natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Where the amount of deductible input VAT … exceeds the output VAT, 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 svoj bančni račun.
2. … the tax difference shall be refunded … within 60 days from the day on which the return was submitted by the taxable person.
2. […] vračilo preveč plačanega DDV davčnemu zavezancu se izvede […] v 60 dneh od dneva, ko je davčni zavezanec vložil napoved DDV.
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 se izkaže za primerno, da se podrobneje preveri zakonitost vračila, lahko vodja davčnega urada to obdobje podalj�a zaradi pridobitve potrebnih pojasnil. […]“
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 notification referred to in paragraph (1), and who have been registered as European Union VAT payers [the ‘new taxable persons’], the period for refunding the tax difference referred to in Article 87(2) … shall extend to 180 days. …
Kadar gre za davčne zavezance, ki so začeli opravljati dejavnosti iz člena 5, ali davčne zavezance, ki so take dejavnosti začeli opravljati v manj kot 12 mesecih pred vložitvijo prijave iz odstavka 1 in so bili registrirani kot zavezanci za DDV na ravni Evropske unije [v nadaljevanju: novi davčni zavezanci], se obdobje za vračilo razlike v davku iz člena 87(2) […] podalj�a na 180 dni. […]
In the case of taxable persons referred to in paragraph (5), the principles and repayment periods laid down in Article 87(2) to (6) shall apply from the date of the return relating to the period after a period of 12 months or four quarters in respect of which the taxable person has lodged a tax return and has paid in due time the taxes constituting State revenue, including his liabilities for the tax on the income of natural persons.
Kadar gre za davčne zavezance iz odstavka 5, se načela in roki iz člena 87, od (2) do (6), uporabljajo od vložitve napovedi, ki se nana�a na obdobje po 12 mesecih ali �tirih četrtletjih, kar je obdobje, za katero je davčni zavezanec vložil davčno napoved in je pravočasno plačal davke, ki so prihodki države, vključno kot zavezanec za plačilo dohodnine.
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 or (ii) material security or (iii) a bank guarantee, to the value of PLN 250 000, hereinafter referred to as a “security deposit”.’
Določbe odstavka 5 se ne uporabljajo, če davčni zavezanec pri davčnem uradu položi jamstvo, ki je (i) var�čina, (ii) premoženjska garancija ali (iii) bančna garancija v znesku 250.000 PLN (v nadaljevanju: var�čina).“
Relying on Article 18(4) of the Sixth VAT Directive, she then applied to the tax office of Świdnica for repayment of that excess to her within a period of 60 days from the date of submission of her VAT return.
Od davčnega urada v Świdnici je na podlagi člena 18(4) Šeste direktive zahtevala vračilo preveč plačanega DDV v 60 dneh od datuma vložitve napovedi DDV.
On the basis of Article 87(1) and (2), and Article 97(5) and (7) of the Law on VAT, the tax office of Świdnica rejected her application.
Na podlagi členov 87(1) in (2) ter 97(5) in (7) zakona o DDV je davčni urad v Świdnici zavrnil njeno zahtevo.
The opinion of that office was that the applicant could not obtain the repayment of the excess VAT within the period of
Po mnenju tega urada tožeči stranki namreč ne more biti
60 days, because, since she had commenced her activities less than 12 months earlier and since she had not supplied to the tax office a special deposit within the meaning of Article 97(7), she did not satisfy the conditions established by the Law on VAT for entitlement to the repayment sought.
SOSNOWSKA vrnjen preveč plačani DDV v roku 60 dni, ker je začela opravljati dejavnost pred manj kot 12 meseci in pri davčnemu uradu ni položila „var�čine“ v smislu člena 97(7) in tako ne izpolnjuje pogojev iz navedenega zakona za pridobitev vračila preveč plačanega davka.
The applicant submitted a complaint against that decision to the Dyrektor, who upheld the decision of refusal.
Tožeča stranka je vložila ugovor zoper to odločbo pri direktorju davčnega urada, ki je potrdil zavrnilno odločbo.
The applicant was not satisfied with that decision and brought an action before the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Regional Administrative Court of Wrocław). That court was uncertain whether the national provisions in question were compatible with Community law and therefore stayed proceedings and referred the following two questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
Ker tožeča stranka ni bila zadovoljna s tem stali�čem, je vložila tožbo pri Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu, ki je, ker je dvomilo o skladnosti zadevnih nacionalnih določb s pravom Skupnosti, prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno določanje predložilo ti vpra�anji:
By its first question, the referring court asks essentially whether Article 18(4) of the Sixth VAT directive must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in order to allow inquiries necessary to prevent tax evasion and avoidance, extends from 60 to 180 days, starting from the date of submission of the taxable person’s VAT return, the period available to the national tax office for repayment of excess VAT to a category of taxable persons, unless those persons lodge a security deposit to a value of PLN 250 000.
Predložitveno sodi�če s prvim vpra�anjem v bistvu spra�uje, ali je treba člen 18(4) Šeste direktive o DDV razlagati tako, da nasprotuje nacionalni ureditvi, kot je obravnavana v postopku v glavni stvari, 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 DDV v roku od 60 do 180 dni, �teto od dneva, ko je davčni zavezanec vložil napoved DDV, razen če so ti položili var�čino v vi�ini 250.000 PLN.
As the Court has consistently held, it is clear that the right to deduct is an integral part of the VAT scheme and as a general rule may not be limited.
Sodi�če je večkrat poudarilo, da iz tega izhaja, da je pravica do znižanja sestavni del mehanizma DDV in se je načeloma ne sme omejiti.
It is relevant, moreover, to note that where, for a given tax period, the amount of the deductible tax exceeds the amount of tax due and therefore the taxable person cannot effect the deduction by subtraction in accordance with Article 18(2) of the Sixth VAT directive, Article 18(4) provides that the Member States may either make a refund or carry the excess forward to the following period according to conditions which they are to determine.
Poleg tega je treba poudariti, da člen 18(4) Šeste direktive o DDV določa, da kadar za davčno obdobje znesek davka, ki se ga lahko odbije, preseže znesek dolgovanega davka in davčni zavezanec torej ne more odbitja izvesti z od�tevanjem v skladu z odstavkom 2 te določbe, lahko države članice prenesejo preveč plačani davek na naslednje obdobje ali ga vrnejo v skladu s podrobnimi pravili, ki jih določijo.
As regards the former possibility, which is at issue in the main proceedings, the Court has made it clear that, while the Member States have a certain freedom to manoeuvre in determining the conditions for the refund of excess VAT, those conditions cannot undermine the principle of neutrality of the VAT tax system by making the taxable person bear the burden of the VAT in whole or in part.
V zvezi z zadnjenavedeno možnostjo, na katero se nana�a zadeva, obravnavana v postopku v glavni stvari, je Sodi�če poudarilo, da čeprav imajo države članice določeno diskrecijsko pravico pri določanju podrobnih pravil za vračilo preveč plačanega DDV, ta podrobna pravila ne morejo posegati v načelo nevtralnosti davčnega sistema DDV, s tem da davčnemu zavezancu v celoti ali delno nalagajo breme tega davka.
In particular, such conditions must enable the taxable person, in appropriate circumstances, to recover the entirety of the credit arising from that excess VAT. This implies that the refund is made within a reasonable period of time by a payment in liquid funds or equivalent means, and that, in any event, the method of refund adopted must not entail any financial risk for the taxable person. (see Commission v Italy, paragraphs 32 to 34).
Ta podrobna pravila morajo davčnemu zavezancu omogočiti predvsem, da dobi pod ustreznimi pogoji povrnjene vse terjatve, ki izhajajo iz preveč plačanega DDV, kar pomeni, da se vračilo izvede v razumnem roku, z gotovinskim plačilom ali enakovrednimi sredstvi, in da sprejeti način vračila davčnemu zavezancu v vsakem primeru ne sme povzročiti nobenega finančnega tveganja (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Komisija proti Italiji, točke od 32 do 34).
Consequently, the question from the referring court must be examined in the light of those fundamental principles, set out in the preceding paragraphs, of the common system of VAT.
Vpra�anje, ki ga je zastavilo predložitveno sodi�če, je treba torej preučiti ob upo�tevanju temeljnih načel skupnega sistema DDV, navedenih v prej�njih točkah.
It is apparent from the order for reference that, under the provisions of the Law on VAT determining the conditions for repayment of excess VAT to the taxable person, the tax office has available to it a period of 60 days from the date on which the taxable person submits his VAT return to make such a repayment; that period is extended to 180 days when, as in the case of the applicant in the main proceedings, the taxable persons concerned are new taxable persons who have not lodged a security deposit, within the meaning of Article 97(7) of the Law on VAT.
Iz predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da določbe zakona o DDV o podrobnih pravilih za vračilo preveč plačanega DDV davčnemu zavezancu določajo, da mora davčni urad to vračilo izvesti v 60 dneh od dneva, ko je davčni zavezanec vložil napoved DDV, in da se ta rok podalj�a na 180 dni, če gre, tako kot velja za tožečo stranko v postopku v glavni stvari, za nove davčne zavezance, ki niso položili „var�čine“ iz člena 97(7) tega zakona.
It is therefore clear that new taxable persons are subject to conditions for the refund of excess VAT which are more onerous than those to which other taxable persons
Treba je torej ugotoviti, da za nove davčne zavezance veljajo podrobna pravila za vračilo preveč plačanega DDV, ki so strožja od tistih, ki veljajo za druge davčne
2008 — CASE C-25/07 are subject.
2008 – ZADEVA C-25/07 zavezance.
Accordingly they have to bear, at least to the extent of the amount of excess VAT to be repaid, the financial burden of VAT for a particularly long period.
Tako morajo finančno breme DDV, vsaj glede preveč plačanega zneska DDV, ki mora biti vrnjen, nositi posebno dolgo časa.
The Republic of Poland maintains that lengthening of the period is justified by the fact that the persons concerned are taxable persons newly liable to VAT, who are not known to the tax office and in relation to whom more extensive inquiries must be made in order to prevent any tax evasion and avoidance.
Republika Poljska pojasnjuje, da je to podalj�anje roka upravičeno z dejstvom, da gre za nove zavezance za DDV, ki jih davčni urad ne pozna in v zvezi s katerimi je nujno opraviti pomembnej�i nadzor, da se preprečita vsakr�na davčna utaja in izogibanje davkom.
It is clear from the caselaw that national legislation determining conditions for repayment of excess VAT 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 VAT Directive (see, by analogy, in
V zvezi s tem iz sodne prakse izhaja, da nacionalna zakonodaja, ki določa podrobna pravila za vračilo preveč plačanega DDV, ki so zaradi domnevne verjetnosti davčnih utaj strožja za eno skupino davčnih zavezancev, pri čemer pa davčni zavezanec nima možnosti dokazati neobstoj 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
SOSNOWSKA relation to exclusions from the right to deduct, Joined Cases C-177/99 and C-181/99 Ampafrance and Sanofi [2000] ECR I-7013, paragraph 62, and, in relation to preventive attachment, Molenheide and Others, paragraph 51).
SOSNOWSKA o DDV (glede izključitve olaj�av glej po analogiji sodbo z dne 19. septembra 2000 v združenih zadevah Ampafrance in Sanofi, C-177/99 in C-181/99, Recueil, str. I-7013, točka 62, ter glede zasega premoženja zgoraj navedeno sodbo Molenheide in drugi, točka 51).
That is exactly the case, as determined in paragraph 20 of this judgment, of the national legislation in the main proceedings.
Kot je bilo ugotovljeno v točki 20 te sodbe, gre ravno za to pri nacionalni zakonodaji, ki je obravnavana v postopku v glavni stvari.
