WRITTEN QUESTION E-3487/02 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Gibraltar's Tax Regime.
Date: 2002-12-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Gibraltar, State aid, United Kingdom, air space, control of State aid, corporation tax, discrimination on the basis of nationality, tax, tax relief, tax system

C 268 E/36

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

7.11.2003

is the Commission’s view of

the above condition of recruitment? Does it not give rise to
What
discrimination and distortion of competition among the candidates for the posts since those who can
afford to own a car are given a fundamental advantage? Furthermore, it follows that those candidates who
are recruited and who own a car will be required to use their vehicle for official journeys. How are they to
be compensated (cid:1) if indeed they are to be compensated (cid:1) for the use of their cars and for related costs
(wear and tear, spare parts, servicing, fuel, insurance etc.)? What action can the Commission take (given
that it is a party to the joint funding of the programme for monitoring aid for olive oil) to remove this
strange condition of employment referred to in the above notice of recruitment of new officials?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2003)

There is no Community legislation concerning the inclusion in job advertisements of the requirement that
the candidate should have ‘the availability and use of car for official
journeys outside the place of
employment’. The issue at question falls within the competence of the Member States.

As for the reimbursement of the expenditure incurred by the recruited candidates owing to the use of their
own car for official journeys, also this issue falls within the competence of the Member States, where the
matter may be regulated by legislation, collective agreements or contracts of employment.

This state of affairs is not influenced by the fact that Commission is participating in the joint funding of
the programme for monitoring aid for olive oil.

Since the issues in question fall within the jurisdiction of the national authorities, the Commission cannot
intervene in this occasion.

(2003/C 268 E/041)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3487/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 December 2002)

Subject: Gibraltar’s Tax Regime

Gibraltar, like the Republic of Ireland and other Member States, has used low corporation tax as a way of
is investigating the
attracting business to the territory. There are reports that Commissioner Monti
possibility that these lower rates of tax constitute state aid.

Are these reports accurate, and, if so, does the Commission accept that the lower rates of taxation are
offered equally to corporations from all EU Member States, and that Gibraltar’s tax regime is, therefore,
entirely non-discriminatory as between Member States? Does the Commission have evidence that
Gibraltarian companies are privileged in the way that, say, the French Electricity utility Electricité de
France appears to be?

Can the Commission confirm that it does not regard lower rates of non-discriminatory corporation tax as
a form of state aid, and that any moves towards tax harmonisation require unanimity in the Council of
Ministers under the existing European Treaties?

Does the Commission accept that it has an obligation to respect the provisions of Article 12 of the
Consolidated Treaty Establishing the European Community which prevent discrimination on grounds of
nationality? Does the Commission also accept that for the Commission to produce a Directive, such as that
pertaining to the European Single Sky, excluding a part of the European Community which does not wish
to be excluded, constitutes a violation of the European Treaties which can be brought before the European
Court of Justice?

7.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268 E/37

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2003)

The Commission can confirm that it is investigating various aspects of the corporation tax regime in
Gibraltar. On 11 July 2001, it opened formal State aid investigations into Gibraltar’s exempt companies
and qualifying companies (1). Following the annulment, on procedural grounds, of its Decision on exempt
companies (2), the Commission proposed to the United Kingdom on 27 November 2002 the phasing out
of the exempt company regime, by the end of 2005 at the latest (3). On 16 October 2002, the Commission
opened a formal State aid investigation into Gibraltar’s proposed reform of its company taxation laws (4).
The Commission has not focussed on any alleged discrimination between Member States in any of these
investigations, nor has any reference been made to Electricité de France.

In order for any measure, including lower rates of corporation tax, to fall within the scope of the State aid
rules, it must satisfy the four criteria set out in Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty. The measure must confer an
advantage on its beneficiaries; the measure must be financed through State resources; the advantage must
be selective; and, the measure must distort, or threaten to distort trade and competition between Member
States.

The EC Treaty establishes, in Articles 94 and 95, that harmonisation of rates of corporate taxation between
Member States requires unanimity in the Council of Ministers.

The legislative proposals of the Commission (5) on the creation of the Single European Sky do not contain
any ‘exclusion’ clause for Gibraltar.

(1) OJ C 26, 30.1.2002.
(2) Case T-195/01, Government of Gibraltar v Commission, ECR [2002] p. II 2309.
(3) See Commission press release IP/02/1748.
(4) OJ C 300, 4.12.2002.
(5) OJ C 362 E, 18.12.2001 and OJ C 103 E, 30.4.2002.

(2003/C 268 E/042)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3493/02

by Colette Flesch (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 December 2002)

Subject: Re-posting to Brussels of two staff members of the Commission’s Paris Representation

There have recently been press reports of suspected irregularities by the Commission’s Directorate-General
for Press in the management of grants awarded in France under the information policy and the opening of
an investigation by OLAF and the recall to Brussels of two staff members of the Commission’s Paris
Representation.

Can the Commission clarify the position?

Can it explain its press release to the effect that ‘to avoid any appearance of conflicts of interest, it has
been decided in the interest of the service to post two officials from the Commission Representation in
Paris to Brussels’?

Given that the two staff members concerned have been named in the press, can the Commission provide
any assurance, and if so what, that their right to presumption of innocence has been fully safeguarded?

Can the Commission explain the link,
Federation of Europe Houses?

if any, between the investigation opened by OLAF and the