natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Advocate General: M. Poiares Maduro, Registrar: L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 25 October 2007, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Hewlett, glavna administratorka, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 25. oktobra 2007, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common System of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago Šeste direktive Sveta 77/388/EGS z dne 17. maja 1977 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih – Skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost: enotna osnova za odmero (UL L 145, str.
1) (‘the Sixth Directive’).
1, v nadaljevanju: Šesta direktiva).
The reference has been made in the course of proceedings between the Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze (Ministry of the Economy and Finance) and Part Service Srl (‘Part Service’), formerly Italservice Srl (‘Italservice’), regarding a notice of adjustment of value added tax (‘VAT’) notified in respect of the 1987 financial year, for leasing transactions in connection, for the most part, with motor vehicles.
Ta predlog je bil predložen v okviru spora med Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze (ministrstvo za gospodarstvo in finance) in Part Service Srl (v nadaljevanju: Part Service), nekdanja Italservice Srl (v nadaljevanju: Italservice), zaradi odmere davka na dodano vrednost (v nadaljevanju: DDV), vročene za davčno leto 1987, glede poslov najema s poznej�im kupom (lizing), povezanih predvsem z motornimi vozili.
Article 11A(1) of the Sixth Directive, relating to the taxable amount for VAT, provides:
V členu 11A(1) Šeste direktive v zvezi z davčno osnovo je določeno:
‘The taxable amount shall be:
„Davčna osnova:
(a) in respect of supplies of goods and services other than those referred to in (b), (c) and (d) below, everything which constitutes the consideration which has been or is to be obtained by the supplier from the purchaser, the customer or a third party for such supplies including subsidies directly linked to the price of such supplies;
(a) pri dobavah blaga in storitev, razen tistih iz (b), (c) in (d) tega odstavka, je vse, kar predstavlja plačilo, ki ga je prejel ali ga bo prejel dobavitelj ali izvajalec od kupca, naročnika ali tretje osebe za te dobave, vključno s subvencijami, ki so neposredno povezane s ceno tak�nih dobav;
Article 13B of the Sixth Directive provides for the exemption of certain transactions:
Člen 13B Šeste direktive določa oprostitve za različne transakcije s tem besedilom:
‘Without prejudice to other Community provisions, Member States shall exempt the following under conditions which they shall lay down for the purpose of ensuring the correct and straightforward application of the exemptions and of preventing any possible evasion, avoidance or abuse:
„Brez poseganja v druge določbe Skupnosti države članice pod pogoji, ki jih določijo zaradi zagotavljanja pravilne in enostavne uporabe oprostitev in preprečevanja vsakr�nih možnih utaj, izogibanj ali zlorab, oprostijo:
(a) insurance and reinsurance transactions, including related services performed by insurance brokers and insurance agents;
(a) zavarovalne in pozavarovalne transakcije, vključno s povezanimi storitvami, ki jih opravljajo zavarovalni posredniki in zavarovalni zastopniki;
(d) the following transactions:
(d) naslednje transakcije:
1. the granting and the negotiation of credit and the management of credit by the person granting it;
1. dajanje kreditov in posredovanje v zvezi s krediti ter upravljanje kreditov s strani osebe, ki kredit odobri;
2. the negotiation of or any dealings in credit guarantees or any other security for money and the management of credit guarantees by the person who is granting the credit;
2. sklepanje ali druge vrste poslovanja v zvezi z garancijami za kredite ali kakr�nimi koli drugimi oblikami zavarovanja denarja ter upravljanje garancij za kredite s strani osebe, ki kredit odobri;
3. transactions, including negotiation, concerning deposit and current accounts, payments, transfers, debts, cheques and other negotiable instruments, but excluding debt collection and factoring;
3. transakcije, vključno s posredovanjem, v zvezi z depoziti, tekočimi računi, plačili, transferji, dolgovi, čeki ali drugimi plačilnimi instrumenti, razen izterjave dolgov in factoringa;
2), as amended on a number of occasions (‘DPR No 633/72’) defined the supply of services as follows:
2), kot je bila večkrat spremenjena (v nadaljevanju: UPR �t. 633/72), določa opravljanje storitev tako:
‘Supplies for consideration under contract for work, procurement, transport, representation, haulage, agency, brokerage, or deposit and generally under obligations to do or refrain from doing or to permit something to be done, whatever the basis thereof, constitute a supply of services.
