WRITTEN QUESTION P-3644/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. EU responsibility for ferry services.
Date: 2000-11-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, European tax cooperation, Finland, Sweden, duty-free sale, economic consequence, ferryboat, indemnification

C 174 E/102

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

19.6.2001

(2001/C 174 E/105)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3644/00

by Jonas Sj(cid:246)stedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 November 2000)

Subject: EU responsibility for ferry services

Since the EU decision to abolish duty-free sales was carried out, the ferry service between Ume(cid:229) (Sweden)
and Vasa (Finland) has become uneconomic. The shipping company has now decided to drop the route.
This is a direct result of the EU decision on duty free sales. The decision is affecting the entire region in
various ways. Damage has been caused to the environment as much traffic is forced to take a detour of
hundreds of kilometres. Cooperation between the affected regions in Finland and Sweden is made more
difficult. Many people commuting on a weekly basis to work in the other country can no longer do so at a
reasonable cost. Tourism and many other industries are likely to be hard hit.

The question is now what responsibility the EU will take for the results of its own policy. How does the
EU plan to help, financially in particular, so that the ferry service can continue? Why have services in the
southern Baltic been allowed to continue with duty-free sales while it was banned between Ume(cid:229) and
Vasa? How is this compatible with the EU(cid:146)s own rules on fair competition?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2000)

The Commission always recognised the decision to abolish duty-free sales for intra-Community travellers,
unanimously taken by the Council, might have an adverse impact on the Kvarken region, affecting the
ferry traffic between the county of V(cid:228)sterbotten in Sweden and the Ostrobothnian counties in Finland (1). It
therefore undertook to identify means by which Member States could address such problems. The result
was a paper prepared by the Commission, clarifying the various Community instruments available to
Member States to address possible consequences of the abolition of duty-free sales (2). The use of such
instruments however depends on the Member State concerned. The national or regional authorities must
assess the difficulties and identify what measures may be appropriate to overcome them.

It should be noted that when a ferry is going to or coming from a third country, duty-free sales may
continue notwithstanding the Council(cid:146)s decision to abolish such sales within the Community. This also
applies when the ferry has a stopover outside the fiscal area of the Community (3). To maintain duty-free
activities, it is however required that the stopover is not of a purely token nature and that the passenger
really has the opportunity of making purchases on land.

It has been possible to continue duty-free sales in the southern Baltic Sea partly due to the geographical
situation, with the Baltic countries close by, and partly due to the special status of the ¯land islands, which
are considered to be outside the fiscal territory of the Community. This status was granted upon request by
Finland during the accession negotiations.

With regard to support for the Kvarken area as a whole, the Community(cid:146)s regional policy comprises the
Interrreg Community initiative, the aim of which is to encourage cross-border co-operation throughout the
Community. For the period 2000-2006, Finland and Sweden,
in co-operation with Norway, have
submitted a programme proposal under this initiative for the Kvarken-Mittskandia area which is currently
includes actions to examine infrastructure and
under consideration by the Commission. The proposal

19.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 174 E/103

communications across the Kvarken and also between Sweden and Norway. The proposal is expected to be
approved in the coming weeks, which would allow projects to be submitted to the programme early next
year.

(1) Communication from the Commission to the Council concerning the employment aspects of the decision to abolish

tax- and duty-free sales for intra-Community travellers, OJ C 66, 9.3.1999.

(2) Commission staff working paper clarifying Community instruments available to Member States to address possible

consequences of the abolition of intra-Community duty-free sales on 1 July 1999 (SEK(1998) 1994).

(3) Commission notice concerning the VAT and excise rules to be applied from 1 July 1999 by suppliers of goods on
board ferries and aircraft or in airports to passengers travelling within the European Union, OJ C 99, 10.4.1999).

(2001/C 174 E/106)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3656/00

by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 November 2000)

Subject: Difference in treatment under Spanish tax law

With regard to the taxation of real property owners, Spanish tax law makes a distinction between Spanish
citizens and persons who do not have Spanish nationality. This means that EU citizens who are not
resident in Spain but possess real property there have to pay income tax as well as wealth tax to the State.
Persons (cid:145)no residentes en Espaæa(cid:146) (non-resident in Spain) have to pay income tax once a year at the rate of
2 % above the cadastral value. The wealth tax for persons (cid:145)no residentes en Espaæa(cid:146) is also payable once a
year, the basis of assessment for this tax being the value of the property at the date of purchase.

In addition, when real property is sold in Spain a distinction is made between residents and non-residents
for the purposes of profits tax. Vendors of real property who are not resident in Spain are taxed at a
standard rate of 35 % on their capital gain whilst the rate of tax for vendors resident in Spain is only 20 %.

This gives rise to the following questions:

1.

Is the difference between the treatment of EU citizens who own real property in Spain but are not
resident there and real property owners who are resident in Spain compatible with the prohibition on
discrimination on the ground of nationality, which is an established fundamental freedom?

2. What measures does the Commission intend to take if this difference in treatment is incompatible
with the prohibition on discrimination, not justified on objective grounds and does not comply with
the principle of proportionality?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2001)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the tax arrangements applicable to European
citizens owning property in Spain but not resident there were examined in Written Question E-1380/99
by Mr Swoboda (1), and would refer him to the answer to this Question.

As a general rule, Spanish legislation levies income tax and wealth tax on non-rented property which is
not a main residence; profits on a sale form part of the income of the year of sale. The chargeable events
and taxable amounts are identical for residents and non-residents; however, there are differences in the
rates applied and personal allowances.

The annual notional income from this type of building amounts to 2 % of its rateable value (Law No 40/
1998 on individual income tax, Article 71(1), BOE 10.12.1998, and Law No 41/1998 on non-residents(cid:146)
income, Article 23(5), BOE 10.12.1998). For residents such income is added to their worldwide income
which is taxed on a sliding scale up to a marginal rate of 48 % (39,6 % for the State and 8,4 % for the