natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
ECOTRADE including invoices issued in accordance with Article 17(3) thereof, and to record them in a register before making the periodic payment or the annual return in which the right to deduct the VAT relating to those invoices is exercised.
ECOTRADE uvoženo blago in storitve ob opravljanju svojih dejavnosti, skupaj z računi, ki so izdani v skladu s členom 17(3) te uredbe, in jih vknjižijo v ustrezno knjigo, preden naredijo periodično plačilo ali letni obračun, v katerem davčni zavezanec uveljavlja pravico do odbitka DDV, ki se nana�a na te račune.
Finally, the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 57(1) of DPR No 633/72 provides:
Nazadnje, člen 57(1), prvi stavek, UPR �t. 633/72 določa:
‘Notices of reassessment and recovery … shall be served, on pain of loss of the related right, by 31 December of the fourth year after the year in which the tax return was submitted.’
„Odločbe o spremembi in odmeri davka […] morajo biti izdane do 31. decembra četrtega leta po letu, v katerem je bil davčni obračun predložen, sicer se zadevna pravica izgubi.“
Ecotrade is an Italian limited company specialising in granulated blast furnace slag and other ingredients, in particular synthetic gypsum and ashes used for the manufacture of cement.
Ecotrade je italijanska delni�ka družba, ki se ukvarja s trgovanjem z granulirano žlindro in drugimi sestavinami, zlasti sintetičnega mavca in pepela za proizvodnjo cementa.
In the tax years 2000 and 2001 Ecotrade entrusted to operators established outside Italy the transport of those materials from Italy to other Member States of the European Community.
Družba Ecotrade je v letih 2000 in 2001 gospodarskim subjektom, ki nimajo sedeža v Italiji, zaupala prevoz teh materialov iz Italije v druge države članice Evropske unije.
In the invoices issued by those operators for services supplied to Ecotrade, those services are described either as ‘chartering of the vessel’ or ‘shipping’ (‘the transactions in question’).
V računih, ki so jih ti subjekti izdali družbi Ecotrade za storitve, so te storitve opisale kot „zakup plovila“ ali kot „prevoz“ (v nadaljevanju: zadevne transakcije).
However, the invoices did not indicate the amount of VAT, and some of them stated that the transactions were exempt.
Na nobenem od računov ni bil naveden znesek DDV in na nekaterih računih je bilo navedeno, da so bile te transakcije opro�čene davka.
Ecotrade therefore regarded the relevant transactions as being exempt from VAT.
Družba Ecotrade je zato menila, da za zadevne transakcije ni treba plačati DDV.
Accordingly, it recorded the invoices relating to those transactions only in the register of purchases and not in the register of invoices issued, and did so on the basis of VAT exemption.
Zato je račune, ki se nana�ajo na te transakcije, vpisala le v knjigo prejetih računov, ne pa tudi v knjigo izdanih računov, in to ob oprostitvi DDV.
The VAT relating to those transactions was therefore not mentioned in the returns drawn up by Ecotrade for the tax years 2000 and 2001.
DDV, ki se nana�a na te transakcije, torej ni vpisan v davčnih obračunih, ki jih je sprejela družba Ecotrade za leti 2000 in 2001.
After an inspection in 2004, the Agenzia took the view that the transactions in question were services in the intraCommunity transport of goods subject to VAT, and that the reverse charge procedure was applicable to them, which, with the exception of one invoice, was not disputed by Ecotrade.
Ob davčnem in�pekcijskem nadzoru je Agenzia menila, da gre pri zadevnih transakcijah za storitve pri prevozu blaga znotraj Skupnosti, za katere se plačuje DDV, in da se zanje uporablja mehanizem obrnjene davčne obveznosti, česar družba Ecotrade z izjemo enega računa ni izpodbijala.
The Agenzia also found that Ecotrade had not complied with the accounting requirements relating to the reverse charge procedure because the invoices concerned had been recorded only in the register of purchases and not in the register of invoices issued.
