natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Moreover, allocating the burden of proof in that way does not appear to run counter to the abovementioned judgment in Commission v Belgium, in which the data produced by the Belgium Government — and unsuccessfully challenged by the Commission — bore out the fact that the different VAT rates applied to wine and beer were largely neutral in terms of the competitive relationship between the products, invalidating the Commission’s argument concerning a possible protectionist effect of the tax system applicable to them.
Take porazdelitve dokaznega bremena ne omaja niti zgoraj navedena sodba Komisija proti Belgiji, v kateri so podatki, ki jih je pripravila belgijska vlada, in ki jih je Komisija neuspe�no izpodbijala, omogočili ugotovitev nevtralnosti različnih stopenj DDV, ki sta se uporabljali za vino in za pivo, za konkurenčno razmerje med navedenima proizvodoma, in tako zavrnitev teze Komisije o možnem za�čitnem učinku davčne ureditve, ki je veljala za proizvoda.
In the present case, are there sufficient indicators to raise a presumption that the tax arrangements at issue are protectionist in nature?
Ali v obravnavani zadevi obstajajo zadostni indici za domnevo o za�čitnem učinku izpodbijane davčne ureditve?
Let us start by reviewing the features of those arrangements.
Začnimo s preizkusom lastnosti te ureditve.
As the Swedish Government has itself acknowledged, the 1997 tax
Kot je priznala tudi sama �vedska vlada, je davčna reforma leta 1997, s katero je bila za 40 odstotkov zmanj�ana stopnja tro�arin za pivo, spremenila davčno enakost,
It is then necessary to evaluate the difference in the taxation of the products at issue as a result of applying the system described
Drugič, presoditi je treba razliko pri obdavčitvi zadevnih proizvodov, do katere vodi uporaba zgoraj opisane davčne ureditve.
47 — See, for example, the case concerning the taxation of denatured alcohol in Italy: Case 46/80 Vinal [1981] ECR 77.
47 – Glej na primer zadevo, ki se nana�a na davčno obravnavanje denaturiranega alkohola v Italiji, sodba z dne 14. januarja 1981 v zadevi Vinal (46/80, Recueil, str. 77).
49 — According to the Swedish Government.
49 – V skladu s tem, kar je navedla sama tožena vlada.
48 — I must make it clear that this does not imply a reversal of the burden of proof, since it is in any event incumbent on the Commission to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate prima facie the existence of a protectionist effect.
48 – Pojasniti želim, da se na tak način dokazno breme ne obrne, saj je vendar naloga Komisije, da predloži zadostne dokaze za utemeljitev prima facie obstoja za�čitnega učinka.
50 — The case-file does not indicate whether the method of calculation was the same for both wine and beer before the change came into force in 1997.
50 – Iz spisa ni razvidno, ali je bil način izračunavanja tro�arin za pivo in za vino pred spremembo, uvedeno leta 1997, isti.
As I had occasion to point out earlier, 51a comparison of the fiscal burden to which wine and beer are respectively subject shows that, whatever the criterion for comparison that is used (volume, alcoholic strength or product price), those categories of wine which are in competition with beer are subject to a significantly higher rate of excise duty than applies to beer.
Torej, kot je že bilo ugotovljeno, 51primer-java davčnega bremena, ki velja za vino oz. pivo, pokaže, ne glede na primerjalno merilo, ki se upo�teva (količina, odstotek alkohola ali cena proizvodov), da za kategorije vina, ki so v konkurenci s pivom, veljajo izrazito vi�je tro�arine glede na tro�arine, ki se uporabljajo za pivo.
In those circumstances, I consider that there is sufficient evidence in the present case to conclude that the tax system at issue is likely to affect the potential consumption of wine, which is mainly imported from other Member States, and place that product at a disadvantage as compared with beer, which is essentially a domestic product, inasmuch as the latter ‘constitutes the most relevant reference criterion from the point of view of competition’.
