natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, since the High Court has not referred this question to the Court of Justice and it is for national courts to review whether those conditions are met, 6it is not appropriate to examine this issue any further.
Vendar pa glede na to, da sodi�če a quo Sodi�ču tega vpra�anja ni predložilo in da je dolžnost nacionalnega sodi�ča preveriti, ali sta izpolnjena navedena pogoja 6, ni primerno, da bi se to vpra�anje �e obravnavalo.
Interpretation of the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive
Razlaga člena 4(5), drugi pododstavek, Šeste direktive
As previously noted, the Court is called upon by the central question raised in the present case to rule on the approach that should be adopted in determining whether there is significant distortion of competition as referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive, which derogates from the rule laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) that bodies governed by public law are not taxable persons when acting as public authorities.
Kot je bilo navedeno zgoraj, je bilo Sodi�če z osrednjim vpra�anjem, postav -ljenim v tej zadevi, pozvano, naj se izreče o pristopu, ki ga je treba izbrati za določitev, ali obstaja znatno izkrivljanje konkurence iz člena 4(5), drugi pododstavek, Šeste direktive v primeru, v katerem je predvideno odstopanje od pravila, določenega v prvem pododstavku tega člena, da so osebe javnega prava, ko nastopajo kot organi oblasti, obravnavane, kot da niso zavezanci za DDV.
The various subparagraphs of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive are consequently closely linked.
Različni pododstavki člena 4(5) Šeste direktive so torej tesno povezani.
In order for the second subparagraph to apply, it is necessary to fall within the field of application of the first subparagraph.
Tako uporaba drugega pododstavka te določbe predpostavlja, da gre za področje uporabe, na katero se nana�a prvi pododstavek.
The Court has interpreted the first subparagraph as laying down two cumulative conditions for treatment as a nontaxable person.
Sodi�če je to določbo razlagalo tako, da sta z njo določena dva kumulativna pogoja za obravnavo, kot da osebe javnega prava niso davčni zavezanci.
First, the activities must be carried out by a body governed by public law and, second, they must be carried out by that body acting as a public authority.
Treba je, prvič, da te dejavnosti opravlja javni organ in, drugič, da ta organ te dejavnosti opravlja kot organ oblasti.
The Court has then specified that the activities covered are the activities engaged in by those bodies under the special legal regime applicable to them and do not include activities pursued by them under the same legal conditions as those that apply to private economic operators. 5
Sodi�če je nato obrazložilo, da gre pri teh dejavnostih za dejavnosti, ki jih ti organi opravljajo v okviru posebne pravne ureditve, ki velja zanje, pri čemer mednje ne spadajo dejavnosti, ki jih opravljajo pod enakimi pravnimi pogoji kot zasebni gospodarski subjekti 5.
5 — Fazenda Pública, paragraphs 16 and 17.
5 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Fazenda Pública (točki 16 in 17).
Since Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive, whichever the subparagraph at issue, concerns the same bodies acting as public authorities, the justification for the various paragraphs’ different tax treatment of the activities concerned can only be founded on the difference in nature of those various activities.
Glede na to, da se člen 4(5) Šeste direktive, ne glede na pododstavek, za katerega gre, nana�a na iste organe, ki nastopajo kot organi oblasti, je različno davčno obravnavanje zadevnih dejavnosti, ki izhaja iz različnih pododstavkov, lahko upravičeno le na podlagi različnosti njihove narave.
This view is confirmed by the Court which has stated that the reintroduction of liability for tax that is provided for in the third subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive is intended to ensure that ‘certain categories of economic activity the importance of which derives from their subjectmatter are not [exempted from] VAT’. 7
Sodi�če je to stali�če potrdilo in navedlo, da je ponovna uvedba obdavčenja, predvidena v tretjem pododstavku člena 4(5) Šeste direktive, namenjena za to, da se zagotovi, da „se določenih vrst gospodarskih dejavnosti, ki so pomembne zaradi svojega predmeta, ne izvzame od plačila DDV“ 7.
The parties are divided on this point.
Glede tega vpra�anja so mnenja strank različna.
While the respondents in the main proceedings and the Italian Government argue in favour of a competition-based approach, involving specific prior analysis of the relevant market in order to determine whether the transaction in question must be subject to VAT, the appellant in the main proceedings expresses its preference for a fiscal approach based on the activity concerned.
Tožene stranke v postopku v glavni stvari tako kot italijanska vlada zagovarjajo konkurenčni pristop, ki za določitev, ali mora biti zadevna transakcija predmet DDV, predpostavlja konkretno predhodno analizo upo�tevnega trga, tožeče stranke v postopku v glavni stvari pa so bolj naklonjene davčnemu pristopu, ki bi temeljil na zadevni dejavnosti.
The United Kingdom dwells in addition on the difficulties involved in applying competition tests in tax matters.
Združeno kraljestvo poleg tega opozarja na težave pri uporabi konkurenčnih meril v davčnih zadevah.
Ireland seeks to reconcile these positions, submitting that it is for the Member States in the exercise of their discretion to choose between these options.
Irska posku�a ta stali�ča združiti in meni, da gre pri izbiri teh možnosti za diskrecijsko odločitev držav članic.
The rationale for the derogation, provided for in Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive, from the rule that economic activities are subject to tax is founded on the weak presumption that activities engaged in by public bodies as public authorities are activities of an essentially regulatory nature that are linked to the exercise of rights and powers of public authority.
Razlog za odstopanje od obdavčenja ekonomskih dejavnosti z DDV, predvideno v členu 4(5) Šeste direktive, temelji namreč na �ibki domnevi, da so dejavnosti, ki jih javni organi opravljajo kot organi oblasti, v glavnem regulativne dejavnosti, ki so povezane z izvr�evanjem pooblastil javnega organa.
In those circumstances, the fact that the activities are not subject to VAT does not potentially have an anticompetitive effect vis-à-vis activities engaged in by the private sector, inasmuch as they are generally undertaken exclusively, or almost exclusively, by the public sector.
V teh okoli�činah to, da so te dejavnosti opro�čene plačila DDV, nima potencialno protikonkurenčnega učinka glede na dejavnosti, ki jih opravlja zasebni sektor, saj te dejavnosti običajno izključno ali skoraj izključno opravlja javni sektor.
Fiscal neutrality is thus observed.
Davčna nevtralnost je tako spo�tovana.
As will be shown below, the fiscal approach must prevail.
Kot bo prikazano v nadaljevanju, mora prevladati davčni pristop.
The tax system laid down by the Sixth Directive has the aim of making all economic activities subject to VAT.
Namen davčne ureditve iz Šeste direktive je, da so vse ekonomske dejavnosti obdavčene z DDV.
Thus, Article 2 of the Sixth Directive states that the supply of goods or services effected for consideration within the territory of the country by a taxable person acting as such and the importation of goods are to be subject to VAT.
Tako člen 2 Šeste direktive določa, da je predmet DDV dobava blaga ali storitev, ki jo davčni zavezanec, ki deluje kot tak, opravi na ozemlju države za plačilo, in uvoz blaga.
It is only by way of derogation from this general rule that certain activities are removed from the scope of VAT.
Nekatere dejavnosti so sicer izključene s področja uporabe DDV, vendar gre pri tem le za odstopanje od tega splo�nega pravila.
In this regard, the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive provides that activities engaged in by a public body acting as a public authority are not subject to tax.
S tega vidika člen 4(5), prvi pododstavek, Šeste direktive določa, da so dejavnosti, ki jih javni organ opravlja kot organ oblasti, opro�čene plačila DDV.
On the other hand, even if the conditions for this derogation from liability for tax are met, the Community legislature has considered it necessary, in the third subparagraph of Article 4(5), to retain liability for tax in
Vendar pa je zakonodajalec Skupnosti menil, da čeprav bi bili pogoji za odstopanje od obdavčenosti izpolnjeni, je treba v tretjem pododstavku tega člena določiti, da so nekatere od teh dejavnosti kljub
7 — Carpaneto I, paragraph 26 (emphasis added).
7 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Carpaneto I (točka 26).
ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL AND OTHERS services; passenger transport; the supply of new goods manufactured for sale; the transactions of agricultural intervention agencies in respect of agricultural products carried out pursuant to regulations on the common organisation of the market in these products; the running of trade fairs and exhibitions; warehousing; the activities of commercial publicity bodies; the activities of travel agencies; the running of staff shops, cooperatives and industrial canteens and similar institutions; and transactions other than those specified in Article 13A(1)(q) of the Sixth Directive of radio and television bodies.
ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL IN DRUGI energije in toplote; prevoz blaga; pristani�ke in letali�ke storitve; prevoz potnikov; dobavo novega blaga, izdelanega za prodajo; transakcije kmetijskih intervencijskih agencij v zvezi s kmetijskimi proizvodi, ki se oprav -ljajo v skladu s predpisi o skupni ureditvi trga s temi proizvodi; prirejanje sejmov in razstav; skladi�čenje; dejavnosti komercialnih ogla�evalcev; dejavnosti potovalnih agencij; vodenje prodajaln za zaposlene, zadružnih in industrijskih živilskih obratov in podobnih ustanov ter dejavnosti radijskih in televizijskih ustanov, ki niso navedene v členu 13A(1)(q) Šeste direktive.
It is clear upon reading that subparagraph that these activities are subject to tax regardless of whether there is actual or potential competition at the level of certain local markets upon which the activities may equally be engaged in by public bodies under a special regime applicable to them.
Iz tega pododstavka jasno izhaja, da obdavčenje ni odvisno od obstoja dejanske ali potencialne konkurence na ravni določenih lokalnih trgov, na katerih lahko navedene dejavnosti opravljajo tudi javni organi v okviru posebne pravne ureditve, ki velja zanje.
Solely the nature of the activity concerned matters.
Pomembna je le narava zadevne dejavnosti.
However, that presumption remains a weak one.
Vendar pa je ta domneva �ibka.
Inasmuch as the definition of public bodies acting as public authorities, while founded on Community criteria, nevertheless depends on the internal organisation of each Member State, the probability that certain of these activities engaged in by these public bodies are also entrusted to the private sector remains strong.
Glede na to, da je opredelitev javnih organov, ki nastopajo kot organi oblasti, čeprav temelji na merilih Skupnosti, vendarle odvisna od notranje organizacije vsake države članice, je velika verjetnost, da bodo te dejavnosti, ki jih opravljajo navedeni javni organi, zaupane tudi zasebnemu sektorju.
Activities of an essentially economic nature can indeed fall within the conditions of the derogation provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive where national law makes the public body act under a ‘special legal regime applicable to it’, the specific nature of such a regime entailing, in accordance with the Court’s caselaw, that the activity is classified as one engaged in by the body as a public authority.
Dejavnosti, ki so v glavnem ekonomske, lahko namreč izpolnjujejo pogoje za odstopanje, predvideno v prvem pododstavku člena 4(5) Šeste direktive, če je v nacionalnem pravu za javni organ predvidena „posebna pravna ureditev“, saj je v skladu s sodno prakso Sodi�ča zaradi posebnosti te ureditve dejavnost, ki jo opravlja tak javni organ, opredeljena kot dejavnost, ki jo opravlja kot organ oblasti.
Not making such, essentially economic, activities subject to tax may become a source of distortion of competition inasmuch as they are or may be generally engaged in, in parallel or even principally, by the private sector.
To, da so take dejavnosti, ki so pretežno ekonomske, opro�čene plačila DDV, lahko povzroči izkriv -ljanje konkurence, saj te dejavnosti običajno paralelno ali v glavnem opravlja ali bi jih lahko opravljal zasebni sektor.
The effect of not taxing them would thus be to divert the VAT system which rests above all on the principle of fiscal neutrality.
Neobdavčenje bi torej povzročilo izkrivitev sistema DDV, ki temelji predvsem na davčni nevtralnosti.
It is principally this situation that the Community legislature sought to avoid by providing in the third subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive that certain activities specifically listed in Annex D to that directive are subject to tax.
Zlasti temu pa se je hotel izogniti zakonodajalec Skupnosti, s tem, ko je v tretjem pododstavku člena 4(5) Šeste direktive predvidel obdavčenje nekaterih dejavnosti, ki so natančno navedene v Prilogi D k tej direktivi.
Those activities correspond to: telecommunications; the supply of water, gas, electricity and steam; the transport of goods; port and airport
Pri navedenih dejavnostih gre za telekomunikacije; dobavo vode, plina, električne
Consequently, the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive which, like the third subparagraph, lays down a derogation from the rule of freedom from VAT, must be interpreted as sharing the same logic as the third subparagraph, namely re-establishment of the principle that activities of an economic nature are subject to VAT.
Zato je treba drugi pododstavek člena 4(5) Šeste direktive, ki tako kot tretji pododstavek tega člena določa odstopanje od oprostitve, razlagati tako, da izhaja iz iste logike kot tretji pododstavek, namreč iz ponovne vzpostavitve načela obdavčenja ekonomskih dejavnosti z DDV.
Therefore, the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive must be interpreted as meaning that it is incumbent upon the Member States, within the framework of the discretion that is accorded to them for implementation of that provision, 9to determine on the basis of the activities concerned whether there would be a risk of distortion of competition if bodies governed by public law engaging in those activities as public authorities were not taxable persons for VAT purposes.
Tako je treba drugi pododstavek člena 4(5) Šeste direktive o DDV razlagati tako, da morajo države članice v okviru diskrecijske pravice, ki jim je priznana za izvajanje te določbe 9, to, ali obstaja nevarnost izkrivljanja konkurence, če osebe javnega prava, ki te dejavnosti opravljajo kot organi oblasti, niso zavezanci za DDV, določiti glede na zadevne dejavnosti.
From this viewpoint, the criterion of distortion of competition has the sole purpose of helping the competent national authorities to determine which activities are to be subject to VAT.
S tega vidika je merilo izkrivljanja konkurence namenjeno le za pomoč pristojnim nacionalnim organom pri določevanju, katere dejavnosti je treba obdavčiti z DDV in katere ne.
The concept of distortion of competition operates not as a principle regulating particular economic situations, such as cartels or abuse of a domin- ant position, but as an incidental criterion available to the Member States for implementation of the VAT system so that they can determine the activities the carrying out of which must be subject to VAT.
Pojem izkrivljanja konkurence se ne uporablja kot načelo, ki uravnava posebne ekonomske položaje, kot so omejevalni sporazumi ali zloraba prevladujočega položaja, ampak kot stransko merilo, ki je v pomoč državam članicam pri izvajanju sistema DDV, tako da lahko določijo dejavnosti, izvajanje katerih mora biti obdavčeno z DDV 8.
8 This criterion thus falls within Community fiscal policy which, in accordance with the principle of fiscal neutrality, seeks to make all economic activities subject to VAT.
To merilo tako spada v davčno politiko Skupnosti, ki si prizadeva, da bi bile vse ekonomske dejavnosti v skladu z načelom davčne nevtralnosti obdavčene z davkom na dodano vrednost.
B — The second question referred for a preliminary ruling
B – Drugo odločanje
By its second question, the national court raises the issue of what is meant by the words ‘would lead to significant distortions of competition’ in the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive.
V okviru drugega vpra�anja se predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje, kak�en je pomen besedne zveze „bi […] povzročila znatno izkrivljanje konkurence“ iz drugega pododstavka člena 4(5) Šeste direktive.
It seeks to ascertain whether this provision covers only actual competition or whether it also extends to potential competition.
Želi izvedeti, ali ta določba pokriva le dejansko konkurenco ali se nana�a tudi na potencialno konkurenco.
Furthermore, only this approach makes it possible to safeguard the principle of simplicity that is linked to the need for legal certainty in the levying of tax.
Poleg tega je samo s tem pristopom omogočeno zagotavljanje načela enostavnosti, ki je povezano s potrebo po pravni varnosti pri pobiranju davka.
These principles would be seriously undermined by a case-by-case analysis of the state of competition on the relevant markets.
Ti načeli bi bili z analizo stanja konkurence na upo�tevnih trgih od primera do primera zelo ogroženi.
In this connection, the approach adopted incidentally has the advantage of avoiding particularly onerous administrative costs for the competent national authorities.
V zvezi s tem je treba omeniti tudi to, da je prednost izbranega pristopa v tem, da se pristojni nacionalni organi izognejo zelo velikim stro�kom.
9 — For confirmation of such discretion granted to the Member States, see in particular Carpaneto I, paragraph 23, Carpaneto II, paragraph 13, and Fazenda Pública, paragraphs 31 and 32.
9 – Za potrditev, da je državam članicam priznana taka diskrecijska pravica, glej zlasti zgoraj navedene sodbe Carpaneto I (točka 23); Carpaneto II (točka 13) in Fazenda Pública (točki 31 in 32).
It is also to be pointed out that the discretion accorded to the Member States is thus wider under the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive than it is for transpos -ition of the third subparagraph where the activities, which are required in principle to be subject to tax, are established in advance by the Community legislature.
Poleg tega je treba pojasniti, da je diskrecijska pravica držav članic v okviru drugega pododstavka člena 4(5) Šeste direktive o DDV �ir�a kot za prenos tretjega pododstavka, v katerem je zakonodajalec Skupnosti dejavnosti, ki morajo načeloma biti obdavčene, že predhodno določil.
8 — See, to this effect, also the view put forward by Advocate General Mischo in points 14 and 15 of his Opinion in Case C-4/89 Comune di Carpaneto Piacentino and Others (‘Carpaneto II’) [1990] ECR I-1869.
8 – V tem smislu glej tudi stali�če generalnega pravobranilca Mischoja v točkah 14 in 15 sklepnih predlogov, predstavljenih v zadevi Comune di Carpaneto Piacentino in drugi, „Carpaneto II“ (sodba z dne 15. maja 1990, C-4/89, Recueil, str. I-1869).
It follows logically from the interpretation adopted in answering the first question that potential competition is to be taken into account.
Iz razlage, podane v okviru prvega vpra�anja, logično izhaja, da je potencialno konkurenco treba upo�tevati.
Inasmuch as the activity-based approach prevails, the state of competition on a given local market is unimportant.
Če je namreč treba uporabiti pristop glede na zadevne dejavnosti, je konkurenčni položaj na zadevnem lokalnem trgu le malo pomemben.
Moreover, as Advocate General Kokott has pointed out, ‘(t)he risk of distortions of competition can be real even if no competi- tor is at present offering competing supplies subject to value added tax.
Poleg tega, kot je poudarila generalna pravobranilka J. Kokott, „[t]udi če trenutno noben konkurent ne ponuja konkurenčnih storitev, podvrženih DDV, je lahko nevarnost izkrivljanja konkurence realna.
A disadvantageous starting point is in itself liable to dissuade potential competitors from becoming active in the market …’ 11
Za odvrnitev potencialnih konkurentov od aktivnega udejstvovanja na trgu namreč zado�ča že neugoden izhodi�čni položaj […]“. 11
Consequently, and in accordance with the view put forward by the Commission, the words ‘would lead to’ must be understood as including both actual competition and potential competition in so far as the possibility of the latter is real.
Zato je v skladu z mnenjem Komisije izraz „bi […] povzročila“ treba razumeti tako, da zajema tako dejansko kot potencialno konkurenco, pod pogojem, da je slednja realna.
C — The third question referred for a preliminary ruling
C – Tretje odločanje
Above all, the Court has already explained that, ‘with a view to ensuring the neutrality of the tax, which is the major objective of the Sixth Directive, [the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive] envisages the situation in which bodies governed by public law engage, under the special legal regime applicable to them, in activities which may also be engaged in, in competition with them, by private individuals under a regime governed by private law or on the basis of administrative concessions’.
Predvsem je Sodi�če že pojasnilo, da člen 4(5), drugi pododstavek, Šeste direktive „z namenom zagotovitve nevtralnosti davka, ki je pomemben cilj Šeste direktive, tako upo�teva primer, da osebe javnega prava v okviru posebne pravne ureditve, ki velja zanje, opravljajo dejavnosti, ki jih lahko v konkurenci z njimi opravljajo tudi posamezniki v okviru zasebnopravne ureditve ali na podlagi upravnih koncesij“ 10.
10If actual competition only were to be taken into consideration, fiscal neutrality would no longer be preserved inasmuch as actual competition alone precludes account being taken of future or immediate entry of certain private operators, who, in all events, will be taxable persons for VAT purposes.
Če bi bilo treba upo�tevati le dejansko konkurenco, ne bi bila več zagotovljena davčna nevtralnost, saj zgolj na podlagi dejanske konkurence ni mogoče upo�tevati kasnej�ega ali takoj�njega vstopa določenih zasebnih subjektov, ki bodo v vsakem primeru zavezanci za DDV.
In those circumstances, it is, however, clear that freedom from tax of public oper -ators engaging in the same activity as private operators, who are taxable persons for VAT purposes, may lead to a significant distortion of competition.
V teh okoli�činah je vendar jasno, da lahko obravnava javnih subjektov, ki opravljajo enako dejavnost kot zasebni subjekti, ki so zavezanci za DDV, kot da niso davčni zavezanci, povzroči znatno izkrivljanje konkurence.
The national court’s third question concerns the meaning of the phrase ‘significant distortions of competition’.
Tretje vpra�anje nacionalnega sodi�ča se nana�a na vsebino izraza „znatno izkrivljanje konkurence“ 12.
12Does it mean an effect on competition that is not trivial or only an ‘exceptional’ effect
Ali ta izraz pomeni vpliv na konkurenco, ki ni neznaten, ali zgolj „izjemen“ vpliv, ki je več kot izkrivljanje, ki bi
11 — Point 131 of the Opinion in Case C-369/04 Hutchison 3G and Others [2007] ECR I-5247.
11 – Točka 131 sklepnih predlogov, predstavljenih v zadevi Hutchison 3G in drugi, v kateri je bila izdana sodba 26. junija 2007 (C-369/04, ZOdl., str. I-5247).
10 — Carpaneto I, paragraph 22.
10 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Carpaneto I (točka 22).
The objective of fiscal neutrality pursued by this subparagraph has been consistently pointed out; see, most recently, Case C-430/04 Feuerbestattungsverein Halle [2006] ECR I-4999, paragraph 24.
Cilj davčne nevtralnosti, ki je določen v tem pododstavku, je večkrat poudarjen, glej nedavno sodbo z dne 8. junija 2006 v zadevi Feuerbestattungsverein Halle (C-430/04, ZOdl., str. I-4999, točka 24).
12 — Emphasis added.
12 – Moj poudarek.