natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the alternative, the appellants submit, among other things, that since the contested decision allowed Impala to ascertain the reasons for the approval at issue and the Court of First Instance to exercise its power of judicial review, that court did not observe the settled caselaw of the Community judicature on the requirement to state reasons.
Podredno, pritožnici zlasti navajata, da Sodi�če prve stopnje ni upo�tevalo ustaljene sodne prakse sodi�č Skupnosti o zahtevah po obrazložitvi, ker je sporna odločba Impali omogočila preveritev obrazložitev zadevne odobritve, Sodi�ču prve stopnje pa izvedbo sodnega nadzora.
In the present case, it is true that a certain imbalance in the contested decision between the presentation of the elements tending to plead in favour of there being sufficient transparency and the presentation of the impact of the campaign discounts, which plead, according to the Commission, against such transparency, may appear unfortunate.
Res je, da se v obravnavani zadevi določeno nesorazmerje med dokazi, ki govorijo v prid zadostni preglednosti in vplivom reklamnih popustov, ki ne potrjujejo take preglednosti, lahko zdi obžalovanja vredno.
Nevertheless, in the light, first, of the context in which the contested decision was adopted, marked in particular by the short space of time between the
Vendar, ob upo�tevanju, prvič, okoli�čin, v katerih je bila sprejeta sporna odločba in ki jih opredeljuje zlasti kratko obdobje med pisnim odgovorom na obvestilo o ugotovitvah o možnih kr�itvah in zasli�anjem
In the first place, the contested decision showed the reasoning followed by the Commission in a way which subsequently allowed a party such as Impala to challenge its validity before the competent Court.
Prvič, iz sporne odločbe namreč izhaja razlogovanje Komisije, tako da je bilo mogoče pozneje pred pristojnim sodi�čem izpodbijati njeno zakonitost, kot je to storila Impala.
It would be unreasonable in that regard to require, as did the Court of First Instance in paragraph 289 of the judgment under appeal, a detailed description of each of the factors underpinning the contested decision, such as the nature of campaign discounts, the circumstances in which they might be applied, their degree of opacity, their size or their specific impact on price transparency (see to that effect, by way of analogy, Case C-286/98 P Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags v Commission [2000] ECR I-9925, paragraphs 59 to 61, and Joined Cases C-341/06 P and C-342/06 P Chronopost and La Poste v UFEX and Others [2008] ECR I-4777, paragraph 108).
V zvezi s tem bi bilo pretirano zahtevati, kot je to storilo Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 289 izpodbijane sodbe, podroben opis vsakega od vidikov, na katerih temelji sporna odločba, kot je narava reklamnih popustov, okoli�čine, v katerih jih je bilo mogoče uporabiti, stopnja njihove preglednosti, njihov obseg ali njihov posebni vpliv na cene (glej v tem smislu po analogiji sodbo z dne 16. novembra 2000 v zadevi Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags proti Komisiji, C-286/98 P, Recueil, str. I-9925, točke od 59 do 61, in sodbo z dne 1. julija 2008 v združenih zadevah Chronopost in La Poste proti UFEX in drugi, C-341/06 P in C-342/06 P, ZOdl., str.
In the second place, as is apparent from, among others, paragraphs 275, 289 and 530 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance was aware of the reasons for which the Commission decided to approve the concentration at issue.
Drugič, kot izhaja zlasti iz točk 275, 289 in 530 izpodbijane sodbe, je bilo Sodi�če prve stopnje seznanjeno z razlogi, zakaj se je Komisija odločila, da bo odobrila zadevno koncentracijo. Več točk njegove sodbe je namenjeno analizi utemeljenosti teh razlogov.
It also devoted numerous paragraphs in its judgment to an analysis of whether those reasons were well founded.
Vendar je treba v zvezi s tem opozoriti, da je obveznost obrazložitve odločb procesna zahteva, ki jo je treba razlikovati od vpra�anja utemeljenosti obrazložitve, pri kateri gre za vsebinsko zakonitost spornega akta (glej sodbo z dne 7. marca 2002 v zadevi Italija proti Komisiji, C-310/99, Recueil, str.
It must be pointed out in that regard that the duty to state adequate reasons in decisions is an essential procedural requirement which must be distinguished from the question whether the reasoning is well founded, which is concerned with the substantive legality of the measure at issue (see Commission v Sytraval and Brink’s France, paragraph 67, and Case C-310/99 Italy v Commission [2002] ECR I-2289, paragraph 48).
I-2289, točka 48, in zgoraj navedeno sodbo Komisija proti Sytraval, točka 67).
The reasoning of a decision consists in a formal statement of the grounds on which that decision is based.
Obrazložitev odločbe namreč pomeni, da je treba izrecno navesti razloge, na katerih temelji ta odločba.
If those grounds are vitiated by errors, the latter will vitiate the substantive legality of the decision, but not the statement
Če so ti razlogi napačni, to vpliva na vsebinsko zakonitost odločbe, in ne na njeno obrazložitev, ki
2008 — CASE C-413/06 P of reasons in it, which may be adequate even though it sets out reasons which are incorrect.
2008 – ZADEVA C-413/06 P je lahko zadostna, čeprav navaja napačne razloge.
It cannot therefore be claimed that it was impossible for the Court of First Instance to exercise its power of judicial review (see, by way of analogy, Chronopost and La Poste v UFEX and Others, paragraph 112).
Zato ni mogoče trditi, da Sodi�če prve stopnje ni moglo izvr�iti sodnega nadzora (glej po analogiji zgoraj navedeno sodbo Chronopost in La Poste proti UFEX in drugi, točka 112).
The appellants’ sixth ground of appeal should therefore be upheld, without it being necessary to adjudicate on the objections referred to in paragraphs 158, 159 and 161 of this judgment.
Zato je treba �estemu pritožbenemu razlogu, ki ga navajata pritožnici, ugoditi, ne da bi bilo treba odločiti o očitkih, navedenih v točkah 158, 159 in 161 te sodbe.
Having regard to the above considerations, the present appeal must be declared to be well founded.
Glede na vse ugotovitve je treba ugotoviti, da je ta pritožba utemeljena.
The alleged cross-appeal
Domnevna nasprotna pritožba
The Commission’s response contains a separate section containing ‘additional observations’ on the ‘essential grounds’ of the contested decision.
Odgovor na pritožbo Komisije vključuje ločeni del, ki obsega „dodatna stali�ča“ o „bistvenih razlogih“ sporne odločbe.
In that section, the Commission contends that the Court of First Instance was wrong to characterise the Commission’s findings in relation to the retaliatory measures as essential grounds of the decision.
Komisija v njem navaja, da naj bi Sodi�če prve stopnje v točkah 474 in 476 izpodbijane sodbe ugotovitve o povračilnih ukrepih napačno opredelilo kot bistveni razlog navedene odločbe.
In the Commission’s view, were it to be held in this appeal that the findings made in the contested decision in relation to lack of market transparency were not incorrect in law, the decision should be declared to be lawful irrespective of whether it contains errors of law concerning the retaliatory measures.
Komisija meni, da če bi se v tem postopku izkazalo, da glede ugotovitev iz sporne odločbe o neobstoju preglednosti trga pravo ni bilo napačno uporabljeno, bi bilo treba navedeno odločbo razglasiti za zakonito, neodvisno od dejstva, ali je bilo glede povračilnih ukrepov pravo uporabljeno napačno ali ne.
Impala interpreted the arguments contained in the Commission’s response as a cross-appeal and replied to them in a separate document of 23 March 2007, relying on Article 117(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.
Impala je te trditve v odgovoru na pritožbo, ki ga je vložila Komisija, razlagala kot nasprotno pritožbo in je nanjo odgovorila z ločeno vlogo z dne 23. marca 2007, pri čemer se je sklicevala na člen 117(2) Poslovnika Sodi�ča.
Subsequently, the parties were allowed to lodge further documents on this matter, the last of which was lodged
Nato je bilo strankam dovoljeno, da v zvezi s tem vlagajo dodatne vloge, med katerimi je bila zadnja v sodnem
BERTELSMANN AND SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA v IMPALA at the Court Registry on 16 July 2007, while at the same time the question was left open whether Impala was entitled to invoke Article 117(2).
BERTELSMANN IN SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA PROTI IMPALI tajni�tvu Sodi�ča vložena 16. julija 2007, pri čemer ni bilo re�eno vpra�anje, ali se je bila Impala upravičena sklicevati na navedeni člen 117(2).
Under Article 117(2) of the Rules of Procedure, for a submission to be regarded as a cross-appeal, the party which relies on it must seek to set aside, in whole or in part, the judgment under appeal on a plea in law which was not raised in the appeal.
Da se lahko trditev opredeli kot nasprotna pritožba, mora stranka, ki se nanjo sklicuje v skladu s členom 117(2), v njej zahtevati celotno ali delno razveljavitev izpodbijane sodbe zaradi razloga, ki ni naveden v pritožbi.
Whether that is the case here is to be determined by reference to the wording, aim and context of the passage in question in the Commission’s response.
Da bi se ugotovilo, ali gre v obravnavani zadevi za tak primer, je treba preučiti besedilo, namen in kontekst zadevnega dela odgovora na pritožbo, ki ga je vložila Komisija.
It must be emphasised in that regard that nowhere in its response does the Commission use the expression ‘cross-appeal’.
Vendar je v zvezi s tem treba poudariti, da Komisija v svojem odgovoru nikjer ne uporablja izraza „nasprotna pritožba“.
Moreover, the Commission itself clearly stated during these proceedings, for instance at the hearing, that it had no intention of bringing a cross-appeal by its ‘additional observations’.
Poleg tega je Komisija sama med postopkom, zlasti med obravnavo, jasno navedla, da s svojimi „dodatnimi stali�či“ nima namena vložiti nasprotne pritožbe.
In those circumstances, it must be held that those observations do not constitute a cross-appeal.
V teh okoli�činah je treba skleniti, da navedena stali�ča ne pomenijo nasprotne pritožbe.
Contrary to what Impala submits, there is accordingly no need to adopt a position with regard to them.
Zato v nasprotju s trditvami Impale v zvezi s tem ni treba sprejeti stali�ča.
Referral of the case back to the Court of First Instance
Vrnitev zadeve v novo odločanje Sodišču prve stopnje
Under the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, if the appeal is well founded, the Court of Justice is to quash the decision of the Court of First Instance.
V skladu s členom 61, prvi odstavek, Statuta Sodi�ča, Sodi�če razveljavi odločitev Sodi�ča prve stopnje, če je pritožba utemeljena.
It may itself give final judgment in the matter, where the state of the proceedings so permits, or refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for judgment.
Če stanje postopka to dovoljuje, lahko samo dokončno odloči o zadevi ali pa jo vrne v razsojanje Sodi�ču prve stopnje.
Since the Court of First Instance examined only two of the five pleas relied on by Impala in support of its action, the Court of Justice considers that the present case is not in a state where judgment may be given.
Ker je Sodi�če prve stopnje obravnavalo le dva od petih tožbenih razlogov, ki jih je navajala Impala v utemeljitev svoje tožbe, Sodi�če meni, da stanje postopka ne dovoljuje, da bi samo dokončno odločilo o zadevi.
The case must therefore be referred back to the Court of First Instance.
Zato je treba zadevo vrniti Sodi�ču prve stopnje.
Since the case is to be referred back to the Court of First Instance, the costs relating to the present appeal proceedings must be reserved.
Ker je treba zadevo vrniti Sodi�ču prve stopnje, je odločitev o stro�kih tega pritožbenega postopka pridržana.
Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2006 in Case T-464/04 Impala v Commission;
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti z dne 13. julija 2006 v zadevi Impala proti Komisiji (T-464/04) se razveljavi.
Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities;
Zadeva se vrne v odločanje Sodišču prve stopnje.
Reserves the costs.
Odločitev o stroških se pridrži.
Case C-484/06
Zadeva C-484/06
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — First and Sixth VAT directives — Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality — Rules concerning rounding of amounts of VAT — Rounding down per item)
„Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe – Prva in Šesta direktiva o DDV – Načeli davčne nevtralnosti in sorazmernosti – Pravila o zaokroževanju zneskov DDV – Zaokroževanje navzdol na artikel“
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 10 July 2008 . . . . . . . . . . .
Sharpston, predstavljeni 24. januarja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Sixth Directive — Provisions on rounding of the amount of the tax
Davčne določbe – Usklajevanje zakonodaj – Prometni davek – Skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost – Šesta direktiva – Določbe o zaokroževanju zneska davka
SUMMARY — CASE C-484/06
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-484/06
applied, in so far as the method chosen by the Member State concerned ensures that the amount of value added tax to be collected by the tax authority corresponds exactly to the amount of that tax declared on the invoice and paid by the final consumer to the taxable person.
če metoda, ki jo je sprejela zadevna država članica, zagotavlja, da znesek, ki ga prejme davčna uprava iz naslova davka na dodano vrednost, natančno ustreza znesku iz naslova tega davka na računu, ki ga končni potro�nik plača davčnemu zavezancu.
In the absence of specific Community legislation, it is for Member States to decide on the rules and methods of rounding amounts of value added tax, but those States must, when making that decision, observe the principles underpinning the common system of that tax, in particular the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality.
Kadar ni posebne zakonodaje Skupnosti, morajo države članice določiti pravila in metode zaokroževanja zneskov davka na dodano vrednost, pri tem pa morajo te države spo�tovati načela, na katerih temelji skupni sistem tega davka, zlasti načeli davčne nevtralnosti in sorazmernosti.
(see para. 33, operative part 1)
(Glej točko 33 in točko 1 izreka.)
Community law, as it now stands, which includes the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality, contains no specific obligation for Member States to permit taxable persons to round down per item the amount of value added tax.
Veljavno pravo Skupnosti, vključno z načeli davčne nevtralnosti in sorazmernosti, ne določa nobene posebne obveznosti, v skladu s katero bi države članice morale davčnim zavezancem dopustiti, da znesek davka na dodano vrednost zaokrožijo navzdol na artikel.
Further, while observance of the principle of proportionality requires, when rounding is necessary, it to be carried out in such a way that the rounded amount corresponds as closely as possible with the amount of value added tax arising from application of the rates in force, the fact remains that such an operation, of its nature, is intended to facilitate calculation and must, therefore, reconcile the requirement of, so far as possible, exact proportion with the practical necessity that the common system of value added tax based on the principle of a return from the taxable person should operate effectively.
Čeprav spo�tovanje načela sorazmernosti zahteva, da mora biti zaokroževanje tako, da zaokroženi znesek čim bolj ustreza znesku davka na dodano vrednost, ki izhaja iz uporabe veljavne stopnje, je prav tako res, da je namen take transakcije, glede na njeno naravo, olaj�ati izračun in mora zato zahtevo po čim natančnej�i sorazmernosti uskladiti s praktičnimi potrebami učinkovite uporabe skupnega sistema davka na dodano vrednost, ki temelji na načelu prijave s strani davčnega zavezanca.
Accordingly, the principle of fiscal neutrality does not entail any requirement that a particular method of rounding be
Navedeno načelo davčne nevtralnosti tako ne vsebuje nobene zahteve glede uporabe posebne metode zaokroževanja,
(see paras 37, 39, 43, operative part 2)
(Glej točke 37, 39, 43 in točko 2 izreka.)
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERALSHARPSTON delivered on 24 January 2008 1 where multiple transactions are included in the same invoice or VAT return. 3
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNE PRAVOBRANILKEELEANOR SHARPSTON, predstavljeni 24. januarja 2008 1 tudi kadar isti račun ali obračun DDV sestavlja več transakcij. 3
Whatever the rate of VAT charged on transactions, there will always be cases — unless the choice of possible rates and prices is artificially limited — in which the amount due comprises a fraction of the smallest currency unit used in payment.
Ne glede na to, kak�na stopnja DDV na transakcije se zaračuna, bodo vedno obstajali primeri – razen če se izbor možnih stopenj in cen umetno omeji –, v katerih dolgovani znesek zajema delček najmanj�e denarne enote, ki se uporablja za plačilo.
2In such cases, rounding will be necessary.
2V takih primerih bo potrebno zaokroževanje.
Questions then arise as to whether the rounding should be up or down and as to the stage at which it should take place — for each item, each till receipt or invoice, each tax return, etc.
Zastavljajo se torej vpra�anja, ali je treba zaokrožiti navzgor ali navzdol ter v kateri fazi naj se zaokroževanje opravi – za vsak artikel, vsak račun, vsak obračun itd.
Differing answers to those questions may entail significant differences in overall amounts of tax to be accounted for.
Različni odgovori na ta vpra�anja imajo lahko za posledico pomembne razlike pri celotnem znesku davka, ki ga je treba obračunati.
Article 2 of the First VAT Directive, 4in force at the material time in the present case
Člen 2 Prve direktive o DDV 4, ki je veljala v času nastanka dejstev tega primera (oktober
(October 2003), provided:
2003), je določal:
‘The principle of the common system of value added tax involves the application to goods
„Načelo skupnega sistema davka na dodano vrednost zajema uporabo splo�nega davka
3 — Similar questions are raised in Case C-302/07 Wetherspoon, pending before the Court, in which it is asked also (c) whether the common arithmetic method of rounding up or down can be imposed, (d) at what stage rounding must take place and (e) what consequences flow from the principles of equal treatment and VAT neutrality when tax authorities allow some but not all traders to round down systematically.
3 – Podobna vpra�anja so zastavljena v zadevi Wetherspoon (C-302/07), v kateri �e ni bilo odločeno in v kateri se postavljajo tudi vpra�anja, (c) ali se lahko uvede skupna računska metoda zaokroževanja navzgor ali navzdol, (d) v kateri fazi se mora izvesti zaokroževanje in (e) kak�ne posledice imata načeli enakega obravnavanja in nevtralnosti DDV, kadar davčni organi dovolijo nekaterim, a ne vsem trgovcem, da sistematično zaokrožujejo navzdol.
The present reference for a preliminary ruling from the Netherlands Hoge Raad (Supreme Court) asks (a) whether rounding is governed by national or Community law and, (b) if the latter, whether Member States must permit rounding down per item even
Ta predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe nizozemskega Hoge Raad (vrhovnega sodi�ča) vsebuje vpra�anji, (a) ali zaokroževanje ureja nacionalno pravo ali pravo Skupnosti in (b) ali morajo države članice, če gre za slednji primer, dopustiti zaokroževanje navzdol za posamezen artikel,
4 — First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes (OJ, English Special Edition 1967 I, p. 14).
4 – Prva direktiva Sveta 67/227/EGS z dne 11. aprila 1967 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih (UL 71, str. 1301).
With effect from 1 January 2007, the First Directive was repealed and replaced by Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p.
S 1. januarjem 2007 je bila Prva direk -tiva razveljavljena in nadome�čena z Direktivo Sveta 2006/112/ES z dne 28. novembra 2006 o skupnem sistemu davka na dodano vrednost (UL L 347, str.
1), Article 1(2) of which contains the same provisions, with minor linguistic changes.
1), katere člen 1(2) vsebuje enake določbe z manj�imi jezikovnimi spremembami.
The aim of Directive 2006/112 is to present all the applicable Community VAT provisions clearly and rationally in a recast structure and wording without, in principle, bringing about material changes in the existing legislation (see recital 3 in the preamble).
Cilj Direktive 2006/112 je jasno in racionalno predstaviti vse veljavne določbe Skupnosti o DDV, tako da preoblikuje njihovo strukturo in besedilo, ne da bi to, načeloma, povzročilo bistvene spremembe v obstoječi zakonodaji (glej tretjo uvodno izjavo).
References below to provisions of Direct- ive 2006/112 do not therefore imply identity of wording with the equivalent provisions of the repealed directives.
Sklicevanja na določbe Direktive 2006/112 v nadaljevanju torej ne namigujejo, da je njihovo besedilo enako besedilu ustreznih določb razveljavljenih direktiv.
Article 19(1), the deductible portion of input tax is to be expressed as a percentage rounded up to the nearest integer.
SHARPSTON – ZADEVA C-484/06 je zaokrožen navzgor do najbližjega celega �tevila.
And Article 25(3), 7 and services of a general tax on consumption exactly proportional to the price of the goods and services, whatever the number of transactions which take place in the production and distribution process before the stage at which tax is charged.
Člen 25(3) 7 o skupni pav�alni ureditvi na potro�njo blaga in storitev, ki je povsem sorazmeren s ceno blaga in storitev, ne glede na �tevilo transakcij, ki so se v proizvodnem ali distribucijskem procesu opravile pred fazo, v kateri se davek obračuna.
on the common flatrate scheme for farmers, provides that the compensation percentage may be rounded up or down to the nearest half point.
za kmete predvideva, da se odstotki nadomestil lahko zaokrožijo navzgor ali navzdol do najbližje polodstotne točke.
The following provisions of the Sixth Directive have been cited as relevant to the issues in the present case.
Spodnje določbe Šeste direktive so bile navedene kot pomembne za vpra�anja v tej zadevi.
Article 2(1) 8states that the supply of goods for consideration, by a taxable person acting as such, is to be subject to VAT.
Člen 2(1) 8določa, da se DDV plača od dobave blaga, ki jo opravi davčni zavezanec, ki deluje kot tak. Člen 5(1) 9opredeljuje
Article 5(1) 9 defines a supply of goods as the transfer of the right to dispose of tangible property as owner.
Skupen sistem davka na dodano vrednost se uporablja do vključno faze prodaje na drobno.“ dobavo blaga kot prenos pravice do razpolaganja s premoženjem v stvareh kot lastnik.
More detailed provisions appear in the Sixth Directive.
Podrobnej�e določbe vsebuje Šesta direktiva.
5Two concern rounding — but of percentages, not amounts.
5Dve zadevata zaokroževanje, vendar ne zneskov, ampak odstotke.
Article 19 6regulates the pro rata calculation of deduct- ible input tax when inputs are used for both taxed and exempt outputs; according to
Člen 19 6 ureja sorazmeren izračun odbitka vstopnega davka, kadar se vstopne transakcije uporabljajo za obdavčene in opro�čene izstopne transakcije. V skladu s členom 19(1) se mora odbitni delež vstopnega davka izraziti v odstotku, ki
Under Article 10(1) and (2), the chargeable event is the occurrence by virtue of which the legal conditions necessary for tax to become chargeable are fulfilled, namely when the tax authority becomes entitled to claim the tax from the person liable to pay.
V skladu s členom 10(1) in (2) je obdavčljivi dogodek tisti, s katerim so izpolnjeni pravni pogoji, potrebni za nastanek obveznosti obračuna davka, namreč takrat, ko ima davčni organ po zakonu pravico zahtevati davek od osebe, ki ga je dolžna plačati, četudi se plačilo lahko odloži.
That occurs in principle when goods are delivered or services performed. 10
To se načeloma zgodi, kadar je dobavljeno ali so storitve opravljene. 10