natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
2185; ‘the Law on taxation of mineral oils’), in the version in force
2185, v nadaljevanju: zakon o dajatvah na mineralna olja),
2008 — CASE C-226/07 at the time of the facts in the main proceedings, contained, inter alia, the following provisions:
2008 – ZADEVA C-226/07 kot je veljal v času dejanskega stanja postopka v glavni stvari, med drugim določa naslednje:
‘Paragraph 1 — Definitions
„Člen 1 – Opredelitve
(1) Mineral oils shall be subject, within the tax jurisdiction, to mineral oil tax …
(1) Mineralna olja so na davčnem ozemlju obdavčena z davkom na mineralna olja […]
(2) For the purposes of this Law, “mineral oils” means:
(2) V tem zakonu so mineralna olja:
Paragraph 2 — Standard rates of tax, definitions
Člen 2 – Običajna stopnja, opredelitve
(b) with a maximum sulphur content of 10 mg/kg, shall be EUR 470.40 …’
4. za 1000 litrov plinskega olja iz tarifne pod�tevilke 2710 00 69 [NK] a) z deležom žvepla več kot 10 mg/kg 485,70 EUR, b) z deležom žvepla največ 10 mg/kg 470,40 EUR […]“.
The Stromsteuergesetz (Law on taxation of electricity) of 24 March 1999 (BGBl. 1999 I, p.
Zakon o dajatvah na električno energijo (Stromsteuergesetz) z dne 24. marca 1999 (BGBl 1999 I, str.
378), in the version in force at the time of the facts in the main proceedings, provided, in Paragraph 9(1)(3), that electricity produced in installations with a maximum nominal electrical power rating of two megawatts was, subject to compliance with certain conditions, exempt from that tax.
378), kot je veljal ob nastanku dejanskega stanja postopka v glavni stvari, je v členu 9(1)(3) določal, da je bila električna energija, proizvedena v obratih z električno močjo največ dveh megavatov, ob upo�tevanju določenih pogojev opro�čena tega davka.
1534; ’the Law on taxation of energy’), which entered into force on 1 August 2006, repealed as from that date, with express reference to Directive 2003/96, the Law on taxation of mineral oils.
1534, v nadaljevanju: zakon o dajatvah na energijo), ki je začel veljati 1. avgusta 2006, je s tem datumom, pri čemer se je izrecno skliceval na Direktivo 2003/96, razveljavil zakon o dajatvah na mineralna olja.
It contains, inter alia, the following provisions:
Med drugim določa naslednje:
‘Paragraph 1 — Tax jurisdiction, energy products
„Člen 1 – Davčno ozemlje, energenti
(1) Energy products shall be subject, within the tax jurisdiction, to energy tax …
(1) Energenti so na davčnem ozemlju obdavčeni z davkom na energijo. […]
(2) Energy products for the purposes of this Law are:
(2) V tem zakonu so energenti:
Paragraph 2 — Rate of tax
Člen 2 – Stopnja davka
(b) with a maximum sulphur content of 10 mg/kg, shall be EUR 470.40.
4. za 1000 litrov plinskega olja iz tarifnih pod�tevilk od 2710 19 41 do 2710 19 49 [NK] a) z deležom žvepla več kot 10 mg/kg 485,70 EUR, b) z deležom žvepla največ 10 mg/kg 470,40 EUR.
