WRITTEN QUESTION E-2286/00 by Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Fiscal representative in France.
Date: 2000-07-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: VAT, application of EU law, freedom to provide services, tax collection

C 103 E/108

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

Not all of those questions were answered, and the unanswered questions are set out again below.

(cid:129) Is it true that Helena Ranta(cid:146)s autopsy reports of March 1999 in no way substantiate allegations of

(cid:145)executions(cid:146), (cid:145)torture(cid:146) and (cid:145)shooting at close range(cid:146)?

(cid:129) On what grounds have Helena Ranta(cid:146)s reports of March 1999 been kept secret?

(cid:129) As far as I understand, Dr Ranta has now presented her final report to the EU and to the War Crimes
Tribunal in The Hague. Have they received the same version of the report? If not, what differences are
there, and why can the EU and its Member States not receive the same report as the Tribunal, given
that Dr Ranta conducted her investigations for the EU? Will the Council make the final report
available to Parliament?

(1) Question answered in writing on 17 May 2000.

Reply

(9 November 2000)

Further to its replies to the previous question (H-0404/00), the Council would confirm that the final
forensic experts(cid:146) report was indeed forwarded by the Council, under the Portuguese Presidency, to the
International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, as the interim report had been beforehand. The EU thus
fulfilled the obligation on States and organisations to cooperate fully with the Tribunal and provide it with
any information at their disposal.

The Racak killings feature among the charges on the indictment against Milosevi(cid:230) and his henchmen for
crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war in Kosovo, as confirmed by the
International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia on 24 May.

It is now for the Tribunal to draw what conclusions it considers pertinent from the reports it has received.
The Honourable Member will readily understand that the Council does not wish to comment any further
on a matter which is now clearly sub judice at international level.

(2001/C 103 E/119)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2286/00

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

(11 July 2000)

Subject: Fiscal representative in France

A medium-sized German firm that carried out part of the work on the new European Parliament building
in Strasbourg has a representative with powers of attorney in Guebwiller (Upper Rhine department). For
the purposes of processing value-added tax relating to the construction work performed at the European
Parliament the representative based in Guebwiller has not been recognised by the financial administration.
It is claimed in justification that the fiscal agent is required to have his or her seat in the same locality as
the building site, viz. Lower Rhine department.

Is the attitude taken by the financial administration consistent with the directives governing the processing
of value-added tax?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(14 September 2000)

Article 21 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of
the Member States relating to turnover taxes (cid:129) Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
assessment (1), in the version amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991 supple-
menting the common system of value added tax and amending Directive 77/388/EEC (2) with a view to the

3.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 103 E/109

abolition of fiscal frontiers, lays down that where the taxable supply of goods or of services is effected by a
trader established abroad, Member States may adopt arrangements whereby tax is payable by another
person, including a tax representative.

The Directive does not lay down the conditions or procedures required for designating the representative.
As tax harmonisation stands at present, a Member State is therefore free to determine the conditions and
procedure which will enable it to obtain guarantees that the tax obligations of a trader not established in
its territory will be fulfilled.

in certain Member States, the tax representative must receive authorisation from the
Consequently,
administration or lodge security, whereas in others the formalities for appointing the tax representative
are simpler. In any event, while the case raised by the Honourable Member does not raise problems of
conformity with the VAT Directives, there is a question of conformity with the principle of the freedom to
provide services set out in Article 49 (ex Article 59) of the EC Treaty.

Under this principle, a tax representative established in a Member State and conducting his or her activity
there must be able occasionally to provide services in another Member State without being obliged to
become established there. An obligation of this kind would in fact negate this very principle and constitute
discrimination which could not be justified on grounds of public policy, public health or public security as
provided for in Article 46 (former Article 56) of the EC Treaty, to which Article 55 (former Article 66) of
the EC Treaty refers. In the light of the information provided, the Commission is not able to take a
definitive position on the case set out by the Honourable Member and requests him to pass on the relevant
documents so that they can be examined.

More generally, and in order to encourage the development of trade within the single market, the
Commission put a proposal for a new VAT directive (3) to the Council in 1998 with the aim of ending
the possibility of imposing on traders in other Member States the designation of a representative liable for
the tax.

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.
(2) OJ L 376, 31.12.1991.
(3) OJ C 409, 30.12.1998.

(2001/C 103 E/120)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2288/00

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Construction products Directive 89/106/EEC

(11 July 2000)

The Federal Republic of Germany has not correctly transposed construction products Directive 89/106/
EEC (1) of 21 December 1988 into national law as it applies to fundamental characteristics (viz. hygiene,
health, preventive aspects of environmental protection).

The following give particular cause for concern in this connection:

(cid:129) the release of toxic gases or other substances from construction materials, and

(cid:129) the presence of hazardous particles or gases in the air

in relation to the long-term use of premises for human occupation and their impact on human health. It
has moreover been determined that any systematic assessment of construction-product induced emissions/
immissions is completely absent.

Is the Commission aware that none of these aspects has been transposed into the corresponding

1.
German land construction regulations in a legally effective manner?

2. What action will the Commission take to rectify this irregularity?

3. Will the Commission consider bringing Treaty-violation proceedings in accordance with Article 226
against the Federal Republic?

(1) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 12.