WRITTEN QUESTION E-0516/00 by Michael Gahler (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Nationality in relation to double taxation.
Date: 2000-02-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, Germany, application of EU law, discrimination on the basis of nationality, double taxation, tax on employment income

C 374 E/94

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

28.12.2000

The Commission views the above mechanical simulations as upper limits on the likely scope for sustained
inflation divergence in EMU. Nevertheless,
in the economic management of the euro area it is very
important to recognise that persistent inflation differences may be warranted in view of longer-term
structural forces. The Commission welcomes the Parliament(cid:146)s interest in this important topic and would be
glad to discuss further these issues with the Honourable Member.

(2000/C 374 E/109)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0511/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Disrespect for EU law by Member States

In the light of the answer to Written Question E-2230/99 (1) (3 December 1999) and to the picture of
sustained and increasing disrespect
for European Union law, particularly by France, how does the
Commission propose to improve matters? Does the Commission recognise that its existing efforts to curb
infringements are inadequate? Does it believe that the system of penalties should be reinforced against
persistent law-breakers, and will it bring forward proposals to that effect in the forthcoming Intergovern-
mental Conference?

(1) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 153.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2000)

The Commission considers that the existing infringement procedure in Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the
EC Treaty has proved its efficiency for years. Therefore the Commission does not intend to propose a
reform of this procedure.

The largest proportion of infringement proceedings initiated by the Commission is solved before any
action is taken in the Court of justice, the Member State having brought the infringement to an end. As an
illustration of this efficiency, in 1999 only 16,5 % of infringement cases having been subject to a prior
letter of formal notice had to be submitted to the Court by the Commission.

The possibility of a second action in the Court of justice with financial penalties (Article 228 ex Article
171 EC Treaty) introduced by the Treaty on European Union has again reinforced the efficiency of this
procedure.

Moreover, in order to ensure a more and more systematic review of the implementation of Community
law by the Member States, the Commission constantly improves its operational procedures in that field.
The Honourable Member is invited to refer to the forthcoming 17th report for an outline of these new
operational measures. This will be made available to the Parliament in the coming weeks.

(2000/C 374 E/110)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0516/00

by Michael Gahler (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Nationality in relation to double taxation

A German and an Austrian are employed at the Frankfurt branch of the Austrian Chamber of Commerce,
a public body. Whilst the Austrian, as an employee of a public body, is treated as having his permanent
residence in Austria, the German employee comes under the double taxation agreement between Austria
and Germany. Pursuant to that agreement, he has limited tax liability in Austria unless, in accordance with
the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the Schumacker case, he applies for unlimited tax
liability.

28.12.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 374 E/95

for example the payment of child
This situation gives the Austrian employee specific advantages,
allowances provided for in Austria or the possibility of deducting compulsory sickness insurance from
tax over and above the limit for contributions set in Germany.

Is it consistent with European law that an Austrian employee should be in a better position than a German
one merely because of his nationality?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2000)

As the Court of Justice has found on a number of occasions, the situation of residents and non-residents is
usually different, which accounts for different tax treatment (1).

Under Article 3 of the Austrian law on tax procedures (Bundesabgabenordnung (cid:129) BAO), Austrian civil
servants posted abroad are considered to be theoretically resident in Austria irrespective of where they
actually live. They are therefore liable for tax in Austria on income earned anywhere in the world. There
are comparable rules in all the Member States.

This legislation is not inconsistent with European law, since nationals of other Member States who are not
resident in Austria and who are paid by the Austrian state, such as an employee of the Austrian Chamber
of Commerce in Frankfurt (Germany), may opt for unlimited tax liability in Austria (Article 1 § 4 (cid:214)EStG),
if their income from Austrian sources makes up the greater part of their income from sources anywhere in
the world.

If this is not the case, and it is therefore not possible to opt for unlimited tax liability, an employee (cid:129)
unlike an Austrian civil servant (cid:129) is taxed as an Austrian non-resident (with his income as an employee of
the Chamber of Commerce). On the other hand, he is treated as resident for tax purposes in Germany. In
this situation, certain differences in treatment, such as those highlighted by the question by the
Honourable Member, may arise from the different status of residents as compared to non-residents. This
is an inevitable consequence of the existence of two different national tax systems which have not been
harmonised.

(1)

(CJEC, judgment of 14.2.1995, case C-279/93 (cid:129) Schumacker; judgment of 12.5.1998, case C-336/96 (cid:129) Gilly).

(2000/C 374 E/111)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0518/00

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Environmental impact assessment and the protection of species

The council of the city of Leverkusen has noted with approval the attached decision on B-Plan No 143/III
Hornpottweg and instructed the administration to consider possible planning variants for the link to the
planned industrial area.

The area is well-known because of its importance for bird migration and as a buffer zone for the adjoining
nature reserve in the municipal area of Cologne, and it is one of the moorland, dry grassland and inland
dune biotypes which are at serious risk.

Many of the species relevant to North Rhine-Westphalia according to the EC bird conservation directive
(79/409/EEC (1)) and many of the migratory bird species regularly occurring in North Rhine-Westphalia as
referred to in Article 4(2) of the EC bird conservation directive for which protective measures are needed
occur in this area or use it as a stopover point on their migratory passage. Applications from the Working
Party on Biotype Networking of the Cologne, Leverkusen and Rheinisch-Bergischer Kreis groups of BUND
(Association for Nature and Environmental Protection Germany) for the area to be protected as a nature
reserve have been unsuccessful.