natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Finally, the first sentence of Article 57(1) reads: ‘The notices of amendment and assessment provided for in [Article 54] shall be served, on pain of loss of the related right,
Končno, v prvem stavku člena 57(1) je določeno: „Odločbe o spremembi in odmeri
ECOTRADE virtue of the national provisions implementing Article 15(5) of the Sixth Directive.
ECOTRADE morju, ki so opro�čene DDV na podlagi nacionalnih določb, ki prena�ajo člen 15(5) Šeste direktive.
15It therefore entered them normally as purchases in its accounts, but did not include them in its VAT records or returns.
15 Zato jih je v svoje knjige vpisala kot navadne nakupe, ni pa jih vknjižila v svoje DDV-knjige ali obračune.
within the timelimit laid down by the latter provision, the tax authority claimed payment of the VAT concerned, amounting to the equivalent of approximately EUR 320 000 for the two tax years, apparently representing VAT at the standard rate of 20% on invoices to a value equivalent to approximately EUR 1 600 000.
plačilo zadevnega DDV v znesku v protivrednosti približno 320.000 EUR za dve davčni obdobji, kar očitno ustreza DDV po splo�ni stopnji 20 % na računih, katerih vrednost je približno 1.600.000 EUR.
16It refused, however, to allow Ecotrade to deduct the same amounts, on the ground that the timelimit for doing so, under Article 19(1) of DPR 633/72, had expired.
16 Družbi Ecotrade ni priznal pravice do odbitka istih zneskov, saj naj bi rok, v katerem bi to bilo mogoče narediti, v skladu s členom 19(1) DPR 633/72 potekel.
It further imposed on Ecotrade administrative fines amounting to slightly over EUR 360 000.
Poleg tega je družbi Ecotrade nalo žil upravne globe v znesku nekaj nad 360.000 EUR.
Following an inspection, the tax authority decided that the shipping services were in fact services in the intra- Community transport of goods on which, pursuant to the national provisions implementing Articles 21(1)(b) and 28b(C) of the Sixth Directive, Ecotrade was itself liable for VAT.
Po davčnem in�pekcijskem nadzoru je davčni organ odločil, da gre pri ladijskem prevozu dejansko za storitve pri prevozu blaga znotraj Skupnosti, glede katerih je bila družba Ecotrade v skladu z nacionalnimi določbami, ki prena�ajo člena 21(1)(b) in 28b(C) Šeste direktive, zavezana za DDV.
With some minor reservations, Ecotrade accepts that reclassification.
Družba Ecotrade to ponovno opredelitev sprejema z manj�imi pridržki.
There is no suggestion of fraud or bad faith on its part.
O goljufiji ali slabi veri družbe Ecotrade ni znakov.
Ecotrade has challenged that refusal and those fines before the referring court, which seeks a ruling on the following questions:
Družba Ecotrade je izpodbijala to zavrnitev in te globe pred predložitvenim sodi�čem, ki je predložilo naslednji vpra�anji:
Ecotrade should thus have declared VAT on the shipping services and entered it as input tax.
Družba Ecotrade bi torej morala obračunati DDV za ladijski prevoz in ga vknjižiti kot vstopni davek.
It would have been liable to pay that tax but would at the same time have been able to deduct it from its output tax.
Zavezana bi bila plačati ta davek, obenem pa bi ga lahko odbila od svojega izstopnega davka.
Its overall tax liability would therefore not have been affected.
Njena celotna davčna obveznost torej ne bi bila prizadeta.
‘(1) Does a correct interpretation of Articles 17, 21(1) and 22 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC … preclude national legislation (in particular Article 19 of DPR 633/72 …) that makes the exercise of the right to deduct VAT, payable by a taxable person in the pursuit of his business activities, dependent on compliance with a (twoyear) timelimit and penalises noncompliance with annulment of that right? That question is asked with reference, in
„(1) Ali pravilna razlaga členov 17, 21(1) in 22 Šeste direktive Sveta 77/388/EGS […] nasprotuje nacionalni ureditvi (v tem primeru členu 19 DPR 633/72 […]), po kateri je uveljavljanje pravice do odbitka [DDV], ki ga mora davčni zavezanec plačati pri opravljanju svoje dejavnosti, odvisno od upo�tevanja (dvoletnega)
In December 2004, pursuant to Articles 54(5) and 57(1) of DPR 633/72 and
Decembra 2004 je davčni organ zahteval v skladu s členoma 54(5) in 57(1) DPR 633/72 in v roku, določenem v zadnjem členu,
16 — The figures given in the order for reference in Case C-95/07 appear to reflect the application of a VAT rate of slightly over 20%.
