natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Articles 17, 18(2) and (3) and 21(1)(b) 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, as amended by Council Directive 2000/17/EC of 30 March 2000, do not preclude national legislation which lays down a
Členi 17, 18(2) in (3) ter 21(1)(b) 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, ), kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo Sveta 2000/17/ES z dne 30. marca 2000, ne nasprotujejo nacionalni zakonodaji, ki določa prekluzijski rok za uveljavljanje pravice do odbitka, kot je ta v zadevi v glavni stvari, če sta načeli
2008 — JOINED CASES C-95/07 AND C-96/07 limitation period for the exercise of the right to deduct, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, provided that the principles of equivalence and effectiveness are respected.
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-95/07 IN C-96/07 enakovrednosti in učinkovitosti spoštovani.
The principle of effectiveness is not infringed merely because the tax authority has a longer period in which to recover unpaid value added tax than the period granted to taxable persons for the exercise of their right to deduct.
Načelo učinkovitosti ni kršeno zgolj zaradi dejstva, da ima davčna uprava za odmero neplačanega DDV na voljo rok, ki je daljši od roka, ki je dodeljen davčnim zavezancem za uveljavljanje pravice do odbitka.
However, Articles 18(1)(d) and 22 of Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 2000/17, do preclude a practice whereby tax returns are reassessed and value added tax recovered which penalises a failure to comply, first, with obligations arising from formalities laid down in national legislation pursuant to Article 18(1)(d), and, second, with the obligations relating to accounts and tax returns under Article 22(2) and (4) respectively, such as that in the main proceedings, by denying the right to deduct in the case of a reverse charge procedure.
Vendar člena 18(1)(d) in 22 Šeste direktive 77/388, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 2000/17, nasprotujeta praksi spremembe obračunov in odmere davka na dodano vrednost, kot je ta v zadevah v glavni stvari, ki nespoštovanje obveznosti, ki po eni strani izhajajo iz formalnosti, ki jih določa nacionalna zakonodaja ob uporabi člena 18(1)(d), in po drugi strani knjigovodskih obveznosti in obveznosti obračuna, ki izhajajo iz členov 22(2) in (4), kaznuje z zavrnitvijo pravice do odbitka v primeru uporabe mehanizma obrnjene davčne obveznosti.
Case C-109/07
Zadeva C-109/07
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Prud’homie de pêche de Martigues)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo prud’homie de pêche de Martigues)
Summary of the Order
Povzetek sklepa
Preliminary rulings — Reference to the Court — National court or tribunal for the purposes of Article 234 EC — Meaning
Vprašanja za predhodno odločanje – Predložitev Sodišču – Nacionalno sodišče v smislu člena 234 ES – Pojem
SUMMARY — CASE C-109/07 it. In that regard, in order to consider the condition regarding the independence of the body making the reference as met, the caselaw requires, inter alia, that dismissals of members of that body should be determined by express legislative provisions.
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-109/07 pogoj v zvezi z neodvisnostjo predložitvenega organa izpolnjen, se v sodni praksi v zvezi s tem zahteva zlasti, da so primeri odstavitve članov tega organa določeni z izrecnimi zakonodajnimi določbami.
In order to determine whether a body making a reference is a court or tribunal for the purposes of Article 234 EC, which is a question governed by Community law alone, the Court takes account of a number of factors, such as whether the body is established by law, whether it is permanent, whether its jurisdiction is compulsory, whether its procedure is inter partes, whether it applies rules of law and whether it is independent
Za presojo o tem, ali je predložitveni organ „sodi�če“ v smislu člena 234 ES – kar je vpra�anje, ki se nana�a izključno na pravo Skupnosti – upo�teva dejstva, kot so zakonska podlaga organa, njegova stalnost, obveznost njegove sodne pristojnosti, kontradiktornost postopka, uporabljanje pravnih pravil s strani organa in njegova neodvisnost.
The Prud’homie de pêche de Martigues (France) cannot be regarded as meeting the condition as to the independence of the body making a reference and, therefore, it is not a court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 234 EC.
Ni mogoče �teti, da prud’homie de pêche de Martigues (Francija) izpolnjuje pogoja o neodvisnosti predložitvenega organa, in zato ni sodi�če v smislu člena 234 ES.
First, the members of the Industrial Tribunals are subject, at least for some of their activities, to supervision by the administration.
Po eni strani so namreč člani ribi�kega razsodi�ča vsaj glede nekaterih dejavnosti podvrženi nadzoru uprave.
Second, it does not appear that the process of dismissing a Member of the Industrial Tribunals is subject to specific guarantees which remove any reasonable doubt as to the imperviousness of that body to external factors.
Po drugi strani se ne zdi, da za odstavitev članov ribi�kega razsodi�ča veljajo posebna jamstva, na podlagi katerih je mogoče zavrniti vsak upravičen dvom o zavarovanosti navedene instance pred zunanjimi vplivi.
As regards, more specifically, the independence of the body making a reference, that condition presumes that the body is protected against external intervention or pressure liable to jeopardise the independent judgment of its members as regards proceedings before them.
Natančneje, glede neodvisnosti predložitvenega organa se zahteva, da je instanca zavarovana pred zunanjimi posredovanji ali vplivi, ki lahko ogrozijo neodvisnost sojenja njenih članov glede sporov, ki so jim predloženi.
Those guarantees of independence and impartiality require rules, particularly as regards the composition of the body and the appointment, length of service and the grounds for abstention, rejection and dismissal of its members, in order to dismiss any reasonable doubt in the minds of individuals as to the imperviousness of that body to external factors and its neutrality with respect to the interests before
Sodi�če je ob neki priložnosti tudi pojasnilo, da take varovalke neodvisnosti in nepristranskosti predpostavljajo, da obstajajo pravila, zlasti v zvezi s sestavo instance, imenovanjem, trajanjem funkcij in razlogov za vzdržanje, zavrnitev in odstavitev njenih članov, na podlagi katerih je mogoče zavrniti vsak upravičen dvom pri posameznikih o zavarovanosti navedene instance pred zunanjimi vplivi in o njeni nevtralnosti glede interesov, s katerimi se srečuje. Da bi �teli, da je
(see paras 22-25, 28, 30, 31)
(Glej točke od 22 do 25, 28, 30 in 31.)
ORDER OF THE COURT (First Chamber)14 May 2008 *
SKLEP SODIŠČA (prvi senat) z dne 14. maja 2008 *
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the prud’homie de pêche de Martigues (France), made by decision of 17 December 2006, received at the Court on 20 February 2007, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-109/07, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo prud’homie de pêche de Martigues (Francija) z odločbo z dne 17. decembra 2006, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 20. februarja 2007, v postopku
Advocate General: V. Trstenjak, Registrar: R. Grass, after hearing the Advocate General,
Trstenjak, sodni tajnik: R. Grass, po opredelitvi generalne pravobranilke
2008 — CASE C-109/07 makes the following
2008 – ZADEVA C-109/07 sprejema naslednji
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation and the validity of Article 11a of Council Regulation (EC) No 894/97 of 29 April 1997 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources (OJ 1997 L 132, p.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago in veljavnost člena 11a Uredbe Sveta (ES) �t. 894/97 z dne 29. aprila 1997 o nekaterih tehničnih ukrepih za ohranjanje ribolovnih virov (UL L 132, str.
1), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 of 8 June 1998 (OJ 1998 L 171, p.
1), kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo Sveta (ES) �t. 1239/98 z dne 8. junija 1998 (UL L 171, str.
1) (‘Regulation No 894/97’).
1, v nadaljevanju: Uredba �t. 894/97).
The reference has been made in the course of proceedings between two fishing-boat owners registered in the Maritime Affairs District of Martigues, Mr Pilato and Mr Bourgault, concerning the use by the latter of a fishing device known as a ‘thonaille’.
