natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The German Government maintains that the apportionment of the input tax between business activity and non-business activity is to be carried out in accordance with the ‘investment formula’, that is to say, the ratio in accordance with which the earnings of the capital acquired by admitting atypical silent partners are allocated to business activity or non-business activity.
Nem�ka vlada meni, da je treba zneske vstopnega davka razdeliti na podjetni�ko in nepodjetni�ko dejavnost po „investicijskem ključu“, to je na podlagi razmerja, po katerem se kapitalski donosi, pridobljeni s sprejemom netipičnih tihih družbenikov, razporedijo med podjetni�ko in nepodjetni�ko dejavnost.
In the Commission’s view, the tax treatment of the applicant’s business activity will depend on the applicability of one of the factors giving rise to the right to exemption.
Komisija meni, da bo davčno obravnavanje podjetni�ke dejavnosti tožeče stranke odvisno od možnosti uporabe enega od dejavnikov, ki upravičujejo oprostitev.
While transactions in securities are exempt from VAT, supplies of immovable goods may, where appropriate, be taxed.
Medtem ko so transakcije z vrednostnimi papirji opro�čene DDV, se dobave nepremičnin v določenih okoli�činah lahko obdavčijo.
This explains the division of the applicant’s activities into three parts: (i) non-taxable transactions; (ii) taxable but exempt transactions; and (iii) taxable transactions.
To pojasni delitev dejavnosti tožeče stranke na tri dele: (i) neobdavčljive transakcije; (ii) obdavčljive, toda opro�čene transakcije; in (iii) transakcije, zavezane davku.
It is for the referring court, however, to conduct a closer examination of this point, in the light of the circumstances of the case before it.
Vendar mora predložitveno sodi�če podrobno preučiti to vpra�anje glede na okoli�čine postopka v glavni stvari.
As regards the apportionment itself, the Commission states that a more objective manner of proceeding would be to use the investment formula, which ought, however, sufficiently to reflect economic reality and should therefore be calculated for each fiscal year.
Komisija glede razdelitve navaja, da bi bila uporaba investicijskega ključa primernej�i postopek, ki pa bi moral zadostno izražati gospodarsko stvarnost in bi ga bilo zato treba računati za vsako davčno leto.
The Portuguese Government submits that the applicant’s VAT is deductible only as regards the part relating to the transactions effected in the framework of its business activity and argues in essence that the investment formula is the more appropriate method of apportionment in the present case.
Portugalska vlada navaja, da je DDV tožeče stranke odbiten le v delu, ki se nana�a na transakcije v okviru podjetni�ke dejavnosti, in v bistvu trdi, da je investicijski ključ v obravnavani zadevi primernej�a metoda razdelitve.
First question
Prvo vpra�anje
The United Kingdom Government essentially observes that the proportion of the overhead inputs that is linked to or used for the applicant’s noneconomic activity does not form part of any input tax deduction calculation, because that proportion of the inputs falls outside the system of deduction altogether and should be disregarded entirely.
Vlada Združenega kraljestva v bistvu meni, da del pav�alnih vplačil, ki je povezan ali porabljen za negospodarsko dejavnost tožeče stranke, ni zajet v nobenem izračunu vstopnega davka, saj je ta del vplačil v celoti zunaj sistema odbitka vstopnega davka in naj ne bi bil upo�teven. Vlada Združenega kraljestva glede razdelitve v bistvu trdi, da je
The referring court finds as a fact that the applicant undertakes both an
Predložitveno sodi�če kot dejstvo ugotavlja, da tožeča stranka opravlja gospodar-
SECURENTA opposite activity — namely the selling of financial holdings in other businesses.
SECURENTA prodajo finančnih deležev v drugih podjetjih.
9By contrast, transactions affecting securities may come within the scope of VAT but are exempted from it.
9V nasprotju s tem lahko transakcije z vrednostnimi papirji sodijo na področje uporabe DDV, vendar so opro�čene davka.
10 economic 6activity and a noneconomic activity.
10 sko 6 in negospodarsko dejavnost.
That said, it should be borne in mind that, although Article 4 of the Sixth Directive gives a very wide scope to VAT, only activities of an economic nature are covered by that provision. 7
Na podlagi te izjave je treba pojasniti, da čeprav člen 4 Šeste direktive določa zelo �iroko področje uporabe za DDV, se ta določba nana�a le na gospodarske dejavnosti. 7
The Court has held that a partnership which admits a partner in return for payment of a cash contribution does not effect vis-à-vis that person a supply of services for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Sixth Directive.
Sodi�če je menilo, da osebna družba, ki sprejme družbenika za plačilo denarnega vložka, v razmerju do te osebe ne opravi storitve v smislu člena 2(1) Šeste direktive.
11The same conclusion was drawn by the Court regarding the issue of shares for the purpose of raising capital. 12
11Sodi�če je enako sklepalo v zvezi z izdajo delnic za povečanje kapitala. 12
It is settled caselaw that the mere acquisition and holding of shares is not to be regarded as an economic activity within the meaning of the Sixth Directive.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso pridobivanja in posesti delnic ni mogoče �teti za gospodarsko dejavnost v smislu Šeste direktive.
The mere acquisition of financial holdings in other undertakings does not amount to the exploitation of property for the purpose of obtaining income therefrom on a continuing basis.
Pridobivanje finančnih deležev v drugih podjetjih �e ne pomeni uporabe premoženja za trajno pridobivanje dobička od njega.
8 If, therefore, the acquisition of financial holdings in other undertakings does not in itself constitute an economic activity within the meaning of the Sixth Directive, it follows that the same must be true of the
8 Če torej pridobivanje finančnih deležev v drugih podjetjih ne pomeni gospodarske dejavnosti v smislu Šeste direktive, mora enako veljati tudi za nasprotno dejavnost – namreč
6 — I do not think it is necessary to draw a distinction between ‘business activity’ and ‘economic activity’ for the purposes of VAT.
6 – Ne menim, da je za potrebe DDV nujno razlikovati med „podjetni�ko dejavnostjo“ in „gospodarsko dejavnostjo“.
In the present discussion I shall only make use of the term ‘economic activity’, which is used by the Sixth Directive.
V tej razpravi bom uporabil samo pojem „gospodarska dejavnost“, ki se uporablja v Šesti direktivi.
In Kretztechnik the Court held that a company that issues new shares is increasing its assets by acquiring additional capital, whilst at the same time granting the new shareholders a right of ownership of part of the capital thus increased.
Sodi�če je v sodbi Kretztechnik odločilo, da družba, ki izda nove delnice, poveča svoje premoženje s pridobivanjem dodatnega kapitala, pri čemer novim delničarjem obenem podeli lastninsko pravico na delu tako povečanega kapitala.
From the issuing company’s point of view, the aim is to raise
Z vidika družbe izdajateljice je cilj povečanje kapitala in ne opravljanje
9 — See Case C-442/01 KapHag [2003] ECR I-6851, paragraph 40.
9 – Glej sodbo z dne 26. junija 2003 v zadevi KapHag (C-442/01, Recueil, str.
10 — See, inter alia, BBL, cited in footnote 8, paragraphs 36 to 41 and the caselaw cited therein.
10 – Med drugim glej v opombi 8 navedeno sodbo BBL, točke od 36 do 41, in tam navedeno sodno prakso.
7 — See Case C-77/01 EDM [2004] ECR I-4295, paragraph 47 and the caselaw cited therein.
7 – Glej sodbo z dne 29. aprila 2004 v zadevi EDM (C-77/01, Recueil, str. I-4295, točka 47 in tam navedena sodna praksa).
In this respect, see also Kretztechnik, cited in footnote 5, paragraph 18.
V zvezi s tem glej tudi v opombi 5 navedeno sodbo Kretztechnik, točka 18.
The Court also held that the term ‘economic activities’ is objective in character, in the sense that the activity is considered per se and without regard to its purpose or results.
Poleg tega je Sodi�če odločilo, da je pojem „gospodarske dejavnosti“ objektiven, da se obravnava dejavnost per se, ne glede na njen namen ali rezultat.
See, inter alia, Case C-223/03 University of Huddersfield [2006] ECR I-1751, paragraph 47 and the caselaw cited.
Med drugim glej sodbo z dne 21. februarja 2006 v zadevi University of Huddersfield (C-223/03, ZOdl., str.
11 — KapHag, cited in footnote 9, paragraph 43.12 — Kretztechnik, cited in footnote 5, paragraph 25.
11 – V opombi 9 navedena sodba KapHag, točka 43.12 – V opombi 5 navedena sodba Kretztechnik, točka 25.
15 capital, not to provide services.
15 storitev.
As far as the shareholder is concerned, payment of the sums necessary for the increase of capital does not constitute payment of consideration, but rather the investment or employment of capital. 13
Za delničarja plačilo zneskov, nujnih za povečanje kapitala, ne pomeni plačila nasprotne storitve, temveč naložbo ali angažiranje kapitala. 13
The last-mentioned condition shows that, for VAT to be deductible, the input transactions must have a direct and immediate link with the output transactions giving rise to the right of deduction.
Zadnjenavedeni pogoj kaže, da se lahko DDV odbije le, če imajo vstopne transakcije neposredno in takoj�njo zvezo z izstopnimi transakcijami, ki upravičujejo odbitek.
In Investrand the Court held that ‘[t]he right to deduct VAT charged on the acquisition of input goods or services presupposes that the expenditure incurred in acquiring them was a component of the cost of the output transactions that gave rise to the right to deduct’. 16
Sodi�če je v sodbi Investrand odločilo, da „[p]ravica do odbitka DDV, ki je odmerjen za pridobivanje vstopnega blaga ali storitev, predvideva, da je izdatek za njihovo pridobitev sestavni del stro�kov izstopnih transakcij, ki so bile podlaga za pravico do odbitka“. 16
In view of the fact that the applicant — notwithstanding its rights as shareholder or partner — is neither directly nor indirectly involved in the management 14 of the companies whose financial holdings it acquires, holds or transfers, the applicant’s activities do not fall to be regarded as economic activity.
Glede na to, da tožeča stranka – kljub pravicam, ki jih ima kot delničarka ali družbenica – niti neposredno niti posredno ne sodeluje pri upravljanju 14družb, v katerih pridobiva, ohranja ali prena�a finančne deleže, njene dejavnosti ni mogoče �teti za gospodarsko dejavnost.
In paragraph 36 of Kretztechnik, the Court held that ‘in view of the fact that, first, a share issue is an operation not falling within the scope of the Sixth Directive and, second, that operation was carried out by Kretztechnik in order to increase its capital for the benefit of its economic activity in general, it must be considered that the costs of the supplies acquired by that company in connection with the operation concerned form part of its overheads and are therefore, as such, component parts of the price of its
Sodi�če je v točki 36 sodbe Kretztechnik odločilo, da je treba „z vidika dejstva, da je izdaja delnic transakcija, ki ne sodi na področje uporabe Šeste direktive, in da jo je družba Kretztechnik izvedla za povečanje svojega kapitala v korist svoje gospodarske dejavnosti na splo�no, ugotoviti, da so stro�ki storitev, ki so tej družbi nastali v zvezi z zadevno transakcijo, del njenih skupnih stro�kov in so zato kot taki sestavni del cene njenih proizvodov. Te storitve
It was in Rompelman that the Court first pointed out that the deduction system is meant to relieve the trader entirely of the burden of the VAT payable or paid in the course of all his economic activities.
Sodi�če je v sodbi Rompelman prvič poudarilo, da je sistem odbitka namenjen temu, da se podjetnik povsem razbremeni DDV, ki ga dolžan plačati ali ga je plačal med izvajanjem vseh svojih gospodarskih dejavnosti.
The common system of value added tax consequently ensures that all economic activities, whatever their purpose or results, provided that they are themselves subject to VAT, are
Skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost zagotavlja, da se vse gospodarske dejavnosti, ne glede na njihov namen ali cilj,
15 — Case 268/83 [1985] ECR 655, paragraph 19.
15 – V tem smislu glej sodbo z dne 14. februarja 1985 v zadevi Rompelman (268/83, Recueil, str. 655, točka 19).
See also Case C-408/98 Abbey National [2001] ECR I-1361, paragraph 24 and the caselaw cited.
Prav tako glej sodbo z dne 22. februarja 2001 v zadevi Abbey National (C-408/98, Recueil str. I-1361, točka 24 in tam navedena sodna praksa).
13 — Ibid., paragraph 26.
13 – Prav tam, točka 26.
16 — Case C-435/05 [2007] ECR I-1315, paragraph 23 and the caselaw cited.
14 – V tem smislu glej sodbo z dne 27. septembra 2001 v zadevi Cibo Participations (C-16/00, Recueil, str. I-6663).
14 — See, to that effect, Case C-16/00 Cibo Participations [2001] ECR I-6663.
16 – Sodba z dne 8. februarja 2007 (C-435/05, ZOdl., str. I-1315, točka 23 in tam navedena sodna praksa).
SECURENTA where the company concerned made only taxed output supplies.
SECURENTA družba opravljala le obdavčene izstopne transakcije.
19 products. Those supplies have a direct and immediate link with the whole economic activity of the taxable person.’ 17
19 imajo neposredno in takoj�njo zvezo s celotno gospodarsko dejavnostjo davčnega zavezanca“. 17
In the present case, the Commission is right to point out that, in so far as the applicant acquires, holds and transfers financial holdings and other rights without, however, aiming to carry out systematically a service for consideration, its activity is not of an economic character and is therefore not taxable.
Komisija v obravnavani zadevi pravilno izpostavlja, da se ne obdavči dejavnost tožeče stranke, dokler ta pridobiva, ohranja in prena�a finančne deleže in druge pravice, ne da bi bil njen namen sistematično izvajanje odplačnih storitev.
To the extent that VAT is not deductible in respect of this activity, because it is not of an economic character and does not fall within the scope of VAT, the deduction of the tax is excluded, all the more so as the activity effected by way of that expenditure is not concerned by the VAT system.
Če ta dejavnost ne upravičuje odbitka DDV, ker je negospodarska in ne sodi na področje uporabe DDV, je odbitek davka izključen, �e bolj pa to velja za dejavnosti, katerih izdatki niso zajeti v sistem DDV.
To that extent, the expenditure incurred in the framework of the issue of shares and atypical silent partnerships cannot be regarded as overheads or component parts of the price, having a direct and immediate link with the whole economic activity of the applicant and as such deductible.
Glede na to izdatka, ki nastane v okviru izdaje delnic in netipičnih tihih deležev, ni mogoče �teti za skupne stro�ke ali sestavni del cene njenih proizvodov, ki imajo neposredno in takoj�njo povezavo s celotno gospodarsko dejavnostjo tožeče stranke ter se kot taki lahko odbijejo.
It follows that the deduction of the input tax on the expenditure connected with the issue of financial holdings is not justified unless the capital thereby acquired is allo-
Iz tega izhaja, da odbitek vstopnega davka na izdatke, povezane s stro�ki izdaje finančnih deležev, ni utemeljen, razen če se tako pridobljeni kapital nameni za gospo-
I agree with the referring court, the German Government and the Commission that the applicant’s situation is hardly comparable to the situation in Kretztechnik,
Strinjam se s predložitvenim sodi�čem, z nem�ko vlado in s Komisijo, da je položaj tožeče stranke komaj primerljiv s položajem v sodbi Kretztechnik, kjer je zadevna
17 — Kretztechnik, cited in footnote 5, and the caselaw cited therein.
17 – V opombi 5 navedena sodba Kretztechnik in tam navedena sodna praksa.
19 — Ibid.
19 – Prav tam.
This meant that in that case Kretztechnik raised the capital in its capacity as a taxable person acting as such.
To je pomenilo, da je v tisti zadevi družba Kretztechnik zbirala kapital kot davčna zavezanka in je kot taka ravnala.
