natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Netto Supermarkt subsequently challenged that decision to refuse in part of 3 May 2000 by application to the Finanzgericht (Finance Court), seeking an exemption from the VAT retrospectively demanded for the years 1995 to 1998.
Družba Netto Supermarkt je zoper odločbo o delni zavrnitvi z dne 3. maja 2000 vložila tožbo pri Finanzgericht, v kateri je predlagala naknadno oprostitev DDV za leta od 1995 do 1998. Finanzgericht je tožbo zavrnil.
Netto Supermarkt brought an appeal before the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court), in which it submitted that the Finanzgericht should have considered the supplies of goods to Polish purchasers to be exempt, by applying — by analogy — the national rule on the protection of legitimate expectations referred to in Paragraph 6a(4) of the UStG, which is a rule that applies to intra-Community supplies.
Družba Netto Supermarkt je nato podala predlog za revizijo pred Bundesfinanzhof, v katerem zatrjuje, da bi moralo Finanzgericht obravnavati dobave poljskim kupcem kot opro�čene davka po analogiji z nacionalnim pravilom o varstvu upravičenega pričakovanja iz člena 6a(4) UstG pravilom, ki se uporablja v kontekstu Skupnosti.
In its appeal, Netto Supermarkt also relies on the principle of fairness laid down in Paragraph 227 of the 1977 Tax Code.
Netto Supermarkt v revizijskem predlogu uveljavlja tudi načelo pravičnosti iz člena 227 Splo�nega davčnega zakonika iz leta 1977.
Having regard to the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, the Bundesfinanzhof considers that, in any event, it is in doubt whether — under Community law — export supplies from the Community can be exempt if the operator making the supply was unable — even by exercising due commercial care — to recognise that the export proofs provided by the purchaser had been falsified, even where the conditions of exemption of an export supply are objectively absent because, as in this case, the documents submitted as bearing proof of export had been forged.
Upo�tevaje načelo upravičenega pričakovanja Bundesfinanzhof meni, da ni jasno, ali je mogoče na podlagi prava Skupnosti dobavo za izvoz iz Skupnosti oprostiti, če ponudnik, ki je opravil dobavo, niti z ravnanjem s skrbnostjo dobrega gospodarja ni mogel prepoznati, da je dokaz o izvozu, ki mu ga je predložil kupec, ponarejen, in če – objektivno gledano – pogoji za oprostitev plačila davka za to dobavo niso izpolnjeni, kot v tem primeru, zaradi ponarejenih listin o izvozu.
In those circumstances, the Bundesfinanzhof decided to stay the proceedings and to request a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice on the following question:
Bundesfinanzhof je zato prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vpra�anje:
By its question the Bundesfinanzhof asks, essentially, whether Article 15(2) of the Sixth Directive must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from granting an exemption from VAT on the supply of goods for export to a destination outside the Community, where the conditions for such an exemption are not met, but the taxable person was not able to recognise — even by exercising due commercial care — that they were not met, because the export proofs provided by the purchaser had been forged.
Predložitveno sodi�če s tem vpra�anjem v bistvu spra�uje, ali je treba člen 15, točko 2, Šeste direktive razlagati tako, da nasprotuje temu, da država članica oprosti plačila DDV za dobavo blaga za izvoz iz Skupnosti, če pogoji za oprostitev sicer niso izpolnjeni, vendar davčni zavezanec tega niti z ravnanjem s skrbnostjo dobrega gospodarja ni mogel prepoznati, ker mu je kupec predložil ponarejen dokaz o izvozu.
As is clear from the first part of the first sentence of Article 15 of the Sixth Directive, it is for the Member States to lay down the conditions for the application of the exemption for the supply of goods for export to a destination outside the Community.
Kot izhaja iz prve določbe člena 15 Šeste direktive, države članice določajo pogoje, pod katerimi se dobave za izvoz iz Skupnosti oprostijo plačila davka.
That provision also provides that Member States must lay down those conditions in particular for the purpose ‘of preventing any evasion, avoidance or abuse’.
Omenjena določba določa tudi, da države te pogoje določijo zaradi „preprečevanja vsakr�nih utaj, izogibanja ali zlorab“.
In particular, as regards the principle of proportionality, the Court has already held that, in accordance with that principle, the Member States must employ means which, whilst enabling them effectively to attain the objectives pursued by their domestic laws, cause the least possible detriment to the objectives and principles laid down by the relevant Community legislation (see Molenheide and Others, paragraph 46, and Case C-409/04 Teleos and Others [2007] ECR I-7797, paragraph 52).
