WRITTEN QUESTION E-0237/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Forcing up of house prices in Belgium by new Netherlands mortgage tax-relief option.
Date: 2001-02-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, Netherlands, economic consequence, free movement of persons, frontier region, housing, tax exemption

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.

3.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 187 E/205

The Commission considers that the new tax provision adopted by the Netherlands is in accordance
3.
with Community legislation, which specifically prevents the Member States from imposing tax or other
restrictions on their citizens(cid:146) freedom of movement and freedom of establishment outside their own
country.

The Commission does not consider that any specific Community measure is necessary to deal with

4.
the issue raised in this question.

(2001/C 187 E/223)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0243/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 February 2001)

Subject: Conclusion of decision-making on accusations of fraud involving payments for flax growing in

Spain and other accusations against Commission Members

1.
Has the Commission noted the report in the Netherlands Financieel Dagblad of 23 January 2001
headlined (cid:145)European People(cid:146)s part threatens crisis(cid:146), which draws attention to the marked increase in the
land area devoted to flax growing in Spain in the late 1990s from 186ha to 91 000ha, with the
subsequent sharp fall to 20 000ha, and to the subsidies granted by the European Union to boost flax
growing and the shared responsibility of the then Spanish Agriculture Minister?

2.
Can it confirm that the OLAF anti-fraud unit opened an investigation into the lawfulness and
appropriateness of the grant of subsidies referred to in paragraph 1 above, and to determine who carries
political responsibility for any misuse of these payments? Can it confirm that the investigation has now
been concluded?

3. What are the Commission(cid:146)s conclusions in relation to the OLAF investigation? If conclusions cannot
be drawn at this time, by what date can they be expected to be announced?

Is the Commission prepared to make the conclusions of the OLAF investigation public and submit

4.
them to the European Parliament?

Under what procedure and by what deadline does the Commission think the final conclusions will be

5.
reached in this matter?

Does the Commission agree that if fraud has in fact been committed, the subsidies paid out will have
6.
to be recovered, as has already happened in the Netherlands specifically in relation to ESF payments made
in violation of the rules?

7.
Does the Commission agree that one of the lessons that must be learned from the previous
Commission(cid:146)s resignation in 1999 is that complete openness must be maintained and that concern to
protect
the reputations of those involved must not be allowed to override the need for an open,
transparent and reputable approach by political leaders in Europe, not least because the European Union(cid:146)s
image will otherwise once again be seriously tarnished? Is the Commission prepared to act promptly- in
response to growing public indignation (cid:129) so as to meet the requirements of openness and integrity?

8. What is the Commission(cid:146)s reaction to reports that an MEP from the Spanish Partido Popular now
claims to be in possession of enough material to force six Members of the Commission (cid:129) not including
the former Spanish Agriculture Minister (cid:129) out of office? Does it agree that this at least raises the
suggestion that Members of the Commission could be guilty of disreputable conduct that could only result
in their resignations if made public?

9.
Does it share the view that the accusations referred to in paragraph 8 must, in the interests of
administrative integrity, either be substantiated as soon as possible or be conclusively refuted? Is it
prepared to take the initiative in that connection?

10.
How will the Commission act to remove all foundation from accusations levelled by Members of
the European Parliament against Members of the European Commission on the grounds of their possible
vulnerability to accusations of fraud?