V teh okoli�činah menim, da v tej zadevi obstajajo zadostni dokazi za to, da �teje, da zadevna davčna ureditev lahko potencialno vpliva na potro�njo vina in ta proizvod, pretežno uvožen iz drugih držav članic, postavi v slab�i položaj od piva, proizvedenega predvsem na Švedskem, saj ta davčna ureditev „ustvarja najbližjo [referenco] z vidika konkurence“. 54Utemeljitve, ki jih je predstavila Kraljevina Švedska, po mojem mnenju niso take, da bi omajale tak sklep. Zato menim, da je tožbi treba ugoditi.
As far as the characteristics of the market are concerned, the sensitivity of Swedish consumers to the price variations that have resulted from the changes to the tax arrangements applicable to the products at issue is largely undisputed.
Glede lastnosti trga je občutljivost �vedskega potro�nika na spremembe cen, povzročene s spremembami davčne ureditve, ki velja za zadevne proizvode, v bistvu nesporna.
Furthermore, the comparison between the prices of the beverages in question, which has been made on the basis of the data provided by the Swedish Government, has not made it possible to rule out the possibility that the difference in the taxation of the beverages may affect competition.
Poleg tega primerjava cen zadevnih pijač, opravljena na temelju podatkov, ki jih je predložila �vedska vlada, ni omogočila izključitve morebitnega vpliva različne obdavčitve, ki velja za navedene pijače, na konkurenco.
52And, of themselves, the statistics which the Swedish Government has supplied, indicating that, between 1996 and 2003, in percentage terms, sales of wine recorded a greater increase than sales of beer, do not constitute evidence that the tax system at issue has no protectionist effect. 53
52Niti statistični podatki, ki jih je pripravila �vedska vlada in iz katerih izhaja, da je med letoma 1996 in 2003 prodaja vina narasla za večji odstotek od prodaje piva, sami po sebi niso dokaz neobstoja za�čitnega učinka obravnavane davčne ureditve. 53
Pursuant to Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for by the successful party.
V skladu s členom 69(2) Poslovnika se neuspeli stranki naloži plačilo stro�kov, če so bili ti prigla�eni.
In the light of the conclusions that I have reached in relation to the unsuccessful arguments of the Kingdom of Sweden, and since the Commission applied for costs to be awarded against the Kingdom of Sweden, I consider that the Kingdom of Sweden should be ordered to pay the costs.
Ob upo�tevanju svojih sklepov v zvezi z neuspehom Kraljevine Švedske in predlogov Komisije glede naložitve stro�kov menim, da je treba Kraljevini Švedski naložiti plačilo stro�kov.
51 — See points 52 to 56 above.52 — See points 63 to 73 above.53 — See Case 168/78, cited above.
54 – V tem smislu glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo z dne 12. julija 1983 Komisija proti Združenemu kraljestvu, točka 27.
54 — See, to that effect, Case 170/78, cited above, paragraph 27.
51 – Glej točke od 52 do 56.52 – Glej točke od 63 do 73.53 – Glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Komisija proti Franciji, 168/78.
COMMISSION v SWEDEN
KOMISIJA PROTI ŠVEDSKI skladu z odstavkom 4 navedenega člena 69.
In accordance with Article 69(4), the Republic of Latvia, which has intervened in this case, should be ordered to bear its own costs.
Republika Latvija, intervenientka v okviru tega postopka, nosi svoje stro�ke v
In the light of all of the foregoing, I propose that the Court should:
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenih ugotovitev Sodi�ču predlagam, naj:
— declare that the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second paragraph of Article 90 EC by applying to wines in competition with beer a rate of excise duty that is comparatively higher than the duty levied on beer;
– ugotovi, da Kraljevina Švedska s tem, da je za vina, ki so v konkurenci s pivom, določila sorazmerno vi�jo tro�arino od tiste, ki je naložena za pivo, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz člena 90, drugi odstavek, ES;
— order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs;
– Kraljevini Švedski naloži plačilo stro�kov;
JUDGMENT OF 8. 4.
SODBA Z DNE 8. 4.
2008 — CASE C-167/05
2008 – ZADEVA C-167/05
8 April 2008 *
SODBA SODIŠČA (veliki senat) z dne 8. aprila 2008 *
In Case C-167/05,
V zadevi C-167/05, zaradi tožbe zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti na podlagi člena 226 ES, vložene 14. aprila 2005,
* Language of the case: Swedish.
* Jezik postopka: �ved�čina.
COMMISSION v SWEDEN supported by:
KOMISIJA PROTI ŠVEDSKI ob intervenciji
Advocate General: P. Mengozzi, Registrar: C. Strömholm, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 8 May 2007, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 18 July 2007,
Strömholm, administratorka, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 8. maja 2007, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca na obravnavi 18. julija 2007
2008 — CASE C-167/05 gives the following
2008 – ZADEVA C-167/05 izreka naslednjo
By its application, the Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should declare that the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second paragraph of Article 90 EC, by imposing internal taxes of such a nature as to afford indirect protection to beer, which is mainly produced in Sweden, as compared with wine, which is mainly imported from other Member States.
Komisija Evropskih skupnosti s tožbo predlaga Sodi�ču, naj ugotovi, da Kraljevina Švedska z uporabo notranjega davka, ki posredno �čiti pivo, proizvedeno predvsem na Švedskem, v primerjavi z vinom, uvoženim pretežno iz drugih držav članic, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz člena 90, drugi odstavek, ES.
Paragraph 2 of the lagen om alkoholskatt states as follows:
Člen 2 zakona o tro�arinah za alkoholne pijače določa:
‘Excise duty shall be payable on beer under [Combined Nomenclature] Heading 2203 if its alcoholic strength exceeds 0.5% vol.
„Tro�arine za pivo iz razreda 2203 se plačajo, če alkoholna stopnja tega piva presega 0,5 vol. % alkohola.
Excise duty must also be paid on products containing a mixture of beer and nonalcoholic beverages under [CN] Heading 2206 if the alcoholic strength of the mixture exceeds 0.5% vol.
Tro�arine je treba plačati tudi za proizvode, ki vsebujejo me�anico piva in brezalkoholnih pijač iz razreda 2206, če alkoholna stopnja te me�anice presega 0,5 vol. % alkohola.
Excise duty per litre is payable at the rate of [SEK] 1.47 per percentage of alcohol by volume.
Tro�arina za liter zna�a 1,47 �vedske krone (SEK) na volumensko odstotno enoto.
Beers with a maximum alcoholic strength of 2.8% are exempt.’
Pivo z vsebnostjo alkohola največ 2,8 vol. % je opro�čeno tro�arine.“
Article 3 of that law is worded as follows:
Člen 3 istega zakona določa:
‘Excise duty shall be payable on wine under [CN] Headings 2204 and 2205 if the alcoholic strength is the result exclusively of fermentation and
„Tro�arine za vino iz razredov 2204 in 2205 se plačajo, če je vsebnost alkohola izključno posledica fermentacije in
1. if the alcoholic strength exceeds 1.2% vol. but is lower than or equal to 15%, or
1. če alkoholna stopnja presega 1,2 vol. % alkohola, vendar je nižja ali enaka 15 vol. %, ali
2. if the alcoholic strength exceeds 15% vol. but is lower than or equal to 18%, and if the wine is produced without additives.
2. če alkoholna stopnja presega 15 vol. % alkohola, vendar je nižja ali enaka 18 vol. %, in če vino ne vsebuje nobenega dodatka.
Excise duty shall be payable per litre: on beverages with an alcoholic strength higher than 2.25% vol. but lower than or equal to 4.5% vol., at a rate of [SEK] 7.58; on beverages with an alcoholic strength higher than 4.5% vol. but lower than or equal to 7% vol., at a rate of [SEK] 11.20; on beverages with an alcoholic strength higher than 7% vol. but lower than or equal to 8.5% vol., at a rate of [SEK] 15.41; on beverages with an alcoholic strength higher than 8.5% vol. but lower than or equal to 15% vol., at a rate of [SEK] 22.08; and on beverages with an alcoholic strength higher than 15% vol. but lower than or equal to 18% vol., at a rate of [SEK] 45.17.
Tro�arine za liter zna�ajo: za pijače z alkoholno stopnjo, vi�jo od 2,25 vol. % alkohola, vendar nižjo ali enako 4,5 vol. % alkohola, 7,58 [SEK]; za pijače z alkoholno stopnjo, vi�jo od 4,5 vol. % alkohola, vendar nižjo ali enako 7 vol. % alkohola, 11,20 [SEK]; za pijače z alkoholno stopnjo, vi�jo od 7 vol. % alkohola, vendar nižjo ali enako 8,5 vol. % alkohola, 15,41 [SEK]; za pijače z alkoholno stopnjo, vi�jo od 8,5 vol. % alkohola, vendar nižjo ali enako 15 vol. % alkohola, 22,08 [SEK] in za pijače z alkoholno stopnjo, vi�jo od 15 vol. % alkohola, vendar nižjo ali enako 18 vol. % alkohola, 45,17 [SEK].
Wines with a maximum alcoholic strength of 2.25% vol. are exempt.’
Vina z alkoholno stopnjo največ 2,25 % volumenskega odstotka alkohola so opro�čena tro�arine.“
Following complaints received regarding the Swedish rules governing excise duty on wine, allegedly discriminatory by comparison with those applicable to beer, the Commission examined the legislation in question and reached the conclusion that, contrary to the second paragraph of Article 90 EC, the Kingdom of Sweden was imposing internal taxes of such a nature as to afford indirect protection to beer, which is mainly produced in Sweden, to the detriment of wine, which is mainly imported from other Member States.
Komisija je zaradi pritožb, ki jih je prejela glede �vedske ureditve v zvezi s tro�arinami za vino – ki so domnevno diskriminatorne v primerjavi s tro�arinami za pivo – preučila zadevno ureditev in ugotovila, da Kraljevina Švedska uporablja notranje davke, ki posredno �čitijo pivo, proizvedeno predvsem na Švedskem, v �kodo vina, uvoženega pretežno iz drugih držav članic, s čimer kr�i člen 90, drugi odstavek, ES.
After giving the Kingdom of Sweden formal notice, by letters notified on 28 February 2000 and 1 July 2002, to submit its observations, the Commission issued a reasoned opinion and an additional reasoned opinion dated, respectively, 19 June 2001 and 7 July 2004.
Potem ko je Komisija to državo članico s pisnima opominoma, vročenima 28. februarja 2000 in 1. julija 2002 pozvala, naj predloži svoja stali�ča, je Komisija po teh obvestilih 19. junija 2001 izdala obrazloženo mnenje, 7. julija 2004 pa dopolnilno obrazloženo mnenje.
Since the Commission did not consider the legislative amendments introduced after 19 June 2001 by Laws 2001:517 and 2001:822 to be satisfactory and since the Kingdom of Sweden took the view that it was not required to accept the argument set out by the Commission in the additional reasoned opinion, the Commission decided to bring the present action.
Ker je Komisija menila, da poznej�e spremembe zakonodaje, opravljene 19. junija 2001 z zakonoma 2001:517 in 2001:822, niso zadostne, in ker je Kraljevina Švedska menila, da ji ni treba priznati trditve, ki jo je Komisija podala v dopolnilnem obrazloženem mnenju, se je odločila vložiti to tožbo.
— beer is mainly a domestic product and wine is mainly an imported product;
– pivo je predvsem nacionalni proizvod in vino pretežno uvoženi proizvod;
— the most commonly consumed wines, which are generally the lighter wines, share a sufficient number of characteristics with beer to constitute, for the consumer, a substitute for it, so that such wines may be considered to be in competition with beer for the purposes of the second paragraph of Article 90 EC;
– imajo vina, ki se jih največ porabi in ki so navadno cenej�a, s pivom dovolj skupnih značilnosti, da bi lahko za potro�nika predstavljala s pivom zamenljiv proizvod, tako da bi jih lahko �teli za pivu konkurenčne proizvode glede na člen 90, drugi odstavek, ES;
— there is a difference in the taxation by volume of beer and wine; and
– obstaja razlika pri obdavčitvi glede na volumenski odstotek alkohola med pivom in vinom in
— taxation can influence consumer behaviour.
– način obdavčenja lahko vpliva na vedenje potro�nikov.