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med kapitanoma ribi�kih ladij, registriranih pri službi za pomorske zadeve v Martiguesu, J. Pilatom in J.-C. Bourgaultom, v zvezi s tem, ker je slednji uporabljal ribolovno opremo, imenovano „thonaille“.
Article 11a of Regulation No 894/97 provides:
Člen 11a Uredbe �t. 894/97 določa:
From 1 January 2002, no vessel may keep on board, or use for fishing, one or more drift-nets intended for the capture of species listed in Annex VIII.
Od 1. januarja 2002 ne sme nobeno plovilo hraniti na krovu ali uporabljati ene ali več visečih mrež, ki so namenjene lovu vrst iz Priloge VIII.
From 1 January 2002, it is prohibited to land species listed in Annex VIII which have been caught in drift-nets.
Od 1. januarja 2002 je prepovedano iztovarjati vrste iz Priloge VIII, ki so bile ujete z visečimi mrežami.
Until 31 December 2001, a vessel may keep on board, or use for fishing, one or more drift-nets referred to in paragraph 1 after receiving authorisation from the competent authorities of the flag Member State. …’
Do 31. decembra 2001 sme plovilo hraniti na krovu ali uporabljati za ribolov eno ali več visečih mrež iz odstavka 1, če je to odobril pristojni organ države članice zastave. […]
Among the species listed in Annex VIII to that regulation is, inter alia, bluefin tuna.
Med vrstami, na�tetimi v prilogi VIII k tej uredbi, je med drugim tudi navadni tun.
The prud’homie de pêche de Martigues (Martigues Industrial Tribunal for Matters relating to Fishing) is governed by the Decree of 19 November 1859 concerning rules on coastal fishing in the fifth maritime district, as amended by Decree No 90-95 of 25 January 1990 (JORF, 27 January 1990, p.
Prud’homie de pêche de Martigues (ribi�ko razsodi�če) ureja dekret z dne 19. novembra 1859 o ureditvi pomorskega priobalnega ribolova v petem pomorskem okrožju, kot je bil spremenjen z dekretom �t. 90-95 z dne 25. januarja 1990 (JORF z dne 27. januarja 1990, str.
1155) (‘the 1859 Decree’).
1155, v nadaljevanju: dekret iz leta 1859).
In accordance with Article 5 of the 1859 Decree, Members of the Industrial Tribunals are boat-owning fishermen who have practised that occupation for a year in the district served by the industrial tribunal of which they are seeking to become a member.
Člani skupnosti ribi�kega razsodi�ča so v skladu s členom 5 dekreta iz leta 1859 kapitani ribi�kih ladij, ki so kapitani najmanj eno leto v okrožju razsodi�ča, ki mu želijo pripadati.
2008 — CASE C-109/07
2008 – ZADEVA C-109/07
According to Article 7 of that decree the Members of the Industrial Tribunals are chosen from among members of the community who have been involved in fishing activities for 10 years.
V skladu s členom 7 tega dekreta so člani razsodi�ča izbrani med člani skupnosti, ki so se deset let ukvarjali z ribolovom.
Article 17 of that decree provides:
Člen 17 tega dekreta določa:
‘The responsibilities of Members of Industrial Tribunals for Matters relating to Fishing are to be as follows:
„Pristojnosti članov ribi�kega razsodi�ča so opisane v nadaljevanju.
They have sole jurisdiction, exclusively and without recourse to appeal, review or cassation by a higher court, over all disputes between fishermen, arising out of fishing incidents, operations and provisions relating thereto, to the extent of their jurisdiction.
Samo oni, brez možnosti pritožbe, revizije ali kasacije, so izključno pristojni za odločanje o vseh sporih med ribiči, nastalih pri ribolovu, o praksi in določbah, ki zanje veljajo, v okviru njihove pristojnosti.
