WRITTEN QUESTION E-2551/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Growing problems arising from inequality of opportunity on the market for owner-occupied properties in the border areas around the Netherlands due to differences in housing costs.
Date: 2002-09-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, Netherlands, acquisition of property, application of EU law, borrowing, freedom of movement, frontier region, tax exemption

14.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192 E/65

Likewise, there are no grounds for determining the existence of a serious and persistent breach within the
meaning of Article 7 on the Treaty of the European Union.

The Commission accordingly feels that it has no power to take the measures referred to by the Honourable
Member.

If, however, the situation in question constituted a violation of a right or a freedom, the matter should be
brought before the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, after all other means of redress have been
exhausted.

(2003/C 192 E/063)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2502/02

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 September 2002)

Subject: International Criminal Court

Following the USA’s refusal on 1 July to ratify the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC),
it has signed a bilateral agreement with Romania concerning exemption for Americans from the ICC.
Given that Romania is applying for membership of the EU, and in view of the USA’s clear intention to
sign bilateral agreements of the same nature with other applicant countries, could the Commission say
whether it intends, in addition to expressing its displeasure, to take additional measures with regard both
to the USA and the various pre-accession countries in order to prevent the institution of the International
Criminal Court being undermined from the very outset?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 2002)

It is correct that since last summer, the United States has approached a number of countries, including
Member States and candidate countries, with a view to negotiating bilateral agreements on non-surrender
of nationals of the other party to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The Commission attaches great importance to preserving the full integrity of the Rome Statute and has
taken part in the discussions aiming at a common European Union line on this issue. A common line was
adopted by the Council on 30 September 2002 by way of conclusions and guiding principles which
provide a common basis for Member States to respond constructively to the US without undermining the
integrity of the Rome Statute or the good functioning of the ICC. The Commission concluded in its 2002
Regular Report on Romania (1) that the bilateral Agreement with the US to which the Honourable Member
refers does not comply with these guiding principles.

Since then, the EU has sought to ensure the coherence of policies on the ICC taken by the Member States
and by candidate countries. In particular, the Presidency has been active in informing candidates and
associated countries about the Council conclusions and guiding Principles.

(1) COM(2002) 700 final.

(2003/C 192 E/064)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2551/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 September 2002)

Subject: Growing problems arising from inequality of opportunity on the market for owner-occupied
properties in the border areas around the Netherlands due to differences in housing costs

1.
Is the Commission aware that, within a short period of time, nearly all the plots in the new Pieper-
Werning 1 housing estate in Bad Bentheim (Lower Saxony, Germany) have been sold to purchasers from
the area around the towns of Enschede and Hengelo in the nearby Netherlands, rapidly increasing the

C 192 E/66

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

14.8.2003

number of Dutch residents from 350 to 1 000, and that similar developments are taking place to the south
of Bad Bentheim, for example in Kleve, Emmerich and Kranenburg near the Dutch towns of Arnhem and
Nijmegen, and in the north near Uelsen and Bunde?

Is the Commission furthermore aware that one of the main reasons for this is that since 1 January
2.
2001 the mortgage tax relief arrangements provided for by the Dutch tax system have been extended to
Dutch nationals who live outside the Netherlands but work and pay tax in the Netherlands, with the result
that they can buy land and houses considerably more cheaply than their neighbours and moreover take
advantage of the fact that land and house prices have risen far less there than in the Netherlands because
residents who are nationals of the Member State concerned cannot offset mortgage interest against tax
(prices are 30 % to 40 % lower in Germany)?

3.
Does the Commission recognise the danger that the 12 000 Dutch ‘tax immigrants’ who within a
short period of time have moved to Germany for financial reasons may encounter resentment there:
indeed, residents of Bad Bentheim who have unexpectedly found that they were unable to buy a building
plot in the new estate are already referring to it as ‘Little Amsterdam’. Is it desirable that tensions should be
allowed to arise between residents at the internal borders of the EU because of what the victims feel to be
unfair competition on the housing market?

4.
Does the Commission still maintain the position which it adopted in response to my question
E-0237/01 (1) of 23 January 2001 concerning similar problems in the parts of Belgium adjoining the
Netherlands, to the effect that the European Union has no responsibility whatsoever for helping to solve
such cross-border problems between residents of Member States because freedom of establishment
overrides all other concerns, or is the Commission now preparing measures with a view to finding a
solution in consultation with the Member States concerned which will take the grievances of local residents
seriously and at least guarantee equal opportunities on the market for owner-occupied dwellings?

Source: De Volkskrant, 3 August 2002.

(1) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 204.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2002)

The Commission is not aware that the majority of plots in the new ‘Pieper-Werning 1’ housing estate in
Bad Bentheim have been bought by Dutch nationals, nor is it aware of similar developments in the regions
of Kleve, Emmerich and Kranenburg.

The Commission is aware of the change in Dutch tax legislation which extended tax advantages on
mortgage repayments applying only to dwellings in the Netherlands until 1 January 2001 to those in other
Member States, provided the owner-occupier works in the Netherlands and pays income tax there.

As the Commission has previously indicated in its answer to the Honourable Member’s question E-0237/
it understands that Dutch nationals take the new provision into consideration when deciding to
01,
purchase a dwelling in a neighbouring country. It further understands that the increased demand for
houses in border regions resulting from the increased interest shown by potential buyers from the
Netherlands tends to push up house prices there.

The Commission considers that the new tax provision adopted by the Netherlands is in accordance with
Community legislation, which specifically prevents Member States from restricting tax concessions like the
exemption concerned to dwellings on national territory. At a more general level, Member States should not
impose tax or other restrictions on their citizens’ freedom of movement and freedom of establishment
outside their own country.

The Commission accordingly still does not consider that any specific Community measure is necessary to
deal with the issue raised in this question.