WRITTEN QUESTION P-1584/00 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission. Skiing accident in Meribel, France.
Date: 2000-05-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: France, United Kingdom, accident in the home, area of freedom, security and justice, legal basis, sport, territorial jurisdiction

C 53 E/166

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.2.2001

4. Will the Commission call upon these authorities once again to ensure an end to the ill-treatment of
greyhounds? If not, why not, given that the ill-treatment of greyhounds continues?

(1) OJ C 26 E, 26.1.2001, p. 115.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2000)

The Commission indicated clearly in its combined answer to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s Written Question
E-0826/00 and Written Question E-0919/00 by Mr Ford (1) that the conditions under which greyhounds
are kept and raced within Member States fall outside its competences. The welfare of these animals, except
when they are being transported, is therefore a matter regulated solely by the national law of the Member
States concerned.

Although the Commission deplores the infliction of unnecessary suffering on animals wherever it occurs it
can only take action to alleviate such suffering where it has the necessary legal power.

In consequence, in its answer to the above-mentioned written questions the Commission made a public
call for the elimination of the ill treatment of greyhounds which had been described by the Honourable
Members concerned. However, the Commission has not taken the matter further with the individual
Member States concerned because it currently has no legal basis which could be invoked to secure
compliance with its views.

(1) OJ C 26 E, 26.1.2001, p. 115.

(2001/C 53 E/216)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1584/00

by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Skiing accident in Meribel, France

Is it the Commission(cid:146)s view that the International Ski Federation (ISF) Rules for the Conduct of Skiers have
legal force in the European Union? In particular, are they equally applicable in France and in the United
Kingdom?

With reference to cooperation in judicial matters and single market rules on insurance,
the
Commission(cid:146)s view that liability for an accident between two British skiers, which occurred in France,
could be properly decided in the British courts or that a French insurance company with which one of the
skiers was insured could require the proceedings to be conducted in a French court?

is it

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(23 June 2000)

The Commission has no information on the International ski federation (ISF) rules for the conduct of skiers
and is therefore not in a position to reply to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s first question.

jurisdiction in civil matters are governed, within the Member States, by the Brussels
Questions of
Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters, as
amended. In principle, defendants are to be sued in the country where they are domiciled. However, the
Convention permits a number of alternatives. In the case of tortious liability, the plaintiff has the option of
suing the defendant in the country where the harmful event took place. The Brussels Convention provides
also for specific rules concerning jurisdiction in insurance matters (Articles. 8-12 a). According to these

20.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 53 E/167

rules, in case of liability insurance, the insurer covering the civil liability risk may also be sued in the court
where the injured party has brought proceedings against the insured party, when the law of that country
permits it (article 10, 1).

In the case mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Convention would permit proceedings to be
brought either in the United Kingdom or in France.

(2001/C 53 E/217)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1586/00

by Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 May 2000)

Subject: Taxation of dividends paid by public limited companies

Is the Commission aware of the bureaucratic hoops which holders of shares in companies established in
other Member States have to jump through so that their tax liability may be correctly calculated?

What relief measures can the Commission propose to alleviate this situation?

I refer in particular to the case of the small shareholders and employee shareholders of the Aventis
company who went along with the advice of the Board of Directors of H(cid:246)chst AG and swapped their
H(cid:246)chst AG shares for shares in Aventis, a company which has its registered office in Strasbourg, France.
The assessment of tax liability involves the shareholder, the depositary bank, the tax office in the
shareholder(cid:146)s place of residence, the dividend-paying office (Strasbourg) and the French tax authorities
(Paris). The shareholder collects the quintuplicate application form (RF 1A) from the Federal Finance Office
or the depositary bank. He fills it in and sends all five copies to the appropriate tax office in his place of
residence. That office confirms that the shareholder is resident in Germany and keeps the top copy. The
other four copies are returned to the shareholder. Copies 2-5 are then sent to the dividend-paying office.
That office confirms the shareholder(cid:146)s personal details and pays the dividend without deducting with-
holding tax and sends copy 2 to the French tax authorities on account of the tax credit. Copies 3-5 are
returned to the shareholder, who retains copy 3 and sends copies 4 and 5 to the German tax authorities.
They keep copy 4. Copy 5 is sent via the Federal Finance Office to the French tax authorities so as to
ensure that the tax credit is reimbursed to the German tax authorities (see Annex).

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 July 2000)

Article 293 (formerly Article 220) of the EC Treaty requires the Member States, so far as is necessary, to
enter into negotiations with each other with a view to securing for the benefit of their nationals the
abolition of double taxation within the Community. Since no multilateral convention on the dividends of
public limited companies has been concluded under this Article, that objective is pursued by the Member
States through bilateral agreements. France and Germany concluded such an agreement on 21 July 1959,
subsequently amending it by agreements signed on 9 June 1969 and 28 September 1989.

Articles 9 and 20 of the latest version of the agreement not only grant German residents exemption from
French withholding tax on dividends paid by companies established in France, but entitle them to the same
tax credit as French residents when dividends are distributed.

The Commission cannot but be pleased that France and Germany should have been able, by means,
including the introduction of compensation payments between the two Member States, to achieve such a
result, so eliminating all forms of double taxation for German residents receiving dividends from France.