Accordingly, and in order to avoid, in so far as possible, disputes, damages or accidents, they are specifically authorised, under the authority of the Commissioner for Maritime Registration:
Da bi čim bolj preprečili prepire, �kodo ali nesreče, so pod nadzorom komisarja za pomorski vpis posebej pristojni: za urejanje izkori�čanja morja in pritiklin s področja pomorstva med ribiči; za določitev položajev, izmen, pomolov, postaj in odhodnih krajev za vse vrste ribolova; za določitev vrstnega reda, po katerem morajo ribiči nastavljati svoje mreže ponoči in podnevi;
Finally, to take all the administrative and precautionary measures which, on account of their diversity and number, are not laid down in the present decree.
PILATO za določitev dnevnih in nočnih ur, ko se morajo nekatere vrste ribolova umakniti drugim; nazadnje, za sprejetje vseh ukrepov v zvezi z redom in previdnostjo, ki zaradi njihove različnosti in �tevilčnosti niso predvideni v tem dekretu.
They shall administer the affairs of the community.
Upravljajo zadeve skupnosti.
They shall, in accordance with Article 16 of the Law of 9 January 1852, cooperate in the investigation and the finding of coastal fishing violations.’
V skladu s členom 16 zakona z dne 9. januarja 1852 sodelujejo pri raziskavah in ugotavljanju kr�itev na področju priobalnega ribolova.“
Article 18 of the 1859 Decree provides that Members of the Industrial Tribunals, before taking up their posts, are to swear, before the justice of the peace for their place of residence, an oath in the following terms:
Člen 18 dekreta iz leta 1859 določa, da člani razsodi�ča pred nastopom funkcije tako prisežejo pred mirovnim sodnikom kraja svojega stalnega prebivali�ča:
‘I swear to fulfil loyally the duties of a Member of the Industrial Tribunals for Matters relating to Fishing and to enforce as the need arises the rules relating to coastal fishing, to comply with the orders which are given to me by my superiors and to point out violations of the rules without dislike or bias towards the offenders.’
„Prisegam, da bom zvesto opravljal naloge člana ribi�kega razsodi�ča in skrbel, da se bodo pravočasno izvr�evali odloki o priobalnem ribolovu, da bom deloval v skladu z navodili predstojnikov ter da bom obve�čal o kr�itvah odlokov brez sovra�tva in brez prizana�anja do kr�iteljev.“
Article 22 of the 1859 Decree, which deals with the dismissal of Members of the Industrial Tribunals, is worded as follows:
Člen 22 dekreta iz leta 1859, ki obravnava odstavitev članov razsodi�ča, določa:
‘Members of the Industrial Tribunals for Matters relating to Fishing may be relieved of their duties by the Director of Maritime Registration following a preliminary investigation conducted by the Administrator for Maritime Registration.
„Direktor službe za vpis poklicnih mornarjev lahko po predhodni preiskavi, ki jo je opravil upravnik službe za vpis poklicnih mornarjev, odstavi člane ribi�kega razsodi�ča.
The dissolution of an industrial tribunal may be decided upon by the Minister responsible for Merchant Shipping following a proposal from the Director of Maritime Registration. …
Minister, pristojen za pomorstvo, lahko na predlog direktorja pomorskega vpisa razglasi razpustitev razsodi�ča. […]
Any Member of the Industrial Tribunals who is dismissed shall not be re-elected within a period of three years from the date of his dismissal.
Odstavljeni člani razsodi�ča so lahko ponovno izvoljeni �ele tri leta po dnevu njihove odstavitve.
Article 24 of the 1859 Decree which governs the inter partes procedure before the Industrial Tribunal for Matters relating to Fishing, provides, inter alia, that the members of the tribunal panel are to deliberate in private.
Člen 24 dekreta iz leta 1859, ki ureja kontradiktorni postopek pred prud’homie de pêche, med drugim določa, da je posvetovanje članov razsodi�ča tajno.
The first subparagraph of Article 25 of the 1859 Decree provides that ‘[t]he decisions of the Industrial Tribunals shall have immediate effect’.
Člen 25, prvi odstavek, dekreta iz leta 1859 določa, da so „sodbe članov razsodi�ča nemudoma izvr�ljive“.
Article 26 of the 1859 Decree states:
Člen 26 dekreta iz leta 1895 določa:
‘The Administrator for Maritime Registration or his deputy shall, when he considers it appropriate, attend the hearings and the deliberations of the tribunal, but only in order to ensure that the hearing and the deliberations are being conducted appropriately.’
„Upravnik službe za vpis poklicnih mornarjev ali njegov namestnik je prisoten na sejah in posvetovanjih razsodi�ča, če meni, da je to potrebno, vendar le, da se prepriča, da vse poteka po pravilih.“
Finally, Article 27 of the 1859 Decree provides that ‘[w]hen two Industrial Tribunals claim jurisdiction over the same matter, the dispute on jurisdiction is brought, by the proper authority, before the Director of Maritime Registration’.
„Kadar dve razsodi�či menita, da sta pristojni za odločanje o isti zadevi, o sporu o pristojnosti po hierarhiji odloči direktor službe za vpis poklicnih mornarjev“.
It is clear from the order for reference that on 12 June 2006 the Chair of the prud’homie de pêche de Martigues recorded the presence, on board Mr Bourgault’s boat, of a fishing device known as a ‘thonaille’ with the help of which Mr Bourgault had caught 15 bluefin tuna.
Iz predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da je 12. junija 2006 prvi član prud’homie de pêche de Martigues ugotovil, da je bila na krovu ladje J.-C. Bourgaulta ribi�ka oprema, imenovana „thonaille“, s katero je slednji ulovil petnajst navadnih tunov.
Mr Pilato then claimed that Mr Bourgault’s capture of 15 bluefin tuna with a prohibited fishing device caused him injury in so far as illegally caught fish, with lower costs than those for fish caught under lawful conditions, was put on the market.
Pilato je tedaj navedel, da mu je ulov petnajstih navadnih tunov J.-C. Bourgaulta s prepovedano ribolovno opremo povzročil �kodo, ker so bile na trg dane ribe, ulovljene s prepovedanimi sredstvi in po nižjih cenah od teh, po katerih se prodaja ulov, izveden na dovoljen način.
On those grounds, he requested the prud’homie de pêche de Martigues to rule on compensation for the loss that he suffered on account of the unfair competitive practice employed by Mr Bourgault.
Zaradi tega je predlagal prud’homie de pêche de Martigues, naj se izreče o nadomestilu �kode, ki jo je utrpel zaradi nelojalne konkurence J-C. Bourgaulta.
On 17 December 2007, at the hearing before the prud’homie de pêche de Martigues, while accepting the allegations made against him, Mr Bourgault, first, disputed that the ‘thonaille’ was a drift-net within the meaning of Article 11a of Regulation No 894/97 and, second, called into question the validity of that provision.
J.-C. Bourgault je 17. decembra 2007 na obravnavi pred prud’homie de pêche de Martigues ob priznanju očitanih mu dejstev, prvič, prerekal, da bi bila thonaille „viseča mreža“ v smislu člena 11a Uredbe �t. 894/97, in, drugič, izpodbijal veljavnost te določbe.
