WRITTEN QUESTION E-2279/00 by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE), Karla Peijs (PPE-DE) and Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission. The impact of the Zurstrassen judgement on the new Dutch tax system.
Date: 2000-07-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU national, Netherlands, competence of the Member States, free movement of workers, judgment of the Court (EU), tax relief, tax system

8.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 136 E/15

(2001/C 136 E/015)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2279/00

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE), Karla Peijs (PPE-DE)
and Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 July 2000)

Subject: The impact of the Zurstrassen judgement on the new Dutch tax system

In the Commission(cid:146)s opinion, what impact will the Zurstrassen judgement have on Member States(cid:146)

1.
tax systems?

Does this mean that the principle of the working country will acquire more prominence in tax

2.
matters?

3.
Does the Commission intend to take action against Member States which refuse to bring their tax
systems in line with Article 39 EC Treaty (formerly Article 48 EC Treaty) which is based on this
judgement?

4.
Is the reduced assessment, specified in the new Dutch tax system, which is not applicable to partners
of certain categories of frontier workers a violation of Article 39 EC Treaty (formerly Article 48 EC
Treaty)?

5.

6.

If so, in what way?

If not, what action does the Commission intend to take?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(14 September 2000)

1.
The Commission does not see any particular effect of the Zurstrassen judgment for the tax systems of
the Member States. This judgment has only confirmed, in a slightly different situation, the interpretation of
the EC Treaty given by the Court in the Schumacker judgment of 14 February 1995 (case C-279/93). It is
contrary to Article 39 (ex Article 48) of the EC Treaty and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of
the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (1) if
a Member State, in taxing a person who is married and whose spouse has no income, does not take into
account this fact for the sole reason that the spouse is resident in another Member State. This means in
particular that Mr Zurstrassen, a Belgian migrant worker resident in Luxembourg, and his wife, living
without her own income in Belgium, were entitled to be jointly assessed for taxation purposes in
Luxembourg.

The Zurstrassen judgment has no bearing on Member States(cid:146) tax jurisdiction over a dependent
2. and 3.
worker. This is, and always has been, the Member State where he works, unless a tax convention provides
otherwise. The EC Treaty, as interpreted by the Schumacker and Zurstrassen judgments has, however,
a bearing on the tax treatment of such salary if it is received by a non-resident or if the spouse is a non-
resident. The principle of free movement of persons requires that no discrimination in the allocation of
personal allowances may result from such situations. As far as the Commission is aware, all Member States
apply this interpretation and thus respect Article 39 of the EC Treaty, but the Commission would make
use of its powers under Article 226 ECT (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty, if it learned of a situation where
this were not true.

4. to 6.
The new Dutch tax system, which will be applicable as from 2001, provides inter alia for
a so-called levy rebate ((cid:145)heffingskorting(cid:146)) to replace the existing basic personal allowance. It constitutes
a discount on the amount of the tax and social security contributions which a Dutch taxpayer has to pay.

In response to the Schumacker judgment, a non-resident taxpayer working in the Netherlands has the
option to be taxed as if he were a resident taxpayer. In this case he is entitled to receive the personal
allowances of a resident, including the levy rebate. Moreover, because he works in the Netherlands, he is
subject to the Dutch social security system and is thus entitled to receive the social security part of the levy
rebate.

C 136 E/16

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.5.2001

The option to be taxed as a resident taxpayer has to be exercised by both spouses/partners jointly in order
to avoid that couples accumulate allowances in both Member States concerned. If they make the election,
the partner of the non-resident, who may for example be living in Belgium or Germany, will also receive
the tax part of the levy rebate. However, the partner will not be entitled to receive the social security part.

This system does not appear to be in conflict with the free movement principle, since the choice is left to
those concerned to opt for a solution which takes into account their personal situation in a non-
discriminatory way.

(1) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968.

(2001/C 136 E/016)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2280/00

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 July 2000)

Subject: Repeal of the opium act for the transport of research medicines within EU Member States

The EGASIS research project is currently under way in Europe. This is a clinical trial of the effect of
Diapezam, a medicine administered in the acute phase after a stroke. The aim is to test whether the risk
of poor prognosis (death or serious handicap) can be reduced, measured over three months. This sort of
clinical trial requires large numbers of patients for the research to be carried out. Accordingly, it cannot be
conducted in one country alone, but a number of European countries are asked to take part. In practice,
however it is difficult to convey the research medication to the place of destination. This is because some
medicines (including Diapezam) are covered by the Opium Act which means that a special exemption has
to be obtained per country for importing these medicines. The exemption is valid for only a limited
quantity of medication and for a limited period. This makes the logistics of supplying the participating
European centres extremely difficult.

Is the Commission aware of these problems with the transport of medicines covered by the Opium

1.
Act for clinical trials?

Does the Commission agree that a general exemption from this rule for specific instances,

2.
e.g. a multinational medical research, should be made available?

Reply given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(26 September 2000)

Pharmaceutical law does not exclude control measures, particularly those relating to transport or other
administrative or police measures adopted by Member States, notably for implementing applicable
international agreements for restricting or setting conditions for the transport of medicinal products
which are or could be equated with narcotic substances, or substances capable of causing dependence.

(2001/C 136 E/017)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2309/00

by Ari Vatanen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 July 2000)

Subject: Coordination of the Interreg and TACIS CBC programmes on the border between the EU and

Russia

The land border between the EU and Russia marks the world(cid:146)s largest gap in living standards, which
Commissioner Barnier has been able to see for himself on 29/30 June. There are problems with decision-
making in the TACIS CBC and Interreg programmes which hamper the coordination of EU-Russia border