natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It was in this context that the Højesteret decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
Z odločbo z dne 17. novembra 1999 so danski davčni organi odločili, da se vozila, ki so bila prodana ob koncu najema, upo�teva kot „investicijsko blago, ki ga je davčni zavezanec uporabljal za namene svoje dejavnosti“, tako da je treba promet, ki je nastal z njihovo prodajo, izvzeti iz odbitnega deleža. S to odločbo je bil ta delež znižan.
‘Is the expression “capital goods used by the taxable person for the purposes of his business” contained in Article 19(2) of the [Sixth Directive] to be interpreted as covering goods which a leasing undertaking purchases with a view to both leasing and resale upon termination of the respective leasing contracts?’
„Ali je treba izraz ‚investicijsko blago, ki ga je davčni zavezanec uporabljal za namene svoje dejavnosti‘, naveden v členu 19(2) [Šeste direktive], razumeti tako, da vsebuje blago, ki ga lizing podjetje po eni strani kupi z namenom, da ga da v najem, in po drugi strani, da ga ob koncu pogodbe o lizingu proda?“
Erhvervsfinans challenged that decision before the Landsskatteret (National Tax Tribunal), which upheld its application.
Erhvervsfinans je izpodbijala to odločbo pred Landsskatteret, ki je njeni zahtevi ugodilo.
That tribunal found that the leased vehicles were purchased with a view to being leased and sold at the end of the leasing contract, to third parties or possibly to the lessee.
To sodi�če je ocenilo, da so vozila, dana v najem, kupljena zaradi najema, da bi bila nato prodana na koncu obdobja lizinga tretjim osebam ali lizingojemalcu.
From this it concluded that the sale of the leased vehicles had to be regarded as forming a natural part of Erhvervsfinans’ business activities, with the result that those vehicles could not be treated as ‘capital goods’ within the meaning of Article 19(2) of the Sixth Directive.
To sodi�če je iz tega sklepalo, da je treba �teti prodajo najetih vozil kot naraven del dejavnosti Erhvervsfinans, tako da teh vozil ni mogoče opredeliti kot „investicijsko blago“ v pomenu člena 19(2) Šeste direktive.
By its question, the national court is seeking to determine whether or not the turnover attributable to the ordinary sale of goods such as the vehicles leased out by Erhvervsfinans ought to be included in the calculation of the deductible proportion.
S svojim vpra�anjem za predhodno odločanje želi predložitveno sodi�če izvedeti, ali je promet, ki izhaja iz običajne prodaje blaga, kot so vozila, ki jih daje v najem Erhvervsfinans, treba vključiti ali ne v izračun odbitnega deleža.
Skatteministeriet (the Danish Ministry of Fiscal Affairs) appealed against this decision to the Østre Landsret (Eastern Regional Court), which declared the appeal to be well founded, taking the view that the leased vehicles did constitute capital goods within the meaning of the abovementioned provision.
Skatteministeriet (dansko davčno ministrstvo) se je pritožilo na to odločitev pred Østre Landsret, ki je odločilo, da je pritožba utemeljena, in ocenilo, da so v najem dana vozila investicijsko blago v pomenu zgoraj navedene določbe.
If the Court takes the view that such turnover must be included in that calculation, it must be added to the
Če Sodi�če odloči, da je ta promet treba upo�tevati v tem izračunu, se ga pri�teje �tevcu in imenovalcu ulomka, ki se uporabi za
NORDANIA FINANS AND BG FACTORING
NORDANIA FINANS IN BG FACTORING določitev tega deleža, kar povzroči povečanje njegovega rezultata in posledično pravice do odbitka davčnega zavezanca.
Verbond van Nederlandse Ondernemingen, 4in which the Court interpreted the concept of ‘capital goods’ in Article 17 of Second Council Directive 67/228/EEC.
v kateri je Sodi�če razlagalo pojem „investicijsko blago“ iz člena 17 Druge direktive Sveta 67/228/EGS 5.
the decisive factors in regard to this concept were the durability of the use of the goods in issue and the rules applicable to writing off of the acquisition costs, and that the Member States enjoyed a certain margin of discretion in defining the content of each of those criteria.
Presodilo je, da so odločilni kriteriji za ta pojem trajnost uporabe zadevnega blaga in postopki za amortizacijo stro�ka za njihovo pridobitev in da imajo države članice določeno polje proste presoje pri opredelitvi vsebine vsakega od teh kriterijev.
The Danish Government, which is opposed to that outcome, considers that goods purchased by a leasing company with a view to leasing and reselling them must be regarded as ‘capital goods used by the taxable person for the purposes of his business’ within the meaning of Article 19(2) of the Sixth Directive for the reasons that follow.
Danska vlada, ki nasprotuje tej re�itvi, meni, da je treba blago, ki ga lizing podjetje kupi z namenom, da ga da v najem in nato proda, opredeliti kot „investicijsko blago, ki ga je davčni zavezanec uporabljal za namene svoje dejavnosti“ v pomenu člena 19(2) Šeste direktive zaradi naslednjih razlogov.
The Danish Government maintains that the vehicles leased in the main proceedings in the present case meet those criteria.
Danska vlada navaja, da vozila, ki so bila dana v najem in so predmet zadeve o glavni stvari, ustrezajo tem kriterijem.
It also claims that there is no need to make any further distinction, as requested by Nordania Finans A/S and BG Factoring A/S, between such capital goods and other goods.
Navaja tudi, da drugo razlikovanje, ki ga predlagata Nordania Finans A/S in BG Factoring A/S, med takim investicijskim blagom in trgovskim blagom ni potrebno.
According to that government, Article 19(2) must be read in conjunction with Article 20(4) of the Sixth Directive, which states that the Member States may define the concept of ‘capital goods’.
Po mnenju te vlade je treba to določbo brati skupaj s členom 20(4) Šeste direktive, po katerem lahko države članice opredelijo pojem „investicijskega blaga“.
That concept, it is agreed, must therefore have the same content in the whole of the Directive, as the reference to Article 20(5) in the last sentence of Article 19(2) confirms.
Ta pojem mora imeti enak pomen v celotni direktivi, kar potrjuje tudi sklicevanje v zadnjem stavku člena 19(2) na njen člen 20(5).
The Member States may therefore define the concept of ‘capital goods’ both in the context of Article 19 and in the context of Article 20 of the Directive.
Države članice lahko torej opredelijo pojem „investicijsko blago“ tako v okviru člena 19 kot tudi v okviru člena 20 omenjene direktive.
Finally, the Danish Government argues that its position is consistent with Article 19(2) of the Sixth Directive and with the preparatory material which led to the adoption of that provision.
Omenjena vlada na koncu zatrjuje, da je njeno mnenje v skladu z namenom čle -na 19(2) Šeste direktive kot tudi s pripravljalnimi dokumenti, s katerimi je bilo omogočeno sprejetje te določbe.
Accordingly, Article 19(2) of the Sixth Directive, it is submitted, is intended to guarantee that the sale of assets with a high value and durable nature does not distort the deductible proportion.
Tako je namen člena 19(2) Šeste direktive zagotoviti, da prodaja, ki ima večjo vrednost in trajno naravo, ne izkrivi odbitnega deleža.
Even if it has already been decided at the time when such assets are purchased that they will be sold when they have been used, the inclusion of the sale price in the calculation of the deductible proportion is liable to distort that proportion.
Tudi če je že ob nakupu takega premoženja odločeno, da bo to premoženje prodano po njegovi uporabi, bi vključitev prodajne cene v izračun odbitnega deleža lahko izkrivila ta delež.
Like the appellants in the main proceedings and the Commission, I am of the view that the notion of ‘capital goods used by the taxable person for the purposes of his business’ in Article 19(2) of the Sixth Directive does not cover assets acquired by an undertaking for the purposes of leasing them and then selling them, where the sale at the end of the leasing contracts is an integral part of the taxable person’s usual economic activity.
Enako kot tožeče stranke v postopku o glavni stvari in Komisija menim, da pojem „investicijsko blago, ki ga je davčni zavezanec uporabljal za namene svoje dejavnosti“ iz člena 19(2) Šeste direktive ne obsega blaga, ki ga je podjetje pridobilo z namenom, da ga da v najem in nato proda, kadar je prodaja na koncu najemne pogodbe integralni del običajne gospodarske dejavnosti davčnega zavezanca.
I base my view on the scheme of the system for deductions, of which Article 19(2) is a part, as well as on the purpose of that provision.
To mnenje opiram na ureditev sistema odbitkov, katerega del je ta določba, kot tudi na namen določbe.
The sales of such assets, the argument goes on, are isolated transactions which affect the company’s resources to a limited extent in relation to its day-to-day business.
Prodaje takega premoženja bi bile osamljene transakcije, ki bi omejeno obremenile sredstva podjetja glede na tekoče poslovanje.
If a significant amount were to be included as the sale price in the calculation of the deductible proportion, after the asset in question had been used in the undertaking for several years, that would distort the deductible proportion, since the amount of the sale would not reflect the actual effect of the transaction on the company’s financial assets.
Če bi bili v izračun odbitnega deleža vključeni veliki zneski, kot je prodajna cena, potem ko je bil zadevni del premoženja uporabljan v podjetju več let, bi to izkrivilo odbitni delež, ker znesek prodaje ne odseva dejanske obremenitve te transakcije na njegovih sredstvih.
As a preliminary point it must be noted that the question referred by the national court cannot be answered on the basis of a reading of the words ‘capital goods used by the taxable person for the purposes of his business’ referred to in Article 19(2) of the Sixth Directive.
Uvodoma je treba omeniti, da jezikovna razlaga izraza „investicijsko blago, ki ga je davčni zavezanec uporabljal za namene svoje dejavnosti“, navedenega v členu 19(2) Šeste direktive, ne omogoča odgovora na vpra�anje predložitvenega sodi�ča.
It is also common ground that the concept of capital goods is not defined in that article or in any other provision of the Sixth Directive.
Prav tako ni sporno, da pojem investicijsko blago ni opredeljen v tem členu ali v kateri drugi določbi Šeste direktive.
NORDANIA FINANS AND BG FACTORING goods in the system for adjusting deductions, provided for in Article 20 of the Sixth Directive, is not deprived of usefulness or even called into question by the fact that the concept of ‘capital goods’ referred to in Article 19 of that Directive must have an autonomous and uniform content throughout the European Community.
NORDANIA FINANS IN BG FACTORING sistemu popravkov odbitkov, ki ga določa člen 20 Šeste direktive, ne izgubi svojega učinka niti je ne ogroža dejstvo, da mora imeti pojem „investicijsko blago“, ki ga določa člen 19 iste direktive, avtonomen in enak pomen v celotni Evropski skupnosti.
may define the concept of capital goods for the application of Article 20(2) and (3).
sticijskega blaga za namene uporabe določb odstavkov 2 in 3 istega člena.
However, unlike the Danish Government, I take the view that the reference in the third sentence of Article 19(2) of the Sixth Directive to the provisions of Article 20(5) does not allow Article 20(4) of the Directive to be interpreted in a manner contrary to its wording.
Vendar v nasprotju z dansko vlado ocenjujem, da sklic na tretji stavek člena 19(2) Šeste direktive v določbi člena 20(5) te direktive ne omogoča, da se člen 20(4) razlaga v pomenu, ki je nasproten njegovemu besedilu.
It is solely for the application of Article 20(2) and (3) of the Sixth Directive relating to the adjustment of deductions that Article 20(4) entrusts each Member State with the task of defining the concept of capital goods.
Dejansko četrti odstavek člena 20 le za namen uporabe drugega in tretjega odstavka tega člena Šeste direktive, ki se nana�a na popravke teh odbitkov, vsaki državi članici prepu�ča skrb, da opredeli pojem investicijskega blaga.
