WRITTEN QUESTION P-0028/02 by Joost Lagendijk (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Comments by Commissioner Bolkestein on tax harmonisation.
Date: 2002-01-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European tax cooperation, decision-making, majority voting, single market, tax harmonisation

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/129

The legal basis for budget heading B7-6310 remains Council Regulation (EC) No 2046/97 on north-south
cooperation in the campaign against drugs and drug addiction, which has no expiry date.

(1) OJ L 287, 21.10.1997.

(2002/C 172 E/132)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0028/02

by Joost Lagendijk (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(15 January 2002)

Subject: Comments by Commissioner Bolkestein on tax harmonisation

In a television interview on Sunday, 6 January 2002, Commissioner Bolkestein let fall the remark that he
saw little prospect of harmonisation of tax rates being achieved within the European Union. Mr Bolkestein
emphasised that he strongly advocated reducing differences in excise duties and VAT rates to a minimum.
However, he anticipated that attempts to do so would fail in the face of the requirement for decisions to
be taken unanimously. With 15 Member States, it would be difficult to reach agreement; with perhaps
25 Member States he expected that it would be almost impossible.

The Commissioner is perhaps failing to fully recognise the possibilities offered by the instrument of
enhanced cooperation. This solution undeniably has its weak points. For example, it will be a less attractive
alternative for Member States taking part, given the apparent freedom which the arrangements would
mean for countries not taking part. However, provided that the group not included in the arrangements is
very small, such a solution can nonetheless be expected to bring satisfactory results, an argument which is
being put forward by a number of Member States in support of using the instrument of enhanced
cooperation for decisions on the eco tax.

The Commission:

= Has it finally abandoned its plan to reduce the various differences in taxes between EU Member States

to a minimum in the interests of making the operation of the internal market more effective?

= Has it considered opting to pursue the alternative approach whereby decisions would be taken using
the instrument of enhanced cooperation by a group of Member States willing to take the lead (as
many have advocated in connection with the introduction of the eco tax)? If not, why not?

= Does it have other alternatives for reaching a decision on reducing tax differences between European

Member States to a minimum, and, if so, what are those alternatives?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2002)

The Commission’s Communication, ‘Tax Policy in the European Union = Priorities for the years ahead’ (1),
adopted 28 May 2001, sets out its policy with respect to the areas where further tax harmonisation is
necessary, and also on the use of enhanced cooperation and non-legislative instruments as a means of
achieving Community tax policy objectives.

With regard to enhanced cooperation, the Communication states the following:

The possibilities introduced by the Amsterdam Treaty and developed by the Nice Treaty for closer co-
operation between sub-groups of like-minded Member States could also be envisaged in certain cases.
In particular, this could be used in tax policy areas where, even in the long term, decisions in the
Council are taken by unanimity. These must be self-contained policy areas so that Member States
cannot pick and choose between policies as best suits them. The decision at Nice will enable the
Commission to propose to the Council that as small a group as eight Member States may co-operate

C 172 E/130

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

in line with the
more closely, after approval within the Council by qualified majority. However,
principles agreed at Nice, this approach must not, among other things, undermine the Internal Market,
constitute a barrier to or a discrimination of trade, distort the conditions of competition, or affect the
competences, rights and obligations of the non-participating Member States […].

As regards indirect taxation, the possibility of enhanced co-operation could provide a way forward in
the area of environmental and energy taxation. A majority of Member States have indicated their
strong desire to make progress in this area.

(1) OJ C 284, 10.10.2001.

(2002/C 172 E/133)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0029/02

by Véronique De Keyser (PSE) to the Commission

(15 January 2002)

Subject: Damage caused by Israeli bombing

The whole of December 2001 was marked by bombing and reprisals by the Israeli army in Palestine. In
addition to the civilian casualties and serious environmental damage the bombing affected infrastructure
subsidised by the European institutions.

The question refers to this damage and consists of three parts:

= Has a study been carried out on the damage showing that buildings classified as ‘European’ have
actually been affected? If so, it is important that the study be made public, since many Europeans
involved in humanitarian aid work in Palestine fear that these buildings are being systematically
destroyed.

= If this is the case, has the Commission’s Legal Service considered the possibility of suing the State of
Israel for damages and interest, in order to recover the sums invested in civilian buildings deliberately
destroyed by the Israeli army?

= If, on the contrary, there has been no study as yet, does the Commission intend to carry one out in

the near future and publish the results?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2002)

At the request of Member States, the Commission is currently co-ordinating the compilation of a list of
Community-funded (Commission and Member States) projects which have been either destroyed or
damaged by Israeli military forces.

The exercise is limited to those cases where the physical damage is a result of Israeli Defence Forces (not
settler) activities. The damage assessment is limited to the replacement costs of physical infrastructure
(construction and equipment), excluding indirect losses such as project delays or suspensions.

Regarding possible claims for compensation this will be considered in the appropriate way by the Member
States, together with the Commission, once the list is completed (the preliminary list is sent direct to the
Honourable Member and to the Parliament’s Secretariat).