WRITTEN QUESTION P-1704/02 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission. Tax legislation in the Federal Republic of Germany — 15 % tax deduction at source.
Date: 2002-06-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, building industry, corporation tax, foreign enterprise, infringement of EU law, restriction on competition, tax exemption

C 52 E/92

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

The Council has not hitherto been aware of facts such as those mentioned by the Honourable Member,
and no claims have been referred to it in connection with such problems. In any event, the Council could
act only on the basis of a proposal from the Commission, if the latter considers the current legislation
insufficient and believes that it is necessary and appropriate to put in place specific regulations on
vinegars. No proposal on this subject is being considered at present.

(2003/C 52 E/105)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1699/02

by Martin Schulz (PSE) to the Council

(6 June 2002)

Subject: Firearms legislation in the European Union

The tragic events of 26 April 2002, when a final-year pupil shot 16 people at the Gutenberg-Gymnasium
in Erfurt, led to a broad public debate in Germany and the EU concerning the approach to violence in our
society. Attention has particularly focused on firearms legislation.

Would it be possible to harmonise firearms legislation in the EU in such a way as to make access to
firearms subject to uniform criteria?

Reply

(5 November 2002)

to uniform criteria. The Council would, however, point out

The Commission, which exercises its right of initiative within the scope of the Community powers
conferred upon it by the Treaty, has not submitted a Commission proposal to the Council with a view to
harmonising the different firearms legislations in the Union in such a way as to make access to firearms
subject
in accordance with the
conclusions of the Fontainebleau European Council on 25 and 26 June 1984 and with a view to ensuring
the abolition of all police and customs formalities at intra-Community frontiers by 31 December 1992 on
the one hand and fostering greater mutual confidence between Member States in the field of the protection
of the safety of persons on the other,
it adopted Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 on
control of the acquisition and possession of weapons (1). This Directive provides in particular for the
establishment of minimum criteria in the area of acquisition and possession of firearms, and gives Member
States the freedom to adopt in their legislation provisions which are more stringent than those laid down
in the Directive. Article 2 of the Directive excludes from its scope the acquisition or possession of weapons
by the armed forces, the police, the public authorities, collectors and historical and cultural bodies, as well
as commercial transfers of weapons and ammunition of war.

that,

Furthermore, it should be borne in mind that pursuant to Article 296(1)(b) of the TEC, any Member State
may take such measures as it considers necessary for the protection of the essential interests of its security
which are connected with the production of or trade in arms, munitions and war material.

(1) OJ L 256, 13.9.1991.

(2003/C 52 E/106)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1704/02

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 June 2002)

Subject: Tax legislation in the Federal Republic of Germany (cid:1) 15 % tax deduction at source

On 7 September 2001, the Gesetz zur Eindämmung illegaler Betätigung im Baugewerbe (Act to curb
illegal activities in the building trade) entered into force in the Federal Republic of Germany. It requires any
principal who commissions ‘building work’ to deduct 15 % of the gross contract sum from payments to

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/93

the contractor and transfer it to the German tax authorities. This is intended as an advance payment
towards any corporation tax, income tax and/or turnover tax which may be due in Germany.

In the Commission’s reply of 21 December 2001 to my question of 22 October 2001 (E-2875/01 (1)) on
this subject, the Commission stated that it would examine whether the actual application of this new law
led to indirect discrimination against foreign companies. It also said that if necessary the Commission
would take the requisite steps to eliminate measures that were incompatible with the EC Treaty.

Since then I have again heard from those concerned that foreign companies are being required to comply
with requirements different from those applicable to German companies in order to obtain exemptions
from the advance tax deduction requirement.
In practice, building firms which do not obtain these
exemptions are simply no longer able to secure any contracts in Germany.

introduced by
Since 21 December 2001, has the Commission examined whether the requirement
Germany to deduct 15 % tax at source is (in practice) resulting in indirect discrimination against foreign
companies? If so, what are its findings?

Do the rules which are in force in Germany contravene European legislation, and ought measures therefore
to be taken?

If so, what will the Commission do about this?

(1) OJ C 172 E, 18.7.2002, p. 17.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 July 2002)

The Commission is waiting for the co-ordinated implementation rules, agreed and about to be adopted by
the Länder, before deciding whether or not to intervene on legal grounds, in particular under Article 49 of
the EC Treaty (free provision of services). In particular, the formalities with which foreign enterprises have
to comply must not be disproportionate. If the Honourable Member knows of specific incidents of alleged
incompatibility with Community rules, the Commission would like to be informed of the details.

According to information received from the German authorities, about 600 000 certificates allowing
exemption from the 15 % tax deduction have been delivered to German enterprises. The same source states
that around 10 000 foreign enterprises have applied for this certificate, the granting of which has been
refused in only a few cases.

(2003/C 52 E/107)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1715/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 June 2002)

Subject: Vaccination with a marker vaccine in place of preventive slaughter of healthy animals in the next

outbreak of swine fever

1.
Does the Commission recall that after the outbreak of swine fever in the Netherlands in the spring of
1997 11 million pigs were preventively killed and destroyed in order to prevent any further spread of the
disease, and that the cost of this procedure, which caused great public indignation, was EUR 1,35 billion of
Community funds?

2.
Is the Commission aware that the transportation and temporary storage of 180 million kilos of the
unusable carcasses of slaughtered animals, with dung, urine and blood leaking from lorries in the process,
may have been a contributory cause to the further spread of the disease?