WRITTEN QUESTION E-1281/02 by Armin Laschet (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Compatibility with EU law of the Belgian Royal Decree of 31 December 1953 on the registration of vehicles.
Date: 2002-05-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, Germany, frontier region, head office, judgment of the Court (EU), residence, type of business, vehicle registration

C 229 E/200

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.9.2002

Directive 1999/5/EC (5) governing radio equipment (including mobile telephone masts) obliges manu-
facturers to ensure that they are safe. In particular Article 3.1.a of the Directive sets a general obligation for
manufacturers to protect the health of the user and of any other person by radio equipment when used for
their intended purpose. Article 7.2 of that same Directive explicitly enables national authorities to impose
restrictions on the use of radio equipment for the purpose of protection of public health; this may include
for example the imposition of minimum distances between telephone masts and the public.

Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general
public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz) (6) provides guidance on the safety levels to be
respected. It invites Member States to limit the exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields
between 0 Herz (Hz) and 300 Gigaherz (Ghz) to certain levels. The basic restrictions and reference levels
included in the Recommendation aim at ensuring users a high level of protection against acute and long-
term effects of non-ionising radiation emitted by radio equipment.

Member States, in accordance with the EC Treaty, may provide for a higher level of protection than set out
in the above-mentioned Council Recommendation, but are in general implementing the limits thereof.
Furthermore, European standards drafted by the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation
(Cenelec) will, as requested by the Commission, ensure the compliance of devices put on the market with
the limits set up in the Council Recommendation. These standards will be recognised under Directive
1999/5/EC and replace national conflicting standards.

This Recommendation further invites the Commission to keep the matter under review taking into
consideration ongoing research and relevant aspects of precaution and considering the development of
new technologies and the necessity to respond more rapidly to new scientific evidence.

At the request of the Commission, the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment
adopted on 30 November 2001 an opinion on the matter and confirmed the limits recommended by the
Council (7).

Having addressed potential health aspects of mobile phone masts, the Commission currently does not plan
to propose a Community-wide harmonised procedure for controlling the positioning of mobile phone
masts.

(1) OJ C 147 E, 20.6.2002, p. 6.
(2) Directive 97/33/EC of

the Council of 30 June 1997 on interconnection in tele-
communications with regard to ensuring universal service and interoperability though application of the principles
of Open Network Provision (ONP), OJ L 199, 26.7.1997. The provisions of this Directive are expected to be
included in a new framework Directive, currently under discussion in the Parliament and the Council.

the Parliament and of

(3) Directive 2002/21/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework

for electronic communications networks and services, OJ L 108, 24.4.2002.

(4) Directive 2002/20/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic

communications networks and services, OJ L 108, 24.4.2002.

(5) Directive 1999/5/EC of

the Parliament and of

the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and

telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity, OJ L 91, 7.4.1999.

(6) OJ L 199, 30.7.1999.
(7)

Implementation Report on the Council Recommendation limiting the public exposure to electromagnetic fields
(0 Hz to 300 GHz) see http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/sct/outcome_en.html.

(2002/C 229 E/231)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1281/02

by Armin Laschet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 May 2002)

Subject: Compatibility with EU law of the Belgian Royal Decree of 31 December 1953 on the registration

of vehicles

The Belgian Royal Decree of 31 December 1953 governs the registration of foreign vehicles in Belgium. A
foreign vehicle is to be registered in Belgium if its keeper has his place of residence in Belgium, and
Belgian legislation recognises only a person’s main residence.

26.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 229 E/201

This causes problems in areas on the German-Belgian border. Since 1 October 2001, businesspeople who
own firms in Germany but live in Belgium have not been able to use their company vehicles for travel
between work and home if those vehicles are registered in Germany. If they wish to use such vehicles in
Belgium, they have to register them there and have them fitted with Belgian number plates. Those affected
by these rules are the self-employed and managing directors of private limited companies. Employees
working for German firms and using company vehicles on official business or for journeys between home
and work are not affected.

A keeper of a vehicle who registers his vehicle in Belgium must pay registration fees. This entails
considerable additional expenditure, in particular for small businesses with several company vehicles.

What is the legal position as regards leased vehicles? German banks make loans for the purchase of
vehicles provided the vehicle registration documents are presented as security. A German business owner
can no longer use his vehicle registration documents as security once he has registered his company
vehicle in Belgium. Is there any experience of fiscal depreciation arrangements or of registration tax in the
case of leased vehicles?

What other consequences does re-registration of company vehicles have for business owners? Do German
tax offices accept claims in respect of the costs incurred, e.g. Belgian motor vehicle taxes, following re-
registration?

Many business owners regard the provisions of
disadvantage and a barrier to their freedom of movement. Does the Commission agree with them?

the Royal Decree as constituting a huge financial

In the Commission’s opinion, should Member States’ national
into line with
European legislation in order to remove competitive disadvantages faced by business owners in border
regions?

legislation be brought

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2002)

The matter raised by the Honourable Member concerns the obligation to reside or have a place of business
in Belgium when registering vehicles. This pertinent issue should be examined in the context of the
freedom to provide services under the terms of Article 49 of the EC Treaty.

The Royal Decree of 31 December 1953, to which the Honourable Member refers, has been substantially
amended by the Royal Decree of 20 July 2001 on the registration of vehicles.

Furthermore, in its judgment of 21 March 2002 on case C-451/99 ‘Cura Anlagen’, the Court of Justice
ruled that Article 49 precludes legislation which imposes ‘a requirement that the person in whose name the
vehicle is registered in the Member State of use reside or have a place of business there, in so far as it
obliges a leasing undertaking either to have a principal place of business in that Member State or to accept
registration of the vehicle in the name of the lessee and the consequent limitation of its rights over the
vehicle.’

Given these factors,
the
the Commission will examine the Belgian regulations
aforementioned judgment and will ensure that the situation concerning the registration of vehicles in
Belgium complies with this case law.

in the light of