natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
On the basis of section 80(3) of the Value Added Tax Act, the Commissioners submitted as a defence that Marks & Spencer had passed on 90% of the VAT to its customers. The VAT and Duties Tribunal upheld that defence and ruled that Marks & Spencer was entitled to recover only 10% of the sum claimed. It also applied a limitation provision that had been introduced with retroactive effect. 9.
Commissioners so na podlagi oddelka 80(3) zakona o davku na dodano vrednost temu ugovarjali s trditvijo, da je Marks & Spencer 90 % davka na dodano vrednost prevalil na svoje kupce. VAT Tribunal se je s to trditvijo strinjalo in odločilo, da ima Marks & Spencer pravico le do 10 % zahtevanega zneska. Poleg tega je uporabilo določbo o zastaranju, ki je bila uvedena z učinkom za nazaj. 9.
In the period material to the dispute in the main proceedings, the above rules applied to net payers only, that is to say, to taxable persons who, in a given tax period, owe the tax authorities a greater amount of output tax than they are able to offset by way of input tax deduction.
Ta ureditev se je v času, ki je odločilen za spor o glavni stvari, nana�ala le na neto plačnike, torej davčne zavezance, ki v davčnem obdobju državni blagajni dolgujejo vi�ji znesek davka na dodano vrednost, kot pa ga lahko obračunajo s pomočjo odbitka vstopnega davka.
Repayment traders, by contrast, are entitled to a tax refund because their deductible input tax in a given tax period exceeds their output tax.
Tem stojijo nasproti tako imenovani repayment traders, ki imajo na podlagi čezmernih odbitkov vstopnega davka v davčnem obdobju pravico do vračila davka.
A rule comparable to that laid down in section 80(3) did not exist for repayment traders. 8
Za zadnje ni obstajala nikakr�na določba, ki bi bila primerljiva z oddelkom 80(3). 8
Marks & Spencer pursued the dispute further to the Court of Appeal. In addition to the tax refund for the teacakes, the proceedings before that court also concerned a further claim for a refund in connection with the tax treatment of gift vouchers. The Court of Appeal made a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the question of whether the limitation provisions were compatible with Community law. As far as the Court of Appeal was concerned, only the treatment of the gift vouchers was still in question in those proceedings. As regards the teacakes, the Court of Appeal evidently assumed that no requirements could be derived from Community law in the absence of harmonisation of the tax rate in the Sixth Directive. 10.
Marks & Spencer je spor pripeljal do Court of Appeal. Poleg vračila davka za Teacakes se je postopek pri tem nana�al na �e en zahtevek za vračilo v zvezi z davčno obravnavo nakupnih bonov. Court of Appeal se je na Sodi�če s predlogom za sprejetje predhodne odločbe obrnilo glede vpra�anja združljivosti določb o zastaranju s pravom Skupnosti. Pri tem je bila za Court of Appeal vpra�ljiva zgolj �e obravnava nakupnih bonov. Glede Teacakes je očitno izhajalo iz tega, da iz prava Skupnosti zaradi neusklajenosti davčne stopnje v Šesti direktivi ni mogoče izlu�čiti nobenih določb. 10.
Since 1973, the Commissioners of Customs and Excise had charged VAT on the teacakes sold by Marks & Spencer plc at the standard rate as they treated them as choc-olate-covered biscuits. In September 1994, however, the Commissioners acknowledged that the teacakes ought to have been classified as cakes and, as such, zero-rated for tax purposes. Marks & Spencer made a claim in that respect for repayment of the full amount of VAT, namely GBP 3.5 million, for which it had wrongly accounted over the years. 13.
Commissioners of Customs and Excise so od leta 1973 za Teacakes, ki jih prodaja Marks & Spencer plc, zaračunavali splo�no stopnjo davka na dodano vrednost, ker so jih obravnavali kot pi�kote, oblite s čokolado. Commissioners pa so septembra 1994 priznali, da bi morali biti Teacakes uvr�čeni med kolače in obdavčeni z ničelno davčno stopnjo. Marks & Spencer je nato zahteval vračilo celotnega davka na dodano vrednost v vi�ini 3,5 milijona GBP, ki ga je brez pravne podlage prijavil v preteklih letih. 13.
In its judgment of 11 July 2002 (‘Marks & Spencer I judgment’), 9 the Court, responding to the questions referred, did not concern 8 — The United Kingdom introduced a further enrichment provision for repayment traders, effective as from 26 May 2005, only after infringement proceedings had been brought concerning the difference in treatment as between those two categories of taxable persons.
Sodi�če se v sodbi z dne 11. julija 2002 (v nadaljevanju: sodba Marks & Spencer I) 9 glede na vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje 8 – Združeno kraljestvo je �ele po uvedbi postopka zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti zaradi neenakega obravnavanja teh dveh skupin davčnih zavezancev z učinkom od 26. maja 2005 sprejelo določbo o obogatitvi tudi za repayment traders.
MARKS & SPENCER itself with the tax refund for the teacakes. In his Opinion in that case, Advocate General Geelhoed none the less remarked incidentally on the teacakes and expressed the view that the non-reimbursement of VAT was a manifest breach of Community law. 10 That view notwithstanding, the Court of Appeal dismissed the action in relation to the VAT on the teacakes. (2) If the answer to Question 1 is in the ne- gative, where, under Article 28(2)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive (both before and after its amendment in 1992 by Directive 92/77), a Member State has maintained in its domestic VAT legislation an exemption with refund of input tax in respect of certain specified supplies but has mistakenly interpreted its domestic legislation with the consequence that certain supplies benefiting from exemption with refund of input tax under its domestic legislation have been subject to tax at the standard rate, do the general principles of Community law, including fiscal neutrality, apply so as to give a trader who made such supplies a right to recover the sums mistakenly charged in respect of them?
Če je odgovor na prvo vpra�anje nikalen, ali se uporabijo splo�na načela prava Skupnosti, vključno z načelom davčne nevtralnosti, če je država članica v skladu s členom 28(2)(a) Šeste direktive o DDV (pred njeno spremembo z Direktivo 92/77 v letu 1992 in po njej) v nacionalni zakonodaji o DDV ohranila oprostitev z vračilom vstopnega davka v zvezi z določenimi posebnimi storitvami, vendar pa je svojo nacionalno zakonodajo nepravilno razlagala tako, da so bile določene storitve, za katere v skladu z njeno nacionalno zakonodajo velja oprostitev z vračilom vstopnega davka, obdavčene po splo�ni stopnji, in sicer tako, da ta načela podeljujejo gospodarskemu udeležencu, ki je opravil take storitve, pravico do vračila zneskov, ki so bili v zvezi s temi storitvami nepravilno obračunani?
The House of Lords, as the court of law currently seised of the dispute, felt compelled, in the light of the Commission’s observations and the Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed in Marks & Spencer I , to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Where, under Article 28(2)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive (both before and after its amendment in 1992 by Directive 92/77), a Member State has maintained in its domestic VAT legislation an exemption with refund of input tax in respect of certain specified supplies, does a trader making such supplies have a directly enforceable Community law right to be taxed at a zero rate?
Če je država članica v skladu s členom 28(2)(a) Šeste direktive o DDV (pred njeno spremembo z Direktivo 92/77 v letu 1992 in po njej) v nacionalni zakonodaji o DDV ohranila oprostitev z vračilom vstopnega davka v zvezi z določenimi posebnimi storitvami, ali ima potem gospodarski udeleženec, ki take storitve opravlja, neposredno iztožljivo pravico v pravu Skupnosti, da je obdavčen po ničelni stopnji?
(i) the trader would be unjustly enriched by repayment to him of the entire amount;
i) bi se gospodarski udeleženec s prejemom vračila celotnega zneska neupravičeno obogatil, ii) nacionalna zakonodaja določa, da preplačanega davka ni mogoče vrniti v takem obsegu, da bi vračilo povzročilo neupravičeno obogatitev gospodarskega udeleženca, toda
(5) If, in the situation described in Question 3, the Community law principles of equal treatment and fiscal neutrality apply and would otherwise be infringed, does Community law require or permit a court to remedy the difference of treatment by upholding a trader’s claim to a repayment of overpaid tax in such a way as to enrich him unjustly or require or permit a court to grant some other remedy (and, if so, which)?’
Če se v primeru, opisanem v tretjem vpra�anju, uporabita Skupnostni načeli enakega obravnavanja in davčne nevtralnosti in bi bili drugače kr�eni, ali pravo Skupnosti od sodi�ča zahteva ali mu dovoljuje, da odpravi različno obravnavanje s tem, da ugodi zahtevi gospodarskega udeleženca za vračilo preplačanega davka, tako da se ta neupravičeno obogati, ali pa od sodi�ča zahteva ali mu dovoljuje odobritev kak�nega drugega sredstva (in če, kak�nega)?
(iii) domestic legislation makes no provision similar to that referred to in (ii) in the case of claims by “repayment traders”?
nacionalna zakonodaja v primeru zahtevkov „repayment traders“ ne vsebuje nobenega določila, ki bi bilo podobno tistemu pod točko (ii)?
(A “repayment trader” is a taxable person who, in a given prescribed accounting period, makes no payment of VAT to the competent national authorities but receives a payment from them because, in that period, the amount of VAT that he is entitled to deduct exceeds the amount of VAT due in respect of supplies made by him.)
(„Repayment trader“ je davčni zavezanec, ki v predpisanem davčnem obdobju ne plača davka na dodano vrednost pristojnim nacionalnim organom, ampak prejme od njih plačilo, ker v tem obdobju znesek davka na dodano vrednost, ki ga je upravičen od�teti, presega znesek davka na dodano vrednost, ki ga dolguje v zvezi s svojimi storitvami.)
(4) Is the answer to Question 3 affected by whether or not there is evidence that the
Ali na odgovor na tretje vpra�anje vpliva, če obstaja dokaz, da je različno
Marks & Spencer, Ireland, the Governments of the United Kingdom and of Cyprus and the Commission of the European Communities have each submitted observations in the proceedings before the Court of Justice. I - 2292
Marks & Spencer, Irska, vladi Združenega kraljestva in Cipra ter Komisija Evropskih skupnosti so v postopku pred Sodi�čem predložili stali�ča. I - 2292
MARKS & SPENCER IV — Legal assessment
MARKS & SPENCER IV – Pravna presoja za Teacakes, ki jih prodaja Marks & Spencer, ni uporabila ničelne davčne stopnje. A – Uvodna opomba
Questions 3 to 5 deal with these issues.
Določbe direktive pa niso dokončne.
The Sixth Directive approximated to a large extent the arrangements for charging VAT in the Member States.
V bistvu je treba razjasniti vpra�anje, ali je v skladu s pravom Skupnosti, da zakon o davku na dodano vrednost 1994 izključuje pravico do vračila v primeru, kot je obravnavani, zaradi neupravičene obogatitve, ne pa tudi v drugih primerih naknadnega popravka obdavčitve (pri repayment traders). Na te probleme se nana�ajo vpra�anja od 3 do 5.
Three findings in that connection are undisputed in the main proceedings:
Pri tem v postopku v glavni stvari niso sporne tri ugotovitve:
As a prelude — as it were — to addressing those issues, the House of Lords considers it essential to clarify whether this is at all a situation to which Community law applies and which confers certain rights on taxable persons.
House of Lords meni, da je treba v zvezi s tem v določeni meri kot predhodno vpra�anje razjasniti, ali sploh gre za področje, kjer se uporabi pravo Skupnosti, ki davčnemu zavezancu podeljuje določene pravice.
Those issues are addressed in Questions 1 and 2, which will be discussed together below.
