natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The United Kingdom Government, Ireland and the Cypriot Government maintain that the sums in question in the main proceedings were not levied in breach of any directly effective or right-conferring provision of Community law.
Vlade Združenega kraljestva, Irske in Cipra navajajo, da s plačilom zadevnih zneskov v postopku v glavni stvari ni bila kr�ena nobena določba prava Skupnosti, ki ima neposredni učinek ali ki podeljuje pravico.
The question is strictly one of national law and there is therefore no need whatsoever to apply the general principles of Community law.
Šlo naj bi za strogo vpra�anje nacionalnega prava, nikakor pa naj ne bi �lo za uporabo splo�nih načel prava Skupnosti.
Ireland adds that if, in the present case, the principle of fiscal neutrality were to apply in order to provide a basis for a right to repayment, the final consumer, who has borne the burden of the VAT, should benefit from this.
Irska dodaja, da če bi se v tem primeru uporabilo načelo davčne nevtralnosti, kot podlaga za pravico do vračila, bi bilo prav, da bi bil do nje upravičen končni uporabnik, ki je plačal DDV.
The Commission submits that, in applying VAT, the competent national authorities must comply with the essential principles which underlie the common system of VAT, in particular the principle of neutrality.
Komisija opozarja, da morajo pristojni nacionalni organi pri uporabi DDV upo�tevati bistvena načela, ki podpirajo skupni sistem DDV, med drugim načelo nevtralnosti.
They are under this obligation when making refunds of overpaid tax.
Ta obveznost naj bi zanje veljala pri vračilu preveč plačanega davka.
However, the Commission does not reply directly to the second question.
Vendar se Komisija neposredno ne izreče o drugem vpra�anju.
The second question asks, in essence, whether a trader has a right, under the general principles of Community law, including the principle of fiscal neutrality, to claim a refund of the VAT which was wrongly levied, when the rate which should have been applied stems from national law.
Drugo vpra�anje se načeloma nana�a na to, ali gospodarski udeleženec na podlagi splo�nih načel Skupnosti, med drugim na podlagi načela davčne nevtralnosti, lahko zahteva vračilo preveč plačanega DDV, če je davčna stopnja, ki bi se morala zanj uporabiti, določena z nacionalnim pravom.
It must be noted at the outset that the actual wording of Article 28(2)(a) of the Sixth Directive, in the version resulting from Directive 92/77, states that the national legislation which may be maintained must be ‘in accordance with Community law’ and satisfy the conditions stated in the last indent of Article 17 of Directive 67/228.
Najprej je treba poudariti, da sami izrazi iz člena 28(2)(a) Šeste direktive, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 92/77, določajo, da morajo biti nacionalne zakonodaje, ki lahko �e naprej uporabljajo oprostitve, „v skladu s pravom Skupnosti“ in morajo izpolnjevati pogoje iz člena 17, zadnja alinea, Direktive 67/228.
Although the addition relating to being ‘in accordance with Community law’ was made only in 1992, such a requirement, which forms an integral part of the proper functioning and the uniform interpretation of the common system of VAT, applies to the whole of the period of erroneous taxation at issue in the main proceedings.
Čeprav je bilo besedilo „v skladu s pravom Skupnosti“ dodano �ele leta 1992, ta zahteva, ki je povezana s pravilnim delovanjem in enotno razlago skupnega sistema DDV, velja za celotno obdobje napačnega obdavčevanja v postopku v glavni stvari.
As the Court has had occasion to point out, the maintenance of exemptions or of reduced rates of VAT lower than the minimum rate laid down by the Sixth Directive is permissible only in so far as it complies with, inter alia, the principle of fiscal
Kot je imelo Sodi�če že možnost opozoriti, je nadaljevanje uporabe oprostitev ali nižjih stopenj DDV, ki so nižje od najnižje stopnje, predvidene s Šesto direktivo, mogoče le, če je v skladu
MARKS & SPENCER neutrality inherent in that system (see, to that effect, Case C-216/97 Gregg [1999] ECR I-4947, paragraph 19, and Case C-481/98 Commission v France [2001] ECR I-3369, paragraph 21). 34
MARKS & SPENCER z načelom davčne nevtralnosti, ki je del tega sistema (v tem smislu glej sodbi z dne 7. septembra 1999 v zadevi Gregg, C-216/97, Recueil, str. I-4947, točka 19, ter z dne 3. maja 2001 v zadevi Komisija proti Franciji, C-481/98, Recueil, str. I-3369, točka 21). 34
It thus follows that the principles governing the common system of VAT, including that of fiscal neutrality, apply even to the circumstances provided for in Article 28(2) of the Sixth Directive and may, if necessary, be relied on by a taxable person against a national provision, or the application thereof, which fails to have regard to those principles.
Torej se lahko načela, ki urejajo skupni sistem o DDV, med katerimi je tudi načelo davčne nevtralnosti, uporabljajo tudi v primeru, določenem v členu 28(2) Šeste direktive, in se lahko posameznik v skrajnem primeru nanje sklicuje zoper nacionalno določbo ali pri uporabi te določbe, ki teh načel ne upo�teva.
As regards, more specifically, the right to a refund, as is apparent from the settled caselaw of the Court, the right to obtain a refund of charges levied in a Member State in breach of rules of Community law is the consequence and the complement of the rights conferred directly on individuals by Community law (see in particular, to that effect, Marks & Spencer, paragraph 30 and the caselaw cited). That principle also applies to charges levied in breach of national legislation permitted under Article 28(2) of the Sixth Directive. 36
Natančneje je treba glede pravice do vračila opozoriti, da kot izhaja iz ustaljene sodne prakse Sodi�ča, je pravica do vračila davka, ki je bil v državi članici odmerjen s kr�itvijo pravil prava Skupnosti, posledica in dopolnitev pravic, ki jih posameznikom podeljujejo določbe Skupnosti (v tem smislu glej zlasti zgoraj navedeno sodbo Marks & Spencer, točka 30, in navedeno sodno prakso). To načelo se uporablja tudi za davke, ki so bili plačani s kr�itvijo nacionalne zakonodaje, ki jo dopu�ča člen 28(2) Šeste direktive. 36
The answer to the second question must therefore 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 supplies but has misinterpreted its national legislation, with the result that certain supplies which should have benefited from exemption with refund of input tax under its national legislation have been subject to tax at the standard rate, the general principles of Community law, including that of fiscal neutrality, apply so as to give a trader who has made such supplies a right to recover the sums mistakenly charged in respect of them.
Torej je treba na drugo vpra�anje odgovoriti, da če je država članica v skladu s členom 28(2) Šeste direktive (pred njeno spremembo z Direktivo 92/77in po njej) v nacionalnem pravu ohranila oprostitev z vračilom davka, plačanega v predhodni fazi, za določene dobave ali storitve, vendar je svojo nacionalno zakonodajo nepravilno razlagala, tako da je za določene dobave ali storitve, za katere bi morala veljati oprostitev z vračilom vstopnega davka, plačanega v predhodni fazi, v skladu z nacionalnim pravom obdavčila s splo�no davčno stopnjo, potem se splo�na načela prava Skupnosti, skupaj z načelom davčne nevtralnosti, uporabijo tako, da gospodarskemu udeležencu, ki je opravljal te dobave ali storitve, podeljujejo pravico do vračila nepravilno obračunanega davka za te storitve.
The third to fifth questions: possible restrictions on the right to repayment based on the principles of equal treatment and fiscal neutrality
Tretje, četrto in peto vprašanje, glede morebitnih omejitev pravice do vračila na podlagi načel enakega obravnavanja in davčne nevtralnosti
Marks & Spencer claims that application of the rule of unjust enrichment to ‘payment traders’ (taxable persons for whom, in a given prescribed accounting period, the output tax collected exceeds the input tax) and not to ‘repayment traders’ (taxable persons whose position is the inverse of that of payment traders) constitutes a breach of the principles of equal treatment and fiscal neutrality. However, it is not necessary to prove that the ‘payment trader’ has suffered any financial loss or disadvantage. Finally, it is for each Member State, with due regard to Community law, which neither prohibits the defence of unjust enrichment nor makes it obligatory, to decide how to remedy differences in treatment that are found to be incompatible with the abovementioned principles. 38
Družba Marks & Spencer meni, da uporaba pravila o neupravičeni obogatitvi za „payment traders“ (davčne zavezance, za katere v danem davčnem obdobju izstopni davek preseže vstopni davek) in ne za „repayment traders“ (davčni zavezanci, katerih položaj je obraten od prej�njega) pomeni kr�itev načel enakega obravnavanja in davčne nevtralnosti. Tako ni treba dokazati, da je „payment trader“ utrpel finančno izgubo ali bil postavljen v manj ugoden položaj. Nazadnje naj bi vsaka država članica ob spo�tovanju prava Skupnosti, ki niti ne nasprotuje ugovoru neupravičene obogatitve niti ga ne nalaga, sama določila, kako naj se razlike v obravnavanju, ki naj bi bile v nasprotju z zgoraj omenjenima načeloma, izravnajo. 38
The United Kingdom Government takes the view that the third to fifth questions referred should be answered in the negative.
Vlada Združenega kraljestva meni, da je treba na tretje, četrto in peto vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje odgovoriti nikalno.
Ireland and the Cypriot Government, in the light of the negative answer which ought, in their opinion, to be given to the first and second questions, consider that there is no need to answer the subsequent questions.
Irska in ciprska vlada, upo�tevajoč prej�nji nikalni odgovor in njuno stali�če glede prvega in drugega vpra�anja, menita, da na naslednja vpra�anja ni treba odgovoriti.
The Commission states that refusal to make repayment in reliance on the defence of unjust enrichment is permitted by Community law provided that it is shown that
Komisija navaja, da pravo Skupnosti dovoli, da se vračilo na podlagi neupravičene obogatitve zavrne, če se ta neupravičena obogatitev dokaže.
— Initial observations
– Uvodne ugotovitve
However, in order to comply with Community law, the principle prohibiting unjust enrichment must be implemented in accordance with principles such as that of equal treatment.
Vendar pa se mora to načelo prepovedi neupravičene obogatitve, zato da je v skladu s pravom Skupnosti, izvajati tako, da se upo�tevajo načela, kot je načelo enakega obravnavanja.
Furthermore, it is important to bear in mind that, where a charge has been wrongly levied under Community law and it is established that only part of the charge has been passed on, the national authorities must repay the amount not passed on (Joined Cases C-192/95 to C-218/95 Comateb and Others [1997] ECR I-165, paragraphs 27 and 28).
Dalje je treba opomniti, da morajo nacionalni organi, če je bil glede na pravo Skupnosti davek nepravilno obračunan, kadar ugotovijo, da je bil le en del davka prevaljen, vrniti le znesek, ki ni bil prevaljen (sodba z dne 14. januarja 1997 v zdruŽenih zadevah Comateb in drugi, od C-192/95 do C-218/95, Recueil, str. I-165, točki 27 in 28).
However, even where the charge is wholly incorporated in the price, the taxable person may suffer as a result of a fall in the volume of his sales (see, to that effect, Comateb and Others, paragraphs 29 and 30, and Michaïlidis, paragraphs 34 and 35).
Vendar pa je treba pojasniti, da čeprav naj bi bil davek v celoti vključen v ceno, bi lahko davčni zavezanec utrpel �kodo zaradi zmanj�anja količine prodaje (v tem smislu glej zgoraj navedeni sodbi Comateb in drugi, točki 29 in 30, in Michaïlidis, točki 34 in 35).
Accordingly, the existence and the degree of unjust enrichment which repayment of a charge which was levied though not due from the aspect of Community law entails for a taxable person can be established only following an economic analysis in which all the relevant circumstances are taken into account (see, inter alia, Case C-147/01 Weber’s Wine World and Others [2003] ECR I-11365, paragraphs 94 to 100).
Zato je mogoče obstoj in stopnjo neupravičene obogatitve, do katere naj bi privedlo vračilo nepravilno obračunanega davka davčnemu zavezancu glede na pravo Skupnosti, določiti �ele po opravljeni ekonomski analizi, kjer se upo�tevajo vse pomembne okoli�čine (glej zlasti sodbo z dne 2. oktobra 2003 v zadevi Weber’s Wine World in drugi, C-147/01, Recueil, str. I-11365, točke od 94 do 100).
It will thus be for the national court to determine whether the appraisal made by the Commissioners corresponds to the analysis described in the preceding paragraph of this judgment.
Torej mora nacionalno sodi�če preveriti, ali presoja, ki so jo izvedli Commissioners, ustreza analizi, opisani v prej�nji točki te sodbe.
The Court is, in essence, being asked whether the Community-law principles of fiscal neutrality and equal treatment would be infringed if a trader is not repaid the amount of VAT wrongly levied by the tax authorities on the ground that such a refund would result in his unjust enrichment, where that ground of refusal to make repayment is not, however, envisaged by the national legislation when the trader is, before repayment, in the position of creditor vis-à-vis the tax authorities.
Sodi�ču se zastavi tudi vpra�anje, ali se skupnostni načeli davčne nevtralnosti in enakega obravnavanja ne bi upo�tevali, če gospodarski udeleženec ne bi dobil nazaj zneska DDV, ki so ga davčni organi nepravilno obračunali, ker naj bi to vračilo povzročilo neupravičeno obogatitev, saj podlaga za zavrnitev vračila ni bila določena z nacionalnim pravom, če je imel gospodarski udeleženec pred vračilom terjatev proti davčnim organom.
It is necessary to examine whether, where there is a partial refusal to make repayment, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the principle of fiscal neutrality and the general Community-law principle of equal treatment have been infringed by the difference in treatment accorded to ‘payment traders’ and to ‘repayment traders’.
Treba je preučiti, ali sta bili v okviru delne zavrnitve vračila, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, pri različnem obravnavanju „payment traders“ in „repayment traders“ kr�eni načelo davčne nevtralnosti in splo�no načelo enakega obravnavanja.
As regards, first, the principle of fiscal neutrality, that principle, which is a fundamental principle of the common system of VAT (see, inter alia, Case C-454/98 Schmeink & Cofreth and Strobel [2000] ECR I-6973, paragraph 59), in particular precludes treating similar goods, which are thus in competition with each other, differently for VAT purposes (Case C-283/95 Fischer [1998] ECR I-3369, para- I - 2330
Prvič, glede načela davčne nevtralnosti je treba opozoriti, da to načelo, ki je splo�no načelo skupnega sistema o DDV (glej zlasti sodbo z dne 19. septembra 2000 v zadevi Schmeink & Cofreth in Strobel, C-454/98, Recueil, str. I-6973, točka 59), nasprotuje zlasti temu, da se podobno blago, ki je torej v medsebojni konkurenci, obravnava I - 2330
MARKS & SPENCER graphs 21 and 27, and Commission v France, paragraph 22). It follows that those products must be subject to a uniform rate (see, to that effect, Commission v France, paragraph 22). 48
MARKS & SPENCER drugače z vidika DDV (sodba z dne 11. junija 1998 v zadevi Fischer, C-283/95, Recueil, str. I-3369, točki 21 in 27, ter zgoraj navedena Komisija proti Franciji, točka 22). Iz tega izhaja, da bi za te proizvode morala veljati enotna stopnja (v tem smislu glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Komisija proti Franciji, točka 22). 48
Consequently, in a situation where an error in the rate affects a number of taxable persons and the repayment of the sums wrongly levied on account of that error depends, at least in part, on whether those taxable persons are initially in the position of creditors or debtors vis-à-vis the Treasury in respect of the VAT, those taxable persons are, in actual fact, subject to a genuine and different charge, analogous to that which could have resulted from the application of different rates of VAT to similar goods.
Zato v primeru, če je napaka glede davčne stopnje vplivala na več davčnih zavezancev in če je vračilo nepravilno odmerjenih zneskov, do katerega je pri�lo zaradi te napake, odvisno deloma ali v celoti od tega, ali imajo davčni zavezanci na začetku terjatev ali dolg do državne blagajne glede DDV, za davčne zavezance velja dejansko drugačno obdavčenje, podobno obdavčenju, ki izhaja iz uporabe različnih stopnej DDV za podobno blago.
Such a disparity is therefore contrary to the principle of fiscal neutrality, in so far as those taxable persons have marketed similar goods, a matter which it will be for the national court to determine.
Tako razlikovanje je torej v nasprotju z načelom davčne nevtralnosti, če so ti davčni zavezanci prodajali podobno blago, kar pa mora presoditi nacionalno sodi�če.
Secondly, it is important to bear in mind that the principle of fiscal neutrality is the reflection, in matters relating to value added tax, of the principle of equal treatment (Case C-106/05 L.u.P. [2006] ECR I-5123, paragraph 48 and the caselaw cited).
Drugič, treba je spomniti, da načelo davčne nevtralnosti na področju DDV pomeni prenos načela enakega obravnavanja (sodba z dne 8. junija 2006 v zadevi L.u.P., C-106/05, ZOdl., str. I-5123, točka 48, in navedena sodna praksa).
However, although infringement of the principle of fiscal neutrality may be envisaged only as between competing traders, as has been pointed out in paragraph 47 of this judgment, infringement of the general principle of equal treatment may be established, in matters relating to tax, by other kinds of discrimination which affect traders who are not necessarily in competition with each other but who are nevertheless in a similar situation in other respects.
Čeprav se neupo�tevanje načela davčne nevtralnosti lahko predvidi le med konkurenčnimi gospodarskimi udeleženci, kot je bilo opomnjeno v točki 47 te sodbe, pa se načelo kr�itve splo�nega načela enakega obravnavanja lahko na davčnem področju izkaže prek drugih vrst diskriminacije, ki vpliva na gospodarske udeležence, ki niso nujno konkurenti, ampak so v drugih pogledih primerljivi.
The general principle of equal treatment thus applies in a situation where traders are all holders of VAT credits, seek to obtain repayment from the tax authorities and find that their claims for a refund are treated differently, irrespective of the competitive relationships which may exist between them.
Splo�no načelo enakega obravnavanja naj bi se torej uporabljalo, kadar gospodarski udeleženci, ki imajo dobropis za DDV, od davčnih organov zahtevajo vračilo tega DDV in menijo, da se je njihova zahteva obravnavala drugače, ne glede na konkurenčne odnose, ki lahko med njimi obstajajo.
It is thus necessary to examine whether that principle, in itself, precludes a legislative provision such as section 80 of the VAT Act 1994.
Treba je torej presoditi, ali to načelo kot tako nasprotuje taki zakonodaji, kot je ta iz oddelka 80 VAT Act 1994.
In this connection, the general principle of equal treatment requires that similar situations are not treated differently unless differentiation is objectively justified (Joined Cases 201/85 and 202/85 Klensch and Others [1986] ECR 3477, paragraph 9, and Idéal tourisme, paragraph 35).
Glede tega je treba spomniti, da splo�no načelo enakega obravnavanja zahteva, da se primerljivi položaji ne smejo obravnavati različno, razen če je razlikovanje objektivno utemeljeno (sodba z dne 25. novembra 1986 v zdruŽenih zadevah Klensch in drugi, 201/85 in 202/85, Recueil, str. 3477, točka 9, in zgoraj navedena sodba Idéal tourisme, točka 35).
It is necessary to point out that, under national legislation such as that applicable in the main proceedings, the difference in the treatment of traders with regard to the notion of unjust enrichment on the basis of their initial position as creditors or debtors vis-à-vis the Treasury in respect of VAT is not objectively justified.
Sodi�če mora opozoriti, da v nacionalni zakonodaji, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, različno obravnavanje gospodarskih udeležencev glede izraza neupravičena obogatitev v zvezi z njihovim položajem na začetku, glede na to, ali imajo terjatev ali dolg do državne blagajne, ni objektivno utemeljeno.
The fact that a trader benefits from unjust enrichment is unrelated to the position of that trader vis-à-vis the tax authorities before repayment of the VAT, as the unjust enrichment stems, when it occurs, from the refund itself, and not from that trader’s previous situation as a creditor or debtor vis-à-vis the tax authorities.
Okoli�čina, da ima gospodarski udeleženec korist od neupravičene obogatitve, namreč ni povezana s položajem tega gospodarskega udeleženca v razmerju do davčne uprave pred vračilom DDV, ker ima neupravičena obogatitev, če je ugotovljena, podlago v samem vračilu in ne v tem, ali je imel ta gospodarski udeleženec na začetku terjatev ali dolg do davčnih organov.
That analysis is borne out, if need be, by the amendment to the United Kingdom legislation following the letter of formal notice addressed by the Commission to that Member State in connection with the institution of proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations.
To analizo podpira, če je potrebno, sprememba zakonodaje Združenega kraljestva po pisnem opominu, ki ga je Komisija poslala tej državi članici, v okviru tožbe zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti.
Under section 3 of the Finance (No 2) Act 2005, referred to in paragraph 8 of this judgment, a distinction is no longer made on the basis of the taxable person’s situation vis-à-vis the Treasury.
V skladu z oddelkom 3 Finance (�t. 2) Act 2005, ki je naveden v točki 8 te sodbe, se namreč ne razlikuje glede na položaj davčnega zavezanca v razmerju do državne blagajne.
The answer to the third question must therefore be that, although the principles of equal treatment and fiscal neutrality apply in principle to a case such as that in the main proceedings, an infringement of those principles is not constituted merely by the fact that a refusal to make repayment was based on the unjust enrichment of the taxable person concerned.
Na tretje vpra�anje je torej treba odgovoriti, da čeprav se načeli enakega obravnavanja in davčne nevtralnosti načeloma uporabljata v zadevi, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, za kr�itev teh načel ne gre samo zaradi tega, ker naj bi zavrnitev vračila temeljila na neupravičeni obogatitvi zadevnega davčnega zavezanca.
By contrast, the principle of fiscal neutrality precludes the prohibition of unjust enrichment from being applied only to taxable persons such
Nasprotno, načelo davčne nevtralnosti nasprotuje temu, da bi prepoved neupravičene obogatitve veljala le za davčne zavezance, kot so „payment traders“, in ne za davčne zavezance, kot
MARKS & SPENCER as ‘payment traders’ and not to taxable persons such as ‘repayment traders’, in so far as those taxable persons have marketed similar goods. It will be for the national court to determine whether that is the position in the present case. Furthermore, the general principle of equal treatment, the infringement of which may be established, in matters relating to tax, by discrimination affecting traders who are not necessarily in competition with each other but are nevertheless in a similar situation in other respects, precludes discrimination between ‘payment traders’ and ‘repayment traders’, which is not objectively justified. — The fourth question
MARKS & SPENCER so „repayment traders“, če so ti davčni zavezanci prodajali podobno blago. Predložitveno sodi�če mora odločiti, ali je v tem primeru tako. Poleg tega splo�no načelo enakega obravnavanja, katerega kr�itev se na davčnem področju izraža z diskriminacijo, ki vpliva na gospodarske udeležence, ki niso nujno konkurenti, ampak so v podobnem položaju glede drugih okoli�čin, nasprotuje diskriminaciji med „payment traders“ in „repayment traders“, ki ni objektivno utemeljena. – Četrto vpra�anje