WRITTEN QUESTION E-0279/01 by Agnes Schierhuber (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Imposition of anti-dumping duties on the import of fertilisers.
Date: 2001-02-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Central and Eastern Europe, anti-dumping duty, customs duties, fertiliser, import, originating product

C 350 E/12

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

(2001/C 350 E/013)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0232/01

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 February 2001)

Subject: VAT on garage rentals

In the United Kingdom, the practice is that where a tenant takes both the lease of a house or flat and the
lease of a garage, paying rent for both to the local Council or a Housing Association, the Treasury regards
the garage as part and parcel of the letting of the domestic accommodation and therefore treats the garage
rent as exempt from VAT.

However, where a person who is not a tenant of Council accommodation takes the lease only of a lock-up
garage from the local Council, VAT is levied on that garage rental because it is considered that there is no
domestic property rental with which to associate that lease.

This situation leads to an inequity between tenants of garages, since one may be paying VAT while another
will not, though the garages may be identical.

In the interests of equity and equality, does the Commission have any power to alter this situation, either
directly or through a new proposal, so that either all tenants pay VAT on the rent for a garage owned by
a public body or the exemption should apply to all tenants?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2001)

Under Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of
the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (cid:129) Common system of value added tax: uniform
basis of assessment (1), the letting and leasing of immovable property is generally exempt from VAT,
irrespective of the nature of the entity making the supply. However there are specific exclusions from this
exemption, one of which is the letting of premises and sites for the parking of vehicles.

The question as to whether various goods or services supplied simultaneously are single or multiple
supplies has been addressed by the Court of Justice on several occasions. With regard to the letting of
a garage in conjunction with a domestic property it is felt that the garage is a minor ancillary element
subsumed into the principal supply and consequently is treated the same for tax purposes (2). The same
principle would apply to outhouses, garden sheds and green houses.

Thus from a VAT point of view there is no inequity here because the comparison is not between the
letting of two garages but between the letting of a garage and the letting of a dwelling. It is only the
particular nature of the latter supply that warrants an exemption from VAT. With the letting of a garage
on its own, the difficult question of the taxation of a person(cid:146)s permanent residential dwelling does not arise
and there can therefore be no possibility of exemption.

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.
(2) Skatteministeriet v. Henriksen CJEC C-173/88.

(2001/C 350 E/014)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0279/01

by Agnes Schierhuber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 February 2001)

Subject: Imposition of anti-dumping duties on the import of fertilisers

During the year 2000 anti-dumping duties were imposed on imports of fertilisers (such as potassium
chloride, ammonium nitrate, urea, etc.) from Eastern European countries,
including some which are
candidates for EU membership.

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/13

The amendments to the Europe Agreements with the Central and Eastern European countries, which
1.
have largely already entered into force, will lead to a further liberalisation of trade in agricultural products.
These agreements include a list of products which may be imported into the EU at zero duty.

In setting anti-dumping duties on fertilisers, which are an important item for farmers, is the Commission
taking into account falling farm incomes in the EU (down 4 % in 1999)?

2.
Does the Commission consider that the introduction of anti-dumping duties on fertilisers from the
candidate countries is in accordance with the general trend towards liberalisation, and in particular the
WTO agreements? Is the reduction of duties for agricultural products compatible with the introduction of
new duties on non-agricultural products?

How should the introduction of new duties on industrial products from candidate countries be seen

3.
in the context of the (cid:145)pre-accession strategy(cid:146) for prospective eastward enlargement?

What is the Commission(cid:146)s view of the reduction of some 4,5 million tonnes in European nitrogenous
fertiliser production (over 20 % of European production) from the end of 1999 to the beginning of 2000?

4. Why does the Commission calculate its anti-dumping duties, e.g. on ammonium nitrate from Poland
and Ukraine, on the basis of a profit margin of 8 %, even though judgments of the European Court of
Justice (e.g. Cases T-121/95 and C-46/98) have held a profit margin of 5 % to be adequate? What profit
margins does the Commission suppose are achieved by the agriculture sector which is affected by such
measures?

Since autumn 1999, prices for nitrogenous fertilisers in the EU have almost doubled (as at autumn
5.
2000). Does the Commission consider that the anti-dumping duties encourage these price trends for
nitrogenous fertilisers?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2001)

1.
The Europe Agreements with the associated countries fully uphold the right of the parties concerned
to apply anti-dumping measures, where warranted because of certain unfair trade practices. For instance,
Article 29 of the Europe Agreement with Poland provides that: (cid:145)If one of the Parties finds that dumping is
taking place in trade with the other Party within the meaning of Article VI of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade, it may take appropriate measures against this practice in accordance with the Agreement
relating to the application of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, with related
internal legislation and with the conditions and procedures laid down in Article 33(cid:146).

As to the potential impact of the measures on the farming sector in the Community, duties are only
proposed if it is in the interest of the Community as a whole, taking account of the interests of all the
the product under
parties concerned by the proceeding,
consideration. In the cases in question, all parties concerned had the opportunity to submit their views.
In particular, farmers(cid:146) organisations have systematically been invited to contribute to the investigations.
Moreover, parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard by the Commission.
However, in the cases under consideration, it was concluded that the limited impact on farmers did not
constitute a compelling reason against the imposition of anti-dumping measures.

importers and users of

i.e. producers,

2.
It must be stressed that the reduction in customs tariffs on agricultural goods is in no way linked to
measures aimed at combating injurious dumping. The objective of anti-dumping measures is to eliminate
the effects of injurious dumping, which are established despite the existence of any customs tariffs.

3.
As already pointed out, anti-dumping measures are not in contradiction with the Community(cid:146)s pre-
accession strategy, as confirmed by the Council in its Essen Declaration of 1994. As to the presumed
reduction in Community nitrogenous fertiliser production, the Commission found that in some of the

C 350 E/14

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

cases considered, a decline in production occurred in some years. It was nevertheless established that the
dumping found had caused material
In the absence of injurious
dumping, the decline in prices and profitability of the Community industry would have been much less
marked.

injury to the Community industry.

The Commission does not agree with the Honourable Member(cid:146)s interpretation of

4.
the Court
judgments. In Case T-210/95, the Court of First Instance states that: (cid:145)It follows that the profit margin to be
used by the Council when calculating the target price that will remove the injury in question must be
limited to the profit margin which the Community industry could reasonably count on under normal
conditions of competition, in the absence of the dumped imports(cid:146). This approach was applied by the
Commission in each case and in the case of ammonium nitrate from Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine, this
led to the determination of a margin of 8 % for the Community industry. For this exercise, the Commission
is not required to assess profit margins of other interested parties such as farmers.

5.
During the investigation periods chosen for the cases mentioned by the Honourable Member, prices
of nitrogen fertilisers were abnormally low due to dumping by third countries, leading to considerable
losses by the Community industry. Fertilisers are commodities that follow trends in the world market for
raw materials such as gas. They are therefore characterised by considerable price volatility. This accounts
for the bulk of recent price increases. At the same time the aim of anti-dumping duties is to eliminate the
effects of injurious dumping on the Community market. Anti-dumping measures may have therefore also
contributed to the recent increase in prices for nitrogen fertilisers.

(2001/C 350 E/015)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0313/01

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: European Union Center

Further to its reply to Written Question E-3046/00 (1) of 8 December 2000, can the Commission indicate
the nature of the funding which facilitated the establishment of the European Union Centers in the United
States?

The literature offered by the one in California, bearing the European twelve-star flag, carries a panel
indicating that it was (cid:145)established with the support of the European Commission(cid:146).

What was the mission statement when that financial assistance was granted?

(1) OJ C 151 E, 22.5.2001, p. 47.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(11 May 2001)

Following a recommendation by the European Parliament, the Commission launched in 1998 a call for
tenders for the establishment of 10 European Centres in the United States. The Centres are devoted to
in particular concerning chapter IV (cid:129) building
promoting the New Transatlantic Agenda objectives,
bridges across the Atlantic. The initiative is funded within the New Transatlantic Agenda framework.

This initiative is designed to:

(cid:129) further the goals of the New Transatlantic Agenda through enhanced (cid:145)People-to-People Links(cid:146) among

the citizens of the Union and the United States;

(cid:129) promote greater understanding in the United States of the European Union as an evolving system of
governance and as an international actor, and increased knowledge of Community policies; and