natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Finally, it rules out any reimbursement of sums already paid, which are to be considered advances on tax due.
Končno onemogoča kakr�nokoli vrnitev že plačanih vsot, ki jih je treba �teti za predplačilo dolgovanega davka.
The Commission asks the Court to declare that, by explicitly providing in Ar -ticles 8 and 9 of Law No 289 of 27 December 2002 (Finance Law for 2003) for a general waiver of verification operations on taxable transactions effected in the course of a series of tax years, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 22 of the Sixth Directive in conjunction with Article 10 of the EC Treaty.
Komisija predlaga Sodi�ču, naj ugotovi, da Italijanska republika s tem, da je v členih 8 in 9 zakona �t. 289 z dne 27. decembra 2002 (zakon o financah za leto 2003) izrecno sprejela splo�no opustitev preverjanja obdavčljivih transakcij, ki so bile opravljene v zaporednih davčnih letih, ni izpolnila svojih obveznosti iz členov 2 in 22 Šeste direktive v povezavi s členom 10 Pogodbe ES.
It also asks for an order that Italy pay the costs of the proceedings.
Predlaga tudi, naj se Italiji naloži plačilo stro�kov postopka.
Italy contends that the application should be dismissed and the Commission ordered to pay the costs.
Italija predlaga, naj se tožba zavrne in Komisiji naloži plačilo stro�kov.
There are a number of interlinked issues disputed between the parties in this case, which I propose to deal with under the following headings: (i) the nature and extent of the obligations imposed on the Member States by Articles 2 and 22 of the Sixth Directive, with particular regard to the supervision and enforcement of compliance by taxable persons; (ii) the practical effect of the disputed amnesty provisions, viewed in the light of those obligations; (iii) the significance in that regard of the various limitations on the amnesty provisions; and (iv) the relative effectiveness of the amnesty provisions, in particular in terms of use of resources compared with amounts recovered, the latitude available to the Member States in the administration of VAT, and the extent to which the amnesty provisions fall within that latitude.
Obstajajo �tevilna prepletena vpra�anja, ki so sporna med strankama v tej zadevi, za katera predlagam, da se obravnavajo pod naslednjimi naslovi: (i) narava in obseg obveznosti, ki jih državam članicam nalagata člena 2 in 22 Šeste direktive, s posebnim poudarkom na nadzoru in uveljavljanju izpolnjevanja obveznosti davčnih zavezancev; (ii) praktični učinek spornih določb o amnestiji, obravnavan v luči teh obveznosti; (iii) v tem pogledu pomen različnih omejitev določb o amnestiji; in (iv) relativna učinkovitost določb o amnestiji, predvsem glede na količino sredstev, ki so bila porabljena v primerjavi s pobranimi zneski, svobodo, ki jo imajo države članice pri upravljanju DDV in glede na to, v kak�nem obsegu določbe o amnestiji spadajo v to pravico.
Italy submits that the Commission introduced a new complaint in the reasoned opinion, relating to breach of the principle of VAT neutrality and distortion of competition as a result of the contested provisions.
Italija navaja, da je Komisija v obrazloženem mnenju navedla nov očitek, ki se nana�a na to, da se zaradi spornih določb kr�i načelo nevtralnosti DDV in izkrivlja konkurenca.
The Commission replies that it was merely recalling, in response to Italy’s arguments, the Court’s caselaw on the matter, which is relevant when assessing an alleged infringement of Articles 2 and 22 of the Sixth Directive.
Komisija odgovarja, da je v odgovor na italijanske argumente zgolj spomnila na sodno prakso Sodi�ča na tem področju, ki je upo�tevna pri presoji domnevnih kr�itev člena 2 in 22 Šeste direktive.
Although it would be possible — and interesting — to explore a number of other more general issues relating to the legality and/or desirability of VAT amnesties, some of which have been touched upon in the course of the proceedings, I do not feel that it would be helpful for the Court to address those general issues in any great detail in order to decide whether the particular provisions to which the Commission objects are in compliance with the Sixth Directive.
