WRITTEN QUESTION E-3037/02 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission. VAT on repairs to war memorials.
Date: 2002-10-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: VAT, derogation from EU law, heritage protection, monument, tax harmonisation

C 11 E/18

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

15.1.2004

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2003)

The agreement signed by the Spanish Ministry of Public Works (Ministerio de Fomento) and the
government of Galicia (Xunta de Galicia) defines the high-speed rail lines of concern to Galicia as the
following: Vigo-Ourense, Ourense-Monforte-Lugo, Lugo-A Coruña, Ponferrada-Monforte, Madrid-Ourense
(Zamora-A Coruña), Ourense-Santiago (Zamora-A Coruña) and the Atlantic route (Redondela-A Coruña).

The Spanish authorities have informed the Commission that a study on the Madrid-Ourense line is
currently in progress. In the case of the Ourense-Santiago line, the public information phase has been
completed and the environmental impact statement prepared. The environmental impact statement for the
Atlantic route (Redondela-A Coruña) has also been completed.

As regards possible Community part-financing of some of these works, the Spanish authorities have sent
the Commission a list of projects which have already received ERDF assistance (the total cost is only an
estimate and could change). It includes the following amounts certified by the final beneficiary at 13 March
2003:

(cid:1) Oroso-Ordes (Zamora-A Coruña line). Total cost: EUR 12,5 million; ERDF assistance: EUR 3,8 million,

(cid:1) Santiago-Berdia (Zamora-A Coruña line). Total cost: EUR 16,7 million; ERDF assistance: EUR 4,1 mil-

lion,

(cid:1) Osebe-Santiago (Zamora-A Coruña line). Total cost: EUR 38,6 million; ERDF assistance: EUR 2,75 mil-

lion,

(cid:1) San Cristóbal station-A Coruña (Zamora-A Coruña line). Total cost: EUR 9,2 million; ERDF assistance:

EUR 2,51 million.

(cid:1) Technical assistance for the study on the adaptation of the Ferrol-Tuy line (Atlantic route) Total cost:

EUR 153 258; ERDF assistance: EUR 39 000.

All these projects are included in measure 6,3 of the integrated operational programme for Galicia 2000-
2006.

In addition to these projects which have already received Community part-financing,
the Spanish
authorities have informed the Commission that wish to submit shortly for its approval the following major
Commission (the total cost is only an estimate and could change):

(cid:1) Santiago-Oroso (Zamora-A Coruña line). Total cost: over EUR 50 million,

(cid:1) Portas by-pass. Total cost: EUR 70 million,

(cid:1) Ordes by-pass. Total cost: EUR 50 million,

(cid:1) Bregua by-pass. Total cost: EUR 57 million.

(2004/C 11 E/020)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3037/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(24 October 2002)

Subject: VAT on repairs to war memorials

At present, VAT is charged on repairs to war memorials.

What plans does the Commission have to make this type of renovation work zero-rated for VAT, and thus
make repair work to our nations’ war monuments less costly?

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/19

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 2002)

Under Community VAT legislation, Article 12(3)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive (Council Directive 77/388/
EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (cid:1)
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment) (1) lays down that Member States may
apply a reduced VAT rate of no less than 5 % to supplies of goods and services referred to in Annex H of
that Directive. As this Annex H does not cover repairs to war memorials, the standard VAT rate should
apply to them.

In addition to this, in the course of negotiations of the Directive, or as part of their negotiations for joining
the Community, certain Member States have retained separate rules in specific areas, an example in the
United Kingdom being the zero rates. These rules set out in Article 28 of the Sixth VAT Directive are
transitional, pending the adoption in Council, by unanimous decision, of a definitive VAT system under
which far greater harmonisation is required. The Council has to date been reticent to adopt such changes.

Since the zero rates are specific derogations granted only to a few Member States, the Commission has no
intention to propose their extension.

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977. Directive as last amended by Directive 2002/38/EC of 7 May 2002, OJ L 128, 15.5.2002.

(2004/C 11 E/021)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3053/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 October 2002)

Subject: Forestry development in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)

In its Communication entitled ‘Forests and Development: the EC approach’ (1), the Commission states that
the European Community feels a particular sense of responsibility for the sustainable development of the
world’s forestry resources. The following forestry specific objectives in particular are therefore proposed: (i)
reduced uncontrolled deforestation and forest degradation; (ii) increased extent of areas under sustainable
forest management; (…) (iv) maintained genetic resources and bio-diversity; and (v) improved capacity of
institutional frameworks to meet conflicting demands on forests.

In its answer to Written Question E-3498/01 (2), the Commission states that a Zimbabwean company has
managed to pull off ‘the world’s largest logging concession’, and that this ‘clearly provides a very strong
disincentive to … withdrawal from military intervention’.

In its answer to Written Question E-0930/02 (3), the Commission considers that ‘in the absence of any
sound national forestry policy, a sustainable management plan should be adopted and implemented in
order to ensure the sustainability of the Congolese logging concessions and limit the environmental
damage of the exploitation’. The answer also draws attention to a forthcoming final report by the six-
member panel of experts on ‘the illegal exploitation of natural resources in DRC’.

Does the Commission share the view that a logging concession of the above kind runs counter to its
positions as set out in the ‘Forests and Development’ Communication?

What is happening to the proceeds of the sale of tropical hardwood which, to judge from the answer to
Written Question E-0930/02, might well give cause for concern?