WRITTEN QUESTION E-0411/01 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Tax discrimination against leasing of staff from elsewhere in the Community.
Date: 2001-02-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, free competition, tax, temporary employment agency

C 340 E/22

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.12.2001

economic activity, clubs must have the opportunity of developing their economic strategies within the
internal market. A ban by UEFA, which occupies a monopoly position in this respect,
is, we feel, in
violation of European rules.

We are increasingly aware of UEFA abusing its monopoly position in other areas, too. One example is the
transfer system which the Commission is looking into.

If Opel and Volkswagen can be compelled by the Commission to change the way they treat their dealers,
UEFA should change the way it treats the clubs.

Does the Commission agree that in the case described above UEFA is abusing its position of power

1.
and hence is in contravention of European rules?

If so, is it prepared to look into the ban on the Euro League and to take what action is necessary so
2.
that competition (cid:129) a priority objective of the European Union (cid:129) can take place under conditions of
fairness, not least for football clubs from small countries?

Can the Commission look into whether UEFA has abused its monopoly position in other areas, too,

3.
and is it prepared to take whatever action is necessary?

4.
Further evidence can be provided on request. If the answer to question 5 is in the negative, what
opportunities are there, in the Commission(cid:146)s opinion, for clubs from small countries competing within the
internal market if they are obliged to operate exclusively within their own Member States?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(9 April 2001)

The Commission has learned through the press about the plan to set up a new European championship,
involving the best clubs from the Belgian, Danish, Dutch, Portuguese, Swedish and
the Euro League,
Scottish championships.

The Commission has as yet received no application for approval or exemption from the initiators of the
project or the clubs in question, nor any complaint related to the project or its rejection by the Union of
European Football Associations (UEFA). Were it to receive an application or complaint, the Commission
would examine any competition problems and,
this new
championship to the consumer. The examination would also take account of the specific features of
sport, as set out in the Helsinki report on sport (1) and the Nice Declaration on (cid:145)the specific characteristics
of sport and its social function in Europe(cid:146) (2).

the possible benefits of

in particular,

(1) Report from the Commission to the European Council with a view to safeguarding current sports structures and
maintaining the social function of sport within the Community framework (cid:129) The Helsinki Report on Sport (cid:129)
COM(1999) 644 final.

(2) Conclusions of the Presidency (cid:129) Nice European Council (cid:129) 7, 8 and 9 December 2000 (cid:129) Annex IV (cid:129) Declaration
on the specific characteristics of sport and its social function in Europe, of which account should be taken in
implementing common policies.

(2001/C 340 E/029)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0411/01

by Paul R(cid:252)big (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: Tax discrimination against leasing of staff from elsewhere in the Community

Liability for municipal tax payable to local authorities in Austria, including that payable by staff leasing
agencies, has hitherto always been calculated on the total wage bill. As of 1 January 2001, in accordance
with Article 20 of the law applicable to implementation of the 2001 budget (BGBl I, 142/2000), the
undertaking for which staff have been recruited by a staff leasing agency is liable for local authority tax at

4.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 340 E/23

the rate of 70 % of the recruitment fee. Since this means in particular that ancillary wage costs and a profits
component are now included in the basis of assessment, the end result is to at least double the local
authority tax burden.

An employee leased by a staff leasing agency established elsewhere on Community territory to an Austrian
firm for work in Austria will be significantly less well-off in terms of liability for local authority tax than
an employee recruited directly by the same firm in Austria.

Even if the abovementioned Austrian-based firm were, for example, to commission an Austrian-based
electronics undertaking to carry out a repair, a much lower amount would be payable in local authority
tax than if the repair were carried out by an electrician who had been recruited through a staff leasing
agency established elsewhere in the Community.

Is the discrimination operating here to obstruct competition from staff
elsewhere in the Community permissible under European law?

leasing agencies established

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2001)

Municipal tax is provided for by Austrian federal law. As there are no specific Community provisions, the
tax is within Austria(cid:146)s political discretion. The Member States must nevertheless observe the general
principles of Community legislation, including the prohibition of discrimination. However, in the situation
foreign staff leasing agencies are not discriminated against
referred to by the Honourable Member,
compared with employees in Austria, as the situations are not comparable: only the situations of staff
leasing firms are comparable. Austrian law does not provide for different
treatment of such firms
according to whether they are based abroad or in Austria. The Commission therefore assumes that it is not
mainly foreign firms that might incur a higher tax burden.

(2001/C 340 E/030)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0412/01

by Hans Modrow (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: EU action against BSE in cattle

BSE has been known to occur in cattle since the mid-1980s. When cases began to multiply in the UK in
particular, the EU reacted with an export ban on British beef, which was half-heartedly imposed before
being eventually lifted. Despite wide-ranging public concern about BSE and despite the high sensitivity to
this issue on the part of producers and consumers alike, scientific research has been absolutely neglected.

The Commission consequently is asked:

1. Why has research into the causes of BSE been so criminally neglected?

2. What action has been agreed to catch up with the research backlog in as short a time as possible?

3. What research status is assigned to investigating the effects of brain toxins on cattle, and in what

manner will the results be made public?

4. What research is being conducted into how BSE is transmitted to humans, the better to enable it to be

combated successfully?

5.

In what ways are products other than animal meal that are exposed to the risk of toxic contamination
being used?