natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
According to settled caselaw, the right to obtain a refund of charges levied in a Member State in breach of rules of Community law is the consequence and the complement of the rights conferred on individuals by Community provisions as interpreted by the Court (see, inter alia, Case C-343/96 Dilexport [1999] ECR I-579, paragraph 23; Joined Cases C-397/98 and C-410/98 Metallgesellschaft and Others [2001] ECR I-1727, paragraph 84; and Marks & Spencer, paragraph 30). 35
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso je pravica do vračila davka, ki je bil v državi članici odmerjen s kr�itvijo pravil prava Skupnosti, posledica in dopolnitev pravic, ki jih posameznikom podeljujejo določbe Skupnosti, kot jih je razlagalo Sodi�če (glej zlasti sodbe z dne 9. februarja 1999 v zadevi Dilexport, C-343/96, Recueil, str. I-579, točka 23; z dne 8. marca 2001 v združenih zadevah Metallgesellschaft in drugi, C-397/98 in C-410/98, Recueil, str.
It must also be pointed out that, at the hearing, the parties to the main proceedings explained, in reply to a request by the Court, that the electricity produced by the applicant in the main proceedings fell, at the time of the facts in issue, within the scope of Paragraph 9(1)(3) of the Law on taxation of electricity of 24 March 1999, in the version then in force, which provided essentially for the exemption of electricity produced by entities the installations of which did not exceed a certain threshold of rated electrical power.
Poudariti je treba tudi, da sta stranki v postopku v glavni stvari med obravnavo v odgovor Sodi�ču v zvezi s tem pojasnili, da je električna energija, ki jo je proizvedla tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari, ob nastanku spornih dejstev sodila na področje uporabe člena 9(1)(3) zakona o dajatvah na električno energijo z dne 24. marca 1999, kot je veljal v tem obdobju, ki je v bistvu določal oprostitev električne energije, ki so jo proizvedli subjekti, katerih obrati niso presegali določene meje električne moči.
Taking those explanations into account, the Commission and the defendant in the main proceedings therefore submitted, at that hearing, that it would be incompatible with Directive 2003/96 to exempt the energy products used by the applicant in the main proceedings to produce electricity, as the electricity produced was itself also exempted.
Ob upo�tevanju teh navedb sta tako Komisija in tožena stranka v postopku v glavni stvari med isto obravnavo zatrjevali, da oprostitev energentov, ki jih je tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari uporabila za proizvodnjo električne energije, ker je bila opro�čena tudi sama proizvedena električna energija, ni v skladu z Direktivo 2003/96.
While, pursuant to the third subparagraph of Article 21(5) of Directive 2003/96, Member States may, notwithstanding Article 14(1)(a) of the directive, exempt electricity produced by small producers of electricity, that is subject to the express proviso that the energy products used for that purpose are taxed.
Čeprav bi lahko namreč države članice na podlagi člena 21(5), tretji pododstavek, Direktive 2003/96 ne glede na člen 14(1)(a) te direktive oprostile električno energijo, ki so jo proizvedli majhni proizvajalci električne energije, bi to lahko storile pod izrecnim pogojem, da obdavčijo energente, ki se uporabljajo za proizvodnjo te
The applicant in the main proceedings nevertheless claimed, on that point, that the legislation which transposed Directive 2003/96 during 2006 precisely introduced a specific rate of taxation which is substantially lower than the standard rate which applied at the time of the facts in the main proceedings.
Vendar je tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari v zvezi s tem zatrjevala, da je zakonodaja, s katero je bila leta 2006 prenesena navedena direktiva, uvedla posebno davčno stopnjo, ki je bistveno nižja od splo�ne stopnje, ki je veljala ob nastanku dejanskega stanja spora o glavni stvari.
In that regard, it must be stated that, by its question, the national court asked the Court of Justice only as to the interpretation of Article 14(1)(a) of Directive 2003/96 and that the abovementioned matters of fact and law, which were raised and discussed for the first time at the hearing before the Court, are not referred to either in the order for reference or in the written observations lodged by the interested parties. Moreover, the parties to the main proceedings confirmed, in response to a question put by the Court, that that aspect of the dispute was not addressed at any stage of the main proceedings.
V zvezi s tem je treba ugotoviti, da je predložitveno sodi�če z vpra�anjem Sodi�ču postavilo le vpra�anje o razlagi člena 14(1)(a) Direktive 2003/96 in da zgoraj navedeni dejanski in pravni elementi, ki so bili prvič predloženi in obravnavani med obravnavo pri Sodi�ču, niso podani niti v predložitveni odločbi niti v pisnih stali�čih, ki so jih podale zadevne osebe, pri čemer sta stranki v postopku v glavni stvari v odgovor Sodi�ču v zvezi s tem potrdili, da ta okoli�čina spora ni bila obravnavana v nobeni fazi postopka v glavni stvari.
In those circumstances, in the absence of more precise and detailed information on that point, the Court finds that the documents submitted to it do not indicate with sufficient clarity that those various matters may be relevant in resolving the case in the main proceedings and, therefore, of any use to the national court, which, as the court that must resolve the dispute, is best placed to determine the relevance of the questions referred to the Court in the light of the particular features of the case before it.
Sodi�če je v teh okoli�činah zaradi pomanjkanja natančnej�ih in podrobnej�ih informacij v zvezi s tem odločilo, da iz spisa, ki mu je bil predložen, ne izhaja dovolj jasno, da so lahko ti različni elementi upo�tevani za re�itev spora v glavni stvari in zato kakorkoli v pomoč predložitvenemu sodi�ču, ki je kot sodi�če, ki je pristojno za izdajo sodne odločbe, najbolj primerno, da ob upo�tevanju posebnosti zadeve, ki mu je predložena, presoja o pomembnosti vpra�anj, ki jih je predložilo.
The answer to the question referred must therefore be that Article 14(1)(a) of Directive 2003/96, in so far as it provides for the exemption from taxation under that directive of energy products used to produce electricity, has direct effect in the sense that it may be relied upon by an individual before national courts — in relation to a period of time during which the Member State concerned was in default of its obligation to transpose that directive into its national law within the prescribed period — in a dispute, such as that in the main proceedings, between that individual and the customs authorities of that State, for the purpose of having national legislation which is incompatible with that provision disapplied and, consequently, obtaining a refund of tax which infringed that provision.
Zato je treba na predloženo vpra�anje odgovoriti tako, da ima člen 14(1)(a) Direktive 2003/96, ker določa oprostitev energentov, uporabljenih za proizvodnjo električne energije, na podlagi te direktive, neposredni učinek tako, da se zadevna oseba nanj lahko sklicuje pred nacionalnim sodi�čem – v zvezi z obdobjem, v katerem je bila zadevna država članica v zamudi glede prenosa v predvidenem roku te direktive v svoje nacionalno pravo – v sporu, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, med zadevno osebo in nacionalnimi davčnimi organi, ko nasprotuje uporabi nacionalne ureditve, ki naj bi bila nezdružljiva s to določbo, in ko zahteva povračilo davka v nasprotju z njo.
Article 14(1)(a) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, in so far as it provides for the exemption from taxation under that dir -ective of energy products used to produce electricity, has direct effect in the sense that it may be relied upon by an individual before national courts — in relation to a period of time during which the Member State concerned was in default of its obligation to transpose that directive into its national law within the prescribed period — in a dispute, such as that in the main proceedings, between that individual and the customs authorities of that State, for the purpose of having national legislation which is incompatible with that provision disapplied and, consequently, obtaining a refund of tax which infringed that provision.
Člen 14(1)(a) Direktive Sveta 2003/96/ES z dne 27. oktobra 2003 o prestrukturiranju okvira Skupnosti za obdavčitev energentov in električne energije, ker določa oprostitev energentov, uporabljenih za proizvodnjo električne energije, na podlagi te direktive, ima neposredni učinek tako, da se zadevna oseba nanj lahko sklicuje pred nacionalnim sodiščem – v zvezi z obdobjem, v katerem je bila zadevna država članica v zamudi glede prenosa v predvidenem roku te direktive v svoje nacionalno pravo – v sporu, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, med zadevno osebo in nacionalnimi davčnimi organi, ko nasprotuje uporabi nacionalne ureditve, ki naj bi bila nezdružljiva s to določbo, in ko zahteva povračilo davka v nasprotju z njo.