(3) In derogation from subparagraphs 1 and 2, the tax to be charged
(3) Z odstopanjem od odstavkov 1 in 2 davek zna�a
(a) with a sulphur content of more than 50 mg/kg, until 31 December 2008, shall be EUR 61.35, as from 1 January 2009, shall be EUR 76.35,
1. za 1000 litrov pravilno označenega plinskega olja iz tarifnih pod�tevilk od 2710 19 41 do 2710 19 49 [NK] a) z deležom žvepla več kot 50 mg/kg do 31. decembra 2008 61,35 EUR, od 1. januarja 2009 76,35 EUR, b) z deležom žvepla največ 50 mg/kg 61,35 EUR,
… when it is used as heating oil or for the propulsion of gas turbines and combustion engines in installations receiving preferential treatment within the meaning of Paragraphs 3 and 3a or when delivered for those purposes …
[…] kadar se uporablja kot gorivo za ogrevanje ali za poganjanje plinskih turbin in motorjev za ogrevanje v obratih, za katere velja preferencialna ureditev v smislu člena 3 in 3a, ali če je dobavljeno v te namene […]
Paragraph 3 — Installations receiving preferential treatment
Člen 3 – Obrati, za katere velja preferencialna ureditev
(1) Installations receiving preferential treatment are stationary installations
(1) Obrati, za katere velja preferencialna ureditev, so stalni obrati,
1. the mechanical energy of which is used exclusively to produce electricity
1. katerih mehanska energija se uporablja izključno za proizvodnjo električne energije
Paragraph 53 — Tax exemption for the production of electricity and the combined production of power and heat
Člen 53 – Davčna oprostitev za proizvodnjo električne energije in za kombinirano proizvodnjo energije in toplote
(1) A tax exemption shall be granted on request, subject to subparagraph 2, for energy products on which tax is proved to have been paid … and which were used
(1) Davčna oprostitev s pridržkom iz odstavka 2 se odobri za energente, za katere je potrjeno […], da so bili obdavčeni in da so bili uporabljeni
1. to produce electricity in stationary installations
1. za proizvodnjo električne energije v stalnih obratih
If, in the case referred to in point 1 of the first sentence, the mechanical energy produced in the installation is used for the production of electricity and also for other purposes, the tax exemption shall be granted only in respect of the proportion of the energy products used to produce electricity.
Če se v primerih iz točke 1, prvi stavek, mehanska energija uporablja tudi v druge namene kot za proizvodnjo električne energije, se davčna oprostitev odobri le za del energentov, uporabljenih za proizvodnjo električne energije.
(2) Point 1 of the first sentence of subparagraph 1 shall apply only to installations with a nominal electrical power rating greater than two megawatts.
(2) Odstavek 1, prvi stavek, točka 1, se uporablja le za obrate z električno močjo več kot dva megavata.
(3) The person entitled to the exemption is the user of the energy products.’
(3) Oprostitev se odobri uporabniku energentov.“
The applicant in the main proceedings is the operator of Cologne-Bonn airport in Germany.
Tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari upravlja letali�če Köln-Bonn (Nemčija).
In order to supply aircraft with onboard electricity, it uses ground powergenerating units.
Da bi letala oskrbela z električno energijo na krovu, je uporabila energetske enote na tleh.
For the production of such electricity, it used, in the course of the calendar year 2004, 585 642 litres of taxed gas oil.
Za proizvodnjo te električne energije je v koledarskem letu 2004 porabila 585.642 litrov obdavčenega plinskega olja.
On 30 December 2005, the applicant applied to the Hauptzollamt Köln for a refund of that tax on the basis of Article 14(1)(a) of Directive 2003/96.
Navedena tožeča stranka je 30. decembra 2005 od Hauptzollamt Köln na podlagi člena 14(1)(a) Direktive 2003/96 zahtevala povračilo tega davka.
On 18 January 2006, that application was rejected on the ground, first, that the Law on taxation of mineral oils did not provide for a refund of the tax in the case of taxed gas oil used to produce electricity and, second, that Article 14(1)(a) of Dir -ective 2003/96 does not have direct effect.
Ta zahteva je bila 18. januarja 2006 zavrnjena, ker zakon o dajatvah na mineralna olja ne določa povračila davka ob uporabi obdavčenega plinskega olja za proizvodnjo električne energije in ker člen 14(1)(a) Direktive 2003/96 nima neposrednega učinka.
Having exhausted administrative proceedings without success, the applicant in the main proceedings brought an action before the Finanzgericht (Finance Court) Düsseldorf.
Tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari je po neuspe�nem upravnem postopku vložila tožbo pri Finanzgericht Düsseldorf.
In the order for reference, that court points out that, in Case C-346/97 Braathens [1999] ECR I-3419, paragraphs 29 to 31, the Court of Justice accepted that Article 8(1)(b) of Directive 92/81 has direct effect.
To sodi�če v predložitveni odločbi zatrjuje, da je Sodi�če v sodbi z dne 10. junija 1999 v zadevi Braathens (C-346/97, Recueil, str I-3419, točke od 29 do 31) sprejelo neposredni učinek člena 8(1)(b) Direktive 92/81.
The national court notes that the wording of the introductory paragraph of Article 8(1) of Directive 92/81 corresponds to that of the introductory paragraph of Article 14(1) of Directive 2003/96, and that Article 8(1)(b) of Directive 92/81, in the same way as the first sentence of Article 14(1)(a) of Directive 2003/96, lays down a clear and precise obligation to exempt.
Besedilo uvodnega odstavka navedenega člena 8(1) naj bi bilo torej podobno besedilu uvodnega odstavka člena 14(1) Direktive 2003/96. Poleg tega naj bi člen 8(1)(b) Direktive 92/81, tako kot člen 14(1)(a), prvi stavek, Direktive 2003/96, določal jasno in natančno obveznost oprostitve.
The national court is, however, uncertain whether the unconditional and precise character of Article 14(1)(a) is affected by the fact that, according to the second sentence of that provision, Member States may tax energy products ‘for reasons of environmental policy’.
Vendar navedeno sodi�če dvomi, ali je brezpogojnost in natančnost navedenega člena 14(1)(a) vpra�ljiva, ker lahko države članice v skladu z drugim stavkom te določbe energente obdavčijo „zaradi okoljske politike“.
In that regard, the national court observes that, while those reasons, which are clearly not defined by Directive 2003/96, appear to confer on the national legislature a discretion with regard to which energy products it will or will not tax, it remains in any event possible to determine whether that legislature has made use of the power thus conferred on it by Article 14(1)(a).
V zvezi s tem to sodi�če trdi, da čeprav se zdi, da ima zaradi teh razlogov, ki očitno niso opredeljeni v Direktivi 2003/96, nacionalni zakonodajalec diskrecijsko pravico glede tega, katere energente bo obdavčil, je �e vedno mogoče ugotoviti, ali je ta zakonodajalec uporabil pristojnost, ki jo ima tako na podlagi člena 14(1)(a).
There is, in the legislation which subsequently amended the Law on taxation of mineral oils or in the related preparatory legislative materials, nothing to indicate that the legislature wished, for reasons of environmental policy, to continue to tax gas oil used to produce electricity.
Torej v zakonodaji, s katero je bil nato spremenjen zakon o dajatvah na mineralna olja, ali v pripravljalnih dokumentih v zvezi z njo naj ne bi bilo navedeno, da je nacionalni zakonodajalec zaradi varstva okolja želel obdavčiti plinsko olje, uporabljeno za proizvodnjo električne energije.
The national legislature thus quite simply remained inactive in that regard and did not transpose the provisions of Article 14(1)(a) of Directive 2003/96 within the prescribed period.
Zakonodajalec naj bi tako v zvezi s tem ostal pasiven in naj ne bi v predpisanem roku prenesel določb člena 14(1)(a) Direktive 2003/96.
That transposition occurred only on the adoption of the Law on taxation of energy, which entered into force on 1 August 2006.
Ta prenos naj bi potekal med sprejetjem zakona o dajatvah na energijo, ki je začel veljati 1. avgusta 2006.
In those circumstances, the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
V teh okoli�činah je Finanzgericht Düsseldorf prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vpra�anje:
‘Is Article 14(1)(a) of [Directive 2003/96] to be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking which used gas oil on which tax was paid, falling within heading 2710 of the [CN], in order to produce electricity, and which has applied for a refund of that tax, can rely directly on that provision?’
„Ali je treba člen 14(1)(a) [Direktive 2003/96/ES] razlagati tako, da se lahko podjetje, ki je za proizvodnjo električne energije uporabilo obdavčeno plinsko olje iz tarifne �tevilke 2710 [NK] in ki je vložilo zahtevo za povračilo davka, sklicuje neposredno na to določbo?“
By its question, the national court asks whether Article 14(1)(a) of Directive 2003/96, in so far as it provides for the exemption from taxation under the directive of energy products used to produce electricity, has direct effect, with the consequence that it may be relied on by an individual before the national courts in proceedings, such as the main proceedings, between that individual and the national customs authorities, in order to disapply national legislation which is incompatible with that provision.
Predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali ima člen 14(1)(a) Direktive 2003/96/ES, 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 sporu, kakr�en 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.
According to settled caselaw of the Court, whenever the provisions of a directive appear, so far as their subjectmatter is concerned, to be unconditional and sufficiently precise, they may be relied on before the national courts by individuals against the State where the latter has failed to implement the directive in domestic law by the end of the period prescribed or where it has failed to implement the dir -ective correctly (see, inter alia, Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich and Others [1991] ECR I-5357, paragraph 11; Case C-62/00 Marks & Spencer [2002] ECR I-6325, paragraph 25; and Joined Cases C-397/01 to C-403/01 Pfeiffer and Others [2004] ECR I-8835, paragraph 103). 24
I-5357, točka 11; z dne 11. julija 2002 zadevi Marks & Spencer, C-62/00, Recueil, str. I-6325, točka 25, in z dne 5. oktobra 2004 v združenih zadevah Pfeiffer in drugi, od C-397/01 do C-403/01, ZOdl., str. I-8835, točka 103). 24
It is not disputed that, at the time of the facts in the main proceedings, that is to say, after the expiry of the period for transposition of Directive 2003/96 laid down in Article 28(1) thereof, namely 31 December 2003, the Federal Republic of Germany had not adopted specific national measures in order to transpose that directive into German law.
Ni sporno, da Zvezna republika Nemčija ob nastanku dejanskega stanja spora o glavni stvari, torej po izteku roka za prenos Direktive 2003/96, določenega v njenem členu 28(1), in sicer 31. decembra 2003, ni sprejela posebnih nacionalnih ukrepov za prenos te direktive v nem�ko pravo.
Such transposition measures were adopted only later, in the Law on taxation of energy, which entered into force on 1 August 2006.
Taki ukrepi za prenos so bili sprejeti �ele pozneje v zakonu o dajatvah na energijo, ki je začel veljati 1. avgusta 2006.
It is also common ground that the Federal Republic of Germany had not, at the time of the facts in the main proceedings, exercised the option provided for in the second sentence of Article 14(1)(a) of Directive 2003/96, allowing it, in derogation from the exemption rules established under the first sentence of that provision, to impose taxation ‘for reasons of environmental policy’ on energy products, such as gas oil, used to produce electricity.
Sporno ni niti, da Zvezna republika Nemčija ob nastanku dejanskega stanja spora o glavni stvari ni izrabila možnosti iz člena 14(1)(a), drugi stavek, Direktive 2003/96, ki ji omogoča, da z odstopanjem od sistema oprostitev iz prvega stavka te določbe „zaradi okoljske politike“ uvede sistem obdavčitve energentov, kot je plinsko olje, uporabljeno za proizvodnjo električne energije.
It is not, in fact, disputed that the taxation rules then
Namreč, ni sporno, da sistem obdavčitve, ki je takrat veljal v tej državi članici, ni bil utemeljen s takimi razlogi, ampak
2008 — CASE C-226/07 in force in that Member State were not based on such reasons; rather, the Federal Republic of Germany limited itself to transposing into national law the taxation rules relating to mineral oils laid down previously by Directives 92/81 and 92/82.
2008 – ZADEVA C-226/07 je bil omejen na prenos sistema obdavčitve mineralnih olj, določenega v direktivah 92/81 in 92/82, v nacionalno pravo.
At the hearing, the Italian Government nevertheless contended that the timelimit for transposition laid down in Article 28(1) of Directive 2003/96 did not apply to provisions which, like the second sentence of Article 14(1)(a) of the directive, provide the Member States with a choice.
Italijanska vlada je med obravnavo torej zatrjevala, da se rok za prenos iz člena 28(1) Direktive 2003/96 ne uporablja za določbe, ki dajejo kot člen 14(1)(a), drugi stavek, navedene direktive državam članicam možnost izbire.
That argument cannot, however, be accepted.
Kljub vsemu te utemeljitve ni mogoče sprejeti.
Article 28(1) of Directive 2003/96 provides, in unambiguous wording, that the Member States are to adopt the national measures necessary to comply with the directive not later than 31 December 2003, without making any distinction as between its provisions.
Člen 28(1) Direktive 2003/96 s povsem nedvoumno formulacijo namreč določa, da države članice sprejmejo in objavijo nacionalne ukrepe, potrebne za uskladitev s to direktivo najpozneje do 31. decembra 2003, ne da bi kakor koli razlikovale med njenimi določbami.
In addition, and in any event, it is not disputed that the Law on taxation of energy, which entered into force on 1 August 2006, with the aim of transposing into German law the provisions of Directive 2003/96, did not exercise the option provided for in the second sentence of Article 14(1)(a) of that directive, with the consequence that the question as to the amount of time given to the Member States to transpose that provision cannot have any bearing on the answers to be given to the national court.
Poleg tega je v vsakem primeru ugotovljeno, da z zakonom o dajatvah na energijo, ki je začel veljati 1. avgusta 2006, da bi v nem�ko pravo prenesel določbe Direktive 2003/96, ni bila izrabljena možnost iz člena 14(1)(a), drugi stavek, navedene direktive, tako da vpra�anje trajanja roka države članice za prenos zadnjenavedene določbe ne more vplivati na odgovore, ki bodo podani predložitvenemu sodi�ču.
In those circumstances, it is necessary to examine whether, as claimed by the applicant in the main proceedings and the Commission, Article 14(1)(a) of Dir -ective 2003/96 is, from the point of view of its content, sufficiently precise and unconditional to be capable of being relied on directly by an individual against the authorities of the Member State in question in relation to a period of time during which that Member State was, following expiry of the period laid down in Article 28(1) of the directive, in default of its obligation to transpose that directive into its national law.
V teh okoli�činah je treba preučiti, ali je, kot zatrjujeta tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari in Komisija, člen 14(1)(a) Direktive 2003/96 z vidika njene vsebine dovolj brezpogojen in dovolj natančen, da se zadevna oseba lahko neposredno sklicuje nanj zoper organe zadevne države članice v zvezi z obdobjem, v katerem je bila zadnjenavedena po izteku roka iz člena 28(1) navedene direktive v zamudi glede prenosa te direktive v svoje nacionalno pravo.
With regard to the first condition, it must be held that Article 14(1)(a) of Dir -ective 2003/96, in so far as it imposes on Member States the obligation not to impose
V zvezi s prvim pogojem je treba ugotoviti, da je člen 14(1)(a) Direktive 2003/96, ker določa obveznost držav članic, da ne naložijo davka iz te direktive na energente, ki
FLUGHAFEN KÖLN/BONN taxation under the directive on energy products used to produce electricity, is sufficiently precise, since it lays down clearly the products covered by the exemption (see, by analogy, Case 8/81 Becker [1982] ECR 53, paragraph 27, and Braathens, paragraph 31).
FLUGHAFEN KÖLN/BONN se uporabljajo za proizvodnjo električne energije, dovolj natančen, ker jasno določa proizvode, na katere se nana�a oprostitev (glej po analogiji sodbo z dne 19. januarja 1982 v zadevi Becker, 8/81, Recueil, str. 53, točka 27, in zgoraj navedeno sodbo Braathens, točka 31).