„Pri opravljanju storitev gre za storitve, opravljene za plačilo, ki izhajajo iz pogodb o delu, prevoznih pogodb, pogodb o naročilu, �pedicijskih pogodb, pogodb o trgovskem zastopanju, posredni�kih, shranjevalnih pogodb in na splo�no iz obveznosti nekaj storiti ali opustiti in dovoliti ne glede na vir.
When carried out for consideration, the following also constitute a supply of services:
Storitve, opravljene za plačilo, so tudi:
(1) the letting, leasing and rental of property and similar services;
1. dajanje v najem stvari, zakup, lizing in podobne storitve;
Article 10 of DPR No 633/72 exempts certain transactions from VAT:
633/72 je določeno, da so nekatere transakcije opro�čene DDV pod temi pogoji:
(1) supply of the services of granting and negotiation of credit, credit management by the credit supplier, finance transactions; the negotiating and undertaking of
1. opravljanje storitev v zvezi z dajanjem kreditov in posredovanjem v zvezi s krediti ter upravljanjem kreditov s strani osebe, ki kredit odobri, in finančne transakcije;
2008 — CASE C-425/06 commitments, securities and other deposits and guarantees and the management of credit guarantees by the credit supplier; payment deadlines, transactions, including negotiations, concerning deposit accounts, current accounts, payments, transfers, debts, cheques and other negotiable instruments, excluding debt collection; the management of unit trusts and pension investment trusts referred to in legislative Decree No 124 of 21 April 1993, similar periods and management activities and financial and postal services (bank — post office);
2008 – ZADEVA C-425/06 posredovanje ali druge vrste poslovanja v zvezi z garancijami za kredite ali kakr�nimi koli drugimi oblikami zavarovanja denarja ter upravljanje garancij za kredite s strani osebe, ki kredit odobri; plačilne roke; transakcije, vključno s posredovanjem, v zvezi z depoziti, tekočimi računi, plačili, transferji, dolgovi, čeki ali drugimi plačilnimi instrumenti, razen izterjave dolgov in factoringa; upravljanje posebnih investicijskih skladov in pokojninskih skladov iz zakonske uredbe �t. 124 z dne 21. aprila 1993, podobne roke in poslovanja ter finančne in po�tne storitve (banka-po�ta);
(2) insurance and reinsurance transactions, life annuity transactions;
2. zavarovalne in pozavarovalne transakcije ter transakcije v zvezi z rentami;
(9) representation, brokerage and intermediation services relating to those transactions referred to in paragraphs 1 to 7, and relating to gold and foreign securities, also including deposits in a current account, carried out on transactions implemented by the Bank of Italy and the Italian currency exchange, within the meaning of the fifth paragraph of Article 4 of the present decree.’
9. storitve v zvezi z nakazili in posredovanjem v zvezi s transakcijami iz točk od 1 do 7 in tistih v zvezi z zlatom in vrednostnimi predmeti, vključno z depoziti na tekočem računu, izvedenih v zvezi s transakcijami Banke Italije in italijanske menjalnice v smislu člena 4(5) te uredbe.“
The first paragraph of Article 13 of DPR No 633/72 defines the taxable amount for VAT purposes:
V členu 13, prvi odstavek, UPR �t. 633/72 je davčna osnova za DDV določena tako:
‘The taxable amount for the supply of goods and services comprises the total amount of consideration received or to be received by the supplier or provider according to the contractual terms, including the charges and expenses involved in performance
„Davčna osnova pri dobavah blaga in opravljanju storitev je skupni znesek plačil, ki ga je prejel ali ga bo prejel dobavitelj ali ponudnik v skladu s pogodbenimi pogoji, vključno z izdatki in stro�ki izvr�itve ter dolgovi ali drugimi obveznostmi do tretjih
PART SERVICE and the debts or other obligations to third parties imposed on the transferee or the principal, increased by additional amounts directly linked to the consideration due from other parties.’
PART SERVICE oseb v breme cesionarja ali naročnika, povi�an za vsoto, neposredno povezano s plačili, ki jih dolgujejo druge osebe.“
Throughout 1987 Italservice and the leasing company IFIM Leasing Sas (‘IFIM’), both belonging to the same financial group, were involved together in leasing arrangement transactions in connection, for the most part, with motor vehicles.
Družba Italservice in lizin�ka družba IFIM Leasing SAS (v nadaljevanju: IFIM), ki pripadata isti finančni skupini, sta leta 1987 sodelovali pri lizin�kih transakcijah predvsem v zvezi z motornimi vozili.
Those transactions were carried out under the following terms:
Te transakcije so bile izvr�ene tako, kot je opisano v nadaljevanju.
