natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
To obtain that information, the creditor would therefore have to take the steps necessary to obtain a copy of the contract by which the transfer order was accepted in order to check the exact date of payment.
Za pridobitev teh podatkov bi moral torej upnik storiti potrebne korake, da bi dobil kopijo pogodbe, s katero je bil sprejet nalog za nakazilo, da bi preveril točen datum plačila.
Irrespective of the fact that the necessity for such a step rather changes the automatic nature of the requirement to pay interest for late payment, it seems difficult to deny that it constitutes an additional administrative burden on the creditor — or on the debtor if it is agreed that he will provide that information — whereas Directive 2000/35 expressly seeks to avoid such additional administrative and financial burdens.
Poleg dejstva, da ta korak nekoliko spreminja avtomatičnost upravičenja do zamudnih obresti, je težko zanikati, da vodi do dodatnih upravnih stro�kov na strani upnika – ali dolžnika, če je dogovorjeno, da zagotovi to informacijo –, čeprav je izrecni namen Direktive 2000/35 preprečiti upravne in finančne izdatke 19.
19 frees the debtor from his obligation. Such an interpretation would deprive the Directive of its effectiveness.
Tak�no zlorabo označuje zlasti dejstvo, „da si dolžnik pridobi dodatno likvidnost na račun upnika“ 17.
The Directive pursues the objective of prohibiting ‘abuse of freedom of contract to the disadvantage of the creditor’. 16Such abuse is characterised inter alia by the fact of ‘procuring the debtor additional liquidity at the expense of the creditor’.
Vendar bi ugotovitev, da zgolj prepozen nalog za nakazilo, in ne prepozen prejem dolgovanega zneska, povzroči upravičenje do zamudnih obresti, vodila do tega, da bi lahko dolžnik nalog za nakazilo posredoval �ele zadnji dan roka, pod predpostavko, da bi v teh rokih prejel potrdilo o sprejemu s strani svoje finančne ustanove.
Such opportunistic conduct brings to mind the abuse of freedom of contract referred to by the Directive in allowing the debtor to enjoy liquidity at the expense of the creditor during the day or days preceding a transfer order submitted on the last day of the period for payment, when the amount should have been ‘received’ on that date according to the Directive.
Tak�no oportunistično ravnanje povsem spominja na zlorabo svobode sklepanja pogodb, določeno v direktivi, ki dolžniku dovoljuje likvidnost na �kodo upnika v določenem obdobju, preden je bil nalog za nakazilo na zadnji dan roka izveden, medtem ko bi moral biti na ta dan v skladu z direktivo znesek „prejet“.
18 Thus the German Government’s argument that to treat the transfer order as the equivalent of payment is not contrary to the Directive’s objectives appears to be incorrect.
18Zato se zdi trditev nem�ke vlade, da upo�tevanje naloga za nakazilo za enakovrednega plačilu ne nasprotuje ciljem direktive, napačna.
The object- ive pursued by the text is not to favour the debtor by allowing him to enjoy liquidity until the final day of the period for payment, but to guarantee the creditor receipt of the sum due within the period for payment.
Cilj, ki ga zasleduje to besedilo, ni dati prednosti dolžniku s tem, da mu omogoča likvidnost do zadnjega dne do izteka roka, ampak upniku zagotoviti prejem dolgovanega zneska v plačilnih rokih.
I would therefore invite the Court to adopt an intermediate solution that would ensure a fair distribution of the risk between the creditor and the debtor.
Sodi�ču torej predlagam vmesno re�itev, ki zagotavlja pravično razdelitev tveganj med upnikom in dolžnikom.
Furthermore, such a reading of Article 3(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 2000/35 places
Poleg tega taka razlaga člena 3(1)(c)(ii) Direktive 2000/35 upnika postavlja v pravno
Given the relative consistency with which the expression ‘has received the amount’ is used in most language versions
Zaradi vztrajnosti, s katero se izraz „je prejel znesek“ uporablja v večini jezikovnih različic Direktive 2000/35, in namena te
16 — Recital 19 in the preamble to Directive 2000/35.17 — Idem.
16 – Devetnajsta uvodna izjava direktive 2000/35.17 – Ibid.
01051 TELECOM tion the date on which the funds will have been received by the beneficiary’s institution, it is, however, impossible for him to anticipate the time taken to transfer the funds from the creditor’s financial institution to the creditor’s account.
01051 TELECOM sredstva prispela v to ustanovo prejemnika, po drugi strani ne more poznati rokov prenosa sredstev iz upnikove finančne ustanove na račun slednjega.
of Directive 2000/35, together with its purpose, it seems difficult not to construe such a requirement as implying that the sum must have left the debtor’s account to reach the creditor.
direktive, je težko take zahteve ne razumeti tako, da se je znesek, ki se je odtegnil z dolžnikovega računa, prenesel na upnikovega.
The second part of Article 3(1)(c)(ii) of the Directive supports that interpretation, in stating that non-receipt of the amount due on time cannot give rise to entitlement to interest for late payment where the debtor is not responsible for exceeding the period for payment.
Drugi del stavka člena 3(1)(c)(ii) Direktive torej podpira to razlago, saj navaja, da nepravočasni prejem dolgovanega zneska ne more voditi do upravičenosti do zamudnih obresti, če dolžnik ni odgovoren za prekoračitev roka.
Although he can ascertain precisely and accurately in the contractual framework he has established with his financial institu-
Namreč, medtem ko dolžnik lahko z natančnostjo in gotovostjo v pogodbenem okviru, ki ga vzpostavi skupaj s svojo finančno ustanovo, določi datum, ko bodo predvideva in nadzira nastanek tveganja.
Having regard to the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should answer the question referred by the Oberlandesgericht Köln for a preliminary ruling as follows:
Glede na zgoraj navedeno predlagam Sodi�ču, naj na vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje Oberlandesgericht Köln odgovori:
‘Article 3(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions implies that, for a payment made by bank transfer to exclude or put an end to interest for late payment, the sum due must have reached the creditor’s financial institution on time.’
Na podlagi člena 3(1)(c)(ii) Direktive 2000/35/ES Parlamenta in Sveta z dne 29. junija 2000 o boju proti zamudam pri plačilih v trgovinskih poslih plačilo, izvedeno z bančnim nakazilom, preprečuje ali končuje zamudne obresti, če upnikova finančna ustanova pravočasno prejme dolgovani znesek.
3 April 2008 *
SODBA SODIŠČA (prvi senat) z dne 3. aprila 2008 *
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC, by the Oberlandesgericht Köln (Germany), made by decision of 26 May 2006, received at the Court on 14 July 2006, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-306/06, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Oberlandesgericht Köln (Nemčija) z odločbo z dne 26. maja 2006, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 14. julija 2006, v postopku
2008 — CASE C-306/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-306/06 generalni pravobranilec: M.
Advocate General: M. Poiares Maduro, Registrar: B. Fülöp, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 6 September 2007, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Fülöp, administrator, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 6. septembra 2007, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
— the Commission of the European Communities, by B. Schima, acting as Agent, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 18 October 2007, gives the following
– za Komisijo Evropskih skupnosti B. Schima, zastopnik, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca na obravnavi 18. oktobra 2007 izreka naslednjo
This reference for a preliminary ruling relates to the interpretation of Article 3(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (OJ 2000 L 200, p. 35).
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago člena 3(1)(c)(ii) Direktive 2000/35/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 29. junija 2000 o boju proti zamudam pri plačilih v trgovinskih poslih (UL L 200, str. 35).
The reference has been made in the course of proceedings between 01051 Telecom GmbH (‘01051 Telecom’) and Deutsche Telekom AG (‘Deutsche Telekom’) concerning payment of default interest claimed following alleged late payment of invoices.
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med 01051 Telecom GmbH (v nadaljevanju: 01051 Telecom) in Deutsche Telekom AG (v nadaljevanju: Deutsche Telekom) zaradi plačila zamudnih obresti, ki se zahtevajo zaradi domnevno prepoznega plačila računov.
2008 — CASE C-306/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-306/06
Directive 2000/35 seeks to harmonise certain aspects of Member States’ legislation on combating late payment in commercial transactions.
Direktiva 2000/35 je namenjena usklajevanju nekaterih vidikov zakonodaj držav članic na področju boja proti zamudam pri plačilih v trgovinskih poslih.
Recitals 7, 9, 10 and 16 in the preamble to that directive are worded as follows:
V sedmi, deveti, deseti in �estnajsti uvodni izjavi navedene direktive je določeno:
Moreover, these problems are a major cause of insolvencies threatening the survival of businesses and result in numerous job losses.
Še več, ti problemi so poglavitni vzrok plačilne nesposobnosti, ki ogroža preživetje podjetij, posledica pa je izguba �tevilnih delovnih mest.
The differences between payment rules and practices in the Member States constitute an obstacle to the proper functioning of the internal market.
(9) Razlike med državami članicami glede pravil in prakse plačevanja ovirajo pravilno delovanje notranjega trga.
This is in contradiction with Article 14 of the [EC] Treaty as entrepreneurs should be able to trade throughout the internal market under
To je v nasprotju s členom 14 Pogodbe [ES], saj bi moralo biti podjetnikom
01051 TELECOM conditions which ensure that transborder operations do not entail greater risks than domestic sales.
01051 TELECOM omogočeno, da trgujejo na celotnem notranjem trgu v razmerah, ki zagotavljajo, da čezmejno poslovanje ne pomeni večjega tveganja kot domači promet.
Distortions of competition would ensue if substantially different rules applied to domestic and transborder operations.
Če bi za domače in čezmejno poslovanje veljala bistveno drugačna pravila, bi pri�lo do izkrivljanja konkurence.
A decisive shift, including compensation of creditors for the costs incurred, is necessary to reverse this trend and to ensure that the consequences of late payments are such as to discourage late payment.’
Potrebna je odločna sprememba, vključno z nadomestili upnikom za njihove stro�ke, da bi preobrnili ta trend in zagotovili take posledice zamud pri plačilih, ki bi odvračale od zapoznelega plačevanja.“
Article 3(1)(a) to (c) of Directive 2000/35 provides:
V členu 3(1) od (a) do (c) Direktive 2000/35 je določeno:
(a) interest in accordance with point (d) shall become payable from the day following the date or the end of the period for payment fixed in the contract;
(a) obresti v skladu s točko (d) zapadejo v plačilo z dnem, ki sledi datumu plačila ali koncu plačilnega roka, določenemu v pogodbi;
(b) if the date or period for payment is not fixed in the contract, interest shall become payable automatically without the necessity of a reminder:
(b) če datum plačila ali plačilni rok v pogodbi ni določen, obresti zapadejo v plačilo takoj, ne da bi bilo potrebno opozorilo:
30 days following the date of receipt by the debtor of the invoice or an equivalent request for payment; or
(i) 30 dni po dnevu, na katerega dolžnik prejme račun ali drugo ustrezno zahtevo za plačilo; ali
(ii) if the date of the receipt of the invoice or the equivalent request for payment is uncertain, 30 days after the date of receipt of the goods or services; or
(ii) če je dan, na katerega je dolžnik prejel račun ali drugo ustrezno zahtevo za plačilo, dvomljiv, 30 dni po dnevu prejema blaga ali izvedbi storitev; ali
(iii) if the debtor receives the invoice or the equivalent request for payment earlier than the goods or the services, 30 days after the receipt of the goods or services; or
(iii) če dolžnik prejme račun ali drugo ustrezno zahtevo za plačilo pred prejemom blaga ali izvedbo storitev, 30 dni po dnevu prejema blaga ali izvedbi storitev; ali
(iv) if a procedure of acceptance or verification, by which the conformity of the goods or services with the contract is to be ascertained, is provided for by statute or in the contract and if the debtor receives the invoice or the equivalent request for payment earlier or on the date on which such acceptance or verification takes place, 30 days after this latter date;
(iv) če je postopek sprejemanja ali preverjanja, s katerim je treba preveriti skladnost blaga ali storitev s pogodbo, določen zakonsko ali pogodbeno in če dolžnik prejme račun ali drugo ustrezno zahtevo za plačilo pred dnevom ali na dan sprejemanja ali preverjanja, 30 dni po tem zadnjem datumu;
(c) the creditor shall be entitled to interest for late payment to the extent that:
(c) upnik je upravičen do obresti za zamudo pri plačilu, če:
(i) he has fulfilled his contractual and legal obligations; and
(i) izpolnjuje svoje pogodbene in zakonske obveznosti; in
(ii) he has not received the amount due on time, unless the debtor is not responsible for the delay.’
(ii) zapadle vsote ne prejme pravočasno, razen če dolžnik ni odgovoren za zamudo[.]“
Paragraph 269 of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch — BGB) provides:
V členu 269 nem�kega civilnega zakonika (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, v nadaljevanju: BGB) je določeno:
Paragraph 270 of the BGB states as follows:
V členu 270 BGB je določeno:
Paragraph 286 of the BGB, after amendment with a view to the implementation of Directive 2000/35, provides:
Člen 286 BGB v spremenjeni različici z namenom prenosa Direktive 2000/35 določa:
1. a period of time according to the calendar has been specified,
1. je datum izvr�itve storitve določen glede na koledar,
2. performance must be preceded by an event and a reasonable period of time for performance has been specified in such a way that it can be calculated, starting from the event, according to the calendar,
2. mora pred izvr�itvijo storitve priti do določenega dogodka in je za izvr�itev storitve predvideno ustrezno obdobje, na način, ki ga je mogoče izračunati glede na koledar od navedenega dogodka dalje,
3. the obligor seriously and definitively refuses performance,
3. dolžnik resno in dokončno zavrne poravnavo svoje obveznosti,
4. for special reasons, weighing the interests of both parties, the immediate commencement of default is justified.
4. je takoj�na ugotovitev zamude upravičena, zaradi posebnih razlogov in ob upo�tevanju interesov obeh prisotnih strank.
If the time at which the invoice or payment statement is received by the obligor is uncertain, an obligor who is not a consumer is in default at the latest 30 days after the due date and receipt of the consideration.
Če datum prejema računa ali zahteve za plačilo ni določen, je dolžnik, če ni potro�nik, v zamudi najpozneje trideset dni po poteku roka in nasprotni izpolnitvi.
01051 Telecom and Deutsche Telekom supply telecommunications services to the public and to network operators.
Družbi 01051 Telecom in Deutsche Telekom opravljata telekomunikacijske storitve, namenjene javnosti in operaterjem omrežij.
In addition, Deutsche Telekom offers invoicing services to other operators such as 01051 Telecom.
Družba Deutsche Telekom poleg tega ponuja storitve zaračunavanja drugim operaterjem, kot je družba 01051 Telecom.
Since 1998, the two operators have been linked by an interconnection contract under which they invoice each other for services supplied in the context of that contract and on that basis calculate the sums due.
Obe družbi od leta 1998 zavezuje pogodba o medomrežnem povezovanju, v skladu s katero si stranki vzajemno zaračunavata storitve, opravljene v okviru te pogodbe, in na njeni podlagi izračunavata dolgovane zneske.
The version of 26 June 2002 of that contract, relied on by both parties before the national court, contains the following clauses:
Različica navedene pogodbe z dne 26. junija 2002, na katero se pred predložitvenim sodi�čem sklicujeta obe stranki, vsebuje naslednje določbe:
Payments between the contracting parties become due on receipt of the invoice.
Terjatve med pogodbenima strankama zapadejo ob prejemu računa.
The amount of the invoice shall be paid into the bank account identified in the invoice.
Zaračunani znesek je treba nakazati na račun, ki je naveden na izstavljenem računu.
17.5 Late payment
17.5 Zamuda pri plačilu
Payment shall be deemed to be late, so far as this is not already established by written demand, 30 days after it has become due and the invoice has been received.
‚Zamuda je podana, razen če ni ugotovljena že v opominu, 30 dni po poteku roka in prejemu računa.‘
If a contracting party is late in making a payment, the following compensation shall be paid:
Če ena od pogodbenih strank zamuja s plačilom, se plača nadomestilo, ki se izračuna na naslednji način:
— interest at the rate of 8% above the base interest rate applicable for the period of the delay in accordance with paragraph 247 of the [BGB];
– zamudne obresti v vi�ini 8 % poleg temeljne obrestne mere, ki se uporablja v obdobju zamude na podlagi člena 247 [BGB];
In 2001, 01051 Telecom and Deutsche Telekom concluded an invoicing and debt recovery contract which included, in section 8, the following clause:
Družbi 01051 Telecom in Deutsche Telekom sta leta 2001 sklenili pogodbo o zaračunavanju in izterjavi terjatev, ki v točki 8 določa:
‘At the middle and at the end of a calendar month the contracting partner may issue an invoice for the net remuneration, including value added tax, recognised by Deutsche Telekom as capable of being invoiced for services supplied by it to Deutsche Telekom … The amount of the invoice must be credited to the account identified in the invoice or set off at the latest 30 days after receipt of the invoice.’
„Pogodbena stranka lahko 15. ali zadnji dan v mesecu družbi Deutsche Telekom zaračuna neto zneske, ki jih ta družba prizna kot zaračunljive, skupaj z [davkom na dodano vrednost], za storitve, ki jih opravi zanjo. Zaračunani znesek je treba knjižiti v dobro na računu, naveden na izstavljenem računu, ali ga poravnati najpozneje 30 dni po prejemu računa.“
In its action brought at first instance before the Landgericht Bonn (Bonn Regional Court), 01051 Telecom argued that clause 8 of the invoicing and debt recovery contract should also be applied in the context of the interconnection contract.
V okviru tožbe, ki jo je družba 01051 Telecom vložila pri Landgericht Bonn, ki je odločalo na prvi stopnji, je ta družba zagovarjala tezo, da je treba določbo iz točke 8 pogodbe o zaračunavanju in izterjavi terjatev uporabiti tudi v okviru pogodbe o medomrežnem sodelovanju.
Accordingly, it claimed from Deutsche Telekom, where there remained a residual amount after Deutsche Telekom had claimed any set off, interest for late payment for a period it calculated as running from the 30th day after receipt of the relevant invoice and continuing until that amount was credited to the account of 01051 Telecom.
Zato je od družbe Deutsche Telekom, če bi ta družba po poravnavi zneska dolgovala preostanek zneska, zahtevala plačilo zamudnih obresti, izračunanih za obdobje 30 dni od prejema zadevnega računa do knjiženja dolgovanega zneska v dobro na računu družbe 01051 Telecom.
The Landgericht Bonn granted part of the claim for payment, holding that the obligation on Deutsche Telekom consisted in having the amount payable credited to the bank account of 01051 Telecom, and not merely in giving the transfer order.
Landgericht Bonn je tej tožbi deloma ugodilo, saj je razsodilo, da obveznost družbe Deutsche Telekom ni bila le, da nakaže zapadli znesek, ampak da ga knjiži v dobro na bančnem računu družbe 01051 Telekom.
That finding follows of necessity from Article 3(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 2000/35, under which the creditor is entitled, in the event of late payment, to interest to the extent that he has ‘not received’ the amount due on time.
Tak sklep naj bi nujno izhajal iz člena 3(1)(c)(ii) Direktive 2000/35, v skladu s katerim je upnik v primeru zamude pri plačilu upravičen zahtevati obresti, če zapadlega zneska „ne prejme“ pravočasno.
Contrary to the interpretation that prevailed in Germany until then, it is therefore not late execution of the order for payment but the fact that the sum due is received late by the creditor that constitutes late payment.
V nasprotju z razlago, ki je bila v Nemčiji uveljavljena do takrat, naj zamuda pri plačilu zato ne bi pomenila nepravočasne izvr�itve plačilnega naloga, ampak dejstvo, da upnik zapadlega zneska ni prejel pravočasno.
In its reference for a preliminary ruling, the national court states that, in principle, according to the majority judicial view in Germany, in the case of payment by bank transfer, performance is regarded as effected in time if, firstly, the transfer order is given to the debtor’s financial institution before the timelimit for payment expires; secondly, there are sufficient funds in the debtor’s account or it has a line of credit in a sufficient amount; and, finally, the financial institution accepts the transfer order within that time-limit.
Predložitveno sodi�če v predlogu za sprejetje predhodne odločbe navaja, da se v skladu s prevladujočo razlago, ki izhaja iz nem�ke sodne prakse, v primeru plačila z bančnim nakazilom obveznost načeloma �teje kot pravočasno izpolnjena, prvič, če je nalog za nakazilo predložen dolžnikovi finančni ustanovi pred potekom roka za plačilo, drugič, če ima dolžnikov račun kritje ali zadostno kreditno sposobnost in, nazadnje, če ta finančna ustanova sprejme nalog za nakazilo v navedenem roku.
However, the national court recognises that one interpretation of Article 3(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 2000/35 could lead to a different solution.
Predložitveno sodi�če pa priznava, da bi lahko določena razlaga člena 3(1)(c)(ii) Direktive 2000/35 privedla do drugačne re�itve.
In particular, the use in the German, English and French language versions of that directive of the words ‘erhalten’, ‘received’ and ‘reçu’ respectively could indicate that, in order to avoid late payment within the meaning thereof, the amount due must be credited to the account of the creditor before expiry of the period for payment.
Zlasti uporaba besed „erhalten“, „received“ in „reçu“ v nem�ki, angle�ki in francoski jezikovni različici te direktive bi lahko pomenila, da mora biti zapadli znesek knjižen v dobro na upnikovem računu pred potekom roka za plačilo, da bi se izognilo zamudi pri plačilu v smislu Direktive.
It was in those circumstances that the Oberlandesgericht Köln decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
V teh okoli�činah je Oberlandesgericht Köln prekinilo postopek in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vpra�anje:
‘Is a national rule that payment by bank transfer preventing the occurrence of late payment by a debtor or putting an end to late payment on his part does not depend on the time when the amount is credited to the creditor’s account but on the time when the debtor gives a transfer order that is covered by sufficient funds or a sufficient credit limit and is accepted by the bank compatible with Article 3(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 2000/35 …?’
„Ali je nacionalna ureditev, v skladu s katero v obliki bančnega nakazila izvedeno plačilo, ki preprečuje dolžnikovo zamudo pri plačilu ali jo končuje, ni odvisno od trenutka knjiženja v dobro zneska na upnikovem računu, ampak od trenutka naloga za nakazilo, ki ga je ob zadostnem kritju na računu ali ustrezni kreditni sposobnosti dal dolžnik in ga je banka sprejela, v skladu s členom 3(1)(c)(ii) Direktive 2000/35 […]?“