It is in those circumstances that the prud’homie de pêche de Martigues decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
V teh okoli�činah je prud’homie de pêche de Martigues prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ti vpra�anji:
(a) it appears to pursue a strictly environmental objective, although the legal basis on which it is founded is Article 43 of the EC Treaty (now Article 37 EC);
894/97] veljaven, glede na to, da: a) se zdi, da sledi strogo okoljevarstvenemu cilju, medtem ko je pravna podlaga, na kateri temelji, člen [43 Pogodbe ES (po spremembi postal člen 37 ES)][;] b) ne opredeljuje visečih mrež in torej ne določa jasno področja svoje uporabe[;] c) ni jasno obrazložen[;] d) ne upo�teva razpoložljivih znanstvenih in tehničnih podatkov, niti okoljskih razmer v različnih regijah Skupnosti, niti prednosti bremen, ki izhajajo iz prepovedi, ki jo določa[;] e) ni sorazmeren glede na cilj, ki mu sledi[;] f) je diskriminatoren, ker enako obravnava različne geografske, gospodarske in socialne položaje[;]
(g) it does not establish any exemption for small-time fishermen who fish with devices such as the “thonaille”, which, apart from the fact that it is traditional in the Mediterranean, is vital for that part of the population who practise it, and is, moreover, very selective.’
PILATO g) ne določa nikakr�nega odstopa v korist ribičev, ki se ukvarjajo z malim ribolovom, kot je ribolov s thonaille, ki je tradicionalna v Sredozemlju, pa tudi življenjskega pomena za prebivalstvo, ki se z njim ukvarja, in je tudi sicer zelo selektivna[?]“
The jurisdiction of the Court
Pristojnost Sodišča
At the outset, it is necessary to determine whether the prud’homie de pêche de Martigues is a court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 234 EC and whether the Court therefore has jurisdiction to rule on the questions referred to it.
Najprej je treba preveriti, ali je prud’homie de pêche de Martigues „sodi�če“ v smislu člena 234 ES in ali je Sodi�če pristojno za odločanje o vpra�anjih, ki so mu bila predložena.
Without formally submitting a plea of lack of jurisdiction, the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities express a number of doubts about the judicial nature of the body making the reference, with regard, in particular, to the conditions for the dismissal of the Members of the Industrial Tribunals for Matters relating to Fishing, to the content of the oath that they must swear before taking up their posts and to the fact that the industrial tribunal is required to exercise some of its duties under the authority of the Commissioner for Maritime Registration.
Svet Evropske unije in Komisija Evropskih skupnosti, ne da bi formalno navajala ugovor nepristojnosti, izražata dvome o tem, ali je predložitveni organ sodi�če, zlasti ob upo�tevanju pogojev za odstavitev članov ribi�kega razsodi�ča, vsebino prisege, ki jo morajo izreči pred nastopom svoje funkcije, in dejstva, da prud’homie opravlja nekatere naloge pod nadzorom komisarja službe za vpis poklicnih mornarjev.
The French Government contends, in contrast, that the prud’homie de pêche de Martigues fulfils all the criteria established by Community caselaw to qualify as a ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ within the meaning of Article 234 EC and, in particular, the condition regarding the independence of the body making a reference.
Francoska vlada nasprotno navaja, da prud’homie de pêche de Martigues izpolnjuje vsa merila, določena v sodni praksi Skupnosti, da se ga lahko označi kot „sodi�če države članice“ v smislu člena 234 ES in zlasti merila glede neodvisnosti predložitvenega organa.
In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, according to settled caselaw, in order to determine whether the body making a reference is a court or tribunal for
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodi�če pri presoji, ali je predložitveni organ „sodi�če“ v smislu člena 234 ES – kar je vpra�anje, ki
As regards, more specifically, the independence of the body making a reference, that condition presumes that the body is protected against external intervention or pressure liable to jeopardise the independent judgment of its members as regards proceedings before them (Case C-506/04 Wilson [2006] ECR I-8613, paragraph 51 and the caselaw cited).
Glede, natančneje, neodvisnosti predložitvenega organa se zahteva, da je instanca zavarovana pred zunanjimi posredovanji ali vplivi, ki lahko ogrozijo neodvisnost sojenja njenih članov glede sporov, ki so jim predloženi (sodba z dne 19. septembra 2000 v zadevi Wilson, C-506/04, Recueil, str. I-8613, točka 51 in navedena sodna praksa).