IFIM concluded a contract with a customer for the use of a motor vehicle with an option to purchase, in consideration of lease payments, the setting up of a surety corresponding to the costs of the vehicle not covered by the lease payments and the provision of an unlimited security.
Družba IFIM je z uporabnikom sklenila pogodbo o uporabi motornega vozila in možnosti njegovega odkupa s plačilom obrokov, s položitvijo var�čine, ki je enaka ceni vozila, ki ni pokrita z obroki, in z zagotovitvijo neomejenega poro�tva.
Italservice concluded a contract with the customer under which it insured the vehicle against all risks except civil liability and guaranteed — by financing the surety and providing the unlimited security — the fulfilment of the obligations, in favour of IFIM, undertaken by that customer.
Družba Italservice je z uporabnikom sklenila pogodbo, na podlagi katere je zavarovala stvar proti vsem tveganjem, razen za civilno odgovornost, in s položitvijo var�čine ter zagotovljenim neomejenim poro�tvom jamčila spo�tovanje obveznosti navedenega uporabnika proti družbi IFIM.
In consideration thereof the customer paid, in advance, to Italservice an amount which reduced the total of the lease payments agreed between the customer and IFIM, reducing that total, in the majority of cases, to an amount barely above the cost of the vehicle, as well as a commission of 1% paid to a consultant.
Uporabnik je družbi Italservice poleg provizije v vrednosti 1 %, plačane svetovalcu, vnaprej plačal znesek, na podlagi katerega je bil skupni znesek obrokov, dogovorjenih med njim in družbo IFIM, znižan, tako da je bila vsota v večini primerov znižana na znesek, le nekoliko vi�ji od cene vozila.
The customer instructed Italservice to pay the amount financed to IFIM, on his behalf, by way of the surety provided for in the contract for use of the vehicle.
Uporabnik je na družbo Italservice prenesel obveznost plačila zneska, ki ga je plačal družbi IFIM, iz naslova var�čine, določene v pogodbi o uporabi.
Italservice entrusted the performance of the contract with the customer to IFIM.
Družba Italservice je na družbo IFIM prenesla izvr�itev pogodbe z uporabnikom.
IFIM, as an intermediary, received additional remuneration from Italservice, and, in the event of default by the customer, an amount equivalent to that promised by Italservice to the customer, by way of refund, in the event of the customer fulfilling his obligations to make the lease payments.
Družba IFIM je od družbe Italservice kot posrednica prejela dodatno plačilo in za primer, če uporabnik ne bi izpolnil obveznosti, znesek, enak znesku, ki ga je uporabniku obljubila družba Italservice iz naslova povračila v primeru izpolnitve njegovih obveznosti plačila obrokov.
Pursuant to Article 3 of DPR No 633/72, IFIM levied VAT on the customer’s lease payments.
Družba IFIM je na podlagi člena 3 UPR �t. 633/72 za obroke, ki jih je plačal uporabnik, obračunala DDV.
By contrast, on the basis of Article 10 of DPR No 633/72, the consideration paid by the customer to Italservice and by Italservice to IFIM was invoiced without VAT.
Po drugi strani so bili za zneske, ki sta jih plačala družbi Italservice uporabnik in družbi IFIM družba Italservice, na podlagi člena 10 UPR �t. 633/72 izdani računi brez DDV.
Following investigations carried out into Italservice the tax office held that, although the different agreements signed by the interested parties were contained in separate contracts, they together constituted a single contract concluded between three parties.
Davčni urad je po preverjanjih pri družbi Italservice ugotovil, da so različne obveznosti zadevnih strank, čeprav so jih vsebovale ločene pogodbe, skupaj pomenile enotno pogodbo, sklenjeno med tremi strankami.
According to that office, the consideration paid by the customer for the leasing arrangement had been artificially divided to reduce the taxable amount, as the role of lessor was split between Italservice and IFIM.
Po njegovem mnenju je bila protivrednost, ki jo je uporabnik plačal za lizing, umetno razdeljena z namenom znižanja davčne osnove, vloga lizingodajalca pa je bila razdeljena med družbi Italservice in IFIM.
As a consequence, the tax office issued Italservice, on 1 September 1992, with an adjustment notice for VAT, in respect of the year 1987, in the amount of ITL 3 169 519 000, with interest and penalties of ITL 9 496 469 000.
Zato je davčni urad družbi Italservice 1. septembra 1992 vročil odločbo o odmeri DDV za leto 1987 za znesek 3.169.519.000 ITL, povi�an za obresti in globe na 9.496.469.000 ITL.
