natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Where the refundable tax difference exceeds the amount of input tax on acquisition of goods or services that are treated by the taxable person as forming part of his depreciable fixed assets, intangible assets and legal assets under the provisions applying to income tax, … increased by 22 per cent of the taxable person’s turnover liable to taxation at rates lower than those specified in Article 41(1), and by the turnover from deliveries of goods or provision of services referred to in Article 86(8)(1), the said difference shall be refunded within 180 days of submission of the tax return.
Če razlika v davku, ki jo je treba vrniti, presega znesek vstopnega davka pri pridobitvi blaga ali storitev, ki jih davčni zavezanec �teje kot del svojih amortiziranih osnovnih sredstev, neopredmetenih sredstev in podedovanega premoženja na podlagi določb o davku na dohodek, […] povečano za 22 odstotkov obdavčljivih prihodkov od prodaje davčnega zavezanca po stopnjah, ki so nižje od stopenj iz člena 41(1), in prihodkov od prodaje pri dobavi blaga in storitev iz člena 86(8)(1), je to razliko treba vrniti v 180 dneh od vložitve davčne napovedi.
In the case of taxable persons who commence the activities referred to in Article 5 and taxable persons who commenced such activities within less than 12 months prior to filing the application referred to in paragraph 1 and who have been registered as European Union VAT payers, [ 6]the period for refunding the tax difference reffered to in Article 87 (2), (4) to (6) shall extend to 180 days. 7 …
Če davčni zavezanec začne opravljati dejavnosti iz člena 5 in če je take dejavnosti začel opravljati v manj kot 12 mesecih pred vložitvijo prijave iz odstavka 1 in je bil registriran kot zavezanec za DDV na ravni Evropske unije[ 6], se obdobje za vračilo razlike v davku iz člena 87(2) in od (4) do (6) podalj�a na 180 dni[ 7].
The turnover referred to in paragraph 3 shall include the turnover from the receipt of trading debts, in respect of which the tax liability arises in accordance with Article 19(12) or Article 20(3), provided that a security deposit is lodged with the tax authorities in the amount corresponding to the amount of tax which would be due if the turnover had concerned a supply of goods in the territory of the country until documents confirming export of goods or an intraCommunity supply of goods covered by the relevant trading debt are submitted. …’
Prihodki, navedeni v odstavku 3, vključujejo prihodke iz trgovskih dolgov, ki so obdavčljivi v skladu s členom 19(12) ali členom 20(3), pod pogojem, da se pri davčnem organu položi var�čina v znesku, ki ustreza znesku davka, ki bi bil dolgovan, če bi se prihodki od prodaje nana�ali na dobavo blaga na ozemlju države, dokler se ne predložijo dokumenti, ki potrjujejo izvoz blaga ali dobavo blaga znotraj Skupnosti, ki ga pokriva zadevni trgovski dolg. […]“
Article 97 of the Law on VAT provides:
Člen 97 zakona o DDV določa:
The provisions of paragraph 5 shall not apply if the taxable person [lodges] with a revenue office a guarantee by way of (i) a security deposit, (ii) material security or (iii) a bank [guarantee] in the amount of PLN 250 000, hereinafter referred to as a “security deposit”.’
Določbe odstavka 5 se ne uporabljajo, če davčni zavezanec pri davčnem uradu [položi] (i) var�čino, (ii) premoženjsko garancijo ali (iii) bančno [garancijo] v znesku 250.000 PLN (v nadaljevanju: var�čina).“
6 — Referred to below as ‘new EU VAT payers’.
6 – V nadaljevanju: novi zavezanec za DDV na ravni EU.
7 — The second and third sentences of Article 87(2), which apply to cases where further investigation is required, are to apply mutatis mutandis.
7 – Drugi in tretji stavek člena 87(2), ki se nana�ata na nadaljnje preverjanje, se uporabljata mutatis mutandis.
