WRITTEN QUESTION No. 4214/97 by Bryan CASSIDY to the Commission. Judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on 26 October 1996 in the case of Elida Gibbs Limited (Case C-317/94)
Date: 1998-01-21
Institutions: CASSIDY, European Parliament
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union, EU law - national law, France, Germany, Greece, VAT, interpretation of the law, judgment of the Court (EU), preliminary issue

21. 10. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 323/17

Joint answer to Written Questions
E-4196/97, E-4197/97, E-4198/97, E-4199/97,
E-4200/97, E-4201/97 and E-4204/97
given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 1998)

Article  8  of  the  current  legislation  governing  the  structural  funds,  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2081/93  of
20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 on the tasks of the Structural Funds and their effectiveness
and on coordination of their activities between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment
Bank and the other existing financial instruments (1), lays down that (cid:145)the regions covered by Objective 1 shall be
regions at NUTS level II whose per capita GDP, on the basis of the figures for the last three years, is less than
75% of the Community average(cid:146).

The regional GDPs are estimated using a standard methodology for all regions of the Community. The method
used  is  based  on  two  variables:  the  national  GDP  for  a  given  period  and  the  regional  structure  of  the
corresponding gross value added. The latest data currently available relate to 1994. The data for 1995 are being
drawn up, and those for 1996 will be available by the end of this year.

The  statistical  information  requested  by  the  honourable  Member,  taken  from  Eurostat(cid:146)s  REGIO  database,  is
being  sent  to  him  and  the  Secretariat-General  of  Parliament.  It  should  be  noted  that  this  information  is  not
available for Valenciennes, Avesnes and Douai (which are areas lower than NUTS level II, eligible by way of
exception under Objective 1).

(1)  OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.

(98/C 323/22)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4213/97

by Bryan Cassidy (PPE) to the Commission

(21 January 1998)

Subject: Judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on 26 October 1996 in the case of Elida Gibbs Limited

(Case C-317/94)

This  ECJ  judgment  appears  to  be  frustrated  by  its  non-application  in  Germany  and  its  partial  application  in
France and Greece.

Where wide-ranging changes to the VAT, which may potentially distort competition between businesses, are
contemplated  by  the  European  Commission,  is  it  unusual  to  exclude  economic  operators  entirely  from  the
consultation process?

(98/C 323/23)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4214/97

by Bryan Cassidy (PPE) to the Commission

(21 January 1998)

Subject: Judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on 26 October 1996 in the case of Elida Gibbs Limited

(Case C-317/94)

This  ECJ  judgment  appears  to  be  frustrated  by  its  non-application  in  Germany  and  its  partial  application  in
France and Greece.

Do administrators in the European Commission have any discretion to refuse to promulgate a ruling of the ECJ in
a particular case?

If there is no such discretion, what remedy is there for a business or an individual against an administrator who is
responsible  for  obstructing  the  laid-down  procedure?  Is  there  an  internal  disciplinary  procedure?  What
compensation may be claimed by the business/individual, and from whom?