natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It follows that the Member States may require the right to deduct to be exercised either during the period in which it arose or over a longer period, subject to compliance with certain conditions and procedures determined by their national legislation.
Iz tega izhaja, da lahko države članice zahtevajo, naj se pravica do odbitka uveljavlja bodisi v obdobju, v katerem je nastala, bodisi v dalj�em obdobju, s pridržkom spo�tovanja nekaterih pogojev in postopkov, določenih v njihovi nacionalni zakonodaji.
Furthermore, the possibility of exercising the right to deduct without any temporal limit would be contrary to the principle of legal certainty, which requires the tax position of the taxable person, having regard to his rights and obligations vis-à-vis the tax authority, not to be open to challenge indefinitely.
Poleg tega bi možnost uveljavljanja pravice do odbitka brez kakr�nih koli omejitev nasprotovala načelu pravne varnosti, ki zahteva, da se davčnega položaja davčnega zavezanca glede njegovih pravic in obveznosti nasproti davčni upravi ne more neskončno dolgo izpodbijati.
Consequently, the argument that the right to deduct may not be coupled with any limitation period cannot be accepted.
Zato ni mogoče sprejeti trditve, da pravice do odbitka ni mogoče pogojiti z nobenim prekluzijskim rokom.
As regards the principle of equivalence, it does not appear from the file, nor has it been argued before the Court, that the limitation period provided for in Article 19(1) of the DPR No 633/72 does not comply with that principle.
Glede načela enakovrednosti iz spisa ne izhaja in se pri Sodi�ču tudi ni zatrjevalo, da prekluzijski rok, določen v členu 19(1) UPR �t. 663/72, ne spo�tuje tega načela.
With respect to the principle of effectiveness, it should be pointed out that a twoyear time-limit, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, cannot, in itself, render the exercise of the right to deduct virtually impossible or excessively difficult, since Article 18(2) of the Sixth Directive allows Member States to require that the taxable person exercise his right to deduct during the same period as that in which it arose.
V zvezi z načelom učinkovitosti je treba poudariti, da prekluzijski rok dveh let, kot je ta v zadevi v glavni stvari, sam po sebi ne more v praksi onemogočiti ali čezmerno otežiti uveljavljanja pravice do odbitka, saj člen 18(2) Šeste direktive omogoča državam članicam, da od davčnega zavezanca zahtevajo, naj uveljavlja pravico do odbitka v istem obdobju kot je to, v katerem je ta pravica nastala.
It is also appropriate to examine whether that conclusion is not invalidated by the fact that, under the national legislation, the tax authority has a longer period in which to demand recovery of the VAT due than that accorded to taxable persons to claim deduction of VAT.
Preučiti je treba tudi, ali tega sklepanja ne more ovreči dejstvo, da ima v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo davčna uprava za izterjavo dolgovanega DDV na voljo dalj�i rok, kot da imajo davčni zavezanci, da zahtevajo njegov odbitek.
In that regard, it should be pointed out that the tax authority does not have the information necessary to determine the amount of the tax chargeable and the deductions
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da pozna davčna uprava podatke, potrebne za določitev zneska izterljivega DDV in zneska odbitkov, ki jih je treba izvesti, �ele takrat, ko
ECOTRADE to be made until it receives the taxable person’s tax return.
ECOTRADE dobi davčni obračun davčnega zavezanca.
In the case of an inaccurate return, or where it turns out to be incomplete, it is therefore only from that time that the authorities can reassess the tax return and, where necessary, recover unpaid tax (see, to that effect, Case C-85/97 SFI [1998] ECR I-7447, paragraph 32).
V primeru nepravilnosti obračuna ali če se izkaže, da je ta nepopoln, lahko davčna uprava �ele od tega trenutka naprej spreminja ta obračun in, če je to potrebno, odmeri neplačani davek (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 19. novembra 1998 v zadevi SFI, C-85/97, Recueil, str. I-7447, točka 32).
Thus the position of the tax authority cannot be compared with that of a taxable person (SFI, paragraph 32).
Zato položaja davčne uprave ni mogoče primerjati s položajem davčnega zavezanca (sodba SFI, točka 32).
As the Court has already held, the fact that a limitation period begins to run as regards the 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 (see, to that effect, SFI, paragraph 33).
Kot je Sodi�če že presodilo, dejstvo, da začne prekluzijski rok glede davčne uprave teči pozneje kot prekluzijski rok, ki ga ima davčni zavezanec za uveljavljanje pravice do odbitka, ni tako, da bi ogrožalo načelo enakosti (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo SFI, točka 33).
