natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Article 8(9) of Law No 289/2002 allows taxpayers who have used the confidential procedure under Article 8(4) of that law to be exempted from all verification save that of the consistency of their supplementary returns.
Člen 8(9) navedenega zakona dovoljuje davčnim zavezancem, ki so uporabili zaupni postopek iz člena 8(4) tega zakona, da se izognejo vsakr�nemu preverjanju, razen preverjanju glede doslednosti njihovih dodatnih obračunov.
Article 8(10) of Law No 289/2002 provides, however, that the benefit of Article 8 is not to be available to the following:
Člen 8(10) zakona �t. 289/2002 določa, da do uporabe določb člena 8 niso upravičeni:
— taxable persons who, on the date of entry into force of Law No 289/2002, had already been served with a formal report finding an infringement, a correction notice or a notice to attend adversarial proceedings;
– davčni zavezanci, ki jim je bil na datum začetka veljavnosti tega zakona vročen zapisnik, v katerem je bila ugotovljena kr�itev, odločba o popravku ali so bili pozvani k udeležbi v kontradiktornem postopku;
— taxable persons in respect of whom criminal proceedings had already been brought for the offences referred to in Article 8(6)(c) of Law No 289/2002 and of which they had been formally informed before the date on which they filed the supplementary VAT return.
– davčni zavezanci, v zvezi s katerimi je bil začet kazenski pregon zaradi kr�itev iz člena 8(6)(c) istega zakona, o katerem so bili uradno obve�čeni pred datumom predložitve dodatnega obračuna DDV.
Article 9 of Law No 289/2002
Člen 9 zakona �t. 289/2002
Article 9 of Law No 289/2002 concerns ‘Automatic settlement in respect of past years’.
Člen 9 zakona �t. 289/2002 se nana�a na „Avtomatično poravnavo za prej�nja leta“.
Although the tax periods covered by the automatic settlement are the same as those under Article 8 of Law No 289/2002, the return submitted under Article 9 of that law must, by contrast, relate to ‘all tax periods, failing which it will be null and void’ (Article 9(1) of the law).
Čeprav so davčna leta, na katera se nana�a navedena avtomatična poravnava, enaka kot leta iz člena 8 zakona �t. 289/2002, pa se mora obračun iz člena 9 tega zakona, v skladu z odstavkom 1 tega člena 9 navedenega zakona, „[nana�ati na] vsa davčna leta, da bi se izognili neveljavnosti“.
That percentage is fixed at 1.5% for input or output tax which exceeds EUR 200 000 and 1% for amounts over EUR 300 000.
Ta odstotek je določen na 1,5 % za vstopni ali izstopni davek, ki preseže 200.000 EUR, in na 1 % za zneske, ki presegajo 300.000 EUR.
Where application of Article 9(2)(b) of Law No 289/2000 entails payment of a sum in excess of EUR 11 600 000, the portion exceeding that figure is reduced by 80%.
Kadar pa je posledica uporabe te določbe plačilo zneska, vi�jega od 11.600.000 EUR, se delež, ki presega ta znesek, zmanj�a za 80 %.
Article 9(6) of that law, however, sets a minimum figure for each year’s payments of EUR 500 where turnover does not exceed EUR 50 000; EUR 600 where turnover is between EUR 50 000 and EUR 180 000; and EUR 700 where turnover exceeds EUR 180 000.
Vendar člen 9(6) navedenega zakona določa minimalno vsoto za vsakoletna plačila, in sicer v znesku 500 EUR, kadar promet zadevnega davčnega zavezanca ne presega 50.000 EUR; 600 EUR, kadar je ta promet med 50.000 in 180.000 EUR, in 700 EUR, kadar promet presega 180.000 EUR.
For each tax year in respect of which no returns have been submitted at all, Article 9(8) of Law No 289/2002 requires a flatrate payment of EUR 1 500 for natural persons, and EUR 3 000 for companies and associations.
Člen 9(8) zakona 289/2002 za posamezna davčna leta, ko obračuni sploh niso bili predloženi, zahteva pav�alno plačilo v vi�ini 1500 EUR za zadevne fizične osebe in 3000 EUR za družbe in združenja.
Under Article 9(10)(b) and (c) of Law No 289/2002, the effect of the automatic settlement procedure for VAT purposes is that, for the taxable person concerned, fiscal administrative penalties lapse, criminal penalties may no longer be applied for certain related offences under tax law or non-tax law and no more tax verifications may be carried out.
V skladu s členom 9(10)(b) in (c) navedenega zakona avtomatična poravnava v zvezi z DDV za zadevnega davčnega zavezanca pomeni ugasnitev s tem povezanih upravnih in davčnih sankcij, izključitev uporabe kazenskopravnih sankcij za določene davčne in nedavčne kr�itve ter izključitev vsakr�nega davčnega nadzora.
— taxable persons who, on the date of entry into force of Law No 289/2002, had already been served with a formal report finding an infringement, a correction notice or a notice to attend adversarial proceedings;
– davčni zavezanci, ki jim je bil na datum začetka veljavnosti tega zakona vročena zapisnik, v katerem je bila ugotovljena kr�itev, in odločba o popravku ali so bili pozvani k udeležbi v kontradiktornem postopku;
— taxable persons in respect of whom criminal proceedings had already been brought for the offences referred to in Article 9(10)(c) of Law No 289/2002 and of which they had been formally informed before the date on which they filed the supplementary VAT return;
– davčni zavezanci, proti katerim se je začel kazenski pregon zaradi kr�itev iz člena 9(10)(c) istega zakona, o katerem so bili uradno obve�čeni pred datumom predložitve dodatnega obračuna;
— taxable persons who failed to submit returns in respect of every tax referred to in Article 9(2) and every tax period referred to in Article 9(1).
– davčni zavezanci, ki niso predložili vseh obračunov v zvezi z vsemi plačili iz odstavka 2 člena 9 za vsa davčna leta iz odstavka 1 člena 9.
On the view that Articles 8 and 9 of Law No 289/2002 are incompatible with Art -icles 2 and 22 of the Sixth Directive and with Articles 10 EC and 249 EC, the Commission, pursuant to the procedure provided for in Article 226 EC, sent a letter of formal notice, dated 16 December 2003, to the Italian Republic.
Komisija je, ker je menila, da določbe členov 8 in 9 zakona �t. 289/2002 niso združljive s členoma 2 in 22 Šeste direktive ter s členoma 10 ES in 249 ES, v skladu s postopkom iz člena 226 ES 16. decembra 2003 na Italijansko republiko naslovila pisni opomin. Ta država članica je z dopisom z dne 30. marca 2004 ugovarjala nezdružljivosti, na katero se je sklicevala Komisija.
Not satisfied with the response from the Italian Republic, the Commission sent that Member State a reasoned opinion by letter of 18 October 2004, calling upon it to comply with that opinion within two months of receipt thereof.
Ker Komisija z odgovorom Italijanske republike ni bila zadovoljna, je 18. oktobra 2004 izdala obrazloženo mnenje, s katerim jo je pozvala, naj v dveh mesecih od prejetja tega obrazloženega mnenja sprejme ukrepe, potrebne za uskladitev z njim.
In its reply of 31 January 2005 to that reasoned opinion, the Italian Republic again denied that there was such an incompatibility.
Italijanska republika je 31. januarja 2005 v odgovoru na navedeno obrazloženo mnenje ponovno ugovarjala obstoju take nezdružljivosti.
It was in those circumstances that the Commission decided to bring the present action.
V navedenih okoli�činah se je Komisija odločila vložiti to tožbo.
The Commission states that Articles 2 and 22 of the Sixth Directive and Article 10 EC impose a twofold obligation on Member States, in that they are required to adopt not only all the national legislation necessary to give effect to the Sixth Directive, but also all the administrative measures necessary to ensure that persons liable to pay VAT comply with the obligations arising under that directive, in particular with the obligation to pay in a timely manner the VAT payable following a taxable transaction.
Komisija navaja, da člena 2 in 22 Šeste direktive ter člen 10 ES državam nalagajo dve obveznosti, in sicer ne le, da izdajo vse nacionalne zakonodajne akte, potrebne za izvedbo Šeste direktive o DDV, ampak tudi, da sprejmejo vse potrebne upravne ukrepe za zagotovitev, da bodo zavezanci za DDV spo�tovali obveznosti iz te direktive, zlasti obveznost plačila davka od opravljanja obdavčljivih transakcij v določenem roku.
According to the Commission, Articles 8 and 9 of Law No 289/2002 derogate from the general legislation governing VAT and transposing the Community VAT direct -ives into Italian law.
Komisija meni, da člena 8 in 9 zakona �t. 289/2002 določata odstopanje od splo�ne zakonodaje o DDV in v italijansko pravo prena�ata direktive Skupnosti o DDV.
The Commission considers that such derogation is contrary to Articles 2 and 22 of the Sixth Directive.
Komisija �teje, da je tako odstopanje v nasprotju s členoma 2 in 22 Šeste direktive.
Regarding the obligation imposed on Member States by Article 2 of the Sixth Direct- ive to make all supplies of goods and services subject to VAT, it is inconceivable, according to the Commission, that a Member State may unilaterally release itself from the obligation to make certain categories of taxable transactions subject to VAT, either by introducing tax exemptions not provided for by the Community legislature, or by excluding from the scope of the Sixth Directive taxable transactions which ought properly to be covered by it.
Komisija v zvezi z obveznostjo, ki jo imajo države članice na podlagi člena 2 Šeste direktive, da obračunajo DDV za vsako dobavo blaga ter vse opravljene storitve, trdi, da je izključeno, da bi se država članica lahko enostransko izognila obveznosti obdavčiti z DDV določene kategorije obdavčljivih transakcij, s tem da bi uvedla oprostitve davka, ki jih zakonodajalec Skupnosti ni določil, ali iz področja uporabe te direktive izključila obdavčljive transakcije, ki bi nasprotno morale biti z njim zajete.
As regards the obligations referred to in Article 22 of the Sixth Directive, the Commission maintains that, as those obligations are framed in unequivocal and imperative terms, Member States may exempt taxable persons from one or other of those obligations only if a specific provision in Article 22 expressly empowers them to derogate from those obligations.
Komisija v zvezi z obveznostmi iz člena 22 Šeste direktive trdi, da lahko države članice, ker so te obveznosti določene nedvoumno in obvezujoče, davčnim zavezancem oprostijo katero od njih, le če posebna določba člena 22 izrecno določa, da imajo možnost odstopanja od navedenih obveznosti.
According to the Commission, Article 22(8) of that directive is intended to ensure that the national tax authorities possess the necessary means of enforcement through controls, whilst making taxable persons subject to the obligations arising from those enforcement requirements, and to place Member States under an obligation to ensure ‘the correct levying and collection of the tax’ through an effective strategy of verification and combating tax evasion.
Komisija meni, da se člen 22(8) navedene direktive nana�a na to, da se nacionalnim davčnim upravam zagotovijo potrebna sredstva za nadzor, s tem da davčnim zavezancem naložijo obveznosti, ki ustrezajo tem zahtevam nadzora, in na to, da se državam članicam naloži obveznost „zagotoviti pravilno odmero in pobiranje davka“ z učinkovitim preverjanjem in bojem proti goljufijam.
According to the Commission, Article 22 of the Sixth Directive does not confer on the Member States a measure of discretion enabling them to exempt all taxable persons from their obligation to keep accounts, to issue invoices and to submit VAT returns.
Komisija meni, da navedeni člen 22 državam članicam ne daje diskrecijske pravice, ki bi jim omogočala, da vse davčne zavezance oprostijo obveznosti vodenja knjig, izdajanja računov in predložitve obračuna za plačilo DDV.
The Commission acknowledges that when Member States check the accuracy of VAT returns and the related payments made by taxable persons, they enjoy a measure of discretion enabling them to adjust their controls according to the human resources and technical means at their disposal for that purpose.
Komisija priznava, da imajo države članice, ko preverjajo natančnost obračunov DDV in ustreznih izplačil davčnih zavezancev, določeno diskrecijsko pravico, ki jim omogoča prilagajanje njihovih ukrepov nadzora glede na kadrovske vire in tehnična sredstva, ki so v ta namen na voljo.
However, the Commission argues that Articles 8 and 9 of Law No 289/2002 go above and beyond the discretion granted to Member States by the Community legislature, in that the Italian Republic has introduced a general, indiscriminate and prior renunciation of the right of verification and enforcement through controls in the matter of VAT.
Vendar zatrjuje, da člena 8 in 9 zakona �t. 289/2002 presegata diskrecijsko pravico, ki jo je zakonodajalec Skupnosti dal državam članicam, ker je Italijanska republika sprejela splo�no, nerazlikovalno in predhodno opustitev vseh dejavnosti nadzora in preverjanja na področju DDV.
On the view that there is no link whatsoever between the tax debt calculated in accordance with the ordinary VAT rules and the amounts to be paid by the taxable persons wishing to take advantage of the amnesty arrangements provided for in Art -icles 8 and 9, respectively, of Law No 289/2002, the Commission maintains that the provisions laid down in those articles are liable seriously to disrupt the proper functioning of the common system of VAT, to distort the principle of fiscal neutrality inherent in that system and to infringe the obligation to ensure that VAT is collected in a uniform manner in all the Member States.
Ker je Komisija poleg tega ugotovila, da ni povezave med davčnim dolgom, izračunanim v skladu z običajnimi pravili o DDV, in zneski, ki jih mora plačati davčni zavezanec, ki želi biti upravičen do ugodnosti iz ureditve o amnestiji iz členov 8 in 9 zakona �t. 289/2002, meni, da določbe navedenih členov povzročajo resne motnje pravilnega delovanja skupnega sistem DDV, izkrivljajo načelo davčne nevtralnosti, ki velja za ta sistem, in pomenijo kr�itev obveznosti zagotoviti pobiranje davkov enotno v vseh državah članicah.
2008 — CASE C-132/06 of VAT. Rather, it comes into play in the area of enforcement and recovery of VAT, where Member States enjoy some margin of discretion.
2008 – ZADEVA C-132/06 nasprotno, ume�ča na področje nadzora in izterjave davka, na katerem imajo države članice diskrecijsko pravico.
The Italian Republic takes the view that the logical conclusion of the Commission’s plea, which aims to classify the mechanism provided for in Articles 8 and 9 of Law No 289/2002 as a ‘general, indiscriminate and prior renunciation of the right of verification and enforcement through controls in the matter of VAT’, would be that Member States would be generally precluded from making use of conciliation or dispute settlement mechanisms in order to avoid litigation and ensure immediate revenue through negotiated tax reductions.
Ta država članica meni, da bi očitek Komisije – katerega namen je opredelitev mehanizma iz členov 8 in 9 zakona �t. 289/2002 kot „splo�no nerazlikovalno in predhodno opustitev vseh dejavnosti nadzora in preverjanja na področju DDV“ – privedel do tega, da države članice ne bi mogle uporabiti instrumentov za konciliacijo ali poravnavo sporov, ki potekajo, da bi se izognili postopkom in zagotovili takoj�en prihodek z dogovorjenimi znižanji davkov.
The Italian Republic argues in particular that its tax authorities are unable to carry out controls of all taxpayers; thus the scheme provided for in Articles 8 and 9 of Law No 289/2002 enables it to collect immediately a not insignificant portion of the VAT and to focus its enforcement efforts on those taxpayers who have not availed themselves of the amnesty procedure at issue.
Italijanska republika zatrjuje predvsem to, da njena davčna uprava ne more nadzorovati vseh davčnih zavezancev, ureditev iz členov 8 in 9 zakona �t. 289/2002 pa omogoča takoj�nje pobiranje pomembnega dela davka in izvajanje ukrepov nadzora nad davčnimi zavezanci, ki niso uporabili postopka zadevne amnestije.
The Italian Republic also argues that the fact that the VAT amounts collected have, in its view, been considerably higher than those which could have been collected under the ordinary verification and controls procedure shows that the obligations under the Sixth Directive have been discharged: an allegation of noncompliance with those obligations cannot be sustained solely on the ground that those amounts were recovered in the form of payments made voluntarily by taxpayers rather than in response to a compulsory demand from the tax authorities.
Navedena država članica tudi zatrjuje, da je na podlagi pobiranja zneskov davka, ki so po njenem mnenju znatno vi�ji kot tisti, ki bi lahko bili odmerjeni na podlagi običajnega postopka preverjanja in nadzora, mogoče �teti, da so bile obveznosti iz Šeste direktive spo�tovane in da nasprotnega ni mogoče zatrjevati zgolj zato, ker so davčni zavezanci te zneske plačali prostovoljno, ne pa s prisilno zahtevo davčne uprave.
The payment made has the effect of preventing the tax authorities from carrying out controls in respect of amounts which do not exceed by at least 100% the amounts declared on the supplementary return (or by at least 50% in the case of additional withholding tax).
Zaradi izvedenih plačil davčna uprava ne sme izvajati nadzora nad vsotami, ki vsaj za 100 % ne presegajo zneskov, ki so bili dodatno obračunani (ali 50 %, če gre za dodatno odbiti davek).
Relying on Article 8(10) of Law No 289/2002, the provisions of which are referred to in paragraph 13 of the present judgment, the Italian Republic maintains that taxable persons already known to be tax evaders may not avail themselves of the arrangements provided for in Article 8.
Italijanska republika se sklicuje na člen 8(10) zakona �t. 289/2002, katerega določbe so navedene v točki 13 te sodbe, in navaja, da davčni zavezanci, za katere je že znano, da so storili goljufijo, niso upravičeni do ugodnosti iz ureditve člena 8.
The Italian Republic states, in respect of Article 9 of Law No 289/2002, that the application of that provision is refused in the two situations specified in Article 8(10) of that law — as explained in paragraph 13 of the present judgment — and, pursuant to Article 9(14) of that law, where the person concerned has failed to submit returns in respect of every tax referred to in Article 9(2) and every tax period referred to in Article 9(1).
Italijanska republika v zvezi s členom 9 zakona �t. 289/2002 navaja, da se upravičenost do ugodnosti iz te določbe zavrne v dveh primerih, določenih v členu 8(10) tega zakona, ki sta navedena v točki 13 te sodbe, in na podlagi člena 9(14) navedenega zakona, kadar zadevna oseba ni predložila nobenega obračuna v zvezi s plačili iz odstavka 2 člena 9 za nobeno od davčnih let iz odstavka 1 člena 9.
Thus, it has been accepted that the automatic settlement provided for in Article 9 will not be available where there has been a failure to file a VAT return for all of the years concerned, even if, in respect of those years, returns have been filed for other types of tax.
Avtomatične poravnave iz člena 9 tako ni mogoče uporabiti, ker DDV v nobenem od zadevnih let ni bil obračunan, čeprav so bili za ta leta predloženi obračuni v zvezi z drugimi davki.
The Italian Republic adds that, under Article 9(9) of Law No 289/2002, the tax authorities may at any time recover the VAT due on the basis of the information in the VAT return and that, in any event, a tax verification may be carried out whenever it is necessary to verify the right (or the lack of any such right) to a VAT refund on the basis of that return.
Navedena država članica dodaja, da ima davčna uprava v skladu s členom 9(9) zakona �t. 289/2002 �e vedno pravico davek izterjati na podlagi podatkov iz obračuna DDV in da je v vsakem primeru davčni nadzor �e vedno mogoč, kadar gre za preveritev upravičenosti (ali neupravičenosti) do povračila davka, ki bi morala izhajati iz tega obračuna.
It follows from Articles 2 and 22 of the Sixth Directive, and from Article 10 EC, that every Member State is under an obligation to take all legislative and administrative measures appropriate for ensuring collection of all the VAT due on its territory.
Iz členov 2 in 22 Šeste direktive ter člena 10 ES izhaja, da ima vsaka država članica obveznost sprejeti vse potrebne zakonske in upravne ukrepe, s katerimi zagotovi, da je dolgovani DDV v celoti pobran na njenem ozemlju.
2008 — CASE C-132/06 that regard, Member States are required to check taxable persons’ returns, accounts and other relevant documents, and to calculate and collect the tax due.
2008 – ZADEVA C-132/06 članice preveriti obračune davčnih zavezancev, njihove račune in druge upo�tevne dokumente ter odmeriti in pobrati dolgovani davek.
Under the common system of VAT, Member States are required to ensure compliance with the obligations to which taxable persons are subject and they enjoy in that respect a certain measure of latitude, inter alia, as to how they use the means at their disposal.
Države članice morajo v okviru skupnega sistema DDV zagotoviti spo�tovanje obveznosti, ki jih imajo davčni zavezanci, in imajo v zvezi s tem določeno svobodo, zlasti v zvezi z načinom uporabe sredstev, ki jih imajo na voljo.
That latitude is nevertheless limited by the obligation to ensure effective collection of the Community’s own resources and not to create significant differences in the manner in which taxable persons are treated, either within a Member State or throughout the Member States.
Vendar je ta svoboda omejena z obveznostjo zagotoviti učinkovito pobiranje lastnih sredstev Skupnosti in obveznostjo, da se davčnih zavezancev ne sme znatno različno obravnavati bodisi znotraj določenih držav članic ali v vseh državah članicah.
The Court has held that the Sixth Directive must be interpreted in accordance with the principle of fiscal neutrality inherent in the common system of VAT, according to which economic operators carrying out the same transactions must not be treated differently in relation to the levying of VAT (Case C-382/02 Cimber Air [2004] ECR I-8379, paragraph 24).
Sodi�če je odločilo, da je treba Šesto direktivo razlagati v skladu z načelom davčne nevtralnosti, ki velja za skupni sistem DDV, v skladu s katerim se gospodarskih subjektov, ki opravljajo enake transakcije, ne sme obravnavati različno glede pobiranja DDV (sodba z dne 16. septembra 2004 v zadevi Cimber Air, C-382/02, ZOdl., str. I-8379, točka 24).
Any action by Member States concerning VAT collection must comply with that principle.
Države članice morajo to načelo spo�tovati pri vsakem ukrepu v zvezi z odmero DDV.
Under Article 8 of Law No 289/2002, taxable persons who have not complied with their obligations in respect of the tax periods falling between 1998 and 2001 — in certain cases, only one year before the adoption of that law — may completely escape verification, as well as any applicable penalties, up to double the amount of the VAT as it appears from the supplementary VAT return.
Na podlagi člena 8 zakona �t. 289/2002 se lahko davčni zavezanci, ki niso spo�tovali svojih obveznosti v davčnih letih od 1998 do 2001 – kar je v določenih primerih zgolj eno leto pred sprejetjem tega zakona –, izognejo vsakemu nadzoru in veljavnim sankcijam do zneska, ki je enak dvojnemu znesku DDV iz dodatnega obračuna DDV.
The Italian authorities no longer have any legal basis for verifying the taxable transactions carried out during the four years preceding the adoption of that law, subject, however, to the limits (in terms of the amounts) laid down in Article 8(6) of that law.
Italijanski organi namreč nimajo več podlage, da preverijo obdavčljive transakcije, opravljene v �tirih letih pred sprejetjem navedenega zakona, do mej zneskov, določenih v členu 8(6) tega zakona.
That waiver is in principle applicable where the taxable person declares and pays the amount he should have paid initially.
Ta opustitev načeloma velja, kadar davčni zavezanec obračuna in plača znesek, ki bi ga moral plačati prvotno.