natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Italian Government is of the view that it is not contrary to the principle of proportionality to hold the principal liable (Case C-97/95 Pascoal & Filhos [1997] ECR I-4209, and Case C-293/04 Beemsterboer Coldstore Services [2006] ECR I-2263). It submits that the task of the Court is not to adopt a position on the judgment of the Corte Suprema di Cassazione of 27 September 2002, since no question requiring a preliminary ruling has been submitted to it in that regard. 47
Italijanska vlada meni, da vključitev odgovornosti glavnega zavezanca ni v nasprotju z načelom sorazmernosti (sodbi z dne 17. julija 1997 v zadevi Pascoal & Filhos, C-97/95, Recueil, str. I-4209, in z dne 9. marca 2006 v zadevi Beemsterboer Coldstore Services, C-293/04, ZOdl., str. I-2263). Poudarja, da Sodi�če ni pristojno, da odloča o sodbi Corte suprema di cassazione z dne 27. septembra 2002, ker nanj ni bilo naslovljeno nobeno vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje v zvezi s tem. 47
According to settled caselaw, the principle of proportionality, which is one of the general principles of Community law, requires that measures implemented through Community provisions be appropriate for attaining the objective pursued and must
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso načelo sorazmernosti, ki je eno od splo�nih načel prava Skupnosti, zahteva, naj bodo ukrepi, sprejeti v skladu s predpisom Skupnosti, primerni za uresničenje zastavljenega cilja in naj ne prekoračijo okvirov, ki so
The principal, in his capacity as holder under the external Community transit procedure, is the debtor of the customs debt arising from the failure to observe the provisions governing that procedure.
Glavni zavezanec je kot imetnik postopka v okviru zunanjega skupnostnega tranzitnega postopka dolžnik za carinski dolg, ki izhaja iz neupo�tevanja določb tega postopka.
The liability thus imposed upon the principal is intended to ensure the diligent and uniform application of the provisions relating to the recovery of customs debts in order to protect the financial interests of the Community and its Member States.
Odgovornost, ki jo nosi glavni zavezanec, je namenjena zagotavljanju skrbne in enotne uporabe predpisov v zvezi z izterjavo carinskega dolga zaradi varovanja finančnih interesov Skupnosti in držav članic.
The fact that the principal is thus made liable for the payment of the customs debt, regardless of the extent of that debt in relation to the fees he receives when acting, as in the case in the main proceedings, as customs clearance agent, is not contrary to the principle of proportionality.
Zato dejstvo, da se glavnemu zavezancu naloži plačilo carinskega dolga, ne glede na vi�ino tega dolga v primerjavi s koristmi, ki jih prejme, ko deluje tako kot v zadevi v glavni stvari kot carinski zastopnik, ni v nasprotju z načelom sorazmernosti.
Nor is the fact that the principal acted in good faith and that the breach of the external Community transit procedure was the result of a forgery in which he had no part capable of constituting an infringement of the principle of proportionality.
Dejstvo, da je glavni zavezanec v dobri veri in da izhaja kr�itev zunanjega skupnostnega tranzitnega postopka iz goljufije, pri kateri ni bil udeležen, ne kr�i načela sorazmernosti.
If that were the case, the principal would no longer have so great an incentive to ensure that transit operations were properly conducted (see, by analogy, Pascoal & Filhos, paragraphs 51 to 55). 50
V nasprotnem primeru glavni zavezanec ne bi bil več tako zavzet pri zagotavljanju učinkovitega poteka tranzita (glej po analogiji zgoraj navedeno sodbo Pascoal & Filhos, točke od 51 do 55). 50
It must, nevertheless, be borne in mind that, where the customs debt arises as a result of circumstances in which neither deception nor obvious negligence may be attributed to the principal, Article 239 of the Customs Code, which is a general equitable provision, permits the principal to apply for the remission of duties.
Vendar je treba poudariti, da ker je carinski dolg nastal zaradi okoli�čin, ki niso posledica niti malomarnosti niti goljufivega ravnanja glavnega zavezanca, mu člen 239 carinskega zakonika, ki vsebuje splo�no klavzulo pravičnosti, omogoča, da vloži zahtevek za odpust dajatev.
To that end, Articles 899 to 905 of the implementing regulation provide for a procedure for administrative cooperation between the customs authorities and the Commission.
Členi od 899 do 905 izvedbene uredbe določajo postopek upravnega sodelovanja med carinskimi organi in Komisijo.
In order to verify whether the Member State which recovered customs duties has jurisdiction, it is for the referring court to determine whether, at the time when it came to light that the consignment had not been presented at the office of destination, it was possible to establish the place where the offence or irregularity occurred.
Predložitveno sodišče mora, da bi preverilo pristojnost države članice, ki je izterjevala carino, ugotoviti, ali je mogoče v trenutku, ko se je ugotovilo, da pošiljka ni bila predložena namembnemu uradu, določiti kraj kršitve ali nepravilnosti.
If that is the case, the Member State in which the first offence or irregularity capable of being classified as a removal from customs surveillance was committed can be identified as the State with jurisdiction to recover the customs debt, pursuant to Articles 203(1) and 215(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code.
V tem primeru je mogoče v skladu z določbami členov 203(1) in 215(1) Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 2913/92 z dne 12. oktobra 1992 o carinskem zakoniku določiti za pristojno za izterjavo carine tisto državo članico, na katere ozemlju je nastala prva kršitev ali nepravilnost, ki jo je mogoče označiti kot odstranitev izpod carinskega nadzora.
2008 — CASE C-230/06 the Member State to which the office of departure belongs has jurisdiction to recover the customs duties, in accordance with Articles 378 and 379 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92.
2008 – ZADEVA C-230/06 ali nepravilnosti po drugi strani še vedno ni mogoče določiti, je država članica, ki ji pripada urad odhoda, pristojna za izterjavo carine v skladu z določbami členov 378 in 379 Uredbe Komisije (EGS) št. 2454/93 z dne 2. julija 1993 o določbah za izvajanje Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 2913/92 o carinskem zakoniku Skupnosti.
Where a consignment has not been presented at the office of destination and the place of the offence or irregularity cannot be established, it is for the office of departure alone to make the notification required within the 11-month and 3-month timelimits laid down by Article 379(1) and (2) of Regulation No 2454/93.
Urad odhoda mora poslati obvestilo ob spoštovanju rokov enajstih in treh mesecev v skladu s členoma 378 in 379 Uredbe št. 2454/93, če pošiljka ni bila predložena namembnemu uradu in če kraja kršitve ali nepravilnosti ni mogoče določiti.
It is not contrary to the principle of proportionality to hold a customs clearance agent, in his capacity as principal, liable for a customs debt.
Dejstvo, da je carinski zastopnik kot glavni zavezanec, odgovoren za carinski dolg, ni v nasprotju z načelom sorazmernosti.
Case C-306/06
Zadeva C-306/06
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Oberlandesgericht Köln)
(Directive 2000/35/EC — Combating of late payment in commercial transactions — Article 3(1)(c)(ii) — Late payment — Bank transfer — Date on which payment is to be regarded as having been made)
„Direktiva 2000/35/CE – Boj proti zamudam pri plačilih v trgovinskih poslih – Člen 3(1)(c)(ii) – Zamuda pri plačilu – Bančno nakazilo – Datum, od katerega je treba �teti, da je plačilo izvr�eno“
Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro delivered on 18 October 2007 . .
Poiaresa Madura, predstavljeni 18. oktobra 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I - 1925Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 3 April 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (prvi senat) z dne 3. aprila 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SUMMARY — CASE C-306/06
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-306/06
Approximation of laws — Combating of late payment in commercial transactions — Directive 2000/35
Približevanje zakonodaj – Boj proti zamudam pri plačilih v trgovinskih poslih – Direktiva 2000/35
(European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/35, Art. 3(1)(c)(ii)) the sum due be credited to the account of the creditor within the period for payment.
(Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2000/35, člen 3(1)(c)(ii)) dobro na upnikovem računu, da prepreči ali konča zamudne obresti.
Article 3(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 2000/35/EC on combating late payment in commercial transactions is to be interpreted as meaning that it requires, in order that a payment by bank transfer may avoid or put an end to the application of interest for late payment, that
Člen 3(1)(c)(ii) Direktive 2000/35 o boju proti zamudam pri plačilih v trgovinskih poslih je treba razlagati tako, da mora biti pri plačilu zapadlega zneska, izvr�enem z bančnim nakazilom, ta znesek pravočasno knjižen v
By this reference for a preliminary ruling, the Oberlandesgericht Köln (Germany) refers to the Court a question concerning the interpretation of Article 3(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions. 2
Oberlandesgericht Köln (Nemčija) s tem vpra�anjem za predhodno odločanje Sodi�ču postavlja vpra�anje, ki se nana�a na razlago člena 3(1)(c)(ii) Direktive 2000/35/ ES 2Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 29. junija 2000 o boju proti zamudam pri plačilih v trgovinskih poslih.
Let us be clear from the outset that, although this question may be surprising in the light of some language versions 3 in which there is not always a reference to receipt of the amount due on time, that does not call into question the main issue in this case, which remains that relating to the distribution of risk between the creditor and the debtor where the latter is not directly responsible for the late payment.
Prav v zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da čeprav to vpra�anje glede na določene jezikovne različice 3, ki se ne sklicujejo vedno na pravočasni prejem dolgovanega zneska, lahko preseneča, pa to ne posega v osrednje vpra�anje te zadeve, ki se nana�a na razdelitev tveganja med upnikom in dolžnikom, kadar zadnji ni neposredno odgovoren za zamudo pri plačilu.
I — The dispute in the main proceedings, legal background and the question referred for a preliminary ruling
I – Spor o glavni stvari, pravni okvir in vprašanje za predhodno odločanje
The dispute in the main proceedings is between 01051 Telecom GmbH (‘the claimant’) and Deutsche Telekom AG (‘Deutsche Telekom’) concerning the payment of interest for late payment.
Spor o glavni stvari poteka med družbo 01051 Telecom GmbH in družbo Deutsche Telekom AG glede plačila zamudnih obresti.
Both these undertakings supply telecommunications services to the public and to network operators.
Ti družbi opravljata telekomunikacijske storitve, namenjene javnosti in operaterjem omrežij.
Essentially, the Court is asked whether the above provision, according to which, in a number of language versions and, in particular, in the German version, the creditor is entitled to claim interest for late payment where ‘he has not received the amount due on time, unless the debtor is not responsible for the delay’, implies, where payment is made by bank transfer, that the sum payable should be credited to the creditor’s account on time, or whether it is sufficient, to avoid or put an end to interest for late payment, for the transfer order to be executed within the period for payment.
Sodi�če je v bistvu vpra�ano, ali zgoraj navedena določba, v skladu s katero je upnik upravičen do zamudnih obresti, „če zapadle vsote ne prejme pravočasno, razen če dolžnik ni odgovoren za zamudo“, pomeni, da mora biti v primeru plačila z nakazilom znesek pravočasno vknjižen na upnikov račun, ali zado�ča, da bi se izognili zamudnim obrestim ali jih ustavili, da se nalog za nakazilo izvr�i v rokih?
Since 1998, the two operators have been linked by an interconnection contract, according to which the parties invoice each other for services supplied in the context of that contract and on that basis calculate the sums due.
Oba operaterja od leta 1998 zavezuje pogodba o medomrežnem povezovanju, v skladu s katero si stranki vzajemno zaračunavata storitve, opravljene v okviru te pogodbe, in na njeni podlagi izračunavata dolgovane zneske.
The contract has been subject to a number of amendments.
Ta pogodba je bila večkrat spremenjena.
The most recent version, dated 26 June 2002, provides, with regard to late payment, in Article 17.5:
Zadnja različica z dne 26. junija 2002 glede zamude pri plačilu v členu 17.5 določa, da:
The claimant argues that the abovementioned provision of the invoicing and debt recovery contract should be applied in the context of the interconnection contract, so that the prevention or end of late payment and the obligation to pay interest for late payment depends, inter alia, on receipt or entry on the account of the amount invoiced.
Tožeča stranka zagovarja stali�če, da bi se morala zgoraj navedena določba pogodbe o zaračunavanju in izterjavi terjatev uporabiti v okviru pogodbe o medomrežnem povezovanju, tako da bi bila preprečitev ali prenehanje zamude pri plačilu in obveznosti plačati zamudne obresti, med drugimi pogoji, odvisna od prejema zaračunanega zneska ali njegove vknjižbe na račun.
Thus it took the view that it was entitled to claim interest for late payment from Deutsche Telekom for the sum outstanding after set-off inasmuch as, on the 30th day following receipt of the invoice, the total amount payable had not been credited to its account.
Zato meni, da lahko od družbe Deutsch Telekom uveljavlja plačilo zamudnih obresti glede preostalega zneska po poravnavi zneska, če se trideseti dan po prejemu računa vknjižba celotnega zneska, ki ga je treba plačati, na njen račun ni opravila.
‘Payment shall be deemed to be late, so far as this is not already established by written demand, 30 days after it has become due and the invoice has been received.’
„Zamuda je podana, razen če ni ugotovljena že v opominu, 30 dni po izteku roka in prejemu računa.“
In addition, during 2001 the parties concluded an invoicing and debt recovery agreement providing, in paragraph 8, that:
Poleg tega sta stranki leta 2001 sklenili pogodbo o zaračunavanju in izterjavi terjatev, ki v točki 8 določa, da:
The defendant, on the contrary, argues that the alleged agreement has not been implemented.
Tožena stranka nasprotno zagovarja stali�če, da naj se domnevna pogodba ne bi izvr�ila.
It submits that it has already paid the sums due under the interconnection contract by sending, in time, to its bank, orders for transfer which the bank received.
Zatrjuje, da naj bi v skladu s pogodbo o medomrežnem povezovanju že plačala dolgovane zneske, tako da je na svojo banko pravočasno naslovila naloge za nakazilo, ki jih je slednja sprejela.
‘At the middle and at the end of a calendar month the contracting partner may issue an invoice for the net remuneration, including value added tax, recognised by Deutsche Telekom as capable of being invoiced for services supplied by it to Deutsche Telekom … The amount of the invoice must be credited to the account identified in the invoice
„Pogodbena stranka lahko 15. ali zadnji dan v mesecu družbi Deutsche Telekom zaračuna neto zneske, ki jih ta družba prizna kot zaračunljive, skupaj z DDV, za storitve, ki jih opravi zanjo. Zaračunani znesek je treba knjižiti v dobro na račun, naveden na
The courts at first instance and on appeal both excluded the transposition of the invoicing and debt recovery contract to the
Prvostopenjsko sodi�če in pritožbeno sodi�če se strinjata, da je treba izključiti prenos iz pogodbe o zaračunavanju in
Paragraph 270 of the BGB states as follows: interconnection contract.
Člen 270 BGB določa naslednje: izterjavi terjatev v pogodbo o medomrežnem povezovanju.
In those circumstances and in the absence of any stipulation in the interconnection contract as to the time from which interest for late payment starts to run where payment is made by transfer it is national law which applies.
V teh okoli�činah in ne da bi bil v pogodbi o medomrežnem povezovanju naveden čas, ko začnejo teči zamudne obresti v primeru plačila z nakazilom, je treba uporabiti nacionalno pravo.
Paragraph 269 of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch — BGB) provides:
Člen 269 nem�kega civilnega zakonika (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, v nadaljevanju: BGB) določa:
As interpreted in national caselaw and legal literature, it appears from those articles
Iz teh dveh členov na podlagi pomena, ki sta ga dobila skozi sodno prakso in
performance must be preceded by an event and a reasonable period of time for performance has been specified in such a way that it can be calculated, starting from the event, according to the calendar, that in the case of payment by transfer, as in the present case, performance is considered to be on time where (i) the transfer order is received by the debtor’s financial establishment before expiry of the period for payment, (ii) the debtor’s account is covered or enjoys a line of credit in a sufficient amount and (iii) the debtor’s financial establishment accepts the transfer order.
POIARESA MADURA – ZADEVA C-306/06 ii. mora pred izvr�itvijo storitve priti do določenega dogodka in je za izvr�itev storitve predvideno ustrezno obdobje, na način, ki ga je mogoče izračunati glede na koledar od navedenega dogodka dalje, nacionalne doktrine, izhaja, da se v primeru plačila z nakazilom, kot v tem primeru, storitev �teje za pravočasno opravljeno, če (i) je nalog za nakazilo predložen dolžnikovi finančni ustanovi pred iztekom roka, (ii) ima dolžnikov račun kritje ali ima zadostno kreditno sposobnost in (iii) dolžnikova finančna ustanova sprejme nalog za nakazilo.
In other words, it is not necessary for the sum physically to be credited to the creditor’s account for the payment to be made.
Z drugimi besedami, za izvr�itev plačila ni nujno, da se znesek fizično knjiži v dobro na upnikov račun.
the obligor seriously and definitively refuses performance,
iii. dolžnik resno in dokončno zavrne poravnavo svoje obveznosti,
Finally, as amended in order to implement Directive 2000/35, Paragraph 286 of the BGB provides:
Nazadnje, člen 286 BGB v spremenjeni različici z namenom prenosa Direktive 2000/35 določa: iv. je takoj�na ugotovitev zamude upravičena, zaradi posebnih razlogov in ob upo�tevanju interesov obeh prisotnih strank.
‘(1) If the obligor, following a warning notice from the obligee that is made after performance is due, fails to perform, he is in default as a result of the warning notice.
Če dolžnik na opozorilo upnika, izdanega po izteku roka, ne poravna svoje obveznosti, je v zamudi z učinkom od tega opozorila dalje.
Bringing an action for performance and serving a demand for payment in summary debt proceedings for recovery of debt have the same effect as a warning notice.
Ukrepanje za izvr�itev storitve in vročitev plačilnega naloga v okviru ustreznega postopka sta izenačena z opozorilom.
(3) The obligor of a claim for payment is in default at the latest if he does not perform within 30 days after the due date and receipt of an invoice or equivalent statement of payment; this applies to an obligor who is a consumer only if these consequences are specifically referred to in the invoice or statement of payment.
Dolžnik terjatve je v zamudi najpozneje trideset dni po izteku roka in prejemu računa ali enakovredne zahteve za plačilo, če ni poprej plačal; to velja za dolžnika, ki je prav tako potro�nik, le, če račun ali zahteva za plačilo vsebuje izrecno navedbo glede te posledice.
If the time at which the invoice or payment statement is received by the obligor is uncertain, an obligor who is not a consumer is in default at the latest 30 days after the due date and receipt of the consideration.
Če datum prejema računa ali zahteve za plačilo ni določen, je dolžnik, če ni potro�nik, v zamudi najpozneje trideset dni po izteku roka in nasprotni izpolnitvi.
(4) The obligor is not in default for as long as performance is not made as the result of a circumstance for which he is not responsible’.
Dolžnik prav tako ni v zamudi, če storitev ni izvedena zaradi okoli�čine, za katero ni odgovoren.“ iii)
Article 3 of Directive 2000/35 on late payment, thus transposed, provides, inter alia, that:
Tako prenesena Direktiva 2000/35 o zamudi pri plačilu v členu 3 med drugim določa: če dolžnik prejme račun ali drugo ustrezno zahtevo za plačilo pred prejemom blaga ali izvedbo storitev, 30 dni po dnevu prejema blaga ali izvedbi storitev; ali
(b) if the date or period for payment is not fixed in the contract, interest shall become payable automatically without the necessity of a reminder:
Države članice zagotovijo, da: iv) a) obresti v skladu s točko (d) zapadejo v plačilo z dnem, ki sledi datumu plačila ali koncu plačilnega roka, določenemu v pogodbi; če je postopek sprejemanja ali preverjanja, s katerim je treba preveriti skladnost blaga ali storitev s pogodbo, določen zakonsko ali pogodbeno in če dolžnik prejme račun ali drugo ustrezno zahtevo za plačilo pred dnevom ali na dan sprejemanja ali preverjanja, 30 dni po tem zadnjem datumu; b) če datum plačila ali plačilni rok v pogodbi ni določen, obresti zapadejo v plačilo takoj, ne da bi bilo potrebno opozorilo: i) c) upnik je upravičen do obresti za zamudo pri plačilu, če:
30 days following the date of receipt by the debtor of the invoice or an equivalent request for payment; or
30 dni po dnevu, na katerega dolžnik prejme račun ali drugo ustrezno zahtevo za plačilo; ali ii) i) če je dan, na katerega je dolžnik prejel račun ali drugo ustrezno zahtevo za plačilo, dvomljiv, 30 dni izpolnjuje svoje pogodbene in zakonske obveznosti; in
(ii) he has not received the amount due on time, unless the debtor is not responsible for the delay;
„ni odgovoren za zamudo“, naj bi po mnenju predložitvenega sodi�ča dokazoval, da je mogoče plačilo, četudi je prepozno, �teti, da ga je upnik „prejel“ pravočasno, če je dolžnik storil vse potrebno za prenos dolgovanega zneska v ustreznem času.
The referring court nevertheless recognises that the interpretation of the provision in question is not unequivocal.
Predložitveno sodi�če je vendarle priznalo, da razlaga zadevne določbe ni enoznačna.
In particular, the use in the German, French and English versions of the terms ‘erhalten’, ‘reçu’ and ‘received’ respectively could indicate that, in order to avoid late payment within the meaning of Directive 2000/35, the amount must reach the creditor before expiry of the applicable period for payment.
Zlasti iz uporabe izrazov „erhalten“, „reçu“ in „recieved“ v nem�ki, francoski oziroma angle�ki različici naj bi izhajalo, da mora upnik znesek, v izogib zamudi pri plačilu v smislu Direktive 2000/35, pridobiti pred iztekom upo�tevnega roka.
The Landgericht Bonn upheld in part the action of 01051 Telecom, taking the view that Article 3(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 2000/35, pursuant to which the creditor is entitled, in the event of late payment, to interest when he has not received the amounts invoiced on time, suggested that late receipt of the sum due should be taken as the triggering factor for interest for late payment, even if the order for payment had been executed in good time.
Landgericht Bonn je deloma ugodilo tožbi družbe 01051 Telecom, pri čemer je menilo, da naj bi se v okviru člena 3(1)(c)(ii) Direktive 2000/35, v skladu s katero je upnik v primeru zamude pri plačilu upravičen do obresti, če ni pravočasno prejel zaračunanega zneska, upo�teval prepozni prejem dolgovanega zneska kot sprožilec zamudnih obresti, tudi če je bil plačilni nalog izvr�en v rokih.
It is in those circumstances that the Oberlandesgericht Köln decided to stay proceedings and refer the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
V teh okoli�činah je Oberlandesgericht Köln prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vpra�anje: