natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
By its first question the referring court asks, in essence, whether the Sixth Directive should be interpreted as meaning that there can be a finding of an abusive practice when the accrual of a tax advantage is the principal aim of the transaction or the transactions in question, or if such a finding can only be made if the accrual of that tax advantage constitutes the sole aim pursued, to the exclusion of other economic objectives.
Predložitveno sodi�če s prvim vpra�anjem v bistvu spra�uje, ali je treba Šesto direktivo razlagati tako, da gre lahko za zlorabo, kadar je davčna ugodnost bistveni cilj transakcije ali zadevnih transakcij, ali gre zanjo lahko le, če je taka davčna ugodnost edini zasledovani cilj brez drugih gospodarskih ciljev.
It must be observed that, in the context of the dispute in the main proceedings, the exemptions from VAT are under scrutiny and that, specifically in connection with those exemptions, Article 13 of the Sixth Directive requires Member States to ‘prevent… any possible evasion, avoidance or abuse’.
Poudariti je treba, da se v okviru spora o glavni stvari izpodbijajo oprostitve DDV in da člen 13 Šeste direktive ravno v zvezi s temi oprostitvami državam članicam nalaga, naj zagotovijo „preprečevanj[e] vsakr�nih možnih utaj, izogibanja ali zlorab davka“.
In paragraphs 74 and 75 of Halifax and Others, the Court first held that, in the context of interpreting the Sixth Directive, an abusive practice can be held to exist where:
Sodi�če je v točkah 74 in 75 zgoraj navedene sodbe Halifax in drugi v okviru razlage Šeste direktive razsodilo, da gre lahko za obstoj zlorabe, kadar:
— the transactions concerned, notwithstanding formal application of the conditions laid down by the relevant provisions of the Sixth Directive and the national legislation transposing it, result in the accrual of a tax advantage the grant of which would be contrary to the purpose of those provisions;
– je rezultat zadevnih transakcij pridobitev davčne ugodnosti, katere dodelitev bi nasprotovala cilju, ki ga te določbe zasledujejo, čeprav so bili pogoji, predvideni z upo�tevnimi določbami Šeste direktive in nacionalne zakonodaje, ki prena�a to direktivo, formalno izpolnjeni;
— it is apparent from a number of objective factors that the essential aim of the transactions concerned is to obtain a tax advantage.
– je na podlagi vseh objektivnih dejavnikov bistveni cilj zadevnih transakcij pridobitev davčne ugodnosti.
When, subsequently, it provided the referring court with details for guidance in interpreting the transactions in the case in the main proceedings, the Court once again referred, at paragraph 81, to transactions essentially seeking to obtain a tax advantage.
Ko je nato Sodi�če predložitvenemu sodi�ču podalo pojasnila za pomoč pri njegovi razlagi v postopku v glavni stvari, se je v točki 81 sodbe ponovno sklicevalo na transakcije, katerih bistveni cilj je pridobitev davčne ugodnosti.
Therefore, when it stated, in paragraph 82 of that judgment, that in any event, the transactions at issue had the sole purpose of obtaining a tax advantage, it was not establishing that circumstance as a condition for the existence of an abusive practice, but simply pointing out that, in the matter before the referring court in that case, the minimum threshold for classifying a practice as abusive had been passed.
Zato s tem, da je v točki 82 iste sodbe poudarilo, da je bil cilj zadevnih transakcij v postopku v glavni stvari v vsakem primeru pridobitev davčne ugodnosti, te okoli�čine ni opredelilo kot pogoj za obstoj zlorabe, ampak je le poudarilo, da je bil v sporu, predloženem predložitvenemu sodi�ču, najmanj�i prag, ki omogoča opredelitev zlorabe, celo prekoračen.
The reply to the first question therefore is that the Sixth Directive must be interpreted as meaning that there can be a finding of an abusive practice when the accrual of a tax advantage constitutes the principal aim of the transaction or transactions at issue.
Zato je treba na prvo vpra�anje odgovoriti, da je treba Šesto direktivo razlagati tako, da gre za zlorabo, kadar je davčna ugodnost bistveni cilj zadevne transakcije ali zadevnih transakcij.
By its second question the referring court asks, in essence, whether, for the purposes of the application of VAT, transactions such as those at issue in the dispute in the main proceedings can be considered to be an abusive practice under the Sixth Directive.
Z drugim vpra�anjem predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali se za namene uporabe DDV transakcije, kot so zadevne transakcije v sporu o glavni stvari, lahko �tejejo za zlorabo glede na Šesto direktivo.
By way of a preliminary point, it must be recalled that a trader’s choice between exempt transactions and taxable transactions may be based on a range of factors, including tax considerations relating to the VAT system.
Najprej je treba opozoriti, da lahko izbira podjetnika med opro�čenimi transakcijami in obdavčljivimi transakcijami temelji na vrsti dejavnikov, zlasti na upo�tevanju davčnega značaja v povezavi z objektivnim sistemom DDV.
Where the taxable person chooses one of two transactions, the Sixth Directive does not require him to choose the one which involves paying the highest amount of VAT.
Kadar davčni zavezanec izbira med dvema transakcijama, mu Šesta direktiva ne nalaga, naj izbere tisto, ki zajema plačilo vi�jega zneska DDV.
On the contrary, taxpayers may choose to structure their business so as to limit their tax liability (Halifax and Others, paragraph 73).
Nasprotno, davčni zavezanec ima pravico izbrati strukturo svoje dejavnosti tako, da omeji svoj davčni dolg (zgoraj navedena sodba Halifax in drugi, točka 73).
Nevertheless, when a transaction involves the supply of a number of services, the question arises whether it should be considered to be a single transaction or as several individual and independent supplies of services requiring separate assessment.
Vendar pa se takrat, kadar transakcija obsega več storitev, postavi vpra�anje, ali jo je treba �teti kot enotno transakcijo ali kot več različnih in neodvisnih storitev, ki jih je treba presojati ločeno.
In that regard it follows from Article 2 of the Sixth Directive that every transaction must normally be regarded as distinct and independent (see CPP, paragraph 29 and Levob Verzerkeringen and OV Bank, paragraph 20).
V zvezi s tem iz člena 2 Šeste direktive izhaja, da je treba vsako transakcijo običajno obravnavati kot ločeno in samostojno (glej zgoraj navedeni sodbi CPP, točka 29, in Levob Verzekeringen in OV Bank, točka 20).
However, in certain circumstances, several formally distinct services, which could be supplied separately and thus give rise, in turn, to taxation or exemption, must be considered to be a single transaction when they are not independent.
Vendar je treba v določenih okoli�činah več formalno ločenih storitev, ki bi bile lahko dobavljene ločeno in bile zato ločeno predmet obdavčitve ali oprostitve, obravnavati kot enotno transakcijo, kadar storitve niso samostojne.
Such is the case for example, where, in the course of a purely objective analysis, it is found that there is a single supply in cases where one or more elements are to be regarded as constituting the principal service, whilst one or more elements are to be regarded, by contrast, as ancillary services which share the tax treatment of the principal service (see, to that effect, CPP, paragraph 30, and Levob Verzerkeringen and OV Bank, paragraph 21).
Tako je takrat, kadar je na podlagi objektivne analize ugotovljeno, da ena ali več storitev sestavljajo glavno storitev, medtem ko so druge storitve, ki jih sestavlja ena ali več pomožnih storitev, davčno obravnavane enako kot glavna storitev (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeni sodbi CPP, točka 30, in Levob Verzekeringen in OV Bank, točka 21).
In particular, a service must be regarded as ancillary to a principal service if it does not constitute for customers an aim in itself, but a means of better enjoying the principal service supplied (CPP, paragraph 30 and the facts of the dispute in the main proceedings giving rise to that judgment).
Storitev je treba �teti za pomožno storitev glavne storitve, če sama za stranko nima lastnega namena, ampak je sredstvo, da ta lahko uporablja glavno storitev ponudnika storitve pod bolj�imi pogoji (zgoraj navedena sodba CPP, točka 30, in okoli�čine spora o glavni stvari, o kateri je bila izrečena ta sodba).
It can also be held that there is a single supply where two or more elements or acts supplied by the taxable person to the customer are so closely linked that they form, objectively, a single, indivisible economic supply, which it would be artificial to split (Levob Verzekeringen and OV Bank, paragraph 22).
Prav tako je mogoče ugotoviti, da gre za enotno storitev, kadar sta dva ali več dejavnikov ali dejanj, ki jih opravi davčni zavezanec, tako tesno povezani, da dejansko sestavljajo eno samo nedeljivo gospodarsko storitev, katere razdelitev bi bila umetna (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Levob Verzekeringen in OV Bank, točka 22).
It is for the national court to assess if, the contractual structure of the transaction notwithstanding, the evidence put before the court discloses the characteristics of a single transaction.
Nacionalno sodi�če mora presoditi, ali dejstva, ki so mu predložena, določajo obstoj enotne transakcije, ne glede na njeno opredelitev v pogodbi.
In that context, it may find it necessary to extend its analysis by seeking evidence of indications of the existence of an abusive practice, which is the concept with which the question referred is concerned.
V tem okviru bo lahko raz�irilo svojo analizo z iskanjem pokazateljev o obstoju zlorabe, ki je pojem, na katerega se nana�a vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje.
The Court, when giving a preliminary ruling, may, where appropriate, provide clarification designed to give the national court guidance in its interpretation (Halifax and Others, paragraph 77).
Po potrebi lahko Sodi�če, ko odloča o vpra�anju za predhodno odločanje, poda pojasnila, ki nacionalno sodi�če usmerjajo pri njegovi razlagi (zgoraj navedena sodba Halifax in drugi, točka 77).
— the service supplied by the leasing company (IFIM) is subject to a division, the financing element is entrusted to another company (Italservice) to be split into a credit service, an insurance service and a brokerage service;
– storitev lizin�ke družbe (IFIM) je predmet razdelitve, financiranje pa je preneseno na drugo družbo (Italservice), da bi bilo razdeljeno na storitve kreditiranja, zavarovanja in posredovanja;
— that service, considered in isolation, therefore seems to be economically unprofitable, so that the viability of the business cannot be ensured solely by means of contracts concluded with the customers;
– ta storitev, obravnavana posamezno, naj zato ne bi bila gospodarsko donosna, tako da gospodarska učinkovitost podjetja ne more biti zagotovljena le s pogodbami, sklenjenimi z lizingojemalci;
In order to assess whether those transactions can be held to constitute an abusive practice, the national court must verify, first, whether the result sought is a tax advantage, the granting of which would be contrary to one or more of the objectives of the Sixth Directive and, then, whether that constituted the principal aim of the contractual approach adopted (see paragraph 42 of this judgment).
Nacionalno sodi�če mora za presojo, ali gre pri teh transakcijah za zlorabo, najprej preveriti, ali je rezultat davčna ugodnost, katere podelitev naj bi nasprotovala enemu ali več ciljem Šeste direktive, in ali je ta ugodnost bistveni cilj izbrane pogodbene re�itve (glej točko 42 te sodbe).
As regards the first criterion, that court can take into account that the anticipated result is the accrual of a tax advantage linked to the exemption, pursuant to Article 13B(a) and (d) of the Sixth Directive, of the services entrusted to the co-contracting company of the leasing company.
Navedeno sodi�če lahko glede prvega merila upo�teva, da je pričakovan rezultat pridobitev davčne ugodnosti, povezane z oprostitvijo storitev, prenesenih na družbo, ki je sopogodbenica lizin�ke družbe, na podlagi člena 13B(a) in (d) Šeste direktive.
That result would appear to be contrary to the objective of Article 11A(1) of the Sixth Directive, namely the taxation of everything which constitutes consideration received or to be received from the customer.
Tak rezultat se zdi v nasprotju s ciljem člena 11A(1) Šeste direktive, in sicer da je obdavčeno vse, kar pomeni plačilo, ki je bilo ali bo prejeto od naročnika.
As regards the second criterion, the national court, in the assessment which it must carry out, may take account of the purely artificial nature of the transactions and the links of a legal, economic and/or personal nature between the operators involved (Halifax and Others, paragraph 81), those aspects being such as to demonstrate that the accrual of a tax advantage constitutes the principal aim pursued, notwithstanding the possible existence, in addition, of economic objectives arising from, for example, marketing, organisation or guarantee considerations.
Nacionalno sodi�če lahko glede drugega merila pri presoji, ki jo mora izvesti, upo�teva popolnoma umetni značaj teh transakcij in tudi pravne, gospodarske in/ali osebne povezave med zadevnimi gospodarskimi subjekti (zgoraj navedena sodba Halifax in drugi, točka 81), ker je na podlagi teh elementov mogoče dokazati, da je pridobitev davčne ugodnosti bistveni zasledovani cilj, kljub morebitnemu obstoju drugih gospodarskih ciljev, ki se nana�ajo na primer na trženje, organizacijo in garancijo.
Therefore the reply to the second question referred must be that it is for the national court to determine, in light of the ruling on the interpretation of Community law provided by the present judgment, whether, for the purposes of the application of VAT, transactions such as those at issue in the dispute in the main proceedings can be considered to constitute an abusive practice under the Sixth Directive.
Na drugo vpra�anje je zato treba odgovoriti, da mora predložitveno sodi�če glede na navodila za razlago iz te sodbe določiti, ali se za namene uporabe DDV transakcije, kot so zadevne transakcije v sporu o glavni stvari, lahko �tejejo za zlorabo na podlagi Šeste direktive.
The Sixth Council Directive 77/338/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, must be interpreted as meaning that there can be a finding of an abusive practice when the accrual of a tax advantage constitutes the principal aim of the transaction or transactions at issue.
Šesto direktivo Sveta 77/388/EGS z dne 17. maja 1977 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih – Skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost: enotna osnova za odmero je treba razlagati tako, da gre za zlorabo, kadar je davčna ugodnost bistveni cilj zadevne transakcije ali zadevnih transakcij.
It is for the national court to determine, in light of the ruling on the interpretation of Community law provided by the present judgment, whether, for the purposes of the application of VAT, transactions such as those at issue in the dispute in the main proceedings can be considered to constitute an abusive practice under the Sixth Directive.
Predložitveno sodišče mora glede na navodila za razlago iz te sodbe določiti, ali se za namene uporabe davka na dodano vrednost transakcije, kot so zadevne transakcije v sporu o glavni stvari, lahko štejejo za zlorabo na podlagi Šeste direktive 77/388.
Case C-498/06
Zadeva C-498/06
(Social policy — Protection of workers in the event of insolvency of the employer — Directive 80/987/EEC amended by Directive 2002/74/EC — First paragraph of Article 3 and Article 10(a) — Compensation for unfair dismissal agreed under an extrajudicial conciliation procedure — Payment guaranteed by the guarantee institution — Payment conditional upon the adoption of a judicial decision — Principles of equality and non-discrimination)
„Socialna politika – Varstvo delavcev v primeru plačilne nesposobnosti delodajalca – Direktiva 80/987/EGS, spremenjena z Direktivo 2002/74/ES – Člena 3, prvi odstavek, in 10(a) – Od�kodnina za nezakonito odpoved delovnega razmerja, dogovorjena v postopku izvensodne poravnave – Plačilo, ki ga zagotovi jamstvena ustanova – Plačilo, pogojeno s sprejetjem sodne odločbe – Načeli enakosti in prepovedi diskriminacije“
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 21 February 2008 . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (četrti senat) z dne 21. februarja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 923
Social policy — Approximation of laws — Protection of workers in the event of insolvency of the employer — Directive 80/987
Socialna politika – Približevanje zakonodaj – Varstvo delavcev v primeru plačilne nesposobnosti delavca – Direktiva 80/987
(Council Directive 80/987, as amended by Directive 2002/74, Art. 3, first para., and 10(a))
(Direktiva Sveta 80/987, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 2002/74, člena 3, prvi odstavek, in 10(a))
SUMMARY — CASE C-498/06 extrajudicial conciliation settlement and such exclusion, objectively justified, constitutes a measure necessary to avoid abuses within the meaning of Article 10(a) of that directive.
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-498/06 o izvensodni poravnavi, in da taka objektivno utemeljena izključitev pomeni ukrep, potreben za preprečevanje zlorab v smislu člena 10(a) te direktive.
The first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 80/987, relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, as amended by Directive 2002/74, is to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State has the power to exclude compensation granted for unfair dismissal from the payment guarantee of the guarantee institutions pursuant to that provision where they have been recognised by an
Člen 3, prvi odstavek, Direktive 80/987 o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic o varstvu delavcev v primeru plačilne nesposobnosti njihovega delodajalca, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 2002/74, je treba razlagati tako, da ima država članica možnost, da od�kodnine, odobrene za nezakonito odpoved delovnega razmerja, izključi iz jamstva za plačilo, ki ga zagotavlja jamstvena ustanova na podlagi te določbe, kadar so bile te od�kodnine priznane v sporazumu
(see para. 44, operative part)
(Glej točko 44 in izrek.)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)21 February 2008 *
SODBA SODIŠČA (četrti senat) z dne 21. februarja 2008 *
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras (Spain), made by decision of 18 September 2006, received at the Court on 7 December 2006, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-498/06, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras (Španija) z odločbo z dne 18. septembra 2006, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 7. decembra 2006, v postopku
2008 — CASE C-498/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-498/06 generalni pravobranilec: M.
Advocate General: M. Poiares Maduro, Registrar: M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 22 November 2007, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Poiares Maduro, sodna tajnica: M. Ferreira, glavna administratorka, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 22. novembra 2007, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 relating to the protection of employees in the
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago Direktive Sveta 80/987/EGS z dne 20. oktobra 1980 o varstvu delavcev v primeru plačilne
ROBLEDILLO NÚÑEZ event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p.
ROBLEDILLO NÚÑEZ nesposobnosti njihovega delodajalca (UL L 283, str.
23), as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 (OJ 2002 L 270, p.
23), kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 2002/74/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 23. septembra 2002 (UL L 270, str.
10, ‘Directive 80/987’).
10, v nadaljevanju: Direktiva 80/987).
Article 2(2) of Directive 80/987 states that the Directive is without prejudice to national law as regards the definition of the terms ‘employee’, ‘employer’, ‘pay’, ‘right conferring immediate entitlement’ and ‘right conferring prospective entitlement’.
Člen 2(2) navedene direktive navaja, da ta direktiva ne vpliva na nacionalno zakonodajo, kar zadeva opredelitev izrazov „delavec“, „delodajalec“, „plačilo“, „pravica, ki zagotavlja takoj�njo upravičenost“ in „pravica, ki zagotavlja upravičenost v prihodnosti“.
2008 — CASE C-498/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-498/06
The first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 80/987 provides:
Člen 3, prvi odstavek, Direktive 80/987 določa:
Article 10(a) and (b) of Directive 80/987 provides:
Člen 10(a) in (b) Direktive 80/987 določa:
‘This Directive shall not affect the option of Member States:
„Ta direktiva ne vpliva na pravico držav članic:
(a) to take the measures necessary to avoid abuses;
(a) da sprejmejo ukrepe za preprečevanje zlorab;
(b) to refuse or reduce the liability referred to in Article 3 or the guarantee obligation referred to in Article 7 if it appears that fulfilment of the obligation is unjustifiable because of the existence of special links between the employee and the employer and of common interests resulting in collusion between them.’
(b) da odklonijo ali zmanj�ajo obveznosti iz člena 3 ali obvezno jamstvo iz člena 7, če se izkaže izpolnitev obveznosti neupravičena zaradi posebnih povezav med delavcem in delodajalcem ali zaradi njunih skupnih interesov, ki lahko vodijo do tajnega dogovora med njima.“
According to Article 3, Directive 2002/74 came into force on 8 October 2002.
Člen 3 Direktive 2002/74 določa, da je ta začela veljati 8. oktobra 2002.
Spanish legislation
Španska ureditev
The claims for which Fogasa is responsible
Terjatve, ki jih krije Fogasa
Article 33(1) of Legislative Royal Decree 1/1995 approving the amended text of the Workers’ Statute (Estatuto de los Trabajadores) of 24 March 1995 (BOE No 75 of 29 March 1995, p.
Člen 33(1) kraljeve zakonske uredbe (Real Decreto Legislativo) 1/1995 z dne 24. marca 1995 o potrditvi spremenjenega besedila zakona o delovnih razmerjih (Estatuto de los Trabajadores, BOE �t. 75 z dne 29. marca 1995, str.
9654), in the version in force from 14 December 2002 (‘the Workers’ Statute’), provides:
9654, v nadaljevanju: zakon o delovnih razmerjih), v različici, ki velja od 14. decembra 2002, določa:
‘The Wages Guarantee Fund … shall pay to workers the remuneration owed to them in the event of insolvency, suspension of payments, bankruptcy or judicial administration of their employers.
„Jamstveni sklad […] delavcem izplača zneske plač, ki jim pripadajo v primeru plačilne nesposobnosti, prekinitve plačil, stečaja ali prisilne poravnave gospodarskih subjektov.
For the purposes of the preceding subparagraph, remuneration shall include the amount which a conciliation settlement or a judicial decision recognises as such on the basis of the definition laid down in Article 26(1), as well as “salarios de tramitación” [wages for the period between the dismissal and disposal of proceedings] in the cases laid down by the Law …’
Za namene prej�njega odstavka se za plačo �teje znesek, priznan kot tak v sporazumu o poravnavi ali v sodni odločbi iz vseh naslovov, določenih v členu 26(1) in ‚salarios de tramitación‘ v primerih, določenih z zakonom […]“
Article 33(2) of the Workers’ Statute, in the version resulting from Law 60/1997 of 19 December 1997 (BOE No 304 of 20 December 1997, p.
Člen 33(2) zakona o delovnih razmerjih v različici, ki izhaja iz zakona 60/1997 z dne 19. decembra 1997 (BOE �t. 304 z dne 20. decembra 1997, str.
37453), provided:
37453) je določal: