WRITTEN QUESTION E-0334/01 by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Lloyd's Insurance.
Date: 2001-02-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: United Kingdom, complaint to the Commission, infringement procedure (EU), insurance company, insurance law, national implementing measure

13.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 318 E/35

levels. For this reason, most commercially available chlorine or hypochlorite solutions carry warning labels
cautioning the user to utilise these products under ventilation.

On the other hand, the possible health risks related to the use of chlorine in swimming pools must be
weighted against its health benefits as the most effective means to sanitise and disinfect.

In light of this study and the knowledge of the health risks of chlorine, the Commission considers that
proper ventilation of indoor swimming pools remains the most appropriate means to prevent the risks in
question. The need for proper ventilation is well known by the competent authorities of the Member
States, which are responsible in the first instance for health and hygiene measures related to the local
specific conditions of this type of installations.

(2001/C 318 E/037)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0334/01

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: Lloyd(cid:146)s Insurance

Further to the answer to Question E-3473/00 (1) given by Commissioner Bolkestein on behalf of the
1.
Commission on 21 December 2000, will the Commission say under which UK law and in which year the
first Council Directive 73/239 (2) was correctly implemented in the UK and what steps have been taken by
the Commission since that date to ensure that this law was properly implemented?

2. With regard to complaint number 99/5049 will the Commission explain:

(a)

the continuing delays in reaching a decision as to the lack of solvency certification as directed by
Directive 73/239 and implemented in the UK Insurance Co. Act 1982?

(b) whether they have received any response to their letter to the British Government of 16 October

2000?

(c) what deadlines were defined in the letter of 16 October?

(d) whether the UK Government has complied with the stated deadlines?

(1) OJ C 163 E, 6.6.2001, p. 132.
(2) OJ L 228, 16.8.1973, p. 3.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 May 2001)

The operation and regulation of Lloyd(cid:146)s is extremely complex. The Commission(cid:146)s understanding is
1.
that the primary requirements of Council Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the coordination of
laws regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of
direct insurance other than life assurance as regards Lloyd(cid:146)s were first implemented into British national
law by means of the Insurance Companies Act 1982 and amending legislation. The form of the audit
certificates was determined by The Insurance (Lloyd(cid:146)s) Regulations 1983.

In view of the substantial number of complaints received by the Commission from disaffected Lloyd(cid:146)s
Names, the Commission is re-examining the proper application of the Community requirements for
Lloyd(cid:146)s under the Directive.

C 318 E/36

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.11.2001

2. With regard to complaint 99/5049:

a)

the administrative examination has taken longer than usual because of the file complexity. The
allegations made are extremely grave and are being carefully examined by the Commission. With
regard to the required solvency certificates, the British authorities have confirmed that these have been
provided in accordance with the requirements of Council Directive 73/239/EEC. The Commission is
currently examining the nature of the solvency certificate provided. The British authorities are fully co-
operating with the Commission in this examination.

b) The Commission has received an extensive response to its letter to the British authorities dated

16 October 2000.

c)

The letter of 16 October gave a deadline of six weeks. In view of the comprehensive and detailed
nature of the questions raised by the Commission(cid:146)s letter which related to events going back over
almost 20 years, the Commission granted an extension of this deadline to the British authorities by
letter dated 5 December 2000.

d) The British authorities submitted an extensive response dated 25 January 2001. This letter is currently

being examined by the Commission as described above.

(2001/C 318 E/038)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0341/01

by Karla Peijs (PPE-DE) and Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Imposition of special tax on use of cars with a foreign number plate

(13 February 2001)

Dutch nationals posted to a foreign country who are resident abroad for a relatively long period are hit by
the Netherlands tax inspectorate. If they hire a car abroad in order to visit the Netherlands for the weekend
and, at the end of the weekend, take it back to the foreign country concerned, they are required by the
Netherlands tax authorities to pay in full the amount of the special tax in respect of the rental charge for
the car.

1. Why can a person temporarily posted abroad not hire a car there that does not have a Netherlands
number plate when he/she wishes to travel home?

2.
This special tax on use (a non-harmonised tax) is levied in the Netherlands. Does the Commission
consider it appropriate for the Netherlands to impose this tax in the case of people travelling back to the
Netherlands using cars hired abroad?

Does the Commission consider it appropriate, in cases where the person in question is employed by
3.
the European Central Bank and consequently enjoys the immunity accorded by his/her status as an ECB
official, that the Netherlands should impose the special tax? Does the Commission not regard this as
contrary to the principles of the internal market?

4.

Does this problem also exist in other Member States?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2001)

The Commission would inform Honourable Members of the European Parliament that, on the question of
temporary tax-exempt use of a vehicle in a Member State other than that where the vehicle is registered,
the basic criterion laid down in Directive 83/182/EEC (1) is that of the normal residence of the user of the
vehicle, a detailed definition of the term (cid:145)normal residence(cid:146) being given in Article 7 of the Directive and in
relevant ECJ case law. A person(cid:146)s normal residence is the place where he has his personal ties, where his
proprietary interests lie and where he spends most of the year.

The following distinction has to be made:

(cid:129) If the person(cid:146)s normal residence is in Germany, in the city where the Central European Bank has its
headquarters, and if he works there, he may use a wholly tax-exempt car with German plates in any
other Member State, including the Member State of which he is a national (or which is his State of
origin) for a maximum six months a year.