natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Milan VAT office appealed before the Commissione tributaria della Lombardia (Tax Court, Lombardy), which granted its appeals by judgements of 31 May and 17 November 1999, taking the view that, under the 1979 Decree, Amplifin had failed to comply with the condition stipulating the period for which share capital must be held in subsidiary companies and was not at that time entitled to submit the contested declarations.
Davčni urad za DDV iz Milana se je pritožil pri Commissione tributaria della Lombardia, ki je s sodbama z dne 31. maja in 17. novembra 1999 ugodila pritožbi in na podlagi dekreta iz leta 1979 menila, da družba Amplifin ni upo�tevala pogoja trajanja zadržanja kapitala hčerinskih družb ter zato ni bila upravičena predložiti spornih davčnih obračunov. Družbi Ampliscientifica in Amplifin sta vložili pritožbo pri Corte suprema di cassazione, ki je prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ti vpra�anji:
The first question is based on the premiss that the 1979 Decree, under which the reminders for VAT non-payment at issue in the main proceedings were issued, constitutes an implementation of the authority conferred on all Member States by the second subparagraph of Article 4(4) of the Sixth Directive to treat as a single taxable person for VAT purposes different persons who are established in the territory of the country but are legally independent where those persons are closely bound to one another by financial, economic and organisational links.
Prvo vpra�anje temelji na predpostavki, da dekret iz leta 1979, na podlagi katerega so bile izdane odločbe o DDV v postopku v glavni stvari, predstavlja izvedbo možnosti, priznane vsem državam članicam z drugim pododstavkom člena 4(4) Šeste direktive, da se več oseb s sedežem znotraj države, ki so pravno neodvisne, obravnava kot en zavezanec za DDV, ker so te osebe med seboj finančno, gospodarsko in organizacijsko tesno povezane.
In other words, the 1979 Decree is, at least in part, a measure transposing the second subparagraph of Article 4(4) of the Sixth Directive.
Z drugimi besedami, dekret iz leta 1979 naj bi bil vsaj delno ukrep za prenos drugega pododstavka člena 4(4) Šeste direktive.
It should be noted, first of all, as the very wording of that provision makes clear, that it can be implemented only after the Advisory Committee on VAT has been consulted.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, prvič, da je, kot izhaja iz samega besedila te določbe, to določbo mogoče uporabiti �ele po posvetovanju s svetovalnim odborom za DDV.
However, it is not disputed that, in the case of the 1979 Decree, the Italian Republic did not consult that committee.
Vendar ni dvoma, da v primeru dekreta iz leta 1979 Italijanska republika ni opravila navedenega posvetovanja.
It is to be observed, secondly, that the effect of implementing the scheme established in the second subparagraph of Article 4(4) of the Sixth Directive is that national legislation adopted on the basis of that provision allows persons, in particular companies, which are bound to one another by financial, economic and organisational links no longer to be treated as separate taxable persons for the purposes of VAT but to be treated as a single taxable person.
Opozoriti je treba, drugič, da se za prenos ureditve, določene z drugim pododstavkom člena 4(4) Šeste direktive, zahteva, da nacionalna ureditev, sprejeta na podlagi te določbe, omogoča, da se oseb, zlasti družb, ki so med seboj finančno, gospodarsko in organizacijsko povezane, ne �teje več za različne zavezance za DDV, zato da se jih lahko �teje za enega davčnega zavezanca.
Thus, where that provision is implemented by a Member State, the closely linked person or persons within the meaning of that
V tem smislu, kadar država članica uporabi navedeno določbo, subjekta ali subjektov, ki so pravno odvisni v smislu te določbe, ni mogoče �teti za davčnega zavezanca ali davčne zavezance v smislu
2008 — CASE C-162/07 provision cannot be treated as a taxable person or persons within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the Sixth Directive (see, to that effect, Case C-355/06 van der Steen [2007] ECR I-8863, paragraph 20).
2008 – ZADEVA C-162/07 člena 4(1) Šeste direktive (v tem smislu glej sodbo z dne 18. oktobra 2007 v zadevi van der Steen, C-355/06, ZOdl., str. I-8863, točka 20).
It follows that treatment as a single taxable person precludes persons who are thus closely linked from continuing to submit VAT declarations separately and from continuing to be identified, within and outside their group, as individual taxable persons, since the single taxable person alone is authorised to submit such declarations.
Iz tega izhaja, da enačitev z enim davčnim zavezancem izključuje možnost, da bi navedene pravno odvisne osebe �e naprej ločeno predložile obračun DDV in se znotraj in zunaj njihove skupine identificirale kot davčni zavezanci, ker lahko le en davčni zavezanec predloži navedene davčne obračune.
The second subparagraph of Article 4(4) of the Sixth Directive therefore necessarily requires, where that provision is implemented by a Member State, the national implementing legislation to provide that the taxable person is a single taxable person and that a single VAT number be allocated to the group.
Drugi pododstavek člena 4(4) Šeste direktive torej nujno predpostavlja, da v primeru, da ga država članica uporabi, nacionalna ureditev, sprejeta zaradi prenosa, določi, da je za davek zavezan zgolj en subjekt in da se skupini dodeli le ena �tevilka DDV.
The fact that express reference was made in the Sixth Directive to an individual VAT identification number only after the introduction of Article 28h of that directive, which forms the basis of the new Article 22(1)(c) to (e) of the directive, by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991 (OJ 1991 L 376, p.
V zvezi s tem je treba pojasniti, da okoli�čina, da je v Šesti direktivi izrecno sklicevanje na eno samo �tevilko DDV opravljeno le v uvodu člena 28h navedene direktive, na podlagi katerega je bil z Direktivo Sveta 91/680/EGS z dne 16. decembra 1991 (UL L 376, str.
1), namely after the tax years in question in the main proceedings, can have no bearing on the foregoing consideration, since the use of such a number is dictated by the need, both for the economic operators and the tax authorities of the Member States, to identify with a degree of certainty those effecting transactions subject to VAT.
1) oblikovan novi člen 22(1), od c do e, torej �ele po zadevnih davčnih obdobjih, ki so predmet postopka v glavni stvari, nima vpliva na prej�nje ugotovitve, ker sklicevanje na to �tevilko tako za gospodarske subjekte kot za davčne službe držav članic izhaja iz potrebe, da z gotovostjo identificirajo tiste, ki opravljajo dejavnosti, za katere se plača DDV.
The clarifications brought about by Article 28h thus simply confirm a pre-existing rule that is integral to the proper functioning of the common system of VAT.
Pojasnila, ki izhajajo iz navedenega člena 28h, le potrjujejo prej obstoječe pravilo, ki je neločljivo povezano z dobrim delovanjem skupnega sistema DDV.
The transposition of the second subparagraph of Article 4(4) of the Sixth Directive must therefore be distinguished from the setting up of a mechanism to simplify VAT declarations and payments which enables, inter alia, companies within the same group to remain separate taxable persons, even where VAT may be consolidated in the accounts of the parent company.
Prenos drugega pododstavka člena 4(4) Šeste direktive je zato treba razlikovati od uvedbe instrumenta davčnega obračuna in poenostavljenega plačila DDV, ki družbam iste skupine omogoča zlasti to, da ostanejo ločeni davčni zavezanci, čeprav se lahko DDV združi v računovodskih zapisih matične družbe.
It is in the light of those considerations and of the view expressed by the Italian Government at the hearing and in its letter of 24 July 2003 to the Commission in the context of infringement proceeding No 2002/5456 that the 1979 Decree does not constitute a measure transposing the second subparagraph of Article 4(4) of the Sixth Directive that the Corte Suprema di Cassazione must determine whether the national legislation applicable to the contested declarations satisfies the criteria referred to at paragraphs 19 and 20 above.
Ob upo�tevanju teh ugotovitev in mnenja, ki ga je predstavila italijanska vlada na obravnavi in v dopisu z dne 24. julija 2003, naslovljenem na Komisijo, v okviru postopka za ugotavljanje kr�itev �t.
It must be stressed that, should that be the case, such legislation would have been adopted in breach of the procedural requirement laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 4(4) of the Sixth Directive, namely consultation of the Advisory Committee on VAT.
2002/5456, v skladu s katerim dekret iz leta 1979 ni ukrep prenosa drugega pododstavka člena 4(4) Šeste direktive, bo moralo predložitveno sodi�če ugotoviti, ali nacionalna ureditev, ki se uporablja za sporne davčne obračune, ustreza merilom, navedenim v točkah 19 in 20 te sodbe, pri čemer je treba poudariti, da če je tako, ta določba pomeni prenos, izvr�en s kr�itvijo postopkovnih zahtev iz drugega pododstavka člena 4(4) Šeste direktive, in sicer posvetovanja s svetovalnim odborom za DDV.
The answer to the first question must therefore be that the second subparagraph of Article 4(4) of the Sixth Directive is a provision which, in order to be implemented by a Member State, requires prior consultation by that State of the Advisory Committee on VAT and the adoption of national legislation authorising persons, in particular companies, established in the territory of the country who, while legally independent, are closely bound to one another by financial, economic and organisational links, no longer to be treated as separate taxable persons for the purposes of VAT in order to be treated as a single taxable person to whom a single VAT identification number is allocated and, accordingly, the sole person entitled to submit VAT declarations.
