natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
By this question, the national court is essentially asking the Court whether the answer to the third question would be different if there is evidence that a trader who has been refused repayment on the ground of the unjust enrichment resulting from that refund has not suffered any financial loss or disadvantage.
S tem vpra�anjem predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje Sodi�če, ali bi bil odgovor na tretje vpra�anje drugačen, če bi obstajal dokaz, da je gospodarski udeleženec utrpel finančno izgubo ali bil postavljen v manj ugoden položaj, ker je bilo zavrnjeno vračilo zaradi neupravičene obogatitve, do katere bi to vračilo privedlo.
In that regard, it must be stated, first, that it is not necessarily the corollary of the VAT being passed on in full to the final consumer that there is no financial loss or disadvantage, since, even in that situation, as has been pointed out in paragraph 42 of this judgment, the trader may have suffered a loss as a result of a fall in the volume of his sales.
Glede tega je treba povedati, da neobstoj finančne izgube ali manj ugodnega položaja ni nujno sestavni del prenosa celotnega DDV na končnega potro�nika, če bi, tudi pod to predpostavko, kot je navedeno v točki 42 te sodbe, lahko gospodarski udeleženec utrpel izgubo, povezano z zmanj�anjem količine prodaje.
Secondly, the infringement of the principle of equal treatment, mentioned in paragraphs 52 to 54 of this judgment, by national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is constituted by discrimination between traders with regard to their right to repayment of VAT which was wrongly levied, this being separate from the issue of whether those traders have in fact suffered a financial loss or disadvantage.
Po drugi strani kr�itev enakega obravnavanja iz točk od 52 do 54 te sodbe z nacionalno zakonodajo, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, nastane zaradi diskriminacije med gospodarskimi udeleženci v zvezi z njihovo pravico do vračila nepravilno obračunanega DDV, ki ni odvisna od tega, ali so gospodarski udeleženci res utrpeli finančno izgubo oziroma so bili postavljeni v manj ugoden položaj ali ne.
The answer to the fourth question must therefore be that the answer to the third question is not affected where there is evidence that a trader who has been refused repayment of VAT which was wrongly levied has not suffered any financial loss or disadvantage.
Na četrto vpra�anje je torej treba odgovoriti, da dejstvo, da gospodarski udeleženec, ki mu je bil zavrnjen zahtevek za nepravilno obračunan DDV, ni imel finančne izgube ali da ni bil postavljen v manj ugoden položaj, ne vpliva na odgovor na tretje vpra�anje.
By this question, the national court is essentially asking the Court whether Community law requires or permits a national court to remedy the infringement of the principle of equal treatment referred to in paragraphs 52 to 54 of this judgment by ordering that the tax which was wrongly levied be repaid in its entirety to the trader adversely affected by that infringement, even if such a repayment enriches him unjustly, or whether it requires or permits a court to grant some other remedy in respect of that infringement of the principle of equal treatment.
S tem vpra�anjem predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje Sodi�če, ali pravo Skupnosti od nacionalnega sodi�ča zahteva ali mu dovoljuje, da odpravi kr�itev načela enakega obravnavanja, navedenega v točkah od 52 do 54 te sodbe, tako da naloži, da se gospodarskemu udeležencu, ki je žrtev te kr�itve, v celoti vrne nepravilno obračunani davek, čeprav to vračilo pomeni neupravičeno obogatitev tega udeleženca, ali če zahteva ali dovoli, da se neupo�tevanje načela enakega obravnavanja odpravi drugače.
It is thus the task of the national court itself to draw any conclusions with respect to the past from the infringement of the principle of equal treatment referred to in paragraphs 52 to 54 of this judgment.
Torej mora predložitveno sodi�če ugotoviti, do kak�nih posledic bi lahko pri�lo zaradi kr�itve načela enakega obravnavanja, navedene v točkah od 52 do 54 te sodbe.
However, it is for the Court to indicate certain criteria or principles of Community law which must be complied with when that assessment is being made.
Vendar mora Sodi�če določiti nekatera merila ali načela prava Skupnosti, ki jih je treba spo�tovati pri tej presoji.
In the course of that assessment, the national court must comply with Community law and, in particular, with the principle of equal treatment, as stated in paragraph 51 of this judgment.
V okviru te presoje mora predložitveno sodi�če spo�tovati pravo Skupnosti in med drugim načelo enakega obravnavanja, kot je opozorjeno v točki 51 te sodbe.
The national court must, in principle, order the repayment in its entirety of the VAT payable to the trader who has suffered discrimination, in order to provide compensation for the infringement of the general principle of equal treatment, unless there are other ways of remedying that infringement under national law.
Predložitveno sodi�če mora načelno odrediti, naj se vrne celotni znesek DDV, ki je dolgovan gospodarskemu udeležencu, žrtvi diskriminacije, da bi se odpravila kr�itev splo�nega načela enakega obravnavanja, razen če v nacionalni ureditvi obstajajo drugi načini za odpravo te kr�itve.
In that regard, as the Advocate General observed in point 74 of her Opinion, the national court must set aside any discriminatory provision of national law, without having to request or await its prior removal by the legislature, and apply to members of the disadvantaged group the same arrangements as those enjoyed by the persons in the favoured category.
Kot je poudarila generalna pravobranilka v točki 74 sklepnih predlogov, je treba spomniti, da nacionalno sodi�če ne sme uporabiti diskriminatorne nacionalne določbe, ne da bi moralo zahtevati ali čakati, da zakonodajalec to predhodno odpravi, za člane manj ugodno obravnavane skupine pa mora uporabiti enako ureditev, kot je ta, do katere so upravičeni člani privilegirane skupine.
Consequently, the answer to the fifth question must be that it is for the national court itself to draw any conclusions with respect to the past from the infringement of the principle of equal treatment referred to in paragraphs 52 to 54 of this judgment, in accordance with the rules relating to the temporal effects of the national legislation applicable in the main proceedings, in compliance with Community law and, in particular, with the principle of equal treatment and the principle that it must ensure that the remedies which it grants are not contrary to Community law.
Tako je treba na peto vpra�anje odgovoriti, da mora predložitveno sodi�če ugotoviti, do kak�nih morebitnih posledic za preteklost bi lahko pri�lo zaradi kr�itve načela enakega obravnavanja, navedenega v točkah od 52 do 54 te sodbe, v skladu s predpisi glede časovnih učinkov nacionalnih določb, ki so se uporabile v postopku v glavni stvari, ob spo�tovanju prava Skupnosti ter, med drugim, načela enakega obravnavanja in načela, na podlagi katerega mora skrbeti, da so izravnalni ukrepi, ki jih določi, v skladu s pravom Skupnosti.
Where, under Article 28(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, both before and after the insertion of the amendments made to that provision by Council Directive 92/77/EEC of 19 October 1992, a Member State has maintained in its national legislation an exemption with refund of input tax in respect of certain specified supplies, a trader making such supplies does not have any directly enforceable Community-law right to have those supplies taxed at a zero rate of value added tax.
Če je država članica v skladu s členom 28(2) 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, tako pred njeno spremembo z Direktivo Sveta 92/77/EGS z dne 19. oktobra 1992 kot po njej, v nacionalnem pravu ohranila oprostitev z vračilom davka, plačanega v predhodni fazi, v zvezi z določenimi dobavami ali storitvami, gospodarski udeleženec, ki te dobave ali storitve opravlja, nima neposredno iztožljive pravice na podlagi prava Skupnosti, da se te dobave ali storitve obdavčijo z ničelno davčno stopnjo.
Where, under Article 28(2) of Sixth Directive 77/388, both before and after the insertion of the amendments made to that provision by Directive 92/77,
Če je država članica v skladu s členom 28(2) Šeste direktive 77/388, tako pred njeno spremembo z Direktivo 92/77 kot po njej, v nacionalnem pravu
MARKS & SPENCER a Member State has maintained in its national legislation an exemption with refund of input tax in respect of certain specified supplies but has mistakenly interpreted its national legislation, with the consequence that certain supplies benefiting 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. 3.
MARKS & SPENCER ohranila oprostitev z vračilom davka, plačanega v predhodni fazi, za določene dobave ali storitve, vendar je 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 njenim nacionalnim pravom obdavčila s splošno davčno stopnjo, potem se splošna 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. 3.
Although the principles of equal treatment and fiscal neutrality apply in principle to the case 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.
Čeprav se načeli enakega obravnavanja in davčne nevtralnosti načeloma uporabljata v postopku v glavni stvari, za kršitev 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 concept of unjust enrichment from being applied only to taxable persons such as ‘payment traders’ (taxable persons for whom, in a given prescribed accounting period, the output tax collected exceeds the input tax) and not to taxable persons such as ‘repayment traders’ (taxable persons whose position is the inverse of that of payment traders), in so far as those taxable persons have marketed similar goods.
Nasprotno, načelo davčne nevtralnosti nasprotuje temu, da bi pojem neupravičene obogatitve veljal le 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 prejšnjega), če so ti davčni zavezanci prodajali podobno blago.
It will be for the national court to determine whether that is the position in the present case.
Predložitveno sodišče mora odločiti, ali je v tem primeru tako.
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.
Poleg tega splošno načelo enakega obravnavanja, katerega kršitev se na davčnem področju izraža z diskriminacijo, ki vpliva na gospodarske udeležence, ki niso nujno konkurenti, ampak so v podobnem položaju glede drugih okoliščin, nasprotuje diskriminaciji med „payment traders“ in „repayment traders“, ki ni objektivno utemeljena.
The answer to the third question is not affected where there is evidence that a trader who has been refused repayment of value added tax which was wrongly levied has not suffered any financial loss or disadvantage.
Dejstvo, da gospodarski udeleženec, ki mu je bil zavrnjen zahtevek za nepravilno obračunan davek na dodano vrednost, ni imel finančne izgube ali da ni bil postavljen v manj ugoden položaj, ne vpliva na odgovor na tretje vprašanje.
It is for the national court itself to draw any conclusions with respect to the past from the infringement of the principle of equal treatment referred to in point 3 of the operative part of this judgment, in accordance with the rules relating to the temporal effects of the national legislation applicable in the main proceedings, in compliance with Community law and, in particular, with the principle of equal treatment and the principle that it must ensure that the remedies which it grants are not contrary to Community law.
Predložitveno sodišče mora ugotoviti, do kakšnih morebitnih posledic za preteklost bi lahko prišlo zaradi kršitve načela enakosti, navedene v točki 3 izreka te sodbe, v skladu s predpisi glede časovnih učinkov nacionalnih določb, ki so se uporabile v postopku v glavni stvari, ob spoštovanju prava Skupnosti ter zlasti načela enakega obravnavanja in načela, na podlagi katerega mora skrbeti, da so izravnalni ukrepi, ki jih določi, v skladu s pravom Skupnosti.
Case C-393/06
Zadeva C-393/06
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien)
(Public contracts — Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC — Contracting entity pursuing activities falling in part within the field of application of Directive 2004/17/EC and in part within that of Directive 2004/18/EC — Body governed by public law — Contracting authority)
„Javna naročila – Direktivi 2004/17/ES in 2004/18/ES – Naročnik, ki opravlja dejavnosti, za katere se delno uporablja Direktiva 2004/17/ES, delno pa Direktiva 2004/18/ES – Oseba javnega prava – Javni naročnik“
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 10 April 2008 . . . . . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (četrti senat) z dne 10. aprila 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Approximation of laws — Procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors — Directive 2004/17 — Scope
Približevanje zakonodaj – Postopki za oddajo javnih naročil v vodnem, energetskem in transportnem sektorju ter sektorju poštnih storitev – Direktiva 2004/17 – Področje uporabe
(European Parliament and Council Directives 2004/17, Arts 3 to 7 and 20(1), and 2004/18, Art. 12(1))
(direktivi Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2004/17, členi od 3 do 7 in 20(1), ter 2004/18, člen 12(1))
SUMMARY — CASE C-393/06
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-393/06
Approximation of laws — Procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts — Directives 2004/17 and 2004/18 — Contracting authorities
Približevanje zakonodaj – Postopki za oddajo javnih naročil v vodnem, energetskem in transportnem sektorju ter sektorju poštnih storitev in javnih naročil gradenj, blaga in storitev – Direktivi 2004/17 in 2004/18 – Javni naročniki
(European Parliament and Council Directives 2004/17, Art. 2(1)(a), second subpara., and 2004/18, Art. 1(9), second subpara.)
(direktivi Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2004/17, člen 2(1)(a), drugi odstavek, in 2004/18, člen 1(9), drugi odstavek)
Approximation of laws — Procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts — Directives 2004/17 and 2004/18 — Scope
Približevanje zakonodaj – Postopki za oddajo javnih naročil v vodnem, energetskem in transportnem sektorju ter sektorju poštnih storitev in javnih naročil gradenj, blaga in storitev – Direktivi 2004/17 in 2004/18 – Področje uporabe
(European Parliament and Council Directives 2004/17 and 2004/18)
(direktivi Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2004/17 in 2004/18)
referred to in Articles 3 to 7 of Directive 2004/17.
direktiva ne uporablja za javna naročila, razen za oddajo naročil za dejavnosti javnih naročnikov, ki opravljajo eno ali več dejavnosti iz členov od 3 do 7 Direktive 2004/17.
Thus, the field of application of Directive 2004/17 is strictly circumscribed, which does not permit the procedures laid down therein to be extended beyond that field of application.
Tako je področje uporabe Direktive 2004/17 strogo omejeno, kar preprečuje, da bi se postopki, ki jih ureja, raz�irjali izven tega področja uporabe.
A contracting entity, within the meaning of Directive 2004/17 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors, is required to apply the procedure laid down in that directive only for the award of contracts which relate to activities carried out by that entity in one or more of the sectors listed in Articles 3 to 7 of that directive.
Naročnik, v smislu Direktive 2004/17 o usklajevanju postopkov za oddajo javnih naročil naročnikov v vodnem, energetskem in transportnem sektorju ter sektorju po�tnih storitev, mora uporabiti postopek iz te direktive le za oddaje javnih naročil, ki so v zvezi z dejavnostmi, ki jih ta naročnik opravlja v enem ali več sektorjih, navedenih v členih od 3 do 7 navedene direktive.
(see paras 28, 29, operative part 1)
(Glej točki 28 in 29 ter točko 1 izreka.)
Article 20(1) of Directive 2004/17 provides that the latter does not apply to contracts which the contracting entities award for purposes other than the pursuit of their activities as described in Articles 3 to 7 thereof.
Člen 20(1) Direktive 2004/17 namreč določa, da se ta direktiva ne uporablja za javna naročila, ki jih naročniki oddajo za druge namene, kot je opravljanje svojih dejavnosti v sektorjih, ki so opisani v členih od 3 do 7 iste direktive.
The equivalent of that provision in Directive 2004/18 is the first paragraph of Article 12, which provides that that directive does not apply to public contracts which are awarded by contracting authorities exercising one or more of the activities
Tej določbi ustreza člen 12, prvi odstavek, Direktive 2004/18, ki določa, da se ta
Under the second subparagraph of Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 2004/17 coord- inating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and the second subparagraph of Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18 on the coordin-
V skladu s členom 2(1)(a), drugi pododstavek, Direktive 2004/17 o usklajevanju postopkov za oddajo javnih naročil naročnikov v vodnem, energetskem in transportnem sektorju ter sektorju po�tnih storitev in členom 1(9), drugi pododstavek, Direktive 2004/18 o usklajevanju postopkov za oddajo javnih
AIGNER was established specifically to meet needs in the general interest.
AIGNER zadovoljevanje posebnih potreb v splo�nem interesu.
To provide heating for an urban area by means of an environmentally-friendly process constitutes an aim which is undeniably in the general interest.
Zagotavljanje ogrevanja stanovanj za mestno območje na način, ki varuje okolje, namreč pomeni cilj, ki nedvomno sodi v splo�ni interes.
In that regard, it is immaterial that such needs are also met or can be met by private undertakings.
V zvezi s tem ni pomembno, da tak�ne potrebe zadovoljujejo ali bi jih lahko zadovoljevala zasebna podjetja.
It is important that they should be needs which, for reasons in the general interest, the State or a regional authority generally chooses to meet itself or over which it wishes to retain a decisive influence.
Pomembno je, da gre za potrebe, pri katerih se države ali lokalne skupnosti zaradi splo�nega interesa načeloma odločijo, da jih bodo zadovoljevale same, ali da bodo v zvezi z njimi obdržale odločilen vpliv.
ation of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, a ‘body governed by public law’ is any body which, first, was established for the specific purpose of meeting needs in the general interest, not having an industrial or commercial character, secondly, has legal personality and, thirdly, is financed, for the most part, by the State, regional or local authorities, or other bodies governed by public law, or subject to management supervision by those bodies, or having an administrative, managerial or supervisory board, more than half of whose members are appointed by the State, regional or local authorities, or by other bodies governed by public law.
naročil gradenj, blaga in storitev pojem „oseba javnega prava“ pomeni vsako osebo, ki je, prvič, ustanovljena samo zato, da zadovoljuje potrebe splo�nega interesa in nima industrijske ali tržne narave, ki je, drugič, pravna oseba in jo, tretjič, pretežno financirajo državni, regionalni ali lokalni organi ali druge osebe javnega prava ali je njeno vodstvo pod nadzorom teh organov ali pa ima upravni, vodstveni ali nadzorni odbor, katerega več kakor polovico članov imenujejo državni, regionalni ali lokalni organi ali druge osebe javnega prava.
Those three conditions are cumulative.
Vsi trije pogoji morajo biti hkrati izpolnjeni.
An entity established specifically for the purpose of supplying district heating to homes, public institutions, offices, undertakings in a local authority area by means of the use of energy produced by the destruction of waste, which has legal personality and of which the local authority wholly owns the share capital and monitors its economic and financial management, meets the two latter conditions laid down by those directives.
Naročnik, ki je bil na ozemlju lokalne skupnosti ustanovljen s posebnim namenom zagotavljanja ogrevanja stanovanj, javnih zgradb, poslovnih prostorov in pisarn z uporabo energije, ki nastaja pri sežiganju odpadkov, ki je pravna oseba in katerega gospodarsko in finančno nadzira lokalna skupnost, izpolnjuje zadnji dve merili, ki izhajata iz navedenih direktiv.
With regard to the first condition, it cannot be disputed that such an entity
V zvezi s prvim pogojem ni sporno, da je bil tak naročnik ustanovljen za
In order to ascertain whether the needs met by the entity in question have a character other than industrial or commercial, account must be taken of all the relevant law and facts such as the circumstances prevailing at the time when the entity concerned was established and the conditions under which it exercises its activity.
Da bi preverili, ali potrebe, ki jih zadovoljuje zadevni naročnik, nimajo industrijske ali tržne narave, je treba upo�tevati vse upo�tevne pravne in dejanske elemente, kot so okoli�čine, v katerih je bil zadevni naročnik ustanovljen, in razmere, v katerih opravlja svojo dejavnost.
In that regard, it is common ground that the pursuit of profit did not underlie its establishment.
V zvezi s tem ni sporno, da ustvarjanje dobička ni bilo povod za ustanovitev tega podjetja.
With regard, subsequently, to the relevant market which must be considered in order to ascertain whether the entity in question is exercising its activities in competitive conditions, account must be taken, having regard to the functional interpretation of the concept of a ‘body governed by public law’, of the sector for which that entity was created, that is to say, the supply of district heating by means of the use of energy
Dalje, je treba v zvezi z referenčnim trgom, kjer je treba preveriti, ali zadevni naročnik opravlja ali ne opravlja svoje dejavnosti v pogojih konkurence, glede na namensko razlago pojma „oseba javnega prava“, upo�tevati sektor, za katerega je bil ustanovljen ta naročnik, to je oskrba s toplovodnim ogrevanjem z uporabo energije, ki izhaja iz sežiganja odpadkov. Vendar ima zadevni naročnik v tem sektorju položaj dejanskega monopola.