WRITTEN QUESTION P-3185/02 by Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Autonomous Community taxes on premises occupied by large commercial companies.
Date: 2002-10-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Spain, State aid, accession to the European Union, application of EU law, commercial law, control of State aid, quasi-fiscal charge, restriction on competition, small retailer, supermarket

C 192 E/102

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

14.8.2003

The Commissioner also indicated that the Commission takes into account the overall level of debt built-up
by a particular Member State, but only to the extent that it regards adherence to a close-to-balance or in
surplus objective for the budget deficit as ‘sufficient to ensure a continuous reduction of the overall debt
level.’ The Pact remains focused on meeting the two major objectives of a budget deficit of less than 3 % of
GDP in any one year and an overall budgetary balance over the economic cycle.

Does the Commission not believe that greater attention needs to be paid to overall levels of debt, especially
in the case of highly-indebted countries, and that this is necessary because of the widespread fudging of the
Maastricht debt criteria, something which was not anticipated when the Growth and Stability Pact was first
designed?

(1) See page 8.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2002)

Member States have an EC Treaty obligation to maintain debt levels below 60 % of the gross domestic
product (GDP), or if above to ensure that it diminishes at a satisfactory pace towards the reference value.
The Commission has an EC Treaty obligation to monitor compliance with this requirement and to prepare
a report under Article 104(3) of the EC Treaty (cid:1) the excessive deficit procedure (cid:1) in the event of non
compliance.

However, the requirement for debt to be ‘… sufficiently diminishing and approaching the reference value
at a satisfactory pace’
(Article 104(2) of the EC Treaty) has not been explicitly defined in secondary
legislation.

However, it is the intention of the Commission to clarify the debt requirement in order to operationalise
the debt criteria already included in the EC Treaty. Particular attention would be devoted to the dynamic of
different components of debt (stock-flow adjustment, primary surplus, interest rate-growth differential) and
the expected impact of ageing on public finances. In order to better assess the long-term sustainability of
public finances, it is also important that Member States provide the necessary information in their Stability
and Convergence Programmes.

(2003/C 192 E/100)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3185/02

by Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 October 2002)

Subject: Autonomous Community taxes on premises occupied by large commercial companies

In its pre-accession negotiations with the countries of Eastern Europe, the Commission is demanding that
governments abolish or amend retail trade regulations which restrict freedom of competition or affect the
principle of freedom of establishment.

Regulations of this type, however, are to be found in the national legislation of existing EU Member States,
(cid:1) for example, Spain, and specifically the Catalan Autonomous Community, where an Autonomous
Community law (Law 16/2000) has been adopted, providing for taxes on premises occupied by large
commercial establishments; the revenue thus raised is to be channelled into aid to small traders operating
in the Catalan Autonomous Community. This means that the aid received by small traders is to be funded
by their competitors.

The adoption of this measure comes on top of Catalonia’s existing measures restricting the opening of
large commercial establishments, in the wake of Law 17/2000 on commercial facilities.

Is the Commission aware of the inconsistency of allowing legislation of this kind to survive within the EU
and simultaneously demanding that the candidate countries abolish it?

14.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192 E/103

What is the Commission’s view of sectoral aids funded by the competitors of those benefiting from the
aids, and does the Commission, in this connection, intend to bring any kind of proceedings against the
public aids covered by Catalan Law 17/2000?

What measures does the Commission intend to adopt with regard to retail trade Regulations, such as those
which exist in Catalonia, which prevent the freedom of establishment of Community companies?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2002)

A complaint was lodged with the Commission against Law 16/2000 of the Comunidad Autónoma
Cataluña. The complainant alleged that this law introduced a levy on the premises occupied by large
commercial establishments with the objective of financing traditional retail commerce located in urban
centres. According to the complainant,
this measure constitutes state aid within the meaning of
Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty. The Commission requested further information on this issue from the
Spanish authorities.

According to the information received, the resources raised by the new levy introduced by Law 16/2000
will be used mainly to finance infrastructure and will only secondarily be of direct benefit to local retail
commerce.

In particular, as far as the investment in infrastructure is concerned, it is generally available to the public
and does not benefit a given undertaking or sector. Regarding the direct aid to local retail commerce, the
regional authorities have undertaken to respect the threshold for ‘de minimis’ aid. Therefore, any aid
granted would not fall under Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.

For these reasons and on the basis of the information available to the Commission at this stage of the
inquiry, such a parafiscal levy seems to fall outside the state aid rules of the EC Treaty.

As for the rules governing free movement within the internal market, the Commission has no intention
whatsoever of authorising the retention of rules that would be deemed contrary to Article 43 of the EC
Treaty relating to the freedom of establishment, whether implemented by Member States or candidate
countries. It would remind the Honourable Member that, in its report on the state of the internal market
for services (1), it noted that a number of measures currently exist in the Member States, notably with
regard to large commercial establishments, without commenting on their compatibility with Article 43. It
in particular with regard to their
must now make a careful
the appropriate
discriminatory or non-proportionate nature,
solutions.

in order to propose, where necessary,

the various rules,

legal analysis of

interest;

With regard specifically to the parafiscal levy as such, irrespective of its use, it can be recalled that ‘national
measures liable to hinder or make less attractive the exercise of fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the
Treaty must fulfil four conditions: they must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner; they must be
justified by imperative requirements in the general
they must be suitable for securing the
attainment of the objective which they pursue; and they must not go beyond what is necessary in order to
attain it’ (2). The first argument put forward by the Spanish authorities and relating to the grouping of
existing businesses in urban centres which is basically an economic objective, raises doubts as to its
acceptability on grounds of general interest. The second, argument, which related to the renovation of the
areas surrounding the large commercial establishments in order to minimise their impact on the urban
environment, could be admissible on the grounds of general interest. The method for calculating the levy
takes into account, in addition to the surface area of the establishment, the existence or absence of public
transport in order to determine the volume and foreseeable impact of road traffic. However, the lack of
details in the information made available to the Commission on the reasons for setting different thresholds
and on possible exemptions and interest-rate subsidies granted to certain types of business (DIY, gardening,
furniture, etc.) makes it difficult for the Commission at this point to assess the proportionality of the
measure in question.

(1) Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the state of the internal market for

services, 30 July 2002, COM(2002) 441 final.

(2) Case C-55/94 Gebhard [1995] ECR I-4165, paragraph 37.