natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
COMMISSION v SPAIN of the profession of pharmacist which is specifically regulated by Directives 85/432 and 85/433, which were transposed into Spanish law by Royal Decree 1667/1989.
KOMISIJA PROTI ŠPANIJI v poklicu farmacevta, ki je posebej urejena z direktivama 85/432 in 85/433, ki sta bili v �pansko pravo preneseni s kraljevim odlokom 1667/1989.
On 4 July 2006, having taken the view that that reply was unsatisfactory, the Commission sent the Kingdom of Spain a reasoned opinion, to which that Member State replied on 12 January 2007, that is to say, after the date of expiry of the period laid down by the Commission in that reasoned opinion, repeating its arguments to the effect that Directive 89/48 was not applicable to specialist qualifications in the area of pharmacy.
Ker je Komisija menila, da ta odgovor ni zadovoljiv, je 4. julija 2006 Kraljevini Španiji poslala dodatno obrazloženo mnenje, na katerega je ta država članica odgovorila 12. januarja 2007 – kar je po izteku roka, ki ga je Komisija določila v tem obrazloženem mnenju –, in sicer je ponovila svojo trditev, da se Direktiva 89/48 ne uporablja v okviru specializacije v farmacevtskem sektorju.
Since it did not find those arguments convincing, the Commission brought the present action.
Ker Komisija ni bila zadovoljna s to utemeljitvijo, je vložila to tožbo.
The Commission claims that, in so far as Article 1 of Royal Decree 2708/1982 precludes holders of a diploma awarded in a Member State and recognised as an equivalent qualification under Article 2 of Directive 85/433 from holding the title of specialist pharmacist and, consequently, pursuing the profession of hospital pharmacist, the defendant Member State has failed to transpose the directive as regards that profession.
Komisija zatrjuje, da ker je s členom 1 kraljevega odloka 2708/1982 izključeno, da bi imetniki diplome, podeljene v državi članici in ki so ji na podlagi člena 2 Direktive 85/433 priznani enaki učinki, imeli naziv farmacevta specialista in bi lahko opravljali poklic bolni�ničnega farmacevta, država – tožena stranka – glede tega poklica ni prenesla te direktive.
The Commission claims, first, that that title should be treated as a ‘diploma’ within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Directive 89/48, in so far as it is awarded by the designated competent authority, provides evidence of post-secondary training of more than three years and proves that its holder has the qualifications required to pursue the profession of hospital pharmacist in Spain.
Ta institucija namreč meni, po eni strani, da bi ta naziv moral biti v smislu člena 1(a) Direktive 89/48 opredeljen kot „diploma“, če ga podeli pristojni poobla�čeni organ, če je pridobljen z visoko�olskim izobraževanjem in usposabljanjem, ki traja najmanj tri leta, in izkazuje, da ima njegov imetnik sposobnosti, ki se zahtevajo za opravljanje poklica bolni�ničnega farmacevta v Španiji.
Secondly, the profession reserved to holders of a specialist pharmacist’s diploma is a regulated profession within the meaning of Article 1(c) of Directive 89/48.
Po drugi strani naj bi bil poklic, ki je pridržan za imetnike diplome farmacevta specialista, reguliran poklic v smislu člena 1(c) Direktive 89/48.
That profession consists in the practice of a regulated activity within the meaning of Article 1(d) of that directive, in so far as access to it is subject to the possession of a diploma.
Ta poklic naj bi namreč pomenil opravljanje regulirane dejavnosti v smislu člena 1(d) te direktive, ker je možnost opravljanja tega poklica odvisna od opravljene diplome.
The Commission points out, in this connection, that Directive 89/48 does not exclude any regulated profession from its scope, with the exception of those which are already the subject of a specific directive on mutual recognition.
Komisija v zvezi s tem poudarja, da Direktiva 89/48 ne izključuje nobenega reguliranega poklica s svojega področja uporabe, razen tistih, ki jih ureja posebna direktiva o vzajemnem priznavanju.
In particular, Directive 89/48 does not include any provision which can be interpreted as excluding from its scope the pharmaceutical professions or, more generally, the health professions.
Predvsem pa naj ta direktiva ne bi vsebovala nobene določbe, ki bi jo bilo mogoče razlagati tako, da s svojega področja uporabe izključuje farmacevtske poklice ali, splo�neje, poklice v zdravstvu.
Including such professions in the general system for the recognition of diplomas is not contrary to Article 47(3) EC, which states that the progressive abolition of restrictions on the right of establishment must be preceded or accompanied by a correlating coordination of the conditions for the exercise of those professions.
