WRITTEN QUESTION P-2254/02 by Marianne Eriksson (GUE/NGL) to the Council. Human rights in Western Sahara.
Date: 2002-07-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, Morocco, Western Sahara, freedom of opinion, international issue

C 137 E/62

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

12.6.2003

(2003/C 137 E/069)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2253/02

by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(17 July 2002)

Subject: Withdrawal of banknotes from cash dispensers in the euro zone

Under the provisions of Regulation 2560/2001 (1) of 19 December 2001, from 1 July the entire euro zone
constitutes an internal market in which people travelling outside their country in the euro zone will be
able to withdraw money from cash dispensers under the same conditions as in their own country.

The intention of this Regulation is clearly to have a single currency in the internal market. However, I have
received letters from customers of Sogenal in France and the Caisse d’Epargne de L’Etat in Luxembourg
stating that anyone wishing to withdraw money in other euro zone countries or in their own country but
from cash dispensers of banks other than their own will be obliged to pay increased charges. All this seems
to me to be incompatible with the provisions of Regulation 2560/2001.

Will the Commission say what measures it intends to take to resolve these problems?

(1) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 13.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2002)

The provisions of Regulation No 2560/2001 of 19 December 2001 relating to charges for withdrawing
money from cash dispensers (1) have been in force since 1 July 2002. Consequently, cardholders pay the
same charges for withdrawing money in their country of origin as in other euro zone countries.

In 2001 charges for withdrawing money from cash dispensers varied widely from one country to another.
In certain countries charges made for this transaction (cid:1) if they exist at all (cid:1) are identical for all cash
dispensers. In others, charges vary according to the network concerned; cardholders pay different charges
according to whether they use a cash dispenser belonging to their own bank or to a rival establishment.
In the second instance, withdrawals carried out abroad are considered as being withdrawals from a rival
bank. This situation is compatible with the Regulation if it really costs the same to withdraw money from
a rival bank in the country of origin as it does to withdraw money abroad.

The Honourable Member is probably referring to the announcement by a major French bank that it was
going to start charging for withdrawals made from banks outside its network; such withdrawals,
it
announced, would be subject to charges after the fourth transaction of the month performed outside the
network. The Commission protested via the press, because the information disseminated by the bank in
question suggested that the measure was a direct result of implementing the Regulation, although another
major French bank has been doing the same for several years.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2001 on cross-

border payments in euro, OJ L 344, 28.12.2001.

(2003/C 137 E/070)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2254/02

by Marianne Eriksson (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(17 July 2002)

Subject: Human rights in Western Sahara

When the European Parliament’s Ad Hoc Delegation for Western Sahara was in Western Sahara in
February, we had the opportunity to meet representatives of various interest groups. Subsequently, three of
them lost their jobs as a direct consequence of their contact with Parliament: Moumen Mohamed
Mahmoud of National Promotion and Moutik Elhoussine and Noumria Brahim, both of the Sahara Section
of the Forum of Truth and Justice. Is the Council aware of this, and what measures will it take?

12.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137 E/63

Reply

(6 February 2003)

The Council has no knowledge of the facts referred to by the Honourable Member.

In general, the Council fully supports the UN’s efforts, whether undertaken at its New York headquarters or
in the field through Minurso. It notes that the United Nations Security Council has decided to extend the
mandate of Minurso until 31 January 2003. In this connection, it encourages any confidence-building
contacts between the Parties, including at the human level, aimed at reaching a lasting solution that fully
respects human rights. It encourages Morocco to continue the efforts it has made to comply with human
rights,
in Western Sahara and to go on cooperating with the ICRC to try to
determine the whereabouts of ‘disappeared’ Sahrawis.

including civil rights,

(2003/C 137 E/071)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2261/02

by Ari Vatanen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 July 2002)

Subject: Leasing of motor vehicles: Does Case C-451/99 mean that Finland is likewise not permitted to levy

motor vehicle tax other than for the period of the lease?

Case C-451/99 of the Court of Justice of the European Communities concerned the following matter:
an Austrian business brought a leased motor vehicle into Austria from Germany, but was required to
reregister the vehicle within three days and pay the environmentally based motor vehicle tax in its entirety.
Giving judgment on 21 March 2002, the Court of Justice ruled that an EU Member State must not prevent
the conclusion of a lease contract with a leasing company operating in another Member State. A Member
State would be preventing such leasing if it required a roadworthiness test to be performed in the country
of use when the vehicle had already undergone such testing in the Member State where the leasing
company was established. It would be preventing such leasing if it compelled the lessee to take out vehicle
insurance in the country of use. And above all, it would be preventing such leasing if it levied vehicle tax
in full even though the vehicle might only remain in the country for a short time.

The Finnish customs service requires leased vehicles to be registered in Finland from the first day, and
vehicle tax to be paid in full, irrespective of the period for which the vehicle is being brought into Finland.
The customs service also considers that Case C-451/99 cannot be applied to Finland, because in its
opinion Austria’s tax system differs from Finland’s. The Finnish State relies on the assertion that in Austria
tax is based not only on the purchase price of the vehicle but also on its fuel consumption. However, this
fact surely cannot be of any significance, since the main point is that in both Finland and Austria a vehicle
can only be registered after a large one-off payment of tax has been made.

However, all that matters from the point of view of the functioning of the common market and the
interests of EU citizens is that preventing trade by means of discriminatory taxation is prohibited,
irrespective of the basis on which this is done.

Is the difference between the vehicle taxation systems in Finland and Austria essential for the purpose of
the application of the case law in Case C-451/99?

Is the Finnish customs service violating any prohibition by refusing to apply the legal principle
demonstrated by Case C-451/99?

Can Finland require motor vehicle tax to be paid in full on a leased vehicle which is not intended to
remain in Finland throughout its period of use?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 2002)

Reference is made by the Honourable Member to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European
Communities of 21 March 2002 in case C-451/99.
In that case, the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria)
requested a preliminary ruling on a question on the interpretation of Articles 49 to 55 and Article 28 of