natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
That is why the definition of the capital goods referred to in Article 19(2) of the Sixth Directive, which establishes the specific rules for the calculation of the deductible proportion, is not necessarily the same as that which was used in respect of the application of the general scheme of deduction established by the Second Directive.
Zato opredelitev investicijskega blaga iz člena 19(2) Šeste direktive, ki določa posebna pravila za izračun odbitnega deleža, ni nujno enaka opredelitvi, ki je veljala pri uporabi splo�nih pravil za odbitek, določenih v Drugi direktivi.
The interpretation given by the Court in Verbond van Nederlandse Ondernemingen is not therefore relevant for the purpose of answering the question referred for a preliminary ruling in the present case.
Razlaga, ki jo je Sodi�če podalo v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Verbond van Nederlandse Ondernemingen, se torej pri odgovoru na postavljeno vpra�anje ne upo�teva.
It is also not of relevance that Article 20(4) of the Sixth Directive leaves it to the Member States to define the concept of capital goods.
Tudi dejstvo, da člen 20(4) Šeste direktive državam članicam prepu�ča skrb, da opredelijo pojem investicijsko blago, se ne upo�teva.
Firstly, it is clear from the wording of that provision that the right thus given to the Member States applies only for the purposes of applying Article 20(2) and (3), which sets out the rules relating to adjustments of deductions.
Prvič, iz besedila te določbe namreč jasno izhaja, da tako priznana pravica državam članicam velja le za uporabo navedenega člena 20(2) in (3), ki določa pravila za popravek odbitkov.
Secondly, that right cannot be conferred on the Member States in respect of the application of the rules for the calculation of the proportion set out in Article 19(2) of the Sixth Directive without thereby failing to have regard to the intention of the Community legislature, expressed in the 12th recital in the preamble to that directive, that the proportion should be calculated in a similar manner in all the Member States.
Drugič, te pravice državam članicam ni mogoče priznati za uporabo pravil o izračunu deleža, določenih v členu 19(2) Šeste direktive, ne da bi bila kr�ena volja zakonodajalca Skupnosti, izražena v dvanajsti uvodni izjavi navedene direktive, v skladu s katero je treba naveden pojem v vseh državah članicah opredeliti na podoben način.
In those circumstances, the rules for adjustments of deductions as established in Article 20 of the Sixth Directive and the specific rule contained in the last sentence of Article 19(2), which provides for the inclusion, in the calculation of the proportion, of disposals of the capital goods referred to, in the context of those adjustment rules, in Article 20(5) of that directive, have no bearing on the interpretation which must be given to the concept of capital goods excluded from the calculation of the proportion pursuant to the first sentence of Article 19(2) of the Sixth Directive, as that concept must be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation within the Community.
V teh okoli�činah pravila za popravek odbitkov, kot so opredeljena v členu 20 Šeste direktive, in posebna pravila, zajeta v zadnjem stavku njenega člena 19(2), ki določajo, da se v izračun odbitnega deleža vključi odtujitev investicijskega blaga, na katerega se v okviru teh pravil za popravek odbitkov nana�a člen 20(5) te direktive, ne vplivajo na razlago, ki jo je treba podati v zvezi s pojmom investicijskega blaga, izključenega iz izračuna odbitnega deleža, v skladu s prvim stavkom člena 19(2) Šeste direktive, pri čemer mora biti navedeni pojem v Skupnosti opredeljen na podoben način.
In view of the foregoing, the answer to the question referred must be that Article 19(2) of the Sixth Directive is to be interpreted as meaning that the notion of ‘capital goods used by the taxable person for the purposes of his business’ does not include vehicles which a leasing undertaking purchases with a view, as in the case in the main proceedings, to leasing them and subsequently selling them upon termination of the respective leasing contracts, as the sale of such vehicles at the end of those contracts is an integral part of the usual business activities of that undertaking.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno je treba na postavljeno vpra�anje odgovoriti, da je treba člen 19(2) Šeste direktive razlagati tako, da pojem „investicijsko blago, ki ga davčni zavezanec uporablja za svojo dejavnost“, ne obsega vozil, ki jih lizing podjetje pridobi z namenom, kot v postopku v glavni stvari, da jih da v najem in nato ob izteku pogodbe o lizingu proda, kadar je prodaja navedenih vozil ob izteku teh pogodb integralni del običajne ekonomske dejavnosti tega podjetja.
Article 19(2) 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, is to be interpreted as meaning that the notion of ‘capital goods used by the taxable person for the purposes of his business’ does not include vehicles which a leasing undertaking purchases with a view, as in the case in the main proceedings, to leasing them and subsequently selling them upon termination of the respective leasing contracts, as the sale of such vehicles at the end of those contracts is an integral part of the usual business activities of that undertaking.
Člen 19(2) Šeste direktiva 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 je treba razlagati tako, da pojem „investicijsko blago, ki ga davčni zavezanec uporablja za svojo dejavnost“, ne obsega vozil, ki jih lizing podjetje pridobi z namenom, kot v postopku v glavni stvari, da jih da v najem in nato ob izteku pogodbe o lizingu proda, kadar je prodaja navedenih vozil ob izteku teh pogodb integralni del običajne ekonomske dejavnosti tega podjetja.
Case C-420/06
Zadeva C-420/06
SUMMARY — CASE C-420/06
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-420/06
(Council Regulation No 2988/95, Art. 2(1) and (2))
Pravo Skupnosti – Načela – Načelo retroaktivne uporabe milejše kazni (Uredba Sveta št. 2988/95, člen 2(1) in (2))
Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes
Kmetijstvo – Skupna kmetijska politika – Integrirani upravni in kontrolni sistem za nekatere sheme pomoči
(Council Regulations No 2988/95, Art. 2(2), and No 1782/2003; Commission Regulations No 3887/92, Art. 10c, No 2419/2001, Art. 39(1), and No 796/2004, Arts 66 and 67)
(Uredbi Sveta št. 2988/95, člen 2(2), in št. 1782/2003; uredbe Komisije št. 3887/92, člen 10c, št. 2419/2001, člen 39(1), in št. 796/2004, člena 66 in 67)
sions contained in Community sectoral rules introducing less severe administrative penalties.
določbe sektorskih predpisov Skupnosti, s katerimi so bile uvedene milej�e upravne kazni.
The principle of the retroactive application of the more lenient penalty forms part of the constitutional traditions common to the Member States and, accordingly, must be considered to be one of the general principles of Community law, which the Court ensures are respected and which national courts are required to abide by.
Načelo retroaktivne uporabe milej�e kazni je del skupnih ustavnih tradicij držav članic, tako da mora biti upo�tevano kot splo�no načelo prava Skupnosti, katerega spo�tovanje zagotavlja Sodi�če in po katerem se mora ravnati nacionalno sodi�če.
(see paras 59, 60)
(Glej točki 59 in 60.)
The second sentence of Article 2(2) of Regulation No 2988/95 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests is to be interpreted as meaning that the provisions laid down by Articles 66 and 67 of Regulation No 796/2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of crosscompliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Regulation No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under
To načelo se izraža zlasti v členu 2(2), drugi stavek, Uredbe �t. 2988/95 o za�čiti finančnih interesov Evropskih skupnosti, ki je določba, na podlagi katere morajo pristojni organi za ravnanje, ki pomeni nepravilnost v smislu prvega odstavka tega člena, retroaktivno uporabiti poznej�e spremembe, ki so jih uvedle
JAGER icles 66 and 67 does not therefore reflect a revised assessment by the Community legislature as to whether the penalty is commensurate with the gravity of the irregularity at issue.
Sistem, ki je bil uveden z navedenima členoma 66 in 67, zato ne izraža spremembe presoje zakonodajalca Skupnosti glede primernosti kazni v razmerju do resnosti zadevne nepravilnosti.
The system of penalties established in Articles 66 and 67 of Regulation No 796/2004 is not designed to change the nature or severity of the penalties applicable in the context of the aid system for bovine animals established by Regulation No 1254/1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal, but is aimed at adapting those penalties, from the entry into force of Regulation No 1782/2003, to the new regulatory context resulting from reform of the common agricultural policy introduced by the latter regulation, in order to maintain the coherence of the system of penalties applicable to the aid schemes concerned in the light of the principles underlying that reform.
Cilj sistema kazni, uvedenega v členih 66 in 67 Uredbe �t. 796/2004, ni spremeniti vrste ali intenzivnosti kazni, ki se uporabljajo v okviru sheme pomoči za govedo, uvedene z Uredbo �t.
The system introduced by Art-
1254/1999 o skupni ureditvi trga za goveje in telečje meso, temveč jih od začetka veljavnosti Uredbe �t.
SUMMARY — CASE C-420/06 the national court to apply Article 39(1) retroactively to the farmer concerned.
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-420/06 zadevnega kmeta retroaktivno uporabiti določbe navedenega člena 39(1).
such a context.
mogoče sklicevati.
That provision which constitutes such a ‘subsequent amendment’ of Article 10c of Regulation No 3887/92, inasmuch as it introduces inter alia an upper limit on the reduction applicable, contains a system of penalties which are less severe than those set out in the latter provision.
Ta določba, ki pomeni tako „poznej[�o] spreme[mbo]“ člena 10c Uredbe �t. 3887/92, namreč s tem, da je med drugim uvedla najvi�jo omejitev znižanja, ki se lahko uporabi, obsega sistem milej�ih kazni od tistih, ki so določene v zadnjenavedeni določbi.
It is therefore for
Zato mora predložitveno sodi�če glede
(see paras 70, 82-85)
(Glej točke 70 in od 82 do 85.)
BOTdelivered on 27 November 2007 of the 2003 reform of the common agricultural policy.
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNEGA PRAVOBRANILCAYVESA BOTA, predstavljeni 27. novembra 2007 1 politike iz leta 2003.
This new legislative framework now provides for a system of support which is linked no longer to production, but to the producer in the form of a single payment subject to compliance with the standards and requirements laid down by Community law in areas such as the environment, public health, and animal and plant health.
Z novim zakonodajnim okvirom je namreč določeno, da se odslej vzpostavi sistem podpore, ne več proizvodnji, ampak proizvajalcu, in sicer kot enotno plačilo, pogojeno s spo�tovanjem standardov in zahtev, ki jih predvideva zakonodaja Skupnosti na področjih, kot so okolje, javno zdravje ter zdravje živali in rastlin.
This reference for a preliminary ruling raises the question of the limits attaching to the implementation of the principle of retroactively applying a less severe penalty, as laid down in the second sentence of Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests 2 and subsequently confirmed by the Court’s caselaw, 3following the reform of the common agricultural policy in 2003.
V tem predlogu za sprejetje predhodne odločbe je obravnavana problematika omejitve izvajanja načela retroaktivne uporabe milej�ih kazni, ki je določeno v členu 2(2), drugi stavek, Uredbe Sveta (ES, Euratom) �t. 2988/95 z dne 18. decembra 1995 o za�čiti finančnih interesov Evropskih skupnosti 2in potrjeno s sodno prakso Sodi�ča 3, po reformi skupne kmetijske politike leta 2003.
More specifically, this reference for a preliminary ruling raises the question of whether a farmer may rely upon this principle in order to secure the application of a scheme of penalties which was adopted after the irregularities had been identified, if that scheme is part of an amended legislative framework — the result, in this instance,
Natančneje, s tem predlogom za sprejetje predhodne odločbe je postavljeno vpra�anje, ali se lahko kmet sklicuje na to načelo, da bi si s tem zagotovil uporabo sistema kazni, ki je bil sprejet po tem, ko so bile ugotovljene nepravilnosti, če je ta sistem vključen v spremenjeni zakonodajni okvir, ki v zadevnem primeru izhaja iz reforme skupne kmetijske
Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 239/2005 of 11 February 2005 (OJ 2005 L 42, p.
Uredba, kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo Komisije (ES) �t. 239/2005 z dne 11. februarja 2005 (UL L 42, str.
3) (‘Regulation No 796/2004’).
3, v nadaljevanju: Uredba �t. 796/2004).
I — Legislative framework
I – Pravni okvir
That request has been made in connection with a dispute between Mr Jager, a farmer, and the Amt für Landwirtschaft Bützow (Agriculture Agency, Bützow, the ‘Amt’), concerning the rejection of an application for suckler cow premia for 2001.
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med R. Jagrom, kmetom, in Amt für Landwirtschaft Bützow (urad za kmetijstvo, v nadaljevanju: Amt) glede zavrnitve zahtevka za premije za krave dojilje za leto 2001.
The application was rejected on the ground there had been irregularities in identifying and registering unclaimed bovine animals.
Zavrnitev je bila obrazložena z nepravilnostmi pri identifikaciji in registraciji goveda, za katero ni bil vložen zahtevek za pomoč.
Identification and registration of bovine animals
Identifikacija in registracija goveda
Changes to the aid schemes applicable to bovine animals
Spremembe shem pomoči, ki se uporabljajo za govedo
According to Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on
Na podlagi člena 6(1) Uredbe Sveta (ES) �t. 1254/1999 z dne 17. maja 1999 o skupni
Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2801/1999 of 21 December 1999 (OJ 1999 L 340, p.
Uredba, kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo Komisije (ES) �t. 2801/1999 z dne 21. decembra 1999 (UL L 340, str.
29) (‘Regulation No 3887/92’).
29, v nadaljevanju: Uredba �t. 3887/92).
JAGER the common organisation of the market in beef and veal, 7a producer keeping suckler
JAGER ureditvi trga za goveje in telečje meso 7se lahko proizvajalec, ki ima na svojem gospo-
Recitals (24) and (25) in the preamble to Regulation No 1782/2003 describe the main features of the reform of the common agricultural policy which that regulation introduces.
V �tiriindvajseti in petindvajseti uvodni izjavi Uredbe �t. 1782/2003 so predstavljene osnovne značilnosti reforme skupne kmetijske politike, ki je bila uvedena s to uredbo.
Those recitals are worded as follows: cows on his holding may qualify, on application, for a premium for maintaining suckler cows (suckler cow premium).
Izjavi določata: darstvu krave dojilje, z zahtevkom kvalificira za premijo za rejo krav dojilj (premija za krave dojilje).
According to Article 21 of that regulation, in order to qualify for the premium an animal must be identified and registered in accordance with Regulation No 820/97.
V členu 21 te uredbe je določeno, da mora biti žival, da je lahko upravičena do te premije, identificirana in registrirana v skladu z določbami Uredbe �t. 820/97.
‘Enhancing the competitiveness of Community agriculture and promoting food quality and environment standards necessarily entail a drop in institutional prices for agricultural products and an increase in the costs of production for agricultural holdings in the Community.
„Povečevanje konkurenčnosti kmetijstva Skupnosti in spodbujanje kakovosti hrane in okoljskih standardov imata za nujno posledico znižanje institucionalnih cen za kmetijske proizvode in povi�anje stro�kov proizvodnje za kmetijska gospodarstva v Skupnosti.
To achieve those aims and promote more market-oriented and sustainable agriculture, it is necessary to complete the shift from production support to producer support by introducing a system of decoupled income support for each farm.
Da bi dosegli te cilje in spodbudili bolj tržno usmerjeno in trajnostno kmetijstvo, je treba dokončati prehod s podpore za proizvodnjo na podporo za proizvajalce z uvedbo sistema nevezane dohodkovne podpore za vsako kmetijo.
While decoupling will leave the actual amounts paid to farmers unchanged, it will significantly increase the effectiveness of the income aid.
Čeprav bodo zaradi take nevezanosti dejanski zneski, plačani kmetom, ostali nespremenjeni, se bo znatno povečala učinkovitost dohodkovne pomoči.
It is, therefore, appropriate to make the single farm payment conditional upon crosscompliance with environmental, food safety, animal health and welfare, as well as the maintenance of the farm in good agricultural and environmental condition.
Zato je primerno, da je enotno plačilo na kmetijo pogojeno z upo�tevanjem navzkrižne skladnosti okolja, varne hrane, zdravja in dobrega počutja živali ter [z] ohranitv[ijo] kmetij in dobr[imi] kmetijsk[imi] in okoljsk[imi] pogoj[i].
Such a system should combine a number of existing direct payments received by a farmer from various schemes in a single payment, determined on the basis of previous entitle-
Tak sistem bi moral združiti več obstoječih neposrednih plačil, ki jih kmet prejme iz različnih shem, v enotno plačilo, ki se določi
Pursuant to Article 38 of Regulation No 1782/2003, that period comprises the 2000, 2001 and 2002 calendar years.
V členu 38 Uredbe �t. 1782/2003 je določeno, da to obdobje vključuje koledarska leta 2000, 2001 in 2002.
The farmer is then accorded entitlement to payments.
Kmet nato pridobi pravice do plačila.
As a rule, each entitlement is calculated by dividing the reference amount by the number of hectares to which the payments during the reference years relate. 11
Praviloma se posamezna pravica izračuna tako, da se referenčni znesek deli s �tevilom hektarjev, za katere je kmet v referenčnih letih prejemal plačilo. 11
Title III of Regulation No 1782/2003 sets out the rules relating to the single payment system.
V naslovu III Uredbe �t. 1782/2003 so določena pravila glede sheme enotnega plačila.
Within that system, the direct aids to farmers are largely granted in the form of a single annual payment replacing most of the direct aids that had previously existed.
V okviru te sheme se neposredne pomoči kmetom dodeljujejo v glavnem kot enotno letno plačilo, ki nadome�ča večino neposrednih pomoči, ki so obstajale pred tem.
The Member States may prefer to opt for a regional flat-rate approach.
Za določitev sheme enotnega plačila, ki jo je treba uporabiti, Uredba �t.
In order to determine which single payment system should be applied, Regulation No 1782/2003 allows the Member States to choose from a number of options, and the main options available to them are described below.
Države članice se lahko namesto tega odločijo za regionalni pristop s pav�alnimi stopnjami 12.
9 do so, the reference amounts are calculated not in terms of the individual farmer but at a regional level.
Referenčni zneski se v tem primeru ne izračunavajo posamično za vsakega kmeta, ampak na ravni regije.
Those amounts thus correspond to the sum of the payments the farmers in the region concerned were granted during the reference period.
Ti zneski se torej ujemajo z vsoto plačil, ki so jih prejeli kmetje v zadevni regiji v referenčnem obdobju.
The regional reference amounts are then divided by the number of eligible hectares declared by the farmers of the relevant region in the year the single payment scheme was introduced, in order to establish the value of a single entitle-
Regionalni referenčni zneski se nato delijo s �tevilom upravičenih hektarjev, ki jih prijavijo kmetje iz zadevne regije v letu uvedbe sheme enotnega plačila, s čimer se izračuna vrednost enotne pravice v tej regiji. Vsak kmet prejme določeno �tevilo pravic
The basic approach is historic in nature, that is to say that the single payment which the farmer is granted each year is calculated using a reference amount, itself determined, under Article 37(1) of the regulation, by
Osnovni pristop ima „zgodovinski“ značaj, saj se enotno plačilo, ki je vsako leto odobreno kmetu, izračuna na podlagi referenčnega zneska v skladu s členom 37(1) te
10 — The suckler cow premium is one of the aid schemes mentioned in Annex VI to that regulation.
10 – Med shemami pomoči, navedenimi v Prilogi IV k tej uredbi, je tudi premija za krave dojilje.
11 — See Title III, Chapter 3, of Regulation No 1782/2003, entitled ‘Payment entitlements’.
11 – Glej poglavje 3 naslova III Uredbe �t. 1782/2003 (Pravice do plačila).
12 — See Title III, Chapter 5, Section 1, of Regulation No 1782/2003, entitled ‘Regional implementation’.
9 – Glej dokument Komisije Evropskih skupnosti z naslovom „Shema enotnega plačila – Koncept“, ki je na voljo na spletni strani http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/capreform/infosheets/ pay_fr.pdf.
JAGER ment in that region.
JAGER pododstavek, Uredbe �t.
Each farmer receives a number of (flat-rate) entitlements equal to the number of eligible hectares declared in the year in which the single payment scheme was introduced. That approach entails some redistribution of payments between farmers.
1782/2003 države članice zadržijo do 100 % sestavine nacionalnih zgornjih mej, navedenih v členu 41 te uredbe, ki ustreza premiji za krave dojilje.
of Article 68(2)(a)(i) of Regulation No 1782/2003 permits the Member States to retain up to 100% of the component of national ceilings referred to in Article 41 of the regulation, corresponding to the suckler cow premium.
(pav�alna stopnja), ki se ujema s �tevilom upravičenih hektarjev, prijavljenih v letu uvedbe sheme enotnega plačila. Ta pristop predvideva neke vrste ponovno razdelitev plačil med kmete.
Finally, in some cases, the Member States may adopt a hybrid model that combines the historic and flat-rate approaches.
Nazadnje lahko države članice v nekaterih primerih uvedejo tudi me�ani model, ki združuje osnovni zgodovinski pristop in regionalni pristop s pav�alnimi stopnjami.
The distinguishing feature of the single payment scheme is that it is a payment which is not linked to production.
Sheme pomoči, ki so vezane na proizvodnjo, so obravnavane v naslovu IV: Druge sheme pomoči.
This is known as the ‘decoupling of aid’.
V členu 125 Uredbe �t.
The schemes relating to aid that is coupled to production are covered by Title IV of the regulation, which is entitled ‘Other aid schemes’.
Za shemo enotnega plačila je značilno, da plačilo ni vezano na proizvodnjo.
Article 125 of Regulation No 1782/2003, which appears in Title IV, lays down the conditions governing the grant of the suckler cow premium.
Temu pravimo „nevezanost pomoči“.
In the case of partial decoupling, the Member States choose to implement the single payment scheme in part only, and to retain certain direct aids that are production-linked. 13
V primeru delne nevezanosti se države članice odločijo za samo delno izvajanje sheme enotnega plačila, medtem ko ostanejo nekatere neposredne pomoči vezane na proizvodnjo. 13
Alongside the single payment itself, the other essential feature of the 2003 reform is what the Community legislature has defined as the ‘cross-compliance’ of aid.
Poleg enotnega plačila v ožjem pomenu besede je �e ena bistvena značilnost reforme iz leta 2003 – „navzkrižna skladnost“ pomoči, kakor je to poimenoval zakonodajalec Skupnosti.
To give an example, in the case of beef and veal payments, the first subparagraph
Kar zadeva na primer goveje meso, lahko v skladu s členom 68(2)(a)(i), prvi
13 — See Title III, Chapter 5, Section 2 of Regulation No 1782/2003, entitled ‘Partial implementation’.
13 – Glej oddelek 2 poglavja 5 naslova III Uredbe �t. 1782/2003 (Regionalno izvajanje).
In those circumstances, the expression ‘recoupling of aid’ is also used.
V tem primeru govorimo tudi o „vezavi“ pomoči.