natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Admittedly, there is no reason relating to the protection of public health which precludes that rule from being applicable to plant protection products inasmuch as the Community legislation applicable to that area seeks to ensure a high level of protection of human health (see, to that effect, Commission v Germany, paragraphs 24 to 26).
Noben razlog v zvezi z varstvom javnega zdravja seveda ne nasprotuje temu, da se to pravilo uporablja za fitofarmacevtska sredstva, kolikor je cilj zakonodaje Skupnosti, ki se uporablja na tem področju, zagotoviti visoko stopnjo varovanja zdravja ljudi (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Komisija proti Nemčiji, točke od 24 do 26).
Nevertheless, that does not mean that it is possible to conclude that the condition relating to common origin set out in Article 1 of Decree No 2001-317 constitutes a barrier to trade prohibited by Article 28 EC.
Vendar ob upo�tevanju tega ni mogoče ugotoviti, da pogoj v zvezi s skupnim poreklom iz člena 1 dekreta �t. 2001-317 pomeni omejitev trgovine, ki je prepovedana s členom 28 ES.
As has been stated previously, that condition relating to the common origin of the relevant products allows cases of parallel importation to be identified and distinguished from other related situations in which the importation of a product requires a marketing authorisation and also constitutes an important indication that the imported product and the reference product are identical.
Kot je bilo namreč navedeno zgoraj, ta pogoj v zvezi s skupnim poreklom zadevnih sredstev na eni strani omogoča identifikacijo primerov vzporednega uvoza in njihovo razlikovanje od podobnih primerov, v katerih se za uvoz sredstva zahteva DDP, in na drugi strani lahko pomeni pomemben dokaz glede enakosti uvoženega sredstva in referenčnega sredstva.
Where those products do not have a common origin but were manufactured in parallel, by two competing undertakings, the imported product must, at first sight, be regarded as separate from the reference product and, consequently, as having been placed on the market of the Member State of importation for the first time.
Kadar ti sredstvi nimata skupnega porekla, temveč sta ju vzporedno proizvedli konkurenčni podjetji, je treba za uvoženo sredstvo vnaprej �teti, da se razlikuje od referenčnega sredstva in da je bilo zato prvič dano na trg v državi članici uvoznici.
In such circumstances, as has been stated in paragraphs 34 to 36 of this judgment, the provisions of Directive 91/414 apply, with the result that the Member State of importation must, in principle, require compliance with the marketing authorisation procedure established by that directive or, as the case may be, prohibit that import product from being placed on the market and used.
V teh okoli�činah se, kot je bilo navedeno v točkah od 34 do 36 te sodbe, uporabijo določbe Direktive 91/414, tako da mora država članica uvoza načeloma zahtevati spo�tovanje postopka registracije, ki je bil uveden s to direktivo, oziroma po potrebi prepovedati dajanje tega uvoženega sredstva na trg in njegovo uporabo.
Furthermore, it must also be pointed out that, in the area of plant protection, the legislature has not adopted provisions similar to those which, in the pharmaceuticals field, make it possible to verify whether a generic product is essentially identical to a reference product (as regards Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administra-
Poleg tega je treba poudariti, da na fitofarmacevtskem področju zakonodajalec ni sprejel določb, podobnih tistim, ki na farmacevtskem področju omogočajo, da se preveri bistvena enakost generičnega proizvoda in referenčnega proizvoda (v zvezi z Direktivo Sveta 65/65/EGS z dne 26. januarja 1965 o približevanju zakonov in drugih predpisov o zdravilih (UL 1965, 22, str. 369) glej sodbo z dne 3. decembra 1998 v
24), see Case C-368/96 Generics (UK) and Others [1998] ECR I-7967, and Article 10 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67)).
I-7967, ter člen 10 Direktive 2001/83/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 6. novembra 2001 o zakoniku Skupnosti o zdravilih za uporabo v humani medicini (UL L 311, str. 67)).
It must therefore be held that, by requiring, for the purpose of the grant of an import authorisation for a plant protection product, that the imported product and the product already authorised in France must have a common origin, the French Republic has not failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC.
Ugotoviti je treba, da Francoska republika s tem, da je za izdajo dovoljenja za uvoz fitofarmacevtskega sredstva zahtevala skupno poreklo uvoženega sredstva in sredstva, ki je bilo v Franciji že registrirano, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz člena 28 ES.
The Commission’s action must therefore be dismissed.
Tožbo Komisije je treba torej zavrniti.
Since the French Republic has applied for costs to be awarded against the Commission and the latter has been unsuccessful, the Commission must be ordered to pay the costs.
Francoska republika je predlagala, naj se Komisiji naloži plačilo stro�kov, in ker ta s tožbenimi razlogi ni uspela, se ji naloži plačilo stro�kov.
Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 69(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which has intervened in the proceedings, is to bear its own costs.
Kraljevina Nizozemska, ki je intervenirala v tem sporu, v skladu z odstavkom 4, prvi pododstavek, istega člena nosi svoje stro�ke.
On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby:
Iz teh razlogov je Sodi�če (tretji senat) razsodilo:
Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs;
Komisiji Evropskih skupnosti se naloži plačilo stroškov.
Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs.
Kraljevina Nizozemska nosi svoje stroške.
Case C-271/06
Zadeva C-271/06
Netto Supermarkt GmbH & Co. OHG v Finanzamt Malchin (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof)
Netto Supermarkt GmbH & Co. OHG proti Finanzamt Malchin (Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Bundesfinanzhof)
(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 15(2) — Exemption for supplies of goods for export to a destination outside the Community — Conditions for exemption not fulfilled — Proof of export falsified by the purchaser — Supplier acting with due commercial care)
„Šesta direktiva o DDV – Člen 15, točka 2 – Oprostitev dobave blaga za izvoz iz Skupnosti – Neizpolnjevanje pogojev za oprostitev – Ponarejen dokaz kupca o izvozu – Dobavitelj, ki ravna s skrbnostjo dobrega gospodarja“
Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Exemptions provided for in the Sixth Directive
Davčne določbe – Usklajevanje zakonodaj – Prometni davki – Skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost – Oprostitve, določene s Šesto direktivo(Direktiva Sveta 77/388, člen 15(2))
SUMMARY — CASE C-271/06
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-271/06
On the other hand, it is not contrary to Community law to require the supplier to take every step which could reasonably be required of him to satisfy himself that the transaction which he is effecting does not result in his participation in tax evasion.
Vendar pa ni v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti od dobavitelja zahtevati, da ravna razumno, kot se od njega lahko upravičeno zahteva, da se prepriča, da transakcija, ki jo je opravil, ni del davčne utaje.
Accordingly, the fact that the supplier acted in good faith, that he took every reasonable measure in his power and that his participation in fraud is excluded are important points in deciding whether that supplier can be obliged to account for the value added tax after the event.
Zato so okoli�čine, da je dobavitelj deloval v dobri veri, da je ravnal razumno, kolikor je bilo v njegovi moči, in da je njegovo sodelovanje pri goljufiji izključeno, pomembni dejavniki za odločanje o možnosti, da se dobavitelju naknadno naloži plačilo davka na dodano vrednost.
Article 15(2) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, as amended by Directive 95/7, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from granting an exemption from value added tax on the supply of goods for export to a destination outside the European Community, where the conditions for such an exemption are not met, but the taxable person was not able to recognise — even by exercising due commercial care — that they were not met, because the export proofs provided by the purchaser had been forged.
Člen 15, točka 2, Šeste direktive 77/388 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo Sveta 95/7, je treba razlagati tako, da ne nasprotuje temu, da država članica dobavo blaga za izvoz iz Evropske skupnosti oprosti plačila davka na dodano vrednost, čeprav pogoji za tak�no oprostitev niso izpolnjeni, če davčni zavezanec tega niti z ravnanjem s skrbnostjo dobrega gospodarja ni mogel prepoznati zaradi ponarejenega dokaza o izvozu, ki mu ga je predložil kupec.
Likewise, it would be contrary to the principle of legal certainty if a Member State which has laid down the conditions for the application of the exemption of supplies of goods for export to a destination outside the Community by prescribing, among other things, a list of the documents to be presented to the competent authorities, and which has accepted, initially, the documents presented by the supplier as evidence establishing entitlement to the exemption, could subsequently require that supplier to account for the value added tax on that supply, where it transpires that, because of the purchaser’s fraud, of which the supplier had and could have had no knowledge, the conditions for the exemption were in fact not met.
Prav tako bi bilo v nasprotju z načelom pravne varnosti, če bi lahko država članica, ki je predvidela pogoje za uporabo oprostitve dobave blaga za izvoz iz Skupnosti, pri čemer je med drugim določila seznam dokumentov, ki jih je treba predložiti pristojnim organom, in ki je sprva dokumente, ki jih je predložil dobavitelj, sprejela kot dokazila, ki utemeljujejo pravico do oprostitve, tega naknadno obvezala, da plača davek na dodano vrednost za to dobavo, medtem ko je očitno, da pogoji za oprostitev dejansko niso bili izpolnjeni zaradi goljufije kupca, za katero dobavitelj ni vedel niti ni mogel vedeti.
The objective of preventing tax evasion referred to in Article 15 of the Sixth Directive sometimes justifies stringent requirements as regards the obligations of suppliers as persons liable to payment of value added tax.
Cilj preprečevanja davčne utaje iz člena 15 Šeste direktive včasih upravičuje strožje zahteve v zvezi z obveznostmi dobaviteljev, ki so zavezani plačevati davek na dodano vrednost.
However, any sharing of the risk between the supplier and the tax authorities, following fraud committed by a third party, must be compatible with the principle of proportionality.
Vendar mora biti porazdelitev tveganja med slednjimi in davčno upravo v primeru goljufije, ki jo je storila tretja oseba, združljiva z načelom sorazmernosti.
That will not be the case if a tax regime imposes the entire responsibility for the payment of value added tax on suppliers, regardless of whether or not they were involved in the fraud committed by the purchaser.
Za tak�en primer ne bi �lo, če bi vso odgovornost za plačilo davka na dodano vrednost nosil dobavitelj, ne glede na to, ali je bil vpleten v goljufijo, ki jo je storil kupec, ali ne.
It would clearly be disproportionate to hold a taxable person liable for the shortfall in tax caused by fraudulent acts of third parties over which he has no influence whatsoever.
Popolnoma nesorazmerno bi bilo namreč davčnemu zavezancu naložiti odgovornost za primanjkljaj v davčnih prihodkih, ki so ga povzročila goljufiva ravnanja tretjih oseb, na katere ne more vplivati.
(see paras 21-26, 29, operative part)
(Glej točke od 21 do 26, 29 in izrek.)
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERALMAZÁK delivered on 25 October 2007 1
1 predstavljeni 25. oktobra 2007
I — Introduction as laid down in Article 15(2) of the Sixth Directive must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from granting, on grounds of fairness, a tax exemption in a case where the conditions for exemption were in fact not satisfied but the taxable person was, due to fraudulent conduct by the supposed purchasers, unable, even by exercising due commercial care, to recognise that those conditions were not met.
Šeste direktive razlagati tako, da državi članici prepovedujejo, da zaradi pravičnosti odobri oprostitev davka v primeru, ko pogoji za oprostitev dejansko niso bili izpolnjeni, vendar davčni zavezanec zaradi goljufivega ravnanja domnevnih kupcev, tudi če je ravnal s skrbnostjo dobrega gospodarja, ni bil sposoben prepoznati, da ti pogoji niso bili izpolnjeni.
By order of 2 March 2006, the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) (Germany) referred to the Court a question on the interpretation 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, 2as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC 3(‘the Sixth Directive’), in particular Article 15 thereof.
S sklepom z dne 2. marca 2006 je Bundesfi -finanzhof (zvezno finančno sodi�če) Sodi�ču predložilo vpra�anje o razlagi 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, 2kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 95/7/ES 3(v nadaljevanju: Šesta direktiva), zlasti člen 15 te direktive.
The referring court essentially wishes to ascertain whether the provisions on exemption from tax for exports to a third country
Predložitveno sodi�če se v bistvu želi prepričati, ali je treba določbe o oprostitvi davka za izvoze v tretjo državo iz člena 15(2)
3 — Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995 amending Directive 77/388/EEC and introducing new simplification measures with regard to value added tax — scope of certain exemptions and practical arrangements for implementing them (OJ 1995 L 102, p. 18).
3 – Direktiva Sveta 95/7/ES z dne 10. aprila 1995 o spremembi Direktive 77/388/EGS in uvedbi novih ukrepov za poenostavitev v zvezi z davkom na dodano vrednost –obseg določenih oprostitev in praktična ureditev za njihovo izvajanje (UL L 102, str. 18).
This question was raised against the background that, over several years, Polish nationals fraudulently claimed and obtained from the German supermarket ‘Netto’ (‘Netto Supermarkt’) reimbursement of the turnover tax on goods, allegedly exported from the Community, by collecting till receipts dropped in the car parks, shopping baskets and waste bins of the supermarket and by counterfeiting proofs of export by means of forged forms and forged customs stamps.
To vpra�anje je nastalo v okoli�činah, v katerih so poljski državljani več let z goljufijo zahtevali in pridobili od nem�kega supermarketa „Netto“ (v nadaljevanju: Netto Supermarkt) vračilo prometnega davka za blago, ki je baje bilo izvoženo iz Skupnosti, tako da so zbirali račune na parkiri�čih, v nakupovalnih ko�arah in smeteh supermarketa ter tako da so ponarejali dokaze o izvozu s ponarejenimi obrazci in carinskimi žigi.
II — Legal framework the equipping, fuelling and provisioning of pleasure boats and private aircraft or any other means of transport for private use;
II – Pravni okvir blaga, ki ga prevaža kupec sam in je namenjeno opremljanju, oskrbovanju z gorivom in drugemu oskrbovanju zasebnih čolnov, zasebnih zrakoplovov ali katerih koli drugih prevoznih sredstev za zasebno rabo;
In the case of the supply of goods to be carried in the personal luggage of travellers, this exemption shall apply on condition that:
Pri dobavi blaga, ki se prevaža v osebni prtljagi potnikov, se ta oprostitev uporablja pod pogojem, da:
Article 15 of the Sixth Directive, entitled ‘Exemption of exports from the Community and like transactions and international transport’, provides, so far as relevant to this case, as follows:
Člen 15 Šeste direktive z naslovom „Oprostitve pri izvozu iz Skupnosti in podobnih transakcijah ter pri mednarodnem prevozu“ določa, kolikor je upo�tevno za to zadevo, to:
— the traveller is not established within the Community,
– potnik nima stalnega prebivali�ča znotraj Skupnosti,
‘Without prejudice to other Community provisions Member States shall exempt the following under conditions which they shall lay down for the purpose of ensuring the correct and straightforward application of such exemptions and of preventing any evasion, avoidance or abuse:
„Brez poseganja v druge določbe Skupnosti države članice pod pogoji, ki jih določijo zaradi zagotavljanja pravilne in enostavne uporabe tak�nih oprostitev in preprečevanja vsakr�nih utaj, izogibanja ali zlorab, oprostijo:
— the goods are transported to a destination outside the Community before the end of the third month following that in which the supply is effected,
– je blago odpeljano v namembni kraj izven Skupnosti pred koncem tretjega meseca, ki sledi mesecu, v katerem se opravi dobava,
— the supply of goods dispatched or transported to a destination outside the Commuity by or on behalf of a purchaser not established within the territory of the country, with the exception of goods transported by the purchaser himself for the total value of the supply, including value added tax, is more than the equivalent in national currency of ECU 175, fixed in
– dobavo blaga, ki ga kupec ali druga oseba, ki nima sedeža na ozemlju države, za njegov račun odpo�lje ali odpelje v namembni kraj izven Skupnosti, razen je skupna vrednost dobave, skupaj z davkom na dodano vrednost, vi�ja od protivrednosti 175 ECU v nacionalni valuti, določeni v skladu
NETTO SUPERMARKT accordance with Article 7(2) of Directive 69/169/EEC; however, Member States may exempt a supply with a total value of less than that amount.
NETTO SUPERMARKT s členom 7(2) Direktive 69/169/EGS; države članice pa lahko oprostijo dobavo, katere skupna vrednost je nižja od tega zneska.
Each Member State shall transmit to the Commission specimens of the stamps it uses for the endorsement referred to in the second indent of the third subparagraph.
Vsaka država članica po�lje Komisiji vzorce žigov, ki jih uporablja za potrjevanje iz druge alinee tretjega pododstavka.
The Commission shall transmit this information to the tax authorities in the other Member States.’
Komisija po�lje to informacijo davčnim organom drugih držav članic.“ uporabe drugega
B — Relevant national law
B – Upoštevno nacionalno pravo
a traveller not established within the Community shall be taken to mean a traveller whose domicile or habitual residence is not situated within the Community.
potnik, ki nima stalnega prebivali�ča znotraj Skupnosti pomeni potnika, katerega stalno ali običajno prebivali�če ni znotraj Skupnosti.
For the purposes of this provision, “domicile or habitual residence” shall mean the place entered as such in a passport, identity card or other identity documents which the Member State within whose territory the supply takes place recognises as valid,
Za namene te določbe ‚stalno ali običajno prebivali�če‘ pomeni kraj, ki je kot tak naveden v potnem listu, osebni izkaznici ali v drugem identifikacijskem dokumentu, ki ga za veljavnega priznava država članica, na ozemlju katere je opravljena dobava,
The provisions concerning the exemption of exports and like transactions from turnover tax are contained in Paragraph 4(1)(a) and Paragraph 6 of the UStG 1993.
Določbe, ki se nana�ajo na oprostitev izvoza in podobnih transakcij od davka na dodano vrednost, so v členu 4(1)(a) in členu 6 UstG 1993.
Under Paragraph 4(1)(a) of the UStG 1993, of the transactions falling under Para- proof of exportation shall be furnished by means of the invoice or other document in lieu thereof, endorsed by the customs office where the goods left the Community.
V skladu s členom 4(1)(a) UStG 1993 so transakcije, ki spadajo pod člen 1(1)(1) UStG za dokazilo o izvozu velja račun ali drug dokument namesto njega, ki ga potrdi carinski urad v kraju, kjer blago zapusti Skupnost.
For supplies within the Community, Paragraph 6a(4) of the UStG 1993 lays down a provision on the protection of legitimate expectations, reading as follows:
Za dobavo za izvoz gre v skladu s členom 6(1)(2) UStG 1993, kadar kupec ob dobavi odpelje ali odpo�lje predmet dobave na ozemlje tretje države, razen ozemelj iz člena 1(3) UStG 1993, in je kupec tujec.
There is an export supply, according to Paragraph 6(1)(2) of the UStG 1993, where on a supply the purchaser has transported or dispatched the object of the supply to a thirdcountry territory, excluding territories under Paragraph 1(3) of the UStG 1993, and is a foreign purchaser.
Člen 6a(4) UStG 1993 vsebuje glede dobav znotraj Skupnosti določbo o varstvu upravičenih pričakovanj, ki se glasi:
Under Paragraph 6(4) of the UStG 1993, the conditions inter alia of subparagraph 1 must be proved by the operator.
V skladu s členom 6(4) UStG 1993 mora izvajalec dokazati pogoje, med drugim, iz pododstavka 1.
The Federal Ministry of Finance can, with the assent of the Bundesrat, determine by regulation how the operator is to provide the proof.
Zvezno ministrstvo za finance lahko s soglasjem Bundesrat določi z uredbo, kako mora podjetnik predložiti dokaz.
‘If the operator treats a supply as exempt from tax even though the conditions under paragraph 1 are not met, the supply is nevertheless to be regarded as taxexempt if the claiming of the tax exemption is based on incorrect statements by the purchaser and the operator was not able to recognise the incorrectness of those statements, even by exercising due commercial care.
„Če podjetnik obravnava dobavo kot opro�čeno davka, čeprav pogoji iz člena 1 niso izpolnjeni, se dobava �teje za opro�čeno davka, če zahteva za oprostitev davka temelji na nepravilni izjavi kupca in podjetnik ni mogel prepoznati nepravilnosti teh izjav, niti z ravnanjem s skrbnostjo dobrega gospodarja.
In that case the purchaser owes the unpaid tax.’
V tem primeru kupec dolguje neplačani davek.“
Under that provision, in the case of export supplies, an operator within the scope of that regulation must demonstrate by documentary evidence that he or the purchaser has transported or dispatched the object of the supply into the thirdcountry territory (proof of export).
Nacionalni zakon nima enakovredne določbe o varstvu upravičenega pričakovanja za dobave za izvoz v tretje države.
National law does not lay down an equivalent provision on the protection of legitimate expectations for export supplies to third countries.
Ministrstvo je uporabilo pooblastilo, ki mu ga podeljuje člen 6(4) UStG 1993, v členu 8(1) Umsatzsteuer-Durchfüh -rungsverordnung (uredba o izvajanju zakona o prometnem davku, v nadaljevanju: UstDV).
The German Abgabenordung (General Tax Code) (‘the AO’), however, contains in Paragraph 227 the following general provisions on fairness:
Nem�ki Abgabenordung (splo�ni davčni zakonik, v nadaljevanju: AO) pa vsebuje v členu 227 naslednje splo�ne določbe o pravičnosti:
Netto Supermarkt operates several discount supermarkets in the German state Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.
Netto Supermarkt upravlja več diskontnih supermarketov v nem�ki zvezni deželi Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.
As regards the reimbursement of turnover tax, it had decided internally that it would reimburse turnover tax to non-commercial travellers only if the impression of the stamp was half on the voucher and the customs form and the foreign national presented his passport.
V zvezi z vračilom prometnega davka se je interno odločil, da bo vračal prometni davek nekomercialnim potnikom le, če je bil odtis žiga pol na bonu in pol na carinskem obrazcu ter če je tuji državljan predložil svoj potni list.