WRITTEN QUESTION E-3382/00 by Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Criteria used by the Commission for allocating fishing opportunities.
Date: 2000-11-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, European Parliament, common fisheries policy, fishing season, interinstitutional relations (EU)

19.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 174 E/41

taxed in the source state is excluded from the taxable income in the residence state but may be taken into
account in calculating the amount of tax on the remaining income in the residence state).

In certain circumstances, it is possible, as the Honourable Member suggests, that where a Member State
applies the exemption method to employment income derived by a resident from other states, the salary
split results in a level of taxation which is lower than if the income were earned only in that Member State.

In the absence of harmonisation at Community level, direct
taxation falls in principle within the
competence of the Member States, subject to respect for the provisions of the Treaty. It is therefore
primarily for the Member States concerned to address any problems of tax avoidance under domestic and
treaty rules. The Honourable Member raises however a further point requiring Community involvement.
The lack of effective exchange of information between Member States may lead to a level of taxation
below that which would be due under the tax rules of a Member State. This question is touched upon in a
report of the Ad hoc working party on tax fraud of 22 May 2000 (FISC 67), which was approved by the
Ecofin Council of 5 June 2000. The recommendations in the field of administrative co-operation and
mutual assistance contained in the report include the (cid:145)Stepping up of information exchange between
Member States regarding in particular the following situations (cid:133) (cid:129) income paid to delocalised taxpayers,
particularly sports personalities, artists and multinational business executives(cid:146). The Council called on the
Commission to submit possible proposals based on all the recommendations unanimously agreed.

The Commission is at present considering the steps which could be taken to give effect
recommendations made by the Ad hoc working group on this subject.

to the

(2001/C 174 E/042)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3382/00

by Carmen Fraga EstØvez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 November 2000)

Subject: Criteria used by the Commission for allocating fishing opportunities

In its reply to priority Written Question P-2974/00 (1) in which I enquired as to the criteria used by the
Commission to set reference periods for the allocation of fishing opportunities, the Commission once more
demonstrates, as on various occasions over recent months, its total contempt for the European Parliament,
and particularly its monitoring of the executive by means, inter alia, of parliamentary questions. In view of
the fact that the reply not only does not contain the slightest specific information on the matter raised, but
also that it can only be interpreted as a further sign of the Commission(cid:146)s impertinence and arrogance vis-(cid:224)-
vis the European Parliament, I once again ask the Commission:

With regard to the key question of the setting of reference periods, which could mean the loss of
significant fishing opportunities for certain fleets, together with the loss of income that this entails, will the
Commission state whether this is a purely discretional matter that is decided on at whim on a case-by-case
basis? Are there any objective criteria in this area, as could be inferred from the Commission(cid:146)s previous
reply?

Likewise, are the (cid:145)historical maximum(cid:146) years included in these reference periods on the basis of specific
criteria, or according to the nationality of the fleet which stands to benefit?

If it is the case that the Commission has complete discretion in this area, does it not agree that in order to
create a minimum of transparency with regard to the parties concerned, there is no reason not to make
public the criteria on which its decisions are based?

(1) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001, p. 223.

C 174 E/42

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

19.6.2001

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2000)

Decisions on reference periods are, in principle, purely at the discretion of the Commission when the latter
is drawing up its proposal. However, the Commission(cid:146)s discretion is constrained by the fact that attempts
are always made to reflect historical performance by each Member State concerned in a rational and
equitable manner. In most cases, the reference period refers to the last five or ten years for which data on
landings or fishing effort are available. Obviously, the choice of reference period may result in apparent
advantages to one or more Member States to the apparent detriment of others. If historical performance by
each Member State has remained stable or approximately so within the reference period, there is little
problem. However, many track records are highly variable from year to year within each or some Member
States. This gives rise to greater and sometimes insuperable problems in finding an equitable solution on
the basis of the available data alone. In such cases the Commission uses its discretion to propose what it
hopes will be an acceptable solution.

On at least one occasion, the Commission proposed a reference period of ten years and derived an
allocation system on this basis, but deviated from a straightforward presentation of the ensuing result to
permit recognition of historical fishing activities thirty years previously by one Member State.

Within any chosen reference period, there will always be at least one year of maximum value. Such
historical maximum years are de facto included in the data indicating track record in any reference period.
If, therefore, the Commission proposal for allocation of fishing opportunities is based on an average of the
track record, across the reference period, such an historical maximum for each Member State will be
included when computing such an average. Rather than a being a specific criterion, inclusion of such an
historical maximum is simply a consequence of the arithmetic procedure involved in computing an
average value. Of course, this does not mean that the universal historical maximum value for a Member
State will necessarily be included in or excluded from the chosen reference period.

On some occasions, the Commission has proposed that only the historical maximum for each Member
State within the chosen reference should be considered. This concept was considered acceptable by
Council. The Commission never includes a historical maximum year within a reference period according
to the nationality of the fleet which stands to benefit.

The proposals of the Commission put before Council are accompanied by full information, sometimes
verbal and sometimes written, of the methodology by which the proposal was derived. Ministers are at
liberty to pass this information to citizens of their respective Member States. The Commission would have
no problems in offering the same information to Parliament. The Commission is always prepared to
consider changes to its proposal in the light of comments from Council.

(2001/C 174 E/043)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3383/00

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 November 2000)

Subject: Planned directive with harmful effects on regional airlines

Regional air traffic has flourished in Europe since the sector was opened to competition in the 1980s.
Growth in regional airlines has been distinctly faster than in the major airlines. For example, last year 68
million people flew with the 80 regional airlines belonging to the European Regional Airlines Organisation
(ERA), 10 % more than the previous year. The major airlines grew by only 5 % during the same period.

At the moment it is relatively convenient to fly with regional airlines, but operators in the sector are afraid
that changing rules and rising tariffs may pull the rug from under their feet. There is a danger that the EU
will not take any notice of the small airlines and that they will be left out in the cold in the EU(cid:146)s decision-
making.