Italservice contested that tax adjustment before the Commissione tributaria di primo grado di Modena (Tax Court of First Instance, Modena) (Italy).
Družba Italservice je to odločbo o odmeri davka izpodbijala pri Commissione tributaria di primo grado di Modena.
It claimed that it was not a single contract, but several linked contracts, that format having been chosen not for tax avoidance purposes, but for valid economic reasons associated with marketing (launching a new financial product with reduced premiums), with organisation (separation of the risk management tasks: insurance, securities and financing confined to Italservice; management of a fleet of vehicles entrusted to operational companies) and the guarantee (financing serving as the guarantee deposit for fulfilling the obligations of the customer).
Zatrjevala je, da ni �lo za enotno pogodbo, ampak za več povezanih pogodb, ki niso bile sklenjene zaradi izogibanja davkom, ampak iz dopustnih gospodarskih razlogov, povezanih s trženjem (uvedba novega finančnega mehanizma z znižanimi premijami), organizacijo (ločitev nalog pri upravljanju s tveganji: zavarovanje, poro�tva in financiranje so preneseni na družbo Italservice; upravljanje z voznim parkom pa je preneseno na družbe izvajalke) in zavarovanjem (financiranje za namene var�čine za spo�tovanje obveznosti uporabnika).
The tax office appealed that decision to the Commissione tributaria di secondo grado di Modena (Tax Court of Second Instance, Modena) (Italy), which dismissed its appeal.
Davčni urad je to odločbo izpodbijal pri Commissione tributaria di secondo grado di Modena, ki pa je njegovo tožbo zavrnila.
It then appealed to the Corte d’appello di Bologna (Court of Appeal, Bologna) (Italy) which dismissed that appeal by judgment of 13 November 1998-12 January 1999.
Zato se je pritožil pri Corte d’appello di Bologna, ki pa je pritožbo s sodbo z dne 13. novembra 1998–12. januarja 1999 zavrnilo.
The tax office brought an appeal on a point of law against that judgment before the Corte suprema di cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation).
Davčni urad je zoper navedeno sodbo vložil pritožbo pri Corte suprema di cassazione (kasacijsko sodi�če).
That court is of the view that the decision to be taken requires resolution of the question whether the actions of the relevant parties, having regard to their reciprocal links, can be considered to be an abuse of rights or of legal form according to the definition given by Community case-law, notably in Case C-255/02 Halifax and Others [2006] ECR I-1609.
To sodi�če meni, da je treba za sprejetje odločbe odgovoriti na vpra�anje, ali se lahko ravnanje zadevnih strank glede na njihove medsebojne vezi �teje kot zloraba pravice ali pravne oblike, kot jo je opredelila sodna praksa Skupnosti, zlasti v sodbi Sodi�ča z dne 21. februarja 2006 v zadevi Halifax in drugi (C-255/02, ZOdl., str. I-1609).
It considers that the division of the contracts has the effect of reducing the VAT burden to a lesser amount than that resulting from an ordinary leasing contract, since tax is levied only on the granting of use of the vehicle, the cost of which is practically equivalent to the purchase price of that vehicle.
Poudarja, da je delitev pogodb vplivala na znižanje osnove za DDV na znesek, ki je nižji od zneska, ki izhaja iz pogodbe o običajnem najemu s poznej�im kupom, ker je le dajanje vozila v uporabo, katerega cena je praktično enaka nakupni ceni tega vozila, zavezano plačilu davka.
It is therefore necessary to determine whether, for the purposes of VAT collection, with regard to the economic objective sought, the contracts must be held to constitute a unitary whole, or whether each contract remains autonomous and, accordingly, subject to its own particular tax rules.
Zato bi bilo treba določiti, ali je treba pogodbe za namene pobiranja DDV �teti za enotno pogodbo glede na zasledovani gospodarski cilj ali pa vsaka pogodba ohrani samostojnost in zato svojo davčno ureditev.
In order to answer that question, it must be determined whether the fact that a financing transaction — regarded in economic practice and in national caselaw as an essential component of a leasing contract — is regulated by a separate contract concerning the granting of the use of the goods, can constitute an abuse.
Za re�itev tega vpra�anja bi se bilo treba vpra�ati, ali lahko okoli�čina – da je finančna transakcija, za katero se na podlagi gospodarske prakse in nacionalne sodne prakse �teje, da je bistveni sestavni del pogodbe o lizingu, urejena v pogodbi, ločeni od tiste, katere predmet je dajanje stvari v uporabo – pomeni zlorabo.
The referring court is of the opinion that, on that point, clarifications are necessary, inter alia, as to the scope of the conditions imposed by Halifax and Others for a finding of the existence of an abuse.
Predložitveno sodi�če meni, da so za ugotovitev obstoja zlorabe potrebna pojasnila, med drugim glede obsega pogojev, postavljenih v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Halifax in drugi.
It also considers that, in paragraph 86 of that judgment, the Court required — in addition to the binding condition that the transaction in question should result in the accrual of a tax advantage contrary to the objective of the relevant provisions of the Sixth Directive — that the transaction should have ‘the essential aim of … obtain[ing] a tax advantage.’
Poudarja, da je Sodi�če v točki 86 te sodbe poleg pogoja, da mora biti cilj zadevne transakcije pridobitev davčne ugodnosti, ki je v nasprotju s ciljem zadevnih določb Šeste direktive, zahtevalo, da je „bistveni cilj [navedene transakcije] pridobitev davčne ugodnosti“.
It observes that, in paragraph 60 and the operative part of the judgment in that case, the Court also referred to transactions ‘carried out with the sole aim of obtaining a tax advantage, without any other economic objective’.
Opozarja, da se je Sodi�če v točki 60 in v izreku iste sodbe poleg tega sklicevalo na transakcije, ki „se jih izvede z edinim ciljem pridobiti davčno ugodnost, pri čemer ne zasledujejo nobenega [drugega] gospodarskega cilja“.
It raises the question, therefore, whether the abuse of rights bar operates where the economic reasons, other than the accrual of a tax advantage, are wholly marginal or insignificant, and not a possible alternative explanation.
Predložitveno sodi�če se spra�uje, ali zato omejitev zlorabe pravice učinkuje takrat, kadar so vsi drugi gospodarski razlogi, razen iskanja davčne ugodnosti, obrobni ali nepomembni in ne pomenijo morebitne alternativne razlage.
Against that background, the Corte suprema di cassazione stayed proceedings and referred the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
V tem okviru je Corte suprema di cassazione prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ti vpra�anji:
2008 — CASE C-425/06 rately with the effect that only the consideration paid in respect of the grant of the right to use the goods is subject to VAT, whereas a single contract of leasing in accordance with the practice and interpretation of national caselaw would include the financing and would therefore make the whole of the consideration subject to VAT?’
2008 – ZADEVA C-425/06 plača za pravico do uporabe stvari, predmet plačila DDV, medtem ko naj bi sama pogodba o lizingu, glede na prakso in razlago nacionalne sodne prakse, vključevala tudi financiranje in bi bila zato celotna protivrednost predmet plačila DDV?“
The questions referred
Vprašanji za predhodno odločanje
Part Service claims that the present reference for a preliminary ruling is inadmissible.
Družba Part Service meni, da ta predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe ni dopusten.
The questions referred bear no relation to the facts of the main action or its purpose.
Postavljeni vpra�anji naj ne bi imeli nikakr�ne zveze z dejanskim stanjem ali s predmetom spora o glavni stvari.
The problem raised is purely hypothetical and unrelated to Community law provisions and/or principles.
Izpostavljeni problem naj bi bil zgolj hipotetičen in naj ne bi bil povezan z določbami in/ali načeli Skupnosti.
However, none of those conditions is fulfilled in the present case.
Vendar v tej zadevi ni izpolnjen nobeden od teh pogojev.
In its order for reference the national court, which has a dispute in a VAT matter before it, describes in detail the factual and legal background of the dispute in the main proceedings.
Nacionalno sodi�če, ki odloča o sporu s področja DDV, je namreč v predložitveni odločbi podrobno opisalo dejanski in pravni okvir spora o glavni stvari.
It then seeks the opinion of the Court on the Community law applicable to VAT, notably on the Community concept of ‘abusive practice’, in order to be in a position to assess whether the transaction, which is the subject of the dispute in the main proceedings, should be held to constitute such a practice and, accordingly, subject to VAT.
Dalje spra�uje Sodi�če o pravu Skupnosti, ki velja za DDV, zlasti o pojmu Skupnosti „zloraba“, da bi lahko presodilo, ali je treba za transakcijo, ki je predmet spora o glavni stvari, �teti, kot da izhaja iz take zlorabe in je zato zavezana za DDV.
The interpretation of Community law sought thus has a bearing on the facts and purpose of the dispute in the main proceedings and is not hypothetical.
Zahtevana razlaga prava Skupnosti je zato povezana z dejanskim stanjem in s predmetom spora o glavni stvari ter ni hipotetična.
Consequently, the questions referred are admissible.
Zato sta predloženi vpra�anji dopustni.