natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The present case concerns an action which the Commission has brought against the Kingdom of Sweden under Article 226 EC, seeking a declaration that the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second paragraph of Article 90 EC by applying a system of internal taxes under which beer, which is mainly produced in Sweden, is indirectly protected, as compared with wine, which is mainly imported from other Member States.
Predmet tega postopka je tožba na podlagi člena 226 ES, ki jo je proti Kraljevini Švedski vložila Komisija Evropskih skupnosti za ugotovitev, da navedena država članica z uporabo sistema notranjih dajatev, ki posredno �čiti pivo, ki je predvsem nacionalni proizvod, v primerjavi z vinom, pretežno uvoženim iz drugih držav članic, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz člena 90, drugi odstavek, ES.
I — The national legislation at issue
I – Sporna nacionalna ureditev
According to the Swedish Government’s statement of defence, that decision was justified by the need, following Sweden’s accession to the European Union, to combat the growing border trade in beer with Denmark, which had been prompted by the differing levels of taxation in force in the two countries.
V skladu s tem, kar v odgovoru na tožbo trdi tožena vlada, naj bi bila ta odločitev utemeljena s potrebo, da se po pristopu Švedske k Uniji prepreči rastoče prekomejno trgovanje s pivom z Dansko, ki ga spodbujata različni stopnji obdavčitve, ki veljata v teh dveh državah.
In Sweden, the rate of tax on alcohol 2is determined on the basis of the actual alco- holic strength by volume (alcoholic content) of the beverages.
Na Švedskem je davek od alkoholnih pijač 2 določen na podlagi dejanske vsebnosti alkohola (alkoholne stopnje) pijač.
In response to pressure from the Commission, which had voiced doubts concerning
Pod pritiski Komisije, ki je izrazila dvome v združljivost davčne ureditve za pivo in vino,
3 — According to the definition contained in Article 6 of Chapter 1 of the Alkohollag, referred to in footnote 2 above.
2 – V skladu s členom 3, poglavje 1, Alkohollag (1994:1738, zakon o alkoholnih pijačah) je alkoholna pijača pijača z vsebnostjo alkohola vi�jo od 2,25 vol. %. Alkoholne pijače se delijo na žgane pijače, vino, močno pivo in pivo.
2 — Under Article 3 of Chapter 1 of the Alkohollag (Law 1994: 1738 on alcohol), alcoholic beverage means a beverage with an alcoholic strength in excess of 2.25 % vol.
3 – V skladu z opredelitvijo iz člena 6, poglavje 1, v prej�nji opombi navedenega Alkohollag.
SEK 11.20 if the alcoholic strength is higher than 4.5 % vol. but lower than or equal to 7 % vol.; the compatibility with the second paragraph of Article 90 EC of the arrangements under the 1997 amendment for taxing beer and wine, the Swedish Parliament decided to reduce the excise duty on wine with effect from 1 December 2001.
11,20 SEK za alkoholno stopnjo, vi�jo od 4,5 vol. %, vendar nižjo ali enako 7 vol. %; kot izhaja iz spremembe, uvedene leta 1997, s členom 90, drugi odstavek, ES, je Švedski parlament s 1. decembrom 2001 zmanj�al tro�arine za vino.
SEK 15.41 if the alcoholic strength is higher than 7 % vol. but lower than or equal to 8.5 % vol.;
15,41 SEK za alkoholno stopnjo, vi�jo od 7 vol. %, vendar nižjo ali enako 8,5 vol. %;
Based on the system currently in force pursuant to Articles 2 and 3 of the lagen (1994: 1564) om alkoholskatt, 4the rates of tax on the production and consumption of beer and wine are set as follows.
Na podlagi trenutno veljavnega sistema na podlagi členov 2 in 3 lagen (1994:1564) om alkoholskatt 4je davek na proizvodnjo in porabo piva in vina določen, kot je opisano v nadaljevanju.