Case C-426/07
Zadeva C-426/07
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Białymstoku)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Białymstoku)
(Internal taxation — Taxes on motor vehicles — Excise duty — Secondhand vehicles — Importation)
„Notranji davki – Davki na motorna vozila – Tro�arina – Rabljena vozila – Uvoz“
Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Prohibition on the levying of other domestic taxes which can be characterised as turnover taxes
Davčne določbe – Usklajevanje zakonodaj – Prometni davki – Skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost – Prepoved pobiranja drugih nacionalnih davkov, ki imajo značaj prometnih davkov
Tax provisions — Internal taxation — Excise duty on any sale of motor vehicles before their first registration on national territory
Davčne določbe – Notranji davki – Trošarine, naložene na prodajo motornih vozil pred njihovo prvo registracijo na nacionalnem ozemlju
(Art. 90, first para., EC)
(člen 90, prvi odstavek, ES)
SUMMARY — CASE C-426/07
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-426/07
cannot be characterised as a turnover tax for the purposes of that article.
da je ni mogoče opredeliti kot prometni davek v smislu navedenega člena.
(see paras 22, 23, 25, 26, operative part 1)
(Glej točke 22, 23, 25 in 26 ter točko 1 izreka.)
Article 33(1) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, as amended by Directive 91/680, is to be interpreted as not precluding an excise duty which is charged on all sales of motor vehicles before their first registration on national territory.
Člen 33(1) Šeste direktive 77/388 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 91/680, je treba razlagati tako, da ne nasprotuje tro�arini, ki je naložena na prodajo motornih vozil pred njihovo prvo registracijo na nacionalnem ozemlju.
The first paragraph of Article 90 EC is to be interpreted as precluding an excise duty on all sales of motor vehicles before their first registration on national territory, in so far as the amount of the duty imposed on the sale of secondhand vehicles imported from another Member State exceeds the residual amount of the same duty incorporated into the market value of similar vehicles previously registered in the Member State which introduced that duty.
Člen 90, prvi odstavek, ES je treba razlagati tako, da nasprotuje tro�arini, ki je naložena na prodajo motornih vozil pred prvo registracijo na nacionalnem ozemlju, če znesek davka na prodajo rabljenih vozil, uvoženih iz druge države članice, ki se opravi pred prvo registracijo, presega preostali znesek istega davka, ki je vračunan v prodajno vrednost enakovrstnih vozil, ki so bila prej registrirana v državi članici, ki je uvedla ta davek.
It is for the national court to ascertain whether the national legislation has such an effect.
Nacionalno sodi�če mora preveriti, ali ima nacionalna ureditev tak učinek.
Since such an excise duty is charged only on sales transactions relating to motor vehicles before their first registration on Polish territory, it cannot be considered as being charged in a general manner on all transactions relating to goods or services and, therefore, differs from value added tax to such an extent that it
Če je namreč tak�na tro�arina naložena le na prodajo motornih vozil pred njihovo prvo registracijo na nacionalnem ozemlju, je ni mogoče obravnavati, kot da se na splo�no uporablja za blagovne ali storitvene transakcije, in se zato od davka na dodano vrednost razlikuje tako,
(see para. 39, operative part 2)
(Glej točko 39 in točko 2 izreka.)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber)
SODBA SODIŠČA (prvi senat) z dne 17. julija 2008*
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Białymstoku (Poland), made by decision of 27 June 2007, received at the Court on 14 September 2007, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-426/07, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Białymstoku (Poljska) z odločbo z dne 27. junija 2007, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 14. septembra 2007, v postopku
2008 — CASE C-426/07
2008 – ZADEVA C-426/07 generalna pravobranilka: E. Sharpston, sodni tajnik: R.
KRAWCZYŃSKI gives the present
KRAWCZYŃSKI izreka naslednjo
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation, first, of Article 33(1) 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 — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago člena 33(1) 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 (UL L 145, str.
1), (‘the Sixth Directive’) and, second, of the first paragraph of Article 90 EC.
1, v nadaljevanju: Šesta direktiva), in člena 90, prvi odstavek, ES.
The reference has been made in proceedings between Mr Krawczyński and the Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Białymstoku (Director of the Customs Chamber, Białystok) concerning the excise duty imposed on him in connection with the sale of secondhand motor vehicles prior to their initial registration in Poland.
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med D. Krawczyńskim in Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Białymstoku (direktor carinske zbornice v Białystoku) zaradi tro�arine, ki je bila prvemu naložena v zvezi s prodajo rabljenih motornih vozil pred njihovo prvo registracijo na Poljskem.
2008 — CASE C-426/07
2008 – ZADEVA C-426/07
Article 33(1) of the Sixth Directive provides:
Člen 33(1) Šeste direktive je določal:
‘Without prejudice to other Community provisions, in particular those laid down in the Community provisions in force relating to the general arrangements for the holding, movement and monitoring of products subject to excise duty, this Directive shall not prevent a Member State from maintaining or introducing taxes on insurance contracts, taxes on betting and gambling, excise duties, stamp duties and, more generally, any taxes, duties or charges which cannot be characterised as turnover taxes, provided however that those taxes, duties or charges do not, in trade between Member States, give rise to formalities connected with the crossing of frontiers.’
„Brez vpliva na druge določbe Skupnosti, zlasti tiste iz veljavnih predpisov Skupnosti glede splo�ne ureditve razpolaganja, pretoka in spremljanja tro�arinskih izdelkov, ta direktiva ne preprečuje, da država članica ohrani ali uvede davke na zavarovalne pogodbe, davke na stave in igre na srečo, tro�arine, kolke in, bolj splo�no, vse davke, dajatve ali bremenitve, ki jih ni mogoče označiti kot prometne davke, vendar s pogojem, da ti davki, dajatve in bremenitve v trgovini med državami članicami ne zahtevajo formalnosti pri prehodu meja.“
U No 29, heading 257), in the version applicable to the main proceedings (‘the 2004 Law’), states:
29, točka 257), v različici, ki jo je treba uporabiti v postopku v glavni stvari (v nadaljevanju: zakon iz leta 2004), je določeno:
‘For the purposes of the present Law, the terms below shall be construed as follows:
„V smislu tega zakona pomeni
(11) “intra-Community acquisition”: the transfer of goods subject to excise duty from the territory of a Member State to Poland;
11. ‚pridobitev znotraj Skupnosti‘: prenos izdelkov, ki so predmet tro�arine, z ozemlja druge države članice na nacionalno ozemlje;
Article 10(1) of the 2004 Law is worded as follows:
V členu 10(1) navedenega zakona je določeno:
‘The tax base, where the rate is expressed as a percentage of the basis of assessment, shall be:
„Davčna osnova, izražena v odstotkih osnove, je:
(1) the amount due on the sale, in Poland, of goods subject to excise duty, minus the amount of the tax on goods and services or of the amount of excise duty due on those goods;
1. znesek, dolgovan iz naslova prodaje izdelkov na nacionalnem ozemlju, ki so predmet tro�arine, zmanj�an za znesek davka na blago in storitve ali za znesek tro�arine, dolgovane iz naslova tega blaga;
(2) the amount which the purchaser is obliged to pay for the goods subject to excise duty, in the case of intra-Community acquisition;
2. znesek, ki ga je kupec dolžan plačati za blago, ki je predmet tro�arine, v primeru pridobitve znotraj Skupnosti;
(3) the amount due on the supply of goods subject to excise duty in the territory of a Member State, in the case of supply within the Community;
3. znesek, dolgovan na podlagi dobave izdelkov, ki so predmet tro�arine na ozemlju države članice, v primeru dobave v Skupnosti;
(4) the customs value of the goods subject to excise duty, plus the amount of customs duties due, in the case of importation, having regard to paragraphs 6 to 9.’
4. carinska vrednost izdelkov, ki so predmet tro�arine, povečana za dolgovano carino pri uvozu, upo�tevajoč točke od 6 do 9.“
Article 75 (1) and (3) of the 2004 Law provides:
V členu 75(1) in (3) zakona iz leta 2004 je določeno:
Article 79 of the 2004 Law states:
Člen 79 tega zakona določa:
‘The taxpayer shall be entitled to deduct from the amount of the excise duty the excise duty paid by him, at the time of the acquisition of goods subject to non-harmonised excise duty, on a sale or a taxable import.’
„Davčni zavezanec lahko od zneska tro�arine od�teje tro�arino, ki jo je na obdavčljivo prodajo ali uvoz plačal ob nakupu izdelka, ki je predmet neusklajene tro�arine.“
According to Article 80 (1) to (4) of the 2004 Law:
Člen 80, od (1) do (4), zakona iz leta 2004 določa:
(1) persons effecting any sale of passenger cars before their initial registration in Poland;
(1) osebe, ki prodajo osebno vozilo pred prvo registracijo na nacionalnem ozemlju;
(2) importers and persons effecting acquisitions in the Community.
(2) uvozniki in osebe, ki pridobijo osebno vozilo v Skupnosti.
(1) in the case of sale, as from the issue of the invoice and, at the latest, within seven days from the day on which the goods are delivered;
(1) pri prodaji ob izdaji računa oziroma najpozneje v sedmih dneh od dneva dobave blaga;
(2) in the case of importation, as from the day on which the customs debt arises for the purposes of customs law;
(2) pri uvozu na dan, ko je nastal carinski dolg v smislu carinskih določb;
(3) in the case of acquisition in the Community, from the time of acquisition of the right to use the passenger car as owner and, at the latest, from its registration in Poland in accordance with the road traffic provisions.