Prior to making the first intraCommunity supply or acquisition, the taxable persons
Davčni zavezanec iz člena 15, ki se mora registrirati kot aktivni zavezanec za DDV,
II — Factual and procedural background and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
II – Dejansko stanje in postopek ter vprašanji za predhodno odločanje
The referring court has doubts as to the compatibility of the national provisions at issue with Community law and in those circumstances, it has decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
Ker v teh okoli�činah predložitveno sodi�če dvomi o združljivosti zadevnih nacionalnih določb s pravom Skupnosti, je prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ti vpra�anji:
Relying inter alia on Article 18(4) of the Sixth Directive, she requested the Swidnica Tax Office to repay that excess VAT within 60 days of the date on which the return was submitted.
Od davčnega urada Swidnica je med drugim na podlagi člena 18(4) Šeste direktive zahtevala vračilo preveč plačanega DDV v 60 dneh od datuma vložitve davčne napovedi.
Does [Article 5(3)] EC, in conjunction with Article 2 of [the First Directive] and Article 18(4) of [the Sixth Direct- ive], confer on a Member State the right to incorporate into national provisions on [VAT] the rules laid down in Article 97(5) and (7) of the [Law on VAT]?
Ali ima država članica na podlagi [člena 5(3)] ES v povezavi s členom 2 [Prve direktive] in členom 18(4) [Šeste direktive] pravico v nacionalno ureditev glede [DDV] vključiti pravila iz člena 97(5) in (7) [zakona o DDV]?
However, pursuant to Article 87(1) and (2) and Article 97(5) and (7) of the Law on VAT, the Swidnica tax authority refused to do so.
Davčni organ Swidnica pa je na podlagi člena 87(1) in (2) ter člena 97(5) in (7) zakona o DDV to zahtevo zavrnil.
In the grounds for that decision, the tax authority stated that the applicant did not satisfy the conditions laid down in the Law on VAT for repayment of the difference of the VAT to a bank account within 60 days because she had failed to lodge a security deposit, material security or bank guarantee in the amount of PLN 250 000 (approximately EUR 62 000) with the tax authority.
Davčni organ je v obrazložitvi te odločbe navedel, da tožeča stranka ni izpolnila pogojev iz zakona o DDV o vračilu razlike DDV na bančni račun v 60 dneh, ker pri davčnem organu ni položila var�čine, premoženjske garancije ali bančne garancije v znesku 250.000 PLN (približno 62.000 EUR).
Do the rules laid down in Article 97(5) and (7) of the [Law on VAT] constitute special measures to prevent certain types of tax evasion and avoidance within the meaning of Article 27(1) of the Sixth Directive?’
Ali pravila iz člena 97(5) in (7) [zakona o DDV] pomenijo posebne ukrepe za preprečevanje določenih oblik davčnih utaj in izogibanja davkom v smislu člena 27(1) Šeste direktive?“
The applicant lodged an administrative appeal against that decision with the Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej we Wrocławiu Ośrodek Zamiejscowy w Wałbrzychu (Director of the Wroclaw Tax Office, Walbrzych branch, ‘the Tax Office’), which upheld the decision taken by the authority at first instance.
Tožeča stranka je zoper to odločbo vložila pritožbo pri Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej we Wrocławiu Ośrodek Zamiejscowy w Wałbrzychu (vodja davčnega urada Wroclaw, izpostava Walbrzych, v nadaljevanju: davčni urad), ki je potrdil odločbo davčnega organa na prvi stopnji.
Therefore, the applicant brought an action against the decision of the Tax Office before the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny in Wroclaw.
Tožeča stranka je zato pri Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny v Wroclawu vložila tožbo zoper odločbo davčnega urada.
Written observations have been submitted, and oral observations were made at the hearing on 22 November 2007, by the Polish Government and by the Commission.
Poljska vlada in Komisija sta vložili pisna stali�ča ter podali ustna stali�ča na obravnavi 22. novembra 2007.
As for the applicant, she did not put forward arguments of her own, but instead referred in a general manner to the point of view of the referring court in the order for reference, which she shares.
Tožeča stranka pa svojih utemeljitev ni predložila, temveč se je na splo�no sklicevala na stali�če predložitvenega sodi�ča v predložitveni odločbi, s katerim se strinja.