Therefore, a limitation period, such as that the issue in the main proceedings does not render impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of the right to deduct merely because the tax authority has a longer period in which to recover unpaid VAT than that accorded to the taxable person for the exercise of such a right.
Zato prekluzijski rok, kot je ta iz zadeve v glavni stvari, ne onemogoča in ne otežuje čezmerno uveljavljanja pravice do odbitka zaradi samega dejstva, da ima davčna uprava za odmero neplačanega DDV na voljo rok, ki je dalj�i od roka, ki je dodeljen davčnemu zavezancu za uveljavljanje take pravice.
That conclusion remains valid where, as in the cases in the main proceedings, the reverse charge procedure applies.
To sklepanje ostaja veljavno, kadar se tako kot v zadevah v glavni stvari uporablja mehanizem obrnjene davčne obveznosti.
Article 18(2) and (3) of the Sixth Directive is also applicable to such a procedure.
Člen 18(2) in (3) Šeste direktive se namreč tudi uporablja za tak sistem.
That follows unequivocally from the wording of those provisions, both of which refer expressly to Article 18(1)(d), which covers the case of the reverse charge procedure.
To nedvomno izhaja iz besedila teh določb, ki obe izrecno napotujeta na člen 18(1), ki se v točki (d) nana�a na primer mehanizma obrnjene davčne obveznosti.
In light of the foregoing, the answer to the national court must be that Articles 17, 18(2) and (3) and 21(1)(b) of the Sixth Directive do not preclude national legislation which lays down a limitation period for the exercise of the right to deduct, such as
Ob upo�tevanju navedenega je treba predložitvenemu sodi�ču odgovoriti, da členi 17, 18(2) in (3) ter 21(1)(b) Šeste direktive ne nasprotujejo nacionalni zakonodaji, ki določa prekluzijski rok za uveljavljanje pravice do odbitka, kot je ta v zadevi v glavni stvari, če sta načeli enakovrednosti in učinkovitosti spo�tovani. Načelo učinkovitosti
The principle of effectiveness is not infringed merely because the tax authority has a longer period in which to recover unpaid VAT than the period granted to taxable persons for the exercise of their right to deduct.
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-95/07 IN C-96/07 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.
The reassessment and recovery practice
Praksa spremembe in odmere
It is appropriate to consider whether the Sixth Directive precludes a reassessment and recovery practice which penalises an accounting irregularity consisting, as described in paragraph 36 of this judgment, of the incorrect recording of the relevant transactions only in the register of purchases exempt from VAT, that irregularity also affecting the tax returns drawn up by Ecotrade, by denying the right to deduct where the reverse charge procedure applies.
Preučiti je treba vpra�anje, ali Šesta direktiva nasprotuje praksi spremembe in odmere, s katero se kaznuje knjigovodska nepravilnost, ki jo, kot je bilo opozorjeno v točki 36 te sodbe, tvori napačen vpis zadevnih transakcij v eno samo knjigo prejetih računov za oprostitev od DDV, zaradi te nepravilnosti pa so napačni tudi davčni obračuni družbe Ecotrade v zvezi z DDV, tako da se zavrne pravica do odbitka v primeru uporabe mehanizma obrnjene davčne odgovornosti.
It must be pointed out in that regard that, in accordance with the reverse charge procedure introduced by Article 21(1)(b) of the Sixth Directive, Ecotrade, as the recipient of services supplied by taxable persons established abroad, was liable for VAT on the transactions effected, that is to say the input tax, although it could, in principle, deduct exactly the same amount of tax so that no tax was due to the Exchequer.
Glede tega je treba pojasniti, da je bila v skladu z mehanizmom obrnjene davčne obveznosti, določenim v členu 21(1)(b) Šeste direktive, družba Ecotrade kot prejemnik storitev, ki jih opravljajo davčni zavezanci s sedežem v tujini, zavezana za plačilo DDV za opravljene transakcije, in sicer vstopni DDV, hkrati pa je bila načeloma upravičena odbiti natančno ta davek tako, da državni blagajni ni dolgovan noben znesek.
However, where the reverse charge procedure is applicable, as in the cases in the main proceedings, Article 18(1)(d) of the Sixth Directive authorises the Member States to establish the formalities with which the taxable person must comply in order to be able to exercise his right to deduct.
Vendar ko se uporablja mehanizem obrnjene davčne obveznosti kakor v zadevah v glavni stvari, je po členu 18(1)(d) Šeste direktive dovoljeno državam članicam, da določijo formalnosti, ki jih mora davčni zavezanec izpolnjevati za uveljavljanje pravice do odbitka.
