WRITTEN QUESTION P-2299/99 by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Tax arrangements which distort competition within the EU.
Date: 1999-11-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, business location, economic activity, restriction on competition, tax incentive

C 219 E/144

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

1.8.2000

(cid:129) promotion of a label

to guarantee consumer protection and certify that products have been
manufactured in compliance with labour laws, thereby ensuring that the WTO members(cid:146) economies
develop on a fair and sustainable basis and safeguarding intellectual property rights, which implies
taking action to combat fraud in this as in other areas.

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 1999)

The Commission is fully aware of the difficulties experienced by the Community(cid:146)s textile and clothing
sector. With the entry into force of the World trade organisation (WTO) agreement on textiles and
clothing (ATC), a process of staged liberalisation has begun that will lead to the complete removal of
quantitative import restrictions with WTO members by 1 January 2005.

The Commission is convinced that in preparation for this date the creation of a (cid:145)level playing field(cid:146),
allowing the Community(cid:146)s industry equal access in third country markets, will be indispensable for the
sector. Therefore, it will be necessary to attack the numerous tariff and non-tariff trade barriers which
Community exports face in many trading partners(cid:146) markets. In its communication (1) to the Council on the
new round of trade talks, the Commission presented a comprehensive tariff approach, aiming notably at
harmonising tariff structures and removing tariff peaks. It further underlined the necessity to attack non-
tariff trade barriers.

The Commission believes that voluntary schemes which promote labelling of textile products, in order to
identify products produced respecting social and labour rights, can be helpful to raise awareness in the
general public and facilitate consumers(cid:146) choice. The Commission takes a hard line on cases of textile fraud
and circumvention. The textiles anti-fraud initiative (TAFI) was created to deal with this serious issue and
cases where malpractice is suspected are rigorously investigated by the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF).
As far as the protection of intellectual property rights in the sector is concerned, the Commission has
commissioned a handbook to help Community producers achieve adequate protection against counterfeit.
Furthermore, the Commission presented on 22 June 1999 an amended proposal for a Council regulation
on the European Community design (2). This would encourage innovation and help to prevent counter-
feiting and piracy by providing for protection of industrial designs, including textile designs, throughout
the Community single market.

The Commission considers the policies and measures described above to be necessary in order to provide
for the European textiles and clothing industry a fair and equitable trading environment in which it can
fully unfold its comparative advantages and bring to bear its competitive potential.

(1) COM(1999) 331 final.
(2) COM(1999) 310 final.

(2000/C 219 E/181)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2299/99

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Tax arrangements which distort competition within the EU

Can the Commission confirm that a working party of Commission officials has identified 60 tax
arrangements in a number of Member States which may be regarded as distorting competition?

Is it true that according to the working party(cid:146)s report the Netherlands heads the list of countries with tax
arrangements that distort competition, nine of its arrangements coming in for criticism for this reason?

Which are the nine offending tax arrangements?

1.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 219 E/145

Is it true that not a single competition-distorting tax arrangement was identified in Germany, France, Italy
or Britain (i.e. in the large Member States)? Is this not curious, and on what grounds was this conclusion
reached?

What is the Commission(cid:146)s opinion of the officials(cid:146) report, and when will the Commission issue its own
political assessment?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 1999)

The code of conduct group (business taxation) was established by the Ecofin Council on 9 March 1998. By
common accord, Mrs Dawn Primarolo, British Treasury minister, was appointed to chair the group for a
two-year period.

The group(cid:146)s main task has been to assess the tax measures that may fall within the code of conduct for
business taxation that was adopted by the Council and representatives of the governments of Member
States on 1 December 1997. This code concerns those tax measures which affect, or may affect, in a
significant way the location of business activity within the Community, and all Member States have been
free to discuss and comment on tax measures of other Member States that may fall within the scope of the
code.

All Member States and the Commission are represented at a high level in this group which presented its
final report to the Ecofin Council on 29 November 1999.

The Council agreed that the work of the group should be confidential and it would not be appropriate for
the Commission to comment on the detail of the report or on particular aspects of the work of this
Council group.

(2000/C 219 E/182)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2312/99

by Esko Sepp(cid:228)nen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Environmental disaster in the Kymijoki river

Investigations by the Finnish Environment Centre have shown that there are between 16 and 21 kg of
dioxines and furanes at the bottom of Finland(cid:146)s fourth largest river, the Kymijoki. The levels of PCDF
compounds are at least ten times greater than the accepted limit values. Dioxines and furanes are
carcinogens and represent a particular risk if they enter the food chain. Dioxines and furanes have an
effect, inter alia, on the cell nucleus in which they cause changes to the genome.

Preparations are under way in Finland for the canalisation of the Kymijoki. The dredging which the
canalisation requires, and the propellor turbulence caused by possible future shipping traffic, will stir up
the bottom sediments so that dioxines and furanes will be carried into the Gulf of Finland, possibly
threatening the ecology of the whole Baltic Sea. Is the Commission aware of this problem, and if so what
can it do under the founding Treaties of the EU to prevent an environmental disaster?

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 2000)

The Commission is aware that sediments in the Baltic sea contain comparatively high amounts of dioxins.
Therefore it is unsurprising that sediments in the rivers feeding the Baltic sea contain higher than average
amounts of dioxins as well. The particular situation of the Kymijoki River and the level of dioxins in the
sediments of that river is not known to the Commission.