natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Such a finding would justify the penalisation and less favourable treatment of ‘dishonest’ taxable persons in relation not only to persons carrying on activities subject to VAT for a period of more than 12 months from the date of registration but also in relation to persons duly paying VAT during the first year of operation.
Taka ugotovitev bi upravičila sankcioniranje in slab�e obravnavanje „nepo�tenih“ davčnih zavezancev ne zgolj glede oseb, ki opravljajo dejavnosti, ki so predmet DDV v več kot 12-mesečnem obdobju od dneva registracije, temveč tudi glede oseb, ki DDV plačujejo v prvem letu opravljanja dejavnosti.
14 — The security deposit is not a condition for obtaining a refund of excess VAT.
16 – Kot določa poljski davčni zakonik.
Following a period of 12 months during which the taxable person has submitted a tax return and timeously paid all taxes, including income tax on natural persons, he may apply for release or repayment of the security deposit.
Predložitveno sodi�če se sklicuje na člen 139(1) Ustawa Ordynacja Podatkowa (zakon o sprejetju davčnega zakonika) z dne 29. avgusta 1997.
16 — As established in the Polish Tax Code.
Je zgolj pogoj za tiste, ki želijo izkoristiti obdobje, kraj�e od 180 dni.
The national court refers to Article 139(1) of the Law establishing the Tax Code (Ustawa Ordynacja Podatkowa) of 29 August 1997.
Po 12 mesecih, v katerih je davčni zavezanec vložil davčno napoved in pravočasno plačal vse davke, vključno z dohodnino, lahko zahteva vračilo var�čine.
Even if, as it contends, the time it took other Member States to answer the Polish authorities exceeded three months in 60% of cases, it still does not automatically follow that 180 days (that is to say six full months) is the least onerous period which can be imposed in order to prevent tax evasion or avoidance.
Čeprav so, kot trdi, v 60 % primerov druge države članice potrebovale več kot tri mesece, da odgovorijo poljskim organom, iz tega samo po sebi ne izhaja, da je 180 dni (to je polnih �est mesecev) najmanj obremenjujoče obdobje, ki se lahko določi, da bi se preprečilo davčne utaje in izogibanje davkom.
point just developing his economic activities and, as practice shows, that involves substantial investment expenditure and often he will not yet be operating on a large scale.
�ele razvija svoje gospodarske dejavnosti, v praksi pa to vključuje velike investicijske stro�ke, in �e ne deluje v velikem obsegu.
Therefore, the need to wait for 180 days to obtain the refund of excess VAT and/or the inability to dispose of PLN 250 000 may have a marked effect on a taxable person’s financial results.
Zato lahko 180-dnevno čakanje na vračilo preveč plačanega DDV in/ali nezmožnost položiti 250.000 PLN močno vpliva na finančne rezultate davčnega zavezanca.
17 Also, a larger Polish company would appear to gain access to the Community market much more easily than a small Polish trader would (in fact, such an amount may even constitute an insurmountable obstacle for the latter).
17Prav tako bi večje poljsko podjetje lažje vstopilo na trg Skupnosti kot majhen poljski trgovec (dejansko bi tak znesek zanj lahko pomenil nepremostljivo oviro).
It may be recalled that the Member State’s authorities have at their disposal the Community instruments for cooperation and administrative assistance adopted to allow the correct assessment of VAT and counter evasion and avoidance in that area, such as the measures provided for by Council Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003, 20and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1925/2004. 21
Opozoriti je treba, da imajo organi držav članic na voljo instrumente Skupnosti o upravnem sodelovanju in pomoči, da bi se omogočila pravilna odmera DDV ter boj proti utajam in izogibanju davkom na tem področju, kot so ukrepi, določeni z Uredbo Sveta (ES) �t. 1798/2003 20 in z Uredbo Komisije (ES) �t. 1925/2004 21.
Indeed, to require a security deposit in the amount of PLN 250 000 and the alternative option of receiving the refund of excess VAT merely in 180 days may in practice well represent an obstacle for small and mediumsized enterprises wishing to trade on the Community market.
Zahtevati var�čino v znesku 250.000 PLN in alternativna možnost prejeti vračilo preveč plačanega DDV �ele v 180 dneh lahko v praksi pomeni oviro za majhna in srednje velika podjetja, ki želijo trgovati na trgu Skupnosti.
In any event, I agree with the Commission that automatically requiring a fixed amount of PLN 250 000 18from all new EU VAT payers in order for them to benefit from the 60-day period would appear, as a general rule, to go beyond what is necessary to prevent fraud and to protect the interests of the exchequer.
V vsakem primeru se strinjam s Komisijo, da se zdi, da samodejna zahteva, da vsi novi zavezanci za DDV na ravni EU položijo fiksen znesek 250.000 PLN, 18da bi lahko izkoristili 60-dnevno obdobje, načeloma presega to, kar je nujno potrebno za preprečevanje goljufij in varstvo interesov državne blagajne.
Furthermore, to use the argument advanced by the Advocate General in the N case by analogy, I agree that even though in practice the various cooperation mechanisms available to the Member States may not func-
Poleg tega, če po analogiji uporabim utemeljitev generalne pravobranilke v zadevi N, se strinjam, da se države članice, čeprav je mogoče, da v praksi različni mehanizmi sodelovanja, ki so na voljo državam članicam,
17 — As it is clear that such an amount undoubtedly constitutes a financial burden.
17 – Ker je jasno, da tak znesek nedvomno pomeni finančno breme.
18 — As the tax authorities have no possibility of adapting the amount of the security deposit to a particular case.
1925/2004 z dne 29. oktobra 2004 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za izvajanje nekaterih določb Uredbe Sveta (ES) �t.
21 — Commission Regulation of 29 October 2004 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003 (OJ 2004 L 331, p. 13).
1798/2003 o upravnem sodelovanju na področju davka na dodano vrednost (UL L 331, str. 13).
See, in this connection, Case C-73/06 Planzer Luxembourg [2007] ECR I-5655, paragraph 48.
V zvezi s tem glej sodbo z dne 28. junija 2007 v zadevi Planzer Luxembourg, C-73/06, ZOdl., str. I-5655, točka 48.
SOSNOWSKA appropriate conditions, in particular, within a reasonable period of time.
SOSNOWSKA pogoji v celoti dobijo nazaj preveč plačan DDV, zlasti ne v razumnem obdobju.
tion in an efficient and satisfactory manner, the Member States should not be able to rely on deficiencies in the cooperation between their tax authorities in order to justify a restriction of such a fundamental principle of the common system of VAT as is the right to deduction. 22
ne delujejo učinkovito in zadovoljivo, ne bi smele opirati na pomanjkljivosti v sodelovanju med njihovimi davčnimi organi, da bi upravičile omejitev tako temeljnega načela skupnega sistema DDV, kot je pravica do odbitka. 22
To my mind, the Member States should not be able to protect themselves from tax evasion or avoidance by way of making all, or even only a few, new EU VAT payers bear the burden of VAT.
Menim, da se države članice pred davčnimi utajami ali izogibanjem davkom ne bi smele za�čititi tako, da vse ali zgolj nekatere zavezance za DDV na ravni EU obremenijo z DDV.
If periods are too long that implies that taxable persons bear, even if only partially, the burden of VAT which puts at risk the neutrality of the system.
Če so obdobja predolga, to pomeni, da davčni zavezanci nosijo, tudi če zgolj delno, breme DDV, kar ogroža nevtralnost sistema.
Rather, it should be primarily the State that bears: (i) the responsibility for the management of its tax system, including the prevention of tax evasion and avoidance, as well as (ii) the corresponding risks.
Država bi morala biti tista, ki primarno nosi: (i) odgovornost za upravljanje svojega davčnega sistema, vključno s preprečevanjem davčnih utaj in izogibanja davkom, ter (ii) tveganja v zvezi s tem.
In any event, most importantly, it would appear that such a necessity — to have sufficient time for verification — is already taken into account through the provisions in Article 87(2) and (3), and through those of Article 97(5), of the Law on VAT.
V vsakem primeru pa se zdi, da je taka potreba po zadostnem času za preverjanje že upo�tevana prek določb člena 87(2) in (3) ter člena 97(5) zakona o DDV.
23 Therefore, the arguments of the Polish Government for a 180-day period (or the alternative, the lodging of the security deposit) are not particularly compelling.
23 Zato argumenti poljske vlade v prid 180-dnevnemu obdobju (oziroma, alternativno, pologu var�čine) niso posebno trdni.
I would add that, ‘[a]lthough it is not for the Court to comment on the appropriateness of other means of combating tax evasion and avoidance which might be contemplated’, 24there must surely be less onerous and restrictive means of safeguarding such interests of the exchequer.
Naj dodam, da „[č]eprav Sodi�če ni pristojno, da komentira primernost drugih sredstev za boj proti morebitnim davčnim utajam in izogibanju davkom“ 24, zagotovo morajo obstajati manj obremenjujoča in omejujoča sredstva za za�čito takih interesov državne blagajne.
For instance, it would be possible for the amount of the security deposit to be proportionate to the excess VAT to be refunded 25 or for it
Znesek var�čine bi na primer lahko bil sorazmeren s preveč plačanim DDV, ki ga je treba vrniti 25, ali bi
24 — See Ampafrance and Sanofi, cited in footnote 11, paragraph 62.
24 – Glej v opombi 11 navedene sklepne predloge v zadevi Ampafrance in Sanofi, točka 62.
In these circumstances, although the Member States are in principle not precluded from adopting precautionary measures designed to ensure the veracity of the apparent excess of VAT arising from the information contained in the underlying declaration made by the taxable person, the national measures in question are in my view disproportionate in that they place a particularly high burden on new EU VAT payers.
V teh okoli�činah, čeprav države članice načeloma lahko sprejmejo preventivne ukrepe, da bi zagotovile, da je bil DDV zares preveč plačan, kot izhaja iz podatkov iz izjave davčnega zavezanca, menim, da so zadevni nacionalni ukrepi nesorazmerni in da novim zavezancem za DDV na ravni EU nalagajo posebno težko breme.
They do not enable those taxpayers to recover the entirety of the credit in
Tem davkoplačevalcem ne omogočajo, da pod primernimi
22 — Even though Advocate General Kokott uses that argument with regard to restrictions on fundamental freedoms.
22 – Čeprav generalna pravobranilka J. Kokott to utemeljitev uporablja v zvezi z omejitvami temeljnih svobod.
See her Opinion in Case C-470/04 N [2006] ECR I-7409, point 114.
Glej njene sklepne predloge z dne 30. marca 2006 v zadevi N (C-470/04, ZOdl., str. I-7409, točka 114).
25 — Which appears to have been originally foreseen as regards the security deposit in a relatively recent proposed amendment to the Polish Law on VAT.
25 – Kar je bilo izvorno mi�ljeno v zvezi z var�čino v relativno nedavno predlaganih spremembah poljskega zakona o DDV.
Such considerations (for the security deposit to be proportionate to the excess VAT) come to mind not least in view of the fact that the amount of the security deposit (as it stands) does not correspond in any way to the effective or real risk for the exchequer to which it is exposed vis-à-vis a new EU VAT payer.
Taki predlogi (da bi bila var�čina sorazmerna preveč plačanemu DDV) pridejo na misel vsaj glede na dejstvo, da znesek var�čine (kot je določen) nikakor ne ustreza dejanskemu in gotovemu tveganju za državno blagajno, ki mu je podvržena v razmerju do zavezanca za DDV na ravni EU.
Cf., for instance, Case C-262/99 Louloudakis [2001] ECR I-5547, paragraph 69.
Glej na primer sodbo z dne 12. julija 2001 v zadevi Louloudakis (C-262/99, Recueil, I-5547, točka 69).
I may add that at present, in fact, a security deposit of PLN 250 000 is required even in a case of an intraCommunity supply of an otherwise completely insignificant value.
Dodam naj namreč, da se zdaj var�čina 250.000 PLN zahteva tudi v primeru dobave znotraj Skupnosti, ki je povsem majhne vrednosti.
As an aside, in the present case, the amount of the security deposit is four times higher than the excess VAT indicated as being refundable to the applicant.
Poleg tega je v obravnavanem primeru znesek var�čine �tirikrat vi�ji od preveč plačanega DDV, ki ga je treba vrniti tožeči stranki.
23 — Namely, where the reasons for the refund require additional investigation.
23 – Ko namreč razlogi za vračilo zahtevajo dodatno preverjanje.
No timelimits are laid down for that extension.
Za to podalj�anje niso določeni nobeni roki.
Where the refund is ultimately determined to be lawful, the tax authorities are to pay the taxable person the amount due plus interest.
Ko je dokončno ugotovljeno, da je vračilo zakonito, morajo davčni organi davčnemu zavezancu vrniti dolgovani znesek, povečan za obresti.
B — Second question to depend on the economic size and/or the ability to pay of the taxable person’s business, which could, one imagines, be inferred from his return.
B – Drugo vprašanje bil odvisen od ekonomske velikosti in/ali zmožnosti za plačilo podjetja davčnega zavezanca, kar pa bi bilo lahko ugotovljeno iz njegove davčne napovedi.
In the alternative, certain thresholds could be applied instead.
Alternativno pa bi se lahko uporabili določeni pragi.
By its second question, the national court asks whether the national measures in question may none the less be considered to constitute special measures to prevent certain types of tax evasion and avoidance under Article 27(1) of the Sixth Directive.
Predložitveno sodi�če z drugim vpra�anjem spra�uje, ali je kljub temu zadevne nacionalne ukrepe mogoče �teti za posebne ukrepe za preprečevanje določenih oblik davčnih utaj in izogibanja davkom na podlagi člena 27(1) Šeste direktive.
To conclude, Article 18(4) of the Sixth Directive precludes in principle national measures such as those at issue in the main proceedings which are disproportionate and as such undermine the implementation of fundamental principles of the common system of VAT, in particular the right to deduction.
Če sklenem, so s členom 18(4) Šeste direktive načeloma prepovedani nacionalni ukrepi, kot so obravnavani ukrepi v postopku v glavni stvari, ki so nesorazmerni in kot taki ovirajo izvajanje temeljnih načel skupnega sistema DDV, zlasti pravice do odbitka.
Regardless of whether or not the national measures in question in fact constitute special measures of that kind, they cannot be considered as such simply because — as appears from the documents before the Court and indirectly from the arguments put forward by the Polish Government 27 — the Republic of Poland did not have recourse to the formal procedure which is expressly provided for in Article 27 of the Sixth Directive and did not obtain the authorisation referred to in Article 27(1). 28
Ne glede na to, ali zadevni nacionalni ukrepi dejansko pomenijo tovrstne posebne ukrepe, jih ni mogoče �teti za take zgolj zato, ker – kot izhaja iz listin, predloženih Sodi�ču, in posredno iz utemeljitev poljske vlade 27 – Republika Poljska ni uporabila formalnega postopka, ki je izrecno določen v členu 27 Šeste direktive, in ker ni dobila dovoljenja iz člena 27(1). 28
In the light of the above considerations, it is for the national court to determine and verify — taking into account all the relevant circumstances of the case before it — whether the national measures in question are compatible with the principles of neutrality and proportionality, disapplying, if necessary, any contrary provision of domestic law. 26
Glede na zgoraj navedene ugotovitve mora nacionalno sodi�če ugotoviti in preveriti – ob upo�tevanju vseh relevantnih okoli�čin v zadevi, ki mu je predložena –, ali so zadevni nacionalni ukrepi združljivi z načeli davčne nevtralnosti in sorazmernosti, s tem da po potrebi ne uporabi nasprotujoče določbe nacionalnega prava. 26
27 — Where it maintains that the measures at issue cannot be considered ‘special measures’ within the meaning of Article 27(1) of the Sixth Directive, as the latter does not regulate questions regarding the periods and procedures applying to refunds of excess VAT.
27 – Ko meni, da spornih ukrepov ni mogoče �teti za „posebne ukrepe“ v smislu člena 27(1) Šeste direktive, ker ta člen ne ureja vpra�anj glede obdobij in postopkov, ki se uporabljajo za vračilo preveč plačanega DDV.
These are matters which lie within the discretion of the Member States.
To naj bi bile zadeve, ki spadajo pod pristojnost držav članic.
Cf. also Case 324/82 Commission v Belgium [1984] ECR 1861.
Glej tudi sodbo z dne 10. aprila 1984 v zadevi Komisija proti Belgiji (324/82, Recueil, str. 1861).
(1) Article 18(4) 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, precludes in principle national measures like those at issue in the main proceedings which are disproportionate and as such undermine the implementation of fundamental principles of the common system of VAT, in particular the right to deduction.
(1) Člen 18(4) 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 načeloma prepoveduje nacionalne ukrepe, kot so sporni ukrepi v postopku v glavni stvari, ki so nesorazmerni in kot taki ovirajo izvajanje temeljnih načel skupnega sistema DDV, zlasti pravice do odbitka.
(2) The rules laid down in national measures like those at issue in the main proceedings cannot be considered to constitute special measures to prevent certain types of tax evasion and avoidance within the meaning of Article 27(1) of Directive 77/388 where the formal procedure which is expressly provided for in Article 27 of Directive 77/388 has not been followed.
(2) Nacionalnih ukrepov, kot so sporni ukrepi v postopku v glavni stvari, ni mogoče �teti za posebne ukrepe za preprečevanje določenih oblik davčnih utaj in izogibanja davkom v smislu člena 27(1) Direktive 77/388/EGS, ko formalni postopek, ki je izrecno določen v členu 27 Direktive 77/388/EGS, ni bil uporabljen.
2008 — CASE C-25/07
2008 – ZADEVA C-25/07
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber)
SODBA SODIŠČA (prvi senat) z dne 10. julija 2008 *
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC by the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland), made by decision of 11 December 2006, received at the Court on 25 January 2007, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-25/07, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poljska) z odločbo z dne 11. decembra 2006, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 25. januarja 2007, v postopku
Advocate General: J. Mazák, Registrar: B. Fülöp, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 22 November 2007, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Fülöp, administrator, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 22. novembra 2007, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
2008 — CASE C-25/07 gives the following
2008 – ZADEVA C-25/07 izreka naslednjo
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns, first, the interpretation of the third paragraph of Article 5 EC, read in conjunction with Article 2 of First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago člena 5, tretji odstavek, ES v povezavi s členom 2 Prve direktive Sveta z dne 11. aprila 1967 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih (UL 71, str.
1), as amended by the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p.
1301), kot je bila spremenjena s Šesto direktivo Sveta 77/388/EGS z dne 17. maja 1977 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih – Skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost: enotna osnova za odmero (UL L 145, str.
1) (‘the First VAT Directive’) and Article 18(4) of the Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Council Directive 2005/92/EC of 12 December 2005 (OJ 2005 L 345, p.
1, v nadaljevanju: Prva direktiva o DDV), in s členom 18(4) Šeste direktive 77/388, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo Sveta 2005/92/ES z dne 12. decembra 2005 (UL L 345, str.
19) (‘the Sixth VAT Directive’).
19, v nadaljevanju: Šesta direktiva o DDV).
Secondly, the reference relates to the interpretation of Article 27(1) of the Sixth VAT Directive.
Ta predlog se nana�a tudi na razlago člena 27(1) Šeste direktive o DDV.
The reference has been made in the context of proceedings brought by Ms Sosnowska (‘the applicant’) against the Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej we Wrocławiu Ośrodek Zamiejscowy w Wałbrzychu (Director of the Tax Chamber of Wrocław, the ‘Dyrektor’) relating to an application for repayment of excess value added tax (‘VAT’) paid by the applicant.
Ta predlog je bil predložen v sporu med A. Sosnowsko (v nadaljevanju: tožeča stranka) in Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej we Wrocławiu Ośrodek Zamiejscowy w Wałbrzychu (direktor davčnega urada v Wrocławu, v nadaljevanju: direktor davčnega urada) zaradi zahteve za vračilo preveč plačanega davka na dodano vrednost (v nadaljevanju: DDV), ki ga je plačala tožeča stranka.
Article 2 of the First VAT Directive provides:
Člen 2 Prve direktive o DDV določa:
The common system of value added tax shall be applied up to and including the retail trade stage.’
Skupen sistem davka na dodano vrednost se uporablja do vključno faze prodaje na drobno.“
The first paragraph of Article 18(2) of the Sixth VAT Directive states:
Člen 18(2), prvi pododstavek, Šeste direktive o DDV določa:
‘The taxable person shall effect the deduction by subtracting from the total amount of value added tax due for a given tax period the total amount of the tax in respect of
„Davčni zavezanec opravi odbitek tako, da od skupnega zneska davka na dodano vrednost, dolgovanega za dano davčno obdobje, od�teje skupni znesek davka, za
2008 — CASE C-25/07 which, during the same period, the right to deduct has arisen and can be exercised under the provisions of paragraph 1.’
2008 – ZADEVA C-25/07 katerega je v istem obdobju nastala pravica do odbitka, ki se lahko uveljavlja v skladu z določbami odstavka 1.
The first paragraph of Article 18(4) of the Sixth VAT Directive provides:
Člen 18(4), prvi pododstavek, Šeste direktive o DDV določa:
‘Where for a given tax period the amount of authorised deductions exceeds the amount of tax due, the Member States may either make a refund or carry the excess forward to the following period according to conditions which they shall determine.’
„Če za dano davčno obdobje znesek dovoljenih odbitkov presega znesek dolgovanega davka, lahko države članice vrnejo davek ali pa presežek prenesejo v naslednje obdobje v skladu s pogoji, ki jih določijo.“
Under Article 27(1) of the Sixth VAT Directive:
Člen 27(1) Šeste direktive o DDV določa:
‘The Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, may authorise any Member State to introduce special measures for derogation from the provisions of this Directive, in order to simplify the procedure for charging the tax or to prevent certain types of tax evasion or avoidance.
„Na predlog Komisije lahko Svet soglasno dovoli katerikoli državi članici, da uvede posebne ukrepe, ki odstopajo od določb te direktive, za poenostavitev postopka obračunavanja davka ali za preprečevanje nekaterih vrst davčnih utaj ali izogibanja davkom.
Measures intended to simplify the procedure for charging the tax, except to a negligible extent, may not affect the amount of tax due at the final consumption stage.’
Ukrepi za poenostavitev postopka obračunavanja davka ne smejo, razen v zanemarljivi meri, vplivati na skupni znesek davčnih prihodkov države članice v fazi končne potro�nje.“
U of 2004, No 54, heading 535, ‘the Law on VAT’) provide:
54, poglavje 535, v nadaljevanju: zakon o DDV) določa: