natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
basis and in the light of the objectives of the enactment in which they appear.
razlago. Poln in celoten pomen teh pojmov je mogoče ugotoviti �ele, ko se konkretizirajo, od primera do primera in glede na cilje predpisa, katerega del so.
From this viewpoint, in the present context the interpretation of the concept ‘significant’ must take account of the discretion that the Sixth Directive leaves the Member States to determine what this word covers in the context in which it is applied. 13
S tega vidika je v teh okoli�činah pri razlagi pojma „znatno“ za določitev, kaj ta izraz pokriva v okoli�činah njegove uporabe, 13treba upo�tevati diskrecijsko pravico, ki jo imajo v skladu s Šesto direktivo države članice.
The Community legislature no doubt specifically intended to opt for a word such as ‘significant’ presupposing a distortion of competition that is probably more than trivial, but is not exceptional.
Brez dvoma se je zakonodajalec Skupnosti namenoma odločil za tak izraz, kot je „znatno“, ki predpostav - lja izkrivljanje konkurence, ki je verjetno večje kot le neznatno, vendar pa ni izjemno. Odgovor na to vpra�anje bi lahko spominjal na pripombo Bernarda Shawa, da „je najtežje odgovoriti na vpra�anje, na katero je odgovor očiten“.
In addition, quite often the interpretation of such a concept can be established only by means of a negative definition highlighting more what it is not than what it is.
Poleg tega je razlaga takega pojma zelo pogosto mogoča le na podlagi negativne opredelitve, s katero se bolj poudari, česa ta pojem ne obsega, kot kaj obsega.
In this regard, as already noted, the various subparagraphs of Article 4(5) are closely linked so that the interpretation of one of them cannot be isolated from the interpretation to be placed on each of the others.
Glede na to so, kot je bilo poudarjeno zgoraj, različni pododstavki odstavka 5 člena 4 tesno povezani, tako da razlage enega od njih ni mogoče podati neodvisno od razlag, ki veljajo za vsakega od teh pododstavkov.
Thus, the view that the mere exercise of rights and powers of public authority, which characterise the activity as being that of an authority acting as a public authority, is sufficient to preclude the existence of any distortion of competition with, in particular, private operators would effectively render the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive redundant.
Tako bi s tem, da bi se �telo, da že samo izvr�evanje pooblastil javnega organa, zaradi katerih se dejavnost obravnava kot dejavnost organa, ki nastopa kot organ oblasti, zado�ča za izključitev obstoja vsakr�nega izkrivljanja konkurence predvsem z zasebnimi subjekti, postal neučinkovit drugi odstavek člena 4(5) Šeste direktive.
Similarly, the exclusion from the scope of VAT that is enjoyed by a
Podobno ni mogoče �teti, da že sama izključitev s področja uporabe DDV, priznana v korist organa, ki nastopa kot organ oblasti, povzroči izkrivljanje konkurence,
13 — For similar reasoning, see in particular Joined Cases C-240/98 to C-244/98 Océano Grupo Editorial and Salvat Editores [2000] ECR I-4941, paragraph 25 et seq.
13 – Za podobno sklepanje glej zlasti sodbo z dne 27. junija 2000 v zadevi Océano Grupo Editorial in Salvat Editores (od C-240/98 do C-244/98, Recueil, str. I-4941, točka 25 in naslednje).
The risk run by replacing one word with another is that of choosing wording that is just as equivocal.
Tveganje, ki obstaja pri zamenjavi ene besede z drugo, je namreč v tem, da se izbere izraz, ki je ravno tako nejasen.
It seems to me to be more pertinent to begin by recognising the limits to the interpretation of certain terms, which in actual fact resist all predetermination by means of general and abstract interpretation.
Bolj primerno se mi zdi začeti z določitvijo okvirov razlage določenih pojmov, ki jih dejansko ni mogoče predhodno določiti s splo�no in abstraktno
The concept can be given further concrete expression only on a case-by-case basis and in the light of the objectives of the Sixth Directive which have been specified in the first part of this Opinion.
Vsaka druga konkretizacija pojma je mogoča le od primera do primera in glede na cilje Šeste direktive, ki so bili navedeni v prvem delu teh sklepnih predlogov.
It must therefore be concluded in this regard that the interpretation of such a concept falls within the discretion of the Member States inasmuch as it can acquire its meaning only in the context in which it is applied, provided that that interpretation complies with the objectives, as have been specified, of the Sixth Directive.
Tako je treba na tej točki ugotoviti, da imajo države članice glede razlage takega pojma diskrecijsko pravico, saj je njegov pomen mogoče ugotoviti le v okoli�činah njegove uporabe in če se pri navedeni razlagi spo�tujejo cilji Šeste direktive, kot so bili navedeni.
body acting as a public authority cannot be considered in itself to entail a distortion of competition justifying treatment as a taxable person under the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive.
ki bi upravičevalo zavezanost za DDV na podlagi drugega pododstavka člena 4(5) Šeste direktive.
Only a significant distortion of competition is to trigger payment of VAT by bodies acting as public authorities if the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) is not to be rendered redundant.
Zgolj znatno izkrivljanje konkurence mora namreč biti razlog, da mora organ, ki nastopa kot organ oblasti, plačati davek, drugače prvi pododstavek člena 4(5) Šeste direktive postane neučinkovit.
Any other interpretation would risk including practically all transactions or activities engaged in by a public authority, acting as such, within the scope of the derogation from the rule that such bodies are not taxable persons for VAT purposes.
Na podlagi vsake druge razlage bi odstopanje od pravila, da se organi oblasti obravnavajo, kot da niso zavezanci za DDV, veljalo praktično za vse transakcije ali dejavnosti, ki bi jih opravil javni organ, ki bi nastopal kot organ oblasti.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling as follows:
Glede na navedeno predlagam Sodi�ču, naj na vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje odgovori:
The interpretation of such a concept falls within the discretion of the Member States inasmuch as it can acquire its meaning only in the context in which it is applied, provided that that interpretation complies with the objectives, as have been specified, of Directive 77/388.
Države članice imajo glede razlage takega pojma diskrecijsko pravico, saj je njegov pomen mogoče ugotoviti le v okoli�činah njegove uporabe, pod pogojem, da se pri navedeni razlagi spo�tujejo cilji Direktive 77/388, kot so bili navedeni.“
2008 — CASE C-288/07
2008 – ZADEVA C-288/07
Advocate General: M. Poiares Maduro, Registrar: C. Strömholm, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 1 April 2008, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Strömholm, administratorka, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 1. aprila 2008, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p 1; ‘the Sixth Directive’).
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago člena 4(5), drugi pododstavek, Šeste direktive Sveta z dne 17. maja 1977 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih – Skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost: enotna osnova za odmero (UL L 145, str. 1, v nadaljevanju: Šesta direktiva).
The reference was made in the course of proceedings between the Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (‘the Commissioners’) and four local authorities, namely the Isle of Wight Council, Mid-Suffolk District Council, South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council and West Berkshire District Council (hereinafter, together, ‘the local authorities concerned’), regarding their treatment as taxable persons for the purposes of value added tax (‘VAT’) on the provision of off-street car-parking facilities (‘off-street parking’). I - 7221
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru sporov med Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (v nadaljevanju: Commissioners) in �tirimi lokalnimi organi, in sicer Isle of Wight Council, Mid-Suffolk District Council, South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council in West Berkshire District Council (v nadaljevanju skupaj: zadevni davčni organi) glede obdavčenja teh organov z davkom na dodano vrednost (v nadaljevanju: DDV) za dejavnosti izkori�čanja zaprtih avtomobilskih parkiri�č („off-street parking“) (v nadaljevanju: zaprta parkiri�ča). I - 7221
Article 2 of the Sixth Directive, in Title II thereof, entitled ‘Scope’, provides:
Člen 2 Šeste direktive, ki je pod naslovom II „Področje uporabe“, določa:
Article 4 of the Sixth Directive, in Title IV thereof, entitled ‘Taxable Persons’, states:
Člen 4 Šeste direktive, ki je pod naslovom IV „Davčni zavezanci“, določa:
Member States may consider activities of these bodies which are exempt under Article 13 or 28 as activities which they engage in as public authorities.’
Države članice lahko �tejejo dejavnosti teh organov, ki so opro�čene po členu 13 ali 28, za dejavnosti, ki jih opravljajo kot organi oblasti.“
Annex D to the Sixth Directive, to which the third subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive refers, lists 13 types of activities.
V prilogi D k Šesti direktivi, na katero se sklicuje njen člen 4(5), tretji pododstavek, je na�tetih dvanajst vrst transakcij.
However, the provision of off-street parking is not among them.
Vendar določb o zaprtih parkiri�čih ni med njimi.
Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive, the direct effect of which was recognised by the Court in Joined Cases 231/87 and 129/88 Comune di Carpaneto Piacentino and
Člen 4(5) Šeste direktive, katerega neposredni učinek je Sodi�če priznalo v sodbi z dne 17. oktobra 1989 v zadevi Comune di Carpaneto Piacentino in drugi (231/87
2008 — CASE C-288/07
2008 – ZADEVA C-288/07 in 129/88, Recueil, str.
Others [1989] ECR 3233, paragraph 33, has not been transposed into the law of the United Kingdom.
3233, točka 33), ni bil prenesen v pravo Združenega kraljestva.
The local authorities concerned provide off-street car-parking facilities.
Zadevni lokalni organi ponujajo v najem zaprta parkiri�ča.
The private sector also provides like facilities.
Tudi zasebni sektor ponuja te storitve.
Historically, the local authorities in the United Kingdom accepted that they were accountable for VAT on their revenue from the provision of off-street parking.
Zgodovinsko so se v Združenem kraljestvu lokalne skupnosti �tele za zavezance za plačilo DDV od dohodkov, ki so jih prejele od izkori�čanja teh zaprtih parkiri�č.
However, following the decision in Case C-446/98 Fazenda Pública [2000] ECR I-11435, some 127 local authorities made claims for repayment of the VAT they had previously paid, taking the view by reason of the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive that they should not have been accountable for that VAT.
Vendar je po razglasitvi sodbe z dne 14. decembra 2000 v zadevi Fazenda Pública (C-446/98, Recueil, str. I-11435) približno 127 lokalnih skupnosti vložilo zahtevke za vračilo DDV, ki so ga pred tem plačale, pri čemer so menile, da na podlagi člena 4(5), prvi pododstavek, Šeste direktive ne bi smele biti zavezanci za ta davek.
The total of the claims made for repayment amounts to GBP 129 million.
Skupni znesek vloženih zahtevkov za vračilo zna�a 129 milijonov GBP.
As regards the total sum which could be reclaimed, it is stated in the order for reference that there are some 468 local authorities in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
V predložitveni odločbi je v zvezi s celotnim zneskom, ki ga je mogoče zahtevati, navedeno, da je v Združenem kraljestvu Velika Britanija in Severna Irska približno 468 lokalnih skupnosti.
In the cases in the main proceedings, the claims amount to GBP 1.6 million.
V sporih v postopku v glavni stvari zahtevani zneski zna�ajo 1,6 milijona GBP.
The referring court indicates that these cases are test cases as the local authorities concerned form a representative cross-section of all local authorities.
Predložitveno sodi�če poudarja, da so ti spori testne zadeve, ker zadevni lokalni organi predstavljajo reprezentativen del vseh lokalnih skupnosti.
The Isle of Wight Council, Mid-Suffolk District Council, South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council and West Berkshire District Council administer, respectively, an island, a rural area, an urban area and a provincial region.
Isle of Wight Council, Mid-Suffolk District Council, South Tyneside Metropolitan Bourough Council in West Berkshire District Council zagotavljajo namreč upravo otoka, podeželskega območja, mestnega območja in regije.
Since the local authorities concerned concluded that under a correct interpretation of Community law they were not subject to VAT for the activities in question, they claimed repayment of the VAT previously paid.
Ker so zadevni lokalni organi menili, da v skladu s pravilno razlago prava Skupnosti niso bili dolžni plačati DDV za zadevno dejavnost, so zahtevali vračilo DDV, ki so ga pred tem plačali.
However, the Commissioners refused such repayment.
Vendar so Commissioners to vračilo zavrnili.
Consequently, those local authorities appealed against the Commissioners’ decision to the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London.
Ti lokalni organi so zato pri VAT and Duties Tribunal, London, vložili pritožbo zoper to odločbo Commissioners.
Having held that the question of the exemption from VAT of bodies governed by public law on the basis of the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive must be dealt with separately for each of the local authorities concerned, that is on a ‘taxable person by taxable person’ basis, the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London, concluded that the exemption of those authorities from VAT did not lead to significant distortions of competition.
VAT and Duties Tribunal, London, je, ker je odločilo, da bi moralo biti vpra�anje, ali se osebe javnega prava obravnava, kot da niso davčni zavezanci, na podlagi člena 4(5), drugi pododstavek, Šeste direktive, preučeno za vsak zadevni lokalni organ posebej, torej po načelu „vsak davčni zavezanec posebej“, ugotovilo, da naj obravnava teh organov, kot da niso davčni zavezanci za DDV, ne bi povzročila znatnega izkrivljanja konkurence.
Each of those authorities was thus exempt from VAT in respect of its revenue from the provision of off-street parking.
Vsak od navedenih organov je bil torej opro�čen plačila DDV od dohodkov, ki so jih prejeli od izkori�čanja zaprtih parkiri�č.
In those circumstances the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
V teh okoli�činah je High Court of Justice (England & Wales) (Chancery Division) prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ta vpra�anja: „1.
2008 — CASE C-288/07 question provides off-street parking or by reference to the totality of the national territory of the Member State?
2008 – ZADEVA C-288/07 območja oziroma območij, na katerih naveden organ izkori�ča zaprta parkiri�ča, ali ob upo�tevanju celotnega nacionalnega ozemlja države članice?
What is meant by the expression “would lead to”?
Kaj pomeni izraz ‚bi […] povzročila‘?
In particular, what degree of probability or level of certainty is required for that condition to be satisfied?
Zlasti, kak�na stopnja verjetnosti ali raven gotovosti je potrebna, da je ta pogoj izpolnjen?
What is meant by the word “significant”?
Kaj pomeni izraz ‚znatno‘?
In particular, does “significant” mean an effect on competition that is more than trivial or de minimis, a “material” effect or an “exceptional” effect?’
Zlasti, ali ‚znatno‘ pomeni vpliv na konkurenco, ki je več kot le zanemarljiv ali de minimis, ali pomeni ‚bistven‘ oziroma ‚izjemen‘ vpliv?“
The local authorities concerned submit that the expression ‘distortions of competition’ is properly to be ascertained on a public body by public body basis, such that, in the context of the present case, it should be interpreted by reference to the area or areas where the particular body in question provides off-street parking and not by
Zadevni lokalni organi menijo, da je treba izraz „izkrivljanje konkurence“ presojati za vsako osebo javnega prava tako, da ga je v okviru obravnavane zadeve treba razlagati ob upo�tevanju območja oziroma območij, na katerih navedeni organ ponuja v najem zaprta parkiri�ča, in ne ob upo�tevanju hipotetičnega trga, ki bi pokrival celotno
ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL AND OTHERS reference to a hypothetical market which encompasses the totality of the national territory of any particular Member State.
ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL IN DRUGI nacionalno ozemlje določene države članice.
A contrary approach would be inconsistent with the very concept of ‘competition’.
Ob upo�tevanju samega pojma konkurenca nasprotni pristop ne bi bil koherenten.
The VAT exemption conferred on each of those authorities does not lead in any way to distortions of competition in relation to private providers or local authorities in, for example, Glasgow, let alone to ‘significant’ distortions.
Lokalni organi menijo, da naj oprostitev od plačila DDV, odobrena vsakemu od njih, nikakor ne bi povzročila izkrivljanja konkurence v primerjavi z zasebnimi ponudniki ali lokalnimi organi, ki so na primer v Glasgowu, in �e manj „znatnega“ izkrivljanja.
Similarly, a person who wished to shop on the Isle of Wight would not park his vehicle in Manchester.
Podobno oseba, ki bi želela nakupovati na otoku Isle of Wight, ne bi parkirala svojega vozila v Manchesterju.
The United Kingdom Government, relying especially on the fundamental prin -ciples of fiscal neutrality and legal certainty, submits that as a matter of principle, ‘the activities’ approach, that is taking account of the entire national market and not of each local market, is the most sensible approach to the interpretation of the second subparagraph of Article 4(5).
Vlada Združenega kraljestva, ki se opira zlasti na temeljna načela davčne nevtralnosti in pravne varnosti, meni, da je načeloma pristop „vsaka dejavnost posebej“, torej pristop, ki upo�teva nacionalni trg v celoti in ne vsakega lokalnega trga, najbolj razumen za namene razlage člena 4(5), drugi pododstavek, Šeste direktive.
The local nature of demand means that even in an area within a given local authority, several local markets could exist in some of which there might be competition, while there might be no competition in others.
Lokalni značaj zahtevka bi pomenil, da bi lahko tudi na območju, ki spada pod določen lokalni organ, obstajalo več lokalnih trgov, s tem da bi lahko na določenih trgih obstajala konkurenca, na drugih pa ne bi mogla obstajati.
In Ireland’s submission, it is clear from the Court’s caselaw that the Member States are free to choose the appropriate method for transposing the second and third subparagraphs of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive into national law.
Irska meni, da iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča izhaja, da države članice prosto izbirajo najprimernej�o metodo za prenos člena 4(5), drugi in tretji pododstavek, Šeste direktive v nacionalno pravo.
It is for each Member State to determine the activities engaged in by the State or public entities which, if not subjected to VAT, would lead to significant distortions of competition.
Vsaka država članica naj bi opredelila, katere dejavnosti, ki jih opravljajo država in javni subjekti, bi, če ne bi bile obdavčene z DDV, povzročile znatno izkrivljanje konkurence.
The Member States may, thus, adopt local, regional or nationwide approaches.
Države članice bi lahko tako sprejele lokalni, regionalni ali nacionalni pristop.
The Italian Government suggests that principles specific to the field of competition be applied.
Italijanska vlada predlaga uporabo načel, ki veljajo za področje konkurence.
In that regard, it refers to the Commission’s Notice on the definition of relevant market for the purposes of Community competition law (OJ 1997 C 372, p.
V zvezi s tem se sklicuje na Obvestilo Komisije o opredelitvi upo�tevnega trga za namene konkurenčnega prava Skupnosti (UL 1997, C 372, str.
5) and concludes, on that basis, that the relevant geographic market cannot be the
5) in na podlagi tega meni, da upo�tevnega geografskega trga v sporih v postopku v glavni stvari nikakor ne more predstavljati celoten nacionalni trg.
2008 — CASE C-288/07 entire national market. In matters of off-street parking there cannot be any conceivable competition between the parking facilities offered by different towns.
2008 – ZADEVA C-288/07 bilo mogoče �teti, da obstaja kakr�nakoli konkurenca med storitvami, ki jih ponujajo različna mesta.
The Commission of the European Communities takes the view that it is the nature of the activity, and not the local conditions of competition, that has to be taken into account to assess the likelihood of distortions of competition.
Komisija Evropskih skupnosti meni, da je treba pri presoji nevarnosti izkrivljanja konkurence upo�tevati naravo dejavnosti in ne lokalnih pogojev konkurence.
That such an approach is correct may be inferred from the fact that the third subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive provides that the activities listed in Annex D thereto are in any event to be subjected to VAT, unless they are negligible.
O utemeljenosti takega pristopa bi bilo mogoče sklepati na podlagi dejstva, da člen 4(5), tretji pododstavek, Šeste direktive določa, da je treba transakcije iz priloge D k tej direktivi v vsakem primeru obdavčiti z DDV, razen če bi bil obseg teh dejavnosti tako majhen, da bi bil zanemarljiv.
In doing so, the Sixth Dir -ective clearly proceeds on the basis that the relationship of competition and the consequent likelihood of distortions fall to be determined in the abstract, having regard to the activity as such and without reference to local conditions.
Pri tem Šesta direktiva jasno izhaja iz domneve, v skladu s katero bi bilo treba konkurenčno razmerje in nevarnost izkrivljanja, ki je njegova posledica, opredeliti abstraktno ob upo�tevanju same narave dejavnosti in brez sklicevanja na lokalne razmere.
At the outset, it must be noted that, under the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive, States, regional and local government authorities and other bodies governed by public law are not to be considered taxable persons in respect of the activities or transactions in which they engage as public authorities.
Najprej je treba opozoriti, da se v skladu s členom 4(5), prvi pododstavek, Šeste direktive državni, regionalni in lokalni organi ter druge osebe javnega prava ne �tejejo za davčne zavezance v zvezi z dejavnostmi ali transakcijami, ki jih opravljajo kot organi oblasti.
As the Court has held on numerous occasions, two conditions must be cumulatively fulfilled in order for that provision to apply: the activities must be carried out by a body governed by public law and they must be carried out by that body acting as a public authority (see to that effect, particularly, Case C-202/90 Ayuntamiento de Sevilla [1991] ECR I-4247, paragraph 18, and Fazenda Pública, cited above, paragraph 15).
Kot je Sodi�če že večkrat poudarilo, morata biti za to, da se uporabi ta določba, kumulativno izpolnjena dva pogoja, in sicer, da dejavnosti opravlja oseba javnega prava in da jih opravlja kot organ oblasti (glej v tem smislu zlasti sodbo z dne 25. julija 1991 v zadevi Ayuntamiento de Sevilla, C-202/90, Recueil, str. I-4247, točka 18, in zgoraj navedeno sodbo Fazenda Pública, točka 15).
As regards the first of those conditions, it is common ground that the local authorities concerned are bodies governed by public law within the meaning of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive.
V zvezi s prvim pogojem ni sporno, da so zadevni lokalni organi osebe javnega prava v smislu člena 4(5) Šeste direktive.