natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
21It further held: ‘Consequently, in so far as a Member State retains such provisions, it does not transpose the Sixth Direct- ive and thus does not infringe either that directive or the general Community principles which Member States must, according to Klensch,[ 22] comply with when implementing Community legislation.’ 23
Navedlo je tudi: „Če torej država članica take predpise �e naprej uporablja, ne prena�a Šeste direktive in zaradi tega ne kr�i niti te direktive niti splo�nih načel prava Skupnosti, ki jih morajo države članice v skladu s sodbo Klensch[ 22] upo�tevati pri izvajanju predpisov Skupnosti.“ 23
The Idéal tourisme 20judgment, to which the Member States involved in these proceedings refer, does not conflict with the view expressed here.
Sodba Idéal Tourisme, 20na katero se sklicujejo udeležene države članice, ne nasprotuje tu zastopanemu stali�ču.
Bearing in mind the context of that ruling, I understand that finding to mean that the Court was not seeking to rule out every application of Community provisions where domestic exemptions are to be applied to certain transactions.
To ugotovitev ob upo�tevanju konteksta te odločitve razumem tako, da Sodi�če ni želelo izključiti vsakr�ne uporabe določb prava Skupnosti, če se za določene transakcije uporabijo nacionalne izjeme.
On the contrary, the obligation to comply with Community law does not apply only inasmuch as the domestic provisions are allowed to derogate from the requirements of the Directive and cannot therefore be regarded as transposing the Directive.
Nasprotno se zveza prekine le toliko, kolikor lahko pravila odstopajo od določb Direktive in jih torej ni mogoče �teti za prenos Direktive.
Applied to the case at issue,
V obravnavanem primeru to pomeni: Združenemu kraljestvu ni mogoče očitati, da živila
In that case, a coach operator claimed that the principle of equal treatment had been infringed inasmuch as its international passenger transport operations carried out within the Community were subject to VAT, whereas passenger transport by air was exempt from such tax.
V tej zadevi je avtobusno podjetje trdilo, da je s tem, da so njegove storitve mednarodnega prevoza oseb znotraj Skupnosti obdavčene z davkom na dodano vrednost, medtem ko je letalski prevoz oseb opro�čen davka na dodano vrednost, kr�eno načelo enakosti.
The tax exemption applying to air transport under Bel- gian law was based in that case on Article 28(3)(b) of the Sixth Directive, under which
Davčna oprostitev za letalski promet v skladu z belgijskim pravom je pri tem temeljila na členu 28(3)(b) Šeste direktive, ki državam
See also Eurodental (cited in footnote 17), paragraphs 50 and 51.
Glej tudi sodbo Eurodental (navedena v opombi 17, točki 50 in 51).
19 — Case C-481/98 Commission v France [2001] ECR I-3369, paragraph 21.
22 – Sodba Klensch in drugi (navedena v opombi 16, točka 9).
See also Eurodental (cited in footnote 17), paragraph 52.
Glej tudi sodbo Eurodental (navedena v opombi 17, točka 52).
It remains to be clarified whether the Community law requirements confer on individuals a right to insist on application of the correct rate (or a right to the exemption from tax).
Razjasniti je �e treba, ali določbe prava Skupnosti posamezniku podeljujejo pravico glede uporabe pravilne davčne stopnje (oziroma oprostitve).
After all, Article 28(2)(a) even allows zero-rating.
Kajti člen 28(2)(a) dovoljuje ravno zero-rating.
Similarly, there are no grounds for complaining that the input tax can be deducted in spite of the de facto tax exemption.
Prav tako ni mogoče očitati, da je kljub dejanski davčni oprostitvi možen odbitek vstopnega davka.
Marks & Spencer is seeking to infer that right from Article 12(1) of the Sixth Directive, which states that the rate applicable to taxable transactions is to be that in force at the time of the chargeable event. That inference cannot be upheld. The significance of that provision is in fact limited by its clear wording to determining the temporal point of reference for applying a given rate. 36.
Marks & Spencer posku�a to pravico izpeljati iz člena 12(1) Šeste direktive, ki pravi, da je stopnja, ki se uporablja za obdavčljive transakcije, stopnja, ki velja v trenutku obdavčljivega dogodka. S tem se ni mogoče strinjati. Pomen te določbe se namreč v skladu z njenim jasnim besedilom izčrpa z določitvijo časovne navezne točke za uporabo določene davčne stopnje. 36.
In accordance with the judgment in Idéal tourisme, a taxable person may not continue to invoke the principle of equal treatment if the difference in treatment is the result of the coexistence of harmonised and non-harmo-nised provisions, that is to say, if it is more or less created by the system in place.
Davčni zavezanec se dalje v skladu s sodbo Idéal Tourisme ne more sklicevati na načelo enakega obravnavanja, če neenako obravnavanje izhaja iz sočasnega obstoja usklajenih in neusklajenih določb, torej je tako rekoč odvisno od sistema.
That is not the case here, however.
Tu pa ne gre za tak primer.
It is not disputed that food is taxed more favourably in the United Kingdom than transactions involving other goods benefiting from the minimum rates fixed pursuant to Article 12(3) of the Sixth Directive.
Stvar razprave ni, da so živila v Združenem kraljestvu ugodneje obdavčena kot transakcije z drugim blagom, za katere veljajo najnižje stopnje, določene v členu 12(3) Šeste direktive.
In fact, the only point at issue here involves the consistent application of the domestic exemption.
Nasprotno, gre zgolj za samo po sebi konsistentno uporabo nacionalne oprostitve.
— Community law requirements for the application of domestic derogations
– Določbe prava Skupnosti glede uporabe nacionalnih izjem
However, the general principles of law that a Member State must observe when implementing Community law or national provisions transposing that law 24require a tax rate laid down by national law in respect of certain transactions actually to be applied to the relevant transactions.
Vendar pa splo�na pravna načela, ki jih mora država članica upo�tevati pri prenosu prava Skupnosti oziroma pri izvajanju nacionalnih določb o prenosu, 24zahtevajo, naj se davčna stopnja, ki je v nacionalnem pravu predvidena za določene transakcije, tudi dejansko uporabi za ustrezne transakcije.
Even if a Member State applies a derogation under national law for the purposes
Četudi država članica uporablja nacionalno izjemo v smislu člena 28(2)(a), ostane
24 — See, to that effect, the caselaw cited in footnote 16.
24 – K temu glej sodno prakso, navedeno v opombi 16.
MARKS & SPENCER down by statute to comparable products of other suppliers, those principles would be undermined. 40.
MARKS & SPENCER splo�no stopnjo, za primerljive izdelke drugih dobaviteljev pa uporabi zakonsko določeno ničelno stopnjo. 40.
This follows primarily from the principle of the lawfulness of administrative action, which, according to the Court’s caselaw, is one of the legal principles recognised in Community law.
To v prvi vrsti izhaja iz načela zakonitosti, ki je v skladu s sodno prakso Sodi�ča eno najbolj priznanih načel prava Skupnosti.
25 Under that principle, the tax authorities are bound by law and statute and may not charge tax in a manner inconsistent with the relevant legislation.
25 Davčna uprava je v skladu z njim vezana na pravo in zakon in ne sme izvesti obdavčitve, ki ne bi bila v skladu s predpisi.
Furthermore, it would be contrary to the principle of legal certainty if a taxable person were unable to rely on a transaction being taxed in the manner laid down by statute.
Dalje bi bilo tudi v nasprotju z načelom pravne varnosti, če se davčni zavezanec ne bi mogel zanesti na to, da bo neka transakcija obdavčena tako, kot določa zakon.
Whether or not an erroneous application of the domestic VAT provisions also constitutes an infringement of the principles of equal treatment and neutrality depends on the individual case.
Ali nepravilna uporaba nacionalnih določb o davku na dodano vrednost poleg tega pomeni kr�itev načel enakega obravnavanja in nevtralnosti, je odvisno od posamičnega primera.
Under the principle of equal treatment, which in the field of VAT has taken on the specific form of the principle of fiscal neutrality, 26similar transactions must be subject to the same rate.
Načelo enakega obravnavanja, ki se na področju davka na dodano vrednost posebej izraža v načelu davčne nevtralnosti, 26 zahteva, naj se za enake transakcije uporabi tudi ista davčna stopnja.
27If the tax authority charges tax at the standard rate on the supply of Marks & Spencer’s teacakes but applies the zero rate of tax laid 42.
27 Ti načeli bi zadevalo, če davčna uprava dobavo Teacakes družbe Marks & Spencer obdavči s 42.
The fact that a derogation under domestic law, rather than the Sixth Directive itself, determines the rate actually to be applied does not preclude recourse to Community law in substantiation of the claim at issue.
Utemeljitvi te pravice na podlagi prava Skupnosti ne nasprotuje, da nacionalna izjema določa konkretno veljavno davčno stopnjo, ne pa sama Šesta direktiva.
While the provisions of a directive must appear, as far as their subjectmatter is concerned, to be unconditional and sufficiently precise so that individuals can rely upon them, 28recourse to the Sixth Directive and to the principles of law that must be observed in its implementation cannot be ineffective on the ground that the Directive confers discretion on the Member States to determine the rate of the tax.
Določbe direktive morajo biti sicer po vsebini nepogojne in dovolj natančne, da se posameznik lahko nanje sklicuje. 28 Vendar pa sklicevanje na Šesto direktivo in na načela, ki jih je treba upo�tevati pri njenem izvajanju, ne more biti zato neuspe�no, ker Direktiva državam članicam priznava diskrecijsko pravico pri določitvi davčne stopnje.
29The effect of the Directive would otherwise be significantly restricted: the Directive not only entrusts the Member States with determining the rate in the event of exemptions under Article 28(2) but also harmonises the rates, albeit not completely.
29 Učinek direktive bi bil drugače znatno omejen. Kajti Direktiva državam članicam ne prepu�ča določitve davčne stopnje le v primeru izjem v skladu s členom 28(2), ampak tudi drugače davčnih stopenj ne usklajuje popolnoma.
However, relying on the Directive in conjunction with the general principles of law mentioned in points 40 and 41 above, individuals may insist that the Member State apply to a trans-
Posameznik lahko namreč s sklicevanjem na Direktivo v povezavi s splo�nimi pravnimi načeli, navedenimi v točkah 40 in 41, zahteva, naj
25 — See Joined Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03 Belgium and Forum 187 [2006] ECR I-5479, paragraph 69.
25 – Glej sodbo z dne 22. junija 2006 v zdruŽenih zadevah Belgija in Forum 187 (C-182/03 in C-217/03, ZOdl., str. I-5479, točka 69).
26 — See, in connection with the principles of equal treatment and neutrality, Joined Cases C-443/04 and C-444/04 Solleveld and van den Hout-van Eijnsbergen [2006] ECR I-3617, paragraph 35.
26 – Glede zveze med načeli enakega obravnavanja in nevtralnosti glej sodbo z dne 27. aprila 2006 v zdruŽenih zadevah Solleveld in van den Hout-van Eijnsbergen (C-443/04 in C-444/04, ZOdl., str. I-3617, točka 35).
28 — Case 8/81 Becker [1982] ECR 53, paragraph 25; Case C-141/00 Kügler [2002] ECR I-6833, paragraph 51; Linneweber and Akritidis (cited in footnote 27), paragraph 33; and JP Morgan Fleming Claverhouse Investment Trust and TheAssociation of Investment Trust Companies (cited in footnote 27), paragraph 58.
53, točka 25); z dne 10. septembra 2002 v zadevi Kügler (C-141/00, Recueil, str. I-6833, točka 51); Linneweber in Akritidis (navedena v opombi 27, točka 33) ter JP Morgan Fleming Claverhouse Investment Trust in drugi (navedena v opombi 27, točka 58).