Nevertheless, the Kingdom of Sweden qualifies the statements set out in the second and fifth indents above, asserting that beer and wine are only partly in competition and that taxation is only one of the factors likely to influence consumer behaviour.
Vendar pa Kraljevina Švedska navedbe iz zgoraj navedene druge in pete alinee razlaga nekoliko drugače. Ta država članica meni, da sta pivo in vino le deloma konkurenčna ter da je način obdavčevanja le eden od dejavnikov, ki lahko vplivajo na vedenje potro�nikov.
The Commission and the Kingdom of Sweden also agree that when the latter acceded to the European Union on 1 January 1995, the rate of duty applied, on the basis of alcoholic strength by volume, to strong beer — defined by Law 1994:1738 on alcohol (alkohollagen (1994:1738)) of 16 December 1994 (SFS 1994:1738) as beer of an alcoholic strength in excess of 3.5% vol. — and the rate of duty applied, on the basis of alcoholic strength, to wine of 11% vol. were almost identical.
Komisija in Kraljevina Švedska se prav tako strinjata, da je treba �teti, da sta bili ob vstopu te države članice v Evropsko unijo 1. januarja 1995 obdavčitev volumenskega odstotka alkohola močnega piva, ki je z zakonom 1994:1738 o alkoholnih pijačah (alkohollagen (1994:1738)) z dne 16. decembra 1994 (SFS 1994, �t. 1738) opredeljeno kot pivo, katerega vsebnost alkohola je vi�ja od 3,5 vol. % alkohola, ter obdavčitev volumenskega odstotka alkohola vina z vsebnostjo alkohola približno 11 vol. % skoraj popolnoma enaki.
With regard to that reduction, the Kingdom of Sweden states that its Government had found in 1996 that, because of the difference between Sweden and Denmark in terms of the taxation of beer, the crossborder trade in beer between those two Member States had reached such proportions that it was necessary to reduce the level at which beer was taxed in Sweden.
Kraljevina Švedska v zvezi s tem pojasnjuje, da je njena vlada leta 1996 ugotovila, da je prekomejno trgovanje s pivom z Dansko, glede na razliko pri obdavčitvi teh proizvodov v zadevnih dveh državah članicah, doseglo tak obseg, da je bilo potrebno zmanj�anje obdavčitve piva.
The Kingdom of Sweden states further that no crossborder trade in wine has grown up in parallel to that crossborder trade in beer, despite the fact that the wine is taxed much more heavily in Sweden than in Denmark.
Kraljevina Švedska �e pojasnjuje, da se za vino ni razvilo nikakr�no prekomejno trgovanje, ki bi bilo enako ugotovljenemu trgovanju s pivom, čeprav je �vedska obdavčitev, tudi za vino, precej vi�ja od danske obdavčitve.
Accordingly, in the view of the Kingdom of Sweden, there is no need to adjust the excise duty on wine, just as there was no reason to revise the rates of taxation applied to wine when the decision was taken to reduce the excise duty on beer.
Zato po mnenju te države članice nikakor ni treba spremeniti tro�arin za vino, in kadar je določeno zmanj�anje tro�arin za pivo, ni razloga za sočasno revizijo obdavčitve, ki velja za vino.
However, the Kingdom of Sweden adds
Vendar navedena država članica dodaja, da so bile tro�arine za vino, zaradi pritiska, ki ga je izvajala Komisija, od 1. decembra 2001 zmanj�ane za 18,8 % v skladu z zakonom
2008 — CASE C-167/05 that, following pressure brought to bear by the Commission, excise duty on wine was reduced by 18.8% with effect from 1 December 2001 pursuant to Law 2001:822, thereby restoring the former correspondence between the taxation level for strong beer and that for wine.
2001:822 in da je bilo razmerje, ki je pred tem obstajalo med obdavčitvijo močnega piva in vina, s tem zmanj�anjem ponovno vzpostavljeno.
Thus, the tax treatment of wine and the tax treatment of beer are now equivalent.
Tako naj bi bili obdavčitvi v prihodnje ekvivalentni.
In Sweden, the retail selling of wine, strong beer and spirits is a monopoly, responsibility for which has been entrusted to a company wholly owned by the Swedish State, Systembolaget AB (‘Systembolaget’).
Na Švedskem za prodajo vina, močnega piva in žganih pijač na drobno velja monopol, katerega vodenje je zaupano Systembolaget AB, delni�ki družbi, v kateri ima država stoodstotni delež (v nadaljevanju: Systembolaget).
According to the explanations provided by the Kingdom of Sweden, which have not been contradicted by the Commission, that monopoly system is Sweden’s main policy instrument in its campaign against alcoholism, being designed to channel the retail selling of alcoholic beverages so as to make sure that the age of consumers is checked and that the sales prohibitions in force are complied with, while ensuring that the products concerned are accessible.
Iz pojasnil, ki jih je podala Kraljevina Švedska in ki jim Komisija ni nasprotovala, izhaja, da ta sistem pomeni glavni instrument politike navedene države članice na področju boja zoper alkoholizem, katerega namen je nadzor prodaje alkoholnih pijač na drobno za zagotovitev nadzora starosti potro�nikov in spo�tovanja veljavnih prepovedi prodaje s hkratno zagotovitvijo dostopnosti zadevnih proizvodov.
The Commission submits that Swedish beer, the product which dominates sales of alcohol on the Swedish market, is subject to lower excise duty than the competing category of wine.
Komisija trdi, da so bile za �vedsko pivo, proizvod, ki prevladuje med prodanimi alkoholnimi pijačami na �vedskem trgu, uvedene manj�e tro�arine, kot za vino iz konkurenčnega razreda.
In its view, that difference in taxation influences consumer choice, in that the structure and characteristics of the tax arrangements in question reinforce the preference, claimed to be traditional, of Swedish consumers for beer.
Po njenem mnenju razlika pri obdavčitvi vpliva na izbiro potro�nika, ker naj bi struktura in lastnosti zadevne davčne ureditve �vedskega potro�nika spodbujale k dajanju prednosti – ki velja za zgodovinsko – pivu.
Such a situation is unfavourable to wine, which is mainly imported from other Member States, and consequently has a protective effect, prohibited under the second paragraph of Article 90 EC, in favour of beer, which is mainly produced in Sweden.
Tak položaj naj bi bil neugoden za vino, pretežno uvoženo iz drugih držav članic, ter naj bi zato, v korist piva, proizvedenega predvsem na Švedskem, pomenil varovalen učinek, ki je v skladu s členom 90, drugi odstavek, ES, prepovedan.
On analysing the thrust of the relevant Swedish tax provisions, the Commission submits that, despite a reduction in excise duty on wine with effect from 1 December
Komisija ob preučitvi strukture zadevnih �vedskih davčnih določb trdi, da kljub zmanj�anju tro�arin za vino od 1. decembra 2001 v skladu z zakonom 2001:822 za
2001 pursuant to Law 2001:822, not only does wine remain subject to higher excise duty than beer but in addition it is taxed progressively according to its alcoholic strength by volume, in accordance with the excise duty scales set out in the second subparagraph of Paragraph 3 of the alkohollagen.
KOMISIJA PROTI ŠVEDSKI ta proizvod �e vedno veljajo vi�je tro�arine kot za pivo, poleg tega pa je obdavčen progresivno glede na vsebnost alkohola, v skladu s stopnjo tro�arin določeno v členu 3, drugi odstavek, zakona o tro�arinah za alkoholne pijače.
Thus, the Commission points out, on a wine with an alcoholic strength of 12.5% vol. — which the Commission regards as normal — the excise duty applicable is SEK 1.77 per percentage of alcohol by volume, which differs by approximately 20% from the excise duty on beer (SEK 1.47 per percentage point of alcohol by volume).
Tako Komisija ugotavlja, da tro�arine za vino z vsebnostjo alkohola 12,5 vol. % alkohola – ki jo prikazuje kot običajno – zna�ajo 1,77 SEK na volumenski odstotek alkohola, kar pomeni razliko približno 20 % glede na tro�arine za pivo (1,47 SEK na volumenski odstotek alkohola).