WRITTEN QUESTION E-2871/01 by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission. European Union cooperation in the construction of the Malaga Trade Fair Centre.
Date: 2001-10-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Andalusia, EU financing, Structural Funds, co-financing, sociocultural facilities

C 147 E/60

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

Until this year, however, France had been exempt from imposing VAT on such charges in accordance with
Council Decision 89/487/EEC (1) of 28 July 1989, authorising the French Republic to apply a measure
derogating from the second subparagraph of Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC (2) on the
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes.

A judgment delivered by the Court of Justice on 29 March 2001 put an end to this exemption. Why did
the Council not intervene to extend a derogation which only the Court and the Commission found
problematic? And, above all, why is VAT being imposed on service charges now, when the euro is about
to be introduced? Prices are already rising in the run-up to the arrival of this new currency, owing to the
conversion rate (6,55957 francs to the euro) and the tricky rounding operations to be carried out. Can the
Council explain why it is refusing to take action as regards this ridiculous timing, thus allowing the risk of
recession to grow by discouraging private consumption, an engine of growth?

(1) OJ L 239, 16.8.1989, p. 21.
(2) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.

Reply

(18 March 2002)

The exemption granted to France under Council Decision 89/487/EEC of 28 July 1989, which is referred
to in the Honourable Member’s question and which was declared invalid by a judgment of the Court of
Justice of 19 September 2000 (joined cases C-177/99 and C-181/99), does not concern service charges,
but the right to deduct VAT.

In its judgment of 29 March 2001 (1), to which the Honourable Member refers, the Court declared that, by
authorising, under certain conditions, the exclusion from the taxable amount for the purposes of value
added tax of the ‘service charges’ claimed by certain taxable persons, the French Republic has failed to fulfil
its obligations under the Sixth VAT Directive.

Lastly, it should be pointed out that, under the system laid down in the Treaty, the Council acts on a
proposal from the Commission.

(1) Case C-404/99.

(2002/C 147 E/060)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2871/01

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 October 2001)

Subject: European Union cooperation in the construction of the Malaga Trade Fair Centre

The most pessimistic forecasts regarding the contribution from European funds for work on the Trade Fair
and Exhibition Centre in Malaga (Spain) have been proved correct.

The European Union has rejected Malaga Town Council’s application for 2,5 billion pesetas for this major
project through the Interreg III Spain-Morocco Community programme.

Given that construction of this centre is vital for the development of Community activities with North
Africa, particularly Morocco, what other possibilities would the Commission recommend might be
considered by the Malaga authorities with a view to securing the above funding for a project which will
open African doors to all the European Union countries?

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/61

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(28 November 2001)

Under Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1),
the selection of individual projects is a matter for the programme Monitoring Committee, which includes
representatives of the national and regional authorities.

The project mentioned by the Honourable Member does not seem to correspond to the type of
infrastructure which could be taken into account for part-financing under the Interreg III Community
Initiative. It does not appear on the indicative list of priorities and measures eligible under that Initiative (2)
and it has no clearly cross-border features.

In the Commission’s view, this type of project could be considered for part-financing under the Objective
1 operational programme for Andalusia, which has € 7 840,4 million of Structural Funds assistance for the
2000-2006 programming period, of which € 6 152,7 million is from the European Regional Development
Fund.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
(2) Annex II to the Commission Communication to the Member States of 28 April 2000 laying down guidelines for a
Community Initiative concerning trans-European cooperation intended to encourage harmonious and balanced
development of the European territory B Interreg III, OJ C 143, 23.5.2000.

(2002/C 147 E/061)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2886/01

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(10 October 2001)

Subject: North-South cooperation schemes in the campaign against drug abuse

Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2046/97 (1) of 13 October 1997 on north-south cooperation in
the campaign against drugs and drug addiction stipulates that, three years after the Regulation enters into
force, ‘the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council an overall assessment of
operations financed by the Community under this Regulation together with suggestions regarding the
future of this Regulation and, where necessary, proposals for amending or terminating it’. Although the
time limit laid down in the Regulation expired on 24 October 2000, the Commission has still not notified
the Budgetary Authority of the assessment and suggestions in question. Budget heading B7-6310 ‘North-
South cooperation schemes in the campaign against drug abuse’ in the European Communities’ 2002 PDB
therefore does not have a legal basis.

Has the Commission implemented commitment appropriations and payment appropriations under the
aforementioned budget heading since 24 October 2000?

Is it aware that, in the absence of a legal basis, budget heading B7-6310 ‘North-South cooperation schemes
in the campaign against drug abuse’ cannot be implemented?

When will
Budgetary Authority?

it submit the assessment specified in Article 12 of the above-mentioned regulation to the

(1) OJ L 287, 21.10.1997, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 2001)

The evaluation procedure referred to by the Honourable Member was launched by the Commission in
1999 and the evaluation actually started in January 2000. Its implementation suffered a major delay
through no fault of the Commission but owing to difficulties encountered by the evaluator selected, some
of which resulted from force majeure. The final report on the third stage (summary, conclusions and
recommendations) of the evaluation should be presented to the Commission by the end of this year. The
reports for the first and second stages have already been completed.