WRITTEN QUESTION E-2277/99 by Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Purchase of holiday homes by foreign nationals.
Date: 1999-12-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, Finland, Sweden, acquisition of property, derogation from EU law, foreign national, secondary residence

C 303 E/42

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

24.10.2000

There are no plans to set up a supervisory authority at European level. However, the European Union
supports Member States(cid:146) actions by specific measures to improve judicial cooperation in this area. In
particular, there is a draft joint action to combat child pornography on the Internet, on which the Council
Presidency decided to consult the European Parliament before the Amsterdam Treaty entered into force
and which will be transformed into a decision on which the Council will consult the European Parliament
in accordance with Article 39 of the Treaty on European Union.

The Honourable Member will also note that the proposal for a Directive on certain aspects of electronic
commerce on the international market contains provisions limiting the responsibility of access providers.

Lastly, the Council has adopted a joint position of the Member States to be defended in negotiations in the
Council of Europe on a Convention on cybercrime, which also covers measures against criminal offences
committed via the Internet. With the same goal
in mind, on 25 January 1999 under Decision
276/1999/EC the European Parliament and the Council adopted a multiannual Community action plan
on promoting safer use of the Internet by combating illegal and harmful content on global networks. The
action plan covers the period 1 January 1999 to 31 December 2002; EUR 25 million has been allocated to
its implementation.

(1) Article 2 of the Council Act of 26 July 1995 drawing up the Convention based on Article K.3 of the Treaty on

European Union, on the establishment of a European Police Office (OJ C 316, 27.11.1995, p. 5).

(2) Article 1 of the Council Decision of 3 December 1998 supplementing the definition of the form of crime (cid:145)traffic in

human beings(cid:146) in the Annex to the Europol Convention (OJ C 26, 30.1.1999, p. 21).

(2000/C 303 E/038)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2277/99

by Inger Sch(cid:246)rling (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Purchase of holiday homes by foreign nationals

Most countries used to restrict
foreign nationals to purchase property. Sweden has a
derogation from the current rules until the end of the year, but all parties now agree that such restrictions
should be scrapped.

the right of

A potential problem that would eventually have to be resolved is that house prices in attractive areas could
skyrocket to such an extent that locals find themselves priced out of the property market. In the long run,
this could mean that communities wither away and come to life only during the summer months. Many
coastal municipalities in particular are deeply concerned about such trends.

interests are
According to an ECJ judgment last summer,
acceptable provided that certain conditions are met. They must not, for instance, be discriminatory or
more stringent than is required to achieve their objectives.

laws designed to protect or promote local

What, in the Commission(cid:146)s view, are acceptable regional or local factors which Member States may take
into account, and what must the objective of such laws be?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2000)

The EC Treaty stipulates, in Article 56 (ex Article 73b), that (cid:145)(cid:133) all restrictions on the movement of capital
between Member States and between Member States and third countries shall be prohibited(cid:146). This rule is
applicable to the acquisition of real estate by non-residents, since such acquisition is a capital movement.
The EC Treaty provides for some exceptions to this general rule. Of relevance in the present context is
Article 58 (ex Article 73d) of the EC Treaty which allows Member States (cid:145)to take measures which are
that Article also stipulates that such
justified on grounds of public policy or public security(cid:146). But

24.10.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 303 E/43

measures (cid:145)(cid:133) shall not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on the free
movement of capital (cid:133)(cid:146).

Moreover, judgements of the Court of justice (e.g. Case 17/92) indicate that economic grounds as such are
not acceptable grounds for an exception. The mere fact that the opening of borders for capital movements
puts an upward pressure on prices does not justify an exception from the freedom of such movements.
However, if a large demand for secondary homes in a certain, but limited, area leads to undesirable social
consequences such as that described by the Honourable Member, certain restrictions on the acquisition of
second homes may be justified on grounds mentioned in the EC Treaty. Such restrictions could be
accomplished by town and country planning guidelines, which may restrict the building of second homes
and the use of existing buildings as second homes in certain limited areas, reserving those areas in a
municipality or region to other land uses. The applicability of such measures was confirmed in a joint
declaration on secondary residences (Declaration no. 5 in the Treaty of Accession of Austria, Finland and
Sweden), which states that (cid:145)nothing in the (cid:146)acquis communautaire(cid:145) prevents individual Member States from
taking national, regional or local measures regarding secondary residences, provided that
they are
necessary for land-use planning and environmental protection and apply without direct or indirect
discrimination between nationals of the Member States (cid:133)(cid:146).

That declaration recalls that discrimination vis-(cid:224)-vis non-residents,
in particular Community nationals,
must be avoided when applying such planning guidelines. The recent Court judgement mentioned by the
Honourable Member (Konle vs. Austria of June 1999) provides further interpretation of this condition, as
well as recalling the need to observe proportionality (cid:145)(cid:133) to the extent that a Member State can justify its
requirement of prior authorisation by relying on a town and country planning objective such as
maintaining in the general interest, a permanent population and an economic activity independent of the
tourist sector in certain regions, the restrictive measure inherent in such a requirement can be accepted
only if it is not applied in a discriminatory manner and if the same result cannot be achieved by other less
restrictive procedures(cid:146) (Case C-302/97).

The Commission(cid:146)s answer to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s question is therefore that a Member State may
apply town and country guidelines which include a restriction on the acquisition of second homes in
certain limited areas, if there is a clear risk of social disruption. Such a restriction must be clearly non-
discriminatory, that is, it must also apply to the residents or nationals of the Member State in question.
The regime implementing the restriction shall not constitute a disguised (indirect) discrimination.
Furthermore, the regime must be proportional to the aim of the restriction. Following the Court of
justice(cid:146)s judgement in Konle vs. Austria, a prior authorisation scheme should not be used, since there exist
other, preferable, implementation schemes, such as, for instance a declaration procedure. Furthermore, a
restriction may not be applied if there exist other, preferable, means to accomplish the purpose of
safeguarding the residential needs of
for instance, by
subsidised rents or municipal housing projects.

inhabitants of modest

financial means,

local

(2000/C 303 E/039)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2286/99

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 November 1999)

Subject: Amendment to the EU chocolate directive

In late October the Council adopted an amendment to the EU chocolate directive which results in a
lowering of the cocoa standard for chocolate. Once the amended directive enters into force, chocolate
producers will be able to use cheaper raw materials which are cocoa substitutes. In eight of the fifteen EU
Member States the term (cid:145)chocolate(cid:146) is currently limited to products with 25 % cocoa components, 14 %
milk and no vegetable fat.

This amendment to the cocoa directive will inflict serious social and economic damage on the cocoa-
producing countries and the cocoa farmers. Moreover, the amended directive is clearly at variance with the
international cocoa agreement of 1995 in which all cocoa-importing countries,
including the fifteen
Member States of the EU, undertook to encourage consumption of cocoa.