WRITTEN QUESTION E-1124/02 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Promeuro.
Date: 2002-04-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Investment Bank, euro, executive, non-profit organisation, public awareness campaign, publication

C 92 E/40

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

17.4.2003

Since applications have been made for tax rebates by foreign nationals of Member States of the Union in
relation to transfers of property at various periods of time, will the Commission say at what point a
possible tax rebate would be justified in the above circumstances? On publication of the judgment, from
the point at which the reasoned opinion was issued, or from another point in time?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2002)

There has been no Court judgment, but only an administrative decision to withdraw the case from the
register (1). In fact, the Commission refrained from pursuing its infringement procedure before the Court
after Greece eliminated the provisions which discriminated against non-Greek European citizens.

The Greek legislation of 1950,
(modified partially in the area in question in 1997) provided for a
preferential tax treatment of Greek nationals. This became incompatible with the EC Treaty when Greece
joined the EC in 1981. However, the elimination of this preferential treatment only applies from the fiscal
year 2001 and not retroactively to cases between 1981 and 2001.

Under the Community law principle of non-discrimination Union citizens may claim to be treated on an
equal footing with Greek citizens. Therefore, for the years prior to 2001, they can in principle benefit
from the tax rebate originally designed for Greek nationals only. However, as in all Member States,
national rules limit the possibility of reopening closed cases. Normally taxes unduly paid (i.e. in relation to
purchases made prior to 2001) can only be reclaimed to the extent that the respective assessments have
been kept open (normally by an administrative or judicial appeal).

In any case, these national rules may not jeopardize or discriminate the enforcement of a claim based on
Community law in comparison with the enforcement of a claim based on national law.

(1) OJ C 348, 8.12.2001.

(2003/C 92 E/043)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1124/02

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 April 2002)

Subject: Promeuro

Could the Commission please indicate how much money it has devoted to, and from which budget line it
funds, the organisation Promeuro? Could it also please list the amounts for each of the past five years?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2002)

In reply to the question of
the Commission’s
contributions to Promeuro’s projects over the last five years. They were financed on budget lines B3-306
and A 3021 respectively.

the Honourable Member, hereby the overview of

Community contributions to Promecu/Promeuro asbl over its existence

Year

Project

Language

1990-1994

1995

EC contribution to NGO

(in euros)

Community Contribution

For school
programmes

0

As organisation
advancing the idea
of Europe

0

10 000

17.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92 E/41

Project

Language

Community Contribution

For school
programmes

As organisation
advancing the idea
of Europe

Year

1996

1997

Training kit European schools SaarLorLux
Region Commitment No 91305 (Video)

Questions & Answers book for teenagers
Commitment No 094305

French

30 000

French

30 000

1998

EC contribution to NGO

1999

2000

No request as NGO. Utilisation of avail-
able funds

Getting micro-enterprises to prepare for
the euro

No fear for the euro (aged people)

2001

EC contribution to NGO

French

German

27 700

30 000

Total Committed

117 700

10 000

10 000

0

10 000

40 000

(2003/C 92 E/044)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1180/02

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Council

(17 April 2002)

Subject: South Korea’s distortion of the shipbuilding market: referral to the WTO

South Korea has long been distorting competition on the shipbuilding market by pricing its vessels below
their real cost. The European Union and South Korea have held talks with a view to bringing about
healthy competition on the shipbuilding market, but to no avail.

Disagreements over international competition issues are dealt with in the appropriate dispute settlement
bodies of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Both the Union Member States and South Korea belong to
the WTO.

Because the above negotiations ended in summer 2000 without levelling the playing field, the Member
States meeting within the Council in December 2000 unanimously agreed that the EU should complain to
the WTO because South Korea was breaching its obligations regarding support for ship exports.

Parliament also supported that view in its report on the second report from the Commission to the
Council on the situation in world shipbuilding (A5-0371/2000), in which it ‘[called] on the Commission to
initiate a dispute settlement procedure with the Republic of Korea before the World Trade Organisation
(WTO)’.

In spite of these facts, the Commission has still not referred the matter to the WTO dispute settlement
body.

Instead it has, totally artificially and with no solid legal justification, linked the start of a proper WTO
dispute settlement procedure to its proposal for a regulation which stipulates that limited production aid to
individual European shipyards could be temporarily allowed, while the WTO procedure was taking place,
so as to counterbalance South Korea’s action. Differences of opinion among the Member States as to the
legitimacy and rationality of production aid have made it impossible to bring the proposal for a regulation
into force.