natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
SUMMARY — CASE C-124/07 those parties, and to whom the insurance broker or agent is contractually bound does not prevent the service provided by the latter from being exempt from value added tax under that provision.
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-124/07 zavarovalni zastopnik pogodbeno povezan, ne nasprotuje temu, da bi bila storitev, ki jo opravi slednji, opro�čena davka na dodano vrednost na podlagi navedene določbe.
Article 13B(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that an insurance broker or agent does not have a direct relationship with the parties to the insurance or reinsurance contract in the conclusion of which he has been instrumental, but merely an indirect relationship with them through the intermediary of another taxable person who is, himself, in a direct relationship with one of
Člen 13(B)(a) Šeste direktive 77/388 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih je treba razlagati tako, da okoli�čina, da zavarovalni posrednik ali zavarovalni zastopnik ni neposredno povezan s strankami zavarovalne ali pozavarovalne pogodbe, k sklenitvi katere prispeva, temveč je z njimi povezan le posredno s posredovanjem drugega davčnega zavezanca, ki je v neposrednem razmerju z eno od teh strank in s katerim je ta zavarovalni posrednik ali ta
(see para. 29, operative part)
(Glej točko 29 in izrek.)
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC, by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), made by decision of 9 February 2007, received at the Court on 2 March 2007, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-124/07, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Nizozemska) z odločbo z dne 9. februarja 2007, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 2. marca 2007, v postopku
2008 — CASE C-124/07
2008 – ZADEVA C-124/07 generalna pravobranilka: E. Sharpston, sodna tajnica: M.
Advocate General: E. Sharpston, Registrar: M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 10 January 2008, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Ferreira, glavna administratorka, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 10. januarja 2008, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
— the Netherlands Government, by C. Wissels and M. de Mol, acting as Agents,
– za nizozemsko vlado C. Wissels in M. de Mol, zastopnici,
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 13B(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago člena 13(B)(a) Šeste direktive Sveta 77/388/EGS z dne 17. maja 1977 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav
1; ‘the Sixth Directive’).
1, v nadaljevanju: Šesta direktiva).
Under Article 2(1) of the Sixth Directive, the supply of goods or services effected for consideration within the territory of the country by a taxable person acting as such is to be subject to value added tax (‘VAT’).
V skladu s členom 2, točka 1, Šeste direktive je predmet davka na dodano vrednost (v nadaljevanju: DDV) dobava blaga ali storitev, ki jo davčni zavezanec, ki deluje kot tak, opravi na ozemlju države za plačilo.
Article 13 of the Sixth Directive, entitled ‘Exemptions within the territory of the country’, provides:
Člen 13 Šeste direktive z naslovom „Oprostitve na ozemlju države“ določa:
2008 — CASE C-124/07
2008 – ZADEVA C-124/07
Without prejudice to other Community provisions, Member States shall exempt the following under conditions which they shall lay down for the purpose of ensuring the correct and straightforward application of the exemptions and of preventing any possible evasion, avoidance or abuse:
Brez poseganja v druge določbe Skupnosti države članice pod pogoji, ki jih določijo zaradi zagotavljanja pravilne in enostavne uporabe oprostitev in preprečevanja vsakr�nih možnih utaj, izogibanj ali zlorab, oprostijo:
Article 1 of the Law of 1968 on turnover tax (Wet op de omzetbelasting 1968, hereinafter ‘the 1968 Law’), in the version applicable in the main proceedings, is drafted in the following terms:
Člen 1 zakona iz leta 1968 o davku na dodano vrednost (Wet op de omzetbelasting 1968, v nadaljevanju: Wet OB 1968) v različici, ki velja za spor o glavni stvari, določa:
(a) the supply of goods or services effected in the Netherlands by traders in the course of their business;
„Davek, imenovan ‚davek na dodano vrednost‘, se plača od: a) dobav blaga ali storitev, ki jih na Nizozemskem opravijo ponudniki v okviru svojih podjetji;
Under Article 11(1)(k) of the 1968 Law, which transposes Article 13B(a) of the Sixth Directive into Netherlands law:
Člen 11(1)(k) Wet OB 1968, ki prena�a člen 13(B)(a) Šeste direktive v nizozemski pravni red, določa:
… k. insurance transactions and services performed by insurance agents;
[…] k. zavarovalnice in storitve, ki jih opravijo zavarovalni zastopniki;
The appellant in the main proceedings acts as a sub-agent on behalf of VDL Polisassuradeuren BV (‘VDL’) a company incorporated under Netherlands law which itself acts as an insurance broker and insurance agent.
Tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari deluje kot podzastopnik VDL Polisassuradeuren BV (v nadaljevanju: VDL), ki je družba nizozemskega prava in ki opravlja dejavnost zavarovalnega posrednika in zavarovalnega zastopnika.
VDL acts as an insurance agent in the conclusion of insurance contracts and as an ‘authorised agent’ for certain insurance companies.
Družba VDL deluje kot zastopnik pri sklepanju zavarovalnih pogodb in kot „poobla�čenec“ določenih zavarovalnic.
In that capacity, VDL concludes insurance contracts independently in the name of those insurers.
Kot taka družba VDL samostojno sklepa zavarovalne pogodbe v imenu slednjih.
The activities which the appellant in the main proceedings carries out in the name and on behalf of VDL concern the conclusion of insurance contracts, the processing of transfers of insurance policies, the issue of such policies, the payment of commissions and provision of information to the insurance company and policyholders.
Dejavnosti, ki jih tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari opravlja v imenu družbe VDL in zanjo, zajemajo sklepanje zavarovalnih pogodb, obdelavo prenosov zavarovalnih polic, izdajo takih polic, določanje provizij, sporočanje podatkov zavarovalnici in imetnikom zavarovalnih polic.
In addition, it offers and concludes new insurance policies independently and on its own initiative.
Poleg tega na lastno pobudo in neodvisno predlaga in sklepa nova zavarovanja.
Under the contract between VDL and the appellant in the main proceedings, the latter receives from VDL, in return for the services provided, a commission equal to 80% of the commission paid to VDL for the conclusion of an insurance contract.
Pogodba, sklenjena med družbo VDL in tožečo stranko v postopku v glavni stvari, določa, da prejme slednja od družbe VDL za storitve, ki jih zanjo opravi, plačilo v vi�ini 80 odstotkov provizije, plačane družbi VDL za sklenitev zavarovalne pogodbe.
If the insurance lapses, the appellant in the main proceedings is required to repay the proportion of the commission it received which corresponds, pro rata, to the unexpired term of the contract.
V primeru razdrtja zavarovalne pogodbe mora vrniti del plačila, ki ji je bilo plačano, sorazmerno s časom, ki je ostal do izteka pogodbe.
A supplementary turnover tax assessment in the amount of NLG 55 561 (EUR 25 244) was issued to the appellant in the main proceedings in respect of the period from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 1998.
Za obdobje med 1. januarjem 1997 in 31. decembrom 1998 je bil tožeči stranki v postopku v glavni stvari odmerjen davek na dodano vrednost v znesku 55.561 NLG (25.244 EUR).
After an unsuccessful objection and the dismissal of the appeal it had lodged before the Gerechtshof te ’s-Hertogenbosch (Regional Court of Appeal, ’s-Hertogenbosch) on the ground that it could not rely on the exemption laid down in Article 11(1)(k) of the 1968 Law, the appellant in the main proceedings appealed on a point of law to the court making the reference.
Tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari je po neuspe�nem ugovoru in pritožbi, ki jo je Gerechtshof te s-Hertogenbosch zavrnilo, ker se ni mogla sklicevati na oprostitev iz člena 11(1)(k) Wet OB 1968, pri predložitvenem sodi�ču vložila kasacijsko pritožbo.
Taking the view that an interpretation of Community law was necessary in order for it to reach a decision in the main action, the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden decided to stay the proceedings and submit the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
Ker je Hoge Raad der Nederlanden menilo, da je za re�itev spora o glavni stvari potrebna razlaga prava Skupnosti, je prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vpra�anje:
‘Do the provisions of Article 13 B(a) of the Sixth Directive extend to activities of a (legal) person which performs characteristic and essential activities of an insurance broker and insurance agent, whereby negotiations are carried out in the name of another insurance broker or insurance agent in connection with the bringing about of insurance transactions?’
„Ali se določba člena 13(B), uvodni stavek in točka (a), Šeste direktive uporablja za dejavnosti (pravne) osebe, ki opravlja značilne in bistvene dejavnosti zavarovalnega posrednika ali zastopnika, v okviru katerih ta oseba deluje v imenu drugega zavarovalnega posrednika ali zastopnika z namenom sklenitve zavarovalnih pogodb?“
It is also settled caselaw that those exemptions constitute independent concepts of Community law whose purpose is to avoid divergences in the application of the VAT system as between one Member State and another and which must be placed in the general context of the common system of VAT (Case C-240/99 Skandia [2001] ECR I-1951, paragraph 23, Arthur Andersen, paragraph 25, and Ludwig, paragraph 22).
Prav tako je v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso, da omenjene oprostitve pomenijo samostojne pojme prava Skupnosti, katerih cilj je izogniti se razlikam pri uporabi ureditve DDV od ene države članice do druge in ki jih je treba postaviti v splo�ni kontekst skupnega sistema DDV (sodbe z dne 8. marca 2001 v zadevi Skandia, C-240/99, Recueil, str. I-1951, točka 23; ter v zgoraj navedenih zadevah Arthur Andersen, točka 25, in Ludwig, točka 22).
In order to provide a useful answer to the question referred to the Court, it must be determined whether, notwithstanding the fact that the appellant in the main proceedings is only in an indirect relationship with one of the parties to an insurance contract, in the conclusion of which it has been instrumental through the intermediary of another taxable person who is himself in a direct relationship with that party and to whom that appellant is contractually bound, the services provided to that end are none the less services related to insurance and reinsurance transactions performed by insurance brokers and insurance agents within the meaning of Article 13B(a) of the Sixth Directive.
Da bi koristno odgovorili na vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, je treba ugotoviti, ali kljub dejstvu, da je tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari le posredno povezana z eno od strank zavarovalne pogodbe, k sklenitvi katere prispeva s posredovanjem drugega subjekta, ki je s to stranko v neposrednem razmerju in s katerim je navedena tožeča stranka pogodbeno povezana, storitve, ki jih tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari opravlja za ta namen, spadajo med storitve, povezane z zavarovalnimi in pozavarovalnimi transakcijami, ki jih opravljajo zavarovalni posredniki in zavarovalni zastopniki, v smislu člena 13(B)(a) Šeste direktive.
It should be pointed out, first of all, that it has already been held that recognition of a person as an insurance broker or agent presupposes an examination of what the activities in question comprise (see, to that effect, Arthur Andersen, cited above, paragraph 32).
Prvič, treba je opozoriti, da je bilo že presojeno, da je priznanje lastnosti zavarovalnega posrednika ali zavarovalnega zastopnika odvisno od vsebine zadevne dejavnosti (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Arthur Andersen, točka 32).
It is sufficient to note, in that regard, that it can be seen from the order for reference that the activities carried out by the appellant in the main proceedings, as described in paragraph 9 of the present judgment, are unquestionably the characteristic activities of an insurance broker or agent.
V zvezi s tem zadostuje ugotovitev, kot izhaja iz predložitvene odločbe, da so značilnosti dejavnosti, ki jih opravlja tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari, kot so opisane v točki 9 te sodbe, nesporno značilne za dejavnosti zavarovalnega posrednika ali zavarovalnega zastopnika.
Secondly, it is clear that neither the Sixth Directive nor Council Directive 77/92/EEC of 13 December 1976 on measures to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services in respect of the activities of insurance agents and brokers (ex ISIC Group 630) and, in particular, transitional measures in respect of those activities (OJ 1977 L 26, p.
Drugič, treba je ugotoviti, da Šesta direktiva in Direktiva Sveta 77/92/EGS z dne 13. decembra 1976 o ukrepih za učinkovito izvajanje svobode ustanavljanja in svobode opravljanja storitev v zvezi z dejavnostmi zavarovalnih zastopnikov in zavarovalnih posrednikov (nekdanja skupina ISIC 630) in zlasti o prehodnih ukrepih za take dejavnosti (UL 1977, L 26, str.
14) contain any indication concerning the relationship between an insurance broker or agent with the parties to an insurance contract in the conclusion of which he has been instrumental.
14) ne vsebujeta določb o povezavi med zavarovalnim posrednikom ali zavarovalnim zastopnikom in strankami zavarovalne pogodbe, k sklenitvi katere ta prispeva.
However, the Court has decided, in paragraph 44 of the judgment in Taksatorringen, cited above, to which the national court refers in its order for reference, that the expression ‘related services performed by insurance brokers and insurance agents’ in Article 13B(a) of the Sixth Directive refers only to services provided by professionals who have a relationship with both the insurer and the insured party.
Sodi�če pa je v točki 44 zgoraj navedene sodbe Taksatorringen, na katero se sklicuje nacionalno sodi�če v predložitveni odločbi, presodilo, da se izraz „povezane storitve, ki jih opravljajo zavarovalni posredniki in zavarovalni zastopniki“ iz člena 13(B)(a) Šeste direktive nana�a le na storitve, ki jih opravijo strokovnjaki, ki so povezani z zavarovalcem in zavarovancem.
The Netherlands Government points out in that regard that the appellant in the main proceedings does not have any relationship with the insurers and acts on behalf of, and in the name of, VDL, which is the real insurance broker and agent.
Nizozemska vlada v zvezi s tem poudarja, da tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari ni povezana z zavarovalci in deluje za družbo VDL, ki je pravi zavarovalni posrednik in zavarovalni zastopnik, in v njenem imenu.
The Netherlands Government concludes that the appellant cannot claim the benefit of the exemption provided for in Article 13B(a) of the Sixth Directive in respect of services which it provides as an insurance broker and agent.
Ta vlada iz tega sklepa, da ta tožeča stranka ne more zahtevati oprostitve iz člena 13(B)(a) Šeste direktive za storitve, ki jih opravi kot zavarovalni posrednik in zavarovalni zastopnik.
That is clear, in particular, from paragraph 44 of Taksatorringen and paragraph 33 of Arthur Andersen.
To naj bi izhajalo zlasti iz točke 44 oziroma 33 zgoraj navedenih sodb Taksatorringen in Arthur Andersen.
However, the Netherlands Government’s argument concerning the relationship which the sub-agent and the insurance broker and agent must maintain with the parties to the insurance contract cannot be upheld.
Vendar ni mogoče sprejeti stali�ča nizozemske vlada glede povezave, ki mora obstajati med podzastopnikom, zavarovalnim posrednikom in zavarovalnim zastopnikom ter strankami zavarovalne pogodbe.
On the one hand, it is clear from the order for reference that, although the appellant in the main proceedings does not have a formal relationship with the insurers on whose behalf VDL acts, it none the less has an indirect relationship with those insurers.
Iz predložitvene odločbe namreč po eni strani izhaja, da tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari sicer ni formalno povezana z zavarovalci, za katere deluje družba VDL, vendar je z njimi kljub temu posredno povezana.
Thus, through its contract with VDL, which itself has a contractual relationship with the insurers, the applicant in the main proceedings, acting in the name and on behalf of VDL, is indirectly linked with those insurers.
Tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari, ki deluje v imenu družbe VDL in zanjo, je tako na podlagi pogodbe, ki jo povezuje z družbo VDL, ki je vključena v pogodbeno razmerje z zavarovalci, s temi zavarovalci posredno povezana.
However, it should be pointed out that, in the caselaw on which the Netherlands Government bases its interpretation, the Court did not indicate the nature of the
Treba je poudariti, da Sodi�če v sodni praksi, s katero nizozemska vlada utemeljuje svojo razlago, ni opredelilo značilnosti povezave med zavarovalnim zastopnikom
2008 — CASE C-124/07 relationship between the insurance agent or broker and the parties to the insurance contract and, therefore, it did not limit the nature of that relationship to a specific form.
2008 – ZADEVA C-124/07 ali zavarovalnim posrednikom s strankami zavarovalne pogodbe in zato ni omejilo značilnosti te vezi na določeno obliko.
Thus, although the Court considered that the activities carried on by the taxable persons in question in Taksatorringen and Arthur Andersen did not, of their nature, constitute activities related to insurance transactions carried out by an insurance broker or an insurance agent within the meaning of Article 13B(a) of the Sixth Direct- ive, it did not seek to analyse the relationship of those taxable persons with the insurers and the insured parties (see, to that effect, Taksatorringen, paragraphs 44 to 46, and Arthur Andersen, paragraph 36).
Čeprav je Sodi�če odločilo, da zadevne dejavnosti davčnih zavezancev v zadevah, v katerih sta bili izdani zgoraj navedeni sodbi Taksatorringen in Arthur Andersen, po svojih značilnostih ne spadajo med dejavnosti, povezane z zavarovalnimi transakcijami, ki jih opravlja zavarovalni posrednik ali zavarovalni zastopnik v smislu člena 13(B)(a) Šeste direktive, pa kljub temu ni ocenilo povezave med temi subjekti ter zavarovalci in zavarovanci (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeni sodbi Taksatorringen, točke od 44 do 46, in Arthur Andersen, točka 36).
Consequently, the appellant in the main proceedings cannot be refused the benefit of the exemption provided for in Article 13B(a) of the Sixth Directive merely because it does not have a direct relationship with the insurers on whose behalf it acts indirectly, as a sub-agent of VDL, in regard to insurance policyholders.
Tožeči stranki v postopku v glavni stvari se zato ne more zavrniti oprostitve iz člena 13(B)(a) Šeste direktive zgolj zato, ker nima neposredne povezave z zavarovalci, za katere kot podzastopnik družbe VDL deluje posredno pri tistih, ki sklepajo zavarovanja.
In those circumstances, it follows from the principle of fiscal neutrality that traders must be able to choose the form of organisation which, from the strictly commercial point of view, best suits them, without running the risk of having their transactions excluded from the exemption provided for in Article 13B(a) of the Sixth Direct- ive (see, to that effect, with regard to Article 13B(d)(6) of the Sixth Directive, Abbey National, paragraph 68, and with regard to Article 13B(d)(1) of the directive, see Ludwig, paragraph 35).
V teh okoli�činah iz načela davčne nevtralnosti izhaja, da morajo imeti subjekti možnost izbrati organizacijsko obliko, ki jim iz strogo ekonomskega stali�ča najbolj ustreza, ne da bi tvegali, da so njihove transakcije izključene iz oprostitve, ki je določena v členu 13(B)(a) Šeste direktive (v tem smislu glej glede člena 13(B)(d), točka 6, Šeste direktive zgoraj navedeno sodbo Abbey National, točka 68, in glede člena 13(B)(d), točka 1, te direktive zgoraj navedeno sodbo Ludwig, točka 35).
In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred to the Court should be that Article 13B(a) of the Sixth Directive must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that an insurance broker or agent does not have a direct relationship with the parties to the insurance or reinsurance contract in the conclusion of which he has been instrumental, but merely an indirect relationship with them through the intermediary of another taxable person who is, himself, in a direct relationship with one of those parties, and to whom that insurance broker or agent is contractually bound does not prevent the service provided by the latter from being exempt from VAT under that provision.
Glede na zgornje preudarke je treba na zastavljeno vpra�anje odgovoriti, da je treba člen 13(B)(a) Šeste direktive razlagati tako, da okoli�čina, da zavarovalni posrednik ali zavarovalni zastopnik ni neposredno povezan s strankami zavarovalne ali pozavarovalne pogodbe, k sklenitvi katere prispeva, temveč je z njimi povezan le posredno s posredovanjem drugega davčnega zavezanca, ki je v neposrednem razmerju z eno od teh strank in s katerim je ta zavarovalni posrednik ali ta zavarovalni zastopnik pogodbeno povezan, ne nasprotuje temu, da bi bila storitev, ki jo opravi slednji, opro�čena DDV na podlagi navedene določbe.
Article 13B(a) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that an insurance broker or agent does not have a direct relationship with the parties to the insurance or reinsurance contract in the conclusion of which he has been instrumental, but merely an indirect relationship with them through the intermediary of another taxable person who is, himself, in a direct relationship with one of those parties, and to whom the insurance broker or agent is contractually bound does not prevent the service provided by the latter from being exempt from value added tax under that provision.
Člen 13(B)(a) 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 je treba razlagati tako, da okoliščina, da zavarovalni posrednik ali zavarovalni zastopnik ni neposredno povezan s strankami zavarovalne ali pozavarovalne pogodbe, k sklenitvi katere prispeva, temveč je z njimi povezan le posredno s posredovanjem drugega davčnega zavezanca, ki je v neposrednem razmerju z eno od teh strank in s katerim je ta zavarovalni posrednik ali ta zavarovalni zastopnik pogodbeno povezan, ne nasprotuje temu, da bi bila storitev, ki jo opravi slednji, oproščena davka na dodano vrednost na podlagi navedene določbe.
Case C-187/07
Zadeva C-187/07
Criminal proceedings against Dirk Endendijk
Kazenski postopek proti
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Zutphen)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Rechtbank Zutphen)
(Directive 91/629/EEC — Decision 97/182/EC — Rearing of calves — Individual pens — Prohibition on tethering calves — Meaning of the verb ‘tether’ — Material and length — Different language versions — Uniform interpretation)
„Direktiva 91/629/EGS – Odločba 97/182/ES – Reja telet – Individualni boksi – Prepoved privezovanja telet – Pomen glagola ‚privezati‘ – Narava in dolžina vezi – Razlika v jezikovnih različicah – Enotna razlaga“
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber), 3 April 2008 . . . . . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (sedmi senat) z dne 3. aprila 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Community law — Interpretation — Texts in several languages
Pravo Skupnosti – Razlaga – Besedila v več jezikih