WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1464/98 by Nel van DIJK to the Commission. Inclusion by Netherlands Central Planning Office of reduced EU budget contribution by the Netherlands in calculation of estimated costs of implementing parties' election manifestoes
Date: 1998-05-07
Institutions: European Parliament, VAN DIJK
Subjects: Member States' contribution, Netherlands, budgetary discipline (EU), drawing up of the EU budget, election programme, financing of the EU budget, interinstitutional agreement, multiannual financial framework

C 323/132

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21. 10. 98

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-1396/98 and E-1397/98

(6 July 1998)

The issues the Honourable Member raises in Written Question No 1396/98 and in points 4 and 5 of her Written
Question No 1397/98 do not fall within the Council(cid:146)s sphere of competence.

The matters referred to in points 1, 2 and 3 of Written Question No 1397/98 have never been discussed by the
Council.

(98/C 323/204)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1455/98

by Anne McIntosh (PPE) to the Council

(11 May 1998)

Subject: VAT rates

Does  the  Presidency-in-Office  support,  and  would  it  be  prepared  to  use,  the  discretion  granted  by  the
Commission  in  its  Communication  SEC(97)2089  final  on  reduced  VAT  rates  for  selected  labour-intensive
services?

Is  the  Presidency-in-Office  prepared  to  accept  that  this  discretion  applies  to  the  maintenance  and  repair  of
churches and historic listed buildings?

Would the Presidency-in-Office consider this as part of the Commission(cid:146)s review of the harmonization of VAT
throughout the European Union?

Answer

(6 July 1998)

The  Commission  communication  to  which  the  Honourable  Member  refers  in  her  question  is  currently  being
examined within the Council(cid:146)s subsidiary bodies. Until these proceedings are completed, the Council cannot
reply to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s question.

(98/C 323/205)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1464/98

by Nel van Dijk (V) to the Commission

(7 May 1998)

Subject: Inclusion  by  Netherlands  Central  Planning  Office  of  reduced  EU  budget  contribution  by  the
Netherlands in calculation of estimated costs of implementing parties(cid:146) election manifestoes

Is the Commission aware of the report (cid:145)Keuzes in kaart › economische effecten van vijf verkiezingsprogram-
ma(cid:146)s(cid:146)  (Reviewing  the  options  ›  economic  impact  of  five  election  manifestoes)  by  the  Netherlands  Central
Planning Office, particularly the section (cid:145)Reduction of contributions to the EU budget(cid:146) in Annex 6?

If no agreement were to be reached within the Council concerning the new Financial Perspective › for example
on  account  of  a  veto  by  the  Netherlands  ›  would  an  extension  of  the  current  Financial  Perspective  be
(cid:145)conditional on unanimity(cid:146), as the Central Planning Office claims?

Does the view expressed by the Central Planning Office accord with the decision-making procedure described in
Paragraph 25 of the Interinstitutional Agreement (IIA) of 29 October 1993 on the Financial Perspective? Is it true
that (cid:145)as far as the Council is concerned, the IIA lays down that it may reject an extension by a qualified majority.
However, the Member States have agreed that in practice there should be a qualified majority in favour of an
extension ...(cid:146) (1)?