However, it should be recalled that, where they exercise the powers conferred on them by Community directives, Member States must in any event take account of the general principles of law which form part of the Community legal order, such as the principle of proportionality.
Kljub temu pa je treba opozoriti, da morajo države članice pri izvr�evanju pooblastil, ki jim jih podeljujejo direktive Skupnosti, upo�tevati splo�na pravna načela, ki so del pravnega reda Skupnosti, kot je načelo sorazmernosti.
In addition, in the interpretation and application of the Sixth Directive, account must be taken of the principle of fiscal neutrality underlying it.
Poleg tega je treba v skladu z razlago in uporabo Šeste direktive upo�tevati načelo davčne nevtralnosti.
In that connection, while the Court has held that the Member States have a certain freedom to manoeuvre in determining the conditions for the refund of excess VAT, since the refund of excess VAT is one of the fundamental factors ensuring the application of the principle of neutrality of the common system of VAT, the conditions determined by the Member States cannot undermine that principle by making the taxable person, in whole or in part, bear the burden of VAT. 8
Čeprav je Sodi�če v zvezi s tem menilo, da imajo države članice določeno diskrecijsko pravico pri določanju pogojev za vračilo preveč plačanega DDV, ker je vračilo preveč plačanega DDV eden temeljnih dejavnikov, ki zagotavljajo spo�tovanje načela nevtralnosti v skupnem sistemu DDV, pogoji, ki jih države članice določijo, ne smejo spodkopavati tega načela s tem, da davčni zavezanec v celoti ali deloma nosi breme DDV. 8
Even though, by its first question, the national court asks whether Article 5(3) EC, in conjunction with Article 2 of the First Directive and Article 18(4) of the Sixth Direct ive, confers on a Member State the right to incorporate into national provisions on VAT rules such as those laid down in Article 97(5) and (7) of the Law on VAT, I understand the question as asking in effect whether the Polish rules regarding the refunding of excess VAT — in essence prolonging the period for such repayment from 60 to 180 days in the case of new EU VAT payers unless they lodge a security deposit in the amount of PLN 250 000 — are compatible with Community law, in particular with Article 18(4) of the Sixth Directive, regard being had to the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality.
Čeprav predložitveno sodi�če s prvim vpra�anjem spra�uje, ali ima država članica na podlagi člena 5(3) ES v povezavi s členom 2 Prve direktive in členom 18(4) Šeste direktive pravico v nacionalno ureditev glede DDV vključiti pravila iz člena 97(5) in (7) zakona o DDV, to vpra�anje razumem tako, da se z njim dejansko spra�uje, ali so, glede na načeli davčne nevtralnosti in sorazmernosti, poljska pravila glede vračila preveč plačanega DDV – ki v bistvu podalj�ujejo obdobje za tako plačilo s 60 na 180 dni v primeru zavezancev za DDV na ravni EU, razen če ne položijo var�čine v znesku 250.000 PLN – združljiva s pravom Skupnosti, zlasti s členom 18(4) Šeste direktive.
The Court has held that the conditions for the refund of excess VAT that a Member State sets must enable the taxable person, in appropriate conditions, to recover the entirety of the credit arising from that excess VAT.
Sodi�če je menilo, da morajo pogoji za vračilo preveč plačanega DDV, ki jih država članica določi, davčnemu zavezancu omogočiti, da pod ustreznimi pogoji v celoti dobi nazaj preveč plačan DDV.
This implies that the refund is carried out within a reasonable period of time by a payment in liquid funds or equivalent means.
To pomeni, da je treba vračilo izvesti v razumnem času z gotovinskim plačilom ali z enakovrednimi sredstvi.
In any case, the method of refund adopted must not entail any financial risk for the taxable person. 9
V vsakem primeru sprejeti način vračila davčnemu zavezancu ne sme povzročiti nobenega finančnega tveganja. 9
8 — See Case C-78/00 Commission v Italy [2001] ECR I-8195, paragraphs 32 and 33.
