natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For example, the term the ‘supply of water’ is used in Annex D(2) while the term ‘Water supplies’ is used in Annex H, Category 2, to the English language version of the Sixth Directive.
Na primer, v angle�ki različici Šeste direktive je v točki 2 Priloge D uporabljen pojem „supply of water“, medtem ko je v kategoriji 2 Priloge H uporabljen pojem „Water supplies“.
whether it has jurisdiction and, in particular, determine whether the interpretation of Community law that is sought bears any relation to the facts of the main action or its purpose, so that the Court is not obliged to deliver advisory opinions on general or hypothetical questions.
pristojnost in predvsem ugotovilo, ali ima zahtevana razlaga prava Skupnosti zvezo z resničnostjo in s predmetom postopka v glavni stvari, tako da Sodi�ču ni treba podajati svetovalnih mnenj glede splo�nih ali hipotetičnih vpra�anj.
If it appears that the question raised is manifestly irrelevant for the purposes of deciding the case, the Court must declare that there is no need to proceed to judgment. 5
Če se zdi, da vpra�anje očitno ni pomembno za re�itev tega spora, mora Sodi�če ugotoviti, da o njem ni treba odločati. 5
In the present case, it is not in my view obvious that the interpretation of Community law sought by the national court in respect of Annex D(2) to the Sixth Directive bears no relation to the subjectmatter of the case in the main proceedings or is hypothetical in nature as maintained by the defendant and the German Government.
Po mojem mnenju v tem primeru ni očitno, da s strani nacionalnega sodi�če zapro�ena razlaga prava Skupnosti glede točke 2 Priloge D k Šesti direktivi nima zveze s predmetom postopka v glavni stvari oziroma da je po naravi hipotetična, kot zatrjujeta tožena stranka in nem�ka vlada.
The central question in the case pending before the national court would appear, from the order for reference from the national court, to relate to the application or otherwise of a reduced rate of tax to the activity of laying a household water connection pursuant to the third subparagraph of Article 12(3)(a) of, in conjunction with Annex H, Category 2 to, the Sixth Directive.
Iz predložitvenega sklepa nacionalnega sodi�ča se zdi, da je osrednje vpra�anje v postopku pred nacionalnim sodi�čem, ali se nižja davčna stopnja uporabi za dejavnost polaganja gospodinjskega vodovodnega priključka v skladu s členom 12(3)(a), tretji pododstavek, in kategorijo 2 Priloge H k Šesti direktivi.
However, in my view, that question only arises if the entity laying the connection acts as a taxable person when performing that activity and the latter is subject to VAT pursuant to Article 2 of the Sixth Directive.
Vendar menim, da se to vpra�anje postavi le, če subjekt pri polaganju priključka ravna kot davčni zavezanec in je v skladu s členom 2 Šeste direktive zavezan za plačilo DDV.
It is clear from the order for reference from the national court and from the pleadings of the German Government that the applicant, when laying household water connections, is under that an obligation to pay VAT pursuant to German law.
Iz predložitvenega sklepa nacionalnega sodi�ča in trditev nem�ke vlade jasno izhaja, da je tožeča stranka pri polaganju gospodinjskega vodovodnega priključka na podlagi nem�kega prava zavezana plačilu DDV.
However, the referring court has indicated in the order for reference that the applicant would appear, at least in principle, not to be a taxable person pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive.
Kljub temu je predložitveno sodi�če navedlo, da naj bi bila tožeča stranka vsaj načeloma izvzeta iz kroga davčnih zavezancev člena 4(5), prvi pododstavek, Šeste direktive. Iz tega izhaja,
5 — See Case C-152/03 Ritter-Coulais [2006] ECR I-1711, paragraph 15.
5 – Glej sodbo z dne 21. februarja 2006 v zadevi Ritter-Coulais (C-152/03, ZOdl., str.
Given that the national court has indicated, on the basis of the proceedings before it, that the applicant may not be a taxable person pursuant to Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive unless the laying of a water connection for a separately calculated fee comes within the terms of Annex D(2), I consider that the question of whether the laying of a
Ker je nacionalno sodi�če na podlagi postopkov pred njim navedlo, da naj bi bila tožeča stranka davčni zavezanec v skladu s členom 4(5) Šeste direktive le, če polaganje vodovodnega priključka za posebej izračunano plačilo spada pod pojem iz točke 2 Priloge D, menim, da je vpra�anje o tem, ali je polaganje gospodinjskega vodovodnega
They consider that the household water connection is indispensable to the supply of water.
Italijanska vlada trdi, da je polaganje gospodinjskega priključka stranska storitev glavne storitve, in sicer dobave vode.
The Italian Government submits that the laying of the household connection is ancillary to the principal supply, namely the supply of water.
priključka za posebej izračunano plačilo zajeto s pojmom „dobava vode“ iz točke 2 Priloge D, pomembno za postopek pred predložitvenim sodi�čem.
Accordingly, I consider that an answer should be given to the part of the question relating to Annex D(2) to the Sixth Directive with a view to providing the national court with all those elements for the interpretation of Community law which may be of assistance in deciding the case pending before it.
Zato menim, da bi bilo treba odgovoriti na del vpra�anja, ki se nana�a na točko 2 Priloge 2 k Šesti direktivi, s čimer naj se nacionalnemu sodi�ču priskrbijo vsi tisti vidiki razlage prava Skupnosti, ki lahko pomagajo pri odločanju v postopku pred njim.
The plea of inadmissibility raised must thus be rejected and the reference for a preliminary ruling in relation to Annex D(2) to the Sixth Directive be declared admissible.
Vloženi ugovor nedopustnosti je treba torej zavrniti in predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe v zvezi s točko 2 Priloge D k Šesti direktivi razglasiti za dopusten.
The applicant and the Italian Government consider that the laying of a household water connection falls within the terms ‘supply of water’ or ‘Water supplies’ as provided in Annex D(2) and Annex H, Category 2, respectively to the Sixth Directive.
Tožeča stranka in italijanska vlada menita, da je polaganje gospodinjskega vodovodnega priključka zajeto s pojmom „dobava vode“ oziroma „dobave vode“ iz točke 2 Priloge D in kategorije 2 Priloge H k Šesti direktivi. Menita, da je gospodinjski vodovodni priključek nujen za dobavo vode.
The applicant considers that the laying of the household connection is not a separate supply to the supply of water.
Tožeča stranka meni, da polaganje gospodinjskega priključka ni ločena storitev od storitve dobave vode.
From the point of view of a customer, the household water connection only serves to make the supply of water possible and has no other purpose.
Z vidika stranke je gospodinjski vodovodni priključek namenjen le zagotavljanju oskrbe z vodo in ničemur drugemu.
This is underscored by the fact that for legal and practical reasons the client cannot obtain water from another undertaking.
To potrjuje tudi dejstvo, da stranka iz pravnih in praktičnih razlogov ne more dobiti vode od drugega podjetja.
The applicant considers that the fact that the laying of the household water connection is charged in a particular manner or on a one off basis is not relevant from a VAT perspective.
Po mnenju tožeče stranke dejstvo, da se polaganje gospodinjskega vodovodnega priključka zaračunava posebej oziroma kot enkraten znesek, z vidika DDV ni pomembno.
The fact that the costs related to the laying of the household connection are deducted from the monthly fee for fixed costs and the fee linked to the actual consumption of water indicates that there is one price for the supply of water, part of which is calculated in a specific manner.
Dejstvo, da se stro�ki polaganja gospodinjskega priključka od�tejejo od mesečnega prispevka za fiksne stro�ke in da so stro�ki vezani na dejansko porabo vode, kaže, da obstaja ena cena dobave vode, katere del se izračunava na poseben način.
Moreover, while the connection is only laid once, it is indispensable for the supply of water on a continual basis and thus cannot be considered an independent supply.
In čeprav se priključek položi le enkrat, je nujno potreben za stalno dobavo vode in ga zato ni mogoče �teti za samostojno storitev.
It is not merely the connection, but also the presence of a water supply, that increase the value of the premises in question on an on-going basis.
Vrednosti zemlji�ča dolgoročno ne povečuje le priključek, ampak tudi možnost oskrbe z vodo.
Contrary to what has been argued by the defendant, the presumption that water may not be consumed in buildings with a connection does not reflect reality.
V nasprotju s trditvami tožene stranke resničnosti ne ustreza domneva, da poraba vode v stavbah s priključkom ni mogoča.
In addition, the (high) amount charged for the
Poleg tega na podlagi
ZWECKVERBAND ZUR TRINKWASSERVERSORGUNG UND ABWASSERBESEITIGUNG TORGAU-WESTELBIEN of the water would be taxed at the reduced rate while the laying of the connection by an independent building company would be taxed at the standard rate.
ZWECKVERBAND ZUR TRINKWASSERVERSORGUNG UND ABWASSERBESEITIGUNG TORGAU-WESTELBIEN polaganje gospodinjskega vodovodnega priključka s strani ponudnika vode pri pritrditvi navedbam tožene stranke obdavčeno po nižji stopnji, medtem ko bi bilo polaganje priključka s strani neodvisnega gradbenega podjetja obdavčeno po splo�ni stopnji.
household connection is not a valid basis for concluding that it represents an independent supply.
(visokega) zneska, ki se zaračuna za gospodinjski priključek, ni utemeljeno sklepati, da ta pomeni samostojno storitev.
While the connection may cost EUR 1 000, the consumption of water by a household may amount to EUR 8 000 to EUR 12 000 over a 40 to 50 year period.
Medtem ko lahko priključek stane tisoč eurov, lahko poraba vode v obdobju od �tirideset do petdeset let znese več kot osem do dvanajst tisoč eurov.
In addition, the German Government notes that Member States in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 12(3)(a) of the Sixth Directive are free to decide whether to apply a reduced rate.
Nem�ka vlada poleg tega opozarja, da se lahko države članice v skladu s členom 12(3)(a), tretji pododstavek, Šeste direktive prosto odločajo o uporabi nižje stopnje.
The German Government and the Commission thus consider that the laying of the household water connection and the supply of water should be treated as two principal supplies, subject according to the German Government to different rates.
Nem�ka vlada in Komisija zato zastopata stali�če, da bi bilo treba polaganje gospodinjskega vodovodnega priključka in dobavo vode �teti kot glavni storitvi, za kateri se po mnenju nem�ke vlade uporabita različni stopnji.
The household water connection may not therefore be considered an ancillary supply.
Gospodinjskega vodovodnega priključka torej ni mogoče �teti za stransko storitev.
The German Government added that the principle of neutrality of VAT would be impaired if the term ‘Water supplies’ was interpreted too broadly as comparable performances, such as for example the laying of gas or electricity connections, are not subject to a reduced tax rate.
Nem�ka vlada je dodala, da bi pre�iroka razlaga pojma „dobave vode“ ogrozila načelo nevtralnosti DDV, ker se za primerljive storitve, kot je na primer polaganje plinske ali električne napeljave, ne uporabi nižja davčna stopnja.
The defendant also submits that if the submissions of the applicant are accepted, the laying of the household water connection by the supplier
Tožena stranka tudi trdi, da bi bilo
However, from a technical perspective the construction of the connection bears no relation to the supply of water strictly speaking.
Vendar gradnja priključka s strogo tehničnega vidika ni povezana z dobavo vode.
The defendant, the German Government and the Commission consider, in particular, that the fact that the person
Tožena stranka, nem�ka vlada in Komisija zlasti menijo, da dejstvo, da je oseba, ki je zavezana za plačilo
liable for the payment of the household water connection is the owner of the building while the fees for actual water consumption may be charged, for example, to the lessee of the building, demonstrates that the connection and the water itself are not a single supply.
gospodinjskega vodovodnega priključka, lastnica stavbe, medtem ko se lahko stro�ki za dejansko porabo vode zaračunajo na primer najemniku stavbe, kaže, da priključek in voda nista ena storitev.
The defendant also notes that the connection benefits on an on-going basis the premises.
Tožena stranka tudi opozarja, da lahko priključek dolgoročno koristi nepremičnini.
Moreover, according to the defendant and the Commission the connection is only laid once and has no temporal link with the supply of water.
Poleg tega se priključek po navedbah tožene stranke in Komisije položi le enkrat in časovno ni povezan z dobavo vode.
The fact that the laying of the household connection costs on average a few thousand euros while the supply of water costs in general only a few hundred per year also suggests that the laying of the connection is not an ancillary activity.
Dejstvo, da polaganje gospodinjskega priključka v povprečju stane nekaj tisoč eurov, medtem ko dobava vode v splo�nem le nekaj sto eurov letno, nakazuje, da priključek ni le stranska storitev.
Thus according to the Commission from a financial perspective there are two distinct supplies which are perceived as such by consumers.
Po mnenju Komisije gre v finančnem pogledu za različni storitvi, ki jih tako zaznajo tudi potro�niki.
This conclusion complies with the distinction drawn between the construction and provision of a network and the supply of water through the network. 6
Ta ugotovitev ustreza razlikovanju med gradnjo in zagotavljanjem omrežja ter dobavo vode po omrežju. 6
As regards the interpretation of the term ‘supply of water’ in Annex D, the Commission considers that there is not enough evidence available to the Court to ascertain whether the applicant in the case before the referring court is a body which satisfies the criteria laid down in Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive.
Komisija glede razlage pojma „dobava vode“ iz Priloge D meni, da Sodi�če nima dovolj dokazov za odločitev, ali je tožeča stranka v postopku pred predložitvenim sodi�čem organ, ki zadosti merilom iz člena 4(5) Šeste direktive.
The Commission therefore considers that the Court should answer the part of the question on Annex D by stating that the national court should examine whether the activities of the applicant are taxable.
Komisija zato meni, naj Sodi�če na ta del vpra�anja odgovori, da mora nacionalno sodi�če preučiti, ali so dejavnosti tožeče stranke obdavčljive.
This is not the case in the present proceedings. The German Government also notes that the household
Čeprav imata polaganje priključka in dobava vode z vidika povprečnega potro�nika po trditvah nem�ke vlade isti gospodarski namen, to per se ne zadostuje, da bi se �tela
6 — See, Article 4 of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1).
6 – Glej člen 4 Direktive 2004/17/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 31. marca 2004 o usklajevanju postopkov za oddajo javnih naročil naročnikov v vodnem, energetskem in transportnem sektorju ter sektorju po�tnih storitev (UL L 134, str 1).
See also Article 9(2)(e), ninth indent, of the Sixth Directive which concerns the question of access to the network in respect of electricity and gas.
Glej tudi člen 9(2)(e), druga alinea, Šeste direktive, ki zadeva dostop do električnega in plinskega omrežja.
The parties to these proceedings are essentially in disagreement as to whether the terms ‘supply of water’ in Annex D(2) and
Stranki postopka se bistvu ne strinjata o tem, ali pojem „dobava vode“ iz točke 2 Priloge oziroma pojem „dobave vode“ iz kategorije 2 Priloge H k Šesti direktivi vključujeta
would limit their scope to the mere delivery of water, other language versions favour a broader interpretation.
razlago pojmov iz točke 2 Priloge D in kategorije 2 Priloge H k Šesti direktivi, ki njun obseg omejuje le na dobavo vode, druge jezikovne različice zagovarjajo �ir�o razlagi.
8In view of the linguistic differences, the scope of the terms in question cannot be determined on the basis of an interpretation which is exclusively textual.
8Glede na jezikovne razlike obsega spornih pojmov ni mogoče določiti na podlagi razlage, ki je izključno jezikovna.
It is therefore appropriate to take account of other interpretation criteria, in particular the general scheme and the purpose of the regulatory system of which the provisions in question form part. 9
Zato je treba upo�tevati druga merila za razlago, zlasti splo�ni sistem in namen ureditve, katerih del so sporne določbe. 9
I consider that it is thus necessary to examine separately Annexes D and H in the system of the Sixth Directive and consider their particular purpose.
Zato menim, da je treba Prilogi D in H v ureditvi Šeste direktive nujno preučiti ločeno in upo�tevati njun posebni namen.
It should be noted that the Sixth Directive does not define either the term ‘supply of water’ in Annex D(2) or the term ‘Water supplies’ in Annex H, Category 2.
Opozoriti je treba, da v Šesti direktivi nista opredeljena niti pojem „dobava vode“ iz točke 2 Priloge D niti pojem „dobave vode“ iz kategorije 2 Priloge H.
The preamble to Annex H to the Sixth Directive provides that the Member States, when transposing the categories of goods referred to in Annex H into national legislation, may use the combined nomenclature to establish the precise coverage of the category concerned.
V uvodu Priloge H k Šesti direktivi je določeno, da lahko države članice pri prenosu kategorij blaga iz Priloge H za zagotovitev natančnega pokritja zadevne kategorije uporabijo kombinirano nomenklaturo. Kombinirana nomenklatura, uvedena z Uredbo Sveta (EGS) �t.
It does not, however, provide any assistance in defining the term ‘Water supplies’, nor indeed the term ‘supply of water’.
Ne nudi pa pomoči pri opredelitvi pojma „dobava vode“ niti pojma „dobave vode“.
The first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive provides that States,
Člen 4(5), prvi pododstavek, Šeste direktive določa, da se državni, regionalni in
Moreover, in my opinion, the question referred to the Court cannot be resolved solely on the basis of the wording of Annex D(2) and Annex H, Category 2, to the Sixth Directive.
Poleg tega menim, da na vpra�anje, predloženo Sodi�ču, ni mogoče odgovoriti le na podlagi besedila točke 2 Priloge D in kategorije 2 Priloge H k Šesti direktivi.
On any view, the terms of those provisions are ambiguous particularly when the different language versions of the Sixth Directive are examined and compared.
Ti določbi sta vsekakor večpomenski, zlasti če se preučijo in primerjajo različne jezikovne različice Šeste direktive.
While the wording of certain language versions may favour a narrow interpretation of the terms contained in Annex D(2) and Annex H, Category 2, to the Sixth Directive which
Medtem ko besedilo nekaterih jezikovnih različic potrjuje restriktivno
8 — For example the German language version of the terms of Annex D(2) and Annex H, Category 2, to the Sixth Directive might imply a more narrow scope as the words ‘Lieferungen von Wasser’ could be interpreted as referring to the mere delivery of water.
8 – Nem�ka jezikovna različica pojmov iz točke 2 Priloge D in kategorije 2 Priloge H k Šesti direktivi bi lahko na primer nakazovala ožji obseg, saj je besede „Lieferungen von Wasser“ mogoče razlagati le kot dostavo vode.
On the other hand the terms used in the English (the supply of water), French (la distribution d’eau), Italian (Erogazione di acqua), Spanish (Distribucíon de agua) and Slovak (Zásobovanie vodou) language versions of Annex D(2) to the Sixth Directive would permit a different, broader interpretation and could be interpreted as comprising the more comprehensive task of ensuring public access to water.
