natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
‘A social contribution on employment income and substitute income shall be introduced and levied on:
„Uvede se socialni prispevek […] od dohodkov od dejavnosti in enakovrednih dohodkov, ki se odmerijo:
The CRDS was introduced by Article 141 of Order No 96-50 of 24 January 1996 on repayment of the social debt (JORF of 25 January 1996, p.
CRDS je bil uveden s členom 141 sklepa �t. 96-50 z dne 24. januarja 1996 o povračilu socialnega dolga (JORF z dne 25. januarja 1996 str.
1226), which states:
1226), ki določa:
The Convention between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and France for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, signed at London on 22 May 1968, (‘the Double Taxation Convention’), states in Article 1:
V členu 1 Sporazuma med Združenim kraljestvom Velika Britanija in Severna Irska ter Francosko republiko o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja in preprečevanju davčnega izogibanja na področju davkov na dohodke, podpisanega 22. maja 1968 v Londonu (v nadaljevanju: dvostranski sporazum), je določeno:
It is apparent from the written observations submitted by the French Government that the Double Taxation Convention will be repealed from the entry into force of a
Iz stali�č, ki jih je predložila francoska vlada, izhaja, da bo dvostranski sporazum razveljavljen, ko bo začel veljati nov sporazum o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja,
DEROUIN new convention for the avoidance of double taxation concluded on 28 January 2004 between the two Member States concerned.
DEROUIN ki sta ga zadevni državi članici sprejeli 28. januarja 2004.
That new convention expressly mentions the CSG and the CRDS among the ‘[t]axes which are the subject of [that latter convention]’.
V tem novem sporazumu sta CSG in CRDS izrecno navedena med „davki, za katere se uporablja [zadnji sporazum]“.
It is apparent from the order for reference that Mr Derouin:
Iz predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da P. Derouin:
— resides in France, where he practises as a lawyer in a selfemployed capacity and is a partner in Linklaters, a partnership governed by English law (‘the partnership’).
– prebiva v Franciji, kjer opravlja svobodni poklic odvetnika in je družbenik partnerstva angle�kega prava Linklaters (v nadaljevanju: družba Linklaters).
Linklaters has its head office in the United Kingdom, but also has offices in other Member States, including France, where it has a office in Paris (‘the Paris office’);
Družba Linklaters ima sedež v Združenem kraljestvu, vendar ima pisarne tudi v drugih državah članicah, med njimi v Franciji, kjer ima pisarno v Parizu (v nadaljevanju: pari�ka pisarna);
— is registered at the Paris Court of Appeal (France) as an avocat and at the same time with the Supreme Court of England and Wales (United Kingdom) as a Registered Foreign Lawyer;
– je vpisan kot odvetnik pri Cour d’appel de Paris in pri Supreme Court England and Wales (Združeno kraljestvo) kot Registered Foreign Lawyer;
— performs all his work as a lawyer for the Paris office;
– vse svoje odvetni�ke storitve opravlja v okviru dejavnosti pari�ke pisarne;
— is resident for tax purposes in France and is taxed in that Member State and in each country where the partnership is established on his share of the results of each office;
– ima svoj davčni sedež v Franciji in je obdavčen v tej državi članici in v vsaki od držav, kjer se nahaja družba Linklaters, zaradi deleža od dobička, ustvarjenega v vsaki od pisarn;
— is covered by a compulsory sickness insurance scheme in France and is registered with the Urssaf as a selfemployed person.
– zanj velja obvezni sistem zdravstvenega zavarovanja v Franciji in je registriran pri uradu Urssaf kot samozaposleni delavec.
The Urssaf calculated family allowance contributions and the CSG and the CRDS claimed from Mr Derouin on the occupational income he derives from working at the Paris office and on his share of profits made by the partnership’s other offices.
Urad Urssaf je obračunal prispevke za družinski dodatek ter CSG in CRDS, ki se zahtevajo od P. Derouina od dohodkov od poklicne dejavnosti, ki jih je prejemal v okviru pari�ke odvetni�ke pisarne, in od deleža pri dobičku, ki so ga ustvarile druge pisarne družbe Linklaters. Iz pojasnil, podanih med ustnim postopkom, izhaja, da je urad Urssaf zahteval od P.
In order to obtain clarification in that regard, the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Paris, by order of 12 April 2005, sought an opinion from the Cour de Cassation (Court of Cassation) on whether the CSG and the CRDS should be regarded as taxes for the purposes of the Double Taxation Convention.
Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Paris je, da bi v zvezi s tem prejelo pojasnilo, s sklepom z dne 12. aprila 2005 zaprosilo Cour de cassation (kasacijsko sodi�če) za mnenje glede vpra�anja, ali je treba CSG in CRDS �teti za davka v smislu dvostranskega sporazuma.
The Cour de Cassation gave its opinion on 2 September 2005 in the following terms: ‘It is necessary to refer to the Court of Justice of the European Communities the question whether Regulation No 1408/71 … must be interpreted as precluding a convention such as the [Double Taxation Convention] from providing that income received in the United Kingdom by selfemployed persons resident in France and covered by social insurance in that State is excluded from the tax base for [CSG] and [CRDS] levied in France.’
Po mnenju Cour de cassation z dne 2. septembra 2005 „je treba vpra�anje, ali je treba Uredbo �t. 1408/71 […] razlagati tako, da nasprotuje temu, da sporazum, kot je [dvostranski] sporazum […], določa, da so dohodki, ki so jih samozaposleni delavci, ki prebivajo v Franciji in so v tej državi socialno zavarovani, pridobili v Združenem kraljestvu, izvzeti iz osnove [CSG] in [CRDS], ki se pobirata v Franciji, na podlagi člena 234 […] ES predložiti Sodi�ču Evropskih skupnosti […]“.
Considering that, for the resolution of the dispute, it was necessary to know whether the application of the provisions of the Double Taxation Convention to the CSG and the CRDS infringed Communities rules, the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Paris decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
Ob upo�tevanju, da je re�itev spora o glavni stvari odvisna od vpra�anja, ali uporaba določb navedenega sporazuma za CSG in CRDS nasprotuje pravilom Skupnosti, je Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Paris prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vpra�anje:
‘Is Regulation 1408/71 … to be interpreted as precluding a convention, such as the [Double Taxation Convention] from providing that income received in the United Kingdom by workers resident in France and covered by social insurance in that State is excluded from the base on which the [CSG] and the [CRDS] levied in France are assessed?’
„Ali je treba Uredbo �t. 1408/71 […] razlagati tako, da nasprotuje temu, da sporazum, kot je [dvostranski] sporazum, določa, da so dohodki, ki so jih delavci, ki prebivajo v Franciji in so v tej državi socialno zavarovani, pridobili v Združenem kraljestvu, izvzeti iz osnove [CSG] in [CRDS), ki se pobirata v Franciji[?]“
The question referred seeks, essentially, to determine whether a Member State whose social security legislation is applicable pursuant to Regulation No 1408/71 is free to
Predloženo vpra�anje se v bistvu nana�a na opredelitev, ali je država članica, katere ureditev na področju socialne varnosti se uporablja v skladu z Uredbo �t. 1408/71,
2008 — CASE C-103/06 determine the tax base for contributions such as the CSG and the CRDS or whether, on the contrary, the regulation requires the Member State to include in the tax base for such contributions income earned in another Member State, without being able to forgo levying those contributions on the income.
2008 – ZADEVA C-103/06 prosto določa osnovo za prispevke, kot sta CSG in CRDS, ali nasprotno, navedena uredba državi članici nalaga, da v osnovo za take prispevke vključi dohodke, prejete v drugi državi članici, ne da bi lahko opustila obračunavanje teh prispevkov od navedenih dohodkov.
To that end, as is clear from the fifth, sixth and tenth recitals, that regulation upholds the principle of equality of treatment of workers under the various national legislation and seeks to guarantee the equality of treatment of all workers occupied on the territory of a Member State as effectively as possible and not to penalise workers who exercise their right to free movement.
V ta namen ta uredba, kot izhaja iz njene pete, �este in desete uvodne izjave, določa načelo enakega obravnavanja vseh delavcev držav članic v različnih nacionalnih zakonodajah ter ima cilj, da se kar najbolje zagotovi enako obravnavanje vseh delavcev, zaposlenih na ozemlju države članice, in ne kaznuje delavcev, ki uresničujejo svojo pravico do prostega gibanja.
It follows that the person concerned is, in accordance with that provision, exclusively subject to the French legislation.
Iz tega sledi, da za zadevno osebo v skladu s to določbo velja samo francoska zakonodaja.
The United Kingdom Government moreover confirmed at the oral hearing that it does not levy any social security contributions on income received by the person concerned on its territory.
Poleg tega je vlada Združenega kraljestva na ustni obravnavi potrdila, da ne obračunava nobenega prispevka za socialno varnost od dohodkov, ki jih je zadevna oseba prejela na njenem ozemlju.
Concerning, second, the applicability of Regulation No 1408/71 to the CSG and the CRDS, the Court has held that those contributions fall within the scope of that regulation.
Drugič, v zvezi z uporabo Uredbe �t. 1408/71 za CSG in CRDS je Sodi�če odločilo, da ta prispevka spadata na področje uporabe te uredbe.
The Court essentially found that it could not agree with the proposition that, since the CSG and the CRDS are really to be categorised as taxes, they fall outside the scope of the regulation.
Sodi�če je namreč ugotovilo, da trditev, da CSG in CRDS, ker naj bi bila v bistvu davka, naj ne bi spadala na področje uporabe navedene uredbe, ne drži.
Moreover, it should be noted that the question referred by the national court assumes that the contributions at issue fall within the scope of Regulation No 1408/71.
Poleg tega je treba ugotoviti, da vpra�anje, ki ga je postavilo predložitveno sodi�če, izhaja iz načela, da zadevni prispevki spadajo na področje uporabe Uredbe �t. 1408/71.
In addition, the Court held that Community law does not detract from the power of the Member States to organise their social security systems (see Case C-385/99 Müller-Fauré and van Riet [2003] ECR I-4509, paragraph 100 and the caselaw cited).
Poleg tega je Sodi�če odločilo, da pravo Skupnosti ne vpliva na pristojnost držav članic, da organizirajo svoj sistem socialne varnosti (glej sodbo z dne 13. maja 2003 v zadevi Müller-Fauré in van Riet, C-385/99, Recueil, str. I-4509, točka 100 in navedena sodna praksa).
Concerning more specifically the determination of the tax base for social contributions, according to settled caselaw, in the absence of harmonisation at Community level, it is for the legislation of the Member State concerned to determine the income to be taken into account when calculating those contributions (see, to that effect, Nikula, paragraph 24 and the caselaw cited).
Bolj podrobno, pri določitvi osnove za prispevke za socialno varnost v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso v odsotnosti usklajenosti na ravni Skupnosti zakonodaja vsake zadevne države članice določi dohodke, ki jih je treba upo�tevati pri izračunu teh prispevkov (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Nikula, točka 24 in navedena sodna praksa).
The power of Member States is thus not unlimited, since they are, in particular, required to respect the spirit and the principles of Regulation No 1408/71, including the single State principle applicable to social secu-
Pristojnost držav članic torej ni neomejena, ker so zlasti zavezane spo�tovati smisel in načela Uredbe �t. 1408/71, med njimi načelo enotnosti zakonodaje, ki se uporablja
2008 — CASE C-103/06 rity, to ensure that a person is not penalised for exercising his right to free movement and to satisfy themselves that the system thus created does not deprive that person of social protection.
2008 – ZADEVA C-103/06 na področju socialne varnosti, zagotoviti, da osebe, ki izvr�ujejo svojo pravico do prostega gibanja, niso kaznovane, in zagotoviti, da zaradi tako vzpostavljene ureditve te osebe ne bodo prikraj�ane za socialno varnost.
Thus, it follows, from all the caselaw cited at paragraphs 23 to 25 above that, since Regulation No 1408/71 is a means of coordination and not of harmonisation, Member States have the power to determine the tax base for contributions such as the CGS and the CRDS.
Iz vse sodne prakse, navedene v točkah od 23 do 25 obravnavane zadeve, torej izhaja, da ker je Uredba �t. 1408/71 instrument koordinacije in ne instrument usklajevanja, so države članice pristojne za določitev osnove za prispevke, kot sta CGS in CRDS.
As a result, as Community law now stands, a Member State is entitled to forgo, unilaterally or in the context of tax treaty such as the Double Taxation Convention, the inclusion in the tax base for contributions such as the CSG and the CRDS of income earned in another Member State by a resident selfemployed person in a situation such as that of the applicant in the main proceedings.
Iz tega izhaja, da ima glede na sedanje stanje prava Skupnosti država članica pravico, da se enostransko ali v okviru davčnega sporazuma, kot je dvostranski sporazum, odpove vključitvi dohodkov, ki jih samozaposleni delavec rezident, ki je v enakem položaju kot tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari, prejema v drugi državi članici, v osnovo za prispevke, kot sta CSG in CRDS.
Although it is established that no provision of Regulation No 1408/71 prohibits a Member State from calculating the amount of the social contributions of a resident on the basis of his total income (see, to that effect, Nikula, paragraph 31), clearly no provision of that regulation requires it to do so.
Čeprav v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso nobena določba Uredbe �t. 1408/71 državi članici ne prepoveduje, da izračuna znesek prispevkov za socialno varnost rezidenta na podlagi vseh njegovih dohodkov (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Nikula, točka 31), je treba ugotoviti, da je nobena določba ne zavezuje, da to stori.
On the facts of Allard, the Member State of residence of the person concerned chose to include in the tax base for social contributions all the income earned by him both on its territory and on that of another Member State, as it was authorised to do so by Regulation No 1408/71.
V okviru zadeve, v kateri je bila sprejeta zgoraj navedena sodba Allard, je država članica, v kateri prebiva zadevna oseba, odločila, da v osnovo za prispevke za socialno varnost vključi vse dohodke, ki jih zadnji prejema tako na njenem ozemlju kot na ozemlju druge države članice, kot ji je to dovoljeno v skladu z Uredbo �t. 1408/71.
Therefore, the solution adopted by the Court in the judgment in Allard cannot be applied in a context such as that in the case in the main proceedings, where the exclusion of the foreign source income from the tax base for social contributions concerned results from the provisions of the applicable national law.
Zato se re�itev, ki jo je Sodi�če sprejelo v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Allard, ne uporabi v okoli�činah, kot so te v postopku v glavni stvari, kjer je izvzetje dohodkov iz tujine iz osnove za zadevne prispevke za socialni varnost posledica določb veljavnega nacionalnega zakona.
It must, however, be stated that the exclusion from the tax base for social security contributions of a worker’s foreign source income cannot affect the worker’s right to receive all of the benefits provided for that the applicable legislation.
Vendar je treba poudariti, da izvzetje dohodkov delavca iz tujine iz osnove za prispevke ne more vplivati na pravico navedenega delavca, da prejema vse dajatve, ki jih določa veljavna zakonodaja.
It is for the national court to determine whether such is actually the case in the situation at issue in the main proceedings.
Predložitveno sodi�če mora presoditi, ali gre v postopku v glavni stvari dejansko za tak primer.
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, selfemployed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 307/1999 of 8 February 1999, is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a Member State whose social legislation is alone applicable to a resident selfemployed worker, from excluding from the tax base for contributions such as the General Social Contribution and the Social Debt Repayment Contribution income earned by the worker in another Member State, by application, in particular, of a convention for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income.
Uredbo Sveta (EGS) št. 1408/71 z dne 14. junija 1971 o uporabi sistemov socialne varnosti za zaposlene osebe, samozaposlene in njihove družinske člane, ki se gibljejo v Skupnosti, kot je bila spremenjena in posodobljena z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 307/1999 z dne 8. februarja 1999, je treba razlagati tako, da ne nasprotuje temu, da država članica, katere zakonodaja na področju socialne varnosti velja za samozaposlenega delavca rezidenta, iz osnove za prispevke, kot sta CSG in CRDS, izvzame dohodke, ki jih navedeni delavec prejema v drugi državi članici, zlasti na podlagi sporazuma o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja na področju davkov na dohodke, kot je Sporazum med Združenim kraljestvom Velika Britanija in Severna Irska ter Francosko republiko o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja in preprečevanju davčnega izogibanja na področju davkov na dohodke, podpisan 22. maja 1968 v Londonu.
Case C-230/06
Zadeva C-230/06
Militzer & Münch GmbH v Ministero delle Finanze (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione)
Militzer & Münch GmbH proti Ministero delle Finanze (Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Corte suprema di cassazione)
(Customs union — Community transit — Recovery of a customs debt — Competent Member State — Proof of the regularity of the operation or of the place of the offence — Timelimits — Liability of the principal)
„Carinska unija – Skupnostni tranzit – Izterjava carinskega dolga – Pristojna država članica – Dokazilo o pravilnosti tranzitne operacije ali o kraju, kjer je nastala kr�itev – Roki – Odgovornost glavnega zavezanca“
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 3 April 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (tretji senat) z dne 3. aprila 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Preliminary rulings — Jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 234 EC)
Vprašanja za predhodno odločanje – Pristojnost Sodišča (člen 234 ES)
Free movement of goods — Community transit — External Community transit — Offences or irregularities
Prosti pretok blaga – Skupnostni tranzit – Zunanji tranzitni postopek Skupnosti – Kršitve ali nepravilnosti
(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Arts 203(1) and 215(1); Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Arts 378 and 379)
(Uredba Sveta št. 2913/92, člena 203(1) in 215(1); Uredba Komisije št. 2454/93, člena 378 in 379)
SUMMARY — CASE C-230/06
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-230/06
(Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Art. 378 and 379(1) and (2))
(Uredba Komisije št. 2454/93, člena 378 in 379(1) in (2))
(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 239; Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Arts 899 to 905)
(Uredba Sveta št. 2913/92, člen 239; Uredba Komisije št. 2454/93, členi od 899 do 905)
In order to provide a satisfactory answer to the national court which has referred a question to it, the Court of Justice may deem it necessary to consider provisions of Community law to which the national court has not referred in its question.
Poudariti je treba, da lahko Sodi�če, zato da bi predložitvenemu sodi�ču, ki mu je predložilo vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, podalo uporaben odgovor, meni, da je treba upo�tevati določbe prava Skupnosti, ki jih predložitveno sodi�če v svojem vpra�anju ni navedlo.
In order to verify whether the Member State which recovered customs duties has jurisdiction, it is for the national court to determine whether, at the time when it came to light that the consignment had not been presented at the office of destination, it was possible to establish the place where the offence or irregularity occurred.
Predložitveno sodi�če mora, da bi preverilo pristojnost države članice, ki je izterjevala carino, ugotoviti, ali je mogoče v trenutku, ko se je ugotovilo, da po�iljka ni bila predložena namembnemu uradu, določiti kraj kr�itve ali nepravilnosti. V tem primeru je mogoče, v skladu z določbami členov 203(1) in 215(1) Uredbe
Article 378(1) of the implementing regulation provides that, without prejudice to the rules on the determination of the place where a customs debt is incurred, laid down in Article 215 of the Customs Code, where a consignment has not been presented at the office of destination and the place of the offence or irregularity cannot be established, such offence or irregularity is deemed to have been committed in the Member State to which the office of departure belongs or in the Member State to which the office of transit at the point of entry into the Community belongs, to which a transit advice note has been given, unless within the period laid down in Article 379(2) of the implementing regulation, proof of the regularity of the transit operation or of the
Člen 378(1) izvedbene uredbe namreč določa, da kadar po�iljka ni bila predložena namembnemu uradu, ker kraja kr�itve ali nepravilnosti ni bilo mogoče določiti, se brez poseganja v pravila o določitvi kraja nastanka carinskega dolga, določenega v členu 215 carinskega zakonika, �teje, da je kr�itev ali nepravilnost nastala v državi članici, ki ji pripada urad odhoda, ali v državi članici, ki ji pripada urad tranzita pri vstopu v Skupnost, ki je prejel potrdilo o prehodu, če v roku, ki ga je treba določiti v skladu s členom 379(2) izvedbene uredbe, ni predloženo dokazilo o pravilnosti tranzitne operacije ali o kraju,
MILITZER & MÜNCH place where the offence or irregularity was actually committed is furnished. (see paras 30, 36, operative part 1)
MILITZER & MÜNCH kjer je kr�itev ali nepravilnost dejansko nastala. (Glej točki 30 in 36 ter točko 1 izreka.)
The principal, in his capacity as holder under the external Community transit procedure, is the debtor of the customs debt arising from the failure to observe the provisions governing that procedure.
postopka v okviru zunanjega skupnostnega tranzitnega postopka dolžnik za carinski dolg, ki izhaja iz neupo�tevanja določb tega postopka.
The liability thus imposed is intended to ensure the diligent and uniform application of the provisions relating to the recovery of customs debts in order to protect the financial interests of the Community and its Member States.
Odgovornost, ki jo nosi, je namenjena zagotavljanju skrbne in enotne uporabe predpisov v zvezi z izterjavo carinskega dolga zaradi varovanja finančnih interesov Skupnosti in držav članic.
Similarly, nor is the fact that the principal acted in good faith and that the breach of the external Community transit procedure was the result of a forgery in which he had no part capable of constituting an infringement of the principle of proportionality.
Zato dejstvo, da je glavni zavezanec v dobri veri in da izhaja kr�itev zunanjega skupnostnega tranzitnega postopka iz goljufije, pri kateri ni bil udeležen, ne kr�i načela sorazmernosti. V nasprotnem primeru glavni zavezanec ne bi bil več tako zavzet pri zagotavljanju učinkovitega poteka tranzita.
If that were the case, the principal would no longer have so great an incentive to ensure that transit operations were properly conducted.
Vendar, ker je carinski dolg nastal zaradi okoli�čin, ki niso posledica niti malomarnosti niti goljufivega ravnanja glavnega zavezanca, mu člen 239 Uredbe �t.