Agenzia je prav tako ugotovila, da ta družba ni spo�tovala knjigovodskih zahtev v zvezi s tem mehanizmom obrnjene davčne obveznosti, ker so bili zadevni računi vpisani le v knjigo prejetih računov, ne pa v knjigo izdanih računov.
Therefore, the Agenzia, by a number of tax recovery notices, reassessed for VAT purposes the tax returns submitted by Ecotrade for the tax years 2000 and 2001, claimed payment of undeclared taxes amounting to a total of approximately EUR 321 000 and imposed penalties in respect of those taxes of approximately EUR 361 000.
Zato je Agenzia z več obvestili o izterjavi pričela s spremembami davčnih obračunov v zvezi z DDV za leti 2000 in 2001, v katerih je opomnila na neprijavljene dajatve v skupnem znesku 321.000 EUR in naložila kazni v vi�ini približno 361.000 EUR.
Subsequently, the Agenzia took the view that Ecotrade had lost its right to deduct VAT because it had not exercised that right within a period of two years from the time the VAT becomes chargeable, as provided in the second sentence of Article 19(1) of the DPR No 633/72, whereas the tax authorities were still within the timelimits for recovering the VAT relating to the services concerned since, under the first sentence of Article 57 of the DPR No 633/72, notices of reassessment and recovery may be served within a period of four years calculated from the date on which the tax returns relating to disputed taxes were submitted.
Zaradi tega je Agenzia menila, da je družba Ecotrade izgubila pravico do odbitka DDV, ker je ni uveljavljala v dveh letih od trenutka, ko je nastala obveznost za obračun odbitnega davka, kot je določeno v členu 19(1), drugi stavek, UPR �t. 633/72, medtem ko rok, v katerem lahko davčna uprava pobere DDV, ki se nana�a na zadevne storitve, �e ni potekel, saj so lahko na podlagi člena 57(1) te uredbe odločbe o spremembi in odmeri davka izdane v �tirih letih od predložitve davčnih obračunov v zvezi z izpodbijanimi davki.
By various appeals lodged on 13 February 2005 before the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova, Ecotrade challenged the recovery notices concerned and sought to have them annulled.
Družba Ecotrade je 13. februarja 2005 vložila več tožb pri Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova, v katerih je izpodbijala zadevna obvestila o izterjavi in predlagala, naj se razglasijo za nične.
In order to justify its accounting practice Ecotrade submitted that the invoices relating to the transactions in question had been duly recorded in the register of purchases, but that, because those transactions had been mistakenly regarded as exempt from VAT, they had not been recorded in the register of invoices issued.
V utemeljitev knjigovodske prakse, ki jo je upo�tevala, je ta družba navedla, da so bili računi v zvezi z zadevnimi transakcijami redno vpisovani v knjigo prejetih računov, vendar da zaradi tega, ker so bili napačno �teti kot opro�čeni od DDV, ti računi niso bili vpisani v knjigo izdanih računov.
That irregularity should not however have compromised the exercise of the right to deduct, since no debt to the tax authority was generated.
Ta nepravilnost naj nikakor ne bi smela ogroziti uveljavljanja pravice do odbitka, saj ni nastal noben dolg do davčne uprave.
Therefore, any temporal limit on the right to deduct was inapplicable in this case.
Zato naj v obravnavanem primeru ne bi veljala nobena časovna omejitev pravice do odbitka.
Before the national court the Agenzia replied that Ecotrade should have invoiced itself for the transactions in question, calculated the VAT payable, and recorded the invoice in the register of invoices issued and the register of purchases so that it would have had a VAT credit for the purposes of deducting the input tax calculated.
Agenzia je pri predložitvenem sodi�ču odgovorila, da bi morala družba Ecotrade za zadevne transakcije izdati račun sama sebi, izračunati dolgovani DDV, ga vpisati v knjigo izdanih računov in v knjigo prejetih računov, tako da bi imela dobropis DDV v namene odbitka vstopnega davka.
In accordance with that method, the VAT payable is not actually paid by the purchaser in so far as it is offset by the corresponding VAT credit.
V skladu s to metodo DDV, ki je vknjižen na debitni strani dejansko ne plača naročnik, ker ga nevtralizira ustrezajoč DDV, vknjižen na kreditni strani. Pravico do odbitka pa je treba uveljaviti, preden zastara.
Consequently, Ecotrade, which did not comply with the accounting procedure provided for under the national legislation, is required to pay the VAT due, while it has lost the right to deduct VAT on account of the time-bar.
Zato bi morala družba Ecotrade, ki ni delovala v skladu s knjigovodskim postopkom, določenim v nacionalni zakonodaji, plačati dolgovani DDV, ob tem pa naj bi zaradi zastaranja izgubila pravico njegovega odbitka.
In those circumstances, the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova decided to stay proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
V teh okoli�činah je Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ti vpra�anji, ki se v obeh zadevah C-95/07 in C-96/07 glasita enako:
That question is asked with reference, in particular, to cases where the liability to VAT on the purchase of the good or service stems from the application of the reverse charge procedure, which allows the authorities a longer period (of four years under Article 57 of DPR No 633/72) in which to demand payment of the duty than the period allowed to the trader for deduction of the duty, on expiry of which the trader’s right to such deduction lapses.
633, ki uveljavljanje pravice do odbitka [DDV], ki ga zavezanec dolguje pri opravljanju dejavnosti, pogojuje z upo�tevanjem (dvoletnega) roka, njegovo neupo�tevanje pa sankcionira z zastaranjem same pravice, zlasti v primerih, v katerih zavezanost za DDV iz nakupa blaga ali storitve izhaja iz uporabe postopka obrnjene davčne obveznosti, ki upravi omogoča izterjavo plačila davka z uporabo dalj�ega roka (�tirile -tnega, na podlagi člena 57 UPR �t. 633/72) od tistega, ki je za odbitek določen v korist podjetnika, ki pa je z njegovim potekom zastaral?
By order of the President of the Court of 27 April 2007, Cases C-95/07 and C-96/07 were joined for the purposes of the written and oral procedure and of the judgment.
Predsednik Sodi�ča je s sklepom z dne 27. aprila 2007 zaradi pisnega in ustnega postopka in sodbe zadevi C-95/07 in C-96/07 združil.
Ecotrade submits that the Sixth Directive does not impose any timelimit on the right to deduct, since the entire VAT system, which is founded on the principle of neutrality is designed to guarantee the taxable person, in all circumstances, that fundamental right inherent in the overall VAT system.
Družba Ecotrade navaja, da Šesta direktiva za pravico do odbitka ne določa nobene časovne omejitve, ker je celotni režim DDV, ki temelji na načelu nevtralnosti, zasnovan tako, da davčnemu zavezancu v vseh primerih zagotavlja to temeljno pravico, ki je značilna za vse davčne sisteme DDV.
Furthermore, the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings cannot be justified by reliance on Articles 17(6) and (7) and 22(7) and (8) of the directive, which are not applicable in the cases in the main proceedings.
Poleg tega nacionalne ureditve iz postopka v glavni stvari ni mogoče upravičiti s sklicevanjem na člena 17(6) in (7) ter 22(7) in (8) te direktive, ki naj ne bi veljala v zadevi v glavni stvari.
As regards the ‘formalities’ laid down by the Member States in accordance with Article 18(1)(d) of the Sixth Directive, with which the taxable person must comply in order to exercise the right to deduct under the reverse charge procedure, Ecotrade submits that those formalities may not be disproportionate to or incompatible with the general VAT mechanism.
V zvezi s „formalnostmi“, ki jih določajo države članice ob uporabi člena 18(1)(d) Šeste direktive in jih mora davčni zavezanec izpolnjevati, da lahko uveljavlja pravico do odbitka v mehanizmu obrnjene davčne obveznosti, družba Ecotrade zatrjuje, da te formalnosti ne bi smele biti nesorazmerne ali nezdružljive s splo�nim mehanizmom DDV.