8 – Glej sodbo z dne 25. oktobra 2001 v zadevi Komisija proti Italiji (C-78/00, Recueil, str. I-8195, točki 32 in 33).
First of all, it should be noted that the Sixth Directive does not specify the precise conditions under which the Member States have to effect repayment of excess VAT to a taxable person’s account.
Najprej je treba ugotoviti, da Šesta direktiva ne navaja podrobnih pogojev, pod katerimi morajo države članice vrniti preveč plačani DDV na račun davčnega zavezanca.
9 — Ibidem, paragraph 34.
9 – Prav tam, točka 34.
OPINION OF MR MAZÁK — CASE C-25/07
MAZÁKA – ZADEVA C-25/07 sistema DDV, vzpostavljenega z zadevnim pravom Skupnosti. 12
Here, it should be noted that the Polish Government argues that the national measures in question are necessary to prevent tax evasion and avoidance.
Treba je opozoriti, da poljska vlada trdi, da so zadevni nacionalni ukrepi nujni za preprečevanje davčnih utaj in izogibanja davkom.
In that connection, I appreciate that tackling tax evasion and avoidance is a genuine aim.
V zvezi s tem priznavam, da je boj proti davčnim utajam in izogibanju davkom legitimen cilj.
10Indeed, the Member States have a legitimate interest in taking appropriate steps to protect their financial interests and the Court has held that ‘[p]reventing possible tax evasion, avoidance and abuse is an objective recognised and encouraged by the Sixth Directive’. 11
10Res je, da imajo države članice legitimen interes za ustrezno ukrepanje, da bi zavarovale svoje finančne interese, in da je Sodi�če menilo, da je „boj proti davčnim utajam, davčnemu izogibanju in mogočim zlorabam cilj, ki ga Šesta direktiva priznava in spodbuja“. 11
As regards the question whether the national provisions on the repayment of excess VAT at issue in the present case comply with those requirements, it should be noted, first, that the right of taxable persons to recover the excess VAT in full is not, per se, called into question.
V zvezi z vpra�anjem, ali so zadevne nacionalne določbe o vračilu preveč plačanega DDV v obravnavanem primeru v skladu s temi zahtevami, je najprej treba opozoriti, da pravica davčnih zavezancev, da v celoti dobijo nazaj preveč plačani DDV, sama po sebi ni sporna.
Moreover, recovery of that kind was, in the case in the main proceedings, also allowed by way of carrying forward the excess VAT to the next accounting period.
Tovrstno vračilo je bilo v zadevi v glavni stvari tudi dovoljeno s prenosom preveč plačanega DDV v naslednje računovodsko obdobje.
13 Therefore, what are at issue in the present case are the procedures which govern the right to repayment.
13Zato so v obravnavanem primeru sporni postopki v zvezi s pravico do vračila.
None the less, it appears from the Court’s caselaw that, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, the Member States must employ means which, whilst enabling them effectively to attain the ob -jective pursued by their domestic laws, are the least detrimental to the objectives and the principles laid down by the relevant Community legislation.
Kljub temu iz ustaljene sodne prakse Sodi�ča izhaja, da morajo države članice v skladu z načelom sorazmernosti uporabiti sredstva, ki, čeprav jim omogočajo učinkovito doseganje cilja, ki mu sledi nacionalna zakonodaja, najmanj �kodijo ciljem in načelom upo�tevne zakonodaje Skupnosti.
Accordingly, whilst it is legitimate for the measures adopted by the Member States to seek to preserve the rights of the exchequer as effectively as possible, they must not go further than is necessary for that purpose.
Torej, čeprav je legitimno, da je namen ukrepov, ki jih sprejmejo države članice, čim učinkoviteje ohranjati interese državne blagajne, ukrepi ne smejo preseči tistega, kar je nujno za dosego tega cilja.
They may not therefore be used in such a way that they would have the effect of systematically undermining the right to deduct VAT, which is a fundamental principle of the common system of
Ne smejo se torej uporabiti na način, ki bi sistematično ogrožal pravico do odbitka DDV, ki je temeljno načelo skupnega
Subject to Article 87(3) and (3a) of the Law on VAT, repayment of the excess VAT is to be made to the taxable person’s bank account within 60 days.
Na podlagi člena 87(3) in (3a) zakona o DDV je treba preveč plačani DDV vrniti na račun davčnega zavezanca v 60 dneh.
As a new EU VAT payer, the applicant has a right to have her excess VAT repaid in 180 days.
Kot nova zavezanka za DDV na ravni EU ima tožeča stranka pravico, da se ji preveč plačani DDV izplača v 180 dneh.
Provided that a security deposit in the amount of PLN 250 000 is lodged with the tax authorities, the
To obdobje pa se lahko skraj�a na 60 dni, če se pri
10 — See, in this connection, the Opinion of Advocate General Fennelly in Joined Cases C-286/94, C-340/95, C-401/95 and C-47/96 Molenheide and Others [1997] ECR I-7281, points 37 to 39.
10 – V zvezi s tem glej sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca Fennellyja z dne 20. marca 1997 v združenih zadevah Molenheide in drugi (C-286/94, C-340/95, C-401/95 in C-47/96, Recueil, I-7281, točke od 37 do 39).
12 — See the judgment in Molenheide and Others, cited in footnote 10, paragraphs 46 and 47.
12 – Glej v opombi 10 navedeno sodbo Molenheide in drugi, točki 46 in 47.
See also, by way of example, with regard to Article 22(8) of the Sixth Directive, Halifax and Others, cited in footnote 11, paragraph 92 and the caselaw cited there.
Glej tudi na primer v zvezi s členom 22(8) Šeste direktive v opombi 11 navedeno sodbo Halifax in drugi, točka 92, in tam navedeno sodno prakso. Glede preprečevanja goljufij glej sodbo z dne 27. septembra 2007 v zadevi Albert Collée (C-146/05, ZOdl., I-7861, točka 26) in sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca Cosmasa z dne 12. februarja 1998 v zadevi Société générale des grandes sources (C-361/96, Recueil, I-3495, točka 14).
11 — See Case C-255/02 Halifax and Others [2006] ECR I-1609, paragraph 71 and the caselaw cited there; Joined Cases C-439/04 and C-440/04 Kittel and Recolta Recycling [2006] ECR I-6161, paragraph 54; and Joined Cases C-487/01 and C-7/02 Gemeente Leusden and Holin Groep [2004] ECR I-5337, paragraph 76.
13 – V obravnavanem primeru je tožeča stranka v skladu s poljskim zakonom zahtevala, da se ji preveč plačan DDV vrne na njen bančni račun (t. i. neposredno vračilo).
See also the Opinion of Advocate General Cosmas in Joined Cases C-177/99 and C-181/99 Ampafrance and Sanofi [2000] ECR I-7013, points 70 and 72; the judgment in Molenheide and Others, cited in footnote 10, paragraph 47; and the Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro in Joined Cases C-354/03, C-355/03 and C-484/03 Optigen and Others [2006] ECR I-483, point 43.
Druga možnost, da se preveč plačan DDV prenese v naslednje računovodsko obdobje, se imenuje posredno vračilo.
13 — In the present case, the applicant requested, in conformity with Polish law, that the excess VAT be repaid into her bank account (so-called direct repayment).
11 – Glej sodbe z dne 21. februarja 2006 v zadevi Halifax in drugi (C-255/02, ZOdl., str.
The other option of carrying the excess VAT over to the following accounting period is referred to as indirect repayment.
I-1609, točka 71 in navedena sodna praksa); z dne 6. julija 2006 v združenih zadevah Kittel and Recolta Recycling (C-439/04 in C-440/04, ZOdl., I-6161, točka 54); z dne 29. aprila 2004 v združenih zadevah Gemeente Leusden and Holin Groep (C-487/01 in C-7/02, Recueil, str.
I should note that, contrary to what the parties seem to suggest, I do not consider it decisive in the present context which of the two periods for refunds of excess VAT — that is to say 60 and 180 days respectively — is to be considered as the ‘basic’ period.
