WRITTEN QUESTION E-0562/02 by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Compatibility of Norwegian VAT legislation.
Date: 2002-02-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC Directive, EFTA Court, EFTA countries, European Economic Area, Norway, VAT, national implementing measure, tax law

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.

C 277 E/62

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.11.2002

As a general rule, there is no obligation for Norway to have its legislation compatible with the Community
Directives in the area of VAT, as Community Directives only apply to Member States and not to third
countries. This would apply also to the provisions concerning VAT reverse charges.

Nevertheless, Article 14 of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement, to which Norway is signatory,
provides that contracting parties shall not
impose, directly or indirectly, on the products of other
contracting parties any internal taxation of any kind in excess of that imposed directly or indirectly on
similar domestic products. Furthermore, contracting parties shall not impose on the products of other
contracting parties any internal taxation of such a nature as to afford indirect protection to other products.

The power to investigate the compatibility of an EEA European Free Trade Association (EFTA) contracting
party’s legislation with the EEA Agreement lies with the EFTA Surveillance Authority; the Authority has
the power to initiate infringement procedures by bringing the matter to the EFTA Court of Justice, if it
finds the legislation of a contracting party to be incompatible with the provisions of the Agreement. The
Commission has no such power of action against Norway, as infringement procedures under the EC Treaty
are only applicable vis-à-vis Member States and not vis-à-vis third countries.

(2002/C 277 E/066)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0569/02

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Follow-up to Question E-2783/00

I refer to my Written Question E-2783/00 (1) asking whether the Danish law requiring securities to be
lodged when registering companies was compatible with Community rules, and my follow-up letter of
27 March 2001 to the Commission, to both of which the Commission replied that it would deal with the
matter once it had received additional information. Has additional information reached the Commission
yet, which would allow it to answer my original question?

(1) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001, p. 95.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2002)

The Commission has begun a detailed examination of the rules referred to by the Honourable Member on
the basis of the information provided by the Danish authorities. It will soon be in a position, therefore, to
say whether those rules are compatible with the principles of the EC Treaty as referred to by the Court of
Justice in Centros.

At issue is the matter of the minimum capital requirement for setting up a company. Following the Lisbon
European Council (23 and 24 March 2000), a benchmarking exercise on the length of time and the costs
involved in setting up a company was conducted. The results have now been published and can be found
at
the website: europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/entrepreneurship/support_measures/start-ups/benchmark-
ing.htm.

The usefulness of a minimum level of capital in the case of limited companies is also on the agenda of the
High-Level Expert Group on Company Law, which was set up in September 2001 and instructed to submit
to the Commission recommendations for modernising company law. The Group will present its report in
July. Its recommendations could have a major impact on the establishment of companies in Europe. and in
particular the concept of minimum capital.