natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
‘No Member State shall impose, directly or indirectly, on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of any kind in excess of that imposed directly or indirectly on similar domestic products.’
„Nobena država članica ne uvaja, neposredno ali posredno, kakr�nih koli notranjih davkov na izdelke drugih držav članic, ki bi bili vi�ji od davkov, uvedenih neposredno ali posredno na enakovrstne domače izdelke.“
Under the second paragraph of Article 90 EC:
Drugi odstavek določa:
In order to determine whether particular national tax arrangements are compatible with the prohibition under Article 90 EC on
Preverjanje združljivosti določene nacionalne davčne ureditve s prepovedjo diskriminatorne notranje obdavčitve iz člena 90 ES
14 — See, to that effect, Case 27/67 Fink-Frucht [1968] ECR 298.
14 – Glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 4. aprila 1968 v zadevi Fink-Frucht (27/67, Recueil, str. 327).
‘Furthermore, no Member State shall impose on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of such a nature as to afford indirect protection to other products.’
„Prav tako nobena država članica ne uvaja tak�nih notranjih davkov na izdelke drugih držav članic, s katerimi bi posredno za�čitila druge izdelke.“
COMMISSION v SWEDEN discriminatory internal taxation, a complex assessment, comprising several stages, is necessary.
KOMISIJA PROTI ŠVEDSKI zahteva zapleteno presojo, razčlenjeno v več faz.
the second paragraph of Article 90 EC, it is necessary to take into account ‘not only the present state of the market but also the possibilities for development within the context of free movement of goods at the Community level and the further potential for the substitution of products for one another which might be revealed by intensification of trade, so as fully to develop the complementary features of the economies of the Member States.’ 16
trgu, temveč tudi možnosti za razvoj v okviru prostega pretoka blaga na ravni Skupnosti in nove možnosti zamenljivosti med proizvodi, do katerih lahko pride zaradi povečanja trgovanja, tako da se polno uveljavi komplementarnost gospodarstev držav članic.“ 16
That assessment entails, above all, an investigation that will define the relationship that exists between the products — domestic and imported — covered by the arrangements at issue.
Ta presoja implicira predvsem raziskavo, da bi se opredelilo razmerje med nacionalnimi in uvoženimi izdelki, za katere velja zadevna ureditev.
Applying those factors, the Court has acknowledged the existence of a certain measure of mutual substitutability between wine and beer, as a consequence — according to the Court — of the fact that they are capable, to a certain extent, of meeting identical needs.
Na temelju teh elementov je Sodi�če priznalo obstoj „določene stopnje zamenljivosti“ med vinom in pivom, ki v skladu s tem, kar trdi Sodi�če, nastane zaradi njune primernosti za zadovoljitev, v določeni meri, istih potreb.
17That assessment, which the Court made in a case in which it was asked to rule on the compatibility of the arrangements in force in the United Kingdom for taxing wine, was confirmed in a subsequent judgment concerning the rates of VAT applied to wine and beer in Belgium. 18
17 Ta presoja, opravljena v okviru zadeve, v kateri je moralo Sodi�če odločiti o skladnosti davčne ureditve za vino, ki je veljala v Združenem kraljestvu, je bila potrjena s poznej�o sodbo v zvezi s stopnjami DDV, ki so za vino in pivo veljale v Belgiji. 18
The Court has also made clear that in order to establish whether a competitive relationship exists within the meaning of
V prvem odstavku člena 90 ES je navedeno razmerje izraženo kot podobnost med proizvodi, medtem ko se za uporabo drugega odstavka zahteva, v skladu s tem, kar je pojasnilo Sodi�če, obstoj konkurenčnega razmerja, ki je lahko le delno, posredno ali parcialno, da gre le za razmerje, ki ni le začasno, ampak trajno in izkazano. 15
In confirming that a competitive relationship exists between wine and beer, the Court did not neglect to point out the significant differences between the two products in terms of their qualitative features (first and foremost, the difference in alcoholic
Pri potrditvi obstoja konkurenčnega razmerja med vinom in pivom, je Sodi�če poudarilo pomembne razlike med tema dvema proizvodoma v zvezi s kvalitativnimi lastnostmi (najprej različen odstotek alkohola), načini proizvodnje (vino je v bistvu kmetijski proizvod in kot tak podvržen
16 — Case 170/78 Commission v United Kingdom [1980] ECR 417, paragraph 6.
16 – Sodba z dne 27. februarja 1980 v zadevi Komisija proti Združenemu kraljestvu (170/78, Recueil, str. 417, točka 6).
17 — Case 170/78, cited above, paragraph 14.
17 – Zgoraj navedena sodba z dne 27. februarja Komisija proti Združenemu kraljestvu, točka 14.
15 — Case 27/67, cited above.
15 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Fink-Frucht.
There is, however, a tendency in the caselaw of the Court to refrain from attaching excessive relevance to the distinction between the concepts of ‘similarity’ and ‘competition’, and to ‘generalise’ the assessment to be made pursuant to Article 90 EC.
V sodni praksi Sodi�ča pa obstaja nagnjenje k temu, da se razliki med pojmi „podobnost“ in „konkurenca“ ne prizna pretirano velikega pomena in da se „globalizira“ presojo, ki se opravi na temelju člena 90 ES.
In various judgments, the Court has refrained from classifying the products at issue as similar or in competition, and has merely acknowledged that they are at least potentially or indirectly in competition.
Sodi�če v več sodbah zadevnih proizvodov ni označilo za podobne ali konkurenčne, pri čemer se je omejilo na to, da je priznalo, da med njimi obstaja razmerje konkurence, ki je vsaj potencialno ali posredno.
For a more recent example, see Case C-230/89 Commission v Greece [1991] ECR I-1909.
Novej�e sodbe, glej na primer sodbo z dne 18. aprila 1991 v zadevi Komisija proti Grčiji (C-230/89, Recueil, str. I-1909).
18 — The Court held that the characteristics of the Belgian market were not such as to call into question the assessment made in relation to the British market. See Case 356/85, cited above, paragraph 11.
18 – Sodi�če je presodilo, da naj značilnosti belgijskega trga ne bi bile take, da bi lahko postavili pod vpra�aj presojo, opravljeno v zvezi s trgom Združenega kraljestva, glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Komisija proti Belgiji, točka 11.
strength), production methods (wine is essentially an agricultural product and, as such, subject to the vicissitudes of climate, whereas beer is largely an industrial product) and price structure.
tveganju, ki izvira iz klimatskih dejavnikov, medtem ko je pivo predvsem industrijski proizvod) in strukturami cen.
Those differences — as well as the fact that a great variety of wines exist, in terms of characteristics, quality and price — led the Court to consider that the competitive relationship between the beverages at issue that is material for the purposes of a fiscal comparison must be viewed as restricted, and to accept it solely for ‘those wines which are the most accessible to the public at large, that is to say, generally speaking, the lightest and least expensive varieties.’ 19
Ob upo�tevanju teh razlik, poleg zelo velike raznovrstnosti vin, glede na lastnosti, kvaliteto in ceno, je bilo Sodi�če prisiljeno omejiti konkurenčni odnos med zadevnimi pijačami, ki je pomemben za primerjavo na davčnem področju, in ga omejilo le za „�ir�i javnosti najdostopnej�a vina, ki so na splo�no lažja in cenej�a.“ 19
The first condition for the applicability of the second paragraph of Article 90 EC is therefore satisfied.
Prvi pogoj za uporabo člena 90, drugi odstavek, ES, je torej izpolnjen.
In the circumstances forming the subjectmatter of this case, it is common ground that wine is mainly an imported product, whereas beer is mainly a domestic product.
V predmetni zadevi med strankami ni sporno, da je vino proizvod, ki je pretežno uvožen, medtem ko je pivo predvsem nacionalni proizvod.
In order to ascertain whether a specific national fiscal provision is compatible with Article 90 EC, it is necessary next to compare the tax arrangements to which the products at issue are subject, in order to identify any difference in the taxation applicable to them and to determine the extent of that difference.
Preverjanje združljivosti določenega nacionalnega davčnega mehanizma s členom 90 ES zahteva, drugič, primerjavo davčnih ureditev, ki veljajo za zadevne proizvode, za določitev morebitne razlike pri obdavčitvi, ki se uporablja zanje, in vi�ine te obdavčitve.
If, as in the present case, the comparison is between products with characteristics that render them largely dissimilar, even though they may be in part interchangeable, it may, in certain cases, prove particularly difficult to identify the criteria that will facilitate a proper comparison.
Kadar so, kot v obravnavani zadevi, predmet navedene primerjave proizvodi, ki imajo lastnosti, zaradi katerih so v bistvu različni, pri čemer so delno zamenljivi, je lahko v določenih primerih posebno težko najti merila, ki bi omogočila pravilno primerjavo.
Furthermore, the Swedish Government raises no argument against the Commission’s claim that the Swedish market does not display features which would preclude recognition of a competitive relationship — of the kind the Court has already accepted — between wines in the cheaper bracket and strong beer, that is to say, products which have the largest percentage shares of the relevant markets.
Nadalje, tožena vlada ne izpodbija navedbe Komisije, v skladu s katero �vedski trg nima lastnosti, ki bi onemogočale priznanje konkurenčnega odnosa, kot je tisti, ki ga je Sodi�če že priznalo, med vini, ki spadajo v nižji cenovni razred, in močnim pivom, torej med proizvodi, ki imajo največji delež v odstotkih zadevnih trgov.
Although there are some differences of opinion between the parties when it comes to identifying the category of wines which is actually in competition with
Čeprav imajo stranke različna mnenja v zvezi z dolo-
19 — Case 170/78 Commission v United Kingdom [1983] ECR 2265, paragraph 12.
19 – Sodba z dne 12. julija 1983 v zadevi Komisija proti Združenemu kraljestvu (170/78, Recueil, str.
In its judgment on the arrangements for taxing wine in the United Kingdom, the
V sodbi o davčni ureditvi za vina v Združenem kraljestvu je Sodi�če ugotovilo, da naj
Court held that the most appropriate method for assessing the taxation relationship between beer and wine required a comparison of the tax burden by reference to three different factors: volume, alcoholic strength and product price. 20
KOMISIJA PROTI ŠVEDSKI bi najprimernej�a metoda za oceno razmerja obdavčitve med vinom in pivom temeljila na primerjavi davčnega bremena glede na tri različne dejavnike: količino, odstotek alkohola in ceno proizvodov. 20
As regards the difference in taxation by reference to alcoholic strength, a wine with an alcoholic strength of 12.5 % vol. is taxed by volume of alcohol at a rate some 20 % higher than beer (SEK 1.77 as compared with SEK 1.47), and a wine with an alcoholic strength of 11 % vol. at a rate some 36 % higher (SEK 2 as compared with SEK 1.47).
V zvezi z različnimi tro�arinami glede na odstotek alkohola, je vino z vsebnostjo alkohola 12,5 vol. % na volumenski odstotek alkohola obdavčeno približno za 20 % več kot pivo (1,77 �vedskih kron, v primerjavi z 1,47), in vino z vsebnostjo alkohola 11 vol. % približno za 36 % več (2 �vedski kroni, v primerjavi z 1,47).
A still lighter wine, with an alcoholic strength of 10 % vol., is taxed by volume of alcohol at a rate almost 50 % higher than beer.
Vino, ki je �e lažje, z vsebnostjo alkohola 10 vol. %, je na volumenski odstotek alkohola obdavčeno skoraj za 50 % več kot pivo.
It is scarcely necessary to point out that alcoholic strength is certainly the most pertinent assessment criterion in the present case, since it is used as the tax base for determining excise duty.
Jasno je, da v obravnavani zadevi stopnja alkohola zagotovo predstavlja pomembnej�e merilo, ker je bila sprejeta kot davčna osnova za določitev tro�arin.
If we compare the rates of taxation by reference to volume, 21 then given that the tax on a litre of beer of average alcoholic strength (5.2 % vol.) 22is SEK 7.64 23and the rate of tax on a litre of wine of alcoholic strength between 8.5 % vol. and 15 % vol. is SEK 22.08, then the rate at which wine is taxed by volume is approximately three 24times higher than that of beer.
Kar zadeva primerjavo stopenj obdavčitve glede na količino, 21zna�a tro�arina za liter piva s srednjo alkoholno stopnjo (5,2 vol. %) 22 7,64 SEK 23 in za liter vina z vsebnostjo alkohola, vi�jo od 8,5 vol. % in nižjo od 15 vol. %, 22,08 SEK, kar kaže, da je obdavčitev vina glede na količino trikrat 24 vi�ja od obdavčitve piva.
In the present case, that outcome is not particularly significant,
V obravnavani zadevi pa ta rezultat ni posebej pomemben, glede na to, da je razlika v obdavčitvi glede na količino, kadar se za davčno osnovo uporablja alkoholna stopnja, običajna.
20 — Case 170/78, cited above, paragraph 18.21 — Assuming identical volume for both beverages.
20 – Zgoraj navedena sodba z dne 12. julija 1983, Komisija proti Združenemu kraljestvu, točka 18.
22 — This is the alcoholic strength by volume to which both the Commission and the Swedish Government refer for beer.
22 – Gre za vsebnost alkohola, na katero se za pivo sklicujeta tako Komisija kot tudi �vedska vlada.
23 — Beer is taxed at the rate of SEK 1.47 per litre by volume of alcohol: 1.47 x 5.2 = 7.64.
23 – Pivo se obdavči v vi�ini 1,47 �vedskih kron na liter, pomnoženo z volumenskim odstotkom alkohola: 1,47 x 5,2 = 7,64.
It is more difficult to make a comparative assessment of the effect of the tax on the final price of the products at issue.
Težja je primerjalna presoja vpliva obdavčitve na končno ceno zadevnih proizvodov. Razlog za to težavo je nesoglasje strank glede cen, ki jih je treba upo�tevati pri izračunu.
According to the Commission, which is relying on the official Systembolaget statistics, the relevant price bracket — which covers some 79 % of wine sales — ranges from SEK 41 to SEK 70 for a 75cl bottle (from SEK 55 to SEK 93 per litre).
Po mnenju Komisije, ki se opira na uradne statistike družbe Systembolaget, je cenovni razred, v katerem se opravi približno 79 % prodaje, med 41 in 70 SEK za steklenico 0,75 l (med 55 in 93 SEK na liter).
The average price to the consumer of a litre of wine with an alcoholic strength of 12.5 % vol. is stated to be SEK 65.33, whereas the average price to the consumer of a litre of
Povprečna cena na porabo enega litra vina z vsebnostjo alkohola 12,5 vol. % naj bi bila 65,33 SEK, medtem ko naj bi bila povprečna cena na porabo enega litra piva z vsebnostjo alkohola 5,2 vol. % 30,33 SEK.
In order to determine whether national tax arrangements are compatible with the prohibition under Article 90 EC, it is lastly necessary to show that the arrangements are discriminatory in nature.
Preverjanje združljivosti določene nacionalne davčne ureditve s prepovedjo iz člena 90 ES nazadnje zahteva dokaz o diskriminatornem značaju te ureditve.
In that regard, the Court has made clear that, so far as the first paragraph of Article 90 EC is concerned, discrimination results automatically from the difference in taxation, since, in the case of similar products which are broadly comparable, the prohibition laid down in that provision applies as soon as an imported product is taxed more heavily than a domestic product.
V zvezi s tem je Sodi�če pojasnilo, da se glede prvega odstavka člena 90 ES diskriminatoren značaj kaže že v razliki pri davčnem obravnavanju, ker – glede na to, da gre za podobne proizvode, ki so v veliki meri primerljivi – prepoved, določena v navedeni določbi, velja od trenutka, ko davčni sistem bolj obremeni uvoženi proizvod od nacionalnega.
However, as regards the second paragraph of Article 90 EC, given the difficulty in making a sufficiently precise comparison of the products at issue, that assessment must, according to the Court, be conducted on the basis of a more general criterion, that is to say, the indirectly protectionist nature of the fiscal provision at issue. 27 beer with an alcoholic strength of 5.2 % vol. is SEK 30.33.
V primeru drugega odstavka pa je treba, ob upo�tevanju težavnosti določitve dovolj jasne primerjave med zadevnimi proizvodi, po mnenju Sodi�ča presojo opraviti na podlagi bolj globalnega merila, in sicer posredno za�čitnega značaja obravnavanega davčnega mehanizma. 27
25 — That price is derived from the average of the prices of the 22 wines, purchased in bottles or wine boxes, which are most widely sold in the price bracket ranging from SEK 61 to SEK 70, which accounts for the bulk of sales.
25 – Ta cena naj bi izhajala iz povprečja cen za 22 vin, prodajanih v steklenicah ali kartonskih embalažah, ki so najbolj prodajana v cenovnem razredu med 61 in 70 �vedskimi kronami, v katerem je opravljena večina prodaje.
27 — Case 170/78, cited above, paragraph 9, see also the earlier judgment in Case 27/67, cited above.
27 – Zgoraj navedena sodba z dne 27. februarja 1980 Komisija proti Združenemu kraljestvu, točka 9.
However, the tendency within the caselaw to ‘generalise’ the assessment under Article 90 EC, without making a clear distinction between the application of the first or second paragraph thereof (see footnote 15 above) means that the protectionist effect of the tax arrangements at issue is regarded as the main criterion for determining whether that provision has been infringed.
Glej pred tem zgoraj navedeno sodbo Fink-Frucht. Vendar pa usmerjenost sodne prakse k „globalizaciji“ presoje na podlagi člena 90 ES, brez jasnega razlikovanja med uporabo prvega ali drugega odstavka (glej zgoraj opombo 15), vodi do upo�tevanja za�čitnega učinka sporne davčne ureditve kot prevladujočega merila za ugotovitev obstoja kr�itve te določbe.
26 — Average price to the consumer of SEK 30.33 for a litre of beer with an alcoholic strength of 5.2 % vol.
26 – Povprečna cena na porabo enega litra piva z vsebnostjo alkohola 5,2 % je 30,33 SEK.
COMMISSION v SWEDEN ment proceedings, may place on the Commission a burden of proof which it is hard to satisfy.
KOMISIJA PROTI ŠVEDSKI predstavlja dokazno breme, ki mu je težko zadostiti.
Relying on that precedent, the Kingdom of Sweden is maintaining, in the present case, that the Commission has failed to satisfy the burden of proof incumbent upon it, since it has failed to take account of the significant price difference between the two products at issue, which would have led it to rule out the possibility that the difference in the taxes applicable to those products exerts any influence on consumer choice.
Kraljevina Švedska v tem postopku in na podlagi tega precedensa trdi, da Komisija ni zadostila dokaznemu bremenu, ki ga ima, saj ni upo�tevala znatne razlike v obstoječih cenah zadevnih proizvodov, ki bi jo vodila do izključitve morebitnega vpliva različne obdavčitve, ki velja za navedene proizvode, na izbiro potro�nikov.
In its judgment on the tax arrangements for wine and beer in Belgium, however, the Court rejected the Commission’s argument that once a competitive relationship is established between two products, any difference in the rates of tax applied to the same basis of assessment is contrary to the second paragraph of Article 90 EC, and explained that any assessment of the compatibility of a given tax with the second paragraph of Article 90 EC ‘must take account of the impact of that tax on the competitive relationship between the
V sodbi glede davčne ureditve za vino in pivo v Belgiji pa je Sodi�če zavrnilo tezo Komisije, v skladu s katero naj bi bila, po ugotovitvi odnosa konkurence med tema dvema proizvodoma, kakr�na koli razlika v davčnih stopnjah, ki se uporabljajo za isto davčno osnovo, nezdružljiva s členom 90, drugi odstavek, ES, in pojasnilo, da mora biti presoja združljivosti določenega davčnega bremena z navedeno določbo „[…] opravljena
As regards the central argument which the Swedish Government advances and which is the mainstay of its defence, I consider it appropriate, before taking my
V zvezi z osrednjo argumentacijo tožene vlade, na katero slednja opira bistvo svoje obrambe, se mi zdi primerno preveriti njeno utemeljenost takoj, �e pred nadaljevanjem analize.
28 — Case 170/78, cited above, paragraph 10.
28 – Zgoraj navedena sodba z dne 27. februarja 1980 Komisija proti Združenemu kraljestvu, točka 10. Moj poudarek.
Emphasis added.29 — Case 170/78, cited above, paragraph 10.
29 – Zgoraj navedena sodba z dne 27. februarja 1980 Komisija proti Združenemu kraljestvu, točka 10.
30 — Case 356/85, cited above, paragraph 15.31 — Case 356/85, cited above, paragraph 16.
31 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Komisija proti Belgiji, točka 16.
Emphasis added.
Moj poudarek.
To that end, it is necessary to call to mind briefly the context of the judgment on which the Kingdom of Sweden’s plea is based, as well as the conclusion which the Court reached on that occasion.
sodba, iz katere izhaja ugovor Švedske vlade ter re�itev, do katere je ob tej priložnosti pri�lo Sodi�če.
The Belgian Government contended that the price of a litre of beer, inclusive of taxes, amounted to BEF 29.75 and that the price of a litre of wine of comparable quality was BEF 125.
Belgijska vlada je trdila, da zna�a cena enega litra piva, vključno z davki, 29,75 BFR, cena enega litra vina primerljive kakovosti pa 125 BFR.
Since the Commission’s arguments challenging those facts were rejected in their entirety, it must be inferred that the Court based its analysis on those facts.
Ker so bile trditve Komisije, namenjene izpodbijanju teh podatkov, v celoti zavrnjene, je treba iz tega sklepati, da je Sodi�če svoje ugotovitve utemeljilo na njih.
The selling price to the consumer of wine in Belgium, inclusive of VAT, was therefore almost four times 33that of beer, whereas the difference between the VAT rates applied to wine and beer respectively was, as we have seen, 6 % (25 % for wine and 19 % for beer).
Maloprodajna cena vina v Belgiji, vključno z DDV, je bila približno štirikrat 33tolik�na kot cena piva, medtem ko je bila razlika med stopnjami DDV, ki so se uporabile za vino oziroma pivo, kot je bilo pojasnjeno zgoraj, 6 % (25 % za vino in 19 % za pivo).
In the circumstances of the case which gave rise to that judgment, the Commission imputed to the Kingdom of Belgium the application of a rate of VAT on wine some 6 % higher than the rate on beer.
V zadevi iz postopka, ki se je zaključil z navedeno sodbo, je Komisija Kraljevini Belgiji očitala, da za vino uporablja stopnjo DDV, ki je približno za 6 % vi�ja od stopnje, določene za pivo.
On conclusion of its analysis, the Court found that the difference between the rates of tax applied was not such as to influence consumer choice.
Na koncu svoje presoje je Sodi�če ugotovilo, da naj različno zadevno davčno obravnavanje ne bi bilo tako, da bi vplivalo na izbiro potro�nikov.
In particular, the Court considered that the Commission had failed to demonstrate that the difference between the respect- ive prices for the beer and wine in competition with each other was so small that the 6 % difference between the VAT rates applied to the two products was in fact capable of influencing consumer behaviour and thus giving rise to a protectionist effect in favour of beer. 32
Sodi�če je zlasti menilo, da naj Komisija ne bi dokazala, da je razlika med zadevnimi cenami piva in vina, ki si konkurirajo, tako majhna, da bi razlika 6 %, ki obstaja med stopnjami DDV, ki se uporabljajo za ta dva proizvoda, lahko vplivala na vedenje potro�nikov in imela posledično za�čitni učinek v korist piva. 32