Hence, VAT on inputs attributable as overheads to Kretztechnik’s whole economic activity was wholly deductible.
Zato se je lahko vstopni DDV, ki ga je bilo mogoče pripisati skupnim stro�kom celotne gospodarske dejavnosti družbe Kretztechnik, odbil v celoti.
See, with regard to a more recent case decided by the Court, Investrand, cited in footnote 16.
V zvezi z novej�o zadevo, o kateri je odločilo Sodi�če, glej sodbo, navedeno v opombi 16.
18 — Ibid., and the caselaw cited.
18 – Prav tam, skupaj z navedeno sodno prakso.
20 cated to the applicant’s economic activity.
20 darsko dejavnost tožeče stranke.
However, the expenditure connected with the issue of shares or atypical silent partnerships and attributable to the applicant’s noneconomic activity (that is to say, to its acquisition, holding and sale of interests in other businesses) does not entitle the applicant to tax deduction.
Izdatki, povezani z izdajo delnic oziroma netipičnih tihih deležev, ki jih je mogoče pripisati negospodarski dejavnosti tožeče stranke (to je pridobivanju, ohranjanju in prodaji deležev v drugih podjetjih), torej tožeče stranke ne upravičujejo do odbitka davka.
Indeed, as the referring court points out, contrary to the situation in Kretztechnik, the applicant does not carry on a business which produces anything.
Res je, kot poudarja predložitveno sodi�če, da tožeča stranka, v nasprotju s položajem v zadevi Kretztechnik, ne opravlja nikakr�ne proizvodne dejavnosti.
It follows that the costs connected with its share issues were not overheads which had an effect solely in the context of its economic activity.
Iz tega izhaja, da stro�ki v zvezi z izdajo delnic torej niso bili skupni stro�ki, ki so učinkovali le v okviru njene gospodarske dejavnosti.
I have to conclude that the expenditure connected with the applicant’s issue of shares and atypical silent partnerships cannot be regarded as costs forming part of its overheads and, as such, component parts of the price of its products, having a direct and immediate link with the whole economic activity of the applicant. 21
Ugotavljam, da izdatka tožeče stranke, povezanega z izdajo delnic in netipičnih tihih deležev, ni mogoče �teti za stro�ke, ki so del njenih skupnih stro�kov in so kot taki sestavni del cene njenih proizvodov ter imajo neposredno in takoj�njo povezavo s celotno gospodarsko dejavnostjo tožeče stranke. 21
Instead, as is clear from the foregoing, the applicant’s costs had — at least in part — an effect on its noneconomic activity.
Nasprotno, kot izhaja iz navedenega, so stro�ki tožeče stranke – vsaj deloma – učinkovali na njeno negospodarsko dejavnost.
It is important to note here that it is clear from the order for reference, as well as from the parties’ observations, that the latter fact is not disputed by the parties.
Tu je pomembno opomniti, da je iz predložitvenega sklepa in tudi iz navedb strank jasno, da stranki tega dejstva ne prerekata.
Therefore, where the taxable person simultaneously engages in an economic activity and a noneconomic activity, the deduction of VAT on expenditure connected with the issue of shares or atypical silent partnerships is allowed only to the extent that that expenditure is correctly to be attributed to the taxable person’s economic activity within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Sixth Directive.
Če torej davčni zavezanec hkrati opravlja gospodarsko in negospodarsko dejavnost, je odbitek davka na dodano vrednost dovoljen le, če je mogoče izdatke, povezane z izdajo delnic in tihih deležev, pravilno pripisati gospodarski dejavnosti tožeče stranke v smislu člena 2(1) Šeste direktive.
20 — Kretztechnik, cited in footnote 5, paragraph 37 and the caselaw cited therein.
20 – V opombi 5 navedena sodba Kretztechnik, točka 37, in tam navedena sodna praksa.
As I recalled above, in Kretztechnik, the Court hastened to add that a taxable person
Kot sem spomnil zgoraj, je Sodi�če v sodbi Kretztechnik dodalo, da lahko davčni
21 — See Kretztechnik, ibid., paragraph 36.
21 – Glej v opombi 5 navedeno sodbo Kretztechnik, točka 36.
However, neither Article 17 nor Article 19 — nor, for that matter, the Sixth Directive per se — contain any provision which deals with the methods or criteria which should be used by Member States when apportioning input tax between economic activities and noneconomic activities.
Vendar niti člen 17 niti člen 19 – niti Šesta direktiva – ne vsebujejo določbe o načinu in merilih, ki naj bi jih države članice uporabile pri razdelitvi vstopnega davka med gospodarske in negospodarske dejavnosti.
Given the proposed answer to the first question, it is also necessary to consider the second question, which essentially relates to the method of apportionment of input tax between the applicant’s economic and noneconomic activities (and whether Article 17(5) of the Sixth Directive should be applied mutatis mutandis to that apportionment).
Glede na predlagani odgovor na prvo vpra�anje je prav tako nujno treba obravnavati drugo vpra�anje, ki se v bistvu nana�a na način razdelitve vstopnega davka med gospodarske in negospodarske dejavnosti tožeče stranke (ter ali naj se člen 17(5) Šeste direktive smiselno uporabi za to razdelitev).
In view of that silence on the part of the Community legislature, whether intentional or otherwise, I consider that the Court may not graft specific conditions relating to the apportionment of VAT inputs in relation to economic and noneconomic activities on to the text of the Sixth Directive.
Z vidika te praznine v zakonodaji Skupnosti, naj bo namerna ali ne, menim, da Sodi�če besedilu Šeste direktive ne sme dodati posebnih pogojev za razdelitev vstopnega DDV v zvezi z gospodarskimi in negospodarskimi dejavnostmi.
I do not consider it appropriate, as argued in particular by the applicant, to apply the provisions of the Sixth Directive by analogy or mutatis mutandis.
Menim, da določb Šeste direktive, kot je zlasti trdila tožeča stranka, ni primerno uporabljati po analogiji ali smiselno.
It is important to note that Article 17(5) of the Sixth Directive covers transactions in respect of which VAT is deductible (nonexempt taxable transactions) and transactions in respect of which VAT is not deductible (exempt taxable transactions).
Pomembno je spomniti, da člen 17(5) Šeste direktive pokriva transakcije, pri katerih je DDV odbiten (davka neopro�čene obdavčljive transakcije) in transakcije, pri katerih DDV ni odbiten (davka opro�čene obdavčljive transakcije).
It can be inferred from the judgments in Sofitam, Flor­idienne and Berginvest, Cibo Participations and EDM that transactions outside the scope of the Sixth Directive must be excluded from the calculation of the deductible proportion referred to in Articles 17 and 19 of the Sixth Directive. 22
Iz sodb Sofitam, Floridienne in Berginvest, Cibo Participations ter EDM je mogoče sklepati, da se transakcije, ki ne sodijo na področje uporabe Šeste direktive, ne upo�tevajo pri izračuna odbitnega dela, na katerega se nana�ata člena 17 in 19 Šeste direktive. 22
Consequently, as the Sixth Directive makes no provision regarding the method for apportioning input tax between economic and noneconomic activities, it must be concluded that this is a matter which lies within the discretion of the Member States. 23
Ker Šesta direktiva ne določa načina razdelitve vstopnega davka na gospodarske in negospodarske dejavnosti, je treba zaključiti, da je to zadeva, ki spada v diskrecijo držav članic. 23
22 — Case C-333/91 Sofitam [1993] ECR I-3513, paragraphs 13 and 14; Case C-142/99 Floridienne and Berginvest [2000] ECR I-9567, operating part; Cibo Participations, cited in footnote 14, paragraph 44; and EDM, cited in footnote 7, paragraph 54.
23 – Tu bi želel dodati, da je Komisija že v sodbi Cibo Participations v svojih stali�čih izpostavila, da morajo zaradi neobstoja določb o transakcijah, ki izhajajo iz gospodarske dejavnosti zunaj področja uporabe Šeste direktive, države članice določiti način za prepoved odbitka.