WRITTEN QUESTION E-0558/02 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Incorrect forms of names arising from standard used to record them in public documents.
Date: 2002-02-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, Greece, case-law (EU), civil status, international convention, surname, transliteration

C 277 E/60

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.11.2002

Nor is the Council able to provide any information concerning any involvement of Pro Eurojust or
Eurojust in such arrests.

In more general terms, it should be pointed out that Pro Eurojust was a provisional unit of 15 prosecutors
and judges working entirely under national law, but established by a Council Decision. That Decision,
superseded by the Council Decision of 28 February 2002 setting up Eurojust, did not give the provisional
unit’s members any coercive powers. The tasks assigned them did, however,
include improving
cooperation between competent national authorities with regard to investigations and prosecutions in
relation to serious crime, particularly organised crime, involving two or more Member States.

The Decision of 28 February 2002 does not give Eurojust any coercive powers exercisable directly vis-à-vis
the public, such as the power of arrest. It does, however, expressly include among Eurojust’s tasks, whether
acting as a college or through its national members, to ‘assist the competent authorities of the Member
States, at their request, in ensuring the best possible coordination of investigations and prosecutions’.

The above is, moreover, without prejudice to Member States’ conferral on their respective national
members of judicial powers within their own territory.

As regards the last question, the Council does not comment on any cases pending before the competent
national authorities.

(2002/C 277 E/064)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0558/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 February 2002)

Subject: Incorrect forms of names arising from standard used to record them in public documents

Major problems are caused when Greek civil servants transliterate Greek names into Latin characters (when
issuing new identity cards, passports, diplomas, etc.), especially for Greek citizens who have names of
foreign origin. The particular standard applied 9 ELOT 743 9 devised by the Greek Standardisation
Organisation does not seem to cover all cases where letters are pronounced differently from one country
to another. For example, the name of a Greek woman married to a German named ‘Weber’ would in
Greek appear as ‘Βεµπερ’, which then transliterates back into Latin characters using the new standard as
‘Vemper’.

The result of this situation is that citizens with Greek identity documents have ‘dual’ names in the other
Member States and experience considerable complications and inconvenience over matters such as
insurance, pensions, bank accounts, etc.

In view of the fact that this situation creates an obstacle to freedom of movement and establishment for
Greek citizens in the other 14 Member States of
the Union which use the Latin alphabet, what
representations will the Commission make to the Greek authorities to ensure that names of foreign origin
transliterated from the Greek version of those names appear as they do in their original form?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2002)

In its judgment of 30 March 1993 in Case C-168/91 (1), the Court of Justice acknowledged (paragraph 14)
that it is for the Member State in question to adopt legislation or administrative measures laying down the
detailed rules for the transcription of a Greek name into Roman characters in accordance with the
prescriptions of any international conventions relating to civil status to which it is a party. Thus it is for
Greece to lay down the detailed rules for the transcription of a Greek name into Roman characters or vice
versa in accordance with such international conventions.

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 277 E/61

However, the Court of Justice, in the same judgment (paragraphs 15 to 17), ruled that rules of that kind
are to be regarded as incompatible with the Treaty only in so far as their application causes a Greek
national such a degree of inconvenience as in fact to interfere with his freedom to exercise his right of
establishment. It also holds that such interference occurs where the party concerned is obliged to use a
spelling of his name derived from the transliteration used in registers of civil status if that spelling is such
as to modify its pronunciation and if the resulting distortion exposes him to the risk that potential clients
could confuse him with other persons.

Accordingly, any citizen of the European Union is entitled to require the Greek authorities to transcribe a
family name in Roman characters into Greek characters in such a way that its pronunciation is not
modified and that the resulting distortion does not expose him to the risk of confusion with other persons.
He could, where appropriate, demand that his name not be transcribed into Greek characters or that the
two inscriptions in Greek and Roman characters be placed side by side at least in documents that will be
used in another Member State, in order to avoid any confusion.

(1)

[1993] ECR I-1191.

(2002/C 277 E/065)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0562/02

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 February 2002)

Subject: Compatibility of Norwegian VAT legislation

From 1 July 2001, VAT legislation in Norway was changed (1), and ‘reverse charge’ for services ‘suitable to
be remotely delivered’, such as advertising services, was introduced in somewhat similar fashion as in the
Sixth VAT Directive (2). Prior to the change, EU-domiciled companies were charged Norwegian VAT
depending on whether such companies were registered for VAT in Norway or not (3).

The new legislation seems to contradict the former one, which actually remains in force. Therefore,
Norwegian undertakings differ in their interpretation, and the practice on charging Norwegian VAT is not
uniform for all the operators on the internal market. Also the wording ‘suitable to be remotely delivered’
can be argued to be more restrictive than the scope of the EU Directive.

1.

Is the Commission aware of current Norwegian VAT legislation?

Is the Norwegian VAT legislation compatible with the EU Directives and case-law of the European

2.
Court of Justice?

Is the restriction in ‘suitable to be remotely delivered’ compatible with the EU Directives and case-law

3.
of the European Court of Justice?

If the Commission objects to Norwegian VAT legislation, what action would it take and in what

4.
time-frame?

5. Would such action be retroactive and apply to the VAT charges that have already been levied?

(1) Regulation No 121 of 15 June 2001.
(2) Article 9(2)(e), Sixth VAT Directive.
(3) Article 4, Regulation No 50.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 2002)

The Commission is not aware of the Norwegian VAT legislation, as Norway, not being Member of Union,
is under no obligation to inform the Commission of its tax legislation.