WRITTEN QUESTION E-0985/02 by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission. Damaging tax competition.
Date: 2002-04-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Union membership, European tax cooperation, code of conduct, fiscal policy, restriction on competition, tax harmonisation

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/69

distinction has to be drawn between those that are capable of attracting users that have installations of
other Member States as an alternative and those that are mainly destined to local use.

In the case concerning aid to cableway installations in Austria (case N860/01), no adequate elements have
been forwarded to allow to conclude that the resort would fall into the category of purely local use
facilities. Therefore, the Commission had to conclude that the measures constituted aid in the meaning of
Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, which, however, was found compatible in view of its limited aid intensity.

In the decision concerning aid to cableway installations in Italy (case N376/01),
it was accepted that
support to certain installations that were for local use would not be capable of affecting trade between
Member States. This, however, did not concern all installations, but only some of them. In other cases it
was concluded that an effect on trade was present and that aid could be justified only in view of its limited
intensity.

2.
To reach its decision the Commission has consulted various data on tourism and cableway
installations that is available from different sources. No single study or report constituted the decisive base
for the decision, nor, to the Commission’s knowledge, comprehensive statistical data on users of cableways
per country of origin and place of destination is available. It can be mentioned, however, that the Italian
authorities have presented copy of a study titled ‘Imprese turistiche e competitività (cid:1) Le caratteristiche
della produzione delle imprese turistiche’ and a report of Professor Carlo Eugenio Baldi of the University of
Bologna, both presented at the seminar on ‘Aiuti al turismo e regole di concorrenza’ held on 8 November
2000, at the premises of the Parliament. A copy will be sent to the Honourable Member and to the
Parliament’s secretariat.

As regards the report requested in Written Question E-3179/01 by the Honourable Member (1) of
3.
7 November 2001, the Commission can only repeat what already replied at the time, i.e. that no report as
such has been established.

It would be impossible to provide copy of all the electronic data and documents consulted by the

4.
Commission through the Internet in order to gain a better knowledge of the sector.

(1) OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002, p. 6.

(2002/C 309 E/080)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0985/02

by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 April 2002)

Subject: Damaging tax competition

As part of the work of the Primarolo group, a list of 66 damaging tax measures was drawn up. The
Netherlands was listed as having 10, and has now abolished 8 of them. However, it is now rumoured that
other Member States have copied measures which the Netherlands has abolished (see, for example, an
article in NRC Handelsblad of 18 February 2002). The countries in question are said to be Luxembourg,
France and Denmark. I have also heard from people with practical experience of the matter that in Spain it
is now possible to obtain a permanent-establishment financing ruling such that a permanent establishment
in Switzerland is subject to a very low rate of taxation. Such rulings are no longer possible in the
Netherlands.

The Member States concerned have apparently still not informed the Primarolo group of these measures.

Is it fair that these measures, which have been abolished in one Member State on the basis of the

1.
work of the Primarolo group, should be introduced in another?

2. Will the Commission investigate whether the above rumours are true?

3. Will the Commission take action if it becomes apparent that Member States are introducing measures
which have been abolished in another Member State on the basis of the work of the Primarolo group? If
so, what action?

C 309 E/70

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(28 May 2002)

At the time of the adoption of the Code of Conduct for business taxation, the Member States made a
1.
commitment not to introduce any new tax measures that would be harmful within the meaning of the
Code of Conduct. This explicit commitment,
is clearly recorded in
paragraph C of the Code.

termed as the standstill clause,

The Code of Conduct Group has the mandate to report to the Ecofin Council whether the standstill
2.
clause is being upheld. In accordance with paragraphs E and F of the Code the Member States are invited
to inform the Group if they have introduced new measures which might be potentially harmful. They may
also ask for the opportunity to discuss and comment on any such new potentially harmful measures that
may have been introduced in other Member States.

3.
If it becomes apparent that Member States are introducing measures which might be harmful under
the Code of Conduct the measures will have to be assessed in the Code of Conduct Group. For its part, the
Commission will naturally examine any measures reported to it in this context in order to determine
whether the Member State concerned is in compliance with its obligations under the Treaty.

(2002/C 309 E/081)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0988/02

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

Subject: Enlargement and the Austrian farming industry

(12 April 2002)

A study carried out by the Austrian Institute for Economic Research forecasts that Austria’s share of the
market in most agricultural sectors will decline following EU enlargement. A particularly serious decline in
income is expected in the cereals sector and the milk sector, which is extremely important for Austria.

Bearing in mind the study entitled ‘Analysis of the impact on agricultural markets and incomes of EU
enlargement to the CEECs’, which is unfortunately available only in English, can the Commission answer
the following questions:

1.

In the Commission’s view, to what extent can the expected loss of income be attributed to possible job
losses among Austrian farmers?

2. What measures will the Commission take if such job losses occur?

3. According to what time scale (post 2004) does the Commission expect a normalisation of the labour

market in the agricultural sector?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 May 2002)

On the basis of its current analysis, the Commission does not share the view that Austria will suffer a
serious decline in market share following Union enlargement. In particular, the Commission does not share
the negative view of the Austrian study on the low competitiveness of Austrian’s agriculture and food
processing industries, especially for its high quality products.

Moreover, the Union’s position in the enlargement negotiations is that where the acquis provides for
production quotas, these should be extended to the new Member States on the basis of a recent reference
period. This means that production will be maintained at recent levels.