Opozorim naj, da, v nasprotju s tem, kar zatrjujejo stranke, nisem mnenja, da je v tem kontekstu odločilno, katero obdobje za vračilo preveč plačanega DDV – 60 ali 180 dni – je treba �teti za „osnovno“ obdobje.
Rather, what should in my view be assessed is the Polish legislation at issue as a whole, regard being had, in particular, to (the extension of) the period applicable to new EU VAT payers.
Menim, da je treba sporno poljsko zakonodajo oceniti kot celoto, zlasti glede (podalj�anja) obdobja, ki se uporablja za nove zavezance za DDV na ravni EU.
Second, I also agree with the referring court that in view of the fact that the period of 180 days — over which the exercise of the taxable person’s right to deduct VAT is de facto suspended — is: (i) six times longer than the applicable accounting period for VAT (one month), and (ii) three times longer than the basic period for dealing with particularly complicated matters (two months), 16it can consequently be regarded as unreasonable.
Drugič, prav tako se strinjam s predložitvenim sodi�čem glede dejstva, da je obdobje 180 dni – v katerem je izvr�evanje pravice davčnega zavezanca, da odbije DDV, de facto odloženo – (i) �estkrat dalj�e od veljavnega računovodskega obdobja za DDV (en mesec) in (ii) trikrat dalj�e od osnovnega obdobja za obravnavo posebno zapletenih primerov (dva meseca) 16, in je zato nerazumno.
The amount of the security deposit which is meant to safeguard the interests of the exchequer is approximately EUR 62 000, which is 100 times the average monthly income in the Polish economy.
Znesek var�čine, katere namen je varstvo interesov državne blagajne, je približno 62.000 EUR, kar je stokratnik povprečnega mesečnega dohodka v poljskem gospodarstvu.
In my view, the legislation at issue does not comply with the requirements applicable to repayments of excess VAT as set out above.
Menim, da sporna zakonodaja ni združljiva z zgoraj navedenimi zahtevami, ki se uporabljajo za vračilo preveč plačanega DDV.
In addition, as regards the context in which a new EU VAT payer is called on to lodge such a security deposit and benefit from the 60-day period, a trader is at that
Poleg tega, glede na kontekst, v katerem je novi zavezanec za DDV na ravni EU pozvan, da položi var�čino in izkoristi 60-dnevno obdobje, trgovec v tem trenutku
First, it should be noted that with regard to all new EU VAT payers the period of 60 days is (automatically) extended to 180 days unless they lodge a security deposit with the tax authorities.
Najprej je treba opozoriti, da se glede vseh novih zavezancev za DDV na ravni EU obdobje 60 dni (samodejno) podalj�a na 180 dni, razen če pri davčnih organih ne položijo var�čine.
Thus, the national measures in question impose the 180-day period in a sweeping and fixed manner without making any differentiation, as regards that period, between the various groups of taxable persons within the ‘subsystem’ of new EU
Zadevni nacionalni ukrepi tako določajo 180-dnevno obdobje na tog in absoluten način, ne da bi glede tega obdobja ločevali med različnimi skupinami davčnih zavezancev znotraj „podsistema“ novih zavezancev za DDV na ravni EU. Tako se
15 — As the referring court rightly points out, for the period of 180 days to include (during their first 12 months) all EU VAT payers in the category of persons whose operations pose a threat to the interests of the exchequer would appear to be an excessively mechanical approach, since the relevant national provisions do not take account of the conditions whose satisfaction would allow the objective finding that the activity of those taxable persons might be directed at causing harm to the exchequer.
15 – Kot je predložitveno sodi�če pravilno poudarilo, se zdi, da je vključitev vseh zavezancev za DDV na ravni EU v kategorijo zavezancev, katerih dejavnosti pomenijo nevarnost za interese državne blagajne, v obdobju 180 dni (v njihovih prvih 12 mesecih) preveč mehaničen pristop, saj upo�tevne nacionalne določbe ne upo�tevajo pogojev, katerih izpolnitev bi omogočala objektivno ugotovitev, da dejavnost teh davčnih zavezancev lahko povzroči �kodo za državno blagajno.