It is clear from the order for reference that Article 97(5) and (7) of the Law on VAT apply generally and preventively to new taxable persons, without making any provision for such persons to demonstrate the absence of a risk of tax evasion or avoidance.
Iz predložitvene odločbe namreč izhaja, da člen 97(5) in (7) zakona o DDV velja splo�no in preventivno za nove davčne zavezance, ne da bi ti imeli možnost dokazati, da ne obstaja davčna utaja ali davčno izogibanje.
Similarly, the national provisions at issue do not appear to be in conformity with the condition laid down in the caselaw, as stated in paragraph 17 of this judgment, that repayment of the excess VAT must be made within a reasonable time.
Poleg tega se zdi, da obravnavane nacionalne določbe ne izpolnjujejo pogoja, določenega v sodni praksi in navedenega v točki 17 te sodbe, v skladu s katerim se mora vračilo preveč plačanega DDV izvesti v razumnem roku.
As was stated in the order for reference, the period for repayment of 180 days laid down for new taxable persons is, on the one hand, six times longer than the one month applicable accounting period for VAT and, on the other hand, three times longer than the period applied to other taxable persons, while the Polish authorities have offered no argument capable of explaining why it is necessary, in order to prevent tax evasion and avoidance, to establish a difference in treatment of such a scale.
Kot je bilo pojasnjeno v predložitveni odločbi, je rok 180 dni za vračilo, ki velja za nove davčne zavezance, �estkrat dalj�i od enomesečnega roka za napoved DDV in trikrat dalj�i od roka, ki velja za druge davčne zavezance, pri tem pa poljski organi niso navedli dokazov, s katerimi bi bilo mogoče pojasniti nujnost tako različnega obravnavanja zaradi preprečevanja davčnih utaj ali davčnega izogibanja.
Moreover, such a long period appears even less necessary when, in any event, the tax office has the power, under Article 87(2) of the Law on VAT, if it is useful to make wider inquiry into the lawfulness of repayment and to obtain the necessary clarification, to extend the period of 60 days within which repayment must be made.
Poleg tega se tako dolg rok zdi �e toliko manj nujen, ker lahko davčni urad v vsakem primeru v skladu s členom 87(2) zakona o DDV podalj�a rok 60 dni, v katerem se mora izvesti vračilo, če se izkaže za primerno, da se podrobneje preveri zakonitost vračila, in zaradi pridobitve potrebnih pojasnil.
Lastly, as regards the possibility offered to new taxable persons by Article 97(7) of the Law on VAT to lodge a security deposit in order to take advantage of the normal
Nazadnje pa možnost, ki jo novim davčnim zavezancem ponuja člen 97(7) zakona o DDV, da lahko položijo var�čino, da bi bili upravičeni do običajnega 60-dnevnega
2008 — CASE C-25/07 period of 60 days for the obtaining of repayment of excess VAT, that cannot affect the considerations set out in the preceding paragraphs.
2008 – ZADEVA C-25/07 roka za pridobitev vračila preveč plačanega DDV, ne vpliva na ugotovitve iz prej�njih točk.
As is argued by the Commission, the security deposit is not proportionate either to the amount of the excess VAT to be repaid or to the economic size of the taxable person.
Kot navaja Komisija, navedena var�čina namreč ni sorazmerna s preveč plačanim DDV, ki ga je treba vrniti, niti z ekonomsko velikostjo davčnega zavezanca.
In particular, the lodging of such a security deposit is likely, contrary to what is required by the caselaw referred to in paragraph 17 of this judgment, to entail a not inconsiderable financial risk for undertakings which have just commenced their activities and may, consequently, lack significant resources.
Natančneje, v nasprotju z zahtevo, ki jo je določila sodna praksa in je navedena v točki 17 te sodbe, 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 VAT 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 DDV za 180 dni, z bremenom, ki ga predstavlja zadržanje zneska var�čine.
There is even less justification when, first, the latter amount may, as in the case in the main proceedings, be greater than the amount of the excess VAT at issue, and, second, the length of time over which the security deposit is tied up is greater than the period for repayment of the excess VAT laid down for new taxable persons.
To je toliko manj upravičeno, kolikor je lahko slednji znesek vi�ji od zadevnega zneska preveč plačanega DDV, kot je to v zadevi v glavni stvari, in kolikor je obdobje zadržanja var�čine dalj�e od roka za vračilo preveč plačanega DDV, ki velja za nove davčne zavezance.
Under Article 97(6) of the Law on VAT, the security deposit can be released only after a period of 12 months, on condition that the taxable person has paid all of the taxes relating to that period for which he is liable to the State.
V skladu s členom 97(6) zakona o DDV se var�čina namreč lahko sprosti �ele po dvanajstih mesecih, če je davčni zavezanec plačal vse davke iz tega obdobja, ki jih mora plačati državi.
In those circumstances, the reply to be given to the first question is that Article 18(4) of the Sixth VAT Directive and the principle of proportionality preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, 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 VAT return, the period available to the national tax office for repayment of excess VAT to a category of taxable persons unless those persons lodge a security deposit to a value of PLN 250 000.
Na podlagi navedenega je treba na prvo vpra�anje odgovoriti tako, da člen 18(4) Šeste direktive o DDV in načelo sorazmernosti nasprotujeta nacionalni ureditvi, kot je obravnavana v sporu o glavni stvari, 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 DDV v roku od 60 do 180 dni, �teto od dneva, ko je davčni zavezanec vložil napoved DDV, razen če so ti položili var�čino v vi�ini 250.000 PLN
By its second question, the referring court essentially asks whether the provisions of Article 97(5) and (7) of the Law on VAT can be regarded as ‘special measures for derogation’ intended to prevent certain types of tax evasion or avoidance, within the meaning of Article 27(1) of the Sixth VAT directive.
Z drugim vpra�anjem se predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali se določbe iz člena 97(5) in (7) zakona o DDV lahko �tejejo za „posebne ukrepe, ki odstopajo“, za preprečevanje nekaterih vrst davčnih utaj ali izogibanja davkom v smislu člena 27(1) Šeste direktive o DDV.
It must be borne in mind that Article 27(1) of the Sixth VAT Directive provides that the option of a Member State to introduce such derogating measures is subject to a specific procedure, in particular requiring the agreement of the Council of the European Union, acting unanimously.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da člen 27(1) Šeste direktive o DDV pogojuje možnost države članice, da uvede take ukrepe za odstopanje, s posebnim postopkom ter določa predvsem soglasno sprejeto dovoljenje Sveta Evropske unije.
However, as the Advocate General states in point 39 of his Opinion and as is correctly pointed out by the Commission, the documents before the Court do not disclose that the measures at issue were authorised by the Council, in accordance with that provision, as special measures for derogation from the Sixth VAT directive.
Kot je poudaril generalni pravobranilec v točki 39 sklepnih predlogov in kot navaja Komisije, iz spisa ne izhaja, da je v skladu z navedeno določbo Svet dovolil sprejetje zadevnih ukrepov kot posebnih ukrepov za odstopanje od Šeste direktive o DDV.
That being the case, provisions such as those within Article 97(5) and (7) of the Law on VAT cannot fall within the scope of Article 27(1).
Določbe, kot so te iz člena 97(5) in (7) zakona o DDV, v teh okoli�činah ne spadajo na področje uporabe navedenega člena 27(1).
Consequently the reply to be given to the second question is that provisions, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, do not constitute ‘special measures for derogation’ intended to prevent certain types of tax evasion or avoidance, within the meaning of Article 27(1) of the Sixth VAT directive.
Tako je treba na drugo vpra�anje odgovoriti, da določbe, kot se obravnavajo v sporu o glavni stvari, ne veljajo za „posebne ukrepe, ki odstopajo“, za preprečevanje nekaterih vrst davčnih utaj ali izogibanja davkom v smislu člena 27(1) Šeste direktive o DDV.