natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It introduced those rules before the circular of the Bundesministerium der Finanzen (Federal Ministry of Finance) of 18 March 1999 on exemption from turnover tax for export supplies to non-commercial travellers, containing recommendations for proof of export in non-commercial travel, appeared.
Ta pravila je uvedel, preden so se pojavila navodila Bundesministerium der Finan- zen (zvezno ministrstvo za finance) z dne 18. marca 1999 o oprostitvi prometnega davka dobav za izvoz nekomercialnim potnikom, ki vsebujejo priporočila glede dokaza o izvozu pri nekomercialnem potovanju.
‘The tax authorities may waive, in whole or in part, claims arising from a liability to tax where it would be unfair to pursue them in the circumstances of the particular case; on the same conditions, amounts which have already been paid may be reimbursed or set off.’
„Davčni organi lahko v celoti ali deloma odpustijo terjatve, ki izhajajo iz zavezanosti za davek, če bi bilo v posebnih okoli�činah nepravično, da se izterjajo; pod istimi pogoji se zneski, ki so že bili plačani, povrnejo ali poračunajo.“
III — Factual background, procedure and questions referred
III – Dejansko stanje, postopek in vprašanje za predhodno odločanje
From 1992 to 1998, Netto Supermarkt refunded considerable amounts of value added tax to some of its customers on the erroneous assumption that the legal conditions for a tax exemption for export supplies were met.
Od 1992 do 1998 je Netto Supermarkt vrnil precej�nje vsote davka na dodano vrednost nekaterim strankam na podlagi napačne domneve, da so bili pravni pogoji za oprostitev davka za dobave za izvoz izpolnjeni.
As the investigations conducted by the Tax Office confirmed later on, Polish nationals had provided Netto Supermarkt with forged forms of the customs authority and used receipts of other customers which they found in the car park of the Netto stores.
Kot so pozneje potrdile preiskave, ki jih je opravil davčni urad, so poljski državljani predložili Netto Supermarkt ponarejene obrazce carinskega organa in račune drugih strank, ki so jih na�li na parkiri�ču Netto trgovin.
They had gone on to furnish the forged forms and the used receipts with a stamp which was a counterfeit of the customs authority’s original stamp.
Nato so ponarejene obrazce in uporabljene račune opremili z žigom, ki je bil ponaredek izvirnega žiga carinskega organa.
The fraudulent conduct was discovered in 1998, when Netto Supermarkt contacted
V postopku v glavni stvari gre za spor med Netto Supermarkt (tožeča stranka in vlagatelj revizije) in Finanzamt Malchin (v nadaljevanju: davčni urad;tožena stranka in nasprotna stranka v postopku revizije) glede odpustitve prometnega davka, ki ga je davčni urad odmeril Netto Supermarkt, ker pogoji za dobave za izvoz, opro�čene davka, niso bili izpolnjeni.
It found that Netto Supermarkt had to accept liability for being partly responsible for the unjustified paying out of turnover taxes, even if further damage was prevented by deliberate action on its part.
Menil je, da mora Netto Supermarkt sebi pripisati delno odgovornost za neupravičena izplačila prometnih davkov, čeprav je s premi�ljenim dejanjem preprečil nadaljnjo �kodo.
the Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg (Principal Customs Office, Neubrandenburg) to find out whether the frequently used stamp and the corresponding papers were counterfeit.
Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg (glavni carinski urad, Neubrandenburg), da bi izvedel, ali so bili pogosto uporabljeni žig in ustrezni papirji ponarejeni.
After an employee of the Principal Customs Office had initially considered the forms and stamp to be genuine, that office, after further examination, found the documents produced to be falsified.
Potem ko je zaposleni glavnega carinskega urada prvotno menil, da so obrazci in žig pristni, je ta urad po dodatnem preiskovanju ugotovil, da so bili izročeni dokumenti ponarejeni.
Netto Supermarkt challenged that decision by appeal to the Finanzgericht (Finance Court), which was unsuccessful.
