natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Compliance with the principle of fiscal neutrality is thus ensured, given that all bodies governed by public law are, for the purposes of value added tax, either taxable or nontaxable persons, the sole strain on that principle concerning only relations between those bodies and private operators, and that to the extent that the distortions of competition remain insignificant.
Spo�tovanje načela davčne nevtralnosti je tako zagotovljeno, ker so bodisi vse osebe javnega prava obdavčene z davkom na dodano vrednost bodisi ni obdavčena nobena, tako da se edina kr�itev tega načela nana�a zgolj na razmerja med temi osebami in zasebnimi subjekti, in to v delu, v katerem ostane izkrivljanje konkurence manj�e.
The evaluation of the existence of distortions of competition having regard to each of the local markets on which the local authorities offer off-street parking assumes a systematic re-evaluation, on the basis of often complex economic analyses, of the conditions of competition on a multitude of local markets, the determination of which may prove particularly difficult since the markets’ demarcation does not necessarily coincide with the areas over which the local authorities exercise their powers.
Za presojo obstoja izkrivljanja konkurence glede na vsak lokalni trg, na katerem lokalni organi ponujajo v najem zaprta parkiri�ča, se zahteva sistematično ponovno ovrednotenje – na podlagi ekonomskih analiz, ki so pogosto kompleksne – pogojev konkurence na več lokalnih trgih, katerih opredelitev se lahko izkaže za posebej težko, ker njihova razmejitev ne sovpada nujno s krajevno pristojnostjo lokalnih organov.
In that case, neither the local authorities nor the private operators would be in a position to provide, with the required certainty, for the conduct of their affairs if, on a given local market, the activity carried on by the local authorities will or will not be subject to value added tax, which would be likely to jeopardise the principles of fiscal neutrality and legal certainty.
V tem primeru naj niti lokalni organi niti zasebni subjekti ne bi mogli z gotovostjo, ki je potrebna za opravljanje njihovih zadev, predvideti, ali bo na določenem lokalnem trgu opravljanje dejavnosti s strani lokalnih organov obdavčeno z davkom na dodano vrednost, kar bi torej lahko ogrožalo načeli davčne nevtralnosti in pravne varnosti.
(see paras 33-41, 46, 49, 51-53, operative part 1)
(Glej točke od 33 do 41, 46, 49, od 51 do 53 in točko 1 izreka.)
The expression ‘would lead to’ is, for the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, to be interpreted as encompassing
Izraz „bi […] povzročila“ v smislu člena 4(5), drugi pododstavek, Šeste direktive 77/388 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih je treba razlagati tako, da ne upo�teva le dejanske konkurence, ampak tudi potencialno
The second and the third subparagraphs of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive are, consequently, closely linked since they pursue the same objective, namely the treatment of bodies governed by public law as taxable persons in respect of value added tax, even when they are acting as public authorities.
Drugi in tretji pododstavek navedenega člena 4(5) Šeste direktive sta zato tesno povezana, ker sledita enakemu cilju, in sicer obravnavi oseb javnega prava, kot da so davčni zavezanci za davek na dodano vrednost, čeprav delujejo kot organi oblasti.
Those subparagraphs are thus subject to the same logic, by which the Community legislature intended to limit the scope of the treatment of bodies governed by public law as nontaxable persons, so that the general rule stated in Articles 2(1) and 4(1) and (2) of that directive, under which any activity of an economic nature is, in principle, to be subject to value added tax, is observed.
Za ta pododstavka tako velja enaka logika, s katero je zakonodajalec Skupnosti želel omejiti področje uporabe obravnave oseb javnega prava, kot da niso davčni zavezanci, da bi se spo�tovalo splo�no načelo iz členov 2(1) ter 4(1) in (2) te direktive, v skladu s katerim je načeloma vsaka gospodarska dejavnost predmet davka na dodano vrednost.
Consequently, the second and third subparagraphs of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive are to be interpreted as a whole.
Drugi in tretji pododstavek člena 4(5) Šeste direktive je zato treba razlagati kot celoto.
It follows that the treatment of bodies governed by public law as taxable persons in respect of value added tax, either on the basis of the second sub-paragraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Dir -ective, or on that of the third sub-paragraph of that provision, results from the carrying-on, as such, of a given activity, irrespective of whether or not those bodies face competition at the level of the local market on which they engage in that activity.