It follows from the application of such a formality, introduced into Italian law by Article 47(1) of Decree-Law No 331/93, that Ecotrade should have invoiced itself for the relevant transactions and recorded that invoice separately, together with the invoice issued by the supplier of the relevant services, in the register of invoices issued and in the register of purchases, so that it would have had a VAT credit corresponding precisely to the tax due.
Iz uporabe take formalnosti, ki je bila v italijanskem pravu določena zlasti s členom 47(1) dekreta-zakona �t. 331/93, izhaja, da bi morala družba Ecotrade sama sebi izdati račun, ki se nana�a na zadevne transakcije, in ločeno vpisati ta račun ter račun, ki ga je izdal izvajalec zadevnih storitev, v knjigo izdanih računov in v knjigo prejetih računov, tako da bi imela dobropis DDV, ki bi natančno ustrezal dolgovanemu davku.
Furthermore, according to Article 22(2) and (4) of the Sixth Directive, every taxable person is to keep accounts in sufficient detail for VAT to be applied and inspected by the tax authority and to submit a return which must set out all the information needed to calculate the tax that has become chargeable and the deductions to be made.
Poleg tega mora v skladu s členom 22(2) in (4) Šeste direktive vsak davčni zavezanec voditi dovolj podrobno knjigovodstvo, da omogoči uporabo DDV in njegov nadzor s strani davčne uprave in predložiti obračun, ki mora vsebovati vse podatke, ki so potrebni za izračun davka, za katerega je nastala obveznost obračuna in odbitkov, ki se opravijo.
In order to ensure that every taxable person complies with those obligations, Article 22(7) authorises Member States to take the necessary measures for that purpose, including in the case of the reverse charge procedure.
Da zagotovijo, da vsak davčni zavezanec izpolnjuje te obveznosti, člen 22(7) države članice poobla�ča, da v ta namen sprejmejo potrebne ukrepe, tudi v primeru mehanizma obrnjene davčne obveznosti.
The cases in the main proceedings concern the fact that Ecotrade failed to comply with its obligations arising, first, from the formalities laid down by the national legislation pursuant to Article 18(1)(d) of the Sixth Directive, and, second, its obligations relating to accounts and tax returns under Article 22(2) and (4) respectively (‘failure to comply with accounting obligations’).
Iz tega sledi, da v zadevah v glavni stvari obstaja položaj, ko družba Ecotrade kr�i svoje obveznosti, ki po eni strani izhajajo iz formalnosti, ki jih določa nacionalna zakonodaja ob uporabi člena 18(1)(d) Šeste direktive, in po drugi strani knjigovodskih obveznosti in obveznosti obračuna, ki izhajajo iz členov 22(2) in (4) iste direktive (v nadaljevanju: kr�itev knjigovodskih obveznosti).
It is therefore appropriate to consider whether such a failure may validly be penalised by denying the right to deduct in the case of a reverse charge procedure.
Preučiti je treba, ali je mogoče tako kr�itev veljavno kaznovati tako, da se zavrne pravica do odbitka v primeru veljave mehanizma obrnjene davčne obveznosti.
As far as concerns the obligations arising from Article 18(1)(d) of the Sixth Directive, although it is true that that provision allows Member States to lay down the formal-
V zvezi z obveznostmi, ki izhajajo iz člena 18(1)(d) Šeste direktive, čeprav ta določba omogoča državam članicam, da določijo formalnosti glede uveljavljanja pravice do
2008 — JOINED CASES C-95/07 AND C-96/07 ities relating to the exercise of the right to deduct in the case of the reverse charge procedure, a failure to comply with those formalities by the taxable person cannot deprive him of his right to deduct.
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-95/07 IN C-96/07 odbitka v primeru mehanizma obrnjene davčne obveznosti, pa njihova kr�itev davčnemu zavezancu ne more odvzeti pravice do odbitka.
Since the reverse charge procedure was indisputably applicable to the cases in the main proceedings, the principle of fiscal neutrality requires deduction of input tax to be allowed if the substantive requirements are satisfied, even if the taxable person has failed to comply with some of the formal requirements (see, by way of analogy, Case C-146/05 Collée [2007] ECR I-7861, paragraph 31).
Čeprav je namreč nesporno, da je mehanizem obrnjene davčne obveznosti veljal v zadevah v glavni stvari, pa načelo davčne nevtralnosti zahteva, naj se odobri odbitek vstopnega DDV, če so izpolnjene vsebinske zahteve, tudi če nekaterih postopkovnih zahtev davčni zavezanci niso izpolnili (glej po analogiji sodbo z dne 27. septembra 2007 v zadevi Collée, C-146/05, ZOdl., str. I-7861, točka 31).
Therefore, where the tax authority has the information necessary to establish that the taxable person is, as the recipient of the supply of services in question, liable to VAT, it cannot, in relation to the right of that taxable person to deduct that tax, impose additional conditions which may have the effect of rendering that right ineffective for practical purposes (see Bockemühl, paragraph 51).
Zato če ima davčna uprava na voljo podatke, potrebne za ugotovitev, da je davčni zavezanec kot prejemnik zadevnih storitev zavezan za plačilo DDV, ne more – glede njegove pravice, da ta davek odbije – naložiti dodatnih zahtev, ki bi lahko imele za posledico to, da bi bilo uveljavljanje te pravice popolnoma nemogoče (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Bockemühl, točka 51).
The same is true of Article 22(7) and (8) of the Sixth Directive, pursuant to which the Member States are to take the necessary measures to ensure that taxable persons comply with their obligations relating to declaration and payment or impose other obligations which they deem necessary for the correct collection of the tax and for the prevention of evasion.
Enako je v primeru člena 22(7) in (8) Šeste direktive, na podlagi katerega države članice sprejmejo potrebne ukrepe, da zagotovijo, da davčni zavezanec izpolnjuje obveznosti obračuna in plačila ali določijo �e druge obveznosti, za katere menijo, da so potrebne za pravilno pobiranje davka in za preprečevanje davčnih utaj.
Although those provisions allow Member States to take certain measures, they must not however go further than is necessary to attain the objectives mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
Če bi namreč te določbe dovoljevale državam članicam, da sprejmejo nekatere ukrepe, pa ti ne smejo preseči tega, kar je potrebno za dosego ciljev, navedenih v prej�nji točki.
Such measures may not therefore be used in such a way that they would have the effect of systematically undermining the right to deduct VAT, which is a fundamental principle of the common system of VAT established by the
Takih ukrepov torej ni mogoče uporabiti na način, da bi sistematično lahko izpodbijali pravico do odbitka DDV, ki je temeljno načelo skupnega sistema
ECOTRADE relevant Community legislation (see Joined Cases C-286/94, C-340/95, C-401/95 and C-47/96 Molenheide and Others [1997] ECR I-7281, paragraph 47, and Gabalfrisa and Others, paragraph 52).
DDV, vzpostavljenega z zakonodajo Skupnosti na tem področju (glej sodbo z dne 18. decembra 1997 v združenih zadevah Molenheide in drugi, C-286/94, C-340/95, C-401/95 in C-47/96, Recueil, str. I-7281, točka 47, in zgoraj navedeno sodbo Gabalfrisa in drugi, točka 52).
A reassessment and recovery practice, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which penalises noncompliance on the part of the taxable person with the obligations relating to accounts and tax returns by a denial of the right to deduct, clearly goes further than is necessary to attain the objective of ensuring the correct application of such obligations within the meaning of Article 22(7) of the Sixth Directive, since Community law does not prevent Member States from imposing, where necessary, a fine or a financial penalty proportionate to the seriousness of the offence in order to sanction a failure to comply with those obligations.
Praksa spremembe in odmere, kakr�na je ta v zadevi v glavni stvari, ki kaznuje nespo�tovanje knjigovodskih obveznosti in obveznosti obračuna davčnega zavezanca z zavrnitvijo pravice do odbitka, pa jasno presega to, kar je potrebno za dosego cilja zagotovitve pravilne uporabe takih obveznosti v smislu člena 22(7) Šeste direktive, če pravica Skupnosti ne onemogoča tega, da bi države članice, če bi bilo to potrebno, naložile globo ali premoženjsko kazen, ki je sorazmerna teži kr�itve, da bi kaznovale nespo�tovanje teh obveznosti.
That practice also goes further than is necessary for the correct collection of the tax and for the prevention of evasion within the meaning of Article 22(8) of the Sixth Directive, since it may even lead to the loss of the right to deduct if the reassessment of the tax return by the tax authorities is made after the expiry of the limitation period available to the taxable person in which to make the deduction (see, by analogy, Gabalfrisa and Others, paragraphs 53 and 54).
Ta praksa tudi presega to, kar je potrebno za zagotovitev pravilnega pobiranja DDV in za preprečevanje davčnih utaj v smislu člena 22(8) Šeste direktive, ker lahko privede celo do izgube pravice do odbitka, če davčna uprava spremeni obračun �ele po poteku prekluzijskega roka, ki ga ima na voljo davčni zavezanec, da opravi odbitek (glej po analogiji zgoraj navedeno sodbo Gabalfrisa in drugi, točki 53 in 54).
