natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Under Article 38(1) of that Law, in the version applicable as at 18 May 1994:
Člen 38(1) tega zakona, v različici z dne 18. maja 1994, določa:
‘In respect of goods and services which a registered undertaking uses both for purposes giving rise to entitlement to a deduction under Article 37 and for other purposes in its business, a deduction may be made in respect of that part of the tax which is proportionate to the turnover in the part of the business which must be registered. There shall be excluded from the assessment of turnover amounts of turnover attributable to the supplies of capital goods used for the purpose of the business.
„Za blago in storitve, ki jih registrirano podjetje hkrati uporablja za namene, ki omogočajo pravico do odbitka v skladu s členom 37, in za druge namene, se lahko odbije tisti del davka, ki je sorazmeren prometu, ki ustreza registrirani dejavnosti.
Machinery, equipment and similar business assets, the sales price of which, excluding tax under this Law, exceeds DKK 50 000 [from 1996, DKK 75 000], shall be regarded as capital goods …’
Pri izračunu odbitka se odbije znesek prometa, ki pripada dobavljenemu investicijskemu blagu, ki je bilo uporabljeno v podjetju. ‚Investicijsko blago‘ so stroji, pohi�tvo in druga obratovalna sredstva, katerih prodajna cena (brez davka, ki ga določa ta zakon) je vi�ja od 50.000 DKK [od leta 1996: 75.000 DKK] […]“
Nordania Finans and BG Factoring are two companies belonging to the same group and arose out of the restructuring of that group following the demerger, in 2001, of Erhvervsfinans.
Družbi Nordania Finans in Factoring sta družbi, ki pripadata isti skupini, ustanovljeni po prestrukturiranju zadnje po likvidacijskem postopku družbe Erhvervsfinans leta 2001.
In the period 1995 to 1998, Erhvervsfinans operated a business involving the financial leasing of cars, which was liable to VAT.
Družba Erhvervsfinans je med letoma 1995 in 1998 opravljala dejavnost lizinga avtomobilov, obdavčeno z DDV.
In 1998, that business related to 4 500 vehicles.
Ta dejavnost je leta 1998 zajemala 4500 vozil.
Erhvervsfinans also had a business involving the provision of financial
Družba Erhvervsfinans je opravljala tudi dejavnost finančnih storitev, opro�čeno DDV. Torej
2008 — CASE C-98/07 services, which was VAT-exempt. It thus had to calculate a proportion in order to establish the amount to which the partial deductibility of VAT on its overall costs related.
2008 – ZADEVA C-98/07 je morala izračunati delež, da bi ugotovila znesek, na katerega se nana�a njena pravica do delnega odbitka DDV, ki jo je lahko zahtevala za svoje splo�ne stro�ke.
For the purpose of that calculation, Erhvervsfinans took into consideration the turnover from the sale of the vehicles upon termination of the respective lease contracts.
V okviru tega izračuna je družba Erhvervsfinans upo�tevala promet iz prodaje vozil ob izteku pogodbe o lizingu.
It took the view that those vehicles were not ‘capital goods used by the taxable person for the purposes of his business’ within the meaning of Article 19(2) of the Sixth Directive.
Menila je namreč, da ta vozila niso bila „investicijsko blago, ki ga je davčni zavezanec uporabljal za namene svoje dejavnosti“ v smislu člena 19(2) Šeste direktive.
By decision of 17 November 1999, the Danish local tax authorities objected to that assessment, taking the view that the vehicles did constitute such goods and that the turnover from the sale of those vehicles could therefore not be taken into consideration in the calculation of that proportion.
Z odločbo z dne 17. novembra 1999 so danski lokalni davčni organi tej presoji nasprotovali, pri čemer so menili, da navedena vozila so tako blago in da zato prometa, ki je nastal s prodajo teh vozil, ni bilo mogoče upo�tevati pri izračunu navedenega deleža.
Erhvervsfinans lodged an appeal against that decision before the Landsskatteret (National Tax Tribunal) which, by order of 27 April 2001, upheld its claim.
Družba Erhvervsfinans je to odločbo izpodbijala pred Landsskatteret (davčno sodi�če), ki je s sklepom z dne 27. aprila 2001 njeni zahtevi ugodilo.
Skatteministeriet lodged an appeal against that order before the Østre Landsret (Eastern Regional Court), which, as it took the view that the relevant vehicles were capital goods, reversed the order of the Landsskatteret by judgment of 16 December 2003.
Skatteministeriet se je zoper ta sklep pritožilo pri Østre Landsret (vzhodno deželno sodi�če), ki je, ker je menilo, da so navedena vozila investicijsko blago, s sodbo z dne 16. decembra 2003 spremenilo odločbo Landsskatteret.
Nordania Finans and BG Factoring, which had in the meantime become the successors in law to Erhvervsfinans, lodged an appeal against that judgment before the Højesteret (Supreme Court) on 9 February 2004.
Družbi Nordania Finans in BG Factoring, ki sta medtem intervenirali na strani družbe Erhvervsfinans, sta 9. februarja 2004 proti odločbi Østre Landsret vložili pritožbo pri Højesteret (vrhovno sodi�če).
It was in those circumstances that the Højesteret decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
V tem okviru je Højesteret prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vpra�anje:
‘Is the expression “capital goods used by the taxable person for the purposes of his business” contained in Article 19(2) of the Sixth Directive … to be interpreted as covering goods which a leasing undertaking purchases with a view to both leasing and resale upon termination of the respective leasing contracts?’
„Ali je treba izraz ‚investicijsko blago, ki ga je davčni zavezanec uporabljal za namene svoje dejavnosti‘ iz člena 19(2) Šeste direktive […] razlagati tako, da zajema blago, ki ga lizing podjetje kupi, da ga bo dalo v najem in ga po izteku pogodbe o lizingu ponovno prodalo?“
By its question the national court asks specifically whether 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’ includes 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.
Predložitveno sodi�če s svojim vpra�anjem v bistvu spra�uje, ali je treba člen 19(2) Šeste direktive razlagati tako, da pojem „investicijsko blago, ki ga je davčni zavezanec uporabljal za namene svoje dejavnosti“ zajema vozila, ki jih lizing podjetje pridobi, da bi jih kot v postopku v glavni stvari dalo v najem in nato ob izteku pogodbe o lizingu prodalo.
Furthermore, it follows from the need for uniform application of Community law and from the principle of equality that the terms of a provision of Community law which makes no express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope must normally be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation throughout the Community, having
I-10683, točka 34). Poleg tega iz zahtev po enotni uporabi prava Skupnosti in iz načela enakosti izhaja, da je treba izraze določbe prava Skupnosti, ki se pri opredelitvi smisla in obsega ne sklicuje posebej na pravo držav članic, običajno razlagati samostojno in enotno v celotni Skupnosti, in sicer ob upo�tevanju okvira, v katerega je določba ume�čena, in cilja, ki ga zasleduje zadevna ureditev (glej zlasti sodbi z dne 15. julija 2004 v zadevi
In that regard, Article 19(2) of the Sixth Directive makes no express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope and its terms do not, by themselves, with certainty permit the inference that it covers goods such as those at issue in the main proceedings.
V zvezi s tem je treba ugotoviti, da se člen 19(2) Šeste direktive pri opredelitvi smisla in obsega ne sklicuje posebej na pravo držav članic in da njegovo besedilo samo ne omogoča, da bi lahko zagotovo �teli, da se nana�a na blago kot je v postopku v glavni stvari. Glede na to je treba upo�tevati okvir in cilje te določbe.
As regards its context, Article 19 of the Sixth Directive is part of Title XI thereof, which sets out the rules governing deduction.
Glede njenega okvira je treba opozoriti, da je člen 19 Šeste direktive del njenega Naslova XI, ki ureja odbitek.
The right to deduct, which is laid down in Article 17(2) of that directive, and relates to the input tax on the goods and services used by the taxable person for the purposes of his taxable transactions, is meant to relieve the trader entirely of the burden of the VAT payable or paid in the course of all his economic activities.
Namen pravice do odbitka, ki je določena v členu 17(2) navedene direktive in se nana�a na blago in storitve, ki jih davčni zavezanec uporabi za obdavčene transakcije, je, da se podjetnika v celoti razbremeni bremena DDV, ki ga je dolžan ali ki ga je plačal v okviru vseh njegovih gospodarskih dejavnosti.
The common system of VAT consequently ensures complete neutrality of taxation of all economic activities, provided that they are themselves subject in principle to VAT (see to that effect, inter alia, Case C-435/05 Investrand [2007] ECR I-1315, paragraph 22 and the caselaw cited).
Skupni sistem DDV posledično zagotavlja nevtralnost v zvezi z davčnim bremenom vseh gospodarskih dejavnosti, če so navedene dejavnosti načeloma same predmet DDV (glej v tem smislu zlasti sodbo z dne 8. februarja 2007 v zadevi Investrand, C-435/05, ZOdl., str. I-1315, točka 22 in navedena sodna praksa).
Where the taxable person effects both taxable transactions, in respect of which VAT is deductible, and exempt transactions, in respect of which VAT is not deductible, Article 17(5) of the Sixth Directive provides that only such proportion of the VAT is deductible as is attributable to the taxable transactions.
Kadar davčni zavezanec hkrati opravlja obdavčene transakcije, pri katerih je davek odbiten, in transakcije, pri katerih davek ni odbiten, člen 17(5) Šeste direktive določa, je odbiten samo tak�en delež davka na dodano vrednost, ki se pripi�e prvim transakcijam.
That proportion is to be calculated according to the detailed rules set out in Article 19 of that directive.
Ta delež se izračuna v skladu s postopki, opredeljenimi v členu 19 navedene direktive.
As the Advocate General has noted at point 65 of his Opinion, those provisions are intended
Kot v točki 65 sklepnih predlogov poudarja generalni pravobranilec, je namen teh določb, da omogočijo davčnemu zavezancu, ki pridobi blago in storitve
NORDANIA FINANS AND BG FACTORING to enable a taxable person who acquires goods or services in order to carry on both taxable and exempt activities to deduct in full the amount of the VAT paid on the acquisition of those goods or services which is deemed to correspond to the proportion used for the purpose of the taxable activities.
NORDANIA FINANS IN BG FACTORING za izvajanje obdavčene dejavnosti in opro�čene dejavnosti hkrati, da v celoti odbije del DDV, ki je obremenjeval pridobitev tega blaga ali teh storitev in za katerega se �teje, da sorazmerno pripada deležu, v katerem so bili ti uporabljeni za obdavčene dejavnosti.
It is against that background that, while Article 19(1) of the Sixth Directive provides that the deductible proportion is to be made up of a fraction having, as numerator, the turnover attributable to taxable transactions and, as denominator, the total turnover plus, in some circumstances, certain subsidies, Article 19(2) provides that, by way of derogation, amounts of, inter alia, turnover attributable to the supplies of capital goods used by the taxable person for the purposes of his business or attributable to incidental real estate and financial transactions are to be excluded.
V tem okviru člen 19(1) Šeste direktive določa, da se odbitni delež določi z ulomkom, ki ima v �tevcu promet, ki se nana�a na obdavčene transakcije, in v imenovalcu promet, po potrebi povečan za določene subvencije, člen 19(2) pa določa, da se z odstopanjem predvsem ne upo�teva znesek prometa, nana�ajočega se na dobavo investicijskega blaga, ki ga je davčni zavezanec uporabljal za namene svoje dejavnosti, ali na priložnostne transakcije z nepremičninami in na priložnostne finančne transakcije.
The objective of Article 19(2) is apparent from the Explanatory Memorandum to the proposal for the Sixth Directive, which was submitted by the Commission of the European Communities to the Council of the European Communities on 29 June 1973 (see Bulletin of the European Communities, supplement 11/73, p.
Namen navedenega člena 19(2) je razviden iz obrazložitve v Predlogu Šeste direktive, ki ga je Komisija Evropskih skupnosti 29. junija 1973 predložila Svetu Evropskih skupnosti (glej Bilten Evropskih skupnosti, Dodatek 11/73, str.
19), according to which ‘[t]he factors mentioned in this paragraph must be excluded from the calculation of the proportion lest, being unrepresentative of the taxable person’s business activity, they should deprive the amount of any real significance.
20), v skladu s katerim se morajo „[d]ejavniki, ki so navedeni v tem odstavku, […] izključiti iz izračuna tega deleža, da se izogne temu, da bi lahko izkrivili njegov dejanski pomen, kadar ti dejavniki ne odražajo poslovne dejavnosti davčnega zavezanca.
Such is the case with sales of capital items and real estate and financial transactions which are only ancillary operations, that is to say are only of secondary importance in relation to the total turnover of the business.
Tak primer so prodaje investicijskega blaga in nepremičninske ali finančne transakcije, ki so opravljene zgolj priložnostno, to je da so le sekundarnega ali postranskega pomena glede na skupni promet podjetja.
These factors are only excluded if they are not part of the usual business activity of the taxable person’.
Med drugim so te transakcije izključene le, če ne spadajo v redno poslovno dejavnost davčnega zavezanca“.
In that regard, the Court has already held that the purpose of excluding incidental financial transactions from the denominator of the fraction used to calculate the deductible proportion in accordance with Article 19 of the Sixth Directive is to comply with the objective of complete neutrality guaranteed by the common system
Sodi�če je v zvezi s tem že odločilo, da je namen nevključitve priložnostnih finančnih transakcij v imenovalec ulomka, ki se uporablja za izračun deleža v skladu s členom 19 Šeste direktive, zagotoviti spo�tovanje cilja nevtralnosti, ki jo določa skupni sistem DDV. Če bi morali biti vsi prejemki iz finančnih transakcij davčnega
2008 — CASE C-98/07 of VAT. If all receipts from a taxable person’s financial transactions linked to a taxable activity were to be included in that denominator, even where the creation of such receipts did not entail the use of goods or services subject to VAT or, at least, entailed only their very limited use, calculation of the deduction would be distorted (Case C-306/94 Régie dauphinoise [1996] ECR I-3695, paragraph 21).
2008 – ZADEVA C-98/07 zavezanca, ki so povezani z obdavčeno dejavnostjo, vključeni v navedeni imenovalec, čeprav se pridobitev teh prejemkov ne nana�a na nobeno blago in storitev, za katere je treba plačati davek, ali na zelo omejen obseg blaga in storitev, bi bil izračun odbitka izkrivljen (sodba z dne 11. julija 1996 v zadevi Régie dauphinoise, C-306/94, Recueil, str. I-3695, točka 21).
By adopting the provisions of Article 19(2) of the Sixth Directive, the Community legislature thus intended to exclude from the calculation of the proportion the turnover attributable to a sale of goods where that sale is of an unusual nature in relation to the normal activities of the taxable person concerned and does not therefore require the use of goods or services for mixed use in a way that is proportionate to the turnover which it generates.
Zakonodajalec Skupnosti je s sprejetjem določbe člena 19(2) Šeste direktive torej nameraval iz izračuna deleža izključiti promet, ki se nana�a na prodajo blaga, kadar ima ta prodaja v primerjavi s tekočo dejavnostjo zadevnega davčnega zavezanca neobičajno naravo in zanjo torej ni treba, da se blago in storitve, namenjene me�ani uporabi, uporabljajo na način, ki je sorazmeren prometu, ki ga taka prodaja ustvari.
As the Advocate General stated in point 68 of his Opinion, the inclusion of that turnover in the calculation of the deductible proportion would distort the resultant figure in the sense that it would no longer reflect the division of use of goods or services for mixed use as between taxable and exempt activities respectively.
Kot v točki 68 sklepnih predlogov poudarja generalni pravobranilec, bi vključitev tega prometa v izračun odbitnega deleža izkrivila njegov rezultat tako, da ne bi več odražal dela uporabe blaga ali storitev, ki so namenjene me�ani uporabi, za obdavčene in opro�čene dejavnosti.
In those circumstances, the notion of ‘capital goods used by the taxable person for the purposes of his business’ within the meaning of Article 19(2) of the Sixth Directive cannot include capital goods the sale of which is, for the taxable person concerned, in the nature of a normal business activity.
Ob upo�tevanju tega pojem „investicijsko blago, ki ga je davčni zavezanec uporabljal za namene svoje dejavnosti“ v smislu člena 19(2) Šeste direktive torej ne vključuje blaga, katerega prodaja ima za zadevnega davčnega zavezanca neobičajno naravo.
Since that sale is part of the normal taxable activities of the taxable person, the turnover attributable to it must be taken into account in the calculation of the deductible proportion in order for that proportion to reflect as accurately as possible the division of use, in respect of those activities, of the goods and services put to mixed use, since otherwise there would be a failure to have regard to the objective of the neutrality of the common system of VAT.
Ker je ta prodaja del običajnih in obdavčenih dejavnosti davčnega zavezanca, je treba promet, ki se nana�a nanjo, upo�tevati pri izračunu odbitnega deleža, tako da ta kar najnatančnej�e odraža del uporabe blaga in storitev, ki so namenjeni me�ani uporabi, za te dejavnosti, ker v nasprotnem primeru namen nevtralnosti skupnega sistema DDV ne bi bil dosežen.
Therefore, if, as in the case in the main proceedings, the sale, on termination of the leasing contracts, of the vehicles covered by those contracts is in the nature of a normal activity for the taxable person concerned, who carries out that activity
Kadar ima kot v postopku v glavni stvari prodaja vozil po izteku pogodbe o lizingu, ki je predmet teh pogodb, za zadevnega davčnega zavezanca naravo tekoče dejavnosti, ki jo opravlja profesionalno in sistematično, bi bilo v nasprotju z navedenim ciljem
NORDANIA FINANS AND BG FACTORING by way of business and as a matter of course, it would be contrary to that objective of neutrality if that taxable person were not actually relieved of the portion of VAT imposed on the overall costs incurred to effect that sale and thus to carry on its usual taxable business activity.
NORDANIA FINANS IN BG FACTORING nevtralnosti, da ta davčni zavezanec dejansko ne bi bil razbremenjen deleža DDV, ki bremeni splo�ne stro�ke, ki so služili opravljanju te prodaje, in torej opravljanju običajne obdavčene ekonomske dejavnosti.
It follows that the turnover attributable to such a sale cannot be considered to relate to ‘capital goods used by the taxable person for the purposes of his business’ within the meaning of Article 19(2) of the Sixth Directive.
Iz tega izhaja, da prometa, ki se nana�a na tako prodajo, ni mogoče �teti za promet, ki se nana�a na „investicijsko blago, ki ga je davčni zavezanec uporabljal za namene svoje dejavnosti“ v smislu člena 19(2) Šeste direktive.
That finding cannot be called into question by the fact that, in the context of Second Council Directive 67/228/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes — Structure and procedures for application of the common system of value added tax (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p.
Te ugotovitve ni mogoče postavljati pod vpra�aj zaradi dejstva, da je Sodi�če v okviru Druge direktive Sveta 67/228/EGS z dne 11. aprila 1967 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih – Struktura in postopek uporabe skupnega sistem davka na dodano vrednost (UL 71, str.
16) (‘the Second Directive’), the Court held that the definition of ‘capital goods’ in the third indent of the first paragraph of Article 17 of that directive covered goods used for the purposes of some business activity and distinguishable by their durable nature and their value and such that the acquisition costs are not normally treated as current expenditure but are written off over several years (Case 51/76 Verbond van Nederlandse Ondernemingen [1977] ECR 113, paragraph 12).
1303, v nadaljevanju: Druga direktiva) odločilo, da se pojem „investicijsko blago“ iz člena 17, prvi odstavek, tretja alinea, navedene direktive nana�a na blago, ki se uporablja za ekonomsko dejavnost in ki se razlikuje po svoji trajni naravi in vrednosti, zaradi česar stro�ki pridobitve običajno niso obračunani kot tekoči stro�ki, temveč so amortizirani v teku več poslovnih obdobij (sodba z dne 1. februarja 1977 v zadevi Verbond van Nederlandse Ondernemingen, 51/76, Recueil, str. 113, točka 12).
In the case which gave rise to the judgment in Verbond van Nederlandse Ondernemingen, it was for the national court to ascertain, having regard to the Netherlands legislation in force, whether office supplies of low value could be regarded as capital goods which could, under Article 17 of the Second Directive, be excluded from the right to deduct VAT provided for by that directive.
V zadevi, v kateri je bila razgla�ena zgoraj navedena sodba Verbond van Nederlandse Ondernemingen, je moralo predložitveno sodi�če ob upo�tevanju veljavne nizozemske zakonodaje določiti, ali je mogoče pisarni�ki material majhne vrednosti opredeliti kot investicijsko blago, ki se ga lahko v skladu s členom 1 Druge direktive izključi iz pravice do odbitka DDV, ki jo predvideva navedena direktiva.
Even if vehicles purchased by a business in order to carry on its business activities may constitute capital goods in terms of the interpretation given, in that context, of Article 17 of the Second Directive, it cannot be inferred merely from the criteria laid down by the Court in that judgment that such vehicles are to be classified as capital goods in respect of the application of Article 19(2) of the Sixth Directive.
Čeprav bi bila vozila, ki jih podjetje kupi za izvajanje svoje ekonomske dejavnosti, investicijsko blago v pomenu razlage, podane v tem okviru člena 17 Druge direktive, pa zgolj iz kriterijev, ki jih je Sodi�če določilo v tej sodbi, vseeno ne more izhajati, da je taka vozila mogoče tako opredeliti ob upo�tevanju uporabe člena 19(2) Šeste direktive.
To exclude generally from the calculation of the deductible proportion goods which are used for the purposes of a business activity and are indeed distinguishable by their durable nature and their value, such that the acquisition costs are not normally treated as current expenditure but are written off over several years, without taking account of the fact that the sale of those goods, at the end of the leasing contracts, is an integral part of the normal activity of the taxable person, would run directly counter to the objective of neutrality of the common system of VAT.
Splo�na izključitev blaga – ki se uporablja za ekonomsko dejavnost in ki se vsekakor razlikuje po svoji trajni naravi in vrednosti, zaradi česar stro�ki pridobitve običajno niso obračunani kot tekoči stro�ki, temveč so amortizirani v teku več poslovnih obdobij, ne da bi se upo�tevalo, da je njegova prodaja ob izteku pogodbe o lizingu integralni del tekoče ekonomske dejavnosti davčnega zavezanca – iz izračuna odbitnega deleža bi bila namreč neposredno v nasprotju s ciljem nevtralnosti skupnega sistema DDV.