natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In that regard it should be noted that although the supplier is, as a taxable person under the common system of VAT, liable to payment of VAT, as a tax on consumption, VAT is finally to be borne by the ultimate consumer.
V zvezi s tem je treba upo�tevati, da čeprav je dobavitelj kot davčni zavezanec v skladu s skupnim sistemom DDV zavezan plačati DDV, DDV kot davek na potro�njo v končni fazi nosi končni potro�nik.
10Without, obviously, having themselves a natural benefit from or interest in the payment of VAT and without being supposed to bear the tax economically, taxable persons act thus as tax collectors for the State 11and in the interest of the public purse.
10Očitno ne da bi sami imeli naravno korist od plačila DDV ali interes zanj in ne da bi se od njih pričakovalo, da nosijo breme davka z ekonomskega vidika, davčni zavezanci torej delujejo kot pobiralci davka za državo 11in v interesu javne blagajne.
Viewed against that background, it would to my mind clearly be disproportionate to hold, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, a taxable person liable for
Glede na te okoli�čine bi bilo po mojem mnenju popolnoma nesorazmerno, da bi bil davčni zavezanec v dejanskem stanju, kot je
That view is supported by a number of decisions of the Court, from which — in spite of certain differences regarding the factual circumstances — it appears clearly that a taxable person acting in good faith, that is, more particularly, on condition that he had no part in the irregularities and took every precaution reasonably required, should not have to assume liability for the fraudulent conduct of others. 12
To stali�če podpirajo �tevilne odločbe Sodi�ča, iz katerih – kljub določenim razlikam v zvezi z dejanskim stanjem – jasno izhaja, da se davčnega zavezanca, ki deluje v dobri veri, natančneje pod pogojem, da ni sodeloval pri nepravilnostih in je sprejel vse ukrepe, ki se od njega lahko razumno zahtevajo, ne sme �teti za odgovornega za goljufivo ravnanje namesto drugih. 12
9 — See to that effect, Joined Cases C-286/94, C-340/95, C-401/95 and C-47/96 Molenheide and Others [1997] ECR I-7281, paragraph 47, and Federation of Technological Industries and Others, cited in footnote 7, paragraph 30.
9 – Glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 18. decembra 1997 v združenih zadevah Molenheide in drugi (C-286/94, C-340/95, C-401/95 in C-47/96, Recueil, str. I-7281, točka 47) in v opombi 7 navedeno sodbo Federation of Technological Industries in drugi, točka 30.
10 — See to that effect, inter alia, Case C-475/03 Banca popolare di Cremona [2006] ECR I-9373, paragraphs 22 and 28.
10 – Glej v tem smislu med drugim sodbo z dne 3. oktobra 2006 v zadevi Banca popolare di Cremona (C-475/03, ZOdl., str. I-9373, točki 22 in 28).
11 — See Case C-10/92 Balocchi [1993] ECR I-5105, paragraph 25.
I-7797 in I-7801, točka 77 in opomba 27).
Thus, in Optigen and Others, the Court found that the right to deduct input VAT of a taxable person who carries out transactions which are not themselves vitiated by VAT fraud cannot be affected by the fact that in the chain of supply of which those transactions form part another prior or subsequent transaction is vitiated by VAT fraud, without that taxable person knowing or having any means of knowing that fraud had taken place.
Tako je Sodi�če v zadevi Optigen ugotovilo, da na pravico davčnega zavezanca, ki izvaja transakcije, ki same niso del goljufije z DDV, da odbije vstopni DDV, ne sme vplivati okoli�čina, da je v verigi dobav, katere del so te transakcije, ne da bi bili ti davčni zavezanci o tem seznanjeni oziroma bi ne da bi to mogli vedeti, druga transakcija, izvr�ena pred to ali po njej, del goljufije z DDV.
13 court established, unable even by exercising due commercial care, to recognise that the conditions for exemption were in reality not met, certainly meets the standards of acting in good faith and of diligence as envisaged by the abovementioned case-law.
13 tveno sodi�če, ni zmožen niti z ravnanjem s skrbnostjo dobrega gospodarja prepoznati, da pogoji za oprostitev dejansko niso bili izpolnjeni, gotovo izpolni zahteve glede dobre vere in skrbnosti, kot jih predvideva zgoraj navedena sodna praksa.
It may be added in that regard that it appears from the order for reference that even the customs authorities contacted by Netto Supermarkt were unable, without more, to see at first sight that the documents produced were falsified.
V zvezi s tem se lahko doda, da tudi – kot se zdi iz predložitvenega sklepa – carinski organi, s katerimi je Netto Supermarkt stopil v stik, niso mogli brez težav na prvi pogled videti, da so bili predloženi dokumenti ponarejeni.
