WRITTEN QUESTION E-2134/99 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council. Abolition of tax-free shopping and the impact on jobs.
Date: 1999-11-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, duty-free sale, economic consequence, employment statistics, job cuts, market approval

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 203 E/141

with their national members, has been placed on the Europa server. (1) This database, inclusion in which is
entirely voluntary, currently contains about 900 groups representing every sector of economic and social
life. It is a valuable information tool for officials wishing to consult a broad spectrum of public opinion.

The Commission plans to develop this database further, expanding the content and extending the scope,
possibly to make it an interinstitutional tool.

(1)

http://europa.eu.int/comm/sg/sgc/lobbies/index_en.htm.

(2000/C 203 E/179)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2134/99

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Abolition of tax-free shopping and the impact on jobs

On 1 July 1999 sales of duty-free goods in (cid:145)tax-free shops(cid:146) finally came to an end. These shops sold certain
products (e.g. perfume, cigarettes and alcohol) tax-free to passengers on international flights. The ban
followed a decision by the European Summit in Cologne on 3 and 4 June 1999 to apply Article 12 of the
Sixth Council directive on VAT No 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 in full. The article in question
permitted intra-Community sales free of tax until 30 June 1999.

For a variety of reasons there was considerable opposition to the abolition of tax-free shopping in the
European Union, e.g. because of the negative effect on jobs. The Commission and the Council have always
argued that the ban on tax-free shopping would not lead to a loss of jobs. However, the evidence emerging
from the industry is different. For example, sales at Sky Shops in Zaventem have fallen by a quarter since
30 June 1999. Management have been obliged to make 60 full-time employees redundant.

How many persons were employed full-time in tax-free shops in the European Union on 1 January

1.
1999?

How many persons were employed full-time in tax-free shops in the European Union on 1 June

2.
1999?

How many persons were employed full-time in tax-free shops in the European Union on 1 July

3.
1999?

How many persons were employed full-time in tax-free shops in the European Union on 1 October

4.
1999?

On the basis of the answers to questions 1 to 4, does the Council acknowledge that the number of

5.
full-time jobs in tax-free shops in the European Union has fallen?

Does the Council feel that these job losses are due to the abolition of tax-free shopping in the
6.
European Union? If so, is the Council prepared to review the ban on tax-free shopping? If not, to what
does the Council attribute the loss of jobs in the tax-free shops sector?

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.

Answer

(24 January 2000)

According to the Council(cid:146)s basic decision from 1992, tax-free sales for intra-community travellers did not
fit in with the concept of an internal market without fiscal frontiers. Nevertheless, the Council decided in
1992 to maintain the situation of duty-free shops on a temporary basis until the end of June 1999.

C 203 E/142

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2000

The Council has repeatedly pointed out that at a first stage it is up to Member States to alleviate both the
social repercussions in the sector concerned and the regional difficulties in border regions which might
arise from the abolition of tax-free sales. The Community instruments available to Member States to
address possible consequences of the abolition of those sales are outlined in a Communication from the
Commission to the Council of 17 February 1999 (1).

(1) OJ C 66, 9.3.1999, p. 6.

(2000/C 203 E/180)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2138/99

by Didier Rod (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(15 November 1999)

Subject: Chad/Cameroon oil pipeline

According to our information, the Chad-Cameroon oil pipeline project is on the agenda of the next
meeting of the World Bank(cid:146)s executive committee in mid-November. At a press conference of 30 Septem-
ber 1999 Mr Wolfensohn, President of the World Bank, expressed his organisation(cid:146)s support for the
project. According to our information, a positive decision to grant the necessary credit to the governments
of Chad and Cameroon can be expected.

In December 1998 Parliament requested a moratorium on the project until certain guarantees concerning
the distribution of revenue, the compensation and transfer of the population concerned, the specific
arrangements for the environmental risks and the actual participation of civil society in the decision-
making process were fulfilled.

What is the Council(cid:146)s position with regard to future developments in this matter?

Is the Council aware of the methods of the World Bank which, according to a publicised internal
correspondence, despatches emissaries as interlocutors to (cid:145)appease(cid:146) critics of the project while at the same
time preparing for its launch at the highest level? Which, at a public meeting of 30 September 1998,
presents as representatives of Cameroon(cid:146)s civil society two persons who are employed as consultants for
the World Bank?

Are there, at the level of the Council, consultations on the position taken by the Member States within the
executive committee? If not, why not? If there are, was the project the subject of consultations? What is
the position of the fifteen Member States regarding the decision to finance the Chad-Cameroon oil
pipeline?

Answer

(24 January 2000)

The matter referred to by the Honourable Member has not come before the Council, which consequently
has no knowledge of the discussions on the financing of the Chad/Cameroon oil pipeline project.

Formal consultation meetings on the position taken by the Member States within the Executive Committee
of the World Bank are not organised by the Council, since not all the Member States have a seat on the
Committee: some are represented by another country which is not necessarily a Member State of the
Community.

Finally, for the reasons mentioned above, the Council as such has no position on the decision to finance
the pipeline in question.