natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As for the second condition, activities pursued as public authorities within the meaning of that provision are those engaged in by bodies governed by public law under the special legal regime applicable to them and do not include activities pursued by them under the same legal conditions as those that apply to private economic operators (see, particularly, Fazenda Pública, paragraph 17, and the caselaw cited).
V zvezi z drugim pogojem je treba opozoriti, da so dejavnosti, opravljene v okviru organa oblasti v smislu te določbe, dejavnosti, ki jih osebe javnega prava opravljajo v okviru posebne javnopravne ureditve, s tem da mednje ne sodijo dejavnosti, ki jih opravljajo pod enakimi pravnimi pogoji kot zasebni gospodarski subjekti (glej zlasti zgoraj navedeno sodbo Fazenda Pública, točka 17, in navedena sodna praksa).
In view of the nature of the analysis to be carried out, it is for the national court to classify the activity at issue in the main proceedings in the light of the criter- ion adopted above (Comune di Carpaneto Piacentino and Others, cited above, paragraph 16; Case C-4/89 Comune di Carpaneto Piacentino and Others [1990] ECR I-1869, paragraph 11; and Fazenda Pública, paragraph 23).
Ob upo�tevanju značilnosti analize, ki jo je treba opraviti, mora nacionalno sodi�če opredeliti dejavnost, ki je predmet obravnave v postopku v glavni stvari glede na merila, določena zgoraj (zgoraj navedena sodba z dne 17. oktobra 1989 v zadevi Comune di Carpaneto Piacentino in drugi, točka 16; sodba z dne 15. maja 1990 v zadevi Comune di Carpaneto Piacentino in drugi, C-4/89, Recueil, str. I-1869, točka 11, in zgoraj navedena sodba Fazenda Pública, točka 23).
Since the question whether, in the cases in the main proceedings, the local authorities concerned were acting as public authorities has not been referred to the Court, it is appropriate to start from the hypothesis, subject to verification by the referring court, that the activity in question in the main proceedings must be regarded, for the purposes of this reference for a preliminary ruling, as coming within Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive.
Ker vpra�anje, ali so v sporih v postopku v glavni stvari zadevni lokalni organi delovali kot organi oblasti, ni bilo predloženo Sodi�ču, je treba izhajati iz domneve, v skladu s katero se za namene obravnavanega predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe �teje, da dejavnosti iz postopka v glavni stvari spadajo na področje uporabe člena 4(5) Šeste direktive, vendar mora to preveriti predložitveno sodi�če.
It must also be noted that, even where local authorities carry on such an activity as public authorities, they are, under the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive, to be considered taxable persons where their treatment as nontaxable persons would lead to significant distortions of competition. The referring
Prav tako je treba opozoriti, da se lokalni organi, čeprav opravljajo tako dejavnost kot organi oblasti, �tejejo za davčne zavezance v skladu s členom 4(5), drugi pododstavek, Šeste direktive, če bi njihova obravnava, kot da niso davčni zavezanci, povzro-
JUDGMENT OF 16. 9.
SODBA Z DNE 16. 9. 2008 – ZADEVA C-288/07 čila znatno izkrivljanje konkurence.
To reply to that question, it is necessary, in the absence of any guidance in the text of the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive, to take into account the scheme and purpose of the Sixth Directive, as well as the place of Article 4(5) in the common system of VAT established by it.
Da bi odgovorili na to vpra�anje, je treba, ker ni navedb v samem besedilu člena 4(5), drugi pododstavek, Šeste direktive, upo�tevati sistematiko in namen te direktive ter mesto člena 4(5) v skupnem sistemu DDV, ki ga določa navedena direktiva.
It is important to emphasise in that regard that, as a general rule and in accordance with Article 2(1) of the Sixth Directive, the supply of services effected for consideration is to be subject to VAT.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da so storitve, opravljene za plačilo, na splo�no in v skladu s členom 2(1) te direktive predmet DDV.
Indeed, ‘taxable person’ means, under Article 4(1) of the Sixth Directive, any person who independently carries out in any place any economic activity specified in paragraph 2 thereof, whatever the purpose or results of that activity.
V skladu s členom 4(1) Šeste direktive je davčni zavezanec vsaka oseba, ki kjerkoli neodvisno opravlja katerokoli gospodarsko dejavnost iz odstavka 2 tega člena, ne glede na namen ali rezultat te dejavnosti.
‘Economic activity’ is defined in Article 4(2) as including all activities of producers, traders and persons supplying services (Case C-284/04 T-Mobile Austria and Others [2007] ECR I-5189, paragraph 33).
Pojem „gospodarska dejavnost“, opredeljen v členu 4(2), obsega vse dejavnosti proizvajalcev, trgovcev in oseb, ki opravljajo storitve (sodba z dne 26. junija 2007 v zadevi T-Mobile Austria in drugi, C-284/04, ZOdl., str. I-5189, točka 33).
However, only activities of an economic nature are covered by that provision (see, to that effect, Case C-306/94 Régie dauphinoise [1996] ECR I-3695, paragraph 15; Case C-77/01 EDM [2004] ECR I-4295, paragraph 47; Case C-465/03 Kretztechnik [2005] ECR I-4357, paragraph 18; and T-Mobile Austria and Others, cited above, paragraph 34).
V zvezi s tem je treba pojasniti, da se zadnjenavedena določba nana�a le na gospodarske dejavnosti (v tem smislu glej sodbe z dne 11. julija 1996 v zadevi Régie dauphinoise, C-306/94, Recueil, str.
It is only by way of derogation from that general rule that certain activities of an economic nature are not to be subjected to VAT.
I-3695, točka 15; z dne 29. aprila 2004 v zadevi EDM, C-77/01, Recueil, str.
Such derogation is laid down by the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive, under which activities engaged in by a body governed by public law acting as a public authority are not to be subject to VAT.
I-4295, točka 47, in z dne 26. maja 2005 v zadevi Kretztechnik, C-465/03, ZOdl., str.
In those circumstances, the fact that such bodies are not subject to VAT on those activities does not potentially have an anticompetitive effect, inasmuch as they are generally engaged in exclusively, or almost exclusively, by the public sector.
I-4357, točka 18, ter zgoraj navedeno sodbo T-Mobile Austria in drugi, točka 34).
However, even where those bodies carry on such activities in their capacity as public authorities, they are to be considered taxable persons, under the second and third subparagraphs of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive, where their treatment as nontaxable persons would lead to significant distortions of competition or again if those activities, provided they are not carried out on such a small scale as to be negligible, are listed in Annex D to that directive.
Vendar je treba te osebe, čeprav opravljajo take dejavnosti kot organi oblasti, �teti za davčne zavezance v skladu s členom 4(5), drugi in tretji pododstavek, Šeste direktive, če bi njihova obravnava, kot da niso davčni zavezanci, povzročila znatno izkrivljanje konkurence, ali če bi bile navedene dejavnosti, če njihov obseg ne bi bil tako majhen, da bi bil zanemarljiv, na�tete v prilogi D k tej direktivi.
A body governed by public law may, thus, be responsible, under national law, for carrying on certain activities of an essentially economic nature under the special legal regime applicable to them where those same activities can also be carried on in parallel by private operators, with the result that the treatment of that body as a nontaxable person may give rise to certain distortions of competition.
Osebi javnega prava je mogoče tako na podlagi nacionalnega prava naložiti, da opravlja določene dejavnosti, ki so v bistvenem gospodarske dejavnosti, v okviru posebne javnopravne ureditve, s tem da lahko te dejavnosti vzporedno opravljajo tudi zasebni subjekti, tako da obravnava navedene osebe, kot da ni davčni zavezanec, lahko povzroči določeno izkrivljanje konkurence.
It is that undesirable result that the Community legislature sought to avoid by providing, in the third subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive, that the activities specifically listed in Annex D to that directive (telecommunications, the supply of water, gas, electricity and steam, the transport of goods, port and airport services and passenger transport, etc.) are, ‘in any event’, unless they are negligible, to be subject to VAT, even when they are carried on by bodies governed by public law acting as public authorities.
Zakonodajalec Skupnosti se je hotel izogniti tej nezaželeni posledici s tem, ko je v členu 4(5), tretji pododstavek, Šeste direktive določil, da se dejavnosti, ki so natančno na�tete v prilogi D k tej direktivi (in sicer telekomunikacije; dobava vode, plina, električne energije in toplote; prevoz blaga; pristani�ke in letali�ke storitve; prevoz potnikov, itd.), „v vsakem primeru“ obdavčijo z DDV, razen če je obseg teh dejavnosti tako majhen, da bi bil zanemarljiv, čeprav jih opravljajo osebe javnega prava, ki delujejo kot organi oblasti.
In other words, the treatment of bodies governed by public law as nontaxable persons in respect of those activities is, unless such activities are negligible, presumed to lead to distortions of competition.
Z drugimi besedami, domneva se, da bi obravnava oseb javnega prava, kot da niso davčni zavezanci za DDV za te dejavnosti, povzročila izkrivljanje konkurence, razen če bi bil obseg teh dejavnosti tako majhen, da bi bil zanemarljiv.
It is thus clear from the wording of the third subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive that the treatment of those bodies as taxable persons results from the carrying-on, as such, of the activities listed in Annex D to that directive, irrespective of the question whether or not a particular body governed by public law faces competition at the level of the local market on which it carries on those same activities.
Iz besedila člena 4(5), tretji pododstavek, Šeste direktive jasno izhaja, da je obravnava navedenih oseb, kot da so davčni zavezanci za DDV, posledica opravljanja dejavnosti, ki so navedene v prilogi D k tej direktivi, kot takih, ne glede na vpra�anje, ali se določena oseba javnega prava sooča s konkurenco na ravni lokalnega trga, na katerem opravlja te dejavnosti.
Furthermore, there may exist, on the national level, other activities of an essentially economic nature, not listed in Annex D to the Sixth Directive, the list of which may vary from one Member State to another or from one economic sector to another, which are carried on in parallel both by bodies governed by public law in their capacity as public authorities and by private operators.
Poleg tega lahko na nacionalni ravni obstajajo druge dejavnosti, ki so v glavnem gospodarske dejavnosti, vendar niso na�tete v prilogi D k Šesti direktivi, katerih seznam je lahko različen glede na državo članico ali glede na gospodarski sektor in ki jih vzporedno opravljajo osebe javnega prava kot organi oblasti in zasebni subjekti.
It is precisely to those activities that the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive applies, in providing that bodies governed by public law, even when they act as public authorities, are to be considered taxable persons where their treatment as nontaxable persons would lead to significant distortions of competition.
Ravno za te dejavnosti se uporablja člen 4(5), drugi pododstavek, Šeste direktive, ki določa, da je treba osebe javnega prava, čeprav delujejo kot organi oblasti, obravnavati, kot da so davčni zavezanci, če bi njihova obravnava, kot da niso davčni zavezanci, povzročila znatno izkrivljanje konkurence.
The second and the third subparagraphs of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive are, consequently, closely linked since they pursue the same objective, namely the treatment of bodies governed by public law as taxable persons, even when they are acting as public authorities.
Drugi in tretji pododstavek navedenega člena 4(5) Šeste direktive sta zato tesno povezana, ker sledita enakemu cilju, in sicer obravnavi oseb javnega prava, kot da so davčni zavezanci za DDV, čeprav delujejo kot organi oblasti.
Those subparagraphs are thus subject to the same logic, by which the Community legislature intended to limit the scope of the treatment of bodies governed by public law as nontaxable persons, so that the general rule stated in Articles 2(1) and 4(1) and (2) of that directive, under which any activity of an economic nature is, in principle, to be subject to VAT, is observed.
Za ta pododstavka tako velja enaka logika, s katero je zakonodajalec Skupnosti želel omejiti področje uporabe obravnave oseb javnega prava, kot da niso davčni zavezanci, da bi se spo�tovalo splo�no načelo iz členov 2(1) in 4(1) in (2) te direktive, v skladu s katerim je načeloma vsaka gospodarska dejavnost predmet DDV.
Consequently, the second and third subparagraphs of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Dir -ective are to be interpreted as a whole.
Drugi in tretji pododstavek člena 4(5) Šeste direktive je treba zato razlagati kot celoto.
It follows that the treatment of bodies governed by public law as taxable persons, either on the basis of the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive, or on that of the third subparagraph of that provision, results from the carrying-on, as such, of a given activity, irrespective of whether or not those bodies face competition at the level of the local market on which they engage in that activity.
Iz tega izhaja, da je obravnava oseb javnega prava, kot da so davčni zavezanci za DDV, bodisi na podlagi člena 4(5), drugi pododstavek, Šeste direktive, bodisi na podlagi tretjega pododstavka te določbe, posledica opravljanja določenih dejavnosti kot takih, ne glede na vpra�anje, ali se navedene osebe javnega prava soočajo s konkurenco na ravni lokalnega trga, na katerem opravljajo te dejavnosti.
That conclusion is supported by the general principles of Community law applicable to fiscal matters, such as the principles of fiscal neutrality and legal certainty.
Ta ugotovitev je poleg tega podkrepljena s temeljnimi načeli prava Skupnosti, ki veljajo na davčnem področju, kot sta načeli davčne nevtralnosti in pravne varnosti.
In that regard, it must be recalled that the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive is intended to ensure compliance with the principle of fiscal neutrality (Case C-430/04 Feuerbestattungsverein Halle [2006] ECR I-4999, paragraph 24).
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da je namen člena 4(5), drugi pododstavek, Šeste direktive zagotoviti spo�tovanje načela davčne nevtralnosti (sodba z dne 8. junija 2006 v zadevi Feuerbestattungsverein Halle, C-430/04, ZOdl., str. I-4999, točka 24).
Whilst it is true that the Sixth Directive provides for certain derogations which may interfere to some extent with the application of the principle of fiscal neutrality, like the derogation under the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Direct- ive (see, to that effect, Case C-378/02 Waterschap Zeeuws Vlaanderen [2005] ECR I-4685, paragraph 43), since that provision permits the treatment of bodies governed by public law as nontaxable persons provided that such treatment would only distort competition insignificantly, the fact remains that that derogation must be interpreted in such a way that the least possible damage is done to that principle.
Čeprav Šesta direktiva določa nekatera odstopanja, ki lahko v določeni meri ogrožajo uporabo načela davčne nevtralnosti, kot je odstopanje iz člena 4(5), drugi pododstavek, Šeste direktive (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 2. junija 2005 v zadevi Waterschap Zeeuws Vlaanderen, C-378/02, ZOdl., str. I-4685, točka 43), ker ta določba omogoča, da se osebe javnega prava obravnava, kot da niso davčni zavezanci za DDV, če bi tak�na obravnava povzročila le manj�e izkrivljanje konkurence, pa je vendarle treba to odstopanje razlagati tako, da nastane najmanj�a mogoča kr�itev tega načela.
The argument put forward by the local authorities concerned amounts to treating only certain local authorities as taxable persons to the exclusion of others, according to whether distortions of competition are or are not produced on each of the local markets on which those local authorities operate, although the supply of services in question, namely the provision of off-street parking is substantially the same.
Zadevni lokalni organi torej menijo, naj bi se le določene lokalne organe obravnavalo, kot da so davčni zavezanci za DDV, glede na to, ali povzročajo izkrivljanje konkurence na vsakem od lokalnih trgov, na katerih ti organi delujejo, čeprav bi bilo opravljanje zadevnih storitev, in sicer izkori�čanje zaprtih parkiri�č, v glavnem enako.
That argument thus entails not only that private operators are treated differently to bodies governed by public law in a situation where the latter’s treatment as nontaxable persons would lead to only insignificant distortions of competition, but also that different treatment might be introduced even among bodies governed by public law.
Ta trditev tako zajema ne le, da se zasebni subjekti obravnavajo različno od oseb javnega prava, ker naj bi obravnava zadnjenavedenih, kot da niso davčni zavezanci, povzročala le manj�e izkrivljanje konkurence, ampak tudi vzpostavitev različnega obravnavanja med samimi osebami javnega prava.
On the other hand, if those distortions are analysed by reference to the activity as such, irrespective of the conditions of competition prevailing on a given local market, compliance with the principle of fiscal neutrality is ensured, given that all bodies governed by public law are either taxable or nontaxable persons, the sole strain on that principle concerning only relations between those bodies and private operators, and that to the extent that the distortions of competition remain insignificant.
Nasprotno, če se navedena izkrivljanja analizira s sklicevanjem na dejavnost kot tako, ne glede na pogoje konkurence, ki veljajo na določenem lokalnem trgu, je spo�tovanje načela davčne nevtralnosti zagotovljeno, ker so bodisi vse osebe javnega prava obdavčene z DDV bodisi ni obdavčena nobena, tako da se edina kr�itev tega načela nana�a zgolj na razmerja med temi osebami in zasebnimi subjekti, in to v delu, v katerem ostane izkrivljanje konkurence manj�e.
Moreover, as the Court has repeatedly held, Community legislation must be certain and its application foreseeable by those subject to it (see, particularly, Case C-301/97 Netherlands v Council [2001] ECR I-8853, paragraph 43, and Halifax and Others, cited above, paragraph 72).
Poleg tega, kot je Sodi�če že večkrat ponovilo, pa bi morala biti zakonodaja Skupnosti jasna in njena uporaba predvidljiva za vse, na katere se nana�a (glej zlasti sodbo z dne 22. novembra 2001 v zadevi Nizozemska proti Svetu, C-301/97, Recueil, str. I-8853, točka 43, in zgoraj navedeno sodbo Halifax in drugi, točka 72).
The principle of legal certainty, which forms part of the Community legal order, must be observed both by the Community institutions and by the Member States when they exercise the powers conferred on them by Community directives (see Case C-376/02 ‘Goed Wonen’ [2005] ECR I-3445, paragraph 32).
Načelo pravne varnosti, ki je del pravnega reda Skupnosti, morajo torej spo�tovati tako institucije Skupnosti kot države članice pri izvr�evanju pooblastil, ki jih imajo na podlagi direktiv Skupnosti (glej zlasti sodbo z dne 26. aprila 2005 v zadevi „Goed Wonen“, C-376/02, ZOdl., str. I-3445, točka 32).
The argument that distortions of competition, within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive, must be evaluated having regard to each of the local markets on which the local authorities offer off-street parking assumes a systematic re-evaluation, on the basis of often complex economic analyses, of the conditions of competition on a multitude of local markets, the determination of which may prove particularly difficult since the markets’ demarcation does not necessarily coincide with the areas over which the local authorities exercise their powers.
Tako se za trditev, v skladu s katero je treba izkrivljanje konkurence v smislu člena 4(5), drugi pododstavek, Šeste direktive, presoditi glede na vsak lokalni trg, na katerem lokalni organi ponujajo v najem zaprta parkiri�ča, zahteva sistematično ponovno ovrednotenje – na podlagi ekonomskih analiz, ki so pogosto kompleksne – pogojev konkurence na več lokalnih trgih, katerih opredelitev se lahko izkaže za posebej težko, ker njihova razmejitev ne sovpada nujno s krajevno pristojnostjo lokalnih organov.
In addition, several local markets may exist within the territory of the same local authority.
Poleg tega lahko obstaja več lokalnih trgov na ozemlju enega lokalnega organa.
Such a situation is capable, consequently, of giving rise to numerous disputes following any change affecting the conditions of competition prevailing on a given local market.
Tak položaj lahko posledično povzroči več sporov zaradi kakr�nekoli spremembe, ki bi vplivala na pogoje konkurence, ki veljajo na določenem lokalnem trgu.
Thus, neither the local authorities nor the private operators will be in a position to provide, with the required certainty, for the conduct of their affairs if, on a given local market, the provision by the local authorities of off-street parking will or will not be subject to VAT.
Tako niti lokalni organi niti zasebni subjekti ne bodo mogli z gotovostjo, ki je potrebna za opravljanje njihovih zadev, predvideti, ali bo na določenem lokalnem trgu izkori�čanje plačljivih zaprtih parkiri�č s strani lokalnih organov obdavčeno z DDV.
That situation is therefore likely to jeopardise the principles of fiscal neutrality and legal certainty.
Ta položaj bi torej lahko ogrožal načeli davčne nevtralnosti in pravne varnosti.
Accordingly, the reply to the first question must be that the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive 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.
Zato je treba na prvo vpra�anje odgovoriti tako, da se člen 4(5), drugi pododstavek, Šeste direktive, razlaga 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.
By its second question, the referring court is asking, in essence, whether the expression ‘would lead to’ significant distortions of competition, within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive, is to be interpreted as encompassing only actual competition or as extending also to potential competition.
Predložitveno sodi�če z drugim vpra�anjem v bistvu spra�uje, ali je treba izraz „bi […] povzročila“ znatno izkrivljanje konkurence v smislu člena 4(5), drugi pododstavek, Šeste direktive razlagati tako, da upo�teva zgolj dejansko konkurenco, ali tako, da
That court is also asking for clarification as to what degree of probability is required for that condition to be satisfied.
To sodi�če predlaga tudi podrobnej�o opredelitev stopnje verjetnosti, ki se zahteva zato, da bi bil ta pogoj izpolnjen.
Relying on Paragraph 139 of Advocate General Kokott’s Opinion in Case C-369/04 Hutchison 3G and Others [2007] ECR I-5247, the local authorities concerned maintain that the expression ‘would lead to’ is to be interpreted as requiring a real risk of material distortions of competition.
Zadevni lokalni organi menijo, pri čemer se opirajo na točko 139 sklepnih predlogov generalne pravobranilke Kokott v zadevi, v kateri je bila izrečena sodba z dne 26. junija 2007, Hutchison 3G in drugi (C-369/04, ZOdl., str. I-5249), da je treba izraz „bi […] povzročila“ razlagati tako, da zahteva obstoj dejanskega in resnega tveganja za izkrivljanje konkurence.