Vključitev takih poklicev v splo�ni sistem priznavanja diplom naj ne bi bil v nasprotju s členom 47(3) ES, ki določa, da morajo biti pred postopnim odpravljanjem omejitev glede pravice ustanavljanja oziroma skupaj z njim vzajemno usklajeni pogoji za opravljanje teh poklicev.
The objective of that directive is not to establish a system for the automatic recognition of diplomas, but to establish a general method to facilitate the recognition of diplomas.
Cilj navedene direktive naj ne bi bila vzpostavitev sistema avtomatičnega priznavanja diplom, ampak vzpostavitev splo�nega načina, ki omogoča poenostavitev priznanja diplom.
In addition, Directives 85/432 and 85/433 are not applicable to the profession of hospital pharmacist, since they concern only the diploma evidencing a degree in
Poleg tega naj se direktivi 85/432 in 85/433 ne bi uporabljali za poklic bolni�ničnega farmacevta, ker se nana�ata le na diplomo farmacevta. Direktiva 85/432, s katero se
COMMISSION v SPAIN pharmacy. Directive 85/432, which coordinates the training requirements for the award of the diploma evidencing a degree in pharmacy, to which the regime for recognition laid down in Directive 85/433 applies, is not directed at specialisations in pharmacy, within the meaning of Article 3 thereof, and in particular the hospital pharmacy specialisation.
KOMISIJA PROTI ŠPANIJI uskladijo pogoji glede izobrazbe in usposabljanja za podelitev diplome farmacevta, za katero se uporablja sistem priznanja, določen z Direktivo 85/433, se naj namreč v smislu njenega člena 3 ne bi nana�al na specializacije v farmaciji in zlasti specializacijo v bolni�nični farmaciji.
Secondly, the diploma evidencing a degree in pharmacy is the only diploma listed in the annex to Directive 85/433 with regard to the Kingdom of Spain.
Po drugi strani naj bi bila diploma farmacevta edina diploma, ki je navedena v prilogi k Direktivi 85/433, kar zadeva Kraljevino Španijo.
In reply, the Kingdom of Spain contends that the profession of hospital pharmacist, as a specialisation of the profession of pharmacist, does not fall within the scope of Directive 89/48.
Kraljevina Španija ugovarja, da poklic bolni�ničnega farmacevta, kot posebno področje poklica farmacevta, ne spada na področje uporabe Direktive 89/48.
That profession, it argues, can be governed only by specific legislation, since Article 47(3) EC inserts an express proviso relating to, inter alia, the abolition of restrictions on the exercise of the pharmaceutical professions.
Tak poklic je mogoče urejati le s posebnimi predpisi, ker člen 47(3) ES uveljavlja izrecni pridržek zlasti v zvezi z odpravljanjem omejitev pri opravljanju farmacevtskih poklicev.
Such an abolition of restrictions cannot, as a result, be achieved through the general system for the recognition of diplomas laid down by Directive 89/48.
Zato take odprave omejitev ne bi bilo mogoče izvesti s splo�nim sistemom priznanja diplom, določenim s to direktivo.
That interpretation, it submits further, is borne out by Directives 85/432 and 85/433, which meet the requirement that special rules be laid down for the coordination of legislation relating to certain pharmaceutical activities for the purpose of allowing mutual recognition of qualifications and diplomas in pharmacy.
Ta razlaga naj bi bila potrjena z direktivama 85/432 in 85/433, ki ustrezata zahtevi glede določitve posebnih pravil uskladitve zakonodaj o nekaterih farmacevtskih dejavnostih, da se omogoči vzajemno priznanje nazivov in diplom v farmaciji.
By contrast, Directive 89/48, in which the sole condition laid down for the recognition of diplomas is a minimum duration of studies, is insufficient to ensure compliance with the obligation to provide specific rules laid down in Article 47(3) EC.
V nasprotju s tem pa naj Direktiva 89/48, s katero je kot edini pogoj za priznanje diplom določeno minimalno trajanje �tudija, ne bi mogla zado�čati za zagotovitev spo�tovanja obveznosti podrobne opredelitve, določene v členu 47(3) ES.
It follows that, in the absence of any specific legislation adopted in that matter pursuant to Article 3 of Directive 85/432, the Commission cannot rely on Directive 89/48 for the purpose of challenging the failure of the national legislation to comply with the general system for the recognition of diplomas.
Iz tega naj bi sledilo, da če na podlagi člena 3 Direktive 85/432 niso bili sprejeti posebni predpisi na tem področju, naj se Komisija pri očitanju neskladnosti notranje zakonodaje s splo�nim sistemom priznavanja diplom ne bi mogla sklicevati na Direktivo 89/48.
The two parties to the proceedings accept that Directives 85/432 and 85/433 do not apply to the diploma of specialist pharmacist giving access to the profession of hospital pharmacist.
Obe stranki v postopku priznavata, da se direktivi 85/432 in 85/433 ne uporabljata za diplomo farmacevta specialista, ki omogoča možnost opravljanja poklica bolni�ničnega farmacevta.
However, they draw two different conclusions from that interpretation.
Vendar iz te razlage izpeljeta dva različna pomena.
The Commission submits that the absence of a specific directive means that that diploma falls within the scope of Directive 89/48, whereas the Kingdom of Spain submits that, in the absence of such a directive, recognition of that diploma must be regarded as being governed neither by Directive 89/48 nor by any other measure of secondary legislation.
Komisija meni, da neobstoj posebne direktive pomeni, da ta diploma spada na področje uporabe Direktive 89/48, medtem ko kraljevina Španija meni da, če ni take direktive, je treba �teti, da priznanje navedene diplome ni urejeno niti z Direktivo 89/48 niti z drugim aktom sekundarnega prava.
In this connection, it should be noted at the outset that the scope of Directive 89/48 is not restricted according to the field or type of the diplomas concerned.
V zvezi s tem je treba takoj ugotoviti, da področje uporabe Direktive 89/48 ni določeno glede na področje ali vrsto zadevnih diplom.
It is apparent from Article 1(a) thereof that that directive applies to, inter alia, any diploma of higher education awarded on completion of a post-secondary course of at least three years’ duration and allowing its holder to take up a regulated profession.
Iz njenega člena 1(a) namreč izhaja, da se ta direktiva uporablja predvsem za vse diplome iz visoko�olskih �tudijev, podeljenih ob zaključku visoko�olskega �tudija, ki traja najmanj tri leta in ki daje njenemu imetniku možnost opravljanja reguliranega poklica.
In the present case, it must be noted that, on the basis of the relevant national legislation, the diploma of specialist pharmacist is a diploma of higher studies giving access to a regulated profession, namely that of hospital pharmacist.
V obravnavani zadevi je treba na podlagi nacionalnih predpisov s tega področja ugotoviti, da je diploma farmacevta specialista diploma iz visoko�olskega �tudija, ki omogoča opravljanja reguliranega poklica, in sicer poklica bolni�ničnega farmacevta.
Even though it does not dispute such a classification of the diploma and profession at issue, the Kingdom of Spain takes the view that, since Directive 89/98 does not apply to diplomas of specialisations in pharmacy, it is not obliged to provide for the option for nationals of other Member States to take up the profession of hospital pharmacist.
Čeprav Kraljevina Španija ne izpodbija take opredelitve diplome in zadevnega poklica, meni da, ker se Direktiva 89/48 ne uporablja za diplome iz specializacije v farmaciji, ni zavezana določiti možnosti za državljane drugih držav članic, da začnejo opravljati oziroma da opravljajo poklic bolni�ničnega farmacevta.
Such an interpretation of the directive must be rejected.
Tako razlago te direktive je treba zavrniti.
First of all, the right to recognition of diplomas is guaranteed as an expression of the fundamental right to freedom of establishment by the second paragraph of Article 43 EC.
V zvezi s tem je treba najprej poudariti, da je pravica do priznanja diplom zagotovljena s členom 43, drugi odstavek, ES kot izraz temeljne pravice do svobode ustanavljanja.
Directive 89/48, as is apparent from the third recital in its preamble, lays down a ‘method of recognition’ of the diplomas which it covers.
Direktiva 89/48, kot izhaja iz njene tretje uvodne izjave, določa „način priznavanja“ diplom, na katere se nana�a.
It establishes a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas enabling the holder to gain access to a regulated profession and thus to exercise a right enshrined in the Treaty.
Določa splo�ni sistem priznavanja visoko�olskih diplom, ki omogoča možnost opravljanja reguliranega poklica in s tem izvajanje pravice, ki je določena s Pogodbo.
Moreover, as the Commission has pointed out, Directive 89/48 does not establish a system of automatic recognition.
Poleg tega, kot je poudarila Komisija, Direktiva 89/48 ne vzpostavlja avtomatičnega sistema priznavanja.
Although it recognises the right of access to regulated professions, that directive, under Article 4(b) thereof, allows the host State to require an applicant who is a national of another Member State to complete an adaptation period or to take an aptitude test, in particular where the matters covered by the education and training he has received differ substantially from those covered by the diploma required in the host Member State, or where the profession regulated in the host Member State comprises one or more regulated professional activities which are not in the profession regulated in the Member State from which the applicant originates or comes and that difference between the professional activities in the two Member States concerned corresponds to different specific training.
