natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
When Member States establish or accept a particular method of rounding, they are obliged to observe the principles governing the common system of VAT, such as those of fiscal neutrality and proportionality.
Ko države članice določajo, ali sprejemajo natančno metodo zaokroževanja, morajo spo�tovati načela skupnega sistema DDV, kot sta načeli davčne nevtralnosti in sorazmernosti.
It does not, however, follow from observance of those recognised principles of the Community legal system that the question as to which specific method of rounding should be used is itself within the scope of Community law.
Spo�tovanje teh načel, ki jih pravni red Skupnosti priznava, kljub temu ne pomeni, da vpra�anje posebne metode zaokroževanja, ki jo je treba uporabiti, spada na področje prava Skupnosti.
Having regard to all of the foregoing, the answer to be given to the first question is that, in the absence of specific Community legislation, it is for Member States to decide on the rules and methods of rounding amounts of VAT, those States being bound, when making that decision, to observe the principles underpinning the common system of VAT, in particular those of fiscal neutrality and proportionality.
Glede na navedene ugotovitve je na prvo vpra�anje treba odgovoriti tako, da ker na tem področju ni zakonodaje Skupnosti, morajo države članice določiti pravila in metode zaokroževanja zneskov DDV, pri tem pa morajo te države spo�tovati načela, na katerih temelji skupni sistem tega davka, zlasti načeli davčne nevtralnosti in sorazmernosti.
By its second question, the referring court seeks to know whether the directives entail a specific obligation that Member States must permit taxable persons to round down per item the amount of VAT.
Predložitveno sodi�če z drugim vpra�anjem spra�uje, ali direktivi vsebujeta posebno obveznost, v skladu s katero so države članice zavezane dopustiti, da davčni zavezanci znesek DDV zaokrožujejo navzdol na artikel.
In the light of the answer given to the first question, the Court must, in order to give a useful answer to the referring court in relation to the second question, determine whether Community law, as it emerges from the principles underpinning the common system of VAT, in particular the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality, obliges a Member State to permit taxable persons to round down per item the amount of VAT payable to the tax authority.
Glede na odgovor na prvo vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje v tej sodbi je treba zato, da bi bilo predložitvenemu sodi�ču mogoče dati koristen odgovor na njegovo drugo vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, preveriti, ali pravo Skupnosti, kot izhaja iz načel, na katerih temelji skupni sistem DDV, zlasti načel davčne nevtralnosti in sorazmernosti, državo članico zavezuje, da davčnim zavezancem dopusti, da znesek DDV, ki ga morajo plačati davčni upravi, zaokrožijo navzdol na artikel.
Such an obligation presupposes that there is only one method of rounding, namely that involving rounding down per item the amount of the tax, which is capable of satisfying such requirements.
Taka obveznost predpostavlja, da bi zgolj ena metoda zaokroževanja, in sicer metoda, v skladu s katero se znesek davka zaokroži navzdol na artikel, lahko izpolnila take zahteve.
One of the consequences of the principle of fiscal neutrality, which is the reflection in the field of VAT of the principle of equal treatment, is that taxable persons must not be treated differently, with regard to the method of rounding applied when VAT is calculated, in respect of similar services which are in competition with each other (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C-443/04 and C-444/04 Solleveld and van den Houtvan Eijnsbergen [2006] ECR I-3617, paragraph 35 and caselaw there cited).
Načelo davčne nevtralnosti, ki je izraz načela enakega obravnavanja na področju DDV, ima za posledico zlasti to, da davčni zavezanci ne smejo biti obravnavani različno v zvezi z metodo zaokroževanja, ki se uporablja pri izračunavanju DDV, glede podobnih konkurenčnih storitev (v tem smislu 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 in navedena sodna praksa).
By virtue of the same principle, the amount of VAT to be collected by the tax authority must correspond exactly to the amount of VAT declared on the invoice and paid by the final consumer to the taxable person (see, to that effect, Case C-317/94 Elida Gibbs [1996] ECR I-5339, paragraph 24).
Na podlagi tega načela mora znesek, ki ga prejme davčna uprava iz naslova DDV, natančno ustrezati znesku iz naslova DDV na računu, ki ga končni potro�nik plača davčnemu zavezancu (v tem smislu glej sodbo z dne 24. oktobra 1996 v zadevi Elida Gibbs, C-317/94, Recueil, str. I-5339, točka 24).
