WRITTEN QUESTION P-0231/01 by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission. Bank charges to non-residents.
Date: 2001-01-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law, Spain, administrative formalities, bank charges, economic discrimination, free movement of capital

3.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 187 E/203

(2001/C 187 E/220)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0229/01

by Roberto Bigliardo (TDI) to the Commission

(5 February 2001)

Subject: Turkey(cid:146)s application for EU membership

Can the Commission say whether it intends to adopt any binding provisions, and if so what they are,
following the unanimous vote in the French Parliament on 18 January 2001 recognising the Armenian
genocide as an undeniable fact?

Turkey has prepared a series of trade and political reprisals against France.

How can the Commission accept and justify upholding Turkey(cid:146)s application for EU membership?

Account should also be taken of Turkey(cid:146)s continuing blatant hostility towards Armenians. We should
remember that France(cid:146)s national team recently had to refrain from selecting the player Djorkieff, who is of
Armenian origin, for the match against Turkey.

It is inconceivable that such persistent persecutory behaviour should be one of the basic characteristics of
a country which for so many reasons aspires to join the European Union.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2001)

The Commission, as guardian of the Community-Turkey Association Agreement and the Community-
Turkey Customs Union, is monitoring closely the Turkish reaction to the law (cid:145)recognising the Armenian
genocide by the Turkish army between 1915 and 1917(cid:146) adopted by the French Parliament. The
Commission will consider whether any measures are called for in the light of this reaction.

Turkey(cid:146)s preparations for Union membership are assessed regularly by the Commission according to the
same criteria as those applied to all candidates. Any decision to begin accession negotiations with Turkey
will depend on its fulfilment of the political conditions for membership set out by the Copenhagen
European Council in 1993.

(2001/C 187 E/221)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0231/01

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(30 January 2001)

Subject: Bank charges to non-residents

Can the Commission state whether the charging of fees for the transferral of money internally within Spain
and the deposit of money from the UK into a Spanish account specific to non-residential account holders
is legal under European law?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2001)

The free movement of capital as provided for in Article 56 (ex Article 73B) of the EC Treaty is one of the
cornerstones of the Single Market. However, Article 58 (ex Article 73D) of the EC Treaty explicitly sets out
the Member States(cid:146) right to maintain or introduce certain measures for reasons of taxation (different
treatment of residents and non-residents) as well as for statistical and administrative reasons. However,
such measures may not be discriminatory.

C 187 E/204

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.7.2001

Spain imposes certain reporting requirements on their banks and financial institutions in order to obtain
statistical information for establishing their balance of payments. Certain transactions from and/or to a non-
resident account as well as cross-border transactions in general have to be notified to the authorities.

There is also a tax issue to be considered in this context: residents in Spain are subject to Spanish income
tax on the interest from their bank accounts. Non-residents, on the contrary, are normally not subject to
Spanish income tax on such income, but in their Member State of residence.

Hence, operating a non-resident account calls for additional administrative procedures for the credit
institutions under present Spanish legislation. If a bank therefore decides to levy additional charges in
order to cover the cost of the necessary manual handling, this decision is a commercial decision and not
an illegal discrimination. The Commission deplores these circumstances and the levying of fees but cannot
intervene in the banks(cid:146) price policy.

(2001/C 187 E/222)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0237/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 February 2001)

Subject: Forcing up of house prices in Belgium by new Netherlands mortgage tax-relief option

1.
Is the Commission aware that one consequence of the extensive changes to the Netherlands taxation
system, effective as at 1 January 2001 is that the option, already longstanding in the Netherlands, of
deducting the interest paid on a maximum 30-year mortgage on the first dwelling from income tax is
being extended to cover dwellings in other countries, provided that the owner-occupier is someone who
works in the Netherlands and pays income tax there?

2.
Is the Commission further aware that the tax provision referred to in paragraph 1 is strongly forcing
up house prices in Belgium(cid:146)s northern border region, in particular in areas of the Flemish provinces of
Antwerp and Limburg within commuting distance of the Netherlands towns of Tilburg, Eindhoven and
Maastricht, because Netherlands taxpayers buying there will incur much lower costs than Belgians, thereby
forcing many intending Belgian house-buyers to retreat to more affordable areas further away from the
border?

How does the Commission assess a tax provision that appears to be advantageous to those buying
3.
a house for their own use but in practice drives up prices to the advantage of sellers because the latter
know that the tax concession enables buyers to afford significantly more than they would otherwise?

4. What action will the Commission take to help to solve the cross-border problem posed in this
connection by protecting residents of Belgium(cid:146)s northern border area against steeply rising prices and what
amounts to a form of banishment as a result of tax provisions adopted in another country?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2001)

1.
The Commission is aware of the change in Netherlands tax legislation which extended tax advantages
on mortgage repayments applying only to dwellings in the Netherlands until 1 January 2001 to those in
other countries, provided the owner-occupier works in the Netherlands and pays income tax there.

2.
The Commission understands that Dutch nationals take the new provision into consideration when
deciding to purchase a dwelling in Belgium. It further understands that the increased demand for houses in
the northern border region of Belgium resulting from the increased interest shown by potential buyers
from the Netherlands tends to push up house prices there, a change that is advantageous for vendors.