# CE2004078EN.01036702.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/367 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/367

---

(2004/C 78 E/0387)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1416/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 April 2003)

Subject:   Bank sentenced to pay compensation to clients for having provided information to the tax authorities of their Member State

Subject:

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of the ruling handed down by a Luxembourg court which sentenced the Kredietbank Luxembourg (KBL) to pay compensation of EUR 25 000 to each of five Belgian former clients who had brought an action against the bank on the grounds that it had failed to prevent the Belgian tax authorities from identifying them? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of the ruling handed down by a Luxembourg court which sentenced the Kredietbank Luxembourg (KBL) to pay compensation of EUR 25 000 to each of five Belgian former clients who had brought an action against the bank on the grounds that it had failed to prevent the Belgian tax authorities from identifying them?

| 2. | Does the Commission deem it acceptable that a situation may arise in the EU where persons guilty of tax evasion may receive compensation from organisations which have failed to keep secret their liability to punishment? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission deem it acceptable that a situation may arise in the EU where persons guilty of tax evasion may receive compensation from organisations which have failed to keep secret their liability to punishment?

| 3. | Is the Commission aware that the Netherlands Inland Revenue Service identified 6 000 Dutch tax evaders who held accounts with the KBL in the early 1990s in the same way and that they had to pay additional taxes as a result? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission aware that the Netherlands Inland Revenue Service identified 6 000 Dutch tax evaders who held accounts with the KBL in the early 1990s in the same way and that they had to pay additional taxes as a result?

| 4. | What impact does the Commission foresee if, after the first five successful parties in a court action, thousands of other tax evaders also succeed in having their claims for compensation upheld in court? Will that result in increasing pressure on the governments of the Member States in which banking secrecy still operates to tighten up measures to combat and punish the provision of information to other Member States? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What impact does the Commission foresee if, after the first five successful parties in a court action, thousands of other tax evaders also succeed in having their claims for compensation upheld in court? Will that result in increasing pressure on the governments of the Member States in which banking secrecy still operates to tighten up measures to combat and punish the provision of information to other Member States?

| 5. | Does the Commission expect that actions brought by tax evaders against banks may become an appropriate method whereby banks which claim that the accounts held with them may remain secret are saddled with costs that are so heavy that they would have to give up banking secrecy once and for all on the grounds of self-preservation? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does the Commission expect that actions brought by tax evaders against banks may become an appropriate method whereby banks which claim that the accounts held with them may remain secret are saddled with costs that are so heavy that they would have to give up banking secrecy once and for all on the grounds of self-preservation?

| 6. | In what way can these disputes inside the EU be terminated when tax evasion is not only not punished but actually rewarded and banks are given an incentive to withhold tax revenues? |
| --- | --- |

6.

In what way can these disputes inside the EU be terminated when tax evasion is not only not punished but actually rewarded and banks are given an incentive to withhold tax revenues?

Source: the edition dated 3 April 2003 of ‘de Volkskrant’ a Dutch newspaper.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(27 May 2003)

(27 May 2003)

The Commission is aware of the decision of the Luxembourg Court to which the Honourable Member refers. National judicial proceedings and decisions of independent national judicial authorities in this area belong to the internal competencies of Member States. The Commission does not wish to speculate on the possible consequences of a particular national court decision for other similar cases or indeed for the legislation of the Member State concerned.

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that the problem of tax fraud and evasion gives cause for concern. The Commission is convinced that its policy which aims at increased co-operation and exchange of information between the competent authorities of Member States can assist Member States in tackling this problem more effectively. In recent years, the Commission has made a number of proposals to improve the administrative assistance between Member States in the area of direct and indirect taxes.

In July 2001 the Commission presented a proposal for a Directive (1) on taxation of savings income which provides for the automatic exchange of information between tax authorities with respect to interest paid to individuals resident in other Member States. Although this proposal provides for transitional arrangements for Belgium, Luxembourg and Austria, all Member States will ultimately be expected to participate in the automatic exchange of information. The discussions on this proposal are at an advanced stage and the Commission hopes that it will be adopted shortly. The Commission is convinced that this Directive will enable Member States to fight cross-border tax evasion more effectively.

1

---

(1)  Proposal for a Council Directive to ensure effective taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments within the Community, OJ C 270 E, 25.9.2001.

1

---