natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It is thus lawful for a Member State to restrict, by means of conditions related to the nationality or to the place of residence of the person concerned, the compensation granted to civilian victims of war or repression to persons who are regarded as showing a certain degree of connection to the society of that Member State.
Država članica lahko tako s pogoji, vezanimi na državljanstvo ali prebivali�če zadevne osebe, legitimno omeji od�kodnine, do katerih so upravičene žrtve vojn ali represije, na osebe, za katere meni, da imajo zadostno stopnjo navezanosti na družbo te države članice.
However, while the restriction found in paragraph 33 of the present judgment is capable of being justified by objective considerations of public interest such as those mentioned in the previous paragraph, that restriction must also not be disproportionate in the light of the objective pursued.
Čeprav je omejitev, ugotovljeno v točki 33 te sodbe, mogoče upravičiti z objektivnimi preudarki v splo�nem interesu, kot so navedeni v predhodni točki, �e vedno ne sme biti nesorazmerna glede na zasledovani cilj.
First, as regards the condition of continued residence in national territory throughout the period of payment of the benefit which is considered a factor connecting civilian victims of war or repression to Polish society, it must be held that, although it is true that residence constitutes a criterion capable of showing that there is such a connection, the fact remains that, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, such a condition goes beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective pursued.
Prvič, v zvezi s pogojem neprekinjenega prebivanja na zadevnem nacionalnem ozemlju v obdobju izplačevanja navedenih dajatev, ki je element navezanosti civilnih žrtev vojne ali represije na poljsko družbo, je treba ugotoviti, da merilo prebivanja res kaže na obstoj tak�ne navezanosti, vendar ta pogoj v okoli�činah, kot so v zadevi v postopku v glavni stvari, presega tisto, kar je nujno za dosego zasledovanega cilja.
It is common ground that Ms Nerkowska has Polish nationality and lived in Poland for more than 20 years, during which time she studied and worked there.
Ugotovljeno je namreč, da ima H. Nerkowska poljsko državljanstvo in je več kot dvajset let živela na Poljskem ter je v tem obdobju �tudirala in delala.
The fact that a person is a national of the Member State granting the benefit at issue in the main proceedings and lived in that State for more than 20 years studying and working may be sufficient to establish a connection between that State and the recipient of the benefit.
Dejstvo, da ima državljanstvo države članice, ki podeljuje dajatve iz postopka v glavni stvari, in je v tej državi živela več kot dvajset let, pri čemer je tam �tudirala in delala, zadostuje za dokaz obstoja navezne okoli�čine med to državo in upravičenko do te dajatve.
Secondly, as regards the argument that the residence condition is the sole means of verifying that the recipient of a disability pension continues to satisfy the conditions for the grant of that pension, it is sufficient to reply that it cannot be reasonably claimed that the objective pursued cannot be achieved by other means which, although less restrictive, are just as effective.
Drugič, v zvezi s trditvijo, da je pogoj prebivali�ča edino sredstvo za preverjanje, ali upravičenec do invalidske pokojnine �e naprej izpolnjuje pogoje za njeno pridobitev, je treba odgovoriti, da ni mogoče trditi, da se zasledovanega cilja ne bi dalo doseči z drugimi sredstvi, ki bi bila prav tako učinkovita, vendar manj omejujoča.
If medical or administrative checks make it necessary for the recipient of a benefit such as that at issue in the main proceedings to be in the territory of the Member State concerned, nothing precludes that Member State from requesting that the recipient go to that State for the purpose of undergoing such a check, including on pain of suspension of payment of the benefit if there is an unwarranted refusal on the part of the recipient.
Če zdravni�ki ali upravni pregled zahteva prisotnost upravičenca do dajatve, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, na ozemlju zadevne države članice, nič ne nasprotuje temu, da bi ta država članica povabila tega upravičenca, naj se oglasi v tej državi članici in opravi tak�en pregled, tudi z grožnjo odložitve izplačila navedene dajatve v primeru neupravičene zavrnitve navedenega upravičenca.
Consequently, a residence condition such as that at issue in the main proceedings goes beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective of verifying that the recipient of a benefit continues to satisfy the conditions for grant of the benefit and, therefore, it fails to comply with the principle of proportionality referred to in paragraphs 34 and 40 of this judgment.
Zato pogoj prebivanja, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, presega to, kar je nujno za dosego cilja preverjanja, ali upravičenec do dajatve �e naprej izpolnjuje pogoje za njeno pridobitev, in ne spo�tuje načela sorazmernosti, ki je poudarjeno v točkah 34 in 40 te sodbe.
In view of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred must be that Article 18(1) EC is to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which it refuses, generally and in all circumstances, to pay to its nationals a benefit granted to civilian victims of war or repression solely because they are not resident in the territory of that State throughout the period of payment of the benefit, but in the territory of another Member State.
Ob upo�tevanju zgoraj navedenih preudarkov je treba na postavljeno vpra�anje odgovoriti, da je treba člen 18(1) ES razlagati tako, da nasprotuje zakonodaji države članice, na podlagi katere bi slednja na splo�no in vseh okoli�činah svojim državljanom zavrnila izplačilo dajatev, odobrenih civilnim žrtvam vojne ali represije, samo zato, ker v obdobju izplačevanja te dajatve ne prebivajo na ozemlju te države, ampak na ozemlju druge države članice.
Article 18(1) EC is to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which it refuses, generally and in all circumstances, to pay to its nationals a benefit granted to civilian victims of war or repression solely because they are not resident in the territory of that State throughout the period of payment of the benefit, but in the territory of another Member State.
Člen 18(1) ES je treba razlagati tako, da nasprotuje zakonodaji države članice, na podlagi katere bi slednja na splošno in vseh okoliščinah svojim državljanom zavrnila izplačilo dajatev, odobrenih civilnim žrtvam vojne ali represije, samo zato, ker v obdobju izplačevanja te dajatve ne prebivajo na ozemlju te države, ampak na ozemlju druge države članice.
Case C-162/07
Zadeva C-162/07
(Sixth VAT directive — Taxable persons — Second subparagraph of Article 4(4) — Parent companies and subsidiaries — Implementation by the Member State of the single taxable person scheme — Conditions — Consequences)
„Šesta direktiva o DDV – Davčni zavezanci – Drugi pododstavek člena 4(4) – Matične in odvisne družbe – Uvedba sistema enega davčnega zavezanca s strani države članice – Pogoji – Posledice“
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 22 May 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (tretji senat) z dne 22. maja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Taxable persons
Davčne določbe – Usklajevanje zakonodaj – Prometni davki – Skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost – Davčni zavezanci
(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 4(4), second subpara.)
(Direktiva Sveta 77/388, člen 4(4), drugi pododstavek)
SUMMARY — CASE C-162/07
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-162/07
Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Mechanism to simplify declarations and payments of value added tax
Davčne določbe – Usklajevanje zakonodaj – Prometni davki – Skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost – Poenostavljen davčni obračun in plačilo DDV
The principle of fiscal neutrality does not preclude national legislation which simply treats taxable persons wishing to opt for a mechanism to simplify value added tax declarations and payments differently according to whether the parent company or body has held more than 50% of the share capital or stock of the persons with whom it is linked since at least the beginning of the calendar year preceding that in which the declaration was made or, on the contrary, satisfies those conditions only after that date.
Načelo davčne nevtralnosti ne nasprotuje nacionalni ureditvi, ki različno obravnava davčne zavezance, ki želijo izbrati poenostavljen davčni obračun in plačilo DDV v odvisnosti od tega, ali ima matična družba več kot 50 % delnic ali deležev pravno odvisnih oseb najpozneje od začetka koledarskega leta pred letom davčnega obračuna ali pa izpolni te zahteve �ele po tem datumu.
Moreover, neither the principle prohibiting the abuse of rights nor the principle of proportionality precludes such legislation.
Poleg tega niti načelo prepovedi zlorabe prava niti načelo sorazmernosti ne nasprotujeta taki ureditvi.
The second subparagraph of Article 4(4) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes is a provision which, in order to be implemented by a Member State, requires prior consultation by that State of the Advisory Committee on value added tax and the adoption of national legislation authorising persons, in particular companies, established in the territory of the country who, while legally independent, are closely bound to one another by financial, economic and organisational links, no longer to be treated as separate taxable persons for the purposes of value added tax in order to be treated as a single taxable person to whom a single value added tax identification number is allocated and, accordingly, the sole person entitled to submit value added tax declarations.
Drugi pododstavek člena 4(4) Šeste direktive 77/388 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih – Skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost: enotna osnova za odmero je predpis, katerega uporaba s strani države članice predpostavlja njeno predhodno posvetovanje s svetovalnim odborom za DDV in sprejetje nacionalne ureditve, ki osebam, zlasti družbam, ki imajo sedež v državi in so pravno neodvisne, vendar med seboj finančno, gospodarsko in organizacijsko tesno povezane, omogoča, da se jih ne �teje več za različne zavezance za DDV, zato da bi se jih �telo za enega davčnega zavezanca, edinega imetnika posamične davčne �tevilke in zato edinega, ki lahko predloži davčni obračun za DDV.
Where there has been no prior consultation of the Advisory Committee on value added tax, national legislation which meets those criteria constitutes legislation adopted in breach of the procedural requirement laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 4(4) of Sixth Directive 77/388.
Če ni bilo predhodnega posvetovanja s svetovalnim odborom za DDV, nacionalna ureditev, ki ustreza tem merilom, pomeni prenos, izvr�en s kr�itvijo postopkovnih zahtev iz drugega pododstavka člena 4(4) Šeste direktive 77/388.
(see para. 23, operative part 1)
(Glej točko 23 in točko 1 izreka.)
(see para. 32, operative part 2)
(Glej točko 32 in točko 2 izreka.)
2008 — CASE C-162/07
2008 – ZADEVA C-162/07 generalni pravobranilec: J.
Advocate General: J. Mazák, Registrar: M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 30 January 2008, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Ferreira, glavna administratorka, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 30. januarja 2008, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
— the United Kingdom Government, by C. Gibbs, acting as Agent, and I. Hutton, Barrister,
Gibbs, zastopnica, skupaj z I. Huttonom, barrister,
AMPLISCIENTIFICA AND AMPLIFIN gives the following
AMPLISCIENTIFICA IN AMPLIFIN izreka naslednjo
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of the second subparagraph of Article 4(4) of the 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.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago drugega pododstavka člena 4(4) Šeste direktive 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 (UL L 145, str.
1, the ‘Sixth Directive’).
1, v nadaljevanju: Šesta direktiva).
The reference was made in proceedings between Ampliscientifica Srl (‘Ampliscientifica’) and Amplifin SpA (‘Amplifin’) on the one hand and the Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze (Ministry of Finance) and the Agenzia delle Entrate (Revenue Authority) on the other concerning an additional assessment to value added tax (‘VAT’) which was addressed to Amplifin in respect of the years 1990 and 1991.
Predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med Ampliscientifica Srl (v nadaljevanju: Ampliscientifica) in Amplifin SpA (v nadaljevanju: Amplifin) ter Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze in Agenzia delle Entrate zaradi naknadne terjatve davka na dodano vrednost (v nadaljevanju: DDV) za leti 1990 in 1991, naslovljene na družbo Amplifin.
Article 4(1) of the Sixth Directive provides as follows:
Člen 4(1) Šeste direktive določa:
‘“Taxable person” shall mean any person who independently carries out in any place any economic activity specified in paragraph 2, whatever the purpose or results of that activity.’
„‚Davčni zavezanec‘ je vsaka oseba, ki kjerkoli neodvisno opravlja katero koli gospodarsko dejavnost iz odstavka 2, ne glede na namen ali rezultat te dejavnosti.“
2008 — CASE C-162/07
2008 – ZADEVA C-162/07
The second subparagraph of Article 4(4) of the Sixth Directive is worded as follows:
Drugi pododstavek člena 4(4) Šeste direktive določa:
‘Subject to the consultations provided for in Article 29, each Member State may treat as a single taxable person persons established in the territory of the country who, while legally independent, are closely bound to one another by financial, economic and organisational links.’
„S pogojem posvetovanj iz člena 29 lahko vsaka država članica obravnava kot enega davčnega zavezanca osebe s sedežem na ozemlju države, ki so kljub temu, da so pravno neodvisne, med seboj finančno, gospodarsko in organizacijsko tesno povezane.“
Article 27(1) of the Sixth Directive provides as follows:
Člen 27(1) Šeste direktive določa:
‘The Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, may authorise any Member State to introduce special measures for derogation from the provisions of this Directive, in order to simplify the procedure for charging the tax or to prevent certain types of tax evasion or avoidance.
„Na predlog Komisije lahko Svet soglasno dovoli katerikoli državi članici, da uvede posebne ukrepe za odstopanje od določb te direktive, za poenostavitev postopka za obračunavanje davka ali za preprečevanje določenih vrst davčnih utaj ali izogibanja davkom.
Measures intended to simplify the procedure for charging the tax, except to a negligible extent, may not affect the amount of tax due at the final consumption stage.’
Ukrepi za poenostavitev postopka za obračunavanje davka ne smejo, razen v zanemarljivem obsegu, vplivati na znesek dolgovanega davka v fazi končne potro�nje.“
Article 29 of the Sixth Directive sets up an Advisory Committee on VAT.
Člen 29 Šeste direktive določa ustanovitev svetovalnega odbora za DDV.
The Decree of the President of the Republic No 6337
Dekret predsednika republike �t. 633
‘The Minister of Finance shall have authority to issue decrees laying down appropriate rules which provide that declarations of subsidiary companies may be submitted by the parent company or body to the office for the place at which it is registered for tax purposes and that payments … may be made to that office of the total amount due by the parent company or body and by the subsidiary companies, net of any deductible excess.
„Minister za finance lahko z dekretom, s katerim uvede ustrezna pravila, določi, da morajo matične družbe predložiti davčne obračune hčerinskih družb v davčnem uradu svojega davčnega domicila ter da morajo biti plačila […] nakazana temu uradu v skupnem znesku, ki ga dolgujejo matična družba in hčerinske družbe, zmanj�anem za presežek, ki se lahko odbije.
The declarations, which are also to be signed by the parent company or body, must also be submitted to the offices for the places at which the subsidiary companies are registered for tax purposes, without prejudice to the other obligations and liabilities of those companies.
Davčne obračune, ki jih podpi�e tudi matična družba, je treba predložiti ravno tako v uradih davčnega domicila hčerinskih družb, brez poseganja v druge obveznosti in odgovornosti navedenih družb.
A company shall be regarded as a subsidiary where over 50% of the shares or stock in that company has been held by another company since the beginning of the previous calendar year.’
Za odvisno družbo se �teje družba, katere več kot polovica delnic ali deležev je v lasti druge družbe od začetka prej�njega koledarskega leta.“
The Ministerial Decree of 13 December 1979
Ministrski dekret z dne 13. decembra 1979
The 1979 Decree organises and facilitates the manner in which payments and declarations can be made by parent companies and subsidiaries by enabling the parent company, to a certain extent, to act on behalf of its subsidiary company or companies.
Dekret iz leta 1979 ureja in poenostavlja načine plačila in davčne obračune matičnih in hčerinskih družb, s tem da matični družbi dopu�ča določeno ravnanje v imenu svoje hčerinske družbe oziroma svojih hčerinskih družb.
Article 2 of the 1979 Decree states that ‘only … companies in which the parent company or body or other subsidiary of that company or body within the meaning of this article has held more than 50% of the share capital or stock since the beginning of the previous calendar year shall be regarded as subsidiary companies’.
V skladu s členom 2 dekreta iz leta 1979 „se za hčerinske družbe �tejejo le družbe […], katerih delnice ali deleži so od začetka prej�njega koledarskega leta v vi�ini, ki presega 50 % njihovega kapitala, v lasti matične družbe ali druge hčerinske družbe, ki je odvisna od te matične družbe v smislu tega člena“.
Article 3 of the 1979 Decree states accordingly that the declaration of the parent company ’also to be signed by the representatives of the subsidiary company, must indicate … the VAT number of the subsidiary companies as well as the competent (VAT) office for each of them’.
Člen 3 dekreta iz leta 1979 tako določa, da mora davčni obračun matične družbe, „ki ga podpi�ejo tudi predstavniki hčerinske družbe, […] vsebovati tudi navedbo �tevilke DDV hčerinskih družb in urada [DDV], pristojnega za vsako izmed njih“.
The first paragraph of Article 5 of the 1979 Decree provides as follows:
Prvi odstavek člena 5 dekreta iz leta 1979 določa:
‘A parent company or body wishing to rely on this decree must also submit the annual declarations of its subsidiaries to the [VAT] office for the place at which it is registered for tax purposes.
„Matična družba, ki se želi sklicevati na ta dekret, mora uradu [DDV] svojega davčnega domicila predložiti letne davčne obračune svojih hčerinskih družb.
Those declarations, which are also to be signed by the representative of the parent company or body, must also be submitted, together with their annexes, by the subsidiary companies to the competent VAT office for each of them.
Te davčne obračune, ki jih podpi�e tudi predstavnik matične družbe, morajo skupaj s prilogami predložiti tudi hčerinske družbe pri uradu DDV, pristojnem za vsako izmed njih.
The name of the parent company or body along with the appropriate VAT number must be stated in the declarations of the subsidiary company.’
V davčnih obračunih hčerinske družbe je treba z ustrezno �tevilko DDV navesti matično družbo.“
The dispute in the main proceedings concerns the tax declarations submitted by Ampliscientifica for 1990 and by Amplifin for 1990 and 1991 (‘the contetsted
Spor o glavni stvari se nana�a na davčne obračune, predložene za družbo Ampliscientifica za leto 1990 ter za družbo Amplifin za leti 1990 in 1991 (v nadaljevanju:
Ampliscientfica and Amplifin are companies incorporated under Italian law which formed part of the Amplifon group, which was engaged in the research and development of new scientific instruments.
Družbi Ampliscientifica in Amplifin sta družbi italijanskega prava, ustanovljeni znotraj skupine Amplifon, katere dejavnost so raziskave in razvoj novih znanstvenih instrumentov.
More than 50% of the share capital of Amplifscientifica, which was formed in February 1989, was subscribed by Amplaid SpA, 99% of which was in turn controlled by Amplifin.
Družba Ampliscientifica, ustanovljena februarja 1989, je bila v več kot 50-odstotni lasti družbe Amplaid SpA, ki pa je bila v 99-odstotni lasti družbe Amplifin.
Ampliscientifica’s business ceased in February 1993.
Družba Ampliscientifica je prenehala izvajati svojo dejavnost leta 1993.
For the 1990 tax year, Amplifin submitted to the Milan VAT office the declaration provided for under the 1979 Decree, after making an entry in its accounts transferring a VAT debt for which Ampliscientifica had previously been liable.
Družba Amplifin je za leto 1990 uradu DDV v Milanu predložila davčni obračun, določen z dekretom iz leta 1979, potem ko je v svojih računovodskih zapisih vknjižila dolgovani DDV, ki je pred tem bremenil družbo Ampliscientifica.
For the 1991 tax year, it did the same with another of its subsidiaries that was involved in the real estate sector, Ampliare Srl, formed in November 1990, which resulted in a significant VAT credit being transferred to it.
Za leto 1991 je enako ravnala glede druge hčerinske družbe, družbe Ampliare Srl, ustanovljene novembra 1990, ki opravlja dejavnost na nepremičninskem področju, zaradi česar je pri�lo do prenosa v njeno korist večjega dobroimetja DDV.
The Milan VAT office took the view that Amplifin was not entitled to submit the contested declarations, since Article 2 of the 1979 Decree provides that, in order for the simplified VAT payment scheme to be applicable, the link between the parent company or body and the subsidiary company must have existed ‘from the beginning of the calendar year’ preceding the year in which the declaration was made.
Milanski urad DDV je menil, da družba Amplifin ni imela pravice do predložitve spornih davčnih obračunov, ker člen 2 dekreta iz leta 1979 v zvezi z obstojem vezi, ki omogočajo sprejetje poenostavljene ureditve plačila DDV, določa, da mora vez med matično družbo in hčerinskimi družbami obstajati „od začetka koledarskega leta“ pred letom davčnega obračuna.
It therefore issued notices of additional assessment for 1990 (in respect of the VAT debt of Ampliscientifica) and 1991 (in respect of the VAT credit of Ampliare Srl).
Urad je torej za leto 1990 (za dolg DDV družbe Ampliscientifica) in leto 1991 (za dobroimetje DDV družbe Ampliare Srl) izdal popravek odločbe.
Ampliscientfica and Amplifin challenged those notices before the Commissione tribuatria provinciale di Milano (Provincial Tax Court, Milan), which granted their applications in separate judgments on 5 November 1996.
Družbi Ampliscientifica in Amplifin sta ti odločbi izpodbijali pred Commissione tributaria provinciale di Milano, ki je njuni zahtevi ugodila z ločenima sodbama z dne 5. novembra 1996.