natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, since verification may be carried out only in respect of amounts higher than double the amounts declared by the taxable person in the supplementary VAT return, Law No 289/2002 is likely to provide taxable persons with a powerful incentive to declare only part of the tax debt actually due.
Ker je mogoče preveriti zgolj zneske, ki presegajo dvojni znesek, ki ga je davčni zavezanec obračunal v dodatnem obračunu DDV, zakon �t. 289/2002 davčnega zavezanca zelo spodbuja, da obračuna le del dejansko dolgovanega dolga.
It follows that the taxable persons availing themselves of that article will escape once and for all their obligations to declare and to pay the amount of VAT normally payable for the tax periods falling between 1998 and 2001.
Iz tega sledi, da se davčni zavezanci, ki so upravičeni do ugodnosti iz tega člena, dokončno izognejo svojim obveznostim obračunati in plačati znesek DDV, običajno dolgovan za davčna leta od 1998 do 2001.
The VAT amount due under Article 9 of Law No 289/2002 bears even less resemblance to the amount that the taxable person should have paid.
Znesek DDV, dolgovan na podlagi člena 9 zakona �t. 289/2002, se �e bolj razlikuje od zneska DDV, ki bi ga davčni zavezanec moral plačati.
Under that article, a taxable person who has not filed a return for the tax periods falling between 1998 and 2001 will be able to escape any controls as well as any fiscal administrative or criminal penalties by paying an amount equivalent to 2% of the VAT due on supplies of goods or services carried out by that person, plus 2% of the VAT deducted during the same period.
V skladu s tem členom se lahko davčni zavezanec, ki ni predložil obračuna za davčna leta od 1998 do 2001, izogne vsakemu nadzoru ter vsaki davčni, upravni in kazenskopravni sankciji, s tem da plača znesek 2 % DDV za dostavo blaga in storitve, ki jih je opravil, in znesek 2 % DDV, odbitega v istem letu.
That percentage is fixed at 1.5% for input or output VAT in excess of EUR 200 000 and 1% for amounts over EUR 300 000.
Ta odstotek je določen na 1,5 % za vstopni ali izstopni davek, ki preseže 200.000 EUR, in na 1 % za znesek, ki presega 300.000 EUR.
Where the amount due under Article 9 exceeds a certain level, the surplus portion is reduced by 80%.
Kadar pa je dolgovani znesek zaradi uporabe člena 9 vi�ji od določenega zneska, se delež, ki presega ta znesek, zmanj�a za 80 %.
The amounts to be paid may not be less than EUR 500.
Zneski, ki jih je treba plačati, ne smejo biti nižji od 500 EUR.
It follows that Article 9 of Law No 289/2002 enables taxable persons who have not complied with their VAT obligations for the tax periods falling between 1998 and 2001 to escape once and for all those obligations — as well as the penalties for noncompliance with those obligations — by paying a lump sum in lieu of an amount proportionate to the turnover achieved.
Iz tega izhaja, da člen 9 zakona �t. 289/2002 davčnim zavezancem, ki niso spo�tovali svojih obveznosti glede DDV v davčnih letih od 1998 do 2001, omogoča, da se tem obveznostim in sankcijam, ki se naložijo, če te obveznosti niso spo�tovane, dokončno izognejo s tem, da namesto sorazmernega zneska ustvarjenega prometa plačajo pav�alno vsoto.
Those lump sums are disproportionate in relation to the amount the taxable person should have paid on the basis of the turnover generated by the transactions that he carried out but did not declare.
Ti pav�alni zneski so torej nesorazmerni glede na znesek, ki bi ga moral davčni zavezanec plačati na podlagi prometa iz naslova transakcij, ki jih je opravil, vendar jih ni obračunal.
By replacing, shortly after the expiry of the deadlines fixed for the payment of the VAT amounts normally payable, the obligations under Articles 2 and 22 of the Sixth Directive for the parties concerned with other obligations which do not require the payment of those amounts, Articles 8 and 9 of Law No 289/2002 render those articles of the Sixth Directive — which form nevertheless the basis for the common system of VAT and are thus an intrinsic part of the very structure of that tax — meaningless.
Člena 8 in 9 zakona �t. 289/2002 sta s tem – da sta kmalu po izteku rokov, ki so jih imeli davčni zavezanci za plačilo običajno dolgovanih zneskov DDV, obveznosti zadevnih oseb iz členov 2 in 22 Šeste direktive nadomestila z drugimi obveznostmi, v skladu s katerimi se ne zahteva plačilo navedenih zneskov – tema členoma Šeste direktive, ki sta kljub temu temelj skupnega sistema DDV, odvzela učinek in tako posegla v samo strukturo tega davka.
Its provisions distort the principle of fiscal neutrality by introducing significant variations in the treatment of taxable persons in Italy. For the
Njegove določbe s tem, da uvajajo pomembna odstopanja pri obravnavanju davčnih zavezancev na italijanskem ozemlju, izkrivljajo načelo davčne
2008 — CASE C-132/06 same reason, those provisions infringe the obligation to ensure that VAT is collected in a uniform manner in all the Member States.
2008 – ZADEVA C-132/06 nevtralnosti. Te določbe iz istih razlogov pomenijo kr�itev obveznosti zagotoviti pobiranje davkov enotno v vseh državah članicah.
Since, as is stated in the fourth recital in the preamble to the Sixth Directive, the purpose of the principle of fiscal neutrality is to enable the achievement of a common market permitting fair competition, the very functioning of the common market is compromised by the Italian legislation because, in Italy, it is realistic for taxable persons to hope not to be required to pay a large portion of their tax debt.
Ker je cilj načela davčne nevtralnosti, kot je navedeno v četrti uvodni izjavi Šeste direktive, vzpostaviti skupni trg, ki bo omogočal lojalno konkurenco, italijanska zakonodaja vpliva na samo delovanje skupnega trga, ker lahko davčni zavezanci v Italiji pričakujejo, da ne bodo zavezani plačati večjega dela svojih davkov.
Thus, Article 22(8) of the Sixth Direct- ive calls on Member States to impose, where appropriate, additional obligations to prevent tax evasion.
Člen 22(8) Šeste direktive države članice tako spodbuja, da po potrebi naložijo dodatne obveznosti, da bi se preprečile goljufije.
It is clear that the Italian legislation has the opposite effect in that taxable persons who are guilty of tax evasion are placed in a more favourable position by Law No 289/2002.
Ugotoviti je torej treba, da ima italijanska zakonodaja v bistvu nasproten učinek, ker zakon �t. 289/2002 ugodneje obravnava davčne zavezance, ki so storili goljufijo.
The Italian Republic maintains that the true impact of the tax amnesty at issue is minimised because of the cases in which persons are barred from the benefit of those arrangements.
Italijanska republika trdi, da primeri izključitve iz upravičenosti do ugodnosti zadevne davčne amnestije vodijo k zmanj�anju njenega dejanskega vpliva.
It argues, inter alia, that taxable persons who have not filed any VAT returns for the tax years concerned, as well as those who have not complied with their VAT obligations and in respect of whom proceedings have already been closed in favour of the tax authorities, may not avail themselves of the amnesty.
Zatrjuje tudi, da so davčni zavezanci, ki niso predložili obračuna DDV za nobeno od zadevnih davčnih let, in davčni zavezanci, ki niso spo�tovali svojih obveznosti na področju DDV in v zvezi s katerimi je bil postopek že končan v korist davčnih organov, izključeni iz upravičenosti do ugodnosti takega ukrepa.
The figures provided by the Italian Republic in its statement in defence, however — according to which almost 15% of taxable persons, that is to say, approximately 800 000 of them, applied for the tax amnesty in 2001 — highlight the breadth of a
Podatki, ki jih je Italijanska republika posredovala v obrambo, da naj bi leta 2001 okoli 15 % davčnih zavezancev, in sicer 800.000, zaprosilo za davčno amnestijo, ponazarja
COMMISSION v ITALY measure which cannot be regarded as being of limited scope, notwithstanding the debarment situations emphasised by the Italian Republic.
KOMISIJA PROTI ITALIJI obseg ukrepa, za katerega ni mogoče �teti, da ima omejen obseg, kljub primerom izključitev, ki jih je navedla zadevna država članica.
Since debarment applies only in very limited sets of circumstances, it is clear that the Commission is correct in classifying the disputed tax amnesty as a general and indiscriminate renunciation of the tax authorities’ right of verification and recovery.
Ker so primeri izključitev zelo omejeni, je treba ugotoviti, da je Komisija izpodbijani ukrep amnestije upravičeno opredelila kot splo�no in nerazlikovalno opustitev pooblastila davčne uprave za preverjanje in izterjavo.
However, by introducing an amnesty measure very shortly after the expiry of the deadlines by which taxable persons should have paid VAT and by requiring payment of an amount which is paltry as compared with the VAT actually due, the measure in question enables the taxable persons concerned to escape once and for all their VAT obligations, despite the fact that the national tax authorities would have been able to detect at least some of those taxable persons during the four years preceding the date after which recovery of the tax normally payable would be timebarred.
Zadevni ukrep torej, s tem da uvaja amnestijo kmalu po izteku rokov, v katerih bi morali davčni zavezanci plačati DDV, in s tem da zahteva plačilo zelo majhnega zneska v primerjavi z dejansko dolgovanim davkom, zadevnim davčnim zavezancem omogoča, da se dokončno izognejo svojim obveznostim na področju DDV, čeprav bi nacionalni davčni organi lahko odkrili vsaj del teh davčnih zavezancev v obdobju �tirih let pred nastopom zastaralnega roka za običajno dolgovani davek. Zakon �t.
Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.
V skladu s členom 69(2) Poslovnika Sodi�ča se neuspeli stranki naloži plačilo stro�kov, če so bili ti prigla�eni.
As the Commission has applied for costs against the Italian Republic and the Italian Republic has been unsuccessful, the latter must be ordered to pay the costs.
Komisija je predlagala, naj se Italijanski republiki naloži plačilo stro�kov, in ker ta s predlogi ni uspela, se ji naloži plačilo stro�kov.
Declares that, by providing in Articles 8 and 9 of Law No 289 of 27 December 2002 relating to the provisions for drawing up the annual and pluriannual budget of the State (Finance Law for 2003) (legge n.
Italijanska republika s tem, da je v členih 8 in 9 zakona št. 289 o pravilih o oblikovanju letne in večletne državne bilance (finančni zakon iz leta 2003) (legge n.
289, disposizioni per la formazione del bilancio annuale e pluriennale dello Stato (legge finanziaria 2003)) for a general and indiscriminate waiver of verification of taxable transactions effected in a series of tax years, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 22 of Sixth Council Direct- ive 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, and Article 10 EC;
289, disposizioni per la formazione del bilancio annuale e pluriennale dello Stato (legge finanziaria 2003)) z dne 27. decembra 2002 sprejela splošno in nerazlikovalno opustitev preverjanja obdavčljivih transakcij, ki so bile opravljene v več davčnih letih, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz členov 2 in 22 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, in iz člena 10 ES.
Case C-206/06
Zadeva C-206/06
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Groningen)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Rechtbank Groningen)
(Internal market in electricity — National legislation permitting the levy of a surcharge on the price for electricity transmission in favour of a statutorily-designated company which is required to pay stranded costs — Charges having equivalent effect to customs duties — Discriminatory internal taxation — Aid granted by the Member States)
„Notranji trg električne energije – Nacionalna ureditev, ki omogoča obračunavanje doplačila na ceno prenosa električne energije v korist z zakonom določene družbe, zavezane za plačilo nasedlih stro�kov – Dajatve, ki imajo enak učinek kot carina – Diskriminatorni notranji davki – Pomoči, ki jih dodelijo države“
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 17 July 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mengozzija, predstavljeni 24. januarja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Free movement of goods — Customs duties — Charges having equivalent effect — Internal taxation
Prosti pretok blaga – Carine – Dajatve s podobnim učinkom – Notranji davki (člena 25 ES in 90 ES)
SUMMARY — CASE C-206/06
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-206/06
State aid — Meaning (Art. 87(1) EC)
Pomoči, ki jih dodelijo države – Pojem (člen 87(1) ES)
Article 90 EC is to be construed as meaning that it precludes such a rule where the revenue from the charge levied on the electricity transmitted is used only in part to pay non-market-compatible costs, that is to say where the amount levied by the designated company only partly offsets the burden borne by the national electricity transmitted.
Člen 90 ES je treba razlagati tako, da nasprotuje istemu ukrepu v okoli�činah, v katerih je prihodek od dajatve, obračunane na preneseno električno energijo, le delno namenjen plačilu s trgom nezdružljivih stro�kov, to je takrat, kadar se z zneskom, ki ga obračuna z zakonom določena družba, pobota samo del bremena, ki ga nosi prenesena domača električna energija.
(see paras 47, 57, operative part 1)
(Glej točki 47 in 57 ter točko 1 izreka.)
In the context of a statutory rule under which domestic purchasers of electricity are required to pay to their net operator an amount of money as a result of a price surcharge, constituting a charge, on the amounts of domestic and imported electricity which are transmitted to them, where that surcharge is to be paid by that net operator to a company designated by the legislature, with that company being the joint subsidiary of domestic generating undertakings and having previously managed the costs of all the electricity generated and imported, and
V okviru zakonskega ukrepa, na podlagi katerega morajo domači odjemalci električne energije svojemu upravljavcu omrežja plačati na podlagi doplačila, ki pomeni obdavčitev, znesek za količine električne energije, proizvedene v državi članici in uvožene, prenesene v korist teh odjemalcev, kadar mora navedeni upravljavec to doplačilo prenesti na družbo, ki jo je za ta namen določil zakonodajalec, in je bila ta družba, ki je podjetjem za proizvodnjo električne energije skupna hčerinska družba, prej upravljavka stro�kov celotne proizvedene in
Article 25 EC is to be construed as precluding a statutory rule under which domestic purchasers of electricity are required to pay to their net operator a price surcharge, constituting a charge, on the amounts of domestic and imported electricity which are transmitted to them, where that surcharge is to be paid by that net operator to a company designated by the legislature, with that company being the joint subsidiary of domestic generating undertakings and having previously managed the costs of all the electricity generated and imported, and where that surcharge is to be used in its entirety to pay non-market-compatible costs for which that company is personally responsible, with the result that the sums received by that company wholly offset the burden borne by the domestic electricity transmitted.
Člen 25 ES je treba razlagati tako, da nasprotuje zakonskemu ukrepu, na podlagi katerega morajo domači odjemalci električne energije svojemu upravljavcu omrežja plačati doplačilo – ki pomeni obdavčitev – za količine električne energije, proizvedene v državi članici in uvožene, ki so bile prenesene v korist teh odjemalcev, kadar mora navedeni upravljavec to doplačilo prenesti na družbo, ki jo je za ta namen določil zakonodajalec, in je bila ta družba, ki je podjetjem za proizvodnjo električne energije skupna hčerinska družba, prej upravljavka stro�kov celotne proizvedene in uvožene električne energije, in kadar mora biti to doplačilo v celoti namenjeno za plačilo s trgom nezdružljivih stro�kov, ki jih je osebno dolžna plačati ta družba, kar povzroči, da se zneski, ki jih ta družba obračuna, v celoti pobotajo z bremenom, ki ga nosi domača prenesena električna energija.
The same applies where the national electricity generating undertakings are required to bear those costs and where, by reason of existing agreements, by the payment of a purchase price for electricity produced in the Member State, by the payment of dividends to the various domestic electricity generating undertakings of which the designated company is the subsidiary or by any other means, the advantage which that price surcharge constitutes could be passed on in its entirety by the designated company to the domestic electricity generating undertakings.
Enako velja takrat, kadar morajo te stro�ke kriti nacionalna podjetja za proizvodnjo električne energije in kadar je zaradi obstoječih pogodb lahko z zakonom določena družba – s plačilom nabavne cene električne energije, proizvedene v državi članici, s plačilom dividend več nacionalnim podjetjem za proizvodnjo električne energije, katerih hčerinska družba je z zakonom določena družba, ali kakor koli drugače – korist, ki jo pomeni doplačilo, v celoti prenesla na nacionalna podjetja za proizvodnjo električne energije.
ESSENT NETWERK NOORD AND OTHERS provision in so far as they represent an economic advantage and not compensation for the services provided by the designated company in order to discharge public service obligations.
ESSENT NETWERK NOORD IN DRUGI v zameno za storitve, ki jih je opravila z zakonom določena družba za izvedbo obveznosti javnih služb.
where that surcharge is to be used in its entirety to pay non-market-compatible costs for which that company is personally responsible, with the result that the sums received by that company wholly offset the burden borne by the domestic electricity transmitted, Article 87 EC must be construed as meaning that the amounts paid to that company constitute ‘State aid’ for the purposes of that
uvožene električne energije, in kadar mora biti to doplačilo v celoti namenjeno za plačilo s trgom nezdružljivih stro�kov, ki jih je osebno dolžna plačati ta družba, kar povzroči, da se zneski, ki jih ta družba obračuna, v celoti pobotajo z bremenom, ki ga nosi domača prenesena električna energija, je treba člen 87 ES razlagati tako, da so zneski, ki so bili plačani navedeni družbi, državna pomoč v smislu te določbe, ker pomenijo gospodarsko korist in ne nadomestilo
(see paras 47, 57, 96, operative part 2)
(Glej točke 47, 57 in 96 ter točko 2 izreka.)
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERALMENGOZZI delivered on 24 January 2008 1
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNEGA PRAVOBRANILCAPAOLA MENGOZZIJA, predstavljeni 24. januarja 2008 1
I — Legal and legislative background
I – Pravni okvir
By decision of 19 April 2006, the Rechtbank Groningen (Groningen District Court) (Netherlands) referred to the Court, pursuant to Article 234 EC, two questions for a preliminary ruling, the first concerning the interpretation of Articles 25 EC and 90 EC, and the second the interpretation of Article 87(1) EC.
Rechtbank Groningen (Nizozemska) je z odločbo z dne 19. aprila 2006 v skladu s členom 234 ES Sodi�ču postavilo vpra�anji za predhodno odločanje, prvo glede razlage členov 25 ES in 90 ES ter drugo glede razlage člena 87(1) ES.
Article 25 EC provides as follows:
V členu 25 ES je določeno:
‘Customs duties on imports and exports and charges having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between Member States.
„Carine pri uvozu in izvozu ter vse dajatve z enakim učinkom so med državami članicami prepovedane.
This prohibition shall also apply to customs duties of a fiscal nature.’
Ta prepoved se uporablja tudi za carine fiskalne narave.“
According to Article 90 EC:
V členu 90 ES je določeno:
Those questions have arisen in the context of proceedings brought by Essent Netwerk Noord BV (‘Essent’) against Aluminium Delfzijl BV (‘Aldel’), in which Essent is seeking to obtain the payment of a sum calculated on the basis of the quantity of electricity it transmitted to the defendant.
Ti vpra�anji sta bili postavljeni v okviru postopka, ki ga je sprožil Essent Netwerk Noord B. V. (v nadaljevanju: Essent) zoper Aluminium Delfzijl B.
Liability for payment of that sum was imposed under a statutory requirement and the purpose of it was to cover the nonrecoverable costs incurred by the national electricity generating undertakings in the period prior to commencement of the process of liberalising the electricity market in the Netherlands.
V. (v nadaljevanju: Aldel) zaradi plačila zneska, izračunanega na podlagi količine električne energije, ki jo je tožeča stranka dobavila toženi stranki, in katerega povi�anje je naloženo na podlagi zakonske določbe in je namenjeno pokritju nasedlih stro�kov nacionalnih podjetij, proizvajalcev električne energije, v obdobju pred začetkom postopka liberalizacije trga električne energije na Nizozemskem.
‘No Member State shall impose, directly or indirectly, on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of any kind in excess of that imposed directly or indirectly on similar domestic products.
„Nobena država članica ne uvaja, neposredno ali posredno, kakr�nihkoli notranjih davkov na izdelke drugih držav članic, ki bi bili vi�ji od davkov, uvedenih neposredno ali posredno na enakovrstne domače izdelke.
Furthermore, no Member State shall impose on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of such a nature as to afford indirect protection to other products.’ for reference, until 1999, all of the EGUs were controlled by municipalities and provinces, whereas, during the reference period, only EPZ remained indirectly in public ownership through its shareholders Essent and Delta.
Kot izhaja iz predložitvene odločbe, so bili do leta 1999 vsi �tirje PEE podrejeni nadzoru občin in pokrajin, medtem ko je v referenčnem obdobju le EPZ posredno ostala v državni lasti prek svojih delničarjev, družb Essent in Delta 5.
5The EGUs and SEP operated together on the basis of a ‘cooperation agreement’. 6
PEE in družba SEP so sodelovali na podlagi „Sporazuma o sodelovanju“. 6
B — National legislation
B – Nacionalna zakonodaja
Under the 1989 Law on electricity, either alone or in conjunction with the EGUs, SEP made certain long-term investments required by the public authorities in connection with energy and/or environmental policy decisions, including, in particular, the conclusion of agreements relating to an urban heating project and an experimental coal gas plant (Demkolec).
Družba SEP je posebej ali skupaj s PEE v skladu z Elektriciteitswet 1989 izvedla določene dolgoročne naložbe, ki so jih naložile javne oblasti na podlagi odločitev energetske in/ali okoljske politike, med katerimi je bila zlasti sklenitev sporazumov na področju projektov daljinskega ogrevanja in izgradnje poskusne naprave za uplinjanje premoga (Demkolec).
Those investments resulted in nonrecoverable costs (also called ‘stranded costs’).
Te naložbe so povzročile nasedle stro�ke („stranded costs“ ali „nasedli stro�ki“, v nadaljevanju: nasedli stro�ki).
Until the entry into force, on 1 August 1998, of the Elektriciteitswet 1998 (1998 Law on electricity), which initiated the process of liberalising the electricity sector in implementation of Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity, 2the 1989 Law on electricity regulated the supply of electricity in the Netherlands.
Do začetka veljavnosti Elektriciteitswet 1998 (zakon o električni energiji iz leta 1998), 1. avgusta 1998, ki je sprožil postopek liberalizacije elektroenergetskega sektorja in ki je bil sprejet v skladu z Direktivo 96/92/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 19. de -cembra 1996 o skupnih pravilih notranjega trga z električno energijo 2, je ponudbo električne energije na Nizozemskem urejal Elektriciteitswet 1989.