacij (glej diagram 1): (a) Izmenjavo informacij prek elektronske zbirke podatkov VIES.
Member States are required to input information on VAT numbers attributed to traders and on intra-Community supplies of goods declared by those traders. 
Države članice morajo vnesti informacije o številkah DDV, dodeljenih trgovcem, in o dobavah blaga znotraj Skupnosti, ki so jih prijavili ti trgovci.
Other Member States can then interrogate the database to obtain this information and check it against declarations made by their own traders. (b) Exchange of more detailed information on specific request, for example where inquiries made through VIES give rise to suspicions about a transaction and/or as a result of risk analysis. (c) Exchange of information without prior request, for example where a Member State has grounds to believe that a breach of VAT legislation has been committed in another Member State. 
Druge države članice nato lahko poiščejo te informacije v zbirki podatkov in jih preverijo tako, da jih primerjajo z deklaracijami, ki so jih predložili njihovi trgovci. (b) Izmenjavo podrobnejših informacij na posebno zahtevo, na primer, kadar poizvedbe v VIES vzbudijo sum o transakciji in/ali kot posledica analize tveganj. (c) Izmenjavo informacij brez predhodne zahteve, na primer, kadar ima država članica razloge za domnevo, da je bila v drugi državi članici kršena zakonodaja o DDV.
Exchanges of information under the regulation are mainly channelled through Central Liaison Offices (CLO). 
Izmenjave informacij po uredbi potekajo v glavnem prek centralnih uradov za zvezo.
Each Member State has to designate a single CLO with principal responsibility for contacts with other Member States. 
Vsaka država članica mora imenovati en sam centralni urad za zvezo, katerega glavna odgovornost so stiki z drugimi državami članicami.
In addition, competence to exchange information directly with other Member States may be delegated to other departments or to individual officials. 
Poleg tega se pristojnost za neposredno izmenjavo informacij z drugimi državami članicami lahko prenese tudi na druge oddelke ali posamezne uradnike.
Furthermore, the regulation lays down rules for controls conducted simultaneously in two or more Member States and allows for tax officials to be present in other Member States, for example in order to have access to documentation held there or to attend in ongoing enquiries. 
Uredba nadalje določa pravila o kontrolah, ki se hkrati izvajajo v dveh ali več državah članicah, in davčnim uradnikom omogoča prisotnost v drugih državah članicah, na primer zaradi dostopa do dokumentacije, ki se tam hrani, ali zaradi prisotnosti pri preiskavah v teku.
The regulation also provides a role for the Commission in promoting and evaluating administrative cooperation between Member States. 
V uredbi je predvidena tudi vloga Komisije pri spodbujanju in ocenjevanju upravnega sodelovanja med državami članicami.
In this it is assisted by a committee made up of representatives of Member States, the Standing Committee on Administrative Cooperation (SCAC). 
Pri tem ji pomaga odbor, ki ga sestavljajo predstavniki držav članic, to je Stalni odbor za upravno sodelovanje (SCAC).
Furthermore, the regulation is, together with Decision No 2235/2002/EC on the Fiscalis programme, the legal basis for Community expenditure (2) to develop and keep operational electronic systems for information exchange between national administrations, multilateral controls, training seminars for tax officials, and the exchange of officials between administrations. 
Poleg tega je uredba skupaj z Odločbo št. 2235/2002/ES o programu Fiscalis pravna podlaga za odhodke Skupnosti (2) za razvoj in vzdrževanje elektronskih sistemov za izmenjavo informacij med nacionalnimi upravami, za večstranske kontrole, Diagram 1 Vrste izmenjav informacij (1) Glej uvodni izjavi 12 in 13 uredbe.
(2) See the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2007, section III, chapter 14 05 Ń Taxation policy (OJ L 77, 16.3.2007, p. 
(2) Glej splošni proračun Evropske unije za proračunsko leto 2007, oddelek III, poglavje 14 05 – Davčna politika (UL L 77, 16.3.2007, str.
C 20/8 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.1.2008 financial framework for Fiscalis for the period from 2003 to 2007 was set at 67,3 million euro. 
C 20/8 SL Uradni list Evropske unije 25.1.2008 za seminarje usposabljanja za davčne uradnike in za izmenjavo uradnikov med upravami.
