natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
5 — 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.
5 – Šesta direktiva 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.
The Sixth Directive was also repealed and replaced by Directive 2006/112 but, for the sake of readability, I shall refer to its provisions in the present tense.
Tudi Šesta direktiva je bila razveljavljena in nadome�čena z Direktivo Sveta 2006/112, vendar se bom zaradi berljivosti na njene določbe sklicevala v sedanjiku.
The substance — and to a large extent the wording — of those provisions remains in force in the equivalent provisions of Directive 2006/112.
Vsebina – in v veliki meri besedilo – teh določb ostaja v veljavi v ustreznih določbah Direktive 2006/112.
7 — Articles 295 to 305 of Directive 2006/112, at Article 298.8 — Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 2006/112.9 — Article 14(1) of Directive 2006/112.10 — Articles 62, 63 and 66 of Directive 2006/112.
7 – Členi od 295 do 305 Direktive 2006/112, glej člen 298.8 – Člen 2(1)(a) Direktive 2006/112.9 – Člen 14(1) Direktive 2006/112.10 – Členi 62, 63 in 66 Direktive 2006/112.
6 — Article 175 of Directive 2006/112.
6 – Člen 175 Direktive 2006/112.
KONINKLIJKE AHOLD price exclusive of tax and the relevant tax at each rate as well as any exemptions.
KONINKLIJKE AHOLD po posameznih stopnjah pa tudi kakr�ne koli
16Article 22(5) 17 requires every taxable person
Člen 22(5) zahteva, naj vsak
Article 11A 11lays down the general rule that the taxable amount is, essentially, the whole consideration obtained by the supplier for the supply, whether from the customer or from any other source.
Člen 11(A) 11določa splo�no pravilo, da davčna osnova v bistvu zajema vse, kar predstavlja plačilo, ki ga je dobavitelj prejel za dostavo od prejemnika ali drugega vira.
to pay the net amount of VAT (that is to say, output tax minus input tax) when submitting the regular return. 18
davčni zavezanec plača neto znesek DDV (kar pomeni izstopni davek minus vstopni davek) ob predložitvi rednega obračuna. 18
Article 12(3)(a) requires Member States to fix a standard rate of VAT and authorises reduced rates for certain categories of supply. 12
Člen 12(3)(a) zahteva, naj države članice določijo splo�no stopnjo DDV in dopu�ča znižane stopnje za določene skupine dobav. 12
The Commission also draws attention to certain provisions of Directive 98/6/EC. 19
Komisija opozarja tudi na določbe Direktive 95/6/ES. 19 Še posebej člen 2(a) te direk-
Article 17(1) and (2) 13gives taxable persons the right to deduct from the output tax for which they must account the amount of VAT they have paid on input supplies used for the purposes of their taxable output transactions.
Člen 17(1) in (2) 13daje davčnim zavezancem pravico do odbitka od izstopnega davka, od katerega morajo obračunati znesek DDV, ki ga morajo plačati od vstopnih transakcij, ki se uporabljajo za namene njihovih obdavčenih izstopnih transakcij.
In particular, Article 2(a) of that directive defines ‘selling price’, in retail trade, as the final price for a unit or given quantity of a product, including VAT and all other taxes, and Article 3(1) requires the selling price to be indicated for all products concerned.
tive opredeljuje „prodajno ceno“ na maloprodajnem trgu kot končno ceno za enoto ali dano količino proizvoda, skupaj z DDV in vsemi drugimi dajatvami, člen 3(1) pa zahteva, naj je prodajna cena navedena na vseh zadevnih proizvodih.
Article 22(3)(a) 14requires taxable persons to ensure that an invoice is issued in respect of each taxable supply they make to another taxable person or to a non-taxable legal person (thus, by implication, there is no such requirement for supplies to final consumers who are natural persons 15), and Article 22(3)(b) requires that invoice to include, among other information, the
Člen 22(3)(a) 14od davčnih zavezancev zahteva, naj je račun izdan za vsako obdavčljivo dobavo, ki jo opravijo drugemu davčnemu zavezancu ali pravni osebi, ki ni davčni zavezanec (posledica tega je torej, da ta obveznost ne obstaja za dobave končnim potro�nikom, ki so fizične osebe 15), in člen 22(3)(b) zahteva, da mora račun med drugim vsebovati ceno brez davka in ustrezen davek
16 — That version of Article 22(3)(b) had in fact been superseded at the material time by virtue of Council Direct- ive 2001/115/EC of 20 December 2001 amending Direct- ive 77/388/EEC with a view to simplifying, modernising and harmonising the conditions laid down for invoicing in respect of value added tax (OJ 2002 L 15, p.
16 – Tista različica člena 22(3)(b) je bila v času nastanka dej -stev nadome�čena z Direktivo Sveta 2001/115/ES z dne 20. decembra 2001 o spremembi Direktive 77/388/EGS z namenom poenostavitve, modernizacije in usklajevanja pogojev, določenih za izdajanje računov v zvezi z davkom na dodano vrednost (UL 2002, L 15, str.
24), which set out a more detailed list of requirements.
24), ki je določila podrobnej�i seznam zahtev.
Directive 2001/115 entered into force on 6 February 2002, but the deadline for its implementation by the Member States was 1 January 2004.
Direktiva 2001/115 je začela veljati 6. februarja 2002, države članice pa so jo morale začeti izvajati do 1. januarja 2004. Zdi se, da je prenos na Nizozemskem začel učinkovati na ta dan (zakon z dne 18. decembra 2003, Staatsblad, �t. 530, 29. decembra 2003, str. 1).
The Hoge Raad refers to ‘the 10th indent of Article 22(3)(b) of the Sixth Directive (in the version applicable until 1 January 2004)’ — but it is in fact only the version amended by Directive 2001/115 which contains a 10th indent, requiring the invoice to state the VAT amount payable.
Hoge Raad se sklicuje na „alineo 10 člena 22(3)(b) Šeste direktive (v različici, ki je veljala do 1. januarja 2004)“, vendar alineo 10 vsebuje �ele različica, ki je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 2001/115, ki zahteva, naj račun vsebuje plačljiv znesek DDV.
However, since the relevant point is that a VAT invoice must indicate the amount of VAT on the transaction, the confusion is immaterial.
Ker pa je važno, da račun DDV izkazuje znesek DDV za transakcijo, ta zmeda ni pomembna.
The equivalent provisions are now in Article 226 of Directive 2006/112.
Ustrezne določbe zdaj vsebuje člen 226 Direktive 2006/112.
17 — Article 206 of Directive 2006/112.
17 – Člen 206 Direktive 2006/112.
11 — Article 73 of Directive 2006/112.12 — Articles 96 to 99 of Directive 2006/112.13 — Articles 167 and 168 of Directive 2006/112.
11 – Člen 73 Direktive 2006/112.12 – Členi od 96 do 99 Direktive 2006/112.13 – Člena 167 in 168 Direktive 2006/112.
14 — The applicable text of Article 22 was to be found, at the material time, in Article 28h of the Sixth Directive, as one of the ‘transitional provisions’; the equivalent of Article 22(3)(a) is now in Article 220 of Directive 2006/112.
14 – Veljavno besedilo člena 22 je v času nastanka dejstev vseboval člen 28(h) Šeste direktive kot eno izmed „prehodnih določb“; členu 22(3)(a) zdaj ustreza člen 220 Direktive 2006/112/ES.
18 — Under Article 22(4)(a), the tax period is to be fixed by each Member State at one, two or three months, or any other period not exceeding one year, and the regular return is to be submitted by a deadline, again to be fixed by the Member State, of not more than two months from the end of the tax period (see now Article 252 of Directive 2006/112).
18 – V skladu s členom 22(4)(a) države članice določijo davčno obdobje na en, dva ali tri mesece, ali na drugačno obdobje, ki ne preseže enega leta, poleg tega je treba redni obračun predložiti do roka, ki ga prav tako določijo države članice in ki ni dalj�i od dveh mesecev po preteku davčnega obdobja (glej zdaj člen 252 Direktive 2006/112).
19 — Of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 on consumer protection in the indication of the prices of products offered to consumers (OJ 1998 L 80, p. 27).
19 – Direktiva 98/6/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 16. februarja 1998 o varstvu potro�nikov pri označevanju cen potro�nikom ponujenih proizvodov (UL L 80, str. 27).
Relevant Netherlands legislation the VAT Advisory Committee, 20and that the Commission’s position was that, as the Directive did not contain any provisions on the matter, the Member States could regulate it at national level in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.
Veljavna nizozemska zakonodaja zaokroževanja 20in da je bilo stali�če Komisije, da države članice lahko urejajo to področje na nacionalni ravni v skladu z načelom subsidiarnosti, ker Direktiva ni vsebovala nobene določbe v zvezi s tem.
VAT is governed in the Netherlands by the Wet op de omzetbelasting (Law on turnover tax) 1968 and by the Uitvoeringsbesluit omzetbelasting (Implementing decree on turnover tax) 1968.
DDV na Nizozemskem urejata Wet op de omzetbelasting 1968 (zakon o prometnem davku) in Uitvoeringsbesluit omzetbelasting 1968 (uredba za izvedbo zakona o prometnem davku). Splo�na stopnja DDV je 19 %, nižja stopnja pa 6 %.
The explanatory memorandum also stated that the method prescribed was confined to the requirement of arithmetic rounding to whole cents, but that the tax could be calculated and rounded per supply of goods or per service provided, or the rounding could be applied to the total amount involved in a number of supplies.
V obrazložitvenem memorandumu je bilo prav tako navedeno, da je predpisana metoda zahtevala le računsko zaokroževanje na cele cente, vendar se je davek lahko izračunal in zaokrožil za posamezno dobavo blaga ali opravljeno storitev ali pa se je zaokroževanje opravilo za celoten znesek več dobav.
At the material time in the present case, there was no provision governing rounding of amounts due.
V času nastanka dejstev tega primera ni obstajala določba o zaokroževanju dolgovanih zneskov.
With effect from 1 July 2004 a new Article 5a was added to the Uitvoeringsbesluit omzetbelasting:
Nov člen 5a, ki je začel veljati 1. julija 2004, je bil dodan v Uitvoeringsbesluit omzetbelasting:
Article 38 of the Wet op de omzetbelasting requires traders to offer goods or services at a VAT-inclusive price, except where the customer is a taxable person or a public body.
Člen 38 Wet op de omzetbelasting zahteva od trgovcev, naj ponudijo blago ali storitve po cenah, ki vključujejo DDV, razen kadar je potro�nik davčni zavezanec ali javni organ.
Background and procedure
Pravni okvir in postopek
‘In the calculation of the tax on the basis of the amount charged and the customs value … the amount of the tax liability shall be arithmetically rounded to whole cents.
„Pri izračunu davka na podlagi zaračunanega zneska in carin […] se znesek davčne obveznosti računsko zaokroži na cele cente.
The arithmetic rounding shall be effected in such a way that, in the case of amounts in which the third decimal place is equal to or exceeds 5, the amount is rounded up and, where the third decimal place is less than 5, the amount is rounded down.’
Računsko zaokroževanje se izvede tako, da se v primeru zneskov, pri katerih je �tevka na tretjem decimalnem mestu enaka ali večja od 5, znesek zaokroži navzgor, kadar pa je �tevka na tretjem decimalnem mestu nižja od 5, se znesek zaokroži navzdol.“
Koninklijke Ahold NV (‘Ahold’) operates supermarkets in the Netherlands. As a
Koninklijke Ahold NV (v nadaljevanju: družba Ahold) ima na Nizozemskem super-
20 — A forum set up under Article 29 of the Sixth Directive (Article 398 of Directive 2006/112) in which representatives of the Member States and the Commission discuss issues relating to the implementation of VAT.
20 – Po členu 29 Šeste direktive (člen 398 Direktive 2006/112/ES) se ustanovi svetovalni odbor za davek na dodano vrednost, v katerem predstavniki držav članic in Komisije razpravljajo o vpra�anjih v zvezi z izvajanjem DDV.
