natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
— It cannot be inferred either from the order for reference or from the observations of the parties to the proceedings before the Court that any trader other than Marks & Spencer has claimed or obtained refunds of VAT on the ground that it sold teacakes that were originally classified wrongly as confectionery. 56.
Niti iz predložitvenega sklepa niti iz stali�č udeležencev pred Sodi�čem ne izhaja, da je kak�en drug gospodarski udeleženec kot Marks & Spencer zahteval ali prejel vračila davka na dodano vrednost, ker je prodajal Teacakes, ki so bili prvotno nepravilno razvr�čeni med sladkarije. 56.
The Court initially concluded from the principle of fiscal neutrality that within each country similar goods must bear the same tax burden whatever the length of the production and distribution chain.
Sodi�če je iz načela davčne nevtralnosti najprej razbralo, da mora imeti podobno blago v vseh državah enako davčno obremenitev ne glede na �tevilo proizvodnih in distribucijskih faz.
38Neutrality in this sense is guaranteed by the right to input tax deduction.
38 V tem smislu je nevtralnost zagotovljena s pravico do odbitka vstopnega davka.
Deduction of input tax means that all intermediate stages are relieved entirely of the VAT burden and the consumer is ultimately charged with a tax that is exactly proportionate to the value of the supply.
Odbitek vstopnega davka povzroči, da so vse vmesne stopnje v celoti razbremenjene davka na dodano vrednost in da potro�nik na koncu plača davek, ki je natančno sorazmeren z vrednostjo storitve.
The Court later deduced, very generally, from the principle of fiscal neutrality
Pozneje je Sodi�če iz načela davčne nevtralnosti povsem splo�no izpeljalo, da je
OPINION OF MRS KOKOTT — CASE C-309/06 purposes.
KOKOTT – ZADEVA C-309/06 obravnavanja z vidika davka na dodano vrednost.
Therefore, distortion is established once it has been found that supplies of services are in competition and are treated unequally for the purposes of VAT.
Izkrivljanje je torej dokazano, ko se ugotovi, da so storitve konkurenčne in se ne obravnavajo enako z vidika davka na dodano vrednost.
41 that similar — and thus competing — goods must be treated in the same way for VAT purposes.
41 treba enako in zato med seboj konkurenčno blago glede davka na dodano vrednost enako obravnavati.
39That aspect of the principle of neutrality has been significant in the established caselaw, in particular in determining the taxable transactions and interpreting the constituent elements of exemptions under Article 13 of the Sixth Directive.
39 Ta vidik načela nevtralnosti je v dosedanji sodni praksi igral vlogo zlasti pri določitvi obdavčljivih transakcij in pri razlagi dejanskih stanj, ki zadevajo oprostitev, iz člena 13 Šeste direktive.
It follows from that definition of the principle of neutrality, as regards the case here at issue, that it is not permissible to treat supplies of (comparable) teacakes differently for tax purposes.
Iz te opredelitve načela nevtralnosti za obravnavani primer izhaja, da je nedopustno različno davčno obravnavanje dobav (primerljivih) Teacakes.
The provisions on the refund of the tax may also not, at a later stage, lead to different treatment of supplies of comparable products.
Tudi določbe o vračilu davka ne smejo naknadno povzročiti različnega obravnavanja dobav primerljivih izdelkov.
In further decisions, the Court also held that, in accordance with the principle of fiscal neutrality, economic oper- ators carrying out the same transactions may not be treated differently in relation to the levying of VAT.
Sodi�če je v nadaljnjih odločitvah tudi opredelilo, da načelo davčne nevtralnosti nasprotuje temu, da se gospodarski subjekti, ki opravljajo enake transakcije, obravnavajo različno glede obdavčitve z davkom na dodano vrednost.
40 Although the issue of the equal treatment of different economic operators appears to have acquired greater prominence here, I still understand that finding as meaning that different economic operators may not be treated differently specifically in relation to their similar transactions.
40Čeprav se zdi, da je tu močneje postavljeno v ospredje enako obravnavanje različnih gospodarskih udeležencev, to ugotovitev kljub temu razumem tako, da je različno obravnavanje različnih gospodarskih udeležencev nedopustno ravno glede na njihove enake transakcije.
However, the principle of neutrality does not cover general discrimination as between different economic operators which, completely unrelated to the charging of tax on similar transactions, involves other features.
Nasprotno pa načelo nevtralnosti ne obsega splo�nega neenakega obravnavanja različnih gospodarskih udeležencev, ki ni v nobeni zvezi z obdavčitvijo enakih transakcij, ampak se navezuje na druge lastnosti.
Therefore, the fact that Tesco might have obtained tax refunds in respect of other goods, although the taxes concerned were passed on, is of no consequence to the application of the principle of neutrality.
Zato je za uporabo načela nevtralnosti nepomembna okoli�čina, da je Tesco morda v zvezi z drugim blagom prejel vračila davka, čeprav je bil davek prevaljen.
In the end, the Court held that the principle of fiscal neutrality includes the principle of elimination of distortion in competition as a result of differing treatment for VAT
Sodi�če je končno izpeljalo, da načelo davčne nevtralnosti vključuje načelo odprave izkrivljanja konkurence zaradi različnega
Infringement of the principle of neutrality is established if the zero-rating
Kr�itev načela nevtralnosti je dokazana, če je bil za dobavo Teacakes s strani drugih
MARKS & SPENCER implementing the Sixth Directive, must also observe the general principle of equal treatment, under which comparable situations must not be treated differently and different situations must not be treated in the same way unless such treatment is objectively justified. 42 was applied from the outset to the supply of teacakes by other traders whereas corresponding supplies by Marks & Spencer were taxed at the standard rate. The infringement is also established if, in contrast to Marks & Spencer, other traders subsequently obtained a refund of the VAT as a consequence of the reappraisal of the relevant supplies, but no recourse was had to the defence of enrichment. The burden of proof does not call for any further-reaching economic disadvantage. After all, the different tax treatment of similar transactions is sufficient indication that competition has been distorted. 65.
MARKS & SPENCER nevtralnosti upo�tevati tudi splo�no načelo enakega obravnavanja, ki zahteva, naj se primerljivi položaji ne obravnavajo različno in naj se različni položaji ne obravnavajo enako, razen če je tako obravnavanje objektivno utemeljeno. 42 gospodarskih udeležencev od vsega začetka uporabljen zero-rating, medtem ko so bile ustrezne dobave družbe Marks & Spencer obdavčene s splo�no stopnjo. Dalje je kr�itev dokazana, če so drugi gospodarski udeleženci v nasprotju z družbo Marks & Spencer naknadno prejeli vračilo davka na dodano vrednost zaradi nove presoje ustreznih dobav, ne da bi bil upo�tevan ugovor obogatitve. Kak�en drug manj ugoden gospodarski položaj ni potreben. Različno davčno obravnavanje enakih transakcij kaže namreč na izkrivljanje konkurence. 65.
The United Kingdom Government does not dispute that different rules applied to repayment traders and payment traders in terms of the defence of enrichment until the Value Added Tax Act was amended in 2005.
Vlada Združenega kraljestva ne zanika, da so glede ugovora obogatitve vse do spremembe zakona o davku na dodano vrednost v letu 2005 obstajala različna pravila za repayment trader in payment trader.
However, it takes the view that the claims for refund made in the respective situations are not comparable.
Zastopa pa stali�če, da zahtevki za vračilo v konkretnih položajih niso primerljivi.
I, however, like the Commission and Marks & Spencer, can see no difference that would be material to deciding whether or not to invoke the defence of enrichment. — Principle of equal treatment
Vendar pa tako kot Komisija in Marks & Spencer ne vidim nobene razlike, ki bi bila odločilna za uporabo oziroma neuporabo ugovora obogatitve. 63.
In each case, the price initially paid for the product supplied includes VAT. The
– Načelo enakega obravnavanja
In addition to the principle of fiscal neutrality, Member States, when
Države članice morajo pri izvajanju Šeste direktive o DDV poleg načela davčne
OPINION OF MRS KOKOTT — CASE C-309/06
KOKOTT – ZADEVA C-309/06 isti način uporabi tudi ugovor obogatitve.
The action of the legislature in itself suggests that, previously, comparable situations were clearly treated differently.
Že dejavnost zakonodajalca kaže na to, da je prej očitno obstajalo neenako obravnavanje primerljivih položajev.
If the situations had not actually been comparable, the legislature would not have been allowed to extend the defence of enrichment under section 80(3) of the Value Added Tax Act 2005 to the situation of repayment traders.
Če položaja dejansko ne bi bila primerljiva, potem zakonodajalec ne bi smel ugovora obogatitve v skladu z oddelkom 80(3) zakona o davku na dodano vrednost 2005 raz�iriti na primer repayment trader.
In that regard, the inequality of treatment presented thus far is all the more unfathomable as the issue whether a taxable person finds himself in either of those situations in a given assessment period depends on all manner of unforeseeable circumstances and factors that could change at any time, such as the composition of the range of products or the investment position.
Pri tem je neenako obravnavanje, ki je obstajalo do takrat, �e toliko manj mogoče razumeti, kolikor je od vsakovrstnih naključij in vseskozi spreminjajočih se dejavnikov, kot so sestava palete izdelkov, izvajanje investicij in podobno, odvisno, ali je davčni zavezanec v določenem davčnem obdobju v enem ali drugem položaju.
If it is established at a later stage that certain transactions should have been taxed at the zero rate rather than at the standard rate, one of the offsetting items is thereby reduced.
Če se naknadno izkaže, da za določene transakcije ne velja splo�na davčna stopnja, ampak ničelna davčna stopnja (zero-rating), potem se ena obračunska postavka zniža.
In the case of a repayment trader, this leads to an increase in the credit to his account whilst leading, in the case of a payment trader, to a reduction in the credit to the tax authority.
To v primeru repayment trader pomeni zvi�anje prebitka v njegovo korist, v primeru payment trader pa znižanje prebitka v korist državne blagajne.
To rectify the tax error, the tax authority is required in each case to repay the amount concerned to the taxable person, which can in each case lead to unjust enrichment if the tax in respect of the output concerned has been passed on in full to customers and no other economic disadvantages preclude enrichment.
V obeh primerih je za popravek potrebno vračilo davčnemu zavezancu s strani državne blagajne, ki vsakokrat lahko povzroči neupravičeno obogatitev, če je bil davek za zadevno izstopno transakcijo v celoti prevaljen na kupca in tudi nobene druge gospodarske neugodnosti ne izključujejo obogatitve.
— Remedy in the event of infringement of the principles of fiscal neutrality and equal treatment
– Pomoč pri kr�itvah načel davčne nevtralnosti in enakega obravnavanja
Since the respective situations of repayment and payment traders are, accordingly, the same in terms of enrichment, the principle of equal treatment requires that the defence of enrichment may also be invoked in the same way in the respective claims for refund.
Ker sta položaja repayment in payment trader glede na obogatitev s tem identična, načelo enakega obravnavanja zahteva, naj se pri konkretnih zahtevkih za vračilo na
It follows that the objection that Marks & Spencer has been enriched cannot be invoked as long as it offends against the principle of equal treatment. 73.
Iz tega izhaja, da družbi Marks & Spencer ni mogoče nasprotovati z ugovorom obogatitve, dokler ta pomeni kr�itev načela enakega obravnavanja. 73.
Member States have, admittedly, the choice as to how they intend to eliminate infringements of the principle of equal treatment in future.
Država članica ima sicer na izbiro, kako namerava v prihodnje odpraviti kr�itev načela enakega obravnavanja.
They can, in principle, remove the tax burden for one category or extend its imposition in the same way to the other category.
Načelno lahko obremenitev ene skupine odpravi ali pa to na isti način raz�iri na drugo skupino.
As to the tax position in the past, retroactive extension of the tax burden would, by contrast, probably offend in general against the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. 45
Nasprotno pa bo naknadna raz�iritev obremenitve za nazaj verjetno na splo�no nasprotovala načelu varstva legitimnih pričakovanj. 45
It is true that no person may call for equality in illegality.
Nihče sicer ne more zahtevati enakosti v zmoti.
47Thus the Court has
47 Tako je Sodi�če na primer v okviru
In addition, as the Court has repeatedly held in situations of discrimination contrary held, in the context of State aid provisions for example, that those liable to pay a tax cannot, in order to avoid payment of that tax, rely on the argument that the exemption enjoyed by
Poleg tega je mogoče spo�tovanje načela enakosti – kot je Sodi�če večkrat razsodilo v primerih diskriminacij, ki so v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti –, dokler niso sprejeti predpisov o državnih pomočeh odločilo, da se zavezanci za plačilo neke dajatve ne morejo sklicevati na to, da oprostitev plačila dajatve, ki jo uživajo druga podjetja, pomeni
44 — See, inter alia, Case C-198/01 CIF [2003] ECR I-8055, paragraph 48, and Manfredi and Others (cited in footnote 43), paragraph 39.
44 – Glej med drugim sodbi z dne 9. septembra 2003 v zadevi CIF (C-198/01, Recueil, str. I-8055, točka 48) in Manfredi in drugi (navedena v opombi 43, točka 39).
At the hearing, in particular, Marks & Spencer stressed that the refusal to grant it a refund would, in its view, lead to the unjust enrichment of the tax authority itself. After all, the customers of Marks & Spencer who ultimately paid the VAT that was not due would actually be the persons entitled to the refund. Challenging that argument, the United Kingdom maintained that the State none the less used the tax revenue that had been unduly raised in the public interest, with the result that the customers of Marks & Spencer also derived benefit from it. 77.
50Sicer pa bi �lo predaleč, če bi Sodi�če odločalo o tem, kdo bi smotrneje in koristneje za kupce družbe Marks & Spencer uporabil nepravilno pobrana sred- stva, država ali omenjeno podjetje. 77.
The Court has consistently held, however, that Member States are not obliged to preclude the refund of charges levied in breach of Community law where it would lead to unjust enrichment.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso pa ne obstaja obveznost držav članic, da zavrnejo vračilo dajatev, ki so bile pobrane v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti, če bi to pomenilo neupravičeno obogatitev.
In fact, according to the caselaw, refund is supposed to be the norm from which a derogation can be made in order to avoid unjust enrichment.
Vračilo naj bi bilo nasprotno v skladu s sodno prakso pravilo, od katerega je mogoče odstopiti, da bi se preprečila neupravičena obogatitev.
49Consequently, it is not unlawful for a national provision to allow a refund of charges levied in breach of Community law without constraint from an objection of enrichment, as was clearly the case until 2005 in the United Kingdom with regard to repayment traders.
49Ni torej protizakonito, če nacionalna določba brez omejitev z ugovorom obogatitve dopu�ča vračilo dajatev, pobranih v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti, kot je bilo očitno v Združenem kraljestvu do leta 2005 mogoče pri repayment traders.
Eliminating unequal treatment by disapplying the defence of enrichment in respect of payment traders does not therefore create ‘equality in illegality’.
Odprava neenakega obravnavanja z neuporabo ugovora obogatitve nasproti payment traders tako ne vzpostavlja „enakosti v zmoti“.
50Besides, it would be a step too far if the Court were to assess whether the State or Marks & Spencer would manage the revenue unduly collected more efficiently and to the greater benefit of Marks & Spencer’s customers. 48 — Joined Cases C-393/04 and C-41/05 Air Liquide Industries Belgium [2006] ECR I-5293, paragraphs 43 and 45, and Case C-368/04 Transalpine Ölleitung [2006] ECR I-9957, paragraphs 49 and 50.
I-5293, točki 43 in 45) in z dne 5. oktobra 2006 v zadevi Transalpine Ölleitung (C-368/04, ZOdl., str. I-9957, točki 49 in 50).
49 — See points 48 and 49 above and the caselaw cited there.
49 – Glej zgoraj točki 48 in 49 ter tam navedeno sodno prakso.
I accordingly propose that the questions referred for a preliminary ruling be answered as follows:
Na koncu Sodi�ču predlagam, naj na vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje odgovori:
Where the tax authorities have mistakenly interpreted the domestic legislation in such circumstances, with the result that certain supplies benefiting from exemption with refund of input tax under its domestic legislation have been subject to tax at the standard rate, Community law in principle confers on the trader a right to obtain a refund of the VAT wrongly charged.
Če je davčna uprava nacionalno pravo v takem primeru nepravilno razlagala tako, da je določene storitve, za katere velja oprostitev z vračilom vstopnega davka v skladu z njenim nacionalnim pravom, obdavčila s splo�no davčno stopnjo, potem pravo Skupnosti gospodarskemu udeležencu načelno priznava pravico do vračila nepravilno obračunanega davka na dodano vrednost.
When establishing the rules governing that right, the general principles of Community law, including the principles of equal treatment and fiscal neutrality, must be observed.
Pri opredelitvi te pravice je treba upo�tevati splo�na načela prava Skupnosti, skupaj z načeloma enakega obravnavanja in davčne nevtralnosti.
However, it is contrary to the principle of equal treatment, which must be applied when the Directive is being implemented, for the defence of enrichment to apply only in respect of taxable persons who have paid output VAT in a given assessment period and not in respect of taxable persons whose claim to input tax deduction exceeded the VAT payable in respect of their outputs (repayment traders).
Vendar pa je nasprotju z načelom enakega obravnavanja, ki ga je treba uporabiti pri izvajanju Direktive, če je ugovor obogatitve mogoče uporabiti le pri davčnih zavezancih, ki so v določenem davčnem obdobju odvedli davek na dodano vrednost, ne pa pri davčnih zavezancih, katerih zahtevek za vračilo vstopnega davka je presegel izstopni davek na dodano vrednost za njihove izstopne transakcije (repayment traders).
The national courts, which have to apply Community law in cases within their jurisdiction, must guarantee the full effect of that law and protect the rights conferred upon individuals by Community law by disapplying a domestic provision that is contrary to the principle of equal treatment.’
Nacionalna sodi�ča, ki morajo v okviru svoje pristojnosti uporabiti pravo Skupnosti, morajo zagotoviti polni učinek tega prava in �čititi pravice, ki jih pravo Skupnosti priznava posamezniku, tako da ne uporabijo nacionalne določbe, ki je v nasprotju z načelom enakega obravnavanja.
10 April 2008 *
MARKS & SPENCER SODBA SODIŠČA (tretji senat) z dne 10. aprila 2008 *
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the House of Lords (United Kingdom), made by decision of 12 July 2006, received at the Court on 17 July 2006, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-309/06, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo House of Lords (Združeno kraljestvo) z odločbo z dne 12. julija 2006, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 17. julija 2006, v postopku
THE COURT (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, U. Lõhmus, J. Klučka, P. Lindh and A. Arabadjiev (Rapporteur), Judges,
Arabadjiev (poročevalec), sodnik,
2008 — CASE C-309/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-309/06 generalna pravobranilka: J. Kokott, sodni tajnik: J.
Advocate General: J. Kokott, Registrar: J. Swedenborg, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 11 October 2007, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 13 December 2007, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Swedenborg, administrator, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 11. oktobra 2007, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalne pravobranilke na obravnavi 13. decembra 2007, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
MARKS & SPENCER gives the following Judgment
MARKS & SPENCER izreka naslednjo Sodbo
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 28(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago člena 28(2) Šeste direktive Sveta z dne 17. maja 1977 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih – Skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost: enotna osnova za odmero (UL L 145, str.
1) (‘the Sixth Directive’), in its original version, and of Article 28(2)(a) thereof, in the wording stemming from Council Directive 92/77/EEC of 19 October 1992 (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 1).
1, v nadaljevanju: Šesta direktiva), kot je obstajala v prvotni različici, ter istega člena 28(2)(a), kot je bil spremenjen z Direktivo Sveta 92/77/EGS z dne 19. oktobra 1992 (UL L 316, str. 1).
The reference has been made in the context of proceedings between Marks & Spencer plc (‘Marks & Spencer’) and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise (‘the Commissioners’), concerning the latter’s refusal to uphold a claim submitted by Marks & Spencer for repayment of value added tax (‘VAT’) which had been erroneously paid. Legal context
Predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med družbo Marks & Spencer plc (v nadaljevanju: družba Marks & Spencer) in Commissioners of Customs & Excise (v nadaljevanju: Commissioners) zaradi tega, ker so ti zavrnili zahtevek za vračilo, ki ga je vložil Marks & Spencer plc glede nepravilno obračunanega davka na dodano vrednost (v nadaljevanju: DDV). Pravni okvir
Article 12(1) of the Sixth Directive states that VAT is payable, in principle, at the ‘rate … in force at the time of the chargeable event’.
Člen 12(1) Šeste direktive določa, da je DDV obračunan načeloma po „stopnj[i], ki velja v trenutku obdavčljivega dogodka“.
2008 — CASE C-309/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-309/06
The original version of Article 28(2) of the Sixth Directive provided:
Člen 28(2) Šeste direktive je v prvotni različici določal:
‘Reduced rates and exemptions with refund of the tax paid at the preceding stage which are in force on 31 December 1975, and which satisfy the conditions stated in the last indent of Article 17 of the second Council Directive of 11 April 1967, may be maintained until a date which shall be fixed by the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, but which shall not be later than that on which the charging of tax on imports and the remission of tax on exports in trade between the Member States are abolished.
„Nižje stopnje in oprostitve z vračilom davka, plačanega v predhodni fazi, ki veljajo 31. decembra 1975 in izpolnjujejo pogoje iz zadnje alinee člena 17 Druge direktive Sveta z dne 11. aprila 1967, se lahko uporabljajo do datuma, ki ga soglasno določi Svet na predlog Komisije, ki pa ne sme biti kasnej�i od datuma, ko se obračunavanje davka pri uvozu in odpustitev davka pri izvozu v trgovini med državami članicami odpravi.
The version of Article 28(2)(a) which stems from Directive 92/77 provides as follows:
Po spremembi z Direktivo 92/77 člen 28(2)(a) določa:
(a) Exemptions with refund of the tax paid at the preceding stage and reduced rates lower than the minimum rate laid down in Article 12(3) in respect of the reduced
„[…] a) Še naprej se lahko uporabljajo oprostitve z vračilom davka, plačanega v predhodni fazi, in nižje stopnje, ki so nižje od najnižjih stopenj, določenih v členu 12(3),