WRITTEN QUESTION E-1413/01 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Tax discrimination against the employment of personnel leased from other parts of the Community.
Date: 2001-05-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, free competition, tax, temporary employment agency

4.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 340 E/225

In the light of the above, I should like to ask the Commission the following question: Are natural-style
bathing ponds covered by the current bathing water directive, and if it is not clear whether this is the case,
will the Commission specifically include such bathing ponds within the scope of the revised proposal for
a bathing water directive shortly to be submitted?

(1) OJ L 31, 5.2.1976, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2001)

The natural-style bathing ponds described are, as a rule, sealed artificially against groundwater or other
waters and so there is no interchange with those waters. To that extent they can be compared with
artificial swimming pools and thus, in general, are not covered by the existing bathing water Directive (1).

The rules applying to bathing water quality under Community law are based on Article 175 (former
Article 130a) of the EC Treaty. The Member States are thus free to lay down further-reaching or more
stringent protective measures at national level that also apply to bathing water quality, if such action is
compatible with the Treaty (Article 176 (former Article 130t of the Treaty)).

in its
The Commission will propose as exact a definition as possible of the term (cid:145)bathing waters(cid:146)
forthcoming proposal concerning a new bathing water Directive. This is also one of the aims of the
current consultation procedure in accordance with the Commission communication on bathing water
policy (2), including the Conference on bathing water quality of 24-26 April 2001. A general inclusion into
the Commission proposal of all natural-style bathing ponds, as described in the enquiry, is not foreseeable.

(1) Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8.12.1975 on the quality of bathing water (OJ L 31, 5.2.1976).
(2) Commission communication of 21.12.2000: A new policy for bathing water, COM(2000) 860 final.

(2001/C 340 E/261)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1413/01

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

(14 May 2001)

Subject: Tax discrimination against

the employment of personnel

leased from other parts of

the

Community

Up to now, in Austria, in the case of personnel leasing companies, the municipal taxes payable to local
authorities have been calculated on the basis of the wages paid.

As of 1 January 2001, on the basis of Article 20 of Federal accompanying law 2001, BGBL 1, 142/2000,
firms which have been supplied with staff by a personnel leasing agency are obliged to pay municipal
taxes of 70 % of the placement fee. As additional costs and a profit margin are thereby included in the
basis of assessment, the effect is to at least double the amount payable in municipal taxes.

A worker leased by a personnel leasing agency based in another Community country to an Austrian firm
to carry out work inside Austria is treated far less favourably when it comes to paying municipal taxes
than a worker employed directly by the same Austrian-based company.

Even if the Austrian-based firm in question commissioned another Austrian-based electrical engineering
firm, for example, to carry out repairs, a much smaller amount of municipal taxes would have to be paid
than if the job was carried out by an electrician provided by a personnel leasing company based in another
Community country.

Is this discrimination, and the placing at a competitive disadvantage of personnel leasing companies based
in other Community countries, permissible under Community law?

C 340 E/226

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.12.2001

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(31 May 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-0411/01 (1).

That answer is still valid.

(1) See page 22.

(2001/C 340 E/262)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1419/01

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Subject: Fighting dogs

Measures have been taken in a number of European countries to combat the spread of breeds of fighting
dogs, both because they are dangerous (cid:129) as demonstrated by numerous attacks by dogs (cid:129) and the
unlawful use of such breeds by criminals to guard property or hold cruel dog fights for the purposes of
betting.

Does the Commission consider it useful to draw up a European legal framework aimed at the strict
regulation or, in certain cases, the elimination, of such dog breeds?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2001)

In the absence of a harmonised definition of fighting dogs, the Commission takes the view that the issue
raised by the Honourable Member falls, in principle, within the remit of the Member States.

At the moment, the Member States have very different positions with regard to fighting dogs.

The Commission does not have a sufficiently sound scientific basis to draw up European legislation in this
area. In the light of this, it does not feel able to table any proposals on this issue.

(2001/C 340 E/263)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1430/01

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Budgetary regulations applying to OLAF

(4 May 2001)

The establishment plan of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) for 2001 attributes to OLAF a maximum
of 53 permanent posts in Category A.

Can the Commission confirm that this limit has not been respected and that OLAF has instead almost 80
permanent A-Grade Officials on its payroll?

If this is the case, does the Commission agree that this is an irregularity and a serious breach of budgetary
regulations, and was this approved by the Commission(cid:146)s Financial Controller?