That possibility cannot therefore be extended to the context of Article 19 of the Sixth Directive, which relates to calculation of the deductible proportion, without infringing the clear and precise wording of Article 20(4).
Te možnosti torej ni mogoče raz�iriti v okvir člena 19 Šeste direktive, ki se nana�a na izračun odbitnega deleža, ne da bi bilo to v nasprotju z jasnim in natančnim besedilom člena 20(4) te direktive.
The purpose of Article 20 of the Sixth Directive is to make possible the correction of mistakes in the calculation of the deductions from which the taxable person has benefited.
Dejansko je namen člena 20 Šeste direktive, da se omogočijo popravki nenatančnosti v izračunu odbitkov, do katerih je bil davčni zavezanec upravičen.
That article is applicable in particular where changes in the factors initially taken into consideration to determine the amount of the deductions occurred after the declaration made by the taxable person.
Ta člen se uporablja predvsem, kadar se spremenijo dejavniki, ki so bili prvotno upo�tevani za ugotovitev zneska odbitkov, potem ko je davčni zavezanec predložil obračun 6.
6Such may be the case, for example, where the taxable person who has acquired goods to carry out a taxable activity and deducted all the VAT on the purchase of the goods subsequently uses them in whole or in part for an exempt activity.
To se na primer lahko zgodi, kadar davčni zavezanec, ki je pridobil blago za izvajanje obdavčene dejavnosti in odbil celotni DDV, ki je obremenjeval pridobitev tega blaga, kasneje to blago v celoti ali deloma uporabi za opro�čeno dejavnost.
Such an extension of the scope of the latter provision would also run counter to the objective pursued by Article 19 of the Sixth Directive, as set out in the 12th recital in the preamble thereto, which states that the deductible proportion should be calculated in a similar manner in all the Member States.
Taka raz�iritev dosega te zadnje določbe bi bila prav tako v nasprotju z namenom iz člena 19 Šeste direktive, kot je naveden v njeni dvanajsti uvodni izjavi, po besedilu katere je treba odbitni delež v vseh državah članicah računati na podoben način.
The likelihood of such a change in the use of goods is greater with regard to capital goods since they are intended to be used by the taxable person for several years.
Verjetnost za tako spremembo pri uporabi blaga je večja, kadar gre za investicijsko blago, ker je namen tega blaga, da ga davčni zavezanec uporablja več let.
6 — Case C-184/04 Uudenkaupungin ECR I-3039, paragraph 25.
6 – Sodba z dne 30. marca 2006 v zadevi Uudenkaupungin Kaupunki (C-184/04, ZOdl., str.
Furthermore, the right of the Member States to define the concept of capital
Med drugim pravica držav članic, da opredelijo pojem investicijskega blaga v
That is why Article 20 of the Sixth Directive establishes a specific system of adjustments for them.
BOTA – ZADEVA C-98/07 v členu 20 Šeste direktive uveden poseben sistem popravkov, ki se nana�a na tako blago.
The fact that vehicles acquired to be leased and then sold in the context of the taxable person’s ordinary business are excluded from the concept of ‘capital goods’ in Article 19 of the Sixth Directive does not preclude the Danish tax authorities from adjusting the deduction of the VAT on vehicles acquired by the taxable person should it transpire that those vehicles, during the time when they were part of the undertaking and contrary to what was intended at the time of their purchase, were no longer wholly used for leasing, which is taxable, but for an exempt activity.
Čeprav so vozila, ki so bila pridobljena, da bi bila dana v najem in nato prodana v okviru običajne dejavnosti davčnega zavezanca, dejansko izključena iz pojma „investicijsko blago“, določenega v členu 19 Šeste direktive, lahko danski davčni organi popravijo odbitek DDV, ki je obremenjeval vozila, ki jih je pridobil davčni zavezanec, če se izkaže, da ta vozila med svojo prisotnostjo v podjetju in v nasprotju s tem, kar je bilo predvideno ob njihovi pridobitvi, niso več v celoti namenjena dejavnosti lizinga, ki je predmet obdavčitve, temveč opro�čeni dejavnosti.
Thus, Article 20(2) provides that the deduction initially made may be adjusted over a 5-year period for movable property and over a maximum of 20 years for immovable property.
Tako je v drugem odstavku člena predvideno, da se lahko prvotno uporabljen odbitek popravi v obdobju petih let za premičnine in največ v dvajsetih letih za nepremičnine.
It also defines the arrangements for calculating the adjustment.
Določen je tudi način izračuna tega popravka.
In addition, Article 20(3) covers the case where the capital item in question is removed from the taxable person’s assets before the end of the applicable period by replacing annual adjustment with a single adjustment based on presumed use of the item during the remaining period.
V tretjem odstavku je predvidena tudi ureditev primera, v katerem gre zadevno investicijsko blago iz premoženja davčnega zavezanca pred koncem upo�tevnega obdobja, s tem, da se z enim samim popravkom, ki je utemeljen na domnevni uporabi tega blaga v celotnem preostalem obdobju, zamenja letne popravke.
In other words, the fact that vehicles purchased for the purpose of being leased and then sold in the context of the taxable person’s usual business are excluded from the concept of ‘capital goods’ in Article 19 of the Sixth Directive has no effect on the classification of ‘capital goods’ within the meaning of Article 20 of that directive with regard to vehicles which have been subject to a change of use.
Z drugimi besedami: dejstvo, da so vozila, ki so bila pridobljena z namenom, da bodo dana v najem in nato prodana v okviru običajne dejavnosti davčnega zavezanca, izključena iz pojma „investicijsko blago“, ki je določen v členu 19 Šeste direktive, ne vpliva na opredelitev „investicijskega blaga“ v pomenu člena 20 te direktive glede vozil, katerih namembnost se je spremenila.
It may be supposed with regard to the argument of the Danish Government that, in the provisions of national law dealing with the adjustment of deductions adopted to transpose Article 20 of the Sixth Directive, goods such as vehicles purchased by the taxable person are considered to be capital goods.
Iz razlogov, ki jih navaja danska vlada, domnevam, da je blago, kakr�no so vozila, ki jih je kupil davčni zavezanec, opredeljeno kot investicijsko blago v določbah nacionalnega prava, ki so bile sprejete za prenos člena 20 Šeste direktive.
NORDANIA FINANS AND BG FACTORING the concept of ‘capital goods’ in Article 17 of the Second Directive given by the Court in Verbond van Nederlandse Ondernemingen is not relevant to the reply to be given to the question at issue here.
NORDANIA FINANS IN BG FACTORING blago“, ki ga določa člen 17 Druge direktive, ki jo je podalo Sodi�če v prej navedeni sodbi Verbond van Nederlandse Ondernemingen, ni upo�tevna za odgovor, ki ga je treba dati na presojano vpra�anje.
It follows that the system for adjusting deductions provided for in Article 20 of the Sixth Directive and the right of the Member States to define the concept of capital goods within the context of that system are not compromised by the fact that the concept of ‘capital goods’ in Article 19 of the Sixth Directive must be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation in the Community.
Iz tega izhaja, da sistem popravkov odbitkov, ki ga določa člen 20 Šeste direktive, in pravica držav članic, da opredelijo pojem investicijskega blaga v okviru tega sistema, nista ogrožena, ker mora imeti pojem „investicijsko blago“ iz člena 19 Šeste direktive v Skupnosti avtonomno in enako razlago.
Nor, likewise, does the Member States’ right under the final sentence of Article 19(2) of the Sixth Directive to include the proceeds of sale of capital goods in the calculation of the deductible proportion in the case where they exercise the right provided for in Article 20(5) of that directive seem to me to contradict that analysis.
Prav tako ni v nasprotju z mojo presojo možnost, ki je državam članicam dana v zadnjem stavku člena 19(2) Šeste direktive, da v izračun odbitnega deleža vključijo tudi odtujitev investicijskega blaga, kadar uveljavijo možnost, ki jo določa člen 20(5) te direktive.
That interpretation may, admittedly, be transposable to the context of Article 19 of the Sixth Directive, regard being had to the common points which connect that provision to Article 17 of the Second Directive.
Res je, da bi bilo mogoče to razlago prenesti v okvir člena 19 Šeste direktive, upo�tevajoč skupne točke, ki to določbo povezujejo z določbo člena 17 Druge direktive.
Article 17 provided that the Member States had the option to ‘exclude … capital goods’ from the deductions regime laid down in Article 11 of the Second Directive, which provided that any taxable person was entitled to deduct the input tax paid for goods and services acquired by him for the purposes of his business.
Ta člen 17 dejansko določa, da imajo države članice možnost „izključiti […] investicijsko blago“ iz ureditve odbitkov, ki je določena v členu 11 Druge direktive, po kateri ima vsak davčni zavezanec pravico odbiti vstopni davek, plačan za blago in storitve, ki jih je pridobil za potrebe svojega podjetja.
Article 20(5) provides for a right to derogate from the rule that the turnover relating to the sale of capital goods is not to be taken into account in the calculation of the deductible proportion.
Dejansko ta določba predvideva možnost, da se ne uporabi pravilo, po katerem se promet, ki pripada prodaji investicijskega blaga, ne upo�teva pri izračunu odbitnega deleža.
It cannot be allowed to extend the scope of the first and second sentences of Article 19(2) of the Sixth Directive, which refers to transactions the proceeds of which must be excluded from the calculation of the deductible proportion.
S tem pa ne omogoči raz�iritve uporabe prvega in drugega člena 19(2) Šeste direktive, ki navaja transakcije, katerih rezultat je treba izključiti iz izračuna odbitnega deleža.
Article 17 of the Second Directive, like Article 19 of the Sixth Directive, therefore laid down the circumstances in which capital goods were to be taken into consideration in the deduction regime intended to ensure the neutrality of the VAT system for a taxable person.
Člen 17 Druge direktive kot tudi člen 19 Šeste direktive tako določata pogoje, pod katerimi je treba upo�tevati investicijsko blago v ureditvi odbitkov, ki so namenjeni zagotovitvi nevtralnosti sistema DDV za davčnega zavezanca 7.
7 None the less, the implications of the request to interpret the concept of capital goods submitted to the Court in the case which gave rise to the judgment in Verbond van Nederlandse Ondernemingen were very different to those in the present case.
V vsakem primeru je bil pomen zahteve za razlago pojma investicijsko blago, ki je bila Sodi�ču predložena v zadevi, ki je bila podlaga za prej navedeno sodbo Verbond van Nederlandse Ondernemingen, precej drugačen od tega v trenutnem postopku.
7 — See also, to this effect, Case C-63/04 Centralan Property [2005] ECR I-11087, paragraph 55.
7 – Glej tudi v tem smislu sodbo z dne 15. decembra 2005 v zadevi Centralan Property (C-63/04, ZOdl, str. I-11087, točka 55).
Finally, unlike the Danish Government, I am of the view that the interpretation of
V nasprotju z dansko vlado sem končno mnenja, da razlaga pojma „investicijsko
In Verbond van Nederlandse Onder­nemingen, the national court was faced with the Netherlands legislation adopted under Article 17 of the Second Directive, according to which the Kingdom of the Netherlands had provided that only 67% of the VAT paid on the purchase of ‘business assets’ could be deducted.
Dejansko se je v tej zadevi predložitveno sodi�če ukvarjalo z nizozemskim predpisom, ki je bil sprejet na podlagi člena 17 Druge direktive, po kateri je Kraljevina Nizozemska določila, da se lahko odbije samo 67 % DDV, plačanega pri nakupu „obratnih sredstev“.