WRITTEN QUESTION E-2287/99 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission. Right to freedom of movement and Danish tax rules.
Date: 1999-12-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Denmark, EU national, Portugal, Spain, double taxation, free movement of persons, pension scheme, retired person, tax convention, tax harmonisation, tax on income

8.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 225 E/87

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

(22 December 1999)

The Commission proposal on the incineration of waste (1) was adopted on 7 October 1998. The
Parliament gave its first reading on 14 April 1999. The Council adopted the common position on
25 November 1999.

When preparing the directive the Commission carried out intensive discussions with experts from all
Member States as well as all others concerned. These discussions as well as the negotiations in the Council
have led to a common position which takes into account the specific requirements of the Nordic Member
States.

The common position seeks to establish the same requirements for the co-incineration of waste as for the
incineration of waste. For combustion plants co-incinerating waste, the emission limit values which apply
are generally more stringent than those for plants not using waste. However, the problem is not always
related to compliance with tighter emission limit values, but the costs for the measurement requirements
of the directive. In order to deal with this the future directive provides for the possibility of obtaining an
authorisation to reduce the frequency of the measurements, which should reduce the costs for operators.

Article 11 (6) provides for the possibility to apply periodic measurements instead of continuous
measurements for hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen fluoride and sulphur dioxide. In addition, Article 11 (7),
which was initiated by the Finnish delegation in the Council, allows the frequency of periodic measure-
ments of heavy metals and dioxin to be reduced under certain criteria.

The Commission is therefore of the opinion that the future directive already takes care of the specific
requirements of Finnish waste management systems. Moreover the Commission would consider all new
developments which could arise in the second reading in this respect.

(1) OJ C 372, 2.12.1998 as modified by COM(1999) 330 final.

(2000/C 225 E/087)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2287/99

by Karin Riis-Jłrgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Right to freedom of movement and Danish tax rules

(13 December 1999)

When a Danish national moves to Spain and thus establishes his place of residence and centre of interests
in that country, that person(cid:146)s pension is taxed according to Spanish rules but, should the same Danish
national instead choose to set up residence in Portugal, his pension is taxed according to Danish tax rules.
In view of
the
Commission explain how a Danish national(cid:146)s lack of opportunity to enjoy freedom of movement in
relation to the taxation of pensions is in accordance with the Treaty(cid:146)s fundamental and overriding principle
of freedom of movement?

laid down in the Treaty, will

the fundamental principle of

freedom of movement

Although no Community legislation has been adopted on the right to tax income from pensions at EU
level, is there not a risk in practice, as for instance in the above example, that a fundamental EU rule on
freedom of movement is being contravened by national tax rules?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2000)

It is true that in the absence of harmonisation of personal
income taxation European citizens are
confronted with different tax rules when they take up residence in another Member State. This implies a
different level of taxation which may in some cases influence the decision to envisage such transfer of
residence.

C 225 E/88

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.8.2000

By virtue of (cid:129) mostly bilateral (cid:129) conventions, Member States have arranged the distribution of taxing
rights for situations which are not purely domestic. These conventions distribute the taxing rights amongst
the States concerned according to the results of the bilateral negotiations. A generally followed pattern is
the model for a bilateral convention recommended by the Organisation for economic cooperation and
development (OECD). Article 18 of that model has been retained as article 18 of the convention between
Denmark and Spain of 3 July 1972. It provides, subject to different rules for public remunerations and
pensions, that pensions and other similar remuneration paid to a resident of a contracting state in
consideration of past employment shall be taxable only in that Member State.

The same article was included in the convention between Denmark and Portugal of 3 March 1972.
However, this convention has been terminated with effect from 1 January 1995 by Denmark so that
Denmark is no longer bound to leave the exclusive right to tax Danish pensions of emigrants to Portugal.

Notwithstanding the absence of an applicable tax convention, the two Member States are bound by the
EC Treaty principle of free movement within the Community to avoid and eliminate double taxation, at
least by imputing a tax paid in the other Member State on their own charge to tax. Cases have come to the
knowledge of the Commission in which Portugal has indeed refrained from applying its tax rules to Danish
pensions already taxed in Denmark.

(2000/C 225 E/088)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2292/99

by Reinhold Messner (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Extension of licences to operate motorways in Italy

The Italian government is extending the licences granted to all motorway operating companies. Under the
so-called Ciampi-Costa directive (1), licences to operate motorways may be extended on an exceptional
basis in order to settle on-going disputes (failure to bring tariffs into line, recognition of work carried out
for the 1990 World Cup and the Columbus celebrations in 1992 and any other disputes on which an
opinion will have to be requested from the State(cid:146)s legal counsel). In this connection, the agreements, i.e.
the acts which govern relations between the State and the licence holders, will need to be revised before
31 December 1999. Not taking account of the agreement with Autostrade SpA, the government has so far
signed seven extension agreements out of the 19 remaining agreements (2). The agreements are currently
being examined by the Court of Auditors. The outline of the standard agreement between ANAS (state-
owned national road company) and the companies to which licences are awarded,
in which disputes,
tariffs, financial plans, investments and contractual clauses are calculated and quantified, has not even been
subject to examination by the Court of Auditors! In order to justify the extension of the 19 licences, there
are plans to invest 11 418 billion lire in new motorway infrastructure projects, some of which have not
even been authorised, and are thus in conflict with Italian law (3), thereby making the overall transport
plan, which is in the process of being drawn up, irrelevant. Furthermore, as a result of the extensions,
many of the licences will exceed the 30-year limit laid down by the law (4). Moreover, the new law on civil
protection requires licence holders to introduce safety measures for motorway tunnels. This will mean that,
in the near future, agreements on licences currently being entered into will need to be reviewed (5).

1.
Does the Commission not consider that the renewal of the licences breaches the provisions of
Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/37/EEC and 89/440/EEC in that no European public invitation to tender was
issued for the granting of the licences (6)?

Does the Commission not consider that the new infrastructure projects are aimed at justifying the

2.
automatic extension of the licences, and as a result, the motorway monopolies?

3.
Does the Commission not consider that, before granting any extensions, it is first necessary to reform
the Italian motorway operating licence sector in order to implement fully the European legislation in the
area of the public procurement (7)?