29 — See, in respect of the discretion conferred on the Member States to determine exempt establishments, Case C-45/01 Dornier [2003] ECR I-12911, paragraph 81.
27 – Sodba Komisija proti Franciji (navedena v opombi 19, točka 22); glede načela davčne nevtralnosti na splo�no glej sodbe z dne 7. septembra 1999 v zadevi Gregg (C-216/97, Recueil, str.
action the actual rate that it, in the exercise of its discretionary power, has established in its legislation in respect of transactions of that kind.
država članica transakcijo dejansko obdavči s stopnjo, ki jo je z izvr�evanjem svoje diskrecijske pravice zakonsko določila za tovrstne transakcije.
The first two questions in the reference should therefore be answered as follows:
Na prvi vpra�anji za predhodno odločanje je zato treba odgovoriti tako:
If a Member State has mistakenly failed to apply a domestic derogation to certain transactions, the resulting charge to tax will accordingly infringe not only national tax law but also Community law.
Če država članica zmotno ni uporabila nacionalne izjeme za določene transakcije, potem iz tega izhajajoča obdavčitev ni v nasprotju le z nacionalnim davčnim pravom, ampak tudi s pravom Skupnosti.
— Consequences of the misapplication of a domestic derogation
– Posledice nepravilne uporabe nacionalne izjeme
Where, under Article 28(2)(a) of the Sixth Directive (both before and after its amendment by Directive 92/77), a Member State has maintained in its domestic legislation a tax exemption with refund of input tax in respect of certain supplies, a trader is entitled under the Directive, in conjunction with the general principles of law to be applied in connection with its implementation, in particular the principles of equal treatment, neutrality, the lawfulness of administrative action and legal certainty, to insist on the correct application of that provision.
Če je država članica v skladu s členom 28(2)(a) Šeste direktive (pred njeno spremembo z Direktivo 92/77 in po njej) v nacionalnem pravu ohranila oprostitev z vračilom vstopnega davka v zvezi z določenimi storitvami, potem ima gospodarski udeleženec na podlagi Direktive v povezavi s splo�nimi pravnimi načeli, ki jih je treba uporabiti pri njenem izvajanju, zlasti z načeli enakega obravnavanja, nevtralnosti, zakonitosti in pravne varnosti, pravico do pravilne uporabe te določbe.
In the present case, the Member State concerned is in principle obliged, by virtue of Community law, to refund the charges levied.
Zadevna država članica je v tem primeru načelno v skladu s pravom Skupnosti zavezana k vračilu dajatev.
As already stated above, 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.
Kot je bilo namreč že navedeno, pomeni pravica do vračila dajatev, ki so bile v državi članici pobrane v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti, posledico in dopolnitev pravic, ki jih ima posameznik na podlagi prava Skupnosti.
30 The tax refund eliminates the consequences of the infringement at a later stage and results in tax being charged in conformity with Community law.
30Vračilo davka naknadno odpravi posledice kr�itve in na koncu pripelje do obdavčenja, ki je v skladu s pravom
Where the tax authorities have mistakenly interpreted the domestic legislation in such circumstances, with the result that certain supplies benefiting from exemption with refund of input tax under its domestic legislation have been subject to tax at the standard
Če je davčna uprava nacionalno pravo v takem primeru nepravilno razlagala tako, da je določene storitve, za katere velja oprostitev z vračilom vstopnega davka v skladu z njenim nacionalnim pravom, obdavčila s splo�no davčno stopnjo, potem pravo Skupnosti gospodarskemu udeležencu načelno priznava
30 — See the established caselaw cited in footnote 12.
30 – Glej ustaljeno sodno prakso, navedeno v opombi 12.
MARKS & SPENCER so framed as to render virtually impossible the exercise of rights conferred by Community law. 31 rate, Community law in principle confers on the trader a right to obtain a refund of the VAT wrongly charged. When establishing the rules governing that right, the general principles of Community law, including the principles of equal treatment and fiscal neutrality, must be observed. C — The third, fourth and fifth questions referred
MARKS & SPENCER zahtevke na podlagi določb notranjega prava, niti ne smejo biti določeni tako, da v praksi onemogočajo izvr�evanje pravic, ki jih podeljuje pravni red Skupnosti. 31 pravico do vračila nepravilno obračunanega davka na dodano vrednost. Pri opredelitvi te pravice je treba upo�tevati splo�na načela prava Skupnosti, vključno z načeloma enakega obravnavanja in davčne nevtralnosti. 48.
By its third, fourth and fifth questions, which should be examined together, the House of Lords essentially seeks to determine the circumstances under which the Member State may invoke the defence of unjust enrichment against the claim for refund of VAT.
Predložitveno sodi�če želi s tretjim do petim vpra�anjem za predhodno odločanje, ki jih je treba preučiti skupaj, v bistvu vedeti, pod kak�nimi pogoji lahko država članica zahtevku za vračilo davka na dodano vrednost ugovarja s trditvijo, da gre za neupravičeno obogatitev.
33 Thus, in the case of indirect charges, it cannot automatically be assumed that they have actually been
31 – Sodbe z dne 9. novembra 1983 v zadevi San Giorgio (199/82, Recueil, str.
33 — For a summary, see Weber’s Wine World and Others (cited in footnote 31), paragraph 94 et seq.
33 – Povzeto v sodbi Weber’s Wine World in drugi (navedena v opombi 31, točka 94 in naslednje).
In the absence of a Community provision on the refund of charges levied, it is for the domestic legal order of the individual Member States to lay down the conditions under which such a refund may be claimed; those conditions must meet the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, that is to say, they may not be less favourable than those relating to similar claims based on provisions of domestic legislation, and they may not be
Kadar področje zahtev za vračilo davkov ni urejeno s predpisi Skupnosti, je treba v notranjem pravnem redu vsake države članice predvideti pogoje, pod katerimi se te zahteve lahko izpolnjujejo, ti pogoji pa morajo upo�tevati načeli enakovrednosti in učinkovitosti, kar pomeni, da ne smejo biti manj ugodni od tistih, ki urejajo podobne
36 passed on to the consumer. 34 Whether the economic effects suffered by the taxpayer as a result of the charging of the tax are actually cancelled out by passing on such charges and the refund of the charges consequently leads to enrichment depends also on numerous factors which have to be clarified by means of economic analysis. 35
36 učinke obdavčitve pri zavezancu za dajatev in vračilo dajatve zato pomeni obogatitev, naj bi bilo poleg tega odvisno od mnogih dejavnikov, ki jih je treba preučiti z ekonomskimi preiskavami. 35
However, the domestic legislation provided for the defence of enrichment in the relevant period only in the event that the taxable person claiming the refund has accounted for output VAT in an accounting period, that is to say, has not had sufficiently large claims to input tax deduction to offset in full the output tax to be paid.
Vendar pa je nacionalno pravo v zadevnem časovnem obdobju predvidevalo ugovor obogatitve le, če je davčni zavezanec, ki zahteva vračilo, v davčnem obdobju odvedel davek na dodano vrednost, torej ni razpolagal z dovolj visokimi zahtevki za vračilo vstopnega davka, da bi z njimi lahko v celoti obračunal izstopni davek.
In the case of repayment traders, the right to a (larger) tax refund, generated as a result of a correction to the tax classification of the relevant outputs, could not be restricted by the defence of enrichment.
V primeru tako imenovanih repayment traders zahtevka za (vi�je) vračilo davka zaradi popravka davčne razvrstitve izstopnih transakcij ni bilo mogoče omejiti z ugovorom obogatitve.
According to the account given by the United Kingdom Government at the hearing, the courts hearing the case in the main proceedings have collected wideranging evidence on this matter.
Po navedbah vlade Združenega kraljestva na obravnavi so sodi�ča v postopku v glavni stvari glede tega vpra�anja zahtevala trden dokaz.
Thus, for the purposes of the preliminary ruling proced- ure, it may be considered to be established that a full refund of the VAT would lead to unjust enrichment of Marks & Spencer. 53.