AUDIT APPROACH AND SCOPE 12. 
REVIZIJSKI PRISTOP IN OBSEG REVIZIJE 12.
The objective of the CourtŐs audit was to assess whether the information exchanges between Member States are carried out in a timely and effective manner and whether adequate administrative structures and procedures are in place to support administrative cooperation. 
Cilj revizije Sodišča je bil oceniti, ali izmenjave informacij med državami članicami potekajo pravočasno in uspešno ter ali so vzpostavljeni ustrezne upravne strukture in postopki, ki podpirajo upravno sodelovanje.
The audit covered: Ń exchange of information on request, Ń exchange of information without prior request, Ń information through the VIES database, Ń tools for enhancing a multilateral control approach, and Ń the CommissionŐs promotion and evaluation of administrative cooperation. 
Revizija je zajela: — izmenjavo informacij na zahtevo, — izmenjavo informacij brez predhodne zahteve, — informacije v zbirki podatkov VIES, — orodja za spodbujanje pristopa z večstranskimi kontrolami in — Komisijina spodbujanje in oceno upravnega sodelovanja.
In 2006, CLOs in seven Member States (1) were visited. 
V letu 2006 so bili obiskani centralni uradi za zvezo v sedmih državah članicah (1).
A sample of 420 exchanges of information on request, sent or received in 2005 by these Member States, was examined and the timeliness and quality of the responses was assessed. 
Pregledan je bil vzorec, sestavljen iz 420 izmenjav informacij na zahtevo, ki so jih v letu 2005 poslale ali prejele te države članice, ocenjeni pa sta bili pravočasnost in kakovost odgovorov.
However, the accuracy of individual tax assessments was not itself subjected to audit. 
Sama točnost posameznih davčnih odmer ni bila predmet revizije.
Audit missions were carried out pursuant to Article 248(3) of the Treaty which provides that the CourtŐs audit shall be, if necessary, performed on the premises of any body which manages revenue or expenditure on behalf of the Community and in the Member States, including on the premises of any natural or legal person in receipt of payments from the budget. 
Revizijski obiski so bili opravljeni v skladu s členom 248(3) Pogodbe, ki določa, da se revizija, če je to potrebno, opravi na kraju samem v prostorih katerega koli organa, ki vodi računovodske evidence prihodkov ali odhodkov v imenu Skupnosti, ter v državah članicah, tudi v prostorih katere koli fizične ali pravne osebe, ki prejema plačila iz proračuna.
The German Ministry of Finance, however, did not comply with an audit request by the Court stating that, in its opinion, there was no legal basis for such an audit. 
Vendar nemško ministrstvo za finance ni upoštevalo revizijskega zahtevka Sodišča, in je navedlo, da po njegovem mnenju za tako revizijo ni nobene pravne podlage.
Observations concerning Germany in this report are therefore based on findings from audit missions to other Member States, information obtained during audit missions at the Commission, and publicly available reports. 
Zato opažanja v tem poročilu, ki zadevajo Nemčijo, temeljijo na ugotovitvah iz revizijskih obiskov v drugih državah članicah, informacijah, pridobljenih med revizijskimi obiski na Komisiji, ter na javno dostopnih poročilih.
In 23 cases ( ) selected from the sample, the Court invited Member States to provide details on how the information obtained through exchanges was followed up by the local tax offices which had initiated the requests. 
V 23 primerih ( ), izbranih iz vzorca, je Sodišče države članice pozvalo, naj zagotovijo podrobnosti o tem, kako so lokalni davčni uradi, ki so podali zahtevke, nadalje ukrepali glede informacij, pridobljenih prek izmenjave.
(1) Audit missions took place in France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia and the UK. 
(1) Revizijski obiski so bili izvedeni v Franciji, Italiji, Luksemburgu, na Nizozemskem, Poljskem, v Sloveniji in v Združenem kraljestvu.
(2) Germany Ń 4 cases; Belgium, France and the UK Ń 3 cases; Austria, Ireland and the Netherlands Ń 2 cases; Finland, Hungary, Italy and Poland Ń 1 case. 
(2) Nemčija – 4 primeri; Belgija, Francija in Združeno kraljestvo – 3 primeri; Avstrija, Irska in Nizozemska – 2 primera; Finska, Madžarska, Italija in Poljska – 1 primer.
So far, France and Germany have not provided answers to the request of the Court. 
Francija in Nemčija doslej nista zagotovili odgovorov na zahtevek Sodišča.
At the Commission, the operation of the relevant departments was examined including a review of the management of the Fiscalis programme. 
Na Komisiji je bilo preučeno delovanje ustreznih oddelkov, vključno s pregledom upravljanja programa Fiscalis.
The operation of the Standing Committee on Administrative Cooperation (SCAC) was also reviewed. 
Pregledano je bilo tudi delovanje Stalnega odbora za upravno sodelovanje.
In addition, use has been made of reports and work of National Audit Offices in Member States that have performed similar audits. 
Ob tem so bila uporabljena tudi poročila in delo nacionalnih revizijskih uradov v državah članicah, ki so izvedli podobne revizije.
Issues raised in previous Court reports (3) were also followed up. 
Spremljana so bila tudi vprašanja, izpostavljena v prejšnjih poročilih Sodišča (3).
OBSERVATIONS Exchange of information on request between Member States 18. 
OPAŽANJA Izmenjava informacij na zahtevo med državami članicami 18.
Article 5 of the regulation provides for Member States to exchange information on request. 
Člen 5 uredbe predvideva, da države članice izmenjavajo informacije na zahtevo.
As a rule, any information that may help to effect a correct assessment of VAT may be subject to a request, including any information relating to specific cases. 
Praviloma so lahko predmet zahteve vse informacije, ki lahko pomagajo, da se pravilno odmeri DDV, vključno z vsemi informacijami v zvezi s posebnimi primeri.
In order to obtain the information sought by the tax administration in another Member State, the requested authority is required to proceed as though acting on its own account. 
Za-prošeni organ mora pri pridobivanju informacij, za katere je zaprosila davčna uprava v drugi državi članici, ravnati enako, kot če bi informacije pridobival zase.
Intensity of cooperation 19. 
Intenzivnost sodelovanja 19.
Since the regulation came into force on 1 January 2004, the number of requests for information has increased by 62 %. 
Od uveljavitve uredbe 1. januarja 2004 se je število zahtevkov za informacije povečalo za 62 %.
It went up from 18 162 requests in 2003 to 29 381 in 2006. 
Z 18 162 zahtevkov v letu 2003 se je zvišalo na 29 381 zahtevkov v letu 2006.
Increase in exchanges of information mainly due to enlargement 20. 
Večje število izmenjav informacij v glavnem zaradi širitve 20.
However, an analysis of the figures provided by Member States to the Commission (4) shows that this increase appears to be mainly attributable to enlargement (5) with the number of requests sent amongst EU-15 in 2005 and 2006 being below the level reached in 2004 (see Table 1). 
Vendar je iz analize številk, ki so jih Komisiji (4) predložile države članice, razvidno, da bi to povečanje v glavnem lahko pripisali širitvi (5), saj je bilo v letih 2005 in 2006 število poslanih zahtevkov med državami EU-15 nižje od ravni, dosežene v letu 2004 (glej tabelo 1).
(3) Special Report No 9/98 concerning the protection of the financial interests of the European Union in the field of VAT on intra-Community trade (OJ C 356, 20.11.1998, p. 
9/98 o zaščiti finančnih interesov Evropske unije na področju DDV na trgovino znotraj Skupnosti (UL C 356, 20.11.1998, str.
1) and Annual Report 2001, paragraphs 1.45 to 1.55 (OJ C 295, 28.11.2002, p. 
1) in odstavki 1.45 do 1.55 Letnega poročila za leto 2001 (UL C 295, 28.11.2002, str.
(4) Figures for 2006 are still provisional. 
(4) Številke za leto 2006 so še začasne.
(5) From EU-15 to EU-25 on 1 May 2004. 
(5) Z EU-15 na EU-25 dne 1. maja 2004.
25.1.2008 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 20/9 Table 1 Number of requests for exchange of information (according to requesting Member States) Year Requests exchanged amongst EU-15 2002 17 059 2003 18 162 2004 21 587 2005 19 649 2006 20 533 Requests sent or received by EU-10 Ń Ń 514 6 100 8 848 Total number of requests 17 059 18 162 22 101 25 749 29 381 Source: Member State statistics pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1925/2004, audit calculations. 2006 statistics provisional. 
25.1.2008 SL Uradni list Evropske unije C 20/9 Tabela 1 Število zahtevkov za izmenjavo informacij (po navedbah držav članic prosilk) Leto Izmenjani zahtevki med državami EU-15 2002 17 059 2003 18 162 2004 21 587 2005 19 649 2006 20 533 Zahtevki, ki so jih poslale ali prejele države EU-10 — — 514 6 100 8 848 Skupno število zahtevkov 17 059 18 162 22 101 25 749 29 381 Vir: Statistični podatki držav članic v skladu z Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 1925/2004, revizijski izračuni.
In 2006, more than 3,3 million traders across the EU declared that they had made acquisitions from other Member States. 
V letu 2006 je več kot 3,3 milijona trgovcev z območja EU prijavilo pridobitve iz drugih držav članic.
This means that even with the conservative assumption that each of the 29 381 exchanges of information on request in 2006 concerned different traders, the probability of being subject to such an exchange of information was below 0,9 %. 
To pomeni, da tudi ob previdni domnevi, da se je v letu 2006 vsaka od 29 381 izmenjav informacij na zahtevo nanašala na drugega trgovca, je bila verjetnost, da bi bili ti predmet take izmenjave, manjša od 0,9 %.
In reality, the probability was even lower, as a number of companies were subject to several requests. 
V resnici je bila ta verjetnost še manjša, saj so bila številna podjetja predmet več zahtevkov.
Limited direct contact between local offices 22. 
Neposredni stik med lokalnimi uradi omejen Pravočasnost odgovora 22.
An important reason why cooperation has not become more intensive is the limited exploitation of the possibilities of decentralisation offered by the regulation. 
Pomemben intenzivnejše, je omejeno izkoriščanje možnosti decentralizacije, ki jo omogoča uredba.
When adopting the regulation, the Council stated (1) that, up to then, there had not been enough direct contact between local tax offices, with communication between central liaison offices being the rule and that this centralisation had led to under-use of the arrangements for administrative cooperation. 
Pri sprejemanju uredbe je Svet navedel (1), da do takrat ni bilo dovolj neposrednih stikov med lokalnimi davčnimi uradi, saj praviloma komunicirajo centralni uradi za zvezo, ta centralizacija pa je privedla do premajhne uporabe ureditev za upravno sodelovanje.
The Council concluded that provisions should be made to bring about more direct contacts between services. 
Svet je sklenil, da je treba sprejeti določbe za neposrednejše stike med službami.
Limited use has been made so far by Member States of this option. 
Države članice so doslej to možnost uporabljale v omejeni meri.
Only a few Member States (2) have devolved competence to territorial services. 
Samo nekaj držav članic (2) je preneslo pristojnosti na območne službe.
If such decentralisation is implemented only in a minority of Member States, it fails to produce its full effects as there are no counterparts for decentralised cooperation in most of the other Member States. 
Če se taka decentralizacija izvaja samo v manjšem številu držav članic, ni tako učinkovita, kot bi lahko bila, saj v večini drugih držav članic ni partnerskih organov za decentralizirano sodelovanje.
(1) See recital 12 of the regulation. 
(1) Glej uvodno izjavo 12 uredbe.
(2) In Finland and France this competence has been systematically and comprehensively delegated to regional tax offices. 
(2) Na Finskem in v Franciji je bila ta pristojnost sistematično in v celoti prenesena na regionalne davčne urade.
Timeliness of replies Half of the requests answered late 24. 
Pozni odgovori na polovico zahtevkov 24.
Rapid replies to requests for information are critical for effective cooperation. 
Za uspešno sodelovanje so hitri odgovori na zahtevke za informacije bistvenega pomena.
They allow fraudulent companies to be quickly identified and make it more difficult for fraudsters to hide their gains from VAT fraud. 
Ti omogočajo, da se hitro odkrijejo goljufiva podjetja, goljufom pa se oteži skrivanje njihovih dobičkov od goljufij v zvezi z DDV.
Therefore the regulation obliges Member States to exchange information as quickly as possible and no later than three months after the receipt of a request. 
Zato uredba države članice zavezuje, da informacije izmenjajo čimprej in najpozneje v treh mesecih po prejemu zahtevka.
Where the requested authority is already in possession of that information, the time limit is reduced to one month. 
Če zaprošeni organ te informacije že ima, je rok skrajšan na en mesec.
Statistics for 2006 provided by Member States show that almost 50 % of requests were not answered within the deadline. 
Statistični podatki za leto 2006, ki so jih predložile države članice, kažejo, da na skoraj 50 % zahtevkov ni bilo odgovorjeno v predpisanem roku.
This figure was even higher than in 2005 when 42 % of the replies were late. 
V letu 2005 je bila ta številka še višja, saj je bilo 42 % poznih odgovorov.
Late replies occur in all Member States but their frequency varies significantly between Member States. 
Do poznih odgovorov prihaja v vseh državah članicah, vendar se njihova pogostost med državami članicami precej razlikuje.
In 2006, two Member States (3) replied within the deadline in almost 90 % of cases, whereas eight Member States (4) replied late in more than 50 % of cases (see Table 2). 
V letu 2006 sta dve državi članici (3) v skoraj 90 % primerov odgovorili v predpisanem roku, medtem ko je osem držav članic (4) v več kot 50 % primerov odgovorilo pozno (glej tabelo 2).
(3) Lithuania and Slovenia. 
(3) Litva in Slovenija.
(4) Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Portugal. 
(4) Češka, Danska, Španija, Francija, Italija, Luksemburg, Nizozemska in Portugalska. razlog, da sodelovanje ni postalo
2006 statistics provisional. 27. cerned, the statistics showed a decrease in the number of times for which this deadline has been met from 2 154 cases in 2004 down to 1 885 in 2006. 
Začasni statistični podatki za leto 2006. 27. podatki pokazali zmanjšanje števila primerov, v katerih je bil ta rok upoštevan, in sicer z 2154 primerov v letu 2004 na 1 885 primerov v letu 2006.
Compared to the total number of requests, this means that the share of early replies fell from 9,7 % in 2004 to 6,4 % in 2006. 
V primerjavi s skupnim številom zahtevkov to pomeni, da se je število zgodnjih odgovorov zmanjšalo z 9,7 % v letu 2004 na 6,4 % v letu 2006.
In addition, in certain Member States visited, a number of requests were found to have remained outstanding for one year or more. 
Poleg tega je bilo v določenih obiskanih državah članicah ugotovljeno, da so številni zahtevki ostali odprti vsaj eno leto.
In Italy for example, there were, at the time of the CourtŐs audit visit in May 2006, 182 unanswered requests received in the last four months of 2004 alone. 
V Italiji, na primer, je bilo v času revizijskega obiska Sodišča, maja 2006, neodgovorjenih 182 zahtevkov, prejetih samo v zadnjih štirih mesecih leta 2004.
In the United Kingdom, in early 2006, 121 requests were still outstanding from 2003 and 2004. 
V Združenem kraljestvu je bilo v začetku leta 2006 še vedno odprtih 121 zahtevkov iz let 2003 in 2004.
Few interim replies 29. 
Malo vmesnih odgovorov 29.
The regulation stipulates explicitly that where the requested authority is unable to respond by the deadline it shall inform the requesting authority in writing forthwith of the reasons for this and when it would be able to respond. 
Uredba izrecno določa, da kadar zaprošeni organ na zahtevek ne more odgovoriti v roku, nemudoma pisno obvesti organ prosilca o razlogih za to in navede, kdaj meni, da bo lahko odgovoril.
Nevertheless, prior notice of probable delays is only rarely given. 
Ne glede na to se predhodno obvestilo o verjetnih zamudah le redko pošlje.
Late repliesŐ notifications were sent in 3 out of 57 cases not answered on time which were examined by the Court. 
Uradna obvestila o poznih odgovorih so bila poslana v 3 od 57 primerov brez pravočasnega odgovora, ki jih je preučilo Sodišče.