16 – Zdi se, da zneski, navedeni v predlogu za sprejetje predhodne odločbe v zadevi C-95/07, odražajo uporabo stopnje DDV rahlo vi�je od 20 %.
No explanation is given, but the discrepancy does not appear relevant to the resolution of the problem.
Glede tega pojasnilo ni bilo dano, vendar se zdi, da ta razlika ni upo�tevna za re�itev problema.
15 — See point 13 above.
15 – Glej točko 13 zgoraj.
OPINION OF MS SHARPSTON — JOINED CASES C-95/07 AND C-96/07 all of whom, apart from the Cypriot Government, were represented at the hearing.
Komisija, vse, razen ciprske vlade, so bile zastopane na obravnavi.
particular, to cases where the liability to VAT on the purchase of the good or service stems from the application of the reverse charge procedure, which allows the authorities a longer period (of four years under Article 57 of DPR 633/72) in which to demand payment of the duty than the period allowed to the trader for deduction of the duty, on expiry of which the trader’s right to such deduction lapses.
roka, njegovo neupo�tevanje pa je sankcionirano s prenehanjem same pravice? To vpra�anje se zlasti nana�a na primere, v katerih zavezanost za DDV za nakup blaga ali storitve izhaja iz uporabe postopka obrnjene davčne obveznosti, pri katerem organom pripada dalj�i rok za izterjavo plačila dajatve (�tiriletni, na podlagi člena 57 DPR 633/72), kot je rok, ki ga ima podjetnik za odbitek te dajatve, pri čemer pa ob poteku tega roka pravica podjetnika do odbitka preneha.
(2) Does it follow from a correct interpretation of Article 18(1)(d) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC … that national legislation may not, in regulating the “formalities” referred to in that provision by means of the reverse charge procedure governed by the combined provisions of Articles 17(3), 23 and 25 of DPR 633/72, make (solely to the detriment of the taxpayer) the exercise of the right to deduct permitted by Article 17 of the Directive conditional upon compliance with a timelimit such as that laid down in Article 19 of DPR 633/72?’
(2) Ali iz pravilne razlage člena 18(1)(d) Šeste direktive Sveta 77/388/EGS izhaja, da v nacionalni zakonodaji pri urejanju ‚formalnosti‘, navedenih v tem členu, po postopku obrnjene davčne obveznosti, urejenem s členom 17(3) v povezavi s členoma 23 in 25 DPR 633/72, izvajanje pravice do odbitka, določene v členu 17 te direktive, ne sme biti pogojeno (le v �kodo zavezanca) z upo�tevanjem roka, kot je določen v členu 19 DPR 633/72?“
The order for reference might be interpreted broadly as raising first and foremost the general question whether a twoyear timelimit on the exercise of the right to deduct is compatible with Community VAT law, and only secondarily whether that is so in the specific case where the reverse charge mechanism applies and the tax authority enjoys a longer period in which to recover tax not properly accounted for.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se lahko razlaga �iroko, in sicer da najprej in predvsem postavlja splo�no vpra�anje, ali je dveletni rok za uveljavljanje pravice do odbitka združljiv s pravom Skupnosti o DDV, in �ele nato, ali je to tako v posebnem primeru, ko se uporabi mehanizem obrnjene davčne obveznosti in ima davčni organ na voljo dalj�e obdobje, v katerem lahko izterja davek, ki ni bil pravilno obračunan.
However, I agree with the Italian Government and the Commission that it is unnecessary to focus too closely on the general question, which is not in itself central
Vendar se strinjam z italijansko vlado in Komisijo, da se ni treba preveč osredotočiti na splo�no vpra�anje, ki samo po sebi ni osrednje za postopek v glavni stvari.
Finally, although the referring court formally poses two questions, directed at assessing the Italian rules against different provisions of the Sixth Directive, I find it more helpful to address the two together.
Nazadnje, čeprav je predložitveno sodi�če postavilo vpra�anji glede presoje italijanskih pravil glede na različne določbe Šeste direktive, se mi zdi koristno obravnavati ju skupaj.
Possibility of a timelimit on the exercise of the right to deduct
Možnost roka za uveljavljanje pravice do odbitka
The factors stressed by the national court as combining to produce that result are: (i) the ‘two-year’ timelimit 17 on the exercise of the right to deduct, (ii) the ‘four-year’ timelimit 18 on the tax authority’s right to recover and (iii) the reverse charge mechanism under which a taxable person’s liability to pay input tax is, normally, exactly counterbalanced by his right to deduct the same tax.
Dejavniki, ki jih poudarja nacionalno sodi�če in je z njihovo kombinacijo povzročen tak izid, so: (i)„dveletni“ rok 17 za uveljavljanje pravice do odbitka, (ii) „�tiriletni“ rok 18v zvezi s pravico davčnega organa, da terja davek, in (iii) mehanizem obrnjene davčne obveznosti, v skladu s katerim je zavezanost davčnega zavezanca za plačilo vstopnega davka navadno natančno izenačena z njegovo pravico do odbitka istega davka.
Nothing in any of the provisions cited by the national court in its questions — or indeed elsewhere in the Sixth Directive — imposes any specific timelimit on the exercise of the right to deduct or refers explicitly to the possibility, or otherwise, of imposing such a timelimit in national law.
V nobeni od določb, ki jih je navedlo predložitveno sodi�če v svojih vpra�anjih – in ne v Šesti direktivi – ni naložen poseben rok za uveljavljanje pravice do odbitka in ni izrecnega sklicevanja na možnost, ali kaj drugega, naložiti tak rok v nacionalnem pravu.
However, and although the context of that mechanism is undoubtedly a key feature of this case, it is in my view at least as important to note that the result to which Ecotrade objects was triggered not by the mere combination of those three factors but by the reclassification of its input transactions from exempt to taxable.
Čeprav je kontekst tega mehanizma nedvomno glavna značilnost te zadeve, pa menim, da je vsaj tako pomembno upo�tevati, da je bil izid, kateremu družba Ecotrade ugovarja, povzročen ne samo s kombinacijo tistih treh dejavnikov, ampak s ponovno opredelitvijo vstopnih transakcij kot obdavčljivih namesto opro�čenih.
17 — More accurately, the limit is the submission of the declaration for the second year following that in which the right to deduct arose.
17 – Natančneje, rok poteče s predložitvijo obračuna za drugo leto, ki sledi letu, v katerem je nastala pravica do dobitka.
18 — In fact, the end of the fourth year following that in which the declaration was made.
18 – Dejansko konec četrtega leta, ki sledi letu, v katerem je bil narejen obračun.
Ecotrade stated at the hearing, without contradiction, that the period was regularly extended by temporary legislation to five, six or seven years.
Družba Ecotrade je na obravnavi navedla, da je bilo to obdobje običajno podalj�ano s časovno omejenimi predpisi na pet, �est ali sedem let.
Of those provisions, at least one may none the less be seen as implicitly authorising the imposition of a time-limit: Article 18(1)(d) refers to formalities laid down by Member States for the exercise of the right to deduct.
Vendar bi se lahko vsaj za eno od teh določb razumelo, kot da je v njej implicitno dovoljena naložitev roka: člen 18(1)(d) se nana�a na formalnosti, ki jih določijo države članice za uveljavljanje pravice do odbitka.
That a timelimit may be set seems, moreover, clear from the combined provisions of Article 18(2) and (3).
Poleg tega se zdi, da je iz določb člena 18(2) in (3) mogoče jasno razbrati, da se rok lahko določi.
The former indicates that the right to deduct is to be exercised in relation to amounts due for the same tax period as that in which the right arose, and the latter allows Member States to determine the conditions in which a taxable person may be authorised to deduct when
V drugem odstavku tega člena je navedeno, da se lahko pravico do odbitka uveljavlja glede zneskov, ki jih je treba plačati za isto davčno obdobje, v katerem je ta pravica nastala, s tretjim odstavkom pa je državam članicam dovoljeno, da določijo pogoje, pod katerimi davčni zavezanec lahko uveljavlja
It should thus not be less favourable than those applicable to similar domestic situations 21 or render virtu- he has not respected, inter alia, that condition.
SHARPSTON – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-95/07 IN C-96/07 pravico do odbitka, kadar med drugim ni izpolnil tega pogoja.
Taken together, they imply that it is open to a Member State to require that the right to deduct be exercised in respect of the tax period in question, 19 or to allow a longer period.
Če se ju obravnava skupaj, je s tem nakazano, da države članice lahko zahtevajo, da se pravica do odbitka uveljavlja za zadevno davčno obdobje 19 ali da dovolijo dalj�e obdobje.
ally impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law.
20 Torej ne bi smel biti manj ugoden od tistih, ki se uporabijo v podobnih nacionalnih položajih, 21ali povzročiti, da bi bilo uveljavljanje pravic, ki jih podeljuje pravo Skupnosti, dejansko nemogoče ali čezmerno težko.
In the submissions to the Court in the present case, there has been no comparison with any timelimit applicable to similar domestic situations, nor has it been argued that a timelimit of two clear years renders in general — rather than in the specific circumstances — the exercise of the right to deduct virtually impossible or excessively difficult.
V stali�čih, predloženih Sodi�ču v tej zadevi, ni navedena niti primerjava z rokom, ki se uporablja za podobne nacionalne položaje, niti ni nihče navedel, da pomeni rok dveh let na splo�no – bolj kot v posebnih okoli�činah – da je uveljavljanje pravice do odbitka dejansko nemogoče ali čezmerno težko.
I disagree, therefore, with Ecotrade’s contention that the right to deduct is so fundamental that no timelimit can ever be placed on its exercise.
Zato se ne strinjam s trditvijo družbe Ecotrade, da je pravica do odbitka tako temeljna, da ni mogoče določiti roka za njeno uveljavljanje.
The right is indeed fundamental but it is also important, for reasons of legal (and financial) security, that settled fiscal situations should not be liable to be called in question indefinitely.
Pravica je vsekakor temeljna, vendar pa zaradi pravne (in finančne) varnosti ni dobro, da bi se lahko neskončno dolgo postavljalo pod vpra�aj zaključen davčni položaj.
Possibility of reassessment by the tax authority after such a timelimit has expired
Možnost ponovne odmere s strani davčnega organa po poteku takega roka
That tax authorities should have at their disposal a period within which to verify taxable persons’ VAT declarations and,
Da bi morali imeti davčni organi na voljo obdobje, v katerem lahko preverijo obračune
Suffice it to bear in mind that such a timelimit (which is in many ways comparable to that for bringing proceedings for the recovery of national charges levied in breach of Community law) should in any event comply with the principles of equiva-
Če torej na podlagi Šeste direktive država članica lahko zahteva, da se pravica do odbitka uveljavlja v davčnem obdobju, v katerem je nastala, se vpra�anje, ali je obdobje, dalj�e od dveh polnih let, dovoljenih z italijansko zakonodajo, kot splo�no pravilo pretirano omejujoče, ne pojavi.
20 — Compare, for example, Case C-62/00 Marks & Spencer [2002] ECR I-6325, paragraph 34 et seq. of equivalence and
20 – Primerjaj na primer s sodbo z dne 11. julija 2002 v zadevi Marks and Spencer (C-62/00, Recueil, str. I-6325, točka 34 in naslednje).
21 — It seems to me that the Commission is misguided in arguing (if I have understood it correctly) that the principle of equivalence applies as between the respective periods available to the taxable person and to the tax authority.
19 – Podvrženo zahtevam enakovrednosti in učinkovitosti – glej točko 42 spodaj.
19 — Subject to the requirements effectiveness — see point 42 below.
21 – Zdi se mi, da se Komisija moti, ko trdi (če sem pravilno razumela), da se načelo enakovrednosti uporabi za ustrezna obdobja, ki so na voljo davčnemu zavezancu in davčnemu organu.
However, that is not true where verification brings to light an undeclared liability to VAT which, if it had been correctly declared, would have entailed a concomitant right to deduct but, in the absence of such liability, no right to deduct could exist.
Vendar to ni res, če preverjanje odkrije neobračunan dolgovan DDV, kateremu bi, če bi bil pravilno obračunan, pripadala hkratna pravica do dobitka, a ker tak davčni dolg ne obstaja, ne more obstajati niti pravica do odbitka.
In such cases, the failure to exercise the right to deduct is indissociable from the failure to declare the tax liability which the authority now seeks to enforce. 23
V takih primerih je neuveljavljanje pravice do odbitka neločljivo povezano s tem, da ni bil prijavljen davčni dolg, ki ga davčni organ zdaj hoče izterjati. 23
Where such verification reveals a liability to VAT which was not declared, clearly that liability may — and indeed should — be enforced, and the corresponding sum collected.
Če tako preverjanje odkrije dolgovan DDV, ki ni bil obračunan, bi bilo to obveznost mogoče – in vsekakor nujno – uveljaviti in pobrati ustrezen znesek.
Where deduction and liability are thus two sides of the same coin, any reassessment by the tax authority must logically take both into account.
Kadar sta odbitek in zavezanost kakor dve strani iste medalje, mora davčni organ pri vsaki ponovni presoji logično upo�tevati oba.
To enforce the liability without allowing the concomitant right to deduct would, moreover, run completely counter to the principle of neutrality which is fundamental to the whole VAT system.
Izterjava davčnega dolga, ne da bi bila hkrati priznana pravica do odbitka, bi bila tudi v nasprotju z načelom nevtralnosti, ki je temeljno načelo celotnega sistema DDV.
As the Court has repeatedly stated, the rules governing deduction are meant
Kot je Sodi�če večkrat navedlo, je namen pravil, ki urejajo odbitke, podjetnika v celoti
Nor does the discovery of liability impinge on any existing right to deduct input tax which is not dependent on the liability.
Tako odkritje davčnega dolga tudi ni v nasprotju z obstoječo pravico do odbitka vstopnega davka, ki ni odvisna od tega davčnega dolga.
Whether the taxable person has or has not exercised such a right within any applicable national timelimit of the kind I have outlined is a matter quite separate from the reassessment of his liability for output tax.
Vpra�anje, ali je davčni zavezanec uveljavljal to pravico v kakr�nem koli roku, ki je določen v nacionalni zakonodaji in kot sem ga opisala, ali ne, se precej razlikuje od naknadne odmere izstopnega davka.
22 — Compare Case paragraph 32.
I-7447, točka 32).
23 — In the present proceedings, Ecotrade finds itself in such a situation because of the reverse charge mechanism, but a similar situation could exist where a taxable person had classified his output supplies as exempt (when they were in fact taxable) and had therefore not been in a position to deduct any input tax on goods or services used for the purposes of those supplies.
23 – V tem postopku se je družba Ecotrade zna�la v takem položaju zaradi mehanizma obrnjene davčne obveznosti, vendar bi lahko obstajal podoben položaj, če bi davčni zavezanec opredelil svoje izstopne dobave kot opro�čene (čeprav so bile dejansko obdavčljive) in zato ni mogel odbiti nobenega vstopnega davka za blago in storitve, ki jih je uporabil za namene teh dobav.
25Of those, Art- to relieve the trader entirely of the burden of the VAT payable or paid in the course of all his economic activities.
Sistem zagotavlja popolno nevtralnost obdavčitve vseh gospodarskih dejavnosti, ne glede na namene ali rezultate teh dejavnosti, če so navedene dejavnosti načeloma same predmet DDV. 24
The system ensures complete neutrality of taxation of all economic activities, whatever their purpose or results, provided that they are themselves subject in principle to VAT.
Skupnosti. Nacionalno sodi�če se v svojih vpra�anjih sklicuje na člene 17, 18(1)(d), 21(1) in 22 Šeste direktive.
24 icles 17(6) and (7), 18(1)(d) and 22(7) and (8) have been cited, at various stages in the proceedings, as capable of providing justification for applying the Italian rules in the manner sought by the tax authority.
25Na različnih stopnjah postopka je navedlo, da bi lahko s členi 17(6) in (7), 18(1)(d) ter 22(7) in (8) utemeljili uporabo italijanskih pravil tako, kot je to storil davčni organ.
By contrast, application of the Italian rules in the way sought by the tax authority in the present case would replace the neutrality of taxation which had been achieved (albeit on an incorrect basis) by a significant burden of which the trader should in principle have been relieved — and would lead to a greater amount of tax being collected overall than should have been collected.
Nasprotno bi z uporabo italijanskih pravil na način, kot si prizadeva davčni organ v tej zadevi, nevtralnost obdavčitve, ki je bila dosežena (čeprav na napačni podlagi), nadomestilo znatno breme, katerega bi moral biti podjetnik načelno razbremenjen – in bi bil pobran večji znesek davka, kot bi moral biti.
However, with regard to Article 17(6) and (7), as the Cypriot Government rightly notes, the issue in the present case is not one of exclusion of the tax in issue from the right to deduct but a limitation of the exercise of that right in certain circumstances.
Vendar glede na člen 17(6) in (7), kot pravilno opozarja ciprska vlada, v tej zadevi ne gre za izključitev zadevnega davka iz pravice do odbitka, ampak za omejitev uvelja­vljanja te pravice v določenih okoli�činah.
Such a limitation does not fall within the scope of Article 17(6) or (7), which concern the complete exclusion of certain types of input.
Taka omejitev ne spada v obseg člena 17(6) ali (7), ki se nana�a na popolno izključitev določenih vrst vstopnih transakcij.
Possible justifications for recovering undeclared tax while refusing the exercise of a linked right to deduct
Mogoče utemeljitve za izterjavo neobračuna­nega davka ob sočasni zavrnitvi uveljavljanja z njim povezane pravice do odbitka
The question arises whether there can none the less be any justification for overriding the fundamental requirement of neutrality on the basis of any Community provision. The national court refers in its
Postavlja se vpra�anje, ali vseeno obstaja utemeljitev za to, da se ovrže temeljna zahteva po nevtralnosti na podlagi določbe
Of the other provisions cited, Article 18(1)(d) authorises Member States to lay down formalities for the exercise of the right to deduct; Article 22(7) requires them to take measures to ensure that traders liable
Od drugih navedenih določb je s čle -nom 18(1)(d) državam članicam dovoljeno določiti formalnosti za uveljavljanje pravice do odbitka; člen 22(7) vsebuje zahtevo, da morajo sprejeti ukrepe, da bi osebe, ki so zavezane za vstopni davek po mehanizmu
24 — See, most recently, Case C-435/05 Investrand [2007] ECR I-1315, paragraph 22.
24 – Glej nedavno sodbo z dne 8. februarja 2007 v zadevi Investrand (C-435/05, ZOdl., str. I-1315, točka 22).
25 — See points 8, 11 and 15 to 18 above.
25 – Glej točke 8, 11 in od 15 do 18 zgoraj.
26 Because it displays several parallels with the present case, I shall summarise it at some length.
26 Ker obstaja nekaj podobnosti s to zadevo, jo bom na kratko povzela.
for input tax under the reverse charge mechanism comply with their obligations relating to declaration and payment; and Article 22(8) authorises them to impose other obligations for the correct collection of tax and prevention of evasion.
obrnjene davčne obveznosti, lahko izpol -njevale svoje obveznosti glede obračuna in plačila; v skladu s členom 22(8) pa lahko naložijo �e druge obveznosti za pravilno pobiranje davka ter preprečevanje goljufij.