Nor can such a reassessment and recovery practice be justified under Article 17(6) and (7) of the Sixth Directive.
Take prakse spremembe in odmere pa tudi ni mogoče utemeljiti na podlagi člena 17(6) in (7) Šeste direktive.
Those two provisions are not applicable to a situation such as that at issue in the cases in the main proceedings, since they govern the existence of the right to deduct itself and not the procedure for exercising it.
Ti določbi se namreč ne moreta uporabljati v primeru, kot je ta v zadevah v glavni stvari, ker urejata sam obstoj pravice do odbitka, in ne postopkov njenega uveljavljanja.
Moreover, Article 17(6) applies only to expenditure which is not strictly business expenditure, such as luxuries, amusements or entertainment, whereas it is common ground that no such expenditure is involved in the cases in the main proceedings.
Člen 17(6) velja le za izdatke, ki niso nedvomno poslovni izdatki, kot so izdatki za luksuzne predmete, razvedrilo ali zabavo, nesporno pa je, da se taki izdatki ne obravnavajo v zadevi v glavni stvari.
As to the possibility open to the Member States under Article 17(7), it need merely be pointed out that they cannot avail themselves of it unless they have first used the consultation
Glede možnosti, ki jo imajo države članice na podlagi tega odstavka 7, zado�ča poudariti, da se lahko te sklicujejo le na okoli�čino, da so predhodno imele možnost posvetovanja iz
Furthermore, it is not apparent from the orders for reference, nor indeed was it alleged before the Court, that Ecotrade’s failure to comply with its accounting obligations was the result of bad faith or evasion.
Poleg tega iz predložitvene odločbe ne izhaja, in pred Sodi�čem tudi ni bilo zatrjevano, da je nespo�tovanje knjigovodskih obveznosti posledica slabe vere ali goljufije družbe Ecotrade.
In any event, the good faith of a taxable person is relevant for the answer to be given to the national court only in so far as there is, on account of the conduct of that taxable person, a risk of a loss of tax revenues for the Member State concerned (see, to that effect, Collée, paragraphs 35 and 36).
Vsekakor je dobrovernost davčnega zavezanca glede vpra�anja, ki ga je treba dati predložitvenemu sodi�ču, upo�tevna le, če zaradi ravnanja tega davčnega zavezanca obstaja tveganje izgube davčnih prihodkov za zadevno državo članico (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Collée, točki 35 in 36).
However, a failure to comply with accounting obligations, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, cannot be regarded as giving rise to a risk of loss of tax revenues, since, as stated in paragraph 56 of this judgment, in the context of the application of the reverse charge procedure, no tax is due in principle to the Exchequer.
Vendar ni mogoče �teti, da kr�itev knjigovodskih obveznosti, kot je ta iz zadeve v glavni stvari, povzroči tveganje izgube davčnih prihodkov, ker, kot je bilo opozorjeno v točki 56 te sodbe, v okviru uporabe mehanizma obrnjene davčne obveznosti načeloma ni dolgovan noben znesek v državno blagajno.
For those reasons, such a failure also cannot be treated as a transaction designed to evade tax or as a misuse of Community rules, since it was not intended to obtain a tax advantage to which there was no entitlement (see, to that effect, Collée, paragraph 39).
Iz teh razlogov te kr�itve tudi ni mogoče enačiti s transakcijo z namenom goljufije ali z zlorabo določb Skupnosti, če ta transakcija ni bila opravljena z namenom pridobitve neupravičene davčne ugodnosti (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Collée, točka 39).
Therefore the answer to be given to the national court must be that Articles 18(1)(d) and 22 of the Sixth Directive do preclude a reassessment and recovery practice 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
Zato je treba predložitvenemu sodi�ču odgovoriti, da člena 18(1)(d) in 22 Šeste direktive nasprotujeta praksi spremembe obračunov in odmere DDV, 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 knjigovodskih obveznosti in obveznosti obračuna, ki izhajajo iz členov 22(2) in (4),
ECOTRADE relating to accounts and tax returns under Article 22(2) and (4) respectively, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by denying the right to deduct in the case of a reverse charge procedure.
ECOTRADE kaznuje z zavrnitvijo pravice do odbitka v primeru uporabe mehanizma obrnjene davčne obveznosti.
Having regard to the answer given in paragraph 54 of this judgment, there is no need to give a ruling on the Cypriot Government’s proposal to limit the temporal effects of this judgment.
Glede na odgovor, dan v točki 54 te sodbe, ni treba odločiti o predlogu ciprske vlade, naj se časovno omejijo učinki te sodbe.