Ta direktiva namreč, čeprav priznava pravico do možnosti opravljanja reguliranih poklicev, na podlagi svojega člena 4(b) državi članici gostiteljici omogoča, da od kandidata, državljana druge države članice, zahteva, da konča prilagoditveno obdobje ali da opravi preizkus usposobljenosti, zlasti če izobrazba in usposobljenost, ki jo je dobil, temelji na predmetih, ki so bistveno drugačni od predmetov, ki jih zajema diploma, zahtevana v državi članici gostiteljici, ali če regulirani poklic v tej državi članici zajema eno ali več reguliranih poklicnih dejavnosti, ki niso zajete v reguliranem poklicu matične države članice oziroma države, iz katere prihaja prosilec, ali če se razlika med poklicnimi dejavnostmi v obeh zadevnih državah nana�a na posebno izobrazbo in usposabljanje, ki je bistveno drugačno.
The Kingdom of Spain submits that Article 47(3) EC precludes, in any event, a directive designed to implement a general system for the recognition of diplomas from being applied to the health professions, since that article expressly inserts a proviso concerning the medical and allied and pharmaceutical professions, restrictions on the access to which cannot be removed in the absence of a measure fixing the rules relating to the ‘coordination of the conditions for their exercise in the various Member States’.
Kraljevina Španija navaja, da člen 47(3) ES v vsakem primeru izključuje, da bi se direktiva, katere cilj je vzpostavitev splo�nega sistema priznavanja diplom, lahko uporabljala za poklice v zdravstvu, ker ta člen izrecno uveljavlja pridržek pri zdravstvenih delavcih, zdravstvenih sodelavcih in farmacevtih, za katere ni mogoče odpraviti omejitev brez akta, ki določa pravila o „uskladitvi pogojev za njihovo opravljanje v posameznih državah članicah“.
That argument must be rejected.
To trditev je treba zavrniti.
Such an interpretation of Article 47(3) EC would result, in fact, not only in a failure to apply Directive 89/48 but more generally in precluding the right of Community nationals to recognition of diplomas of specialisations in pharmacy, even though that right stems from the second paragraph of Article 43 EC.
Taka razlaga člena 47(3) ES bi dejansko povzročila ne le neuporabo Direktive 89/48, ampak �e splo�neje – izključitev pravice državljanov Skupnosti do priznanja diplom iz specializacije v farmaciji, medtem ko ta pravica izhaja iz člena 43, drugi odstavek, ES.
On the contrary, the objective of Article 47(3) EC is not to restrict the scope of the right to recognition of diplomas, but to avoid the implementation of a system for the automatic recognition of diplomas giving access to the health professions in the absence of coordination of the provisions governing the exercise of those professions.
Ravno nasprotno, cilj člena 47(3) ES ni omejitev obsega pravice do priznanja diplom, ampak preprečitev izvajanja sistema avtomatičnega priznavanja diplom za možnost opravljanja poklicev v zdravstvu brez uskladitve določb, ki urejajo opravljanje teh poklicev.
That provision of the Treaty therefore concerns a system which must be designed in such a way as to correspond with the progressive harmonisation of the provisions on the exercise of those professions.
Ta določba Pogodbe se nana�a na tak sistem, ki ga je treba vzpostaviti povezano s postopno uskladitvijo določb o opravljanju navedenih poklicev.
In the light of the foregoing, it must be held that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to transpose Directive 89/48, as far as the profession of hospital pharmacist is concerned, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
Glede na navedeno je treba ugotoviti, da Kraljevina Španija z nesprejetjem vseh potrebnih ukrepov za prenos Direktive 89/48 glede poklica bolni�ničnega farmacevta ni izpolnila obveznosti iz te direktive.
Since the Commission has applied for the Kingdom of Spain to be ordered to pay the costs and the latter has been unsuccessful, the Kingdom of Spain must be ordered to pay the costs.
Komisija je predlagala, naj se Kraljevini Španiji naloži plačilo stro�kov, in ker ta s tožbenimi predlogi ni uspela, se ji naloži plačilo stro�kov.
Declares that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to transpose Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration, as far as the profession of hospital pharmacist is concerned, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Kraljevina Španija z nesprejetjem vseh potrebnih ukrepov za prenos Direktive Sveta 89/48/EGS z dne 21. decembra 1988 o splošnem sistemu priznavanja visokošolskih diplom, pridobljenih s poklicnim izobraževanjem in usposabljanjem, ki traja najmanj tri leta, glede poklica bolnišničnega farmacevta ni izpolnila obveznosti iz te direktive.
Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Kraljevini Španiji se naloži plačilo stroškov.
Joined Cases C-95/07 and C-96/07
Združeni zadevi C-95/07 in C-96/07
(References for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova)
(Sixth VAT Directive — Reverse charge procedure — Right to deduct — Time-bar — Irregularity in accounts and tax returns affecting transactions subject to the reverse charge procedure)
„Šesta direktiva o DDV – Mehanizem obrnjene davčne obveznosti – Pravica do odbitka – Prekluzivni rok – Knjigovodska nepravilnost in nepravilnost obračuna, ki vpliva na transakcije, za katere velja mehanizem obrnjene davčne obveznosti“
I - 3460Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 8 May 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sharpston, predstavljeni 13. marca 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Deduction of input tax
Davčne določbe – Usklajevanje zakonodaj – Prometni davki – Skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost – Odbitek vstopnega davka
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES C-95/07 AND C-96/07
POVZETEK – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-95/07 IN C-96/07
tax authority at a date subsequent to the date from which the limitation period applicable to the right to deduct of a taxable person begins to run is not such as to infringe the principle of equality
Členi 17, 18(2) in (3) ter 21(1)(b) Šeste direktive 77/388 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 2000/17, ne nasprotujejo nacionalni zakonodaji, ki davčnemu zavezancu določa prekluzijski rok za uveljavljanje pravice do odbitka, če sta spo�tovani načelo enakovrednosti, ki zahteva, da rok velja enako za pravico do odbitka, ki temelji na notranjem pravu, in za pravico, ki temelji na pravu Skupnost, ter načelo učinkovitosti, v skladu s katerim prekluzijski rok v praksi ne onemogoča ali čezmerno otežuje uveljavljanja pravice do odbitka.
(see paras 46, 51, 54, operative part 1)
(Glej točke 46, 51, 54 in točko 1 izreka.)
However, Articles 18(1)(d) and 22 of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, as amended by Directive 2000/17, preclude a practice whereby tax returns are reassessed and value added tax recovered which penalises a failure to comply, first, with obligations arising from formalities laid down in national legislation pursuant to Article 18(1)(d), and, second, with the obligations relating to accounts and
Načelo učinkovitosti ni kr�eno zgolj zaradi dejstva, da ima davčna uprava za odmero neplačanega DDV na voljo rok, ki je dalj�i od roka, ki je dodeljen davčnim zavezancem za uveljavljanje pravice do odbitka, ker položaja davčne uprave ni mogoče primerjati s položajem davčnega zavezanca in ker dejstvo, da začne
The principle of effectiveness is not infringed merely because the tax authority has a longer period in which to recover unpaid value added tax than the period granted to taxable persons for the exercise of their right to deduct because the position of the tax authority cannot be compared with that of a taxable person and the fact that a limitation period begins to run as regards the
Člena 18(1)(d) in 22 Šeste direktive 77/388 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 2000/17, nasprotujeta praksi spremembe obračunov in odmere davka na dodano vrednost, kot je ta v zadevah v glavni stvari, ki nespo�tovanje obveznosti, ki po eni strani izhajajo iz formalnosti, ki jih določa nacionalna zakonodaja ob uporabi člena 18(1)(d), in po drugi strani iz knjigovodskih obveznosti in
ECOTRADE tax returns under Article 22(2) and (4) respectively, by denying the right to deduct in the case of a reverse charge procedure.
ECOTRADE obveznosti obračuna, ki izhajajo iz členov 22(2) in (4), kaznuje z zavrnitvijo pravice do odbitka v primeru uporabe mehanizma obrnjene davčne obveznosti.
The failure by a taxable person to comply with the formalities imposed by a Member State pursuant to Article 18(1)(d) of the Sixth Directive cannot deprive him of his right to deduction since, in accordance with the principle of fiscal neutrality, the deduction of input tax must be allowed if the substantive requirements are satisfied, even if the taxable person has failed to comply with some of the formal requirements.
Dejstvo, da davčni zavezanec kr�i formalnosti, ki jih določi država članica na podlagi člena 18(1)(d) Šeste direktive, mu namreč ne more odvzeti pravice do odbitka, ker se v skladu z načelom davčne nevtralnosti odobri odbitek vstopnega DDV, če so izpolnjene vsebinske zahteve, tudi če nekaterih postopkovnih zahtev davčni zavezanci niso izpolnili.
that they would have the effect of systematically undermining the right to deduct value added tax.
izpodbijali pravico do odbitka davka na dodano vrednost.