The explanatory memorandum concerning that amendment stated that the problem of rounding had been discussed by
V obrazložitvenem memorandumu o tej spremembi je bilo navedeno, da je svetovalni odbor za DDV razpravljal o problemu
period at issue, it should have been liable for EUR 1 414 less than it actually declared and paid.
obdobju za ti trgovini dolgovati 1414 EUR manj, kot je dejansko prijavila in plačala.
Ahold’s challenge to the refusal to reimburse that sum has now reached the Hoge Raad.
Pritožba družbe Ahold zoper zavrnitev povračila tega zneska, je sedaj pred Hoge Raad.
It argues that any method of rounding which leads to an amount of tax due being higher, by however little, than the amount reached by strict application of the appropriate VAT rate is inconsistent with Community law.
Družba trdi, da je vsaka metoda zaokroževanja, ki privede do �e tako neznatnega zneska davka, ki je vi�ji od zneska, do katerega se pride s strogo uporabo ustrezne stopnje DDV, neskladna s pravom Skupnosti.
The Hoge Raad asks for a ruling on the following questions:
Hoge Raad je Sodi�ču Evropskih skupnosti v predhodno odločanje predložilo ti vpra�anji:
In October 2003 it calculated and declared the output VAT in respect of sales in all its supermarkets on the basis of the total amount per till receipt or ‘shopping basket’.
Oktobra 2003 je na podlagi skupne vsote za vsak račun ali „nakupovalno ko�arico“ izračunala in prijavila izstopni DDV za prodaje v vseh svojih supermarketih.
It split the total VAT-inclusive amount shown on each receipt into three subtotals for items (a) at the standard rate, (b) at the reduced rate and (c) on which it did not have to account for VAT, which was prepaid under a special scheme.
Skupen znesek vsakega računa, ki je vključeval DDV, je razdelila na tri vsote (a) za artikle, obdavčene po splo�ni stopnji, (b) za artikle, obdavčene po nižji stopnji, in (c) za artikle, za katere ji ni bilo treba obračunati DDV, ki je bil plačan predhodno po posebnem sistemu.
It multiplied the first two subtotals by 19/119 and 6/106 respectively, to obtain the amount of VAT included in the price.
Prvo vsoto je pomnožila z 19/119, drugo pa s 6/106, da bi izračunala znesek DDV, vključen v ceni.
21Each of those amounts was then rounded arithmetically (up or down) to whole cents.
21 Ta zneska je nato računsko zaokrožila (navzgor ali navzdol) na cele cente.
The totals thus determined were declared as output tax and used to calculate the amount of VAT due (output tax minus input tax).
Tako določene vsote je prijavila kot izstopni davek in jih uporabila pri izračunu zneska dolgovanega DDV (izstopni davek minus vstopni davek).
However, at two supermarkets, it made in addition, for its own purposes, a different calculation on the basis that (a) the amount of VAT should be determined not for each till receipt but for each item sold and (b) any necessary rounding should always be down to the nearest whole cent.
Pri dveh suparmarketih pa je poleg tega za lastne namene opravila drugačen izračun na podlagi tega, da (a) zneska DDV ni treba določiti za vsak račun, temveč za vsak prodan artikel, in da (b) je treba vsako potrebno zaokroževanje vedno izvesti navzdol do najbližjega celega centa.
Ahold thus calculated that, in respect of the two stores and the
Družba Ahold je tako izračunala, da bi morala v zadevnem
21 — It is important to bear in mind that, in the case of retail prices, VAT must be calculated backwards from a determined VAT-inclusive price and not forwards from a notional VAT-exclusive price.
21 – Treba je upo�tevati, da je treba v primeru maloprodajnih cen DDV izračunati nazaj iz določene cene, ki vključuje DDV, in ne naprej, iz umi�ljene cene, ki ne vključuje DDV.
A retail selling price including VAT at 19% comes to 119% of the net price excluding tax.
Maloprodajna cena, ki vključuje DDV po stopnji 19 %, bo zna�ala 119 % neto cene, ki ne vključuje DDV.
The amount of VAT will thus be not 19/100 (19%) but 19/119 of the retail price.
Znesek DDV tako ne bo 19/100 (19 %) maloprodajne cene, temveč 19/119 maloprodajne cene. Enak izračun velja, mutatis mutandis, za katero koli drugo stopnjo DDV.
(2) If the latter is the case, does it follow from the aforementioned Directive provisions that the Member States are required to permit rounding down per article, even if different transactions are included in one invoice and/or one tax return?’
Če velja zadnje, ali iz zgoraj navedenih določb Direktive izhaja, da so države članice zavezane dopustiti zaokroževanje navzdol na artikel, čeprav en račun in/ali en obračun davka zajema različne transakcije?“
That conclusion is supported, moreover, as several Member States have pointed out, by the Treaty provisions on harmonisation of turnover taxes (Article 93 EC) and directives (Article 249 EC, third paragraph).
Pisna stali�ča so predložile družba Ahold, gr�ka, nizozemska in poljska vlada, vlada Združenega kraljestva in Komisija, ki so se vse, razen poljske vlade, udeležile obravnave.
Written observations have been submitted by Ahold, by the Greek, Netherlands, Polish and United Kingdom Governments and by the Commission, all of whom except the Polish Government were represented at the hearing.
Tak sklep potrjujejo tudi določbe Pogodbe o usklajevanju prometnih davkov (člen 93 ES) in o direktivah (člen 249 ES, tretji odstavek), na kar je opozorilo več držav članic.
It is however equally clear that, in an area covered by a harmonising directive, Member States may not adopt measures which run counter to, or are inconsistent with, the rules or principles laid down in that directive, or any higher rules or principles applicable in Community law. 23
Prav tako je jasno, da na področju, na katero se nana�a direktiva o usklajevanju, država članica ne sme sprejeti ukrepov, ki nasprotujejo predpisom ali načelom iz te direktive ali drugim vi�jim predpisom ali načelom, ki veljajo v pravu Skupnosti, ali so z njimi neskladni. 23
First question — governing law
Prvo vprašanje – veljavno pravo
In other words, the issue of rounding is not solely a matter for national or Community law; it falls to be regulated in detail by national law within the limits required by Community law.
Z drugimi besedami, vpra�anje zaokroževanja ni predmet zgolj nacionalnega prava ali prava Skupnosti, pač pa ga podrobneje ureja nacionalno pravo v mejah, ki jih določa pravo Skupnosti.
Second question — rounding down per item
Drugo vprašanje – zaokroževanje navzdol za posamezen artikel
In that light, the second question is essentially whether a national rule which allows traders to round VAT down to the nearest cent on each item sold is required
V luči navedenega je drugo vpra�anje v bistvu v tem, ali pravo Skupnosti o DDV, zlasti Šesta direktiva, zahteva določitev nacional -nega predpisa, ki trgovcem dovoljuje zaokrožiti
It is clear that no provision in any of the Community VAT directives explicitly regulates the rounding of VAT amounts.
Jasno je, da nobena določba v kateri koli skupnostni direktivi o DDV izrecno ne ureja zaokroževanja zneskov DDV.
Although Articles 11A and 22(3)(b), to which the Hoge Raad refers, are relevant to the determination of VAT amounts, they fall far short of the degree of precision which would be required to draw any specific conclusion as to rounding of those amounts.
Čeprav se člena 11(A) in 22(3)(b), na katera se sklicuje Hoge Raad, nana�ata na določanje zneskov DDV, nista dovolj natančna, da bi lahko privedla do kakr�nega koli jasnega zaključka glede zaokroževanja teh zneskov.
That being so, and since the issue of rounding is inescapable, the necessary detailed regulation must be a matter for national law. 22
Glede na to in ker je problematika zaokroževanja neizogibna, mora biti potrebna podrobna zakonodaja določena z nacionalnim pravom. 22
22 — For an analogous example, see Case C-35/05 Reemtsma [2007] ECR I-2425, paragraph 38, and the caselaw cited.
22 – Za analogno primerjavo glej sodbo Sodi�ča (drugi senat) z dne 15. marca 2007 v zadevi Reemtsma Cigarettenf abriken GmbH proti Ministero delle Finanze, C-35/05, ZOdl., str.
23 — A point which has been made many times by the Court in the field of taxation: see, most recently, Case C-443/06 Hollmann [2007] ECR I-8491, paragraph 33, and the caselaw cited there.
23 – To je na področju davkov Sodi�če že večkrat poudarilo: glej najnovej�o sodbo Sodi�ča (četrti senat) z dne 11. oktobra 2007 v zadevi Erika Waltraud Ilse Hollmann proti Fazenda Pública, C-443/06, ZOdl., str. I-8491, točka 33, in tam navedena sodna praksa.
VAT, the exact proportion of the price which flows from the application of that rate.
natančen delež cene, ki je posledica uporabe te stopnje.
Where the rate is 19%, the exact proportion of tax in the retail price is 19/119 of that price.
Če je stopnja 19 %, je natančen delež davka v maloprodajni ceni 19/119 te cene.
That remains an exact proportion, whether it can be expressed as a whole number of cents or not.
To je natančen delež, naj se ga da izraziti s celo �tevilko ali ne.
In my view, such a rule is incompatible with the principles governing VAT, for the reasons given below.
Po mojem mnenju tak predpis ni skladen z načeli o DDV iz spodaj navedenih razlogov.
Although the issue has two facets — rounding down and rounding per item — the two are closely interlocked and I shall consider them together.
Čeprav ima problem dve plati – zaokroževanje navzdol in zaokroževanje za posamezen artikel – sta obe tesno povezani in jih bom obravnavala skupaj.
The second requirement flows both from that article and from the deduction system in Article 17(1) and (2) of the Sixth Directive.
Druga zahteva izhaja iz tega člena in iz sistema odbitkov iz člena 17(1) in (2) Šeste direktive.
VAT must burden only the final consumer and not the various traders and service providers who have contributed to the final product or through whose hands it has passed.
DDV sme obremeniti le končnega potro�nika in ne raznih trgovcev in ponudnikov storitev, ki so prispevali h končnemu proizvodu ali skozi katerih roke je �el.
25 Conversely, those operators must account to the tax authorities for all amounts of VAT paid by the final consumer, and may not retain any such amount for their own profit.
25Nasprotno, izvajalci dejavnosti odgovarjajo davčnim organom za vse zneske DDV, ki jih plača končni potro�nik, in ne smejo zadržati nobenega takega zneska za lastni dobiček.
For the moment, I shall confine my analysis to that context — which, from the point of view of rounding, differs somewhat from supplies to other taxable persons and supplies at net prices to which VAT is added. 24
Zaenkrat bom analizo omejila na ta kontekst, ki se z vidika zaokroževanja nekoliko razlikuje od dobav drugim davčnim zavezancem in dobav po neto cenah, ki se jim doda DDV. 24
Two requirements seem to me to be of paramount importance: that VAT must be exactly proportional to price and that it should be neutral vis-à-vis traders.
Zdi se mi, da imata dve zahtevi odločilni pomen: DDV mora biti povsem sorazmeren ceni in mora biti nevtralen za trgovce.
For a final consumer, who bears the burden of VAT but neither pays it separately nor deducts it at a later stage, it is unnecessary to fix the amount of tax included in a retail price as a whole number of cents.
Končnemu potro�niku, ki nosi breme DDV, a ga ne plača posebej niti ga ne odbije v poznej�i fazi, ni treba določiti zneska davka, ki je vključen v maloprodajni ceni, v obliki celih centov.
He may legitimately wish to be informed of the amount as well as the percentage, but for that purpose an approximate indication to the nearest cent is sufficient.
Upravičeno lahko zahteva, naj ga obvestijo o znesku in odstotku, a za ta namen zadostuje približek do najbližjega centa.
Such an indication on a till receipt, rather than on a VAT invoice issued in accordance with Article 22(3) of the Sixth Directive, need not bind the retailer or the tax authority in any regard.
Za razliko od računa DDV, izdanega v skladu s členom 22(3) Šeste direktive, ni treba, da ta približek na računu kakor koli zavezuje trgovca na drobno ali davčne organe.
24 — For a consideration of the latter situations, see point 55 et seq. below.
24 – Za razumevanje teh primerov glej točko 55 in naslednje spodaj.