Po drugi strani bi pojmi, uporabljeni v angle�ki (the supply of water), francoski (la distribution d’eau), italijanski (Erogazione di acqua), �panski (Distribucíon de agua) in slova�ki (Zásobovanie vodou) jezikovni različici točke 2 Priloge D k Šesti direktivi, dovoljevali drugačno, �ir�o razlago in bi se lahko razlagali v smislu, da vsebujejo obsežnej�o nalogo zagotavljanja javnega dostopa do vode.
11 regional and local government authorities and other bodies governed by public law are not to be considered taxable persons, as defined in Article 4(1), in respect of the activities or transactions in which they engage as public authorities.
11 lokalni organi ter druge osebe javnega prava ne �tejejo za davčne zavezance iz člena 4(1) v zvezi z dejavnostmi ali transakcijami, ki jih opravljajo kot organi oblasti.
10 Pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 4(5), Member States are required to ensure that bodies governed by public law are treated as taxable persons where the contrary would lead to significant distortions of competition.
10 V skladu s členom 4(5), drugi pododstavek, morajo države članice zagotoviti, da se osebe javnega prava obravnavajo kot davčni zavezanci, če bi nasprotna obravnava povzročila precej�nje izkrivljanje konkurence.
Moreover, pursuant to the third subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive an obligation is imposed ‘[i]n any case’ on Member States to treat bodies governed by public law as taxable persons in respect of the activities listed in Annex D to that directive, in so far as the activities in question are not negligible in scale.
Poleg tega se v skladu s členom 4(5), tretji pododstavek, Šeste direktive ti organi „[v] vsakem primeru“ �tejejo za davčne zavezance v zvezi z dejavnostmi iz Priloge D k tej direktivi, če obseg teh dejavnosti ni tako majhen, da bi bil zanemarljiv.
Where an activity is listed in Annex D there is however no need to examine the legal status of the body exercising that activity nor the quality in which the activity is exercised.
Toda če je dejavnost na�teta v Prilogi D, ni treba preučiti niti pravnega položaja osebe, ki izvaja dejavnost, niti oblike, v kateri se ta dejavnost izvaja.
That exercise is redundant as if an activity falls within the terms of Annex D to the Sixth Directive the entity exercising that activity is, in principle, taxable in respect of that activity.
Ta preučitev je odvečna, ker se podjetje, ki izvaja dejavnost, če ta spada pod pojem Priloge D k Šesti direktivi, v zvezi z njo načeloma vedno obdavči.
This in my view stems from the words ‘[i]n any case’ used in that provision.
Menim, da to izhaja iz besed „v vsakem primeru“, ki so uporabljene v tej določbi.
Moreover, there is no need to determine, as in the case of the second subparagraph of Article 4(5), whether the treatment of a public body as a nontaxable person would lead to significant distortions of competition.
Poleg tega ni treba ugotavljati, kakor v primeru člena 4(5), drugi pododstavek, ali bi obravnavanje osebe javnega prava kot neobdavčljive osebe povzročilo precej�nje izkrivljanje konkurence.
Where the activity is covered by Annex D, a significant distortion on competition is presumed.
Če je dejavnost navedena v Prilogi D, se precej�nje izkrivljanje konkurence domneva.
As Advocate General Kokott pointed out in her Opinion in Case C-369/04, 12Annex D lists those activities which can be engaged in by both public bodies and by private-sector
Kot je v mnenju k zadevi Hutchison 3G in drugi 12izpostavila generalna pravobranilka Kokott, so v Prilogi D na�tete tiste dejavnosti, ki jih lahko izvajajo
The second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of and the third subparagraph of Article 4(5) of, in conjunction with Annex D to, the Sixth Directive, are thus in my view exceptions to or derogate from the ‘general rule’ contained in the first subparagraph of Article 4(5).
Člen 4(5), drugi pododstavek, in člen 4(5), tretji pododstavek, v povezavi s Prilogo D k Šesti direktivi sta tako po mojem mnenju izjemi oziroma odstopanje od splo�nega pravila iz člena 4(5), prvi pododstavek.