Accordingly, that principle does not entail any requirement that a particular method of rounding be applied, in so far as the method chosen by the Member State concerned ensures that the amount of VAT to be collected by the tax authority corresponds exactly to the amount of VAT declared on the invoice and paid by the final consumer to the taxable person.
Navedeno načelo tako ne vsebuje nobene zahteve glede uporabe posebne metode zaokroževanja, če metoda, ki jo je sprejela zadevna država članica, zagotavlja, da znesek, ki ga prejme davčna uprava iz naslova DDV, natančno ustreza znesku iz naslova DDV na računu, ki ga končni potro�nik plača davčnemu zavezancu.
As regards the principle of proportionality, it is clear from the first paragraph of Article 2 of the First Directive that VAT is a general tax on consumption exactly proportional to the price of goods and services (see, in particular, Banca Popolare di Cremona, paragraph 21, and Joined Cases C-283/06 and C-312/06 KÖGÁZ and Others [2007] ECR I-8463, paragraph 29).
Glede načela sorazmernosti iz člena 2, prvi odstavek, Prve direktive izhaja, da je DDV splo�ni davek na potro�njo blaga in storitev, ki je povsem sorazmeren s ceno blaga in storitev (glej zlasti zgoraj navedeno sodbo Banca Popolare di Cremona, točka 21, in sodbo z dne 11. oktobra 2007 v združenih zadevah KÖGÁZ in drugi, C-283/06 in C-312/06, ZOdl., str. I-8463, točka 29).
While observance of that principle requires, when rounding is necessary, it to be carried out in such a way that the rounded amount corresponds as closely as possible with the amount of VAT arising from application of the rates in force, the fact remains that such an operation, of its nature, is intended to facilitate calculation and must, therefore, reconcile the requirement of, so far as possible, exact proportion with the practical necessity that the common system of VAT based on the principle of a return from the taxable person should operate effectively.
Če spo�tovanje tega načela zahteva, ko mora biti zaokroževanje tako, da zaokroženi znesek čim bolj ustreza znesku DDV, ki izhaja iz uporabe veljavne stopnje, je prav tako res, da je namen take transakcije, glede na njeno naravo, olaj�ati izračun in mora zato čim natančneje uskladiti zahtevo po čim natančnej�i sorazmernosti s praktičnimi potrebami učinkovite uporabe skupnega sistema DDV, ki temelji na načelu prijave davčnega zavezanca.
In any event, it is unnecessary for the Court to rule on whether the rounding down per item method is capable of satisfying the requirements of the principle of proportionality within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 2 of the First Directive, since it is clear from, inter alia, the illustrative calculations provided in the observations submitted to the Court and outlined by the Advocate General in point 47 of her Opinion, that there are methods of calculation which can satisfy those requirements.
V vsakem primeru, ne da bi se Sodi�če moralo izreči o vpra�anju, ali metoda zaokroževanja navzdol na artikel izpolnjuje zahteve načela sorazmernosti v smislu člena 2, prvi odstavek, Prve direktive, zlasti iz primerov izračuna, ki so bili predstavljeni v stali�čih, ki so bila predložena Sodi�ču, in ki jih je povzela generalna pravobranilka v točki 47 sklepnih predlogov, izhaja, da obstajajo načini izračuna, ki lahko izpolnjujejo navedene zahteve.
Consequently, because of the technical nature of rounding, it is also the case that the principle of proportionality does not contain requirements from which it can be inferred that only one method of rounding, namely that involving rounding down per item the amount of VAT, is able to satisfy the principle of proportionality.
Zato zaradi tehnične narave vpra�anja zaokroževanja tudi načelo sorazmernosti ne vsebuje zahtev, ki bi omogočale sklep, da bi zgolj ena metoda zaokroževanja, in sicer metoda zaokroževanja zneska DDV navzdol na artikel, spo�tovala načelo sorazmernosti.
It follows from the foregoing that Community law, in particular the provisions of the First and Sixth Directives and the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality, contains no specific obligation for Member States to permit taxable persons to round down per item the amount of VAT.
Iz navedenega izhaja, da pravo Skupnosti, zlasti določbe Prve in Šeste direktive ter načeli davčne nevtralnosti in sorazmernosti, ne vsebuje nobene posebne obveznosti za države članice, da davčnim zavezancem dopustijo, da znesek DDV zaokrožijo navzdol na artikel.
Consequently, the answer to the second question must be that Community law, as it now stands, entails no specific obligation for Member States to permit taxable persons to round down per item the amount of VAT.
Zato je na drugo vpra�anje treba odgovoriti, da veljavno pravo Skupnosti ne določa nobene posebne obveznosti, v skladu s katero bi države članice morale davčnim zavezancem dopustiti, da znesek DDV zaokrožijo navzdol na artikel.
Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that
Ker je ta postopek za stranki v postopku v glavni stvari ena od stopenj v postopku pred predložitvenim sodi�čem, to odloči o stro�kih.
2008 — CASE C-484/06 court.
2008 – ZADEVA C-484/06
In the absence of specific Community legislation, it is for Member States to decide on the rules and methods of rounding amounts of the value added tax, but those States must, when making that decision, observe the principles underpinning the common system of that tax, in particular the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality.
Ker na tem področju ni zakonodaje Skupnosti, morajo države članice določiti pravila in metode zaokroževanja zneskov davka na dodano vrednost, pri tem pa morajo te države spoštovati načela, na katerih temelji skupni sistem tega davka, zlasti načeli davčne nevtralnosti in sorazmernosti.
Community law, as it now stands, entails no specific obligation for Member States to permit taxable persons to round down per item the amount of the value added tax.
Veljavno pravo Skupnosti ne določa nobene posebne obveznosti, v skladu s katero bi države članice morale davčnim zavezancem dopustiti, da znesek DDV zaokrožijo navzdol na artikel.
Case C-25/07
Zadeva C-25/07
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu)
(VAT — Directives 67/227/EEC and 77/388/EEC — National legislation determining conditions for repayment of excess VAT — Principles of tax neutrality and proportionality — Special derogating measures)
„DDV – Direktivi 67/227/EGS in 77/388/EGS – Nacionalna zakonodaja, ki določa podrobna pravila za vračilo preveč plačanega DDV – Načeli davčne nevtralnosti in sorazmernosti – Posebni ukrepi za odstopanje“
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 10 July 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mazáka, predstavljeni 26. februarja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SUMMARY — CASE C-25/07 as new taxable persons, namely those who commenced their activities within less than 12 months is, on the one hand, six times longer than the one month tax accounting period and, on the other hand, three times longer than the period applied to other taxable persons, without any explanation why it is necessary, in order to prevent tax evasion and avoidance, to establish a difference in treatment of such a scale.
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-25/07 zavezance, ki dejavnost opravljajo manj kot dvanajst mesecev, je namreč �estkrat dalj�i od enomesečnega roka za napoved davka in trikrat dalj�i od roka, ki velja za druge davčne zavezance, ne da bi bila pri tem dokazana nujnost tako različnega obravnavanja zaradi preprečevanja davčnih utaj ali davčnega izogibanja.
Article 18(4) of Sixth VAT Directive 77/338 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, and the principle of proportionality preclude national legislation which, in order to allow the investigations required to prevent tax evasion and avoidance, extends from 60 to 180 days, as from the date of submission of the taxable person’s value added tax return, the period available to the national tax office for repayment of excess value added tax to a category of taxable persons unless those persons lodge a security deposit of a high set amount.
Člen 18(4) Šeste direktive 77/388 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih in načelo sorazmernosti nasprotujeta nacionalni ureditvi, ki zaradi omogočanja nadzora, nujnega za preprečevanje davčnih utaj in izogibanja davkom, določa, da lahko nacionalni davčni urad določeni skupini davčnih zavezancev vrne preveč plačani davek na dodano vrednost v roku od 60 do 180 dni, �teto od dneva, ko je davčni zavezanec vložil napoved davka na dodano vrednost, razen če so ti položili var�čino v določenem visokem znesku.
National legislation determining conditions for repayment of excess value added tax which are more onerous for one category of taxable persons because of a presumed risk of evasion, without making any provision for the taxable person to demonstrate the absence of tax evasion or avoidance in order to take advantage of less restrictive conditions, is not a means proportionate to the objective of combating tax evasion and avoidance and has a disproportionate effect on the objectives and principles of the Sixth Directive.
Iz sodne prakse izhaja, da nacionalna zakonodaja, ki določa podrobna pravila za vračilo preveč plačanega davka na dodano vrednost, ki so zaradi domnevne verjetnosti davčnih utaj strožja za eno skupino davčnih zavezancev, pri čemer pa davčni zavezanec nima možnosti dokazati neobstoja davčne utaje ali davčnega izogibanja, da bi bil upravičen do manj strogih pogojev, ni ukrep, ki je sorazmeren s ciljem boja proti davčnim utajam in davčnemu izogibanju, in prekomerno posega v cilje in načela Šeste direktive.
The possibility offered to new taxable persons to lodge a security deposit in order to take advantage of the normal period of 60 days cannot affect those considerations, given that the security deposit is not proportionate either to the amount of the excess tax to be repaid or to the economic size of the taxable person.
Možnost, ki jo imajo novi davčni zavezanci, da lahko položijo var�čino, da bi bili upravičeni do običajnega 60-dnevnega roka, ne vpliva na te ugotovitve, če navedena var�čina ni sorazmerna s preveč plačanim davkom, ki ga je treba vrniti, niti z ekonomsko velikostjo davčnega zavezanca.
In particular, the lodging of such a security deposit is likely to entail a not inconsiderable financial risk for undertakings which have just commenced their activities and may, consequently, lack significant resources.
Natančneje lahko položitev take var�čine povzroči opazno finančno tveganje za podjetja, ki začnejo opravljati dejavnost, in zato morda ne razpolagajo z večjimi sredstvi.
In reality, the effect of the obligation to put in place such a security deposit, in order to be able to take advantage of the period which ordinarily applies, is only to replace the financial burden associated with the fact that the amount of the excess tax is tied up for a period of 180 days with the burden consequent on the amount of the security deposit being tied up.
Dejansko je posledica obveznosti položitve navedene var�čine zaradi možnosti uveljavitve običajnega roka le zamenjava finančnega bremena, ki ga predstavlja zadržanje zneska preveč plačanega davka za 180 dni, z bremenom, ki ga predstavlja zadržanje zneska var�čine.
Similarly, such provisions do not appear to be in conformity with the condition that repayment of the excess tax must be made within a reasonable time.
Poleg tega se zdi, da se s tako ureditvijo ne izpolnjuje pogoja, v skladu s katerim se mora vračilo preveč plačanega davka izvesti v razumnem roku.
The period for repayment of 180 days laid down for those categorised
Rok 180 dni za vračilo, ki velja za nove davčne zavezance, to je davčne
(see paras 24, 26, 27, 29-33, operative part 1)
(Glej točke 24, 26, 27, od 29 do 33 in točko 1 izreka.)
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERALMAZÁK delivered on 26 February 2008 1
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNEGA PRAVOBRANILCAJÀNA MAZÀKA, predstavljeni 26. februarja 2008 1
The present reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Regional Administrative Court, Wroclaw) (Poland) seeks an interpretation of the third paragraph of Article 5 EC, in conjunction with Article 2 of the First VAT Directive 2as well as with Articles 18(4) and 27(1) of the Sixth VAT Directive. 3
S tem predlogom za sprejetje predhodne odločbe Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (upravno sodi�če, Wroclaw) (Poljska) prosi za razlago tretjega odstavka člena 5 ES v povezavi s členom 2 Prve direktive o DDV 2ter členi 18(4) in 27(1) Šeste direktive o DDV. 3
The third paragraph of Article 5 EC provides that ‘[a]ny action by the Community shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of this Treaty’.
Tretji odstavek člena 5 ES določa, da: „[n]oben ukrep Skupnosti ne sme prekoračiti okvirov, ki so potrebni za doseganje ciljev te pogodbe“.
Article 2 of the First Directive states as follows:
Člen 2 Prve direktive določa:
In particular, the referring court harbours doubts as to whether provisions of Polish law laying down a period for repayment of an excess of input tax over that due (‘excess VAT’) to the bank account of EU VAT payers 4during the first 12 months of their registration and the conditions governing the shortening of that period are compatible with Community law.
Predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu dvomi, ali je poljska zakonodaja, ki določa obdobje za vračilo preveč plačanega vstopnega davka (v nadaljevanju: preveč plačani DDV) na bančni račun zavezancev za DDV na ravni EU 4v prvih dvanajstih mesecih po njihovi registraciji in pogoje za skraj�anje tega obdobja, združljiva s pravom Skupnosti.
‘The principle of the common system of [VAT] involves the application to goods and services of a general tax on consumption exactly proportional to the price of the goods and services, whatever the number of transactions which take place in the production and distribution process before the stage at which tax is charged.
„Načelo skupnega sistema [DDV] zajema uporabo splo�nega davka na potro�njo blaga in storitev, ki je povsem sorazmeren s ceno blaga in storitev, ne glede na �tevilo transakcij, ki so se v proizvodnem ali distribucijskem procesu opravile pred fazo, v kateri se davek obračuna.
2 — First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes (OJ, English Special Edition 1967(I), p.
2 – Prva direktiva Sveta 67/227/EGS z dne 11. aprila 1967 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih (UL 71, str.
14) (‘the First Directive’).
1301) (v nadaljevanju: Prva direktiva).
3 — 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.
3 – Šesta direktiva Sveta z dne 17. maja 1977 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih – Skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost: enotna osnova za odmero (UL L 145, str.
1) (‘the Sixth Directive’).
1) (v nadaljevanju: Šesta direktiva).
4 — That is to say, taxable persons who have notified their tax office that they intend to make their first intraCommunity supply of goods or services or their first intraCommunity acquisition.
4 – To so tisti davčni zavezanci, ki so svoj davčni urad obvestili, da nameravajo opraviti svojo prvo dobavo blaga ali storitev znotraj Skupnosti ali svojo prvo pridobitev znotraj Skupnosti.
See further below for the provisions of the Polish legislation governing the requirement to register in such circumstances.
Glede določb poljske zakonodaje, ki urejajo zahtevo po registraciji v takih primerih, glej spodaj.
On each transaction, [VAT], calculated on the price of the goods or services at the rate applicable to such goods or services, shall be chargeable after deduction of the amount
Pri vsaki transakciji se [DDV], izračunan na ceno blaga ali storitev po stopnji, ki je predpisana za to blago ali storitve, obračuna po
B — National law of [VAT] borne directly by the various cost components.
B – Nacionalno pravo odbitku zneska [DDV], ki je neposredno vključen v razne stro�kovne komponente.
Article 18(4) of the Sixth Directive provides as follows:
Člen 18(4) Šeste direktive določa:
Where the amount of deductible input tax … exceeds the output tax during a given tax period, taxable persons shall enjoy the right to a reduction of the output tax due for the following periods by the said difference or to a refund of such a difference into his bank account.
Če znesek odbitnega vstopnega davka […] presega izstopni davek, ima davčni zavezanec pravico do zmanj�anja izstopnega davka, dolgovanega v naslednjih obdobjih, za navedeno razliko ali pravico do vračila take razlike na njegov bančni račun.
‘Where for a given tax period the amount of authorised deductions exceeds the amount of tax due, the Member States may either make a refund or carry the excess forward to the following period according to conditions which they shall determine.
„Če za dano davčno obdobje znesek dovoljenih odbitkov presega znesek dolgovanega davka, lahko države članice vrnejo davek ali pa presežek prenesejo v naslednje obdobje v skladu s pogoji, ki jih določijo.
Finally, under the terms of Article 27(1) of the Sixth Directive:
Nazadnje, člen 27(1) Šeste direktive določa:
Where further investigation is required into whether or not the refund should be granted, the tax office may extend that period until the necessary investigations have been carried out.
Če je treba nadalje preveriti, ali je vračilo treba odobriti, lahko davčni urad to obdobje podalj�a, dokler se ne opravijo potrebne poizvedbe.
Where such investigations establish that the refund referred to in the preceding sentence is justified, the tax office shall pay to the taxable person the amount due, together with interest in an amount equivalent to the interest that would have been payable by the taxable person in the event of deferred payment being allowed or where payment is permitted to be made in instalments.
Če se na podlagi teh poizvedb ugotovi, da je v prej�njem stavku navedeno vračilo upravičeno, davčni urad plača davčnemu zavezancu dolgovani znesek, skupaj z obrestmi v znesku, ki je enakovreden obrestim, ki bi jih davčni zavezanec moral plačati, če bi mu bil dovoljen odlog plačila ali če se plačilo lahko izvr�i po obrokih.
SOSNOWSKA referred to in Article 15 who are under a duty to register as active VAT payers shall be obliged to notify the head of a tax authority their intention to carry out such activities, by filing the application for registration referred to in Article 96.
SOSNOWSKA mora pred prvo dobavo ali pridobitvijo znotraj Skupnosti o tem obvestiti vodjo davčnega organa tako, da vloži prijavo za registracijo iz člena 96.