Netto Supermarkt je to odločbo izpodbijal s tožbo pri Finanzgericht (finančno sodi�če), ki je bila neuspe�na.
Thereupon, the Tax Office requested from Netto Supermarkt payment of the turnover tax for the years 1993 to 1997 and for the month of December 1998.
Nato je davčni urad od Netto Supermarkt zahteval plačilo davka na dodano vrednost za leta od 1993 do 1997 in za mesec december 1998.
Netto Supermarkt’s claim for remission of the turnover tax retrospectively demanded for the years 1993 to 1998 was rejected by decision of the Tax Office of 14 February 2000.
Zahtevek Netto Supermarkt za odpustitev prometnega davka, ki jo je zahteval retroaktivno za leta od 1993 do 1998, je bil zavrnjen z odločbo davčnega urada z dne 14. februarja 2000.
In the main proceedings, the Bundesfinanzhof has to decide on the appeal brought by Netto Supermarkt against the judgment of the Finance Court.
V postopku v glavni stvari mora Bundesfinanzhof odločiti o pritožbi, ki jo je Netto Supermarkt vložil zoper sodbo Finanzgericht.
In support of the appeal, Netto Supermarkt essentially submits that the Finance Court should have treated the supplies to Polish purchasers as exempt from tax by applying Paragraph 6a(4) of the UStG 1993 by analogy and that, moreover, the conditions are met for the tax assessment to be fixed by reference to the exception on grounds of fairness set out in the AO.
Netto Supermarkt v podporo svoji pritožbi v bistvu trdi, da bi moralo Finanzgericht obravnavati dobave poljskim kupcem kot opro�čene davka po analogiji na podlagi člena 6(a)(4) UstG 1993 in da so poleg tega izpolnjeni pogoji za določitev davka zaradi pravičnosti v skladu z izjemo, določeno v AO.
An objection against that decision succeeded only in part.
Ugovor zoper to odločbo je bil le deloma uspe�en.
The remainder was rejected by decision of 3 May 2000, in which the Tax Office held, in particular, that collecting the tax was not materially unfair and that enforcing the claim arising from the liability to tax in the particular circumstances of the individual case was not contrary to
Sicer je davčni urad zavrnil ugovor z odločbo z dne 3. maja 2000, v kateri je navedel predvsem, da izterjava davka ni bila vsebinsko nepravična in da uveljavljanje terjatev, ki izhajajo iz zavezanosti za davek,
Referring, inter alia, to caselaw of the Court of Justice on the principle of the
Bundesfinanzhof meni glede na, med drugim, sodno prakso Sodi�ča v zvezi z
protection of legitimate expectations and good faith in the area of value added tax law, the Bundesfinanzhof considers it doubtful whether the exemption from tax of an export supply may as a rule be refused where the supplying operator has been unable, even by exercising due commercial care, to recognise that the proof of export produced to him by the purchaser was falsified.
načelom varstva upravičenih pričakovanj in dobre vere na področju predpisov o davku na dodano vrednost, da je dvomljivo, ali se lahko oprostitev davka dobav za izvoz praviloma zavrne, če podjetnik ni mogel, niti z ravnanjem s skrbnostjo dobrega gospodarja, prepoznati, da je dokaz o izvozu, ki mu ga je predložil kupec, ponarejen.
Against that background, the Bundesfinanzhof referred the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
V teh okoli�činah je Bundesfinanzhof Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vpra�anje:
The German Government emphasises that, according to the wording of Article 15(2) of the Sixth Directive, any evasion, avoidance or abuse must be prevented.
Nem�ka vlada poudarja, da je treba v skladu z besedilom člena 15, točka 2, Šeste direktive preprečiti vsakr�no utajo, izogibanje ali zlorabo.
Since it provides for an exemption, that provision must be applied restrictively.
Ker gre za izjemo, je treba to določbo uporabljati restriktivno.
The Member States may grant the tax exemption only in cases where the conditions of that article are actually met, which has to be proved by the supplier.
Države članice lahko odobrijo oprostitev davka samo v primerih, ko so pogoji iz tega člena dejansko izpolnjeni, kar pa mora dokazati dobavitelj.
‘Do the provisions of Community law on exemption from tax for exports to a third country preclude the granting of exemption from tax by the Member State on the grounds of fairness where the conditions for exemption are not satisfied but the taxable person was unable, even by exercising due commercial care, to recognise that they were not met?’
„Ali predpisi prava Skupnosti o oprostitvi plačila davka pri izvozih v tretjo državo nasprotujejo oprostitvi plačila davka s strani države članice zaradi pravičnosti, če pogoji za oprostitev sicer niso izpolnjeni, vendar davčni zavezanec niti z ravnanjem s skrbnostjo dobrega gospodarja ni mogel prepoznati, da niso izpolnjeni?“
According to the German Government, the common interest in equal taxation outweighs in principle the interest of the individual operator to be treated in a particular way.
Po mnenju nem�ke vlade skupni interes za enakovredno obdavčitev prevlada nad interesi posamičnega podjetnika, da se ga obravnava na določen način.
Main submissions of the parties
Bistvene trditve strank
In the present proceedings, written observations have been submitted by the
Poleg tega je oprostitev, določena v členu 15, točka 2, Šeste direktive, namenjena vzpo-
Furthermore, the exemption provided for in Article 15(2) of the Sixth Directive
V tem postopku so nem�ka in poljska vlada ter Komisija in Netto Supermarkt predložili pisna stali�ča.
A rule on the protection of legitimate expectations such as that laid down in Paragraph 6a(4) of the UStG 1993 for supplies within the Community may thus not be applied by analogy to export supplies.
Pravilo o varstvu upravičenih pričakovanj, kot je to določeno v členu 6a(4) UstG 1993 za dobave znotraj Skupnosti, se torej ne sme po analogiji uporabiti za dobave za izvoz.
In the event that the Court were not to follow its approach, the German Government submits in the alternative that a tax exemption on the grounds of the protection of legitimate expectations and good faith could be granted only under very restrictive conditions, which are not fulfilled in the present case where, had Netto Supermarkt exercised proper care, it could have prevented the fraud which had lasted for six years.
Če Sodi�če ne bi sledilo svoji argumentaciji, nem�ka vlada podredno navaja, da se lahko oprostitev davka iz razlogov varstva upravičenih pričakovanj in dobre vere lahko odobri le pod zelo omejenimi pogoji, ki niso izpolnjeni v tej zadevi, v kateri bi Netto Supermarkt, če bi izvajal potrebno skrbnost, lahko preprečil goljufijo, ki je trajala �est let.
On the basis of essentially similar arguments to those put forward by the German Government, the Polish Government maintains that there can be no tax exemption in a case such as that at issue where the conditions for the application of the exemption, in particular that there be an export supply, are not fulfilled.
Poljska vlada na podlagi argumentov, ki so v bistvenem podobni argumentom nem�ke vlade, trdi, da ne more biti nobene oprostitve davka v primeru, kot je obravnavani, kjer pogoji za uporabo oprostitve, zlasti da gre za dobavo za izvoz, niso izpolnjeni.
It points out that Article 15(2) of the Sixth Directive does not allow for a derogation on the grounds of equity or according to the concept of due commercial care.
Poudarja, da člen 15, točka 2, Šeste direktive ne dovoljuje odstopanja zaradi pravičnosti ali pri spo�tovanju skrbnosti dobrega gospodarja.
Account must also be taken of the need to protect the national budgets and the European Communities’ own resources accruing from VAT.
Upo�tevati je tudi treba potrebo po varstvu nacionalnih proračunov ter lastnih sredstev Evropskih skupnosti, ki izvirajo iz DDV.
The German Government argues, moreover, that the caselaw of the Court of Justice on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations (good faith) in the context of value added tax rules 4is not relevant to the present case, since in those cases the Court intended to prevent double taxation of the same transaction, whereas the present case is about ensuring that the transactions at issue are taxed at all.
Nem�ka vlada poleg tega trdi, da sodna praksa Sodi�ča v zvezi z načelom varstva upravičenih pričakovanj (dobra vera) v kontekstu predpisov o davku na dodano vrednost 4ni upo�tevna v tej zadevi, saj se je v tistih zadevah sku�ala preprečiti dvojna obdavčitev iste transakcije, medtem ko gre pri tej zadevi za zagotovitev, da se zadevne transakcije sploh obdavčijo.
Rather, the caselaw of the Court, cited by the referring court, on the conditions for the remission of import and export duties 5 supports the view that a situation such as that at issue in the present case does not warrant an exemption in favour of the supplier.
Sodna praksa Sodi�ča, ki jo navaja predložitveno sodi�če, v zvezi s pogoji odpustitve uvoznih in izvoznih dajatev 5 podpira stali�če, da položaj, kot je ta sporni v tej zadevi, ne utemeljuje oprostitve v korist dobavitelja.
Such a risk is to be borne by the operator, not by the public.
Tako tveganje mora nositi podjetnik, ne javnost.
4 — Case C-342/87 Genius Holding [1989] ECR 4227, and Case C-454/98 Schmeink & Cofreth and Strobel [2000] ECR I-6973. 5 — Case C-446/93 SEIM [1996] ECR I-73; Joined Cases 98/83 and 230/83 Van Gend & Loos v Commission [1984] ECR 3763; see also Case T-205/99 Hyper v Commission [2002] ECR II-3141. 33.
I-73) in z dne 13. novembra 1984 v združenih zadevah Van Gend & Loos proti Komisiji (98/83 in 230/83, Recueil, str. 3763); glej tudi sodbo z dne 11. julija 2002 v zadevi Hyper proti Komisiji (T-205/99, Recueil, str. II-3141). 33.
The Commission and Netto Supermarkt, by contrast, take the view that the provisions of Community law on exemption from tax for export supplies do not preclude the granting of an exemption on
Komisija in Netto Supermarkt nasprotno menita, da predpisi prava Skupnosti o oprostitvi davka dobav za izvoz ne nasprotujejo
NETTO SUPERMARKT at issue, the conditions for an exemption of Netto Supermarkt on the grounds of the protection of legitimate expectations and — as the Commission adds — of the principle of proportionality are fulfilled.
NETTO SUPERMARKT varstva upravičenih pričakovanj in – kot dodaja Komisija – načela sorazmernosti izpolnjeni.
the grounds of fairness in circumstances like those at issue in the present case.
odobritvi oprostitve zaradi pravičnosti v okoli�činah, kot so obravnavane v tej zadevi.
They agree that the Statement for the Council Minutes of the meeting of 16 December 1991 on Article 28c(A) of Directive 77/388/EEC as amended by the ‘internal market’ Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991, 6 cited by the referring court, although it was primarily concerned with the creation of a uniform internal market, reflects general principles of Community law and supports rather than contradicts that view.
Strinjata se, da izjava za zapisnik Sveta na sestanku z dne 16. decembra 1991 glede člena 28c(A) Direktive 77/388/EGS, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo „notranji trg“ 91/680/EGS z dne 16. decembra 1991, ki jo navaja predložitveno sodi�če, 6čeprav se je prvotno nana�ala na enotni notranji trg, izraža splo�na načela prava Skupnosti in podpira to stali�če bolj kot pa mu nasprotuje.
Finally, Netto Supermarkt submits that the Community rules on import and export duties are in various respects not comparable with those establishing the VAT system and that the caselaw on the repayment or remission of import or export duties is therefore not, without more, applicable to the present case.
Končno, Netto Supermarkt trdi, da pravila Skupnosti o uvoznih in izvoznih dajatvah v različnih pogledih niso primerljiva s pravili, ki vzpostavljajo sistem DDV, in da sodna praksa v zvezi z vračilom ali odpustitvijo uvoznih ali izvoznih dajatev torej ni brez težav uporabljiva v tej zadevi.
Appraisal done everything to avoid tax fraud which can reasonably be expected from an operator exercising due commercial care, he can rely on the lawfulness of his actions and should not be held responsible for fraudulent acts of third parties.
Presoja se izognil davčni utaji, kar se lahko razumno pričakuje od podjetnika, ki ravna s skrbnostjo dobrega gospodarja, se lahko zanese na zakonitost svojih dejanj in ne bi smel odgovarjati za goljufiva ravnanja tretjih oseb.
In view of the circumstances and the contribution of Netto Supermarkt to the discovery of the fraudulent actions
Glede na okoli�čine in prispevek Netto Supermarkt k odkritju spornih goljufivih dejanj, so pogoji za oprostitev davka Netto Supermarkt zaradi
6 — Council Directive supplementing the common system of value added tax and amending Directive 77/388/EEC with a view to the abolition of fiscal frontiers (OJ 1991 L 376, p.
6 – Direktiva Sveta z dne 16. decembra 1991 o dopolnitvi skupnega sistema davka na dodano vrednost in o spremembi Direktive 77/388/EGS zaradi odprave davčnih meja (UL 1991 L 376, str.
1); the passage referred to reads as follows: ‘The Council and the Commission state that application of the transitional arrangements may not in any event result in the exemption referred to in Article 28c(A) being refused where it subsequently emerges that the purchaser has provided incorrect data in this respect, whereas the taxable person has taken the necessary measures to preclude incorrect application of the rules on VAT with respect to supplies in connection with his undertaking.’
1); navedeni del se glasi: „Svet in Komisija izjavljata, uporaba prehodnih določb v nobenem primeru ne sme imeti za posledico, da se oprostitev v skladu s členom 28c(A) zavrne, kadar se naknadno izkaže, da je kupec v zvezi s tem predložil nepravilne podatke, medtem ko je davčni zavezanec sprejel potrebne ukrepe, da bi preprečil nepravilno uporabo pravil o DDV v zvezi z dobavami njegovega podjetja.“
In answering the question referred, it should be noted, first of all, that it is undisputed that the conditions for the exemption from tax for the supply of goods which are dispatched or transported to a non-Member State as provided for in Article 15 of the Sixth Directive have not been met as regards the circumstances of the main proceedings.
Pri odgovoru na vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje je treba najprej upo�tevati, da ni sporno, da pogoji za oprostitev davka dobave za izvoz blaga, ki je odposlano ali odpeljano v tretjo državo, kot je določeno v členu 15 Šeste direktive, glede na dejansko stanje iz postopka v glavni stvari niso bili izpolnjeni.
It is also true that, as the German and Polish Governments have emphasised in their submissions, a tax exemption like that in issue may in principle only be granted if it is proven that the conditions for exemption are satisfied.
Res je tudi, kot sta poudarili nem�ka in poljska vlada v svojih stali�čih, da se lahko oprostitev davka, kot je ta obravnavana, načelno odobri le, če se dokaže, da so pogoji za oprostitev izpolnjeni.
For the following reasons, I share the view of Netto Supermarkt and the Commission that that question, which concerns the allocation of risk in the case of fraudulent conduct by a third party and the protection of a taxable person acting in good faith, should be answered in the affirmative.
Iz naslednjih razlogov se strinjam z Netto Supermarkt in Komisijo, da je treba na to vpra�anje, ki se nana�a na porazdelitev tveganja v primeru goljufivega ravnanja tretje osebe in varstva davčnega zavezanca, ki deluje v dobre veri, odgovoriti pritrdilno.
The peculiarity of the present case lies, however, in its criminal background and the fact that fraudulent acts of third parties, the (alleged) purchasers and exporters, made it falsely appear to the supplier that the conditions for exemption from tax for export supplies were met.
Posebnost te zadeve pa je v njenem kriminalnem ozadju in v dejstvu, da je dobavitelj zaradi goljufivih dejanj tretjih oseb, (domnevnih) kupcev in izvoznikov, napačno menil, da so pogoji za oprostitev davka dobav za izvoz izpolnjeni.
As there is no provision in the Sixth Directive relating to a situation like that at issue in the present case, it should be recalled, first, that according to settled case-law, when they exercise the powers conferred on them by Community directives, Member States must take account of the general principles of law which form part of the Community legal order such as the principles of proportionality, legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations. 8
Ker v Šesti direktivi ni nobene določbe glede položaja, kot je ta v tej zadevi, se je treba spomniti na to, prvič, da morajo v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso države članice pri izvr�evanju pooblastil, ki jim jih podeljujejo direktive Skupnosti, spo�tovati splo�na pravna načela, ki so del pravnega reda Skupnosti, kot so načelo sorazmernosti, načelo pravne varnosti in načelo varstva upravičenih pričakovanj. 8
As is clear from the order for reference as well as from the wording of the question referred, the referring court starts in that regard from the assumption that Netto Supermarkt, the taxable person, acted in good faith, that is to say, it was unable, even by exercising due commercial care, to recognise that the conditions for exemption were not met.
Kot je jasno iz predložitvenega sklepa ter iz formulacije vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje, predložitveno sodi�če izhaja v zvezi s tem iz predpostavke, da je Netto Supermarkt, davčni zavezanec, deloval v dobri veri, to pomeni, da ni mogel niti z ravnanjem s skrbnostjo dobrega gospodarja prepoznati, da pogoji za oprostitev niso bili izpolnjeni.
That finding of the referring court is not to be questioned in the framework of the present proceedings.
O tej ugotovitvi predložitvenega sodi�ča se v okviru tega postopka ne sme dvomiti.
As regards, more particularly, the principle of proportionality, the Court has already
Glede načela sorazmernosti je Sodi�če že poudarilo, da medtem ko je legitimno, če
8 — See to that effect, inter alia, Federation of Technological Industries and Others, cited in footnote 7, paragraph 29, and Joined Cases C-181/04 to C-183/04 Elmeka [2006] ECR I-8167, paragraph 31.
8 – Glej v tem smislu med drugim v opombi 7 navedeno sodbo Federation of Technological Industries in drugi, točka 29, in sodbo z dne 14. septembra 2006 v združenih zadevah Elmeka (C-181/04 in C-183/04, ZOdl., str. I-8167, točka 31).
The point of the question referred is therefore to know whether in these circumstances, although the conditions for exemption were in reality not met, a Member State
Torej gre pri vpra�anju za predhodno odločanje za to, ali lahko država v teh okoli�činah, čeprav pogoji za oprostitev dejansko niso bili izpolnjeni, zaradi pravičnosti vseeno
NETTO SUPERMARKT pointed out that, whilst it is legitimate for the Member State to seek to preserve the rights of the Treasury as effectively as possible, such measures must not go further than is necessary for that purpose.
NETTO SUPERMARKT sku�a država članica kar najbolj učinkovito za�čititi pravice državne blagajne, taki ukrepi ne smejo preseči tega, kar je nujno potrebno v ta namen.
9 the shortfall in tax revenues caused by fraudulent acts of third parties.
9 ta v postopku v glavni stvari, odgovoren za primanjkljaj v davčnih prihodkih, ki so ga povzročila goljufiva dejanja tretjih oseb.
A taxable person can certainly be expected to assume the task attributed to him under the common system of VAT with all due diligence and care and be held responsible for any shortcomings in that regard.
Od davčnega zavezanca se lahko gotovo pričakuje, da izvaja nalogo, ki mu je bila dodeljena v skladu s skupnim sistemom DDV, z vso skrbnostjo in da prevzame odgovornost za kakr�ne koli primanjkljaje v zvezi s tem.
But it falls, as regards shortcomings outside the sphere of influence of the taxable person, to the Member State to ensure — in the interest of the public purse — the overall functioning of the system and to prevent any evasion, avoidance or abuse.
Vendar pa je v primeru primanjkljajev, ki so zunaj vpliva davčnega zavezanca, naloga države članice, da zagotovi – v interesu javne blagajne – celotno delovanje sistema in da prepreči vsakr�no utajo, izogibanje ali zlorabo.
The corresponding risks should therefore also be borne by the Member State.
Torej mora država članica nositi tudi ustrezna tveganja.