Glede načela sorazmernosti je Sodi�če že presodilo, da morajo imeti države članice v skladu z njim možnost zateči se k ukrepom, ki ob tem, da omogočajo učinkovito doseči cilj, ki ga zasleduje nacionalno pravo, čim manj �kodujejo ciljem in načelom, ki jih določa zadevna zakonodaja Skupnosti (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Molenheide in drugi, točka 46, in sodbo z dne 27. septembra 2007 v zadevi Teleos in drugi, C-409/04, ZOdl., I-7797, točka 52).
Therefore, whilst it is legitimate for the measures adopted by the Member State to seek to preserve the rights of the public exchequer as effectively as possible, such measures must not go further than is necessary for that purpose (see, in particular, Molenheide and Others, paragraph 47, and Federation of Technological Industries and Others, paragraph 30).
Čeprav je torej zakonito, da sku�ajo ukrepi, ki jih sprejemajo države članice, kar se da učinkovito varovati pravice državne blagajne, ne smejo presegati tega, kar je nujno potrebno za ta namen (glej med drugim zgoraj navedeni sodbi Molenheide in drugi, točka 47, in Federation of Technological Industries in drugi, točka 30).
In this respect, it must be noted that, in the field of VAT, suppliers act as tax collectors for the State and in the interest of the public exchequer (see Case C-10/92 Balocchi [1993] ECR I-5105, paragraph 25).
Poudariti je treba, da na področju DDV dobavitelji delujejo v vlogi pobiralcev davka za državo in v interesu državne blagajne (glej sodbo z dne 20. oktobra 1993 v zadevi Balocchi, C-10/92, Recueil, str.
This is why the objective of preventing tax evasion referred to in Article 15 of the Sixth Directive sometimes justifies stringent requirements as regards suppliers’ obligations.
Zato cilj preprečevanja davčne utaje iz člena 15 Šeste direktive včasih upravičuje strožje zahteve v zvezi z obveznostmi dobaviteljev.
However, any sharing of the risk between the supplier and the tax authorities, following fraud committed by a third party, must be compatible with the principle of proportionality (Teleos and Others, paragraph 58).
Vendar mora biti porazdelitev tveganja med slednjimi in davčno upravo v primeru goljufije, ki jo je storila tretja oseba, združljiva z načelom sorazmernosti (zgoraj navedena sodba Teleos in drugi, točka 58).
That will not be the case if a tax regime imposes the entire responsibility for the payment of VAT on suppliers, regardless of whether or not they were involved in the fraud committed by the purchaser (see, to that effect, Teleos and Others, paragraph 58).
Za tak�en primer ne bi �lo, če bi vso odgovornost za plačilo DDV nosil dobavitelj, ne glede na to, ali je bil vpleten v goljufijo, ki jo je storil kupec, ali ne (glej v tem smislu sodbo Teleos in drugi, točka 58).
As the Advocate General has pointed out in point 45 of his Opinion, it would clearly be disproportionate to hold a taxable person liable for the shortfall in tax caused by fraudulent acts of third parties over which he has no influence whatsoever.
Kot opozarja generalni pravobranilec v točki 45 sklepnih predlogov, bi bilo popolnoma nesorazmerno, da bi bil davčni zavezanec odgovoren za primanjkljaj v davčnih prihodkih, ki so ga povzročila goljufiva ravnanja tretjih oseb, na katere ne more vplivati.
On the other hand, as the Court has already held, it is not contrary to Community law to require the supplier to take every step which could reasonably be required of him to satisfy himself that the transaction which he is effecting does not result in his participation in tax evasion (see Teleos and Others, paragraph 65, and the caselaw cited there).
Kot je že presodilo Sodi�če, pa ni v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti od dobavitelja zahtevati, da ravna razumno, kot se od njega lahko upravičeno zahteva, da se prepriča, da transakcija, ki jo je opravil, ni del davčne utaje (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Teleos in drugi, točka 65 in navedena sodna praksa).
Accordingly, the fact that the supplier acted in good faith, that he took every reasonable measure in his power and that his participation in fraud is excluded are important points in deciding whether that supplier can be obliged to account for the VAT after the event (see Teleos and Others, paragraph 66).
Zato so okoli�čine, da je dobavitelj deloval v dobri veri, da je ravnal razumno, kolikor je bilo v njegovi moči, in da je njegovo sodelovanje pri goljufiji izključeno, pomembni dejavniki za določitev možnosti, da se dobavitelju naknadno naloži plačilo DDV (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Teleos in drugi, točka 66).
Likewise, it would be contrary to the principle of legal certainty if a Member State which has laid down the conditions for the application of the exemption of supplies of goods for export to a destination outside the Community by prescribing, among other things, a list of the documents to be presented to the competent authorities, and which has accepted, initially, the documents presented by the supplier as evidence establishing entitlement to the exemption, could subsequently require that supplier to account for the VAT on that supply, where it transpires that, because of the purchaser’s fraud, of which the supplier had and could have had no knowledge, the conditions for the exemption were in fact not met (see, to that effect, Teleos and Others, paragraph 50).
Prav tako bi bilo v nasprotju z načelom pravne varnosti, če bi lahko država članica, ki je predvidela pogoje za uporabo oprostitve dobave blaga za izvoz iz Skupnosti, tako da je med drugim določila seznam dokumentov, ki jih je treba predložiti pristojnim organom, in ki je sprva sprejela dokumente, ki jih je predložil dobavitelj, kot dokazila, ki utemeljujejo pravico do oprostitve, tega naknadno obvezala, da plača DDV za to dobavo, medtem ko je očitno, da pogoji za oprostitev dejansko niso bili izpolnjeni zaradi goljufije kupca, za katero dobavitelj niti ni vedel niti ni mogel vedeti (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Teleos in drugi, točka 50).
It follows that a supplier must be able to rely on the lawfulness of the transaction that he carries out without risking the loss of his right to exemption from VAT, if, as in the case in the main proceedings, he is in no position to recognise — even by exercising due commercial care — that the conditions for the exemption were in fact not met, because the export proofs provided by the purchaser had been forged.
Iz tega izhaja, da mora biti dobavitelju zagotovljeno, da se lahko zanese na zakonitost svojega poslovanja, ne da mogel izgubiti pravico do oprostitve DDV, če – kot v postopku v glavni stvari – niti z ravnanjem s skrbnostjo dobrega gospodarja ne more prepoznati, da pogoji za oprostitev zaradi ponarejenega dokaza o izvozu, ki mu ga je predložil kupec, niso izpolnjeni.
Moreover, it must be added that, contrary to what has been submitted by the German Government, the caselaw of the Court in the field of customs law — according to which an operator who cannot provide evidence that the conditions necessary for the grant of remission from export or import duties are satisfied must bear the consequences arising from that inability, despite having acted in good faith — cannot be relied on in a situation such as that in the case in the main proceedings, in order to call in question the foregoing considerations.
Poleg tega je treba dodati, da se, v nasprotju s tem, kar zatrjuje nem�ka vlada, na sodno prakso Sodi�ča na področju davčnega prava, v skladu s katero subjekt, ki ne more dokazati, da izpolnjuje pogoje za oprostitev uvoznih ali izvoznih dajatev, kljub dobri veri sam nosi posledice, ni mogoče sklicevati, zato da bi v primerih, kakr�en je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, postavili pod vpra�aj zgoraj navedene okoli�čine.
As the Advocate General has noted
Omenjene sodne prakse, kot opozarja generalni pravobranilec v točki 53 sklepnih
NETTO SUPERMARKT in point 53 of his Opinion, that caselaw cannot be transposed to the specific situation of a taxable person under the common system of VAT put in place by the Sixth Directive, because of the differences in structure, object and purpose between such a system and the Community regime on the levying of customs duties.
NETTO SUPERMARKT predlogov, ni mogoče uporabiti za poseben položaj davčnega zavezanca, ki izhaja iz skupnega sistema DDV, urejenega s Šesto direktivo, in sicer zaradi razlik v strukturi, predmetu in namenu med tem sistemom in ureditvijo Skupnosti v zvezi s pobiranjem carin.
Having regard to all of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred must be that Article 15(2) of the Sixth Directive must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from granting an exemption from VAT on the supply of goods for export to a destination outside the Community where the conditions for such an exemption are not met, but the taxable person was not able to recognise — even by exercising due commercial care — that they were not met, because the export proofs provided by the purchaser had been forged.
Glede na celoto zgoraj navedenih okoli�čin je treba na zastavljeno vpra�anje odgovoriti, da je treba člen 15, točka 2, Šeste direktive razlagati tako, da ne nasprotuje temu, da država članica dobavo blaga za izvoz iz Skupnosti oprosti plačila DDV, čeprav pogoji za tak�no oprostitev niso izpolnjeni, vendar davčni zavezanec tega niti z ravnanjem s skrbnostjo dobrega gospodarja ni mogel prepoznati zaradi ponarejenega dokaza o izvozu, ki mu ga je predložil kupec.
Article 15(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
Člen 15, točka 2, Šeste direktive Sveta 77/388/EGS z dne 17. maja 1977 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih – Skupni sistem davka na
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from granting an exemption from value added tax on the supply of goods for export to a destination outside the European Community, where the conditions for such an exemption are not met, but the taxable person was not able to recognise — even by exercising due commercial care — that they were not met, because the export proofs provided by the purchaser had been forged.
SODBA Z DNE 21.2.2008 – ZADEVA C-271/06 dodano vrednost: enotna osnova za odmero, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo Sveta 95/7/ES z dne 10. aprila 1995, je treba razlagati tako, da ne nasprotuje temu, da država članica dobavo blaga za izvoz iz Evropske skupnosti oprosti plačila davka na dodano vrednost, čeprav pogoji za takšno oprostitev niso izpolnjeni, vendar davčni zavezanec tega niti z ravnanjem s skrbnostjo dobrega gospodarja ni mogel prepoznati zaradi ponarejenega dokaza o izvozu, ki mu ga je predložil kupec.
Case C-296/06
Zadeva C-296/06
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio)
(Telecommunications services — Directive 97/13/EC — Articles 6, 11, 22 and 25 — Fees and charges for general authorisations and individual licences — Obligation on former holders of exclusive rights — Temporary continuation)
„Telekomunikacijske storitve – Direktiva 97/13/ES – Členi 6, 11, 22 in 25 – Dajatve in pristojbine za splo�na dovoljenja in posamične licence – Obveznosti nekdanjih imetnikov izključnih pravic – Začasna ohranitev“
Approximation of laws — Telecommunications sector — Common framework for general authorisations and individual licences — Directive 97/13 — Fees and charges for general authorisations and individual licences
Približevanje zakonodaj – Telekomunikacijski sektor – Skupen okvir za splošna dovoljenja in posamične licence – Direktiva 97/13 – Dajatve in pristojbine, ki jih morajo plačevati podjetja s posamičnimi licencami
(European Parliament and Council Directive 97/13, Arts 6, 11, 22 and 25)
(Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 97/13, členi 6, 11, 22 in 25)
SUMMARY — CASE C-296/06 for that exclusive right, for one year from the final date laid down for transposition of that directive into national law, namely 31 December 1998.
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-296/06 nekdaj zahtevala za izključno pravico, in sicer to zahteva za eno leto od dne, določenega kot skrajni rok za prenos te direktive v nacionalno pravo, oziroma do 31. decembra 1998.
Articles 6, 11, 22 and 25 of Directive 97/13 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services preclude a Member State from requiring an operator, formerly the holder of an exclusive right to provide public telecommunications services and then the holder of a general authorisation, to pay a pecuniary charge corresponding to the amount previously demanded
Členi 6, 11, 22 in 25 Direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 97/13 o skupnem okviru za splo�na dovoljenja in posamične licence na področju telekomunikacijskih storitev nasprotujejo temu, da država članica od nekdanjega imetnika izključne pravice za ponujanje javnih telekomunikacijskih storitev, ki je nato postal imetnik splo�nega dovoljenja, zahteva plačilo denarne dajatve, kakr�na je zadevna pristojbina v postopku v glavni stvari, ki je enaka znesku, ki ga je
(see para. 45, operative part)
(Glej točko 45 in izrek.)
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERALRUIZ-JARABO COLOMER delivered on 25 October 2007 1
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNEGA PRAVOBRANILCADÁMASA RUIZ-JARABOJA COLOMERJA, predstavljeni 25. oktobra 2007 1
The present reference for a preliminary ruling, submitted by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Regional Administrative Court of Latium, Italy) pursuant to Article 234 EC, concerns a subject with which the Court is already very familiar, although there are elements in this case which were not present in the other cases on which the Court has ruled. 2
To vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, ki ga je na podlagi člena 234 ES vložilo Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italija), se nana�a na temo, ki jo to Sodi�če dobro pozna, vendar ima značilnosti, ki jih v že odločenih primerih ni. 2
to assist the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) of the Italian Republic in deciding a dispute concerning a charge based on the turnover of telecommunications companies, a ruling which was reproduced in the Order of the Court 8 June 2004 in Telecom Italia Mobile and Others. 5
omogočilo Consiglio di Stato (državnemu svetu) Italijanske republike odločiti o sporu o davku od prometa telekomunikacijskih družb, in je bilo ponovljeno v sklepu z dne 8. junija 2004 v združenih zadevah Telecom Italia Mobile in drugi. 5
2 — An advocate general, required over the years to interpret Community provisions as a result of references for preliminary rulings with very diverse origins and factual backgrounds, is like a painter who has already given shape to an image on the canvas but then portrays it again using different outlines and shades because the light has changed, the surroundings have altered or his mood has shifted.
2 – Pri tem ko več let razlaga neko določbo Skupnosti v okviru predlogov za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki imajo različen izvor in se nana�ajo na različna dejanska stanja, je generalni pravobranilec podoben slikarju, ki podobo, potem ko jo je že izdelal na platnu, ponovno naslika z drugega zornega kota in z drugimi barvnimi odtenki, ker se je spremenila svetloba, okolica ali njegovo razpoloženje.
Francisco de Goya and his ‘majas’, one dressed and the other nude, provide a good example.
Francisco de Goya in njegovi „Maji“, oblečena in gola, ponujajo dober primer.
Leaving aside that more obvious difference, the brushstrokes in the Clothed Maja, which is smaller in size, are rich and thick, as though there had been an urgency to apply the paint to the canvas, which is far from the academic perfection of the Nude Maja, whose execution with painstaking care and the delicacy required by the particular time is visible in the strokes used for the couch, the pillow and the sheet, undoubtedly reflecting the artist’s passion for Cayetana de Silva y Álvarez de Toledo, 13th Duchess of Alba.
Najbolj očitno se razlikujeta v tem, da so poteze pri oblečeni kratke, debele in goste, kot da bi se mu mudilo umazati platno, daleč od akademske odličnosti gole, ki je izdelana izjemno skrbno in z občutkom, ki ga je zahteval trenutek, kar je mogoče zaznati v orisih leži�ča, blazine in rjuhe in kar gotovo izraža strast, ki jo je mojster čutil do Cayetane de Silva y Álvarez de Toledo, XIII. vojvodinje iz Albe.
Also against the background of the Italian legal system and again in response to the Consiglio di Stato, the Court held in Nuova Società di Telecomunicazioni 6 that Article 11 of Directive 97/13 precludes a provision which requires the holder of an individual licence for the provision of a public telecommunications network to pay an additional fee in respect of the private use of that network.
prav tako izhajajoč iz italijanskega pravnega reda in v odgovor istemu Consiglio di Stato, odločilo, da člen 11 ne dovoljuje ureditve, ki imetniku posamične licence za zagotavljanje javnega telekomunikacijskega omrežja nalaga plačilo dodatne dajatve za zasebno uporabo.
This reference for a preliminary ruling, in which, as in four of the previous ones, I have been called upon to formulate an Opinion, has arisen in a rather different context. In this case, it is necessary to determine whether, pursuant to Article 22 of Directive 97/13, Member States may extend until 1 January 1999 the obligation on former holders of exclusive licences to pay a pecuniary charge, which it is not disputed is contrary to Article 11 of Directive 97/13.
Ta predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, v zvezi s katerim sem določen, da tako kot v prej�njih �tirih izdelam sklepne predloge, se nana�a na nekoliko drugačne okoli�čine, saj je v tem primeru treba ugotoviti, ali lahko države članice ob sklicevanju na člen 22 Direktive 97/13 podalj�ajo do 1. januarja 1999 obveznost nekdanjih izključnih koncesionarjev, da plačajo denarno protivrednost, pri čemer nihče ne oporeka dejstvu, da ta dajatev ni skladna z Direktivo 97/13.
Subsequently, in the judgment in i-21 Germany and Arcor, 7the Court informed the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court) of Germany that the scheme of Directive 97/13 precludes a fee calculated by taking into account the general administrative costs of the regulatory body over a period of 30 years.
Nato je bilo v sodbi z dne 19. septembra 2006 v združenih zadevah i-21 Germany in Arcor 7 nem�kemu Bundesverwaltungsgericth (Zvezno upravno sodi�če) odgovorjeno, da ureditev iz Direktive 97/13 nasprotuje dajatvi, ki se izračuna na podlagi predvidenih tridesetletnih splo�nih administrativnih stro�kov upravljajočega organa.
II — The legal framework
A – Skupnostna ureditev: Direktiva 97/13
Eleven months previously, in ISIS Multimedia and Firma 02, 8the Court replied to the Bundesverwaltungsgericht that Article 11 precludes a fee applicable to new competitors for the allocation of telephone
Enajst mesecev prej je bilo s sodbo z dne 20. oktobra 2005 v združenih zadevah ISIS Multimedia in Firma 02 8omenjenemu nem�kemu sodi�ču sporočeno, da navedena določba nasprotuje dajatvi za dodelitev tele-
6 — Case C-339/04 [2006] ECR I-6917.7 — Joined Cases C-392/04 and C-422/04 [2006] ECR I-8559.8 — Joined Cases C-327/03 and C-328/03 [2005] ECR I-8877.
I-4887), ter z dne 28. junija 2007 v zadevi Deutsche Telekom, točki 5 in 6 (C-262/06, �e ni sodbe).