Accordingly, compliance with those formalities cannot lead to the taxable person definitively losing the right to deduct.
Zato spo�tovanje teh formalnosti ne sme povzročiti dokončne izgube pravice do odbitka davčnega zavezanca.
In any event, the limitation on the right to deduct in Italian law is not proportionate, because the tax authority has a longer period in which to reassess incorrect tax returns than that accorded to the taxable person to claim deduction.
V vsakem primeru naj omejitev pravice do odbitka v italijanskem pravu ne bi bila sorazmerna zaradi tega, ker ima davčna uprava za spremembo napačnih obračunov na voljo dalj�i rok, kot je ta, ki je dodeljen davčnemu zavezancu, da zahteva odbitek.
The Italian and Cypriot Governments point out that the period prescribed for the exercise of the right to deduct is a formality that the Member States may determine under Article 18(1)(d) and (3) and Article 22(8) of the Sixth Directive.
Italijanska in ciprska vlada zatrjujeta, da rok, določen za uveljavljanje pravice do odbitka, pomeni formalnost, ki jo lahko države članice določijo na podlagi člena 18(1)(d) in (3) ter člena 22(8) Šeste direktive.
Article 18 does not contain any provision inconsistent with the Member States’ discretion to set temporal limits on deduction.
Ta člen 18 naj ne bi vseboval nobene določbe, ki bi nasprotovala diskrecijski pravici držav članic, da določijo časovne omejitve odbitka.
According to Article 18(2), which refers to ‘the same period’, the right to deduct should be exercised as soon as possible, so that if
V skladu s členom 18(2), ki se nana�a na „isto obdobje“,
2008 — JOINED CASES C-95/07 AND C-96/07 the taxable person does not exercise his right to deduct during that period, the possibility of doing so later may be coupled with conditions that the Member States can impose in accordance with Article 18(3).
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-95/07 IN C-96/07 bi moralo biti uveljavljanje pravice čimprej mogoče, tako da če davčni zavezanec v tem obdobju ne uveljavlja pravice do odbitka, so lahko njegovi možnosti, da to stori v poznej�em obdobju, dodani pogoji, ki jih države članice določijo na podlagi člena 18(3).
Furthermore, the Italian and Cypriot Governments take the view that the period allowed to the authority to recover tax cannot be the same as that allowed to the taxable person to exercise his right to deduct for objective and practical reasons, since the authority needs time after the tax return is lodged to check it and verify its contents.
Poleg tega te vlade menijo, da rok, ki ga je uprava določila za odmero davka, zaradi objektivnih in praktičnih razlogov ne more biti enak roku, ki ga ima davčni zavezanec za uveljavljanje pravice do odbitka, ker uprava potrebuje čas, da po vložitvi davčnega obračuna preveri njegovo vsebino.
The Italian Government acknowledges, moreover, that the Member States must comply with the principle of effectiveness, so as not to render exercise of the right to deduct impossible or excessively difficult.
Poleg tega italijanska vlada priznava, da morajo države članice spo�tovati načelo učinkovitosti, tako da uveljavljanja pravice do odbitka ne onemogočijo ali čezmerno otežijo.
However, it submits that the period of two years is perfectly appropriate in that respect.
Vendar pa poudarja, da je v zvezi s tem rok dveh let vsekakor primeren.
The Commission of the European Communities maintains that the deduction should be exercised in compliance with the tax deadlines prescribed.
Komisija Evropskih skupnosti navaja, da bi moral biti odbitek opravljen ob spo�tovanju določenih davčnih rokov.
Its exercise cannot therefore be deferred indefinitely.
Njegovega uveljavljanja zato ni mogoče neskončno dolgo odla�ati.
It concludes that the determination of limitation periods for the exercise of the right to deduct is not incompatible with the objectives pursued by the Sixth Directive, provided that those limitation periods are not less favourable than those laid down for the exercise of analogous rights in matters relating to tax (principle of equivalence) and are not such as to render the exercise of the rights conferred by Community law virtually impossible or excessively difficult (principle of effectiveness).
Iz tega sklepa, da določitev prekluzijskih rokov za uveljavljanje pravice do odbitka ni nezdružljiva s cilji, ki jim sledi Šesta direktiva, pod pogojem, da ti roki niso manj ugodni kot roki, določeni za uveljavljanje podobnih pravic na davčnem področju (načelo enakovrednosti), in niso taki, da bi praktično onemogočili ali čezmerno otežili uveljavljanje pravic, ki jih podeljuje pravni red Skupnosti (načelo učinkovitosti).
It concludes that the principle of equivalence has not been complied with on account of the fact that the legislation at issue in the main proceedings allows a period of four years to the tax authority for reassessments and recovery, whereas it provides for a period of only two years for deduction of VAT paid.
Iz tega sklepa, da načelo enakovrednosti ni spo�tovano zaradi tega, ker ureditev iz zadeve v glavni stvari določa davčni upravi rok �tirih let, da izvede spremembe in odmere, pri tem pa določa le rok dveh let za odbitek že plačanega DDV.
As regards compliance with the principle of effectiveness, the Commission points out that a twoyear limitation period for the exercise of the right to deduct is likely, for the same reasons, to render the exercise of that right excessively difficult.
Glede spo�tovanja načela učinkovitosti Komisija poudarja, da bi lahko dveletni prekluzijski rok za uveljavljanje pravice do odbitka iz istih razlogov uveljavljanje te pravice čezmerno otežil.
In addition, the Commission takes the view that it is wholly excessive and disproportionate for the Member State concerned to seek unduly to enrich itself because mere accounting formalities have not been carried out, although the latter must be allowed the possibility of penalising the irregularities concerned in an appropriate manner.
Poleg tega Komisija meni, da bi bilo vsekakor čezmerno in nesorazmerno, če bi se zadevna država članica nameravala neupravičeno okoristiti le zaradi neizvedbe knjigovodskih formalnosti, čeprav bi ji bilo treba priznati možnost, da ustrezno kaznuje zadevne nepravilnosti.
Should the Court decide that Article 19 of the DPR No 633/72 is not compatible with this Sixth Directive, the Cypriot Government proposes that the temporal effects of its judgment should be limited, so that it would apply solely from the date of its delivery.
V primeru, da bi Sodi�če odločilo, da člen 19 UPR �t. 633/72 ni združljiv s Šesto direktivo, ciprska vlada predlaga, naj sodba, ki bo izrečena, velja le ex­nunc.
As a preliminary point, it must be noted that the national court’s questions seek to establish whether Articles 17, 18(1)(d), 21(1) and 22 of the Sixth Directive preclude national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which, where the reverse charge procedure applies, makes the exercise of the right to deduct VAT subject to compliance with a limitation period which is shorter than that available to the tax authority for recovering tax.
Uvodoma je treba poudariti, da predložitveno sodi�če želi izvedeti, ali členi 17, 18(1)(d), 21(1) in 22 Šeste direktive nasprotujejo nacionalni zakonodaji, kot je ta iz zadeve v glavni stvari, ki v primeru uporabe mehanizma obrnjene davčne obveznosti uveljavljanje pravice do odbitka DDV pogojuje z upo�tevanjem prekluzijskega roka, ki je kraj�i, kot ga ima na voljo davčna uprava, da pobere davke.
However, it is clear from the order from reference that the main dispute arises from the accounting irregularity committed by Ecotrade, that is to say, the incorrect recording of the transactions in question only in the register of purchases exempt from VAT, that irregularity also affecting the tax returns relating to VAT drawn up by Ecotrade, which led the Agenzia to reassess them.
Vsekakor iz predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da bistvo spora o glavni stvari izhaja iz knjigovodske nepravilnosti družbe Ecotrade, in sicer napačnega vpisa zadevnih transakcij v eno samo knjigo prejetih računov za oprostitev od DDV, ker so zaradi take nepravilnosti napačni tudi davčni obračuni te družbe v zvezi z DDV, kar je privedlo Agenzio do spremembe teh obračunov.
That situation is clearly different from the case in which a taxable person who is aware of the taxable nature of a supply fails on account of delay or carelessness to claim deduction of input tax within the period prescribed by the national legislation.
Ta položaj se jasno razlikuje od položaja, v katerem davčni zavezanec, ki se zaveda obdavčljivosti dobave, zaradi zamude ali malomarnosti ne zahteva odbitka vstopnega davka v roku, določenem z nacionalno zakonodajo.
Accordingly it is necessary to reformulate the national court’s questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, to the effect that it is asking, first, whether Articles 17, 18(2) and (3) and 21(1)(b) of the Sixth Directive preclude the introduction of a limitation period for the exercise of the right to deduct VAT, such as that laid down by the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, in the case of a reverse charge procedure(‘the limitation period’), and, secondly, whether Articles 18(1)(d) and 22 preclude a practice whereby declarations are reassessed and VAT recovered which penalises an irregularity in the accounts and tax returns, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by denying the right to deduct in the case of a reverse charge procedure (‘the reassessment and recovery practice’).
Prvo in drugo vpra�anje, ki ju je treba preučiti skupaj, je zato treba preoblikovati v tem smislu, da predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje, na prvem mestu, ali členi 17, 18(2) in (3) in 21(1)(b) Šeste direktive nasprotujejo po eni strani uvedbi prekluzijskega roka za uveljavljanje pravice do odbitka DDV, kot ga določa nacionalna zakonodaja v zadevi v glavni stvari v primeru uporabe mehanizma obrnjene davčne obveznosti (v nadaljevanju: zastaralni rok), in če, na drugem mestu, člena 18(1)(d) in 22 te direktive nasprotujeta praksi sprememb obračunov in odmere DDV, s katero se knjigovodska nepravilnost in nepravilnost obračuna, kot je ta v zadevi v glavni stvari, kaznuje z zavrnitvijo pravice do odbitka v primeru uporabe tega mehanizma obrnjene davčne obveznosti (v nadaljevanju: praksa spremembe in odmere davka).
The limitation period
Prekluzijski rok
It must be pointed out at the outset that a taxable person liable for VAT as the recipient of goods or services is able to rely on the right to deduct contained in Article 17(2)(a) of the Sixth Directive (see Case C-90/02 Bockemühl [2004] ECR I-3303, paragraph 37).
Najprej je treba poudariti, da se lahko davčni zavezanec, ki je kot prejemnik storitev zavezan za plačilo DDV, sklicuje na pravico do odbitka iz člena 17(2)(a) Šeste direktive (glej sodbo z dne 1. aprila 2004 v zadevi Bockemühl, C-90/02, Recueil, str.
As it is clear from the wording of Article 18(2) of the Sixth Directive, the right to deduct must be exercised in principle ‘during the same period’ as that in which it arose.
Kot namreč izhaja iz besedila člena 18(2) Šeste direktive, se pravica do odbitka načeloma lahko uveljavlja v istem obdobju, kot je to, v katerem je nastala.
A taxable person may nevertheless be authorised to make a deduction, pursuant to Article 18(3) of the Sixth Directive, even if he did not exercise his right during the period in which the right arose.
Vendar se lahko davčnemu zavezancu na podlagi člena 18(3) Šeste direktive dovoli odbitek, čeprav pravice ni uveljavljal v obdobju, v katerem je nastala.
However, in that case, the right to deduct is coupled with certain conditions and procedures determined by the Member States.
V tem primeru pa je njegova pravica do odbitka podvržena nekaterim pogojem in postopkom, ki jih določijo države članice.