In the same vein, the Court subsequently held in Kittel that ‘traders who take every precaution which could reasonably be required of them to ensure that their transactions are not connected with fraud, be it the fraudulent evasion of VAT or other fraud, must be able to rely on the legality of those transactions without the risk of losing their right to deduct the input VAT’. 14
V enakem smislu je Sodi�če pozneje v sodbi Kittel ugotovilo, da „bi se izvajalci, ki sprejmejo vse ukrepe, ki jih je od njih mogoče zahtevati, da zagotovijo, da njihove transakcije niso del goljufije, pa naj gre za utajo DDV ali druge goljufije, lahko zanesli na zakonitost teh transakcij, ne da bi tvegali, da izgubijo pravico do odbitka vstopnega DDV“. 14
A supplier such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, who is, as the referring
Dobavitelj, kot je obravnavani v postopku v glavni stvari, ki, kot je ugotovilo predloži-
13 — See, to that effect, Optigen and Others, cited in footnote 7, paragraphs 51 and 52.
13 – Glej v tem smislu v opombi 7 navedeno sodbo Optigen in drugi, točki 51 in 52.
14 — Kittel, cited in footnote 7, paragraph 51 with a reference to Federation of Technological Industry and Others, cited in footnote 7.
14 – V opombi 7 navedena sodba Kittel, točka 51, z napotilom na v opombi 7 navedeno sodbo Federation of Technological Industries.
The Court has, by contrast, found in Genius Holding (cited in footnote 4), particularly paragraph 18, and Schmeink & Cofreth and Strobel (cited in footnote 4), paragraph 61, that, in a case where VAT has been improperly invoiced, the issuer of the invoice may be held responsible for the shortfall in tax revenues if he has not acted in good faith. 50.
Nasprotno pa je Sodi�če ugotovilo v sodbah Genius Holding (navedena v opombi 4), zlasti točka 18, in Schmeink & Cofreth in Strobel, točka 61, da v primeru, ko je bil DDV napačno obračunan na računu, se lahko izdajatelja računa �teje za odgovornega za primanjkljaj v davčnih prihodkih, če ni deloval v dobri veri. 50.
As regards, moreover, the Statement for the Council Minutes of the meeting of 16 December 1991, it is true that it concerns the protection of legitimate expectations and good faith of the taxable person in the context of intra-Community supplies.
Poleg tega je res, da se izjava za zapisnik Sveta na sestanku z dne 16. decembra 1991 nana�a na varstvo upravičenih pričakovanj in varstvo dobre vere davčnega zavezanca v okviru dobav znotraj Skupnosti.
From this it cannot, however, as the Commission and Netto Supermarkt have rightly observed, be inferred that the taxable person should not enjoy an equivalent protection with regard to export supplies.
Vendar pa iz tega, kot sta Komisija in Netto Supermarkt pravilno pripomnila, ni mogoče sklepati, da davčni zavezanec ne bi smel uživati enakovrednega varstva v zvezi z dobavami za izvoz.
As the reasons for granting an exemption in a case like that at issue are rooted, as transpires from the considerations above, in the protection of the individual supplier acting in good faith, I cannot see in what way the aim of the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes of establishing a common market should mean
Ker so razlogi za odobritev oprostitve v primeru, kot je ta sporni, zakoreninjeni, kot izhaja iz zgornjih ugotovitev, v varstvu posameznega dobavitelja, ki deluje v dobri veri, ne vidim, kako naj bi cilj usklajevanja zakonodaj
NETTO SUPERMARKT that the granting of such a protection with regard to export-supplies should not be possible.
NETTO SUPERMARKT v zvezi s prometnimi davki za vzpostavitev skupnega trga pomenil, da naj odobritev takega varstva v zvezi z dobavami za izvoz ne bi bila mogoča.
the Court in the field of customs law, I agree with the Commission and Netto Supermarkt that, due to the differences in structure, object and purpose of the Commmunity system on the levying of customs duties as compared with the common system of VAT under the Sixth Directive, it is not possible to transpose the findings of the Court in the former context to the specific situation of a taxable person under the VAT system such as to call into question the previous conclusions. 15
predpisov se strinjam s Komisijo in Netto Supermarkt, da zaradi razlik v strukturi, predmetu in namenu sistema Skupnosti pri pobiranju carin v primerjavi s skupnim sistemom DDV v skladu s Šesto direktivo ni mogoče prenesti ugotovitev Sodi�ča v prvih okoli�činah na poseben položaj davčnega zavezanca v sistemu DDV, tako da bi to vzbudilo dvom o prej�njihzaključkih. 15
Rather, such a distinction in Community law may put traders who have, on the grounds of the kind of goods they deliver, their geographic position or for some other reason, a high proportion of export supplies at a considerable disadvantage compared with traders with mainly intra-Community supplies.
Tako razlikovanje v pravu Skupnosti lahko namreč postavi trgovce, ki imajo zaradi vrste blaga, ki ga dobavljajo, njihovega geografskega položaja ali kak�nega drugega razloga visok delež dobav za izvoz, v veliko slab�i položaj v primerjavi s trgovci, ki večinoma dobavljajo znotraj Skupnosti.
In my view, it may therefore even run counter to the principle of equality to hold taxable persons acting in good faith in circumstances such as those at issue in the present case liable to pay tax with regard to export supplies, if they would be granted, in the same circumstances involving fraud by third persons, an exemption with regard to intra-Community supplies.
Po mojem mnenju bi bilo lahko torej v nasprotju z načelom enakosti, če bi se davčne zavezance, ki delujejo v dobri veri, v dejanskem stanju, kot je v tej zadevi, �telo za odgovorne za plačilo davka za dobave za izvoz, če bi se jim v enakih okoli�činah, ki bi zajemale goljufijo s strani tretjih oseb, odobrila oprostitev za dobave znotraj Skupnosti.
In the light of the foregoing it follows that the provisions of Community law on exemption from tax for exports to a third country do not preclude the granting of exemption from tax by the Member State on the grounds of fairness in circumstances like those at issue 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.
Iz zgornjih ugotovitev sledi, da določbe prava Skupnosti o oprostitvi davka za izvoze v tretjo državo ne nasprotujejo temu, da država članica odobri oprostitev davka zaradi pravičnosti v okoli�činah, kot so te obravnavane, ko pogoji za oprostitev niso izpolnjeni, vendar pa davčni zavezanec ni mogel niti z ravnanjem s skrbnostjo dobrega gospodarja prepoznati, da niso bili izpolnjeni.
As regards, finally, the reference made by the German Government to the caselaw of
V zvezi s sklicevanjem nem�ke vlade na sodno prakso Sodi�ča na področju carinskih
I therefore propose that the reply to the question referred to the Court should be as follows:
Predlagam torej, naj se na vpra�anje, ki ga je bilo zastavljeno Sodi�ču, odgovori tako:
In a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, Article 15(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, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC, must be interpreted as not precluding 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.
V položaju, kot je ta obravnavani v postopku v glavni stvari, je treba člen 15, točka 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, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo Sveta 95/7/ES, razlagati tako, da ne nasprotuje temu, da država članica odobri oprostitev davka zaradi pravičnosti, kadar pogoji za oprostitev niso izpolnjeni, vendar pa davčni zavezanec ni mogel niti z ravnanjem s skrbnostjo dobrega gospodarja prepoznati, da niso bili izpolnjeni.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)
SODBA SODIŠČA (četrti senat) z dne 21. februarja 2008 *
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), made by decision of 2 March 2006, received at the Federal Finance Court on 22 June 2006, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-271/06, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Bundesfinanzhof (Nemčija) z odločbo z dne 2. marca 2006, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 22. junija 2006, v postopku
2008 — CASE C-271/06
Mazák, sodni tajnik: R.
— the Commission of the European Communities, by D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agent, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 25 October 2007,
– za Komisijo Evropskih skupnosti D. Triantafyllou, zastopnik, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca na obravnavi 25. oktobra 2007
NETTO SUPERMARKT gives the following
NETTO SUPERMARKT izreka naslednjo
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 15(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 15, točka 2, Šeste direktive Sveta 77/388/EGS 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), as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995 (OJ 1995 L 102, p.
1), kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo Sveta 95/7/ES z dne 10. aprila 1995 (UL L 102, str.
18, ‘the Sixth Directive’).
18, v nadaljevanju: Šesta direktiva).
The reference was made in the course of proceedings between Netto Supermarkt GmbH & Co. OHG (‘Netto Supermarkt’) and Finanzamt Malchin (Tax Office, Malchin, ‘the Finanzamt’) regarding the refusal of the latter to grant Netto Supermarkt exemption from value added tax (‘VAT’) for the years 1995 to 1998. Legal context
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med družbo Netto Supermarkt GmbH & Co. OHG (v nadaljevanju: družba Netto Supermarkt) in Finanzamt Malchin (davčni urad, v nadaljevanju: Finanzamt) glede odločitve, s katero je slednji zavrnil oprostitev plačila davka na dodano vrednost (v nadaljevanju: DDV) za leta od 1995 do 1998. Pravni okvir
Article 15 of the Sixth Directive, headed ‘Exemption of exports from the Community and like transactions and international transport’, provides:
Člen 15 Šeste direktive z naslovom „Oprostitve pri izvozu iz Skupnosti in podobnih transakcijah ter pri mednarodnih prevozih“ določa:
2. the supply of goods dispatched or transported to a destination outside the Community by or on behalf of a purchaser not established within the territory of the country, with the exception of goods transported by the purchaser himself for the equipping, fuelling and provisioning of pleasure boats and private aircraft or any other means of transport for private use;
2. dobavo blaga, ki ga kupec ali druga oseba, ki nima sedeža na ozemlju države, za njegov račun odpo�lje ali odpelje v namembni kraj izven Skupnosti, razen blaga, ki ga prevaža kupec sam in je namenjeno opremljanju, oskrbovanju z gorivom in drugemu oskrbovanju zasebnih čolnov, zasebnih zrakoplovov ali katerih koli drugih prevoznih sredstev za zasebno rabo;
— the total value of the supply, including value added tax, is more than the equivalent in national currency of [EUR] 175, fixed in accordance with Article 7(2) of Directive 69/169/EEC …; however, Member States may exempt a supply with a total value of less than that amount.
– je skupna vrednost dobave, skupaj z davkom na dodano vrednost, vi�ja od protivrednosti 175 [EUR] v nacionalni valuti, določeni v skladu s členom 7(2) Direktive 69/169/EGS […]; države članice pa lahko oprostijo dobavo, katere skupna vrednost je nižja od tega zneska.
For the purposes of applying the second subparagraph:
Za namene uporabe drugega pododstavka:
— a traveller not established within the Community shall be taken to mean a traveller whose domicile or habitual residence is not situated within the Community.
– potnik, ki nima stalnega prebivali�ča znotraj Skupnosti, pomeni potnika, katerega stalno ali običajno prebivali�če ni znotraj Skupnosti.
— proof of exportation shall be furnished by means of the invoice or other document in lieu thereof, endorsed by the customs office where the goods left the Community.
– za dokazilo o izvozu velja račun ali drug dokument namesto njega, ki ga potrdi carinski urad v kraju, kjer blago zapusti Skupnost.
The Commission shall transmit this information to the tax authorities in the other Member States.
Komisija po�lje to informacijo davčnim organom drugih držav članic.
565, ‘the UStG’) contains a provision on the protection of legitimate expectations, which is worded as follows:
565, v nadaljevanju: UStG) vsebuje glede dobav znotraj Skupnosti določbo o varstvu upravičenega pričakovanja, ki se glasi:
‘If the operator treats a supply as exempt from tax even though the conditions under paragraph 1 are not met, the supply is nevertheless to be regarded as taxexempt if the claiming of the tax exemption is based on incorrect statements by the purchaser and the operator was not able to recognise the incorrectness of those statements, even by exercising due commercial care.
„Če podjetnik obravnava dobavo kot opro�čeno davka, čeprav pogoji iz odstavka 1 niso izpolnjeni, se dobava �teje za opro�čeno davka, če zahteva za oprostitev davka temelji na nepravilni izjavi kupca in podjetnik ni mogel prepoznati nepravilnosti teh izjav niti z ravnanjem s skrbnostjo dobrega gospodarja.
As regards export supplies from the Community, German tax law contains no such provision on the protection of legitimate expectations.
Nem�ka davčna zakonodaja ne pozna enakovredne določbe o varstvu upravičenega pričakovanja za dobave za izvoz iz Skupnosti.
In addition, Paragraph 227 of the 1977 Tax Code (Abgabenordnung 1977) provides:
Člen 227 splo�nega davčnega zakonika iz leta 1977 (Abgabeordnung 1977) poleg tega določa:
The main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling
Spor o glavni stvari in vprašanje za predhodno odločanje
From 1992 to 1998 Netto Supermarkt, which operates several discount supermarkets in the German Land of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, refunded to its customers several thousand German marks which they had paid in the form of VAT.
Družba Netto Supermarkt, ki upravlja več diskontnih supermarketov v deželi Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, je od leta 1992 do 1998 svojim strankam vrnila več tisoč nem�kih mark, ki so jih plačale iz DDV.
It had decided to make those reimbursements to nationals of nonmember countries if they were able to show proof of export outside the Community of goods bought on the occasion of non-commercial trips, with such proof consisting, first, of the impression of the customs stamp half on the voucher and half on the customs form and, second, of the foreign national presenting his passport.
Odločila se je, da bo državljanom tretjih držav vračila izplačevala le ob predložitvi dokaza o izvozu blaga, kupljenega na nekomercialnih potovanjih, iz Skupnosti, in sicer so morali tuji državljani predložiti odtis žiga pol na bonu in pol na carinskem obrazcu ter svoj potni list.
In 1998 Netto Supermarkt asked the Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg (Principal Customs Office, Neubrandenburg) to check whether the customs stamp No 73 and the customs forms on which it appeared were counterfeit.
Družba Netto Supermarkt je leta 1998 zaprosila Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg (glavni carinski urad dežele Neubrandenburg), naj preveri, ali so carinski žig �t.
The Principal Customs Office initially gave a negative answer, but later informed Netto Supermarkt that the documents submitted to it by Netto Supermarkt had been examined again and been found to be falsified.
73 in carinski obrazci, na katerih se je ta pojavljal, ponarejeni. Po sprva negativnem odgovoru urada je ta Netto Supermarkt obvestil, da je dodatno preiskovanje razkrilo, da so izročeni dokumenti ponarejeni.
Subsequently, the tax investigation office found that, between 1993 and 1998, a substantial proportion of the proofs of export of goods had been counterfeited by Polish nationals with the help of forged customs forms or that the alleged proofs of export had been marked with a forged customs stamp.
Služba za davčne preiskave je nato ugotovila, da so bili med letoma 1993 in 1998 za �tevilne dokaze o izvozu blaga, ki so jih predložili poljski državljani, uporabljeni ponarejeni carinski obrazci ali pa je bil na domnevnih dokazih ponarejen carinski žig.
By this means, Polish nationals claimed reimbursement of VAT from Netto Supermarkt, which the latter refunded to them.
Na tej podlagi so omenjeni državljani od družbe Netto Supermarkt zahtevali vračilo DDV, ta pa jim ga je izplačala.
In 1999 the Finanzamt assessed Netto Supermarkt to payment of the additional VAT due for the years 1993 to 1998, corresponding to the turnover actually generated during those years.
Finanzamt je leta 1999 družbi Netto Supermarkt za leta od 1993 do 1998 naložil dodatno plačilo DDV v vi�ini njenega resničnega ustvarjenega prometa.
JUDGMENT OF 21. 2.
SODBA Z DNE 21.2.2008 – ZADEVA C-271/06
By decision of 14 February 2000, the Finanzamt refused Netto Supermarkt’s request for exemption from the VAT retrospectively demanded for those years.
Zahtevek družbe Netto Supermarkt za naknadno oprostitev DDV za omenjena leta je bil zavrnjen z odločbo Finanzamt z dne 14. februarja 2000.
Netto Supermarkt objected to that refusal decision.
Družba je zoper zavrnilno odločbo vložila ugovor.
By decision of 3 May 2000, the Finanzamt upheld only part of the objection.
Finanzamt je z odločbo z dne 3. maja 2000 le deloma ugodil omenjenemu pravnemu sredstvu.
It granted an exemption from VAT for the years 1993 and 1994, on the basis that the tax assessments for those years could no longer be amended, and remitted the interest for the years 1993 to 1997.
Odločil je, da se plačilo DDV oprosti za leti 1993 in 1994, ker za ti leti ni bilo mogoče spremeniti odločbe o odmeri davka, plačila pa so bile opro�čene tudi obresti za leta od 1993 do 1997.
The Finanzamt rejected the remainder of Netto Supermarkt’s objection by holding that the latter owed the tax because it had not been able to produce proper proof of the export which gave rise to the VAT exemption.
V preostalem delu je Finanzamt zavrnil ugovor družbe Netto Supermarkt z obrazložitvijo, da je dolžna plačati davek, saj ni dokazala v pravilni in predpisani obliki, da je bil izvoz upravičen do oprostitve DDV.
According to the Finanzamt, Netto Supermarkt should have examined the genuineness of the proofs of export earlier and, by showing proper care, could have prevented a fraud lasting for years.
Po oceni Finanzamt bi morala družba Netto Supermarkt že prej preveriti verodostojnost dokazov o izvozu in bi tako z ravnanjem z ustrezno skrbnostjo preprečila več let trajajočo goljufijo.
In addition, the Finanzamt considered that the fact that Netto Supermarkt had contributed to elucidating the facts did not affect the amount of VAT payable by that company.
Poleg tega je Finanzamt menil, da dejstvo, da je družba Netto Supermarkt pripomogla k razjasnitvi dejanskega stanja, ne vpliva na znesek DDV, ki ga dolguje.