Zato lahko za namene postopka za sprejetje predhodne odločbe velja, da bi vračilo celotnega davka na dodano vrednost pomenilo neupravičeno obogatitev družbe Marks & Spencer. 53.
In Marks & Spencer’s view, that differing definition of the constituent elements of the refund is at variance with the principles of equal treatment and fiscal neutrality. 51.
Sodi�če je v sodbi Marks & Spencer I že pripoznalo, da morajo države članice 51.
Consequently, the principle of effectiveness does not preclude a refusal to refund the tax.
Zato načelo učinkovitosti ne nasprotuje zavrnitvi vračila davka.
Nor is there anything to suggest that the principle of equivalence has been infringed, at least so long as that principle is construed as it is currently defined, to the effect that it prohibits the less favourable treatment of claims for refund founded on Commu-
Prav tako ne obstajajo nobene oporne točke za kr�itev načela ekvivalence (enakovrednosti). To velja vsaj takrat, če se to načelo razume v skladu z njegovo dosedanjo opredelitvijo, namreč tako, da prepoveduje manj ugodno obravnavo zahtevkov za vračilo davka, utemeljenih
In the Marks & Spencer I judgment, the Court already recognised that, when framing 34 — Joined Cases 331/85, 376/85 and 378/85 Bianco and Girard [1988] ECR 1099, paragraph 17; Weber’s Wine World and Others (cited in footnote 31), paragraph 96; and Comateb and Others (cited in footnote 32), paragraph 25.
36 – Lahko pa bi se vpra�ali, ali to načelo ne zahteva že enakega obravnavanja vseh zahtevkov za vračilo, ki temeljijo na pravu Skupnosti. To vpra�anje pa na tem mestu lahko ostane odprto, ker je načeli enakega obravnavanja in davčne nevtralnosti tako ali tako treba upo�tevati (k temu glej v nadaljevanju točko 56 in naslednje).
35 — See Bianco and Girard (cited in footnote 34), paragraph 20; Comateb and Others (cited in footnote 32), paragraph 29 et seq.; Michaïlidis (cited in footnote 32), paragraphs 34 and 35; and Weber’s Wine World and Others (cited in footnote 31), paragraph 97 et seq.
35 – Glej sodbe Bianco in Girard (navedena v opombi 34, točka 20); Comateb in drugi (navedena v opombi 32, točka 29 in naslednje); Michaïlidis (navedena v opombi 32, točki 34 in 35) in Weber’s Wine World in drugi (navedena v opombi 31, točka 97 in naslednje).
MARKS & SPENCER light of a revision of the tax treatment of products other than teacakes (mineral water and fruit juice). No objection that the payment led to unjust enrichment on the ground that the tax had been passed on to the customers was levelled against Tesco. the provisions on refunds within the scope of Community law, Member States must observe not only the principles of equivalence and effectiveness but also the general principles of law which form part of the Community legal order. 37 This in particular includes the obligation to comply with the principle of equal treatment and — in the field of VAT — the principle of fiscal neutrality, which I should like to address first.
MARKS & SPENCER pri določitvi podrobnih pravil za vračila na področju uporabe prava Skupnosti poleg načel enakovrednosti in učinkovitosti upo�tevati tudi splo�na pravna načela, ki so del pravnega reda Skupnosti. 37 To vključuje vračila so zadevala popravek davčne obravnave drugih izdelkov kot Teacakes (mineralne vode in sadnega soka). Podjetju Tesco ni nihče nasprotoval, da bi plačilo pomenilo neupravičeno obogatitev, ker naj bi bil davek prevaljen na kupce. zlasti vezanost na načelo enakega obravnavanja in – na področju davka na dodano vrednost – na načelo davčne nevtralnosti, ki ga bom najprej obravnavala.
— Principle of fiscal neutrality
– Načelo davčne nevtralnosti
Before that, however, I should like to make the following points with regard to the facts:
Najprej pa glede dejanskega stanja navajam �e to: