natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
MARKS & SPENCER rates, which were in force on 1 January 1991 and which are in accordance with Community law, and satisfy the conditions stated in the last indent of Article 17 of the second Council Directive of 11 April 1967, may be maintained. Member States shall adopt the measures necessary to ensure the determination of own resources relating to these operations.
MARKS & SPENCER ki so veljale 1. januarja 1991 in so v skladu s pravom Skupnosti ter izpolnjujejo pogoje iz zadnje alinee člena 17 Druge direktive Sveta z dne 11. aprila 1967. Države članice sprejmejo potrebne ukrepe, da zagotovijo določitev lastnih sredstev v zvezi s temi posli.
The Value Added Tax Act 1994 (‘the VAT Act 1994’) lays down, as a general rule, the principle that a zero rate of VAT is to be applied to the supply of food in the United Kingdom.
Zakon iz leta 1994 o davku na dodano vrednost (Value Added Tax Act 1994, v nadaljevanju: VAT Act 1994) določa, da se v Združenem kraljestvu za dobavo živil na splo�no uporablja ničelno stopnjo DDV.
Section 30 of the VAT Act 1994, headed ‘Zero-rating’, refers to Schedule 8 to that act, which has the same heading and which states in Part II, under the heading ‘Group 1 — Food’, in item 2 of the ‘Excepted items’, that there is an exception to the application of VAT at the zero rate as regards confectionery, not including cakes or biscuits, which are subject to tax at the zero rate, with the exception of biscuits wholly or partly covered with chocolate, those being taxed at the standard rate.
Oddelek 30 VAT Act 1994, naslovljen „Obdavčitev po ničelni stopnji“, napotuje na Prilogo 8 k temu zakonu z enakim naslovom, ki v drugem delu, v rubriki „Skupina 1 – Živila“, „Proizvodi, za katere velja izjema“, točka 2, določa, da se ničelna stopnja DDV ne uporabi za sladkarije, razen za kolače in pi�kote, za katere velja ničelna davčna stopnja, izjema pa so pi�koti, ki so popolnoma ali delno obliti s čokolado, ki so v celoti obdavčeni.
During the period in issue in the main proceedings, section 80 of the VAT Act 1994 was worded as follows:
Oddelek 80 VAT Act 1994 je v zadevnem obdobju določal:
Section 80 of the VAT Act 1994 was amended by section 3 of the Finance (No 2) Act 2005, which made significant changes to section 80 as regards the defence of unjust enrichment.
Oddelek 80 VAT Act 1994 je bil spremenjen z oddelkom 3 drugega zakona o financah iz leta 2005 (Finance (�t. 2) Act 2005), ki je v ta oddelek 80 glede neupravičenih obogatitev vnesel pomembne spremembe.
In particular, it replaced the word ‘repayment’ in subsection (3) of section 80 with the word ‘crediting’.
Zlasti v zgoraj navedenemu odstavku 3 izraz „vračilo“ (repayment) nadomesti z izrazom „dobropis“ (crediting).
MARKS & SPENCER The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
MARKS & SPENCER Spor o glavni stvari in vprašanja za predhodno odločanje
From the time of the introduction of VAT in the United Kingdom, in 1973, the Commissioners, who are responsible for collecting that tax, took the view that the chocolate-covered teacakes marketed by Marks & Spencer were biscuits and not cakes and that they accordingly had to be taxed at the standard rate of VAT rather than at the zero rate. Between April 1973 and October 1994, Marks & Spencer thus paid a tax which was not due. 10
Od uvedbe DDV v Združenem kraljestvu leta 1973 so Commissioners, ki so pobirali ta davek, menili, da so bili „teacakes“, ki so bili obliti s čokolado in ki jih je prodajala družba Marks & Spencer, pi�koti in ne kolači, in jih je bilo treba zato obdavčiti po splo�ni in ne po ničelni stopnji. Med aprilom 1973 in oktobrom 1994 je torej družba Marks & Spencer plačala davek, ki ga ni bila dolžna plačati. 10
On the basis of this error, Marks & Spencer submitted on 8 February 1995 a claim for repayment in the amount of GBP 3.5 million. That claim was accepted only to the extent of 10% of the amount (GBP 350 000), since the Commissioners took the view that the high street retailer had passed on 90% of the VAT paid by it to its customers. Consequently, the Commissioners invoked against Marks & Spencer the defence of unjust enrichment under section 80(3) of the VAT Act 1994. The authorities also applied rules of limitation (new and retroactive), by virtue of which they were not obliged to repay any sum which had been paid to them more than three years prior to the submission of the claim for repayment. The amount which was finally paid to Marks & Spencer on 4 April 1997 was therefore GBP 88 440. 11
Z dopisom z dne 30. septembra 1994 so Commissioners priznali svojo napako, saj so ugotovili, da so „teacakes“ kolači, za katere je torej veljal DDV po ničelni stopnji, na podlagi te napake pa je družba Marks & Spencer 8. februarja 1995 vložila zahtevek za vračilo 3,5 milijona GBP. Temu zahtevku je bilo ugodeno le do 10 % zahtevanega zneska (350.000 GBP), saj so Commissioners ocenili, da je ta veriga trgovin 90 % plačanega DDV prevalila na svoje kupce. Zato so Commissionners ugovarjali neupravičeni obogatitvi, ki jo določa oddelek 80(3) VAT Act 1994. Poleg tega so uporabili določbe o zastaranju (nove in z učinkom za nazaj), na podlagi katerih jim ni bilo več treba vrniti zneska, ki jim je bil plačan pred več kot pred tremi leti pred vložitvijo zahtevka za vračilo. Na koncu je družba Marks & Spencer 4. aprila 1997 prejela znesek v vi�ini 88.440 GBP. 11
After unsuccessful administrative proceedings, Marks & Spencer appealed to the VAT and Duties Tribunal, which, by decision of 22 April 1998, upheld the view taken by the Commissioners. Marks & Spencer appealed to the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division, which in turn dismissed the claim by decision of 21 December 1998. An appeal against that decision was made to the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil Division), which, as regards the claim I - 2317
Potem ko je bila upravna pritožba zavrnjena, se je družba Marks & Spencer obrnila na VAT and Duties Tribunal, ki je s sodbo z dne 22. aprila 1998 potrdilo mnenje Commissioners. Družba Marks & Spencer je vložila tožbo pri High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Crown Office), ki je z odločbo z dne 21. decembra 1998 spet zavrnilo njen zahtevek. Na to odločbo je nato pri Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) vložila pritožbo, v okviru katere je zahtevek družbe Marks & Spencer za vračilo v zvezi s „teacakes“ ponovno zavrnilo. Vendar je to sodi�če z odločbo z dne 14. decembra 1999 predložilo vpra�anje za I - 2317
2008 — CASE C-309/06 for repayment in relation to the teacakes, again dismissed Marks & Spencer’s claim. However, the Court of Appeal, by decision of 14 December 1999, referred a question which related to a separate aspect of the proceedings (the taxation of gift vouchers sold by Marks & Spencer) to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the compatibility of the retroactive limitation of three years (see paragraph 10 of the present judgment) with the principles of effectiveness of Community law and of the protection of legitimate expectations. That question concerned, inter alia, the issue whether an individual could derive rights directly from a directive after it had been correctly transposed into national law, where the Member State had failed to take proper account of the scope of the directive. 12
2008 – ZADEVA C-309/06 predhodno odločanje, ki se nana�a na drug vidik (obdavčitev nakupnih bonov, ki jih je prodala družba Marks & Spencer), Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje o združljivosti retroaktivnega zastaralnega roka treh let (glej točko 10 te sodbe) z načeli učinkovitosti prava Skupnosti in varstva zaupanja v pravo. To vpra�anje se je nana�alo med drugim na to, ali ima lahko posameznik neposredno iztožljivo pravico iz direktive potem, ko je bila pravilno prenesena v nacionalno pravo, če država članica ni upo�tevala obsega te direktive. 12
In Case C-62/00 Marks & Spencer [2002] ECR I-6325, the Court ruled that the principles of effectiveness and of the protection of legitimate expectations precluded national legislation such as the United Kingdom legislation in question. 13
V sodbi z dne 11. julija 2002 v zadevi Marks & Spencer (C-62/00, Recueil, str. I-6325) je Sodi�če pravilno ugotovilo, da načeli učinkovitosti in varstva zaupanja v pravo nasprotujeta nacionalni zakonodaji, kot je zadevna zakonodaja Združenega kraljestva. 13
In the light of the grounds of the Court’s decision that the legislation retroactively establishing a limitation period was incompatible with the abovementioned principles of Community law, the Commissioners, with a view to treating all claims made under section 80 of the VAT Act 1994 in the same way, on their own initiative, accepted that Marks and Spencer’s claim should not be time-barred and accordingly repaid the sum claimed, up to the limit of 10%, above which they maintained that there would be unjust enrichment.
Upo�tevajoč obrazložitev Sodi�ča glede nezdružljivosti zakonodaje, ki je določala retroaktivni zastaralni rok, z zgoraj navedenima načeloma, so Commissioners, da bi enako obravnavali zahtevke, vložene na podlagi oddelka 80 VAT Act 1994, proprio motu ugodili zahtevku družbe Marks & Spencer glede tega, da ji ni mogoče očitati zastaranja, in so ji torej vrnili zahtevan znesek do vi�ine 10 %, preostali znesek pa naj bi bil po njihovem mnenju neupravičena obogatitev. 14
The House of Lords decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
House of Lords je prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ta vpra�anja:
2008 — CASE C-309/06 the result that they would be infringed if the trader in question is not repaid the entire amount mistakenly charged on the supplies made by him in circumstances where:
2008 – ZADEVA C-309/06 bili kr�eni, če se zadevnemu gospodarskemu udeležencu ne bi vrnil celotni nepravilno obračunani znesek za njegove storitve, kadar:
— the trader would be unjustly enriched by repayment to him of the entire amount;
– bi se gospodarski udeleženec s prejemom vračila celotnega zneska neupravičeno obogatil,
— domestic legislation provides that overpaid tax cannot be repaid to the extent that repayment would lead to unjust enrichment of the trader; but
– nacionalna zakonodaja določa, da preplačanega davka ni mogoče vrniti v takem obsegu, da bi vračilo povzročilo neupravičeno obogatitev gospodarskega udeleženca,
— domestic legislation makes no provision similar to that referred to in (ii) in the case of claims by “repayment traders”? (A “repayment trader” is a taxable person who, in a given prescribed accounting period, makes no payment of VAT to the competent national authorities but receives a payment from them because, in that period, the amount of VAT that he is entitled to deduct exceeds the amount of VAT due in respect of supplies made by him.)
– nacionalna zakonodaja v primeru zahtevkov ‚repayement traders‘ ne vsebuje nobenega določila, ki bi bilo podobno tistemu [iz prej�nje alinee] (‚Repayement trader‘ je davčni zavezanec, ki v predpisanem davčnem obdobju ne plača davka na dodano vrednost pristojnim nacionalnim organom, ampak prejme od njih plačilo, ker v tem obdobju znesek davka na dodano vrednost, ki ga je upravičen odbiti, presega znesek davka na dodano vrednost, ki ga dolguje v zvezi s svojimi storitvami).
The first question: the existence of a Community-law right to have a particular transaction taxed at a zero rate of VAT
Prvo vprašanje, glede obstoja pravice prava Skupnosti, da za dano transakcijo velja ničelna davčna stopnja
Marks & Spencer submits that a right to have a particular transaction taxed at a zero rate of VAT does exist, both under Article 12(1) of the Sixth Directive, the word- ing of which, it believes, is clear, precise and unconditional, and by virtue of the principle of equal treatment. The derogation of which the United Kingdom took advan- tage under both Article 28(2) of the Sixth Directive, in its initial version, and Article 28(2)(a) of the Sixth Directive, in the wording stemming from Directive 92/77, did not take the case outside the scope of Community law, as laid down by that article. I - 2321
Družba Marks & Spencer meni, da pravica, da je dana transakcija predmet DDV po ničelni stopnji, izhaja tako iz člena 12(1) Šeste direktive, ki je jasna, natančna in brezpogojna, kot iz načela enakega obravnavanja. Oprostitev, ki jo uporablja Združeno kraljestvo, tako na podlagi člena 28(2) Šeste direktive v prvotni različici kot na podlagi člena 28(2)(a), kot je bil spremenjen z Direktivo 92/77, naj tega primera ne bi izvzela iz področja uporabe prava Skupnosti, kot ta člen sam določa. I - 2321
Conversely, the United Kingdom Government and Ireland take the view that a trader cannot derive from Community law any directly enforceable right to an exemption with refund of the VAT paid at the preceding stage.
Vladi Združenega kraljestva in Irske pa nasprotno menita, da gospodarski udeleženec na podlagi prava Skupnosti ne more uveljavljati nobene pravice, ki ima neposredne učinke na oprostitev z vračilom DDV, plačanega v predhodni fazi.
The right to have transactions taxed at a zero rate thus derives only from national law.
Pravica, da za transakcije velja ničelna davčna stopnja, naj bi izhajala le iz nacionalnega prava.
The Cypriot Government states that the mistake made by the Commissioners relates to the application of provisions of national law, even if the retention of such provisions is allowed by the Sixth Directive.
Ciprska vlada navaja, da se napaka Commissioners nana�a na uporabo določb nacionalnega prava, čeprav ohranitev te določbe dopu�ča Šesta direktiva.
The Commission, without replying directly to the question, which it regards as irrelevant, states that the United Kingdom tax authorities were mistaken in their interpretation of the national legislation, but did not breach any obligation imposed by the Sixth Directive.
Ne da bi neposredno odgovorila na zastavljeno vpra�anje, za katero meni, da ni upo�tevno, Komisija poudarja, da je davčna uprava Združenega kraljestva napačno razlagala nacionalno zakonodajo, vendar ni kr�ila nobene obveznosti, določene s Šesto direktivo.
The first question asks, in essence, whether it is possible for a trader to derive directly from Community law the right to be taxed at a zero rate where that rate is the result of provisions of national law.
Prvo vpra�anje se nana�a na to, ali je mogoče, da gospodarski udeleženec neposredno uveljavlja pravico iz prava Skupnosti, da je obdavčen po ničelni stopnji, če to pravico določa nacionalno pravo.
It must first be stated that that question bears a direct relation to the facts submitted to the national court and is objectively required in order to resolve the dispute in the main proceedings (see, to that effect, Case C-18/93 Corsica Ferries [1994] ECR I-1783, paragraph 14, and Case C-144/04 Mangold [2005] ECR I-9981, paragraph 34).
Najprej je treba povedati, da to vpra�anje pomeni neposredno povezavo z dejstvi, predloženimi predložitvenemu sodi�ču, in je objektivno potrebno za re�itev spora o glavni stvari (v tem smislu glej sodbi z dne 17. maja 1994 v zadevi Corsica Ferries, C-18/93, Recueil, str. I-1783, točka 14, ter z dne 22. novembra 2005 v zadevi Mangold, C-144/04, ZOdl., str.
The Commission’s contention that the first question is irrelevant must therefore be rejected as the Court has jurisdiction to rule on that question.
I-9981, točka 34). Ugovor Komisije, da je prvo vpra�anje neupo�tevno, je treba torej zavrniti, saj je Sodi�če pristojno za odločanje o tem vpra�anju.
Secondly, it is important to bear in mind that, in authorising Member States to apply exemptions with refund of the tax paid, Article 28(2) of the Sixth Directive lays down a derogation to the rules which govern the standard rate of VAT (Case C-251/05 Talacre Beach Caravan Sales [2006] ECR I-6269, paragraph 17).
Drugič, treba je spomniti, da člen 28(2) Šeste direktive s tem, ko državam članicam dopu�ča, da uporabljajo oprostitve z vračilom plačanega davka, določa odstopanje od predpisov o splo�ni stopnji DDV (sodba z dne 6. julija 2006 v zadevi Talacre Beach Caravan Sales, C-251/05, ZOdl., str. I-6269, točka 17).
It is therefore correct to state that it is by reason of Community law that those exemptions, known as ‘zero-rating’, are permitted.
Pravilna je torej ugotovitev, da so te oprostitve, imenovane „obdavčitve po ničelni stopnji“, dovoljene na podlagi prava Skupnosti.
However, Community law does not require Member States to maintain such exemptions.
Vendar pa pravo Skupnosti državam članicam ne nalaga, naj te oprostitve ohranijo.
It is apparent from the actual wording of the original version of Article 28(2) that the exemptions which were in force on 31 December 1975 ‘may be maintained’, which means that it is for the Member State concerned alone to decide whether or not to retain a particular piece of legislation which satisfied, inter alia, the conditions set out in the final indent of Article 17 of Second Council Directive 67/228/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes — Structure and procedures for application of the common system of value added tax (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p.
Kot namreč izhaja iz samega besedila te določbe v prvotni različici, se oprostitve, ki so obstajale 31. decembra 1975, „lahko uporabljajo“, kar pomeni, da je le od presoje zadevne države članice odvisno, ali ohrani ali ne to zakonodajo ali tisto, ki ustreza med drugim merilom iz člena 17, zadnja alinea, sedaj razveljavljene Druge direktive Sveta 67/228/EGS z dne 11. aprila 1967 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih – Struktura in postopek uporabe skupnega sistema davka na dodano vrednost (UL 71, str.
16), now repealed, which provided that exemptions with refund of the tax paid could only be established for clearly-defined social reasons and for the benefit of the final consumer.
1303), v skladu s katerimi se oprostitve z vračilom plačanega davka lahko uvedejo le iz natančno opredeljenih socialnih razlogov v korist končnih potro�nikov.
Article 28(2)(a) of the Sixth Directive can therefore be compared to a ‘stand-still’ clause, intended to prevent social hardship likely to follow from the abolition of exemptions provided for by the national legislature but not included in the Sixth Directive (Talacre Beach Caravan Sales, paragraph 22).
Člen 28(2)(a) Šeste direktive je tako primerljiv s klavzulo „stand still“, katere namen je izogniti se težkim socialnim položajem, ki bi lahko bili posledica ukinitve prednosti, ki jih je predvidel nacionalni zakonodajalec, Šesta direktiva pa jih ni povzela (zgoraj navedena sodba Talacre Beach Caravan Sales, točka 22).
That optional maintenance of the previous status quo is therefore merely framed by the Sixth Directive.
To možnost ohranitve predhodnega status quo torej le uokvirja Šesta direktiva.
Consequently, it is pursuant to national legislation which does not constitute a measure for the implementation of the Sixth Directive (see, by analogy, Case C-36/99 Idéal tourisme [2000] ECR I-6049, paragraph 38), but the maintenance of an exemption which is permitted by that directive, regard being had to the social objectives pursued by
Zato se lahko na podlagi nacionalne zakonodaje, ki ni sredstvo za prenos Šeste direktive (po analogiji glej sodbo z dne 13. julija 2000 v zadevi Idéal tourisme, C-36/99, Recueil, str. I-6049, točka 38), ampak je preostanek ugodnosti, ki jih dopu�ča ta direktiva, glede na socialne cilje
2008 — CASE C-309/06 the legislation of the United Kingdom in not making the final consumer pay VAT on everyday items of food, that Marks & Spencer may claim the exemption with refund of the tax paid at the preceding stage. 25
2008 – ZADEVA C-309/06
Marks & Spencer cannot validly rely on Article 12(1) of the Sixth Directive. That provision, which states that the rate of VAT applicable is that in force at the time of the chargeable event, is intended to prevent the national legislature, in the event of a change in the rate applicable to a particular product, as borne out by Article 12(2) of the Sixth Directive, from applying to a particular transaction a rate other than that in force at the time of the event which gave rise to the VAT charged in respect of that transaction. 26
Družba Marks & Spencer se torej ne more utemeljeno sklicevati na člen 12(1) Šeste direktive. Povedati je namreč treba, da je namen te določbe, ki natančno določa, da je stopnja, ki se uporablja, tista, ki velja v času obdavčljivega dogodka, da nacionalnemu zakonodajalcu prepove, da se v primeru spremembe stopnje, ki se uporablja za dani proizvod, kot potrjuje člen 12(2) Šeste direktive, za dano transakcijo uporabi drugačna stopnja, kot je ta, ki velja v času nastanka obdavčljivega dogodka, ko je bil na dano transkacijo naložen DDV. 26
The purpose served by Article 12(1) is thus clearly to settle the issue of determining the temporal point of reference for applying a given rate of VAT.
Torej je očitno raison d’être te določbe časovna umestitev uporabe dane stopnje DDV.
The situation in the main proceedings, in which the Commissioners established that there had been an error as to whether a particular product should have been entitled to an exemption with refund of the tax paid, is completely different, as this is a question, not of a change in the rate over time, but as to whether a product is covered by an exemption with refund of the tax paid, permitted under Article 28(2)(a) of the Sixth Directive.
Popolnoma drugačna je predpostavka v postopku v glavni stvari, v katerem so Commissioners ugotovili, da je pri�lo do napake glede tega, ali je bilo za določen proizvod treba uporabiti oprostitev z vračilom plačanega davka, saj ni �lo za to, da se je davčna stopnja spremenila s potekom časa, ampak za to, ali je za določen proizvod veljala oprostitev z vračilom plačanega davka, ki jo dopu�ča člen 28(2)(a) Šeste direktive.
Accordingly, the answer to the first question must be that where, under Article 28(2) of the Sixth Directive, both before and after the insertion of the amendments made to that provision by Directive 92/77, a Member State has maintained in its national legislation an exemption with refund of input tax in respect of certain specified
Zato je treba na prvo vpra�anje odgovoriti tako, da če je država članica v skladu s členom 28(2) Šeste direktive (pred njeno spremembo z Direktivo 92/77 in po njej) v nacionalnem pravu ohranila oprostitev z vračilom davka, plačanega v predhodni fazi, v zvezi z določenimi dobavami ali storitvami, gospodarski udeleženec, ki te dobave
MARKS & SPENCER supplies, a trader making such supplies does not have a directly enforceable Commu-nity-law right to have those supplies taxed at a zero rate of VAT. The second question: the existence of a right, deriving from the general principles of Community law, to a refund of VAT paid in error
MARKS & SPENCER ali storitve opravlja, nima neposredno iztožljive pravice na podlagi prava Skupnosti, da se te dobave ali storitve obdavčijo z ničelno davčno stopnjo. Drugo vprašanje, glede obstoja pravice do vračila nepravilno obračunanega DDV, ki izhaja iz splošnih načel prava Skupnosti
Marks & Spencer claims that the general principles of Community law, including the principle of fiscal neutrality, apply in such a way as to provide a basis for a right to repayment, in its favour, of the VAT which was wrongly levied, since the whole system of VAT remains, by definition, within the scope of Community law, even in the case specified in Article 28(2) of the Sixth Directive, both in its initial version and in that stemming from Directive 92/77. 30
Družba Marks & Spencer meni, da se splo�na načela prava Skupnosti,skupaj z načelom davčne nevtralnosti, uporabljajo tako, da v korist te družbe ustvarjajo podlago za pravico do vračila nepravilno obračunanega DDV, saj celotni sistem DDV per definitionem ostaja na področju uporabe prava Skupnosti, tudi v primeru člena 28(2) Šeste direktive, tako pred kot po spremembi z Direktivo 92/77. 30