Iz tega izhaja, da je obravnava oseb javnega prava, kot da so davčni zavezanci za davek na dodano vrednost, bodisi na podlagi člena 4(5), drugi pododstavek, Šeste direktive bodisi na podlagi tretjega pododstavka te določbe, posledica opravljanja določenih dejavnosti, ne glede na vpra�anje, ali imajo navedene osebe javnega prava konkurenco na ravni lokalnega trga, na katerem opravljajo te dejavnosti.
not only actual competition, but also potential competition, provided that the possibility of a private operator entering the relevant market is real, and not purely hypothetical.
konkurenco, če je možnost, da zasebni subjekt vstopi na upo�tevni trg, dejanska in ne zgolj hipotetična.
The word ‘significant’ is, for the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, to be understood as meaning that the actual or potential distortions of competition must be more than negligible.
Izraz „znatno“ v smislu člena 4(5), drugi pododstavek, Šeste direktive 77/388 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih je treba razumeti tako, da mora biti izkrivljanje dejanske ali potencialne konkurence več kot le zanemarljivo.
Indeed, the treatment of bodies governed by public law as nontaxable persons in respect of value added tax under the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive constitutes a derogation from the general rule that any activity of an economic nature be subjected to value added tax.
Obravnava oseb javnega prava, kot da niso davčni zavezanci za davek na dodano vrednost, na podlagi člena 4(5), prvi pododstavek, Šeste direktive, namreč pomeni odstopanje od splo�nega pravila o obdavčitvi vsake gospodarske dejavnosti, zato je treba to določbo razlagati restriktivno.
That provision must, therefore, be interpreted strictly. But the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) restores that general rule in order to avoid such treatment of those bodies leading to significant distortions of competition.
Vendar člen 4(5), drugi pododstavek, te direktive določa navedeno splo�no pravilo zaradi izogibanja temu, da bi obravnava oseb javnega prava, kot da niso davčni zavezanci, povzročila znatno izkrivljanje konkurence.
The latter provision cannot therefore be construed narrowly.
Te določbe torej ni mogoče razlagati ozko.
Indeed, that word is to be understood as intended to restrict the scope of the treatment, under the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive, of bodies governed by public law as nontaxable persons for those activities.
Ta izraz je namreč treba razumeti tako, da je njegov namen zmanj�ati področje obravnave oseb javnega prava, kot da niso davčni zavezanci glede navedenih dejavnosti, na podlagi člena 4(5), prvi pododstavek, Šeste direktive.
If that word had to be understood as meaning ‘material’, or even ‘exceptional’, the scope of the treatment of bodies governed by public law as nontaxable persons would be unduly enlarged.
Če je torej ta izraz treba razumeti tako, da pomeni bistveno oziroma izjemno, bi bilo področje obravnave oseb javnega prava, kot da niso davčni zavezanci, neupravičeno raz�irjeno.
On the other hand, if their treatment as such were allowed only in cases where it would lead only to negligible competition, that scope would be circumscribed effectively.
Nasprotno, če bi bila obravnava teh oseb javnega prava, kot da niso davčni zavezanci, sprejeta le, če bi povzročila zanemarljivo izkrivljanje konkurence, bi bil njen obseg dejansko omejen.
However, the purely theoretical possibility of a private operator entering the relevant market, which is not borne out by any matter of fact, or by any objective evidence or by any analysis of the market, cannot be assimilated to the existence of potential competition.
Vendar v celoti teoretične možnosti, da zasebni subjekt vstopi na upo�tevni trg, ki naj je ne bi podpirali noben dejanski element, noben objektivni dokaz in nobena analiza trga, ni mogoče primerjati z obstojem potencialne konkurence.
To make such an assimilation, that possibility must be real, and not purely hypothetical.
Da bi bilo to mogoče, bi morala biti možnost dejanska in ne zgolj hipotetična.
Also, it is clear from the third subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive that the treatment of bodies governed by public law as nontaxable persons in respect of value added tax for the activities listed in Annex D thereto is permitted provided that those activities are negligible, assuming thus that the distortions of competition which
Dalje, iz člena 4(5), tretji pododstavek, Šeste direktive izhaja, da se obravnava oseb javnega prava, kot da niso davčni zavezanci za davek na dodano vrednost v zvezi z dejavnostmi iz priloge D k tej direktivi, sprejme, če so te dejavnosti zanemarljive, pri čemer se predpostavlja, da bi bila tudi izkrivljanja konku-
(see paras 60, 64, 65, operative part 2)
(Glej točke 60, 64, 65 in točko 2 izreka.)