SEK 22.08 if the alcoholic strength is higher than 8.5 % vol. but lower than or equal to 15 % vol.;
22,08 SEK za alkoholno stopnjo, vi�jo od 8,5 vol. %, vendar nižjo ali enako 15 vol. %;
Beers with an alcoholic content of no more than 2.8 % vol. are exempt from that duty (Article 2 of the lagen (1994: 1564) om alkoholskatt).
Piva, katerih alkoholna stopnja ne presega 2,8 vol. %, so opro�čena tro�arin (člen 2. lagen (1994:1564) om alkoholskatt).
SEK 45.17 if the alcoholic strength is higher than 15 % vol. but lower than or equal to 18 % vol.
45,17 SEK za alkoholno stopnjo, vi�jo od 15 vol. %, vendar nižjo ali enako 18 vol. %.
Excise duty per litre of wine is levied on a flat-rate basis, which increases according to the alcoholic content of the beverage and is determined in accordance with the following scale:
Tro�arina za liter vina obsega določen znesek, ki poleg tega raste glede na alkoholno stopnjo pijače, in zna�a:
Wines with an alcoholic content of 2.25 % vol. or less are exempt from the duty (Article 2 of the lagen (1994: 1564) om alkoholskatt).
Vina, katerih alkoholna stopnja ne presega 2,25 vol. %, so opro�čena davka (člen 2 lagen (1994:1564) om alkoholskatt).
SEK 7.58 if the alcoholic strength is higher than 2.25 % vol. but lower than or equal to 4.5 % vol.;
7,58 SEK za alkoholno stopnjo, vi�jo od 2,25 vol. %, vendar nižjo ali enako 4,5 vol. %;
In Sweden, the retail selling of wine, strong beer and spirits is a statutory monopoly.
Na Švedskem za prodajo vina, močnega piva in žganih pijač na drobno velja pravni monopol.
A wholly State-owned company called Systembolaget Aktiebolag (‘Systembolaget’) is responsible for administering the monopoly.
Vodenje monopola je zaupano Systembolaget Aktiebolag (v nadaljevanju: Systembolaget), družbi, v kateri ima država stoodstotni delež.
II — The prelitigation procedure
II – Predhodni postopek
On 19 June 2001, the Commission sent the Swedish Government a reasoned opinion, to which the latter replied by two letters, the first of 13 July 2001 and the second of 17 December 2001, informing the Commission that the rate of duty on wine had been reduced by 18.8 % with effect from 1 December 2001.
19. junija 2001 je bilo �vedski vladi vročeno obrazloženo mnenje, na katerega je odgovorila z dvema dopisoma, prvim z dne 13. julija 2001 in drugim z dne 17. decembra 2001, s katerim je Komisijo obvestila o znižanju tro�arin za vino za 18,8 % s 1. decembrom 2001.
On the view that the change which had been introduced did not neutralise the discriminatory nature of the Swedish tax arrangements, the Commission sent the Kingdom of Sweden a second letter of formal notice on 1 July 2002.
Ker je menila, da sprejeta sprememba ni odpravila diskriminatornega značaja �vedske davčne ureditve, je Komisija 1. julija 2002 Kraljevini Švedski vročila drugi pisni opomin. Kraljevina Švedska je odgovorila z dopisom z dne 24. septembra 2002.
On 28 February 2000, in response to complaints that the Swedish arrangements for taxing wine and beer were discriminatory, the Commission sent the Kingdom of Sweden an initial letter of formal notice, in which it stated that, according to the information in its possession, those arrangements appeared to be incompatible with Article 90 EC, since the effect of making wine subject to a higher rate of tax than beer — both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the final price of the product — was to reinforce consumer habits and consolidate the advantage enjoyed by beer (a domestic product) to the detriment of the commercial potential of wine (a product imported from other Member States).
Po prijavah, ki so opozarjale na diskriminatoren značaj �vedske ureditve tro�arin za vino in pivo, je Komisija 28. februarja 2000 Kraljevini Švedski poslala prvi pisni opomin, v katerem je navedla, da se na podlagi podatkov, ki jih ima Komisija na voljo, zdi ta ureditev v nasprotju s členom 90 ES, ker ima, z določitvijo vi�je obdavčitve vina od piva, tako absolutno kot tudi v odstotku od končne cene proizvoda, za posledico utrditev potro�ni�kih navad, s tem da povečuje prednost piva – nacionalnega proizvoda – v �kodo potencialnega trgovanja z vinom – proizvodom, uvoženim iz drugih držav članic.
On 9 July 2004, the Commission sent the Swedish Government a second reasoned opinion, calling upon it to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the reasoned opinion within two months.
9. julija 2004 je Komisija �vedski vladi vročila drugo obrazloženo mnenje, s katerim jo je pozvala, naj v dveh mesecih sprejme ukrepe, potrebne za uskladitev s tem mnenjem.
The Kingdom of Sweden replied by two letters, dated 10 May and 20 November 2000 respectively, in which it pointed out that tax arrangements under which the excise duty on alcohol is determined according to the alcoholic strength by volume of the beverages is not in breach of Article 90 EC.
Kraljevina Švedska je odgovorila z dvema dopisoma z dne 10. maja in 20. novembra 2000, v katerih je opozorila, da davčna ureditev, v kateri so tro�arine za alkoholne pijače določene glede na vsebnost alkohola pijač, ni v nasprotju s členom 90 ES.
However, it stated that it was prepared to reduce the rate of duty on wine by volume of alcohol, bringing it down to a level largely equivalent to the rate of duty on beer, and thereby restoring the taxation relationship that had existed between the two products prior to 1 January 1997.
Izrazila pa je pripravljenost za znižanje tro�arin za vino na volumenski odstotek alkohola, z znižanjem na stopnjo, ki je v bistvu enakovredna stopnji tro�arin, določenih za pivo, tako da bi bilo ponovno vzpostavljeno razmerje obdavčitve med tema dvema proizvodoma, ki je obstajalo pred 1. januar - jem 1997.
III — Procedure before the Court and the forms of order sought
III – Postopek pred Sodiščem in predlogi strank posredno �čiti pivo, proizvedeno predvsem na Švedskem v primerjavi z vinom, uvoženim pretežno iz drugih držav članic, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz člena 90, drugi odstavek, ES.
By application lodged with the Registry of the Court on 14 April 2005, the Commission brought the present action.
Z vlogo, vloženo v sodnem tajni�tvu Sodi�ča 14. aprila 2005, je Komisija vložila to tožbo.
— order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.
Kraljevini Švedski naloži plačilo stro�kov.
The Commission and the Kingdom of Sweden presented oral argument at the hearing on 8 May 2007.
Komisija in Kraljevina Švedska sta predstavili svoja stali�ča na obravnavi 8. maja 2007.
A — Arguments of the parties the selling of either product on a retail basis is a State monopoly, they will be competing with each other in the same sales outlets, belonging to the Systembolaget chain, or in specially licensed catering establishments.
A – Trditve strank oba proizvoda velja državni monopol, naj bi si ta proizvoda konkurirala na istih prodajnih mestih, ki so del verige družbe Systembolaget, oziroma v okrepčevalnicah, ki imajo posebno dovoljenje.
The Commission maintains that the fact that consumers have to go to Systembolaget to purchase the products in question increases their interchangeability.
Komisija meni, da okoli�čina, da se morajo potro�niki za nakup zadevnih proizvodov obrniti na družbo Systembolaget, �e povečuje njuno zamenljivost.
The Commission considers that the Swedish tax arrangements at issue are discriminatory and have a protectionist effect in relation to the trade in beer, which is largely a domestic product, to the detriment of the trade in wine, which is mainly imported from other Member States.
Po mnenju Komisije naj bi imeli �vedski davčni predpisi diskriminatoren značaj in naj bi �čitili trgovino s pivom, predvsem lokalnim proizvodom, v �kodo trgovanja z vinom, v večji meri uvoženim iz drugih držav članic.
Consequently, those rules are in breach of the second paragraph of Article 90 EC.
Zato naj bi ti kr�ili člen 90, drugi odstavek, ES.
The Commission considers that the tax arrangements for wine and beer restrain the potential consumption of wine and have the effect of protecting, indirectly at least, the trade in beer.
Tožeča institucija meni, da davčna ureditev, ki velja za vino in pivo, omejuje potencialno porabo vina in učinkuje tako, da �čiti, vsaj posredno, trgovanje s pivom.
The statistical information on which the Commission relies 7allegedly demon-
Vpliv te razlike na končno ceno �e dodatno povečuje uporaba 25 % DDV, odmerjenega na osnovno ceno, vključno s tro�arino.
The Commission points out that the tax by volume of alcohol which is levied on a wine of medium alcoholic strength is approximately 20 % higher than the tax on beer.
Statistični podatki, na katere se opira Komisija, 7naj bi dokazovali, da stopnja
strates that the rate of tax on the products in question influences consumer behaviour.
Ker za prodajo na drobno za obdavčitve zadevnih proizvodov vpliva na vedenje potro�nikov.
In particular, those statistics are alleged to show that, in 1997 — the year in which the rate of duty on beer was reduced — sales of beer rose, while sales of wine declined. Simi-
Iz teh podatkov naj bi zlasti izhajalo, da je leta 1997, ko je bila tro�arina za pivo zmanj�ana, prodaja te pijače narasla, medtem ko je prodaja vina upadla.
5 — In the calculations which it uses to substantiate its allegations, the Commission takes the example of wine with an alcoholic strength of 12.5 % vol.
5 – Pri izračunih za dokazovanje utemeljenosti svojih navedb Komisija kot primer uporablja vino z vsebnostjo alkohola 12,5 vol. %.
In its application, the Commission refers more generally to ‘cheap light wines’ or ‘cheap table wines’.
7 – Komisija se opira predvsem na statistične podatke o prodaji družbe Systembolaget, objavljene na njihovi spletni strani.
10 larly, in 2002, after the rate of duty on wine was cut, wine sales underwent the highest increase ever recorded between 1995 and 2004.
Prav tako naj bi leta 2002, po zmanj�anju tro�arine za vino, prodaja tega proizvoda dosegla največjo rast, zabeleženo med 1995 in 2004.
The Commission points out that the impact of the excise duty on the final price of wines with an alcoholic strength of between 8.5 % vol. and 15 % vol. is more significant within the SEK 41 to SEK 70 price bracket, that is to say, the product category which accounts for approximately 80 % of total sales.
Švedska vlada pa ob podpori Republike Latvije trdi, da naj sporne davčne določbe ne bi imele za cilj in posledico posredne za�čite proizvodnje piva pred konkurenco vina, in da jim zato ni mogoče očitati nobene kr�itve člena 90, drugi odstavek, ES.
The Kingdom of Sweden does not dispute the Commission’s claims that, by and large, beer is a domestic product and wine an imported product; that different methods are used to determine the level of tax to which the two products are subject; or, finally, that the products are to some extent in competition with each other.
Komisija opozarja, da je davčna obremenitev tro�arine na končno ceno vin, katerih vsebnost alkohola je med 8,5 vol. % in 15 vol. %, večja v cenovnem razredu med 41 in 70 �vedskih kron, ki ustreza kategoriji proizvoda, ki predstavlja približno 80 % celotne prodaje.
9 According to Sweden, however, the products are not completely interchangeable, and it is not clear which categories of wine and beer are in competi-
Ta davčna obremenitev naj bi bila poleg tega bistveno vi�ja od tiste za pivo najbolje prodajane kategorije, ne glede na količino proizvoda, ki se upo�teva pri izračunu. 8
According to the Swedish Government, it is clear from the caselaw of the Court that a breach of that nature may be regarded as established only if it can be demonstrated that the tax at issue affects the competitive relationship between the products in question, by reducing potential consumption of the imported product to the benefit of the competing domestic product.
Po mnenju navedene vlade iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča izhaja, da je treba za to, da bi se taka kr�itev lahko �tela za uresničeno, dokazati, da sporni davek učinkuje na konkurenčno razmerje med zadevnimi proizvodi, s tem da zmanj�uje potencialno potro�njo uvoženega proizvoda v korist konkurenčnega nacionalnega proizvoda.
It is essential to take into account, for that purpose, the difference between the selling prices of the products and the effect of the tax on those prices, in order to ascertain whether the difference in the taxation of the products is likely to influence consumer choices.
Tega dokazovanja se ne more opraviti, ne da bi pri presoji, ali je različno davčno breme, naloženo za navedene proizvode, tako, da lahko usmeri izbiro potro�nikov, upo�tevali razliko v prodajnih cenah proizvodov in vpliv davka na te cene.
9 — The Swedish Government considers that a degree of competition exists between the most popular strong beers sold and the most widely sold and least expensive wines with an alcoholic strength of approximately 11 % vol.
8 – Komisija v tožbi primerja končno ceno za steklenico (0,75 l za vino in 0,33 l za pivo), liter in kozarec proizvoda (0,15 l za vino in 0,33 l za pivo).
On that point, the Latvian Government notes that demand for the products in question is relatively impervious to price variations and that price itself does not appear to be a factor determining consumer choice.
KOMISIJA PROTI ŠVEDSKI latvijska vlada opozarja, da je povpra�evanje po zadevnih proizvodih sorazmerno togo in se ne odzove na spremembe cen, in da slednje niso odločilni dejavnik pri izbiri potro�nikov.
In the present case, if the average final price of a litre of strong beer in the category most frequently sold is compared with that of a litre of wine 11of alcoholic strength in the region of 11 % vol. in the most popular and least expensive category, it is clear — according to the Kingdom of Sweden — that the difference in the taxation of the two products is not likely to influence consumer behaviour.
V obravnavanem primeru bi primerjava med povprečno končno ceno enega litra piva najbolj prodajane kategorije in enega litra vina, 11 z vsebnostjo alkohola okoli 11 vol. %, najbolj prodajane in cenovno ugodne kategorije, pokazala, da razlika v obdavčitvi med obema proizvodoma ni taka, da bi vplivala na vedenje potro�nikov.
In fact, even if the wine were to be subject to the same taxes as are levied on beer, it would still cost approximately twice as much as beer.
Tudi če bi bile namreč za vino določene enake tro�arine kot za pivo, bi bila njegova cena približno dvakrat tolik�na kot cena piva.
On the basis of that information, the Swedish and Latvian Governments consider that the Commission has failed to demonstrate that the effect of Sweden’s tax arrangements is to protect beer production from competition from wine.
Na podlagi teh podatkov tožena vlada in vlada intervenientka menita, da naj Komisija ne bi dokazala, da �vedski davčni sistem �čiti proizvodnjo piva pred konkurenco vina.
The Republic of Latvia also points out that the statistics show that the period from 1997 to 2004 saw a greater increase in the consumption of wine in Sweden than of beer.
Republika Latvija poleg tega opozarja, da iz statističnih podatkov izhaja, da je v obdobju 1997–2004 potro�nja vina na Švedskem narasla bolj od potro�nje piva.
The Swedish Government also contends that the Systembolaget sales statistics presented by the Commission are incomplete, since, on the one hand, they fail to take account of sales in catering establishments and, on the other, they do not make it possible to isolate the data relating to sales of wine in the category which is in competition with strong beer.
Švedska vlada poleg tega izpodbija tudi popolnost statističnih podatkov prodaje družbe Systembolaget, ki jih je pripravila tožeča stranka, ker po eni strani ne upo�tevajo prodaje, opravljene preko verige okrepčevalnic, in po drugi strani ne omogočajo ločenega ugotavljanja podatkov, ki se nana�ajo na prodajo vina tiste kategorije, ki je v konkurenci z močnim pivom.
In its statement of defence, the Swedish Government reproduced a table showing sales of the products at issue during the period from 1996 to 2004, and incorporating the data derived from the statistics of the Systembolaget, the Skatteverket (Swedish authority responsible for direct and indirect taxation) and the Svenska Bryggareföreningen (Swedish federation of beer, cider, soda-water and water producers). 12
V odgovoru na tožbo je tožena država članica pripravila razpredelnico o prodaji zadevnih proizvodov v obdobju 1996–2004, ki združuje podatke iz statistik družbe Systembolaget, Skatteverket (�vedski upravni organ za neposredne in posredne dajatve) in Svenska Bryggareföreningen (�vedska zveza, ki združuje proizvajalce piva, sadnega mo�ta, sodavice in vode). 12
The Swedish Government agrees with the Commission that Swedish consumers of alcohol are sensitive to variations in the price of the products.
Tožena vlada s Komisijo sogla�a, da je �vedski potro�nik alkoholnih pijač občutljiv na spremembe cen proizvodov.
However, according to that Government, the fact that the consumer response to price cuts is to engage in increased consumption does not imply that consumer behaviour is also affected in terms
Vendar pa okoli�čina, da se potro�nik na zmanj�anje cen odzove s povečanjem porabe, po mnenju navedene vlade ne pomeni, da se spremeni tudi vedenje pri izbiri med različnimi kategorijami alkoholnih pijač. Glede tega vpra�anja
In conclusion, the Swedish Government, supported by the Latvian Government,
Končno, �vedska vlada ob podpori latvijske vlade trdi, da naj Komisija ne bi
12 — The Swedish Government included it its rejoinder the data unavailable to the public on which those statistics are based.
12 – Javnosti nedostopne podatke, na katerih temeljijo te statistike, je v dupliki predložila �vedska vlada.
11 — In its reply, the Commission maintains that the most appropriate method of price comparison from the consumer’s point of view is to use as a reference quantity a glass of wine and a glass of beer, and it challenges the approach of the Swedish Government which is based on the price per litre.
11 – Komisija v repliki trdi, da je z vidika potro�nika najprimernej�i način primerjanja cen tisti, ki kot referenčno količino uporablja kozarec vina in kozarec piva, in izpodbija pristop �vedske vlade, ki temelji na upo�tevanju cen na liter.
The Swedish Government, however, takes the view that the method adopted by the Commission fails to produce a clear result.
Švedska vlada pa meni, da način, ki ga predlaga Komisija, ne vodi do jasnih rezultatov.
Under the first paragraph of Article 90 EC:
V skladu s členom 90, prvi odstavek, ES:
It has consistently been held by the Court that the purpose of Article 90 EC, as a whole, is to ensure the free movement of goods between the Member States under normal conditions of competition, by eliminating all forms of protection which might result from the application of discriminatory internal taxation against products from other Member States, and to guarantee absolute neutrality of internal taxation as regards competition between domestic and imported products.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso je namen člena 90 ES, v celoti, zagotoviti prost pretok blaga med državami članicami v normalnih konkurenčnih pogojih, z odpravo vseh oblik za�čite, ki bi lahko izvirale iz uporabe notranjih diskriminatornih določb v odnosu do proizvodov drugih držav članic, in zagotoviti popolno nevtralnost notranjih davkov v odnosu do konkurence med nacionalnimi in uvoženimi proizvodi.
13 To that end, the first paragraph of Article 90 EC prohibits any tax legislation the effect of which is to impose, through any kind of fiscal measure, a higher charge on an imported product than on a similar domestic product, whereas, according to the Court, the main function of the prohibition laid down in the second paragraph of Article 90 EC is to prevent all forms of indirect fiscal protectionism in the case of imported products which, without being similar to domestic products within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 90 EC, are nevertheless in competition, even partial, indirect or potential, with them. 14
13S tem namenom prvi odstavek navedenega člena prepoveduje kakr�no koli davčno pravilo, ki bi s katerim koli davčnim mehanizmom uvožene proizvode obremenilo v večji meri od enakovrstnih nacionalnih izdelkov, medtem ko je namen drugega odstavka, v skladu s tem, kar je pojasnilo Sodi�če, zlasti preprečitev kakr�ne koli oblike posrednega davčnega protekcionizma v primeru uvoženih izdelkov, ki so, kljub temu, da niso podobni nacionalnim izdelkom v smislu prvega odstavka, z nekaterimi od teh v razmerju konkurence, lahko le delno, posredno ali potencialno. 14