Na prvo vpra�anje je torej treba odgovoriti, da je drugi pododstavek člena 4(4) Šeste direktive predpis, katerega uporaba s strani države članice predpostavlja njeno predhodno posvetovanje s svetovalnim odborom za DDV in sprejetje nacionalne ureditve, ki osebam, zlasti družbam, ki imajo sedež v državi in so pravno neodvisne, vendar med seboj finančno, gospodarsko in organizacijsko tesno povezane, omogoča, da se jih ne �teje več za različne zavezance za DDV, zato da bi se jih �telo za enega davčnega zavezanca, edinega imetnika posamične davčne �tevilke in zato edinega, ki lahko predloži davčni obračun za DDV.
It is for the national court to determine whether national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, satisfies those criteria, subject to the qualification that, where there has been no prior consultation of the Advisory Committee on VAT, national legislation which meets those criteria constitutes legislation adopted in breach of the procedural requirement laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 4(4) of the Sixth Directive.
Naloga nacionalnega sodi�ča je, da preveri, ali nacionalna ureditev, kot je v postopku v glavni stvari, ustreza tem merilom, pri čemer je treba navesti, da če ni bilo predhodnega posvetovanja s svetovalnim odborom za DDV, nacionalna ureditev, ki ustreza tem merilom, pomeni prenos, izvr�en s kr�itvijo postopkovnih zahtev iz drugega pododstavka člena 4(4) Šeste direktive.
In essence, the second question concerns whether the temporal restriction imposed by the 1979 Decree in order for a parent company or body to be able to make VAT
Drugo vpra�anje je, ali so s pogojem trajanja, določenim z dekretom iz leta 1979, zato da se matični družbi omogoči poenostavljen davčni obračun in plačilo DDV, ki ga
2008 — CASE C-162/07 declarations and payments in accordance with the simplified rules laid down in that provision is in breach of the principles of proportionality and fiscal neutrality and the rules against the abuse of rights.
2008 – ZADEVA C-162/07 uvaja, kr�ena načela sorazmernosti in prepovedi zlorabe prava ter davčne nevtralnosti.
In order to qualify for that provision, the parent company or body must have held more than 50% of the share capital or stock of the persons with whom it is closely linked, such as subsidiary companies, since at least the beginning of the calendar year preceding that in which the declaration is made.
Za možnost uporabe teh ugodnosti mora imeti matična družba več kot 50 % delnic ali deležev pravno odvisnih oseb, kot so hčerinske družbe, najpozneje od začetka koledarskega leta pred letom davčnega obračuna.
As regards, first, the principle of fiscal neutrality, it is a fundamental principle of the common system of VAT (see, inter alia, Case C-454/98 Schmeink & Cofreth and Strobel [2000] ECR I-6973, paragraph 59) which precludes, on the one hand, treating similar goods, which are thus in competition with each other, differently for VAT purposes (Case C-283/95 Fischer [1998] ECR I-3369, paragraphs 21 and 27, and Case C-481/98 Commission v France [2001] ECR I-3369, paragraph 22) and, on the other, treating similar economic transactions, which are therefore in competition with each other, differently for VAT purposes (Case C-109/02 Commission v Germany [2003] ECR I-12691, paragraph 20; Case C-382/02 Cimber Air [2004] ECR I-8379, paragraph 24; and Case C-97/06 Navicon [2007] ECR I-8755. paragraph 21). 26
Prvič, glede načela davčne nevtralnosti je treba opozoriti, da to načelo, ki je splo�no načelo skupnega sistema o DDV (glej zlasti sodbo z dne 19. septembra 2000 v zadevi Schmeink & Cofreth in Strobel, C-454/98, Recueil, str. I-6973, točka 59), nasprotuje temu, da bi se podobno blago, ki je torej v medsebojni konkurenci, obravnavalo različno z vidika DDV (sodbi z dne 11. junija 1998 v zadevi Fischer, C-283/95, Recueil, str. I-3369, točki 21 in 27, ter z dne 3. maja 2001 v zadevi Komisija proti Franciji, C-481/98, Recueil, str. I-3369, točka 22), in temu, da bi se podobne gospodarske storitve, ki so v medsebojni konkurenci, obravnavale različno z vidika DDV (sodbe z dne 23. oktobra 2003 v zadevi Komisija proti Nemčiji, C-109/02, Recueil, str. I-12691, točka 20; z dne 16. septembra 2004 v zadevi Cimber Air, C-382/02, ZOdl., str. I-8379, točka 24, in z dne 18. oktobra 2007 v zadevi Navicon, C-97/06, ZOdl., str. I-8755, točka 21). 26
National legislation which simply treats taxable persons wishing to opt for a mechanism to simplify VAT declarations and payments differently according to whether the persons in question have had a link established by a specific holding in the capital of a subsidiary for a longer or shorter period than that referred to at paragraph 24 above applies to all economic operators equally, regardless of whether they are competing with each other in connection with their operations or their goods.
Vendar bi se nacionalna ureditev, ki različno obravnava davčne zavezance, ki želijo izbrati poenostavljen način davčnega obračuna in plačila DDV, v odvisnosti od tega, ali med zadevnimi osebami obstaja določena vez v obliki kapitala kraj�i ali dalj�i čas, kot je naveden v točki 24 te sodbe, uporabljala enako za vse gospodarske subjekte ne glede na to, ali so njihove dejavnosti ali njihovi proizvodi med seboj konkurenčni.
The principle of fiscal neutrality does not preclude such legislation, which makes a distinction that is objectively justified in order that the economic reality underlying a legal transaction may be established so that recourse may be had to simplified VAT declaration and
Načelo davčne nevtralnosti ne nasprotuje tovrstni ureditvi, ki upravičeno uvaja objektivno razlikovanje za preučitev gospodarske realnosti pravne operacije, kar
AMPLISCIENTIFICA AND AMPLIFIN payment procedures.
AMPLISCIENTIFICA IN AMPLIFIN omogoča uporabo poenostavljenega davčnega obračuna plačila DDV.
As was observed at paragraph 22 above, it is for the referring court to determine whether the national legislation applicable to the contested declarations constitutes such a provision.
Kot je navedeno v točki 22 te sodbe, je naloga predložitvenega sodi�ča, da ugotovi, ali nacionalna ureditev, ki se uporablja za sporne davčne obračune, pomeni tako ureditev.
Next, the principle prohibiting the abuse of rights is intended to ensure, particularly in the field of VAT, that Community legislation is not extended to cover abusive practices by economic operators, that is to say transactions carried out not in the context of normal commercial operations, but solely for the purpose of wrongfully obtaining advantages provided for by Community law (Case C-255/02 Halifax [2006] ECR I-1609, paragraphs 69 and 70).
Opozoriti je treba, da je načelo prepovedi zlorabe zlasti na področju DDV usmerjeno k temu, da zakonodaja Skupnosti ne bi bila tako obsežna, da bi zajela zlorabe gospodarskih subjektov, torej transakcije, ki se ne izvedejo v okviru normalnih komercialnih transakcij, ampak zgolj z namenom zlorabne pridobitve ugodnosti, predvidene s pravom Skupnosti (sodba z dne 21. februarja 2006 v zadevi Halifax in drugi, C-255/02, ZOdl., str. I-1609, točki 69 in 70).
The effect of that principle is therefore to prohibit wholly artificial arrangements which do not reflect economic reality and are set up with the sole aim of obtaining a tax advantage (see, to that effect, Case C-196/04 Cadbury Schweppes and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas [2006] ECR I-7995, paragraph 55).
To načelo tako vodi do prepovedi nastanka popolnoma umetnih konstrukcij brez gospodarske realnosti, izvr�enih zgolj z namenom pridobitve davčne ugodnosti (v tem smislu glej sodbo z dne 12. septembra 2006 v zadevi Cadbury Schweppes in Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, C-196/04, ZOdl., str. I-7995, točka 55).
Moreover, preventing possible tax evasion, avoidance and abuse is an objective recognised and encouraged by the Sixth Directive (Halifax, paragraph 71).
Poleg tega je treba poudariti, da je boj proti davčnim utajam, davčnemu izogibanju in možnim zlorabam cilj, ki ga Šesta direktiva priznava in spodbuja (zgoraj navedena sodba Halifax in drugi, točka 71).
Clearly, national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires economic operators to demonstrate, by means of a certain continuity in their activities and operations, that recourse to a mechanism to simplify VAT declarations and payments is not simply motivated by the intention to obtain a tax advantage, inter alia by entering a VAT debit or credit in the accounts of the parent company
Glede tega je treba ugotoviti, da nacionalna ureditev, kot je v postopku v glavni stvari – ki zahteva, da gospodarski subjekti z določeno kontinuiteto svoje dejavnosti dokažejo, da poenostavljenega davčnega obračuna in plačila DDV ne želijo uporabiti zgolj z namenom pridobitve davčne ugodnosti, torej da bi v računovodskih zapisih matične družbe prikazali dolg ali dobroimetje DDV, kar bi privedlo v prvem primeru
2008 — CASE C-162/07 or body, which would have the effect, in the first case, of reducing its taxable income and, in the second, of securing it an immediate tax credit, but is the result of a more longterm economic decision, is not contrary to the principle prohibiting the abuse of rights.
2008 – ZADEVA C-162/07 do zmanj�anja obdavčljivega dobička in v drugem do dodelitve takoj�njega dobroimetja v razmerju do davčne uprave, ampak z namenom gospodarske izbire na dalj�i rok –, ne kr�i načela prepovedi zlorabe prava.
Lastly, as regards the principle of proportionality, national legislation which, in the same way as the 1979 Decree, lays down a timelimit of between one and two years in order for taxpayers to be able to make VAT declarations and payments in accordance with simplified procedures is, in the light of the objective of combating tax evasion and bogus legal arrangements, consistent with the principle of proportionality.
Glede načela sorazmernosti je treba ugotoviti, da nacionalna ureditev, ki tako kot dekret iz leta 1979 določa obdobje od enega do dveh let za to, da bi davčni zavezanci lahko uporabljali poenostavljen davčni obračun in plačilo DDV, glede na cilj boja proti davčnim utajam in fiktivnim pravnim konstrukcijam spo�tuje načelo sorazmernosti. V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da bi posledica neobstoja pogoja trajanja lahko bila dopustitev nastanka določenih dejavnosti, ki bi upravičile ustanovitev ad hoc pravnih struktur.
The answer to the second question must therefore be that the principle of fiscal neutrality does not preclude national legislation which simply treats taxable persons wishing to opt for a mechanism to simplify VAT declarations and payments differently according to whether the parent company or body has held more than 50% of the share capital or stock of the persons with whom it is closely linked since at least the beginning of the calendar year preceding that in which the declaration was made or, on the contrary, satisfies those conditions only after that date.
Na drugo vpra�anje je torej treba odgovoriti, da načelo davčne nevtralnosti ne nasprotuje nacionalni ureditvi, ki različno obravnava davčne zavezance, ki želijo izbrati poenostavljen davčni obračun in plačilo DDV, v odvisnosti od tega, ali ima matična družba več kot 50 % delnic ali deležev pravno odvisnih oseb najpozneje od začetka koledarskega leta pred letom davčnega obračuna, ali pa izpolni te zahteve �ele po tem datumu.
It is for the national court to determine whether national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, constitutes such a provision.
Naloga nacionalnega sodi�ča je preveriti, ali nacionalna ureditev, kot je v postopku v glavni stvari, ustreza tem merilom.
The second subparagraph of Article 4(4) 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 is a provision which, in order to be implemented by a Member State, requires prior consultation by that State of the Advisory Committee on value added tax and the adoption of national legislation authorising persons, in particular companies, established in the territory of the country who, while legally independent, are closely bound to one another by financial, economic and organisational links, no longer to be treated as separate taxable persons for the purposes of value added tax in order to be treated as a single taxable person to whom a single value added tax identification number is allocated and, accordingly, the sole person entit- led to submit value added tax declarations.
Drugi pododstavek člena 4(4) Šeste direktive Sveta z dne 17. maja 1977 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih – Skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost: enotna osnova za odmero je predpis, katerega uporaba s strani države članice predpostavlja njeno predhodno posvetovanje s svetovalnim odborom za DDV in sprejetje nacionalne ureditve, ki osebam, zlasti družbam, ki imajo sedež v državi in so pravno neodvisne, vendar med seboj finančno, gospodarsko in organizacijsko tesno povezane, omogoča, da se jih ne šteje več za različne zavezance za DDV, zato da bi se jih štelo za enega davčnega zavezanca, edinega imetnika posamične davčne številke in zato edinega, ki lahko predloži davčni obračun za DDV.
It is for the national court to determine whether national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, satisfies those criteria, subject to the qualification that, where there has been no prior consultation of the Advisory Committee on value added tax, national legislation which meets those criteria constitutes legislation adopted in breach of the procedural requirement laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 4(4) of Sixth Directive 77/388.
Naloga nacionalnega sodišča je, da preveri, ali nacionalna ureditev, kot je v postopku v glavni stvari, ustreza tem merilom, pri čemer je treba navesti, da če ni bilo predhodnega posvetovanja s svetovalnim odborom za DDV, nacionalna ureditev, ki ustreza tem merilom, pomeni prenos, izvršen s kršitvijo postopkovnih zahtev iz drugega pododstavka člena 4(4) Šeste direktive Sveta 77/388/EGS.