WRITTEN QUESTION E-0574/01 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Greece's failure to comply with the Court of Justice's decision on used cars.
Date: 2001-02-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, complaint to the Commission, infringement of EU law, used goods, vehicle tax

13.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 318 E/75

(2001/C 318 E/076)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0548/01

by Mechtild Rothe (PSE) to the Commission

(27 February 2001)

Subject: Competition and subsidies in the steel chimney construction sector

There appear to be considerable price differences in the steel chimney construction sector in the European
Union and the question arises as to whether these differences, which are in some cases as much as 30 %
result from the granting of subsidies in certain Member States.

1.

2.

Are government subsidies provided for steel chimney construction in certain EU Member States?

Is the EU actively promoting this sector? If so, under what programmes?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(1 June 2001)

The question regarding price differentials in the steel chimney construction sector relates to the

1.
competitive situation in the sector.

The Commission has the responsibility of monitoring compliance with the European competition rules by
the Member States. If price differentials in a particular sector are attributable to subsidies, we refer to the
individual competition provisions when assessing compatibility with the common market.

Basically, there are no specific rules for vetting state aid in the steel chimney construction sector. To that
extent, where state assistance for this sector is concerned, the rules on the assessment for approval of state
aid with horizontal objectives or the general rules on the assessment for approval of regional aid are
applicable.

If a firm is located in a region eligible for regional aid, it may apply for such aid under the aid rules for
that region.

The arrangements for applying the general rules on regional aid and those for applying the rules on state
aid with horizontal objectives apply equally to all firms in the Member States.

2.

The Commission is not aware of any subsidy programmes for the steel chimney construction sector.

(2001/C 318 E/077)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0574/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 February 2001)

Subject: Greece(cid:146)s failure to comply with the Court of Justice(cid:146)s decision on used cars

In Greece, the provisions of Law 2682/99 abolished the special consumer tax and the flat-rate added
special duty on motor vehicles, which had been imposed on passenger cars, and instituted a single duty
described as a (cid:145)special registration duty(cid:146). The coefficients of this duty vary according to the car(cid:146)s cylinder
capacity and its anti-pollution technology, with new and used cars being treated in the same way.

In other words, Greece does not tax used cars on the basis of the value of an equivalent new car, but
continues to impose unreasonably high taxes, which for non-catalytic cars range from 80 % to 400 % of
the car(cid:146)s value and for catalytic cars from 15 % to 128 %. This violates the principles and the operative part
of the Court of Justice(cid:146)s judgment of 23 October 1997 in Case C-375/95, in which Greece was condemned
for discriminatory customs treatment of used cars from the EEC.

C 318 E/76

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.11.2001

What does the Commission intend to do to ensure that the Court of Justice(cid:146)s decisions are fully respected
and that Community law is applied?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2001)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that it has already addressed a reasoned opinion to the
Greek administration under Article 228 (ex-Article 171) of the EC Treaty for incomplete application of the
Court of Justice judgment in Case C-375/95, Commission v. Hellenic Republic, concerning the taxation of
motor vehicles.

Since the reasoned opinion was notified there have been two new developments:

(a) publication of a Court of Justice judgment in a similar case, C-393/98, Gomes Valente. This judgment,
delivered as part of a preliminary ruling, reflects the observations made to the Court of Justice by the
Commission and entails a review of the current system for calculating the tax base for used cars by
several Member States. The review in question is more favourable to European citizens and economic
operators;

(b) a fresh complaint by Greek economic operators, received by the Commission on 12 March 2001,
about a deterioration in the tax rates for used cars, applied since 1 January 2001, which, in their
opinion, is contrary to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-375/95.

The Commission reserves the right, after the necessary review and in accordance with the rules in force
and the principle of the right to a fair hearing, to incorporate these new elements in the infringement
procedure currently under way.

(2001/C 318 E/078)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0585/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 February 2001)

Subject: Progress of land registry in Greece

The Directorate-General for Regional Policy has, in a letter to the relevant authorities, expressed concern at
the anomalous nature of the continued funding of the national land registry project (for which ECU 172
million was earmarked under the 1994 budget, subsequently reduced by ECU 33,3 million as a result of
changes to the Community Support Framework), since progress made does not justify such funding.

According to the letter (cid:145)21 % of the projects were carried out, taking up 83 % of the programme(cid:146)s budget(cid:146).
Figures are also given comparing initial and current cost estimates.

However, the Commission(cid:146)s reply of 3 December 1997 to my Written Question No E-3332/97 (1) and to
those of other Members was predominantly reassuring, indicating that there were (cid:145)no more obstacles to
prevent the appropriations from being taken up within the time limit laid down in the CSF(cid:146).

The Commission:

1. Does it consider that the provisions of Article 24(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 (2) apply in this
case? Has there been a significant change affecting the conditions or nature of the operation for which
the Commission(cid:146)s approval has not been sort?

2. What appropriations are envisaged for the continuation of land registry operation under the third

CSF? What measures and what funding levels will the Community agree to?

(1) OJ C 158, 25.5.1998, p. 88.
(2) OJ L 374, 31.12.1988, p. 1.