WRITTEN QUESTION E-0624/02 by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Reduction of car prices.
Date: 2002-03-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, competence of the Member States, competition, motor vehicle, motor vehicle industry, price reduction, tax on consumption, tax system, vehicle registration

C 52 E/16

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

Although the war against international terrorism has a defence weapon in the shape of the Space Shield
and is fought on battlefields, it is won by secret diplomacy, the latest form of signals intelligence.

(cid:1) How does Europe intend to respond to such scenarios? In particular, does the European Union not
intelligence

intend to create synergies in the intelligence sector between the various national
organisations, using new systems of non-integer digital cryptography?

(cid:1) Are there no plans to establish an advanced European Institute of Intelligence with links to the

scientific and academic community?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2002)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for his insights. There are currently no plans of which
the Commission is aware to rise to the challenge outlined.

(2003/C 52 E/018)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0624/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 March 2002)

Subject: Reduction of car prices

The Commission recently presented its proposal on opening the market in cars. In order to achieve the
greatest possible consensus,
(and the
organisations concerned) even though there is no formal requirement to do so at the present stage of
drawing up the draft regulation. The ultimate goal is to bring down car prices, encourage competition and
benefit consumers.

intention officially to consult Parliament

it also stated its

However, while the Commission is making such an effort, there are countries such as Greece and Denmark
where car prices remain exceptionally high owing to the special sales tax which is particularly high on
vehicles of over 1800 c.c. Moreover, diesel engines, which are particularly economical (their emissions are
also less harmful than those of petrol engines) are banned in Greek cities, which restricts Greek consumers
to the 1000-1600 c.c. bracket. The purchasing power of Greeks is much less than that of the average
consumer in the other Member States, which means that a much higher percentage of pay is needed to
acquire a car of one’s own in Greece. Finally, the tax system uses the cubic capacity of the engine rather
than its power as its reference point and, therefore, cars using obsolete technology are taxed at the same
rate as hi-tech vehicles.

Is the Commission aware of this situation? Why does Greece appear to have the highest rate of car tax in
the EU? When will this situation change? Is this excessive taxation consistent with the harmonisation
required of a single internal market?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 May 2002)

As the Honourable Member is aware, the Commission has indeed adopted a draft Commission Regulation
on the application of Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted
practices in the motor vehicle industry (1). The Member of the Commission responsible for Competition
presented the proposal at the Parliament’s Plenary session on 5 February 2002 and at the Parliament’s
Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee (EMAC) on 19 February 2002. The objective of the proposal is

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/17

to strengthen competition in that sector and is based on the assumption that increased competition will
lead to more effective price competition. It does not aim at the harmonisation of either final consumer
prices or pre-tax prices, but to the effective exercise by consumers of their right to take full advantage of
the Single Market.

Concerning vehicle taxation the Honourable Member is aware that there is little Community legislation (2),
or harmonisation in the area of vehicle taxation. Therefore, each Member State applies its national
legislation, which has to be in line with the general principles of the EC Treaty and in particular not to
give rise to border-crossing formalities in trade between Member States and respect the non discrimination
principle (Article 90 of the EC Treaty).

As a consequence, both vehicle tax bases and taxation levels, governed by national law, are very diversified.
Greece is currently applying a Registration tax, known as special vehicle consumption tax, which is among
the highest in the ten Member States of the Community applying such a tax.

The Commission is aware of these registration tax divergences and the problems they pose to free
movement of passenger cars within the internal market. The Commission is also considering options for
future action in the area of vehicle taxation and it intends to present a Communication on this issue
during the coming months, in order to launch a discussion, with Member States and other Community
Institutions. The Communication will address specific fiscal and environmental aspects of vehicle taxation,
including those relating to registration tax.

The Commission would also like to inform the Honourable Member that the Commission’s efforts
envisaging an approximation of vehicle taxation levels has proven very difficult to achieve in practice due
to the unanimity rule required for decisions on fiscal matters.

(1) Published in OJ C 67, 16.3.2002 with an invitation to submit comments not later than one month after the date of

the publication.

(2) Council Directive 83/182/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of
transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another, and 83/183/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax
exemptions applicable to permanent imports from a Member State of the personal property of individuals, OJ L 105,
23.4.1983.

(2003/C 52 E/019)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0764/02

by Ieke van den Burg (PSE)
and Anne Van Lancker (PSE) to the Commission

(18 March 2002)

Subject: Restriction on the right to export Belgian benefits under the half-time bridging pension scheme

Belgian legislation governing the half-time bridging pension scheme (early retirement) provides the right to
a benefit consisting of a payment from the unemployment office (National Employment Service) and a
non-statutory top-up payment from the ‘sector funds’. Up to now the Belgian government has ruled that
frontier workers from neighbouring countries cannot claim this benefit because the bridging pension is
deemed to be an unemployment benefit and not a temporary unemployment benefit.

The Belgian government’s argument can be refuted on the following grounds:
(1) the recipient of a
bridging pension does not have to register as seeking employment and is not subject to the obligation to
apply for jobs and that it follows from the legal basis, as stated in Collective Agreement No 55, that all
payments under the bridging pension scheme are classed as social benefits in accordance with Article 7,
paragraph 2 and/or 4 of Regulation (EEC) 1612/68; (1) (2) if the payment is to be regarded as a benefit
under the unemployment system there is at least a question of
‘partial unemployment’, so that in
accordance with Article 71(1)(a)(i) of Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 (2) this benefit should be granted by the
Belgian authorities to frontier workers employed in Belgium in combination with the remaining Belgian
salary. The latter point is established in Judgment C-444/98 of the Court of Justice (De Laat/LISV).