Čeprav bi bilo možno – in zanimivo – raziskati �tevilna druga splo�nej�a vpra�anja, ki se nana�ajo na zakonitost in/ali zaželenost amnestij DDV, izmed katerih se jih je nekaj obravnavalo med tem postopkom, menim, da ni potrebno, da Sodi�če podrobno obravnava ta splo�na vpra�anja, da bi lahko odločilo, ali so nekatere določbe, ki jim Komisija oporeka, združljive s Šesto direktivo.
I shall confine my analysis therefore essentially to those aspects which are relevant to the dec -laration sought, referring to the broader issues only as background considerations.
Svojo analizo bom tako omejila v bistvu na tiste vidike, ki so upo�tevni za tožbene predloge, in se sklicevala na splo�nej�a vpra�anja le za pojasnitev ozadja.
Obligations imposed by the Sixth Directive
Obveznosti, ki jih nalaga Šesta direktiva
The Court has moreover held that the Sixth Directive must be interpreted in compliance with the principle of fiscal neutrality inherent in the common system of VAT, 17in accordance with which economic operators carrying out the same transactions may not be treated differently in relation to the levying of VAT. 18
Sodi�če je nadalje ugotovilo, da je treba Šesto direktivo razlagati v skladu z načelom davčne nevtralnosti, ki je lastno skupnemu sistemu DDV, 17 v skladu s katerim se gospo- darski subjekti, ki opravljajo enake transakcije, ne smejo obravnavati drugače pri odmeri DDV. 18
I agree with the Commission’s presentation of the obligations imposed by the Sixth Directive both on individual taxable persons and on the Member States.
Strinjam se s predstavitvijo Komisije glede obveznosti, ki jih nalaga Šesta direktiva tako posameznim davčnim zavezancem kot državam članicam.
Indeed, Italy appears also to accept the essentials of that presentation, although it maintains that the details of enforcement and collection are matters for the Member States.
Dejansko se zdi, da tudi Italija sprejema bistvo te predstavitve, čeprav �e vedno trdi, da podrobnosti glede izterjave in pobiranja spadajo v pristojnost držav članic.
The Commission’s position may be summarised and restated as follows.
Stali�če Komisije je povzeto in ponovljeno v nadaljevanju.
The specific obligations imposed by Article 22 of the Sixth Directive are designed to ensure that national authorities have at their disposal all necessary information to ensure that VAT is levied and collected under the supervision of the tax authorities.
Določene obveznosti, ki jih nalaga člen 22 Šeste direktive, so sprejete zato, da zagotovijo, da imajo nacionalni organi oblasti na razpolago vse potrebne informacije, ki zagotavljajo, da je DDV odmerjen in pobran pod nadzorom davčnih organov.
19Those obligations are the corollary of the requirement in Article 2 that (in the absence of a specific exemption) all transactions within its scope must be taxed.
19 Te obveznosti so dodatek k zahtevi iz člena 2, da morajo biti vse transakcije (razen posebnih oprostitev), ki spadajo v njegov obseg, obdavčene.
That requirement is a general rule from which no Member State may derogate unilaterally.
Ta zahteva je splo�no pravilo, od katerega nobena država ne sme enostransko odstopiti.
20Although under Article 27 of the Sixth Direct ive 21a Member State may seek authorisation from the Council to derogate from the provisions of the directive ‘in order to simplify the procedure for charging the tax or to prevent certain types of tax evasion or avoidance’, any such simplification is subject to the proviso that it ‘may not affect the overall amount of the tax revenue of the Member State’ (and it is common ground that, in any event, Italy did not seek authorisation in the present instance).
20Čeprav lahko v skladu s členom 27 Šeste direktive 21 država članica prosi Svet za dovoljenje odstopiti od teh določb „za poenostavitev postopka za obračunavanje davka ali za preprečevanje določenih vrst davčnih utaj ali izogibanja davkom“, je vsaka taka poenostavitev pogojena s tem, da ne sme „vplivati na skupni znesek davčnih prihodkov države članice“ (ne glede na vse je nesporno, da Italija ni prosila za dovoljenje v tem primeru).
From the preamble to the Sixth Direct- ive it is clear that the Communities’ own resources ‘include those accruing from VAT and obtained by applying a common rate of tax on a basis of assessment determined in a uniform manner according to Community rules’; 14that ‘it should be ensured that the common system of turnover taxes is nondiscriminatory as regards the origin of goods and services, so that a common market permitting fair competition and resembling a real internal market may ultimately be achieved’; 15and that ‘the obligations of taxpayers must be harmonised as far as possible so as to ensure the necessary safeguards for the collection of taxes in a uniform manner in all the Member States’. 16
Iz uvodne izjave Šeste direktive jasno sledi, da naj bi sredstva Skupnosti „vključevala tudi sredstva iz davka na dodano vrednost, dobljena z uporabo skupne davčne stopnje od osnove za odmero, ki se enotno določi v skladu s pravili Skupnosti“; 14 da „je treba zagotoviti, da skupni sistem prometnih davkov ni diskriminatoren glede porekla blaga in storitev, da bo mogoče vzpostaviti skupni trg, ki bo omogočal lojalno konkurenco in odražal dejanski notranji trg“; 15in da je „treba obveznosti davkoplačevalcev čim bolj uskladiti, da se zagotovijo potrebne varovalke za pobiranje davkov na enoten način v vseh državah članicah“. 16
17 — See, for example, Case C-280/04 Jyske Finans [2005] ECR I-10683, paragraph 36.
18 – Sodba z dne 16. septembra 2004 v zadevi Cimber Air, C-382/02, ZOdl., str. I-8379, točka 24.
18 — Case C-382/02 Cimber Air [2004] ECR I-8379, paragraph 24.
19 – Glej na primer sodbi z dne 5. decembra 1996 v zadevi Reisdorf, C-85/95, Recueil, str. I-6257, točka 24, in z dne 17. septembra 1997 v zadevi Langhorst, C-141/96, Recueil, str. I-5073, točki 17 in 28.
14 — Second recital; Directive 2006/112.
15 – Četrta uvodna izjava; ni v preambuli Direktive 2006/112.
20 — See, for example, Case 203/87 Commission v Italy [1989] ECR 371, paragraph 10.
20 – Glej na primer sodbo z dne 21. februarja 1989 v zadevi Komisija proti Italiji, 203/87, Recueil, str. 371, točka 10.
15 — Fourth recital; not in the preamble to Directive 2006/112.16 — 14th recital; recital 45 in the preamble to Directive 2006/112.
16 – Štirinajsta uvodna izjava; petin�tirideseta uvodna izjava v preambuli Direktive 2006/112.
21 — Article 395 of Directive 2006/112.
21 – Člen 395 Direktive 2006/112.
— there are no significant variations in the treatment of taxable persons either within a single Member State or between Member States.
– ni pomembnega odstopanja pri obravnavanju davčnih zavezancev znotraj same države članice ali med državami članicami.
Each Member State is thus under an obligation to take all legislative and administrative steps to ensure that VAT is collected in full in its territory in the same way as in other Member States.
Vsaka država članica ima tako obveznost sprejeti vse potrebne zakonske in upravne ukrepe, s katerimi zagotovi, da je DDV v celoti pobran na njenem ozemlju na isti način kot v drugih državah članicah.
Although the obligation is not explicitly set out in the Sixth Directive, it is a necessary inference from the whole of that measure, from Article 10 EC and from the Court’s caselaw.
Čeprav ta obveznost ni izrecno navedena v Šesti direktivi, je nujna posledica, ki izhaja iz tega celotnega ukrepa, iz člena 10 ES in iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča.
22 And, whilst harmon -isation is not total and certain administrative aspects are of necessity left to the competence of the Member States, the obligations under Article 22 of the Sixth Directive do imply detailed harmonisation at the legislative level.
22In čeprav usklajevanje ni popolno in so nekateri upravni vidiki zaradi potrebe prepu�čeni pristojnosti držav članic, obveznosti iz člena 22 Šeste direktive predvidevajo podrobno usklajevanje na zakonodajni ravni.
Italy does not deny that Member States are required to oversee and verify, to the extent of their available resources, compliance with the VAT rules by taxable persons.
Italija ne oporeka, da morajo države članice nadzorovati in preverjati, kolikor to dopu�čajo njihova sredstva, spo�tovanje predpisov o DDV s strani davčnih zavezancev.
It denies however that the disputed provisions overstep the bounds of the legitimate latitude accorded to them in the exercise of those functions.
Vendar zanika, da bi sporne določbe prekoračile meje legitimne svobode, ki jim je podeljena pri izvr�evanju teh nalog.
Consequently, it is necessary first to examine the practical effects of those provisions.
Posledično je najprej treba preučiti praktične učinke teh določb.
Pursuant to that harmonisation, Member States are responsible for verifying tax returns, accounts and other relevant documents, and for calculating and collecting the tax due.
Glede na to usklajevanje so države članice zavezane, da preverijo davčne obračune, račune in druge upo�tevne dokumente, ter da odmerijo in poberejo dolgovani davek.
They have a certain latitude as to how most effectively and most equitably to deploy the resources at their disposal when applying the tax, at least on a case-by-case basis, but that latitude is limited in any event by the need to ensure that
Države članice imajo določeno svobodo pri tem, kako najbolj učinkovito in pravično uporabiti sredstva, ki jih imajo na razpolago, ko uporabijo davek, vsaj od primera do primera, vendar je ta svoboda v vsakem primeru omejena s potrebo zagotoviti, da
Effects of the disputed provisions
Učinki spornih določb
— the Community’s own resources are collected efficiently, and
– so lastna sredstva Skupnosti pobrana učinkovito, in
22 — Both Italy and the Commission have cited Case C-128/05 Commission v Austria [2006] ECR I-9265, in which the Court found that Austria was in breach of its obligations by excluding certain international transport operators entirely from VAT obligations.
22 – Komisija in Italija sta navedli sodbo z dne 28. septembra 2006 v zadevi Komisija proti Avstriji (C-128/05, ZOdl., str. I-9265), v kateri je Sodi�če ugotovilo, da Avstrija ni izpolnila svojih obveznosti, s tem da je nekatere mednarodne prevoznike popolnoma oprostila obveznosti DDV.
See also Case C-228/05 Stradasfalti [2006] ECR I-8391, especially at paragraph 66; in that case, the Court stressed that Italy could not unilaterally impose on taxable persons a derogation from the right to deduct.
Glej tudi sodbo z dne 14. septembra 2006 v zadevi Stradasfalti (C-228/05, ZOdl., str. I-8391, zlasti točka 66); v tej zadevi je Sodi�če poudarilo, da Italija ne more enostransko naložiti davčnemu zavezancu odstopanja od pravice do odbitka.
The Commission submits that the contested provisions replace the normal legal relationships surrounding VAT liability with new relationships which definitively extinguish that liability, substituting for it a different obligation to pay amounts quite unrelated to those which should have been assessed and accounted for under the normal VAT rules.
Komisija navaja, da sporne določbe nadomestijo običajna pravna razmerja glede dolžnosti plačevanja DDV z novimi razmerji, ki dokončno izničijo to dolžnost in na njeno mesto stopi druga obveznost plačila zneskov, ki so precej nepovezani s tistimi, ki bi morali biti odmerjeni in obračunani v skladu z običajnimi predpisi o DDV.
It describes the amnesty as a ‘general, indiscriminate and prior’ renunciation of the right of verification and reassessment, whereas under the directive any
Amnestijo opisuje kot „splo�no, nediskriminatorno in predhodno“ odpoved pravici preverjanja in ponovne ocenitve, medtem ko bi se moralo v skladu z Direktivo o kakr�nihkoli dogovorih z davčnimi zavezanci o
COMMISSION v ITALY amnesty arrangement with taxable persons should be decided on a case-by-case basis.
KOMISIJA PROTI ITALIJI amnestiji odločati v vsakem primeru posebej.
Furthermore, there is serious disruption of the principle of VAT neutrality and of equality of treatment as between taxable persons.
Poleg tega je to resna kr�itev načela nevtralnosti DDV in enakega obravnavanja davčnih zavezancev.
VAT due on the additional amount (subject to a minimum of EUR 300) and (b) he gains immunity from any further reassessment of his output tax for that year, up to a limit of twice the amount of the additional VAT now paid.
obračunana, potem (a) mora plačati znesek, ki ustreza DDV, ki se dolguje na dodatni znesek (pod pogojem minimuma EUR 300), in (b) pridobi imuniteto pred kakr�nokoli nadaljnjo ponovno odmero njegovega izstopnega davka za to leto, do zneska, ki je enak dvojnemu znesku tedaj plačanega dodatnega DDV.
It has to be acknowledged that the provisions are complex, and the parties have in the course of the proceedings disagreed over their practical effects.
Res je, da so določbe zapletene in da se stranki med postopkom nista strinjali glede njihovih praktičnih učinkov.
However, in the light of their answers to requests from the Court for more precise information, I believe those effects may be summarised as follows.
Vendar menim, da lahko v luči odgovorov, ki sta jih posredovali na pro�njo Sodi�ča za podrobnej�e informacije, te učinke povzamemo na naslednji način.
The Article 9 procedure leads to different results depending on whether a return had originally been filed or not, and on the amount of input VAT deducted.
Postopek iz člena 9 vodi do drugačnih rezultatov, glede na to, ali je bil prvotni obračun predložen ali ne in glede na znesek odbitega vstopnega DDV.
However, a payment must be made in respect of each of the years concerned (whether a return was filed for that year or not, and whether any such return was accurate or not), and no further deductions are possible.
Vendar se mora plačilo opraviti za vsako zadevno leto (ne glede na to, ali je bil obračun za to leto predložen ali ne, in ne glede na to, ali je bil tak obračun pravilen ali ne) in ni mogoče opraviti nikakr�nih nadaljnjih odbitkov.
For years in respect of which a return was filed, the payment is equal to between 1 and 2% of the input VAT initially deducted plus between 1 and 2% of output VAT initially declared for the year, 23 subject to a minimum of EUR 500, 600 or 700, depending on the amount of turnover concerned.
Za leta, glede katerih je bil obračun predložen, zna�a plačilo med 1 in 2 % vstopnega DDV, ki je bil prvotno odbit, plus od 1 do 2 % izstopnega davka, prvotno obračunanega za to leto, 23pod pogojem minimuma 500, 600 oziroma 700 EUR, odvisno od zneska zadevnega dobička.
For each year in respect of which no returns were originally filed, a flatrate sum of EUR 1 500 for individuals, and EUR 3 000 for companies, is payable, regardless of the actual amount of underdeclaration or non-declaration.
Za vsako leto, ko se sploh ni predložilo obračunov, se plača pav�alno plačilo v vi�ini 1500 EUR za posameznike in 3000 EUR za družbe, ne glede na dejanski znesek nižjega obračuna ali neobračuna.
If a taxable person has filed no VAT returns at all for any of the tax years in question, he cannot benefit from the amnesty under Articles 8(4) or 9.
Če davčni zavezanec sploh ni predložil obračuna DDV za katerokoli od zadevnih davčnih let, ne more biti upravičen do amnestije iz člena 8(4) ali 9.
However, he may benefit from the amnesty provisions in either Article 8 or Article 9 if he has (a) filed (complete or incomplete) returns for any of the tax years in question but none for other years, or (b) filed returns for all of the tax years in question, but some or all of those returns are incomplete or inaccurate.
Vendar lahko uveljavlja določbe o amnestiji bodisi iz člena 8 bodisi iz člena 9, če je (a) predložil (popolne ali nepopolne) obračune za katerokoli od zadevnih davčnih let, vendar jih ni predložil za ostala leta, ali (b) predložil obračune za vsa zadevna leta, vendar so nekateri ali vsi ti obračuni nepopolni ali netočni.
On that basis, a taxable person using the procedure under Article 8 will pay an
Na podlagi tega davčni zavezanec, ki uporabi postopek iz člena 8, plača znesek,
23 — The percentage falls even lower for amounts payable in excess of EUR 11 600 000, which are reduced by 80% — thus to 0.2% of the input and/or output tax initially declared.
23 – Ta odstotek je celo manj�i za zneske, ki se plačajo preko EUR 11.600.000, ki so zmanj�ani za 80 % in s tem do 0,2 % prvotno obračunanega vstopnega in/ali izstopnega davka.
When, in respect of a particular tax year, a taxable person files a supplementary return under the Article 8 procedure, showing a greater amount of taxable added value (difference between taxed inputs and taxable outputs) than that originally declared, then (a) he must pay an amount equal to the
Ko davčni zavezanec za določeno davčno leto predloži dodatni obračun v skladu s postopkom iz člena 8, ki izkaže večji znesek obdavčljive dodane vrednosti (razlika med obdavčljivimi vstopnimi zneski in obdavčljivimi izstopnimi zneski), kot je bila prvotno
Where it has been more extensive (and thus perhaps more likely to be due to intentional fraud), the Article 9 proced- ure will provide immunity in exchange for payment of an amount equivalent to a smaller (and in extreme cases, vanishingly small 24) proportion of the tax due but not accounted for.
Kjer je bila �ir�a (in tako bolj verjetno posledica namerne goljufije), postopek iz člena 9 omogoči imuniteto v zameno za plačilo zneska, ki bo predstavljal nižji (ali v ekstremnih primerih zanemarljivo majhen 24) delež dolgovanega davka, ki ni bil obračunan.
amount equal to the full VAT due on his previously undeclared, but now declared, added value — but only in respect of years for which he has not submitted a full, accur- ate return.
ki je enak celotnemu DDV, ki ga dolguje na njegovo prej neobračunano, a sedaj obračunano, dodano vrednost – vendar le za leta, za katera ni predložil popolnega in pravilnega obračuna.
However, he is thereby protected from any further reassessment in respect of amounts due up to double that amount.
Vendar je s tem za�čiten pred kakr�nokoli nadaljnjo ponovno odmero glede dolgovanih zneskov do dvakratne vi�ine tega zneska.
It therefore seems unlikely, in practice, that he will declare more than half of his previously undeclared added value.
Tako se v praksi ne zdi verjetno, da bo obračunal več kot polovico svoje prej neobračunane dodane vrednosti.
The tax authorities will then recover up to half the tax actually due while renouncing any possibility of recovering the other half.
Davčni organi bodo potem izterjali največ polovico dejansko dolgovanega zneska in se odpovedali vsakr�ni možnosti, da bi izterjali drugo polovico.
A taxable person using the Article 9 procedure must make a payment in respect of each year during the period concerned, whether an accurate return was originally made for that year or not.
Davčni zavezanec, ki uporabi postopek iz člena 9, mora opraviti plačilo za vsako leto med zadevnim obdobjem, ne glede na to, ali je prvotno predložil pravilen obračun ali ne.
If a return (accur ate or inaccurate) was made, then the payment is a small proportion (up to 2%) of the amount of input and output tax initially declared; if no return was made, it is a flatrate sum of EUR 1 500 or EUR 3 000, regardless of the amount of VAT left undeclared.
Če je bil obračun (točen ali netočen) opravljen, potem je plačilo majhen delež (do 2 %) prvotno obračunanega zneska vstopnega in izstopnega davka; če obračun ni bil predložen, je treba plačati pav�alni znesek v vi�ini 1500 ali 3000 EUR, ne glede na znesek DDV, ki �e ni bil obračunan.
In either case, the taxable person gains immunity from further reassessment.
V vsakem primeru davčni zavezanec pridobi imuniteto pred nadaljnjo ponovno odmero.