(3) pri pridobitvi v Skupnosti ob pridobitvi pravice do uporabe osebnega vozila kot lastnik oziroma najpozneje ob registraciji na nacionalnem ozemlju v skladu s cestnoprometnimi predpisi.
Article 81(1) of the 2004 Law is worded as follows:
Člen 81(1) zakona iz leta 2004 določa:
‘Persons effecting, within the Community, intra-Community acquisitions of passenger cars not registered in Poland in accordance with the road traffic provisions shall be required:
„Osebe, ki v Skupnosti pridobijo osebna vozila, ki niso registrirana na nacionalnem ozemlju v skladu s cestnoprometnimi predpisi, morajo:
(1) to submit, at the time of importation into Poland, a simplified declaration to the appropriate customs office within five days of the date of the acquisition in the Community;
1. ob uvozu na nacionalno ozemlje pristojnemu carinskemu uradu predložiti poenostavljeno deklaracijo v petih dneh od dneva pridobitve v Skupnosti;
(2) to pay excise duty no later than the date of registration of the car in Poland.’
2. plačati tro�arino najpozneje na dan registracije v državi.“
Under Article 82(3) of the 2004 Law, in the case of an intra-Community acquisition of a passenger car, the taxable amount is the amount which the purchaser is required to pay to the vendor.
Na podlagi člena 82(3) zakona iz leta 2004 je v primeru pridobitve osebnega vozila znotraj Skupnosti davčna osnova znesek, ki ga mora pridobitelj plačati prodajalcu.
The Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Białymstoku, by decision of 19 January 2006, dismissed the appeal.
Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Białymstoku je to pritožbo zavrnil z odločbo z dne 19. januarja 2006.
In his decision, he emphasised essentially that persons effecting any sale of motor vehicles in Poland before their initial registration there are liable for excise duty and that, in order to enjoy the abovementioned right to a deduction, the taxpayer must lodge with the customs office responsible an excise duty declaration, calculate the excise duty which is due and pay that amount within the period laid down by the legislation.
V njej je poudaril, da je tro�arino dolžan plačati vsak, ki na Poljskem prodaja motorna vozila pred njihovo prvo registracijo na poljskem ozemlju, in da mora davčni zavezanec, če želi izkoristiti navedeno pravico do odbitka, pristojnemu davčnemu uradu predložiti deklaracijo o tej tro�arini, izračunati dolgovano dajatev in jo plačati v predpisanem roku.
He claims in particular that sales of secondhand vehicles which are already registered in Poland are exempt from excise duty irrespective of their age, whereas the same exemption does not apply to sales of secondhand vehicles imported from other Member States.
Opozarja zlasti, da je prodaja rabljenih motornih vozil, ki so že registrirana na Poljskem, opro�čena tro�arine ne glede na starost vozil, medtem ko enaka oprostitev ne velja za prodajo rabljenih motornih vozil, ki so uvožena iz drugih držav članic.
Sales of the latter vehicles before they are registered in Poland are subject to an excise duty the amount of which depends on the age of the vehicle.
Prodaja teh vozil pred njihovo registracijo na Poljskem je predmet tro�arine, katere vi�ina je odvisna od starosti vozila. D.
Mr Krawczyński concludes from this that the Republic of Poland
Krawczyński na podlagi tega sklepa, da Republika Poljska nalaga
2008 — CASE C-426/07 imposes on secondhand vehicles imported from other Member States an excise duty in excess of that charged on similar domestic products.
2008 – ZADEVA C-426/07 vi�jo tro�arino na rabljena motorna vozila, ki so uvožena iz drugih držav članic, kot na podobne nacionalne izdelke.
By contrast, the Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Białymstoku is of the view that the Republic of Poland does not discriminate in any way between motor vehicles on the basis of their place of origin, inasmuch as the decisive criterion for imposing excise duty on them is that they are not registered on Polish territory and not the fact that the vehicles originate in a Member State other than the Republic of Poland.
Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Białymstoku nasprotno meni, da Republika Poljska ne izvaja diskriminatornega razlikovanja med motornimi vozili glede na njihovo poreklo, saj je odločilno merilo za obveznost plačila tro�arine na ta vozila to, da niso registrirana na poljskem ozemlju, in ne da izhajajo iz drugih držav članic.