natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the light of all the above considerations, I propose that the Court should answer the questions raised by the Hoge Raad as follows:
Glede na vse navedeno predlagam, naj Sodi�če na vpra�anji, ki ju je predložilo Hoge Raad, odgovori:
Such regulation is therefore a matter for national law, which must, however, comply in that regard with all the relevant rules and principles which flow from the directives.
Tako urejanje je zato zadeva nacionalnega prava, ki pa mora pri tem spo�tovati vse ustrezne predpise in načela, ki izhajajo iz teh direktiv.
2008 — CASE C-484/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-484/06
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)
SODBA SODIŠČA (četrti senat) z dne 10. julija 2008 *
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), made by decision of 24 November 2006, received at the Court on 27 November 2006, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-484/06, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Nizozemska) z odločbo z dne 24. novembra 2006, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 27. novembra 2006, v postopku
Advocate General: E. Sharpston, Registrar: C. Strömholm, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 13 December 2007, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Strömholm, administratorka, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 13. decembra 2007, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
The reference for a preliminary ruling relates to the interpretation of Article 22(3)(b) and (5) and Article 11A of the 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago člena 22(3)(b) in (5) ter člena 11(A) 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 (UL L 145, str.
1), as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991 (OJ 1991 L 376, p.
1), kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo Sveta 91/680/EGS z dne 16. decembra 1991 (UL L 376, str.
This reference was made in proceedings brought by the Fiscale eenheid Koninklijke Ahold NV, a fiscal entity to which the company Albert Heijn BV belongs, against the Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Secretary of State for Finance, Netherlands) following the rejection by the Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst (Inspector of Taxes, the ‘Inspector’) of its complaint brought to obtain repayment of a sum of EUR 1 414 of value added tax (‘VAT’).
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med družbo Fiscale eenheid Koninklijke Ahold NV, davčnim subjektom, ki je lastnik družbe Albert Heijn BV, in Staatssecretaris van Financiën, potem ko je Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst (davčni in�pekotor, v nadaljevanju: in�pektor) zavrnil pritožbo, ki jo je ta vložila, da bi iz naslova davka na dodano vrednost (v nadaljevanju: DDV) dobila vračilo zneska 1414 EUR.
Article 2 of the First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p 14, the ‘First Directive’) provides:
Člen 2 Prve direktive Sveta 67/227/EGS z dne 11. aprila 1967 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih (UL 71, str. 1301, v nadaljevanju: Prva direktiva), določa:
‘The principle of the common system of value added tax involves the application to goods and services of a general tax on consumption exactly proportional to the price of the goods and services, whatever the number of transactions which take place in the production and distribution process before the stage at which tax is charged.
„Načelo skupnega sistema davka na dodano vrednost zajema uporabo splo�nega davka na potro�njo blaga in storitev, ki je povsem sorazmeren s ceno blaga in storitev, ne glede na �tevilo transakcij, ki so se v proizvodnem ali distribucijskem procesu opravile pred fazo, v kateri se davek obračuna.
The common system of value added tax shall be applied up to and including the retail trade stage.
Skupen sistem davka na dodano vrednost se uporablja do vključno faze prodaje na drobno.
Article 11A(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive provides:
Člen 11(A)(1)(a) Šeste direktive določa:
(a) in respect of supplies of goods and services other than those referred to in (b), (c) and (d) below, everything which constitutes the consideration which has been or is to be obtained by the supplier from the purchaser, the customer or a third party for such supplies including subsidies directly linked to the price of such supplies’.
(a) pri dobavah blaga in storitev, razen tistih iz (b), (c) in (d) tega odstavka, je vse, kar predstavlja plačilo, ki ga je prejel ali ga bo prejel dobavitelj ali izvajalec od kupca, naročnika ali tretje osebe za te dobave, vključno s subvencijami, ki so neposredno povezane s ceno tak�nih dobav“.
Article 22(3)(a) and (b), (4)(b) and (5) of the Sixth Directive, state:
Člen 22(3)(a) in (b), (4)(b) in (5) Šeste direktive določa:
‘3. (a) Every taxable person shall issue an invoice, or other document serving as invoice, in respect of goods and services which he has supplied or rendered to another taxable person or to a non-taxable legal person. … A taxable person shall keep a copy of every document issued.
„3. (a) Vsak davčni zavezanec izda račun ali drug dokument, ki se priznava kot račun, za blago in storitve, ki jih je dobavil ali opravil drugemu davčnemu zavezancu ali pravni osebi, ki ni davčni zavezanec. […] Davčni zavezanec shrani kopijo vsakega izdanega dokumenta.
(b) The invoice shall state clearly the price exclusive of tax and the corresponding tax at each rate as well as any exemptions.
(b) Račun mora jasno izkazovati ceno brez davka in pripadajoči davek po posameznih stopnjah kot tudi kakr�ne koli oprostitve.
(b) The return shall set out all the information needed to calculate the tax that has become chargeable and the deductions to be made including, where appropriate, and in so far as it seems necessary for the establishment of the basis of assessment, the total value of the transactions relative to such tax and deductions and the value of any exempt transactions.
(b) Obračun mora vsebovati vse podatke, ki so potrebni za izračun davka, za katerega je nastala obveznost obračuna in odbitkov in, kadar je to ustrezno in potrebno za določitev osnove za obdavčitev, skupno vrednost transakcij, ki se nana�ajo na tak�en davek in odbitke ter vrednost kakr�nih koli opro�čenih transakcij.
Every taxable person shall pay the net amount of the value added tax when submitting the regular return.
Vsak davčni zavezanec plača neto znesek davka na dodano vrednost ob predložitvi rednega obračuna.
Member States may, however, set a different date for the payment of that amount or may demand an interim payment.’
Države članice pa lahko določijo drugačen datum za plačilo tega zneska ali zahtevajo vmesno plačilo.“
Council Directive 2001/115/EC of 20 December 2001 amending Directive 77/388 with a view to simplifying, modernising and harmonising the conditions laid down for invoicing in respect of value added tax (OJ 2002 L 15, p.
Z Direktivo Sveta 2001/115/ES z dne 20. decembra 2001 o spremembi Direktive 77/388/EGS z namenom poenostavitve, modernizacije in usklajevanja pogojev[,] določenih za izdajanje računov v zvezi z davkom na dodano vrednost (UL 2002, L 15, str.
24), which Member States had to bring into force with effect from 1 January 2004, amended Article 22(3)(b) of the Sixth Directive, entailing, inter alia, inclusion of a 10th indent worded as follows:
24), ki so jo države članice morale uveljaviti do 1. januarja 2004, je bil spremenjen člen 22(3)(b) Šeste direktive, med drugim je ta določba vsebovala deseto alineo, v kateri je bilo določeno:
‘(b) Without prejudice to the specific arrangements laid down by this Directive, only the following details are required for VAT purposes on invoices issued under the first, second and third subparagraphs of point (a):
„Brez poseganja v posebno ureditev, ki jo določa ta direktiva, se za namene DDV na računih, ki se izstavljajo v skladu s prvim, drugim in tretjim pododstavkom točke (a)[,] zahtevajo samo naslednji podatki:
— the VAT amount payable, except where a specific arrangement is applied for which this Directive excludes such a detail,
– znesek DDV, ki se plača, razen tam, kjer se uporablja posebna ureditev, za katero ta [d]irektiva tak podatek izključuje;
Article 35 of the Law on turnover tax (Wet op de omzetbelasting) of 28 June 1968 (Stb.
Člen 35 zakona o prometnem davku (Wet op de omzetbelasting) z dne 28. junija 1968 (Stb. 1968, �t.
In respect of all goods and services supplied to another trader or to a legal person, other than a trader, the trader shall issue a numbered and dated invoice which shall state clearly and unambiguously:
Trgovec mora za dobave, ki jih izvede, in za storitve, ki jih opravi za drugega trgovca ali za pravno osebo, ki ni trgovec, izdati o�tevilčen in datiran račun, ki mora jasno in nedvoumno izkazovati:
The remuneration.
(i) Znesek za plačilo.
The amount of the tax payable in respect of the supply of goods or services.
(j) Znesek pripadajočega davka za dobavo oziroma storitev.
No reference may be made to another amount of tax.
Ni dovoljeno navajati drugega zneska davka.
The company Albert Heijn BV, belonging to the Fiscale eenheid Koninklijke Ahold NV, which constitutes a fiscal entity for the levying of the turnover tax, operates supermarkets in which it offers a standard range of foodstuffs or other products.
Družba Albert Heijn BV, ki je v lasti družbe Fiscale eenheid Koninklijke Ahold NV, ki je davčni subjekt za obračunavanje prometnega davka, upravlja supermarkete, v katerih ponuja klasični izbor prehrambnih in drugih izdelkov.
At the material time, namely October 2003, the applicant in the main proceedings calculated and declared the VAT in respect of sales in its supermarkets, according to its usual practice, on the basis of the total amount, according to each till receipt (or ‘shopping basket’), paid by a customer buying various articles at the same time.
V obdobju, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, in sicer oktobru 2003, je tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari izračunala in prijavila DDV za prodaje v svojih supermarketih v skladu s svojo običajno prakso na podlagi skupnega zneska za vsak račun (ali „nakupovalno ko�arico“), ki ga je plačala stranka ob sočasnem nakupu različnih artiklov.
Each of the amounts on those till receipts was rounded arithmetically to the nearest cent (EUR). The operation of arithmetic rounding means that amounts in which the third decimal place is equal to or exceeds five are rounded up to the nearest cent and amounts in which the third decimal place is less than five are rounded down to the nearest cent.
To aritmetično zaokroževanje pomeni, da se zneski, pri katerih je �tevka na tretjem decimalnem mestu enaka ali večja od 5, zaokrožijo navzgor, kadar pa je �tevka na tretjem decimalnem mestu nižja od 5, se zneski zaokrožijo navzdol.
This procedure was followed by the applicant in the main proceedings in all its branches.
Tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari je tako ravnala glede vseh svojih hčerinskih družb.
However, at two branches during the relevant period the applicant also employed another method, which consisted of calculating the amount of VAT payable, not per till receipt, but separately for each item sold to the customer, by rounding the amount thus calculated per item down to the nearest cent.
Vendar je poleg tega za dve hčerinski družbi v obdobju, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, uporabila drugo metodo, tako da zneska DDV ni izračunala glede na vsak račun, ampak ločeno, glede na vsak artikel, ki je bil stranki prodan, s tem da je tako izračunani znesek na artikel zaokrožila navzdol do najbližjega celega centa.
The applicant in the main proceedings accordingly calculated that, for those two branches during the relevant period, the result of that method of rounding down per item was that it should have paid EUR 1 414 less than the amount stated on its VAT return and which it in fact paid in accordance with its usual practice of rounding per till receipt.
Tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari je tako izračunala, da bi za ti dve hčerinski družbi v obdobju, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, morala v skladu s to metodo zaokroževanja navzdol na artikel plačati 1414 EUR manj, kot je bil znesek, ki ga je navedla v svojem obračunu davka in ki ga je dejansko plačala v skladu s svojo običajno prakso zaokroževanja na račun.
The applicant in the main proceedings applied for repayment of the amount of EUR 1 414 of VAT which, in its opinion, it had wrongly paid for the two branches in question.
Tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari je zahtevala vračilo zneska 1414 EUR, za katerega meni, da ga je neupravičeno plačala iz naslova DDV za zadevni hčerinski družbi.
When that application was rejected, the applicant brought a complaint before the Inspector with the claim that ‘rounding per basket’ was incorrect and that the amount of the tax calculated per item should, when necessary, be rounded down to the nearest amount.
Ker je bila ta zahteva zavrnjena, je vložila pritožbo pri in�pektorju, pri čemer se je sklicevala, da „zaokroževanje na ko�arico“ ni pravilno in da bi moral biti znesek davka, ki se izračuna na artikel, po potrebi zaokrožen navzdol do najbližjega zneska.
The Inspector rejected that complaint.
In�pektor je pritožbo zavrnil.
The applicant in the main proceedings brought an action seeking annulment of that rejection before the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Regional Court of Appeal, Amsterdam).
Tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari je pri Gerechtshof te Amsterdam zoper to zavrnilno odločbo vložila ničnostno tožbo.
That court dismissed the action as unfounded by judgment of 16 August 2004.
Gerechtshof te Amsterdam je s sodbo z dne 16. avgusta 2004 tožbo zavrnilo kot neutemeljeno.
The applicant then brought an appeal against that judgment before the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands).
Tožeča stranka je tako pri Hoge Raad der Nederlanden vložila kasacijsko pritožbo zoper navedeno sodbo.
In the order for reference, the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden states that, in the opinion of the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam, even when the result of using the arithmetic method is a rounding up to the nearest cent, that method is, on balance, more consistent with the principle that the tax must be strictly proportional to the price than a method which prescribes rounding down to the nearest cent.
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden v predložitveni odločbi opozarja, da Gerechtshof te Amsterdam meni, da čeprav ima uporaba aritmetične metode za posledico zaokroževanje navzgor do celega centa, ta metoda bolj spo�tuje, na saldo, načelo, v skladu s katerim mora biti davek strogo sorazmeren ceni, kot metoda, ki določa zaokroževanje navzdol do celega centa.
The referring court adds that, in calculating the VAT, it is permissible for each supply of goods or each provision of services to adopt either the procedure of arithmetic rounding of the tax or the method of rounding the total amount of a certain number of supplies or service provisions taken together, namely, in this case, per basket.
Navedeno sodi�če dodaja, da je pri izračunavanju DDV dovoljeno izvesti aritmetično zaokroževanje davka za vsako dobavo blaga oziroma storitev ali uporabiti zaokroževanje glede na skupni znesek določenega �tevila dobav blaga oziroma storitev, ki se obravnavajo skupaj, in sicer v zadevi v postopku v glavni stvari, na ko�arico.
According to that court, both those methods are laid down, as from 1 July 2004, in Article 5 a of the implementing decree of 1968 on turnover tax (Uitvoeringsbesluit omzetbelasting 1968).
Meni, da sta ti metodi od 1. julija 2004 določeni v členu 5a izvedbene uredbe o prometnem davku iz leta 1968 (Uitvoeringsbesluit omzetbelasting 1968).
The questions arising from the main proceedings are whether it is a requirement of the First and Sixth Directives that the method of rounding down per item be permitted and, more particularly, whether the provisions of the first and second paragraphs of Article 2 of the First Directive and of Articles 11A(1)(a) and 22(3)(b), first paragraph, in the version applicable before 1 January 2004, and 22(5) of the Sixth Directive are founded on a method which necessitates the amount of VAT being calculated on each transaction, even if various transactions are referred to on one invoice and/or are included in one and the same VAT return.
Iz spora v postopku v glavni stvari naj bi izhajali vpra�anji, ali Prva in Šesta direktiva zahtevata, da se metoda zaokroževanja navzdol na artikel sprejme, in zlasti ali določbe člena 2, prvi in drugi odstavek, Prve direktive ter členov 11(A)(1)(a) in 22(3)(b), prvi pododstavek, v različici, ki je veljala do 1. januarja 2004, in (5) Šeste direktive temeljijo na metodi, v skladu s katero je treba znesek DDV izračunati glede na vsako transakcijo, tudi če en račun in/ali en obračun davka zajema različne transakcije.
In those circumstances, the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
V teh okoli�činah je Hoge Raad der Nederlanden prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ti vpra�anji:
Application for reopening of the oral procedure
Predlog za ponovno odprtje ustnega postopka
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court on 10 March 2008, the applicant in the main proceedings applied for the reopening of the oral procedure on the ground that the case may not be dealt with on the basis of an argument which has not been
Tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari je z vlogo, ki jo je 10. marca 2008 vložila v sodnem tajni�tvu Sodi�ča, predlagala ponovno odprtje ustnega postopka, ker o zadevi ni mogoče razsoditi na podlagi utemeljitve, o kateri stranki nista razpravljali,
2008 — CASE C-484/06 debated between the parties, in so far as the Opinion of the Advocate General is based on a factual misconception.
2008 – ZADEVA C-484/06 tako da sklepni predlogi generalne pravobranilke temeljijo na napačnem razumevanju dejstev.
However, in its application to have the oral procedure reopened, the applicant in the main proceedings states that it several times at the hearing drew attention, inter alia, to what were, in its opinion, the correct facts in relation to the effects of rounding.
Tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari pa v predlogu za ponovno odprtje ustnega postopka navaja, da se je na obravnavi večkrat sklicevala na po njenem mnenju natančna dejstva glede učinkov zaokroževanja.
Having heard the Advocate General, the Court considers in this case that it has all the information required to reply to the questions referred and that, accordingly, there is no need to order the reopening of the oral procedure.
V obravnavanem primeru Sodi�če po opredelitvi generalne pravobranilke meni, da ima na voljo vse potrebne podatke, da lahko odgovori na zastavljeni vpra�anji, in da zato ni treba odrediti ponovnega odprtja ustnega postopka.
Consequently, the application for an order reopening the oral procedure must be dismissed.
Zato je treba predlog za odreditev tega ponovnega odprtja zavrniti.
In reply to the first question, the provisions of the First and Sixth Directives contain no explicit rule concerning rounding of amounts of VAT.
V odgovor na prvo vpra�anje je treba ugotoviti, da določbe Prve in Šeste direktive ne vsebujejo nobenega izrecnega pravila glede zaokroževanj zneskov DDV.
In particular, the Sixth Directive is silent on that matter.
Zlasti Šesta direktiva glede tega molči.
It is true that the substantive content both of the provisions of Article 22(3)(b) of the Sixth Directive, both in the version applicable at the material time and in the version amended by Directive 2001/115 which entered into force on 1 January 2004 and which, consequently, is not applicable to the main proceedings, and of the provisions of Article 22(5) is capable of referring by implication to rounded amounts of VAT, as is submitted by the referring court.
Res se določbe člena 22(3)(b) Šeste direktive – tako v njihovi različici, ki se je uporabljala v času dejanskega stanja spora o glavni stvari, kot v različici, ki izhaja iz Direktive 2001/115, ki je začela veljati 1. januarja 2004 in ki zato ni uporabljiva v tem sporu – ter določbe odstavka 5 istega člena implicitno sklicujejo na zaokrožene zneske DDV, kot trdi predložitveno sodi�če.
However, it is common ground that those provisions do not lay down any express rule as to the manner in which rounding must be carried out.
Vendar ni dvoma, da te določbe ne določajo nobenega izrecnega pravila glede tega, kako je treba zaokroževanje izvesti.
The same is true of Article 11A(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive.
Isto velja glede člena 11(A)(1)(a) Šeste direktive.
That provision restricts itself to determining the taxable amount and it refers only to the price of the goods supplied and the services performed as consideration for the price.
Ta določba se namreč omejuje na določitev davčne osnove in se sklicuje zgolj na cene dobavljenega blaga in opravljenih storitev kot plačilo za to.
2008 — CASE C-484/06 graph 203 and caselaw there cited; Case C-12/00 Commission v Spain [2003] ECR I-459, paragraph 55; and Case C-437/06 Securenta [2008] ECR I-1597, paragraph 35).
2008 – ZADEVA C-484/06 točka 55, in z dne 13. marca 2008 v zadevi Securenta, C-437/06, ZOdl., str. I-1597, točka 35).
It is clear from the Second Council Directive 67/228/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes — Structure and procedures for application of the common system of value added tax (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p.
Najprej, iz Druge direktive Sveta 67/228/EGS z dne 11. aprila 1967 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih – Struktura in postopek uporabe skupnega sistema davka na dodano vrednost (UL 167, 71, str.
16) that the objective of the turnover tax is to achieve equal conditions of taxation for the same supply, no matter in which Member State it is carried out (Case C-475/03 Banca Popolare di Cremona [2006] ECR I-9373, paragraphs 20 and 23).
1303) izhaja, da je cilj prometnega davka enakost pogojev obdavčitve enake transakcije, ne glede na to, v kateri državi članici se opravi (sodba z dne 3. oktobra 2006 v zadevi Banca Popolare di Cremona, C-475/03, ZOdl., str. I-9373, točki 20 in 23).
The same applies to Article 22(3)(b) of the Sixth Directive, in relation to which it is evident from the fourth recital in the preamble to Directive 2001/115 that the purpose of the particulars which must appear on invoices is to ensure that the internal market functions properly.
Isto velja za člen 22(3)(b) Šeste direktive, glede katerega iz četrte uvodne izjave Direktive 2001/115 izhaja, da podatki, ki morajo biti obvezno navedeni na računih, zagotavljajo dobro delovanje notranjega trga.
Lastly, the objective of Article 22(4) and (5) of the Sixth Directive is to ensure that the tax authority has available to it all the information required in order to calculate and collect the exact amount of tax payable.
Nazadnje je cilj člena 22(4) in (5) Šeste direktive zagotoviti, da so davčni upravi dane na voljo vse informacije, potrebne za ugotavljanje in natančen izračun davka, za katerega je nastala obveznost obračuna.
It follows that it cannot be inferred from either the wording of those provisions or their objectives that a specific method of rounding has been laid down by Community law.
Sledi, da niti besedilo navedenih določb niti njihov cilj ne omogočajo sklepa, da je pravo Skupnosti določilo posebno metodo zaokroževanja.
Consequently, in the absence of any Community legislation, it is for the legal systems of the Member States to determine, within the limits of Community law, the method and rules for rounding of an amount declared by way of VAT.
Ker na tem področju ni zakonodaje Skupnosti, morajo torej pravni redi držav članic v mejah prava Skupnosti določiti metodo in pravila za zaokroževanje prijavljenega zneska iz naslova DDV.