With regard to the second condition, it follows from the caselaw that the fact that a provision of a directive gives Member States a choice does not necessarily render it impossible to determine with sufficient precision, on the basis of the provisions of the directive alone, the content of the rights thus conferred on individuals (see, to that effect, Francovich and Others, paragraph 17, and Joined Cases C-253/96 to C-258/96 Kampelmann and Others [1997] ECR I-6907, paragraph 39).
V zvezi z drugim pogojem iz sodne prakse izhaja, da okoli�čina, da daje določba direktive državam članicam možnost izbire, ne pomeni nujno, da na podlagi samih določb Direktive ni mogoče dovolj natančno opredeliti vsebine pravic, ki so tako podeljene posameznikom (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Francovich in drugi, točka 17, in sodbo z dne 4. decembra 1997 v združenih zadevah Kampelmann in drugi, od C-253/96 do C-258/96, Recueil, str. I-6907, točka 39).
Thus, it follows from settled caselaw that the unconditional nature of an obligation to grant an exemption cannot be affected at all by the degree of latitude afforded to Member States by introductory wording such as that contained in Article 14(1) of Directive 2003/96, according to which exemptions are granted by those States ‘under conditions which they shall lay down for the purpose of ensuring the correct and straightforward application of such exemptions and of preventing any evasion, avoidance or abuse’.
Iz ustaljene sodne prakse tako izhaja, da brezpogojnost obveznosti oprostitve nikakor ni vpra�ljiva zaradi polja proste presoje, ki je pridržano državam članicam z uvodno formulacijo člena 14(1) Direktive 2003/96, v skladu s katerim navedene države članice odobrijo oprostitve „pod pogoji, ki jih določijo zaradi zagotavljanja pravilne in enotne uporabe tak�nih izjem ter preprečevanja kakr�nega koli izogibanja, izmikanja ali zlorabe“.
Contrary to what is submitted by the defendant in the main proceedings and by the Italian Government, that finding is not invalidated by the fact that Member States may, under the second sentence of Article 14(1)(a) of Directive 2003/96, impose taxation on the products in question for reasons of environmental policy.
Nasprotno od tega, kar zatrjujeta tožena stranka v postopku v glavni stvari in italijanska vlada, tega sklepanja ne more ovreči možnost držav članic iz člena 14(1)(a), drugi stavek, Direktive 2003/96, da obdavčijo zadevne proizvode zaradi okoljske politike.
That is merely a potential limitation to the exemption rule, and a Member State which has not exercised that option cannot rely on its own failure to do so in order to refuse a taxpayer the benefit of an exemption which he may legitimately claim under
Ta omejitev pravila oprostitve je zgolj morebitna in država članica, ki ni izrabila te možnosti, se ne more sklicevati na svojo opustitev, da bi davčnemu zavezancu zavrnila oprostitev, na katero se lahko ta sklicuje v skladu z Direktivo 2003/96 (glej
Directive 2003/96 (see, by analogy, Kügler, paragraphs 59 and 60, and Linneweber and Akritidis, paragraph 35).
2008 – ZADEVA C-226/07 po analogiji zgoraj navedeni sodbi Kügler, točki 59 in 60, ter Linneweber in Akritidis, točka 35).
It follows that the obligation under Article 14(1)(a) of Directive 2003/96 to exempt from taxation under that directive energy products intended to produce electricity is sufficiently precise and unconditional to confer on individuals the right to rely on it in proceedings before national courts with a view to contesting national rules that are incompatible with it.
Iz tega izhaja, da je obveznost oprostitve obdavčitve iz navedene direktive energentov, namenjenih za proizvodnjo električne energije, določena v členu 14(1)(a) Direktive 2003/96, dovolj natančna in brezpogojna, da podeljuje posameznikom pravico, da jo uveljavljajo pred nacionalnim sodi�čem zaradi izpodbijanja nacionalnih pravil, ki so z njo nezdružljiva.