natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The United Kingdom Government submits that the expression ‘would lead to’ is interchangeable with the expression ‘could lead to’, which the Court used in the above-cited judgments in the two Carpaneto Piacentino and Others cases and which is also consistent with Advocate General Kokott’s analysis in paragraphs 127 and 131 of her Opinion in Hutchison 3G and Others, cited above.
Vlada Združenega kraljestva meni, da je mogoče izraz „bi […] povzročila“ („would lead to“) zamenjati z izrazom „lahko povzroči“ („could lead to“), ki ga je Sodi�če uporabilo v zgoraj navedenih sodbah Comune di Carpaneto Piacentino in drugi in je tudi v skladu z analizo generalne pravobranilke Kokott v točkah 127 in 131 sklepnih predlogov v zadevi, v kateri je bila izrečena zgoraj navedena sodba Hutchinson 3G in drugi.
It adds that there is already, on the one hand, competition between private companies and local authorities in many areas of the United Kingdom as well as, on the other hand, potential competition in other areas where there are, as yet, no private operators.
Dodaja, da na eni strani že obstaja konkurenca med zasebnimi podjetji in lokalnimi organi v več regijah Združenega kraljestva, in na drugi strani potencialna konkurenca v drugih regijah, v katerih do sedaj ni bilo nobenega zasebnega subjekta.
In Ireland’s submission, the expression ‘would lead to’ requires the relevant national authorities charged with applying Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive to be satisfied that an apprehended distortion of competition must be likely as a matter of probability rather than something that merely could or might result.
Irska meni, da izraz „bi […] povzročila“ pristojnim nacionalnim organom, odgovornim za uporabo člena 4(5) Šeste direktive, nalaga, da zagotovijo, da je tveganje za izkrivljanje konkurence verjetno, in ne zgolj, da lahko nastane.
The Italian Government submits that, while absolute certainty is not necessary, the expression ‘would lead to’ must be understood as meaning that the risks of distortions of competition arising from the carrying-on of an activity which is not subject to VAT represent a strong probability and not a mere possibility.
Italijanska vlada meni, da čeprav absolutna gotovost na tem področju ni nujna, je treba izraz „bi […] povzročila“ razumeti tako, da tveganja za izkrivljanje konkurence, ki so nastala pri opravljanju dejavnosti, ki ni obdavčena z DDV, pomenijo precej�njo verjetnost in ne zgolj možnost.
The Commission contends that, in order to ensure that public bodies and private operators are placed on an equal footing in relation to the conditions of competition, there should be no barrier to the entry of private traders on to the market in question in the main proceedings.
Komisija poudarja, da zato, da bi se zagotovilo, da se javni organi in zasebni subjekti enako obravnavajo glede pogojev konkurence, ne sme obstajati ovira pri vstopu zasebnih subjektov na trg v postopku v glavni stvari.
The Commission therefore submits that the expression ‘would lead to’ includes potential competition.
Meni, da torej izraz „bi […] povzročila“ vključuje potencialno konkurenco.
It is sufficient, in that regard, that there be a real possibility for private traders to enter that market in competition with the relevant bodies governed by public law.
V zvezi s tem bi zadostovalo, da bi obstajala dejanska možnost, da zasebni subjekti vstopijo na navedeni trg v konkurenci z zadevnimi osebami javnega prava.
It is important to record, as is clear from paragraph 30 of the present judgment, that the treatment of bodies governed by public law as nontaxable persons under the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive constitutes a derogation from the general rule that any activity of an economic nature be subjected to VAT, and that this provision must, therefore, be interpreted strictly.
Opozoriti je treba, kot izhaja iz točke 30 obravnavane sodbe, da pomeni obravnava oseb javnega prava, kot da niso davčni zavezanci za DDV, na podlagi člena 4(5), prvi pododstavek, Šeste direktive, odstopanje od splo�nega pravila o obdavčitvi vsake gospodarske dejavnosti in da je treba torej to določbo razlagati restriktivno.
But the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) restores that general rule in order to avoid such treatment of those bodies leading to significant distortions of competition.
Vendar je treba v zvezi s členom 4(5), drugi pododstavek, te direktive ugotoviti, da ta določa navedeno splo�no pravilo zaradi izogibanja temu, da bi obravnava oseb javnega prava, kot da niso davčni zavezanci, povzročila znatno izkrivljanje konkurence.
The scope of the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive would be enlarged unduly if the treatment, under the second subparagraph of Article 4(5), of those bodies as taxable persons had to be confined to cases of distortion of actual competition, which would, were they confronted only with potential competition, permit their treatment as nontaxable persons.
Obseg člena 4(5), prvi pododstavek, Šeste direktive bi bil torej neupravičeno raz�irjen, če bi morala biti obravnava teh oseb, kot da so davčni zavezanci, na podlagi člena 4(5), drugi pododstavek, te direktive, omejena zgolj na primere izkrivljanja dejanske konkurence, kar bi omogočalo obravnavo navedenih oseb, kot da niso davčni zavezanci, kadar bi bili le potencialno soočeni s konkurenco.
In addition, the treatment of those same bodies as nontaxable persons is liable, by itself, to discourage potential competitors from entering the market for the provision of off-street car-parking facilities.
Poleg tega lahko sama obravnava teh oseb, kot da niso davčni zavezanci za DDV, odvrača potencialne konkurente od vstopa na trg najema zaprtih parkiri�č.
It follows that the expression ‘would lead to’, for the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive, encompasses not only actual competition, but also potential competition.
Iz tega sledi, da izraz „bi […] povzročila“ v smislu člena 4(5), drugi pododstavek, Šeste direktive, zajema ne le dejansko konkurenco, ampak tudi potencialno konkurenco.
However, the purely theoretical possibility of a private operator entering the relevant market, which is not borne out by any matter of fact, or by any objective evidence or by any analysis of the market, cannot be assimilated to the existence of potential competition.
Vendar v celoti teoretične možnosti, da zasebni subjekt vstopi na upo�tevni trg, ki je naj ne bi podpiral noben dejanski element, noben objektivni dokaz in nobena analiza trga, ni mogoče primerjati z obstojem potencialne konkurence.
To make such an assimilation, that possibility must be real, and not purely hypothetical.
Da bi jo bilo mogoče, bi morala biti možnost dejanska in ne zgolj hipotetična.
Consequently, the reply to the second question must be that the expression ‘would lead to’ is, for the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive, to be interpreted as encompassing not only actual competition, but also potential competition, provided that the possibility of a private operator entering the relevant market is real, and not purely hypothetical.
Zato je treba na drugo vpra�anje odgovoriti tako, da je treba izraz „bi […] povzročila“ v smislu člena 4(5), drugi pododstavek, Šeste direktive razlagati tako, da ne upo�teva le dejanske konkurence, ampak tudi potencialno konkurenco, če je možnost, da zasebni subjekt vstopi na upo�tevni trg, dejanska in ne zgolj hipotetična.
The third question concerns the interpretation to be given to the word ‘significant’, for the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive,
Tretje vpra�anje se nana�a na razlago, ki jo je treba podati za izraz „znatno“ v smislu člena 4(5), drugi pododstavek, Šeste direktive in zlasti na vpra�anje, ali ga je treba
2008 — CASE C-288/07 and, in particular, whether it is to be interpreted as meaning ‘more than trivial or de minimis’, or ‘material’ or even ‘exceptional’.
2008 – ZADEVA C-288/07 razlagati tako, da pomeni „več kot le zanemarljiv ali de minimis“, „bistven“ ali celo „izjemen“?
The local authorities concerned submit that the word ‘significant’ means ‘a materially adverse effect’ or ‘exceptional effect’ on the public sector body’s competitors, or an effect other than the simple fact that the public body does not charge VAT while its private sector competitors do charge it.
Zadevni lokalni organi menijo, da izraz „znatno“ zajema obstoj „bistvenega negativnega vpliva“ ali „izjemnega vpliva“ na konkurente osebam javnega prava ali drugačen vpliv, kot je zgolj dejstvo, da se osebi javnega prava ne zaračuna DDV, medtem ko se njenim konkurentom iz zasebnega prava ta davek zaračuna.
They rely, in that regard, on Paragraph 41 of Advocate General Jacobs’ Opinion in Case C-378/02 Waterschap Zeeuws Vlaanderen, cited above, according to which the word ‘significant’ is a synonym for ‘exceptional’.
V zvezi s tem se opirajo na točko 41 sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca Jacobsa v zadevi, v kateri je bila izrečena zgoraj navedena sodba Waterschap Zeeuws Vlaanderen, v skladu s katero naj bi bil izraz „znatno“ sinonim za izraz „izjemno“.
The United Kingdom Government contends that the word ‘significant’ means any distortion of competition that is not insignificant or de minimis.
Vlada Združenega kraljestva meni, da se izraz „znatno“ nana�a na vsako izkrivljanje konkurence, ki ni zanemarljivo ali de minimis.
It adds, in relation to the use of the word ‘exceptional’ by Advocate General Jacobs in Paragraph 41 of his Opinion in Waterschap, that the Court did not endorse his analysis and did not repeat that word.
V zvezi z izrazom „izjemno“, ki ga je generalni pravobranilec Jacobs uporabil v točki 41 sklepnih predlogov v zadevi, v kateri je bila izrečena zgoraj navedena sodba Waterschap Zeeuws Vlaanderen, dodaja, da Sodi�če ni niti potrdilo teh sklepnih predlogov niti ni iz njih povzelo tega izraza.
In Ireland’s submission, the word ‘significant’ means that the distortions of competition must be important and appreciable, in the sense of likely to create a considerable alteration of the conditions of competition otherwise applicable on the market in question to the clear detriment of the affected taxable private operators.
Irska meni, da izraz „znatno“ pomeni, da morajo biti izkrivljanja konkurence pomembna in vidna, tako da bi lahko bistveno vplivala na pogoje konkurence, ki bi sicer veljali na zadevnem trgu, in to v očitno �kodo zadevnih zasebnih subjektov.
The Italian Government submits that the word ‘significant’ is to be interpreted as meaning ‘at least material and not merely negligible’.
Italijanska vlada meni, da je treba izraz „znatno“ razlagati tako, da pomeni „vsaj znatno ali bistveno, in ne le zanemarljivo“.
The Commission takes the view that the word ‘significant’ refers to a distortion that is not insignificant or negligible.
Komisija meni, da se izraz „znatno“ nana�a na izkrivljanje, ki ni nepomembno ali zanemarljivo.
It relies, in that regard, on the third subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive, read in conjunction with Annex D thereto, according to which the activities listed in that annex are to be subject to VAT ‘provided they are not carried out on such a small scale as to be negligible’.
V zvezi s tem se opira na člen 4(5), tretji pododstavek, Šeste direktive, skupaj s prilogo D k tej direktivi, v skladu s katero je treba dejavnosti, na�tete v prilogi D, obdavčiti z DDV, če „ni[so] tako majh[ne], da bi bil[e] zanemarljiv[e]“.
The function of the third subparagraph is, in any event, to make subject to VAT certain categories of activities which would otherwise have to be assessed under the second subparagraph of Article 4(5).
Vloga navedenega tretjega pododstavka naj bi bila v vsakem primeru obdavčitev z DDV določenih vrst dejavnosti, ki bi jih bilo treba sicer presoditi glede na drugi pododstavek člena 4(5).
Those two subparagraphs follow the same logic and it may be inferred that in using the word ‘negligible’ the legislature intended to describe activities which do not lead to ‘significant’ distortions of competition.
Za ta pododstavka naj bi veljala enaka logika in iz njiju naj bi izhajalo, da je zakonodajalec z uporabo izraza „zanemarljiv“ želel opisati dejavnosti, ki ne povzročajo „znatnega“ izkrivljanja konkurence.
It must be emphasised, first of all, as is clear from paragraph 60 of the present judgment, that the treatment of bodies governed by public law as taxable persons for the activities of an economic nature which they carry on as public authorities, required by the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive, restores the general rule that any activity of an economic nature be subject to VAT, in order to avoid the treatment of those bodies as nontaxable persons leading to significant distortions of competition, and that that provision cannot therefore be construed narrowly.
Najprej je treba poudariti, da tako kot izhaja iz točke 60 obravnavane zadeve, obravnava oseb javnega prava, kot da so davčni zavezanci glede gospodarskih dejavnosti, ki jih opravljajo kot organi oblasti, določena v členu 4(5), drugi pododstavek, Šeste direktive, določa splo�no pravilo o obdavčitvi vsake gospodarske dejavnosti, da bi se izognili temu, da bi obravnava teh oseb, kot da niso davčni zavezanci, povzročila znatno izkrivljanje konkurence, in da te določbe torej ni mogoče razlagati ozko.
Accordingly, the word ‘significant’ is to be understood as intended to restrict the scope of the treatment, under the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth
Izraz „znatno“ je treba torej razumeti tako, da je njegov namen zmanj�ati področje obravnave oseb javnega prava, kot da niso davčni zavezanci glede navedenih dejavnosti, na podlagi člena 4(5), prvi pododstavek, Šeste direktive.
If that word had to be understood as meaning ‘material’, or even ‘exceptional’, the scope of the treatment of bodies governed by public law as nontaxable persons would be unduly enlarged.
Če je treba ta izraz torej razumeti tako, da pomeni bistveno oziroma izjemno, bi bilo področje obravnave oseb javnega prava, kot da niso davčni zavezanci, neupravičeno raz�irjeno.
Moreover, under the third subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive, bodies governed by public law are taxable persons for the activities listed in Annex D thereto, provided they are not carried out on such a small scale as to be ‘negligible’.
Nato je treba opozoriti, da so v skladu s členom 4(5), tretji pododstavek, Šeste direktive osebe javnega prava davčni zavezanci v zvezi z dejavnostmi iz priloge D k tej direktivi, če obseg teh dejavnosti ni tako majhen, da bi bil „zanemarljiv“.
In other words, the treatment of those bodies as nontaxable persons is permitted provided that those activities are negligible, assuming thus that the distortions of competition which would result would also be negligible.
Z drugimi besedami, obravnava teh oseb, kot da niso davčni zavezanci za DDV, se sprejme, če so te dejavnosti zanemarljive, pri čemer se predpostavlja, da bi bila tudi izkrivljanja konkurence, ki bi jih povzročale, zanemarljiva.
Since, as is clear from paragraph 38 of the present judgment, the second and third subparagraphs of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive are closely linked since they pursue the same objective and since they are subject to the same logic, the word ‘significant’ is to be interpreted as meaning that the treatment of public bodies as nontaxable persons can be permitted only in cases where it would lead only to negligible distortions of competition.
Ker sta torej, kot izhaja iz točke 38 obravnavane zadeve, drugi in tretji pododstavek člena 4(5) Šeste direktive tesno povezana, ker zasledujeta enak cilj in ker zanju velja enaka logika, je treba izraz „znatno“ razlagati tako, da je obravnavo oseb javnega prava, kot da niso davčni zavezanci, mogoče sprejeti le, če bi povzročila zanemarljivo izkrivljanje konkurence.
Finally, compliance with the principle of fiscal neutrality supports that interpretation.
Nazadnje spo�tovanje načela davčne nevtralnosti podpira to razlago.
The argument put forward by the local authorities concerned that bodies governed by public law should be subjected to VAT only in cases where the distortions of competition resulting from their treatment as nontaxable persons are material, or even exceptional, would create a fiscal situation in which a significant number of private operators effecting the same transactions as those carried out by those bodies would be treated differently from them in respect of the levying of VAT, which would constitute a significant impairment of the principle of fiscal neutrality.
Trditev zadevnih lokalnih organov, v skladu s katero je osebe javnega prava mogoče obravnavati, kot da so davčni zavezanci za DDV, le če bi bilo izkrivljanje konkurence, ki bi ga povzročile, bistveno oziroma izjemno, bi namreč ustvarila davčni položaj, v katerem bi bilo veliko �tevilo zasebnih subjektov, ki opravljajo enake transakcije, kot so transakcije, ki jih opravljajo te osebe, obravnavanih različno od njih glede obdavčitve z DDV, kar bi povzročilo huj�o kr�itev načela davčne nevtralnosti.
By contrast, the treatment of those bodies as nontaxable persons, in circumstances where it would not lead to any distortion of competition or lead only to negligible distortions, would bring about the least possible damage to the principle of fiscal neutrality.
Nasprotno bi obravnava navedenih oseb, kot da niso davčni zavezanci za DDV, če ne bi povzročala nobenega izkrivljanja konkurence ali če bi povzročala zanemarljiva izkrivljanja, najmanj kr�ila načelo davčne nevtralnosti.
Therefore the reply to the third question must be that the word ‘significant’ is, for the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive, to be understood as meaning that the actual or potential distortions of competition must be more than negligible.
Na tretje vpra�anje je treba torej odgovoriti tako, da je treba izraz „znatno“ v smislu člena 4(5), drugi pododstavek, Šeste direktive razumeti tako, da mora biti izkrivljanje dejanske ali potencialne konkurence več kot le zanemarljivo.
The second subparagraph of Article 4(5) 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 is to be interpreted as meaning that the significant distortions of competition, to which the treatment as nontaxable persons of bodies governed by public law acting as public authorities would lead, must be evaluated by reference to the activity in question, as such, without such evaluation relating to any local market in particular.
Člen 4(5), drugi pododstavek, 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 je treba razlagati tako, da je treba znatno izkrivljanje konkurence, ki bi ga povzročila obravnava oseb javnega prava, ki delujejo kot organi oblasti, kot da niso davčni zavezanci, presoditi glede na zadevno dejavnost kot tako, ne pa glede na določen lokalni trg.
The expression ‘would lead to’ is, for the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388, to be interpreted as encompassing not only actual competition, but also potential competition, provided that the possibility of a private operator entering the relevant market is real, and not purely hypothetical.
Izraz „bi […] povzročila“ v smislu člena 4(5), drugi pododstavek, Šeste direktive 77/388 je treba razlagati tako, da ne upošteva le dejanske konkurence, ampak tudi potencialno konkurenco, če je možnost, da zasebni subjekt vstopi na upoštevni trg, dejanska in ne zgolj hipotetična.
The word ‘significant’ is, for the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388, to be understood as meaning that the actual or potential distortions of competition must be more than negligible.
Izraz „znatno“ v smislu člena 4(5), drugi pododstavek, Šeste direktive 77/388 je treba razumeti tako, da mora biti izkrivljanje dejanske ali potencialne konkurence več kot le zanemarljivo.
Case C-427/06
Zadeva C-427/06
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Bundesarbeitsgericht)
(Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Article 13 EC — Directive 2000/78/EC — Occupational pension scheme excluding the right to a pension of a spouse more than 15 years younger than the deceased former employee — Age discrimination — Link with Community law)
„Enako obravnavanje pri zaposlovanju in delu – Člen 13 ES – Direktiva 2000/78/ES – Sistem poklicne pokojnine, na podlagi katerega preživeli zakonec, ki je več kot petnajst let mlaj�i od umrlega delavca, ni upravičen do prejemanja pokojnine – Diskriminacija zaradi starosti – Zveza s pravom Skupnosti“
Community law — Principles — Equal treatment — Age discrimination(Art. 13 EC; Council Directive 2000/78)
Pravo Skupnosti – Načela – Enako obravnavanje – Diskriminacija glede na starost(člen 13 ES; Direktiva Sveta 2000/78)
SUMMARY — CASE C-427/06 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, before the timelimit allowed to the Member State concerned for its transposition has expired.
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-427/06 v glavni stvari – iz Direktive 2000/78 o splo�nih okvirih enakega obravnavanja pri zaposlovanju in delu pred iztekom roka za prenos, ki zavezuje zadevno državo članico.
The application, which the courts of Member States must ensure, of the prohibition under Community law of discrimination on the ground of age is not mandatory where the allegedly discriminatory treatment contains no link with Community law.
Pravo Skupnosti ne vsebuje prepovedi vsakr�ne diskriminacije zaradi starosti, katere varstvo bi države članice morale zagotavljati, kadar domnevno diskriminatorno obravnavanje ni povezano s pravom Skupnosti.
No such link arises either from Article 13 EC, or, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, from Directive 2000/78
Taka zveza s pravom Skupnosti ne izhaja iz člena 13 ES niti – v okoli�činah, kot so te v zadevi
(see para. 25, operative part)
(Glej točko 25 in izrek.)
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERALSHARPSTON delivered on 22 May 2008 1
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNE PRAVOBRANILKEELEANOR SHARPSTON, predstavljeni 22. maja 2008 1
The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States.
Unija temelji na načelih svobode, demokracije, spo�tovanja človekovih pravic in temeljnih svobo�čin ter pravne države, na načelih, ki so skupna vsem državam članicam.
The Bundesarbeitsgericht asks the Court whether such a clause is contrary to the general principle prohibiting age discrimination identified by the Court in Mangold 2and invites the Court to provide further clarification as to the circumstances in which that principle may apply.
Unija spo�tuje temeljne pravice, kakr�ne zagotavlja Evropska konvencija o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svobo�čin […] in kot splo�na načela prava Skupnosti izhajajo iz skupnih ustavnih tradicij držav članic.
The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms … and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law.
Ta predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Bundesarbeitsgericht (zvezno delovno sodi�če), Nemčija, se nana�a na klavzulo v sistemu poklicnega pokojninskega zavarovanja, s katero vdova (vdovec) zaposlenega v zasebnem sektorju, ki umre med opravljanjem službe, ne pridobi pravice do družinske pokojnine, če je ta vdova (vdovec) več kot 15 let mlaj�a od umrlega zaposlenega.
The Treaty on European Union
Pogodba o Evropski uniji
Article 13 EC, introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam, provides:
V členu 13 ES, ki je bil uveden z Amsterdamsko pogodbo, je določeno:
Article 6 EU states:
V členu 6 EU je določeno:
2 — Case C-144/04 [2005] ECR I-9981.
2 – Zadeva C-144/04, ZOdl., str. I-9981.