Tej problematiki sta namenjeni vpra�anji 1 in 2, ki ju bom preučila skupaj.
— The domestic provision concerning the application of the zero rate together with the right to deduct input tax in respect of food with the exception of certain items of confectionery is in accordance with Article 28(2) of the Sixth Directive.
– nacionalna določba o uporabi ničelne davčne stopnje s pravico do odbitka vstopnega davka za živila z izjemo določenih sladkarij je v skladu s členom 28(2) Šeste direktive.
B — The first and second questions referred
Davčna uprava je to določbo od leta 1973 do leta 1994 nepravilno uporabljala,
As the Court of Justice pointed out in the Marks & Spencer I judgment, not only are — From 1973 to 1994 the tax authority applied that provision incorrectly in that it did not subject the Marks & Spencer teacakes to tax at the zero rate. I - 2293
Sodi�če je v sodbi Marks & Spencer I poudarilo, da države članice niso dolžne I - 2293
Domestic legislation alone, which is not to be measured in this case against the Community law standard, has to be applied to the refund.
Posameznik se namreč pred sodi�čem lahko sklicuje tudi na to, da naj se nacionalne določbe o prenosu uporabljajo na način, da se doseže cilj, ki ga določa direktiva.
Having regard to well-established caselaw, the Court of Justice further held that the right to obtain a refund of charges levied in a Member State in breach of rules of Community law is the consequence and the complement of the rights conferred on individuals by Community provisions. 12
Sodi�če je s sklicevanjem na ustaljeno sodno prakso naprej izpeljalo, da je pravica do vračila dajatev, ki so bile v državi članici pobrane s kr�itvijo prava Skupnosti, posledica in dopolnitev pravic, ki jih ima posameznik na podlagi prava Skupnosti. 12
The Member States involved in the present proceedings now take the view that Article 28(2)(a) of the Sixth Directive more or less excludes national derogations from the scope of the Directive.
Države članice, udeležene v tem postopku, zdaj zastopajo stali�če, da člen 28(2)(a) Šeste direktive tako rekoč izključuje nacionalne oprostitve iz področja uporabe direktive.
Like the Court of Appeal, they make the following inferences from the caselaw cited above: since a Community law right to the application of zero-rate tax does not exist, but such a right exists under the unharmonised domestic
Tako kot Court of Appeal iz zgoraj navedene sodne prakse izpeljujejo naslednje sklepe: ker na podlagi prava Skupnosti ne obstaja pravica do uporabe ničelne davčne stopnje, ampak pravica obstaja v skladu z
13 — 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).
13 – Prva direktiva Sveta 67/227/EGS z dne 11. aprila 1967 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih (UL 1967, 71, str. 1301).
With effect from 1 January 2007, Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p.
S 1. januarjem 2007 je Direktiva Sveta 2006/112/ES z dne 28. novembra 2006 o skupnem sistemu davka na dodano vrednost (UL L 347, str.
1) replaced the First VAT Directive.
1) nadomestila Prvo direktivo o DDV.
Having regard to its predecessor provision, Article 1(1) of Directive 2006/112 reads: ‘This Directive establishes the common system of value added tax (VAT).’
Njen člen 1(1), ki se navezuje na predhodno določbo, določa: „S to direktivo se vzpostavlja skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost (DDV).“
MARKS & SPENCER the Member States avail themselves fully of that discretion and those derogations, they still remain within the scope of the Directive. outset that a comprehensive system of VAT was to be introduced, even though the VAT rates and exemptions in force at that time were not harmonised: 14
MARKS & SPENCER davka na dodano vrednost, čeprav stopnje in oprostitve davka na dodano vrednost tedaj niso bile usklajene: 14 26.
‘Member States shall replace their present system of turnover taxes by the common system of value added tax defined in Article 2.’
„Države članice nadomestijo svoj sedanji sistem prometnih davkov s skupnim sistemom davka na dodano vrednost, določenim v členu 2.“
Be that as it may, the common system of VAT still leaves the Member States a considerable degree of discretion and allows derogations and special provisions.
Skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost državam članicam sicer �e vedno prepu�ča določeno diskrecijsko pravico in dopu�ča odstopanja in posebna pravila.
Accordingly, the standard rate of VAT and the reduced rate or rates, in particular, have not been completely harmonised thus far.
Tako do zdaj zlasti splo�na stopnja davka na dodano vrednost in nižja ali nižje stopnje niso popolnoma usklajene.
What is more, the Member States may set those rates themselves within certain margins.
Države članice lahko namreč te stopnje same določijo znotraj določenih razponov.
Even if of allowing certain particularly low rates, it probably would not have been necessary to mention the right to deduct input tax since claims to input tax deduction under the Directive are not usually affected, so long as the inputs correlate with outputs to which a reduced rate applies.
stijo določene posebno nizke davčne stopnje, potem omemba pravice do odbitka vstopnega davka verjetno ne bi bila potrebna. Kajti običajno pravice do odbitka vstopnega davka v skladu z direktivo ne zadeva, če so vstopne transakcije povezane z izstopnimi transakcijami, za katere se uporabi nižja stopnja.
However, in addition to the derogation from Article 12(3) of the Sixth Directive, a derogation should be permitted at the same time from Article 17(2) thereof, under which input tax may be deducted only in respect of goods and services used for the purposes of the taxable transactions of the taxable person.
Dopustilo naj se namreč ne bi le odstopanje od člena 12(3) Šeste direktive, ampak hkrati tudi od njenega člena 17(2), ki dopu�ča odbitek vstopnega davka le za storitve, ki se uporabljajo za namene obdavčljivih transakcij davčnega zavezanca.
As any reference to ‘taxable transactions’ can only really ever be in a notional sense when the zero rate of
Ker lahko pri uporabi ničelne stopnje kvečjemu navidezno govorimo o „obdavčljivih transakcijah“, je
15 — See Commission proposal of 29 June 1973 for a Sixth Council Directive on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, Bulletin of the European Communities, Supplement 11/73, p. 31.
15 – Glej predlog Komisije z dne 29. junija 1973 za Šesto direktivo Sveta o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih – Skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost: enotna osnova za odmero, Bilten Evropskih skupnosti, Dodatek 11/73, str. 31.
See, on the effect of applying the zero rate, my Opinion in Case C-251/05 Talacre Beach Caravan Sales [2006] ECR I-6269, points 22 and 23.
Glede učinka zero-ratinga glej moje sklepne predloge z dne 4. maja 2006 v zadevi Talacre Beach Caravan Sales (C-251/05, ZOdl., str. I-6269, točki 22 in 23).
Moreover, it would be contrary to the requirement to interpret exemptions narrowly 17if Article 28(2)(a) was construed more or less as a derogation for specific transactions.
Poleg tega bi bilo v nasprotju s pravilom, da se morajo izjeme razlagati ozko, 17če bi se člen 28(2)(a) razumel tako, da določene transakcije tako rekoč izvzema iz celotnega področja.
Even though, therefore, domestic rules that derogate in two respects from the Directive may be maintained, that does not mean that transactions to which those deroga- tions apply fall, as a whole, outside the scope of the Directive.
Četudi se torej lahko �e naprej uporabljajo nacionalne določbe, ki v dveh pogledih odstopajo od Direktive, to ne pomeni, da transakcije, za katere se uporabijo te oprostitve, skupno izpadejo iz področja uporabe direktive.
Rather, unless Article 28(2)(a) allows a derogation therefrom, all provisions of the Directive apply to those transactions, as do the general principles of law that Member States have to observe in their transposition and implementation. 16
Nasprotno veljajo vse določbe Direktive kot tudi splo�na pravna načela, ki jih morajo države članice upo�tevati pri prenosu in izvajanju, 16 tudi za te transakcije, kolikor člen 28(2)(a) ne dopu�ča odstopanja.
Outright exclusion from the scope of the Sixth Directive of the transactions taxed pursuant to a derogation under Article 28(2)(a) cannot be reconciled with the wording
Popolna izključitev transakcij, za katere se uporabi oprostitev v skladu s členom 28(2)(a), iz področja uporabe Šeste direktive, ni združljiva z besedilom določbe.
As I have already explained in my Opinion in Talacre Beach Caravan Sales, that conclusion is borne out by the condition contained in Article 28(2)(a), added to the Directive in 1992, that the exemptions permitted under that provision must be in accordance with Community law.
Kot sem že pojasnila v svojih predlogih v zadevi Talacre Beach, je ta trditev podkrepljena z dodatkom v členu 28(2)(a), ki je bil uveden leta 1992, da morajo biti oprostitve, ki jih dopu�ča ta določba, v skladu s pravom Skupnosti.
18Ultim-ately, however, that addition serves merely to provide clarification.
18Ta dodatek pa ima končno le pojasnitveni pomen.
The obligation to comply with Community law (including the additional provisions of the Sixth Directive itself) still exists irrespective of that condition.
Navezanost na pravo Skupnosti (skupaj z drugimi določbami same Šeste direktive) obstaja neodvisno od tega.
As to the periods to which the claims for refund relate, there is therefore no need to make a distinction between the periods before and after the passage cited was introduced.
Zato pri časovnih obdobjih, na katera se nana�ajo zahtevki za vračilo, tudi ni trebarazlikovati med časom pred uvedbo navedenega dela besedila in po njem.
17 — See, to that effect, the Opinion in Talacre Beach Caravan Sales (cited in footnote 15), point 17 with further references.
17 – K temu glej sklepne predloge v zadevi Talacre Beach Caravan Sales (navedeni v opombi 15, točka 17 in navedena sodna praksa).
See also, on exceptions under Article 28(3)(a) of the Sixth Directive, Case C-240/05 Eurodental [2006] ECR I-11479, paragraph 54.
Glede oprostitev v skladu s členom 28(3)(a) Šeste direktive glej tudi sodbo z dne 7. decembra 2006 v zadevi Eurodental (C-240/05, ZOdl., str. I-11479, točka 54).
MARKS & SPENCER Member States may, during the transitional period, continue to exempt certain activities which would otherwise be taxable under the Directive.
MARKS & SPENCER članicam v prehodnem obdobju omogoča, da določene transakcije, ki bi bile v skladu z Direktivo obdavčljive, �e naprej opro�čajo davka. 34.
That conclusion is also borne out in the judgment in Commission v France.
Ta sklep potrjuje tudi sodba Komisija proti Franciji.
In that judgment, the Court held that it was per- missible to maintain, pursuant to Article 28(2)(a), a specific reduced rate of 2.1% for reim- bursable medicinal products, whereas the supply of non-reimbursable medicinal products was subject to a rate of 5.5%, only in so far as it was consistent with the principle of fiscal neutrality inherent in the common system of VAT.
V njej je Sodi�če presodilo, da je ohranitev posebne 2,1-odstotne nižje davčne stopnje, ki se opira na člen 28(2)(a), za zdravila, za katera je možno nadomestilo stro�kov, ob sočasni veljavnosti 5,5-odstotne davčne stopnje za zdravila, za katera ni možno nadomestilo stro�kov, dopustna le tedaj, če ni v nasprotju z načelom davčne nevtralnosti, ki velja za skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost.
19 The Court did not therefore find itself prevented from having regard to that principle inherent in the common system of VAT as a result of France’s maintenance of an exemption provision under Article 28(2)(a).
19Sodi�če torej ni menilo, da bi bilo s tem, da je Francija �e naprej uporabljala izjemo v skladu s členom 28(2)(a), ovirano pri upo�tevanju tega načela, ki je neločljivo povezano s skupnim sistemom davka na dodano vrednost.