Finally, the treatment of those bodies as nontaxable persons in circumstances where it would not lead to any distortion of competition or lead only to negligible distortions would bring about the least possible damage to the principle of fiscal neutrality.
Nazadnje, obravnava navedenih oseb, kot da niso davčni zavezanci za davek na dodano vrednost, bi, če ne bi povzročala nobenega izkrivljanja konkurence oziroma če bi povzročala zanemarljiva izkrivljanja, najmanj kr�ila načelo davčne nevtralnosti.
would result would also be negligible.
(Glej točke od 72 do 76, 78, 79 in točko 3 izreka.) rence, ki bi jih povzročale, zanemarljiva.
Since the second and third subparagraphs of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Dir -ective are closely linked, as they pursue the same objective and are subject to the same logic, the word ‘significant’ is to be understood as meaning that the treatment of public bodies as nontaxable persons can be permitted only in cases where it would lead only to negligible distortions of competition.
Ker sta torej drugi in tretji pododstavek člena 4(5) Šeste direktive tesno povezana, saj zasledujeta enak cilj in zanju velja enaka logika, je treba izraz „znatno“ razumeti tako, da je obravnavo oseb javnega prava, kot da niso davčni zavezanci, mogoče sprejeti le, če bi povzročila zanemarljivo izkrivljanje konkurence.
I — Legal context, facts of the main proceedings and questions referred for a preliminary ruling
I – Pravni okvir, dejansko stanje in vprašanja za predhodno odločanje
The main proceedings concern the oper -ation of off-street car-parking facilities by four local authorities in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Isle of Wight Council, Mid-Suffolk District Council, South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough
Postopek v glavni stvari se nana�a na izkori�čanje zaprtega avtomobilskega parkiri�ča (parkiranje) s strani �tirih lokalnih organov Združenega kraljestva Velike Britanije in Severne Irske, Isle of Wight Council, Mid Suffolk District Council, South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council in West Berkshire District Council 3.
3 The private sector provides similar ser - vices in each of the local authority areas.
Zasebni sektor ponuja podobne storitve na vseh območjih, ki jih upravljajo lokalni organi.
The questions in this reference for a preliminary ruling concern the interpretation of the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment 2 (‘the Sixth Directive’), which provides that bodies governed by public law are to be taxable persons for the purposes of value added tax (‘VAT’) in respect of the activities in which they engage as public authorities where treatment as nontaxable persons would lead to significant distortions of competition.
Vpra�anja, ki so predmet obravnavanega predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, se nana�ajo na razlago drugega pododstavka člena 4(5) Šeste direktive Sveta 77/388/EGS z dne 17. maja 1977 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih – Skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost: enotna osnova za odmero 2(v nadaljevanju: Šesta direktiva), v katerem je določeno, da se osebe javnega prava v zvezi z dejavnostmi, ki jih opravljajo kot organi oblasti, �tejejo za zavezance za davek na dodano vrednost (v nadaljevanju: DDV), če bi obravnava, kot da niso davčni zavezanci, povzročila znatno izkrivljanje konkurence.
The Court is thus called upon to explain the conditions of this derogation from the rule, laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 4(5), that bodies governed by public law are not taxable persons in respect of the activities in which they engage as public authorities.
Sodi�če je tako pozvano, naj obrazloži pogoje za to odstopanje od pravila, navedenega v prvem pododstavku tega člena, da so osebe javnega prava v zvezi z dejavnostmi, ki jih opravljajo kot organi oblasti, obravnavane, kot da niso davčni zavezanci.
In other words, the Community judicature must explain the criteria governing the reintroduction of the general principle that economic activities are subject to VAT.
Z drugimi besedami, sodi�če Skupnosti mora pojasniti merila za ponovno uvedbo splo�nega načela, da so ekonomske dejavnosti obdavčene z DDV.
Historically, local authorities considered themselves to be taxable persons for VAT purposes in respect of payments made by persons using those facilities.
Zgodovinsko so se lokalne skupnosti �tele za zavezance za DDV od plačil uporabnikov te opreme.
Users were charged VAT and the proceeds of the tax were paid over to the United Kingdom tax authorities.
DDV se je zaračunal strankam, davčni prihodek pa se je nato plačal davčni upravi Združenega kraljestva.
This directive, which was amended on a number of occasions, has been repealed by Council Direct- ive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Ta direktiva je bila večkrat zaporedoma spremenjena in je bila razveljavljena z Direktivo Sveta 2006/112/ES z dne 28. novembra 2006 (UL L 347, str. 1).
The second subparagraph of Article 13(1) of Direct- ive 2006/112 is in essentially the same terms as the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive.
V tej direktivi so v členu 13(1), drugi pododstavek, dobesedno povzete določbe člena 4(5), drugi pododstavek, Šeste direktive.
Similarly, Annex D, referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive, is now Annex I to Directive 2006/112.
Tudi Priloga D, navedena v tretjem pododstavku tega člena 4(5), je postala Priloga I k Direktivi 2006/112.
3 — ‘The local authorities’ or ‘the respondents in the main proceedings’.
3 – V nadaljevanju: lokalni organi ali tožene stranke v postopku v glavni stvari.
Member States may consider activities of these bodies which are exempt under Article 13 or 28 as activities which they engage in as public authorities.’
Priloge D, če obseg teh dejavnosti ni tako majhen, da bi bil zanemarljiv.
However, on the basis of the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Direct- ive the respondents in the main proceedings consider that they are entitled to reimbursement of VAT previously paid since, according to that provision, ‘States, regional and local government authorities and other bodies governed by public law shall not be considered taxable persons in respect of the activities or transactions in which they engage as public authorities, even where they collect dues, fees, contributions or payments in connection with these activities or transactions’.
Vendar pa tožene stranke v postopku v glavni stvari na podlagi člena 4(5), prvi pododstavek, Šeste direktive menijo, da so upravičene do vračila predhodno plačanega DDV, saj ta določba določa: „Državni, regionalni in lokalni organi ter druge osebe javnega prava se ne �tejejo za davčne zavezance v zvezi z dejavnostmi ali transakcijami, ki jih opravljajo kot državni organi, tudi če pobirajo dajatve, pristojbine, prispevke ali plačila v zvezi s temi dejavnostmi ali transakcijami.“
The following subparagraphs of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive none the less provide that, in certain circumstances, those bodies remain liable for VAT.
Vendar pa je v naslednjih pododstavkih člena 4(5) Šeste direktive predvideno, da so ti organi v določenih okoli�činah kljub temu dolžni plačati DDV.
It is thus stated:
Tako je navedeno:
Taking the view that they did not fulfil the conditions of these exceptions to the rule under which they are not taxable, and fortified in this regard by the judgment in Fazenda Pública, 4 the local authorities made claims to the competent tax authority (the Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs, the appellant in the main proceedings) for repayment of the VAT paid since 2000. In their submission, treating them as nontaxable persons leads to no distortion of competition and, a fortiori, to no significant distortion of competition, in their local authority areas. ‘However, when they engage in such activities or transactions, they shall be considered taxable persons in respect of these activities or transactions where treatment as nontaxable persons would lead to significant distortions of competition.
Ker so lokalni organi menili, da ne izpolnjujejo pogojev za ta različna odstopanja od pravila, da se obravnavajo, kot da niso davčni zavezanci, kar naj bi izhajalo tudi iz sodbe Fazenda Pública 4, so zahtevali vračilo DDV, ki so ga od leta 2000 dalje plačali pristojnim davčnim organom (Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs, tožeče stranke v glavni stvari). Menijo namreč, da obravnava, kot da niso davčni zavezanci, na območjih, ki jih upravljajo, ne povzroča izkrivljanja konkurence in, a fortiori, znatnega izkrivljanja konkurence. „Pri opravljanju tak�nih dejavnosti ali transakcij pa se �tejejo za davčne zavezance v zvezi s temi dejavnostmi ali transakcijami, če bi njihova obravnava, kot da niso davčni zavezanci, povzročila znatno izkrivljanje konkurence.
The Commissioners refused reimbursement.
Commissioners so vračilo zavrnili.
In any case, these bodies shall be considered taxable persons in relation to the activities
Ker so lokalni organi s pritožbami, ki so jih zoper to odločbo vložili pri VAT and Duties Tribunal, uspeli, so tožeče stranke vložile pritožbo pred High Court of Justice (England & Wales), 4 – Sodba z dne 14. decembra 2000 (C-446/98, Recueil, str. I-11435).
Commissioners appealed to the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (Chancery Division), which decided to stay proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
Chancery Division (Združeno kraljestvo), ki je prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ta vpra�anja:
A — The first question referred for a preliminary ruling
A – Prvo vprašanje za predhodno odločanje
By this question, the national court essentially asks whether, in the situation referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive, any distortion of competition caused by considering public bodies not to be taxable persons where they engage in certain activities as public authorities is to be assessed at a local level, which requires the conditions of competition on the relevant market to be established, or whether it must be assessed solely in the light of the activity concerned.
S tem vpra�anjem predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali je treba v primeru iz člena 4(5), drugi pododstavek, Šeste direktive morebitno izkrivljanje konkurence, ki nastane zaradi obravnave javnih organov, ki določene dejavnosti opravljajo kot organi oblasti, kot da niso davčni zavezanci, ugotav -ljati na lokalni ravni, kar predpostavlja opredelitev pogojev konkurence na upo�tevnem trgu, ali ga je treba ugotavljati le glede na zadevno dejavnost.
(2) What is meant by the expression “would lead to”?
Kaj je mi�ljeno s pojmom ‚bi […] povzročila‘?
In particular, what degree of probability or level of certainty is required for that condition to be satisfied?
Še zlasti, kak�na stopnja verjetnosti ali raven gotovosti je potrebna, da je ta pogoj izpolnjen?
For the purpose of answering the first question, the system under Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive should be outlined.
Uvodne pripombe člena 4(5) Šeste direktive
The rule laid down in this provision is that bodies governed by public law are not taxable persons for VAT purposes when they act as public authorities.
V tej določbi je določeno pravilo, da se osebe javnega prava, ko nastopajo kot organi oblasti, obravnavajo, kot da niso zavezanci za DDV.
In derogation from this rule set out in the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive, the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) provides that such bodies must none the less
Z odstopanjem od tega pravila, določenega v prvem pododstavku člena 4(5) Šeste direktive, je v drugem pododstavku tega člena predvideno,
(3) What is meant by the word “significant”?
Kaj pomeni ‚znatno‘?
In particular, does “significant” mean an effect on competition that is more than trivial or de minimis, a “material” effect or an “exceptional” effect?’
Še zlasti, ali ‚znatno‘ pomeni vpliv na konkurenco, ki je več kot le neznaten ali de minimis, ali pomeni ‚bistven‘ oziroma ‚izjemen‘ vpliv?“
ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL AND OTHERS pay VAT where failure to tax the activities in question would lead to significant distortions of competition.
ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL IN DRUGI da morajo ti organi vendarle plačati DDV, če bi neobdavčenost zadevnih dejavnosti povzročila znatno izkrivljanje konkurence.
This general exception is, moreover, supplemented by the third subparagraph which establishes certain activities in respect of which bodies governed by public law will remain taxable persons for VAT purposes despite engaging in them as public authorities; however, if those activities are carried out on such a small scale as to be negligible, the Member States may remove them from the scope of VAT if they so wish.
Poleg tega je ta splo�na izjema dopolnjena s tretjim pododstavkom, v katerem so določene dejavnosti, v zvezi s katerimi se bodo osebe javnega prava, čeprav te dejavnosti opravljajo kot organi oblasti, vedno �tele za zavezance za DDV. Če pa je obseg teh dejavnosti tako majhen, da je zanemarljiv, lahko države članice, če želijo, te dejavnosti izključijo s področja uporabe DDV.
In this regard, it is possible to express doubts in the present case, as the Commission of the European Communities has done in its observations, as to whether the provision of parking spaces by local authorities satisfies those conditions.
V zvezi s tem in kot je to v svojih stali�čih predstavila Komisija Evropskih skupnosti, je v obravnavanem primeru mogoče izraziti dvom, ali lokalne oblasti pri zagotav -ljanju parkirnih mest izpolnjujejo navedena pogoja.
More specifically, it is not certain that the provision of off-street parking is subject to a legal regime specific to the public body.
Bolj natančno, ni gotovo, da je zagotavljanje parkirnih mest na za to predvidenih povr�inah zunaj ulic in cest urejeno s posebno pravno ureditvijo, ki velja za javni organ.