WRITTEN QUESTION E-1655/00 by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission. LIFE project.
Date: 2000-05-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, environmental protection, protected area, small and medium-sized enterprises

C 53 E/172

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.2.2001

(2001/C 53 E/223)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1655/00

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: LIFE project

Could the Commission make provision in the LIFE project for financial assistance for small and medium-
in particular those SMUs that are already
sized firms engaging in environment-friendly activities,
established and that
(local organisations, parks) where
unauthorised settlements (cid:129) destined for redevelopment (cid:129) have been built?

intend to operate within protected areas

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

(4 July 2000)

Irrespective of whether small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) carry out
their activities within
protected areas, financial support is available from (cid:145)Life-Nature(cid:146) for actions concerning the conservation
of natural habitats and species of Community importance and, in particular, the implementation of the
Natura 2000 network.

SMEs also have access to (cid:145)Life-Environment(cid:146), whose purpose is to contribute to the development of
innovative and integrated techniques and methods and to the further development of the Community(cid:146)s
environment policy.

(2001/C 53 E/224)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1662/00

by Ari Vatanen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 May 2000)

Subject: Incompatibility of motor vehicle taxation in Finland with Community law

In 1998, when the Commission issued a letter of notice concerning taxation of second-hand motor
vehicles imported into Finland from other Member States, it asked for any other violations of Community
law relevant to the case to be reported to it. I therefore wish to mention three points.

Firstly, the basis for taxation of vehicles imported from Community countries is significantly more
stringent than that for taxation of vehicles manufactured in Finland itself. The fundamental error in
Finland(cid:146)s law on motor vehicle taxation is that the entire basis for assessment of tax on a vehicle
manufactured in Finland is (cid:145)the cost of manufacture at the place of manufacture(cid:146), whereas for vehicles
imported from other Member States it is the customs value, which in the case of new vehicles is (cid:145)the
importer(cid:146)s purchase price(cid:146), while in the case of second-hand vehicles it is (cid:145)the Finnish importer(cid:146)s sale price(cid:146).

Secondly, the linear system for calculating the decline in the value of a vehicle for purposes of Finnish
taxation does not correspond with the actual decline in the value of vehicles. A seven-month old VW Golf
imported from Germany, for instance, costs more than 160 000 marks after tax, whereas a similar vehicle
could be bought new from a retailer for just 125 000 marks. Under the case law of the Court of Justice of
the EC, the principle of neutrality is violated if a product imported from another Member State is taxed
more heavily than a domestically produced product, even if only in individual cases.

Thirdly, Finland(cid:146)s taxation of motor vehicles violates the EC(cid:146)s Sixth Directive on VAT. Whereas the
directive lays down quite clearly that VAT is to be levied on second-hand motor vehicles in the country
of the vendor, in the case of second-hand vehicles imported into Finland VAT is levied in Finland as well
as in the country of the vendor. This is done in such a way that in Finland VAT is levied on the car tax.