WRITTEN QUESTION E-3512/02 by Herman Vermeer (ELDR) to the Commission. Problem of mutual recognition in the port of Antwerp involving a visa issued by a Schengen state.
Date: 2002-12-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, admission of aliens, border control, crew, customs formalities, free movement of persons

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/581

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2003)

The Commission has submitted in June 1998 a proposal for a Directive (1) aiming to replace the Eighth
VAT Directive (2) refund procedure by a system of cross-border deduction of the VAT paid in another
Member State. According to this proposal, taxable persons could recover VAT directly on the VAT return
they submit in their Member State of establishment following the rules for the right of deduction in that
Member State. The Commission believes that adoption of this proposal would solve the problems Austria
faces with leasing of motor vehicles.

Despite the large support of the Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, the Council has not
yet adopted by unanimity this proposal.

At the Ecofin Council meeting on 4 June 2002, the Council noted the Presidency’s intention to reopen
discussion on the cross-border deduction of VAT and harmonisation of the right to deduct VAT in the case
of passenger vehicles, as well as the Commission’s intention to prioritise work on the revision of Article 9
of the Sixth VAT Directive (3), which deals with the place of supply of services.

Following an initial consultation of Member States, the Commission has concluded that it should focus its
work in the near future on modernising the rules for the place of the supply of business to business
services, including cross-border leasing of means of transport. One of the options that will be discussed
with the Member States is an amendment of the Sixth VAT Directive as the Honourable Member
suggested.

The Commission hopes to be in a position to bring forth proposals for amending Article 9 of the Sixth
VAT Directive in the course of 2003.

(1) OJ C 219, 15.7.1998.
(2) Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member
States relating to turnover taxes (cid:1) Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not
established in the territory of the country, OJ L 331, 27.12.1979.

(3) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States
relating to turnover taxes (cid:1) Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, OJ L 145,
13.6.1977.

(2004/C 88 E/0594)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3512/02

by Herman Vermeer (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Problem of mutual recognition in the port of Antwerp involving a visa issued by a Schengen state

As of 1 October 2002 the Vision list has been distributed in the port of Antwerp. The nationalities
included on the Vision list must register using a so-called STVZ form and may not travel on to another
Schengen Member State. They may leave Belgium in order to return to their country of origin or they may
be deported to non-Schengen countries such as the United Kingdom or Switzerland. The rule also applies
in reverse. Seamen holding one of the nationalities on the Vision list and seeking to enter Belgium via
Amsterdam (Schiphol) Frankfurt or Paris are being turned away at the Belgian border, preventing them
from checking whether their ship is docked in a Belgian port. They are thus being forced to enter Belgium
either directly or via a non-Schengen country, such as Switzerland or the United Kingdom. The result of
this requirement to register is that the Belgian border police no longer recognises a visa issued by a
Schengen partner. To my mind, this runs counter to the agreements concluded between and by the
Schengen countries.

Will the Commission, as guardian of the Schengen Convention, examine this matter more closely and
clarify it? To what extent has the Vision list been drawn up by the Belgian authorities in keeping with the
terms of the Schengen Convention? What criteria have the Belgian authorities employed when placing
countries on that list? Why may nationalities on the list enter Belgium directly or via non-Schengen
countries? Does this Vision list in fact constitute a hidden support measure for the national airport in
Brussels? Can the Commission clarify this matter?

C 88 E/582

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(2 July 2004)

Having analysed the information received from the competent authorities, the Commission can provide the
Honourable Member with the following further information:

(cid:1) first, the Commission can confirm the information provided in its initial answer, namely that the
‘Vision list’ referred to by Honourable Member concerns the exchange of information between the
States applying the Schengen ‘acquis’ on third countries subject to prior consultation under Annex 5B
to the Common Consular Instructions;

(cid:1) seamen subject to the visa requirement who are classed as aliens and cannot be granted a visa without
prior consultation may, exceptionally, be issued at the border a visa limited to the territory of the
issuing State. This possibility, which results from the two Executive Committee decisions referred to in
the initial answer, is retained under the current arrangements established by Council Regulation (EC)
No 415/2003 of 27 February 2003 on the issue of visas at the border, including the issue of such
visas to seamen in transit (1), which repeals those two decisions;

(cid:1) as such, the circumstances referred to by the Honourable Member do not indicate therefore a problem
with the recognition of visas issued by another Schengen State but are fully in line with the existing
rules. The only way these seamen can enter the territory of a given Schengen State (Belgium in this
instance) is by entering Belgian territory direct from a third country on being issued with a limited
visa for the territory of that State, in so far as they meet the requisite conditions;

(cid:1) according to information provided by the Belgian authorities, the STZV form is a working document
which is filled in by the shipowners’ representatives, is required for all seamen and is intended for the
border control authorities. It provides certain information on the seaman, namely his identity, the
travel documents in his possession, his vessel and so on. This information is a prerequisite for a visa
to be issued. It is also required by the aforementioned Council Regulation (EC) No 415/2003 (see the
form in Annex II to the Regulation).

(1) OJ L 64, 7.3.2003.

(2004/C 88 E/0595)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3753/02

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(20 December 2002)

Subject: Kerosene tax

For some years now, the Commission has received questions from MEPs about the introduction of a
kerosene tax. Each time, the Commission says that it supports the introduction of such a tax but that no
agreement can be reached at international level. And so, here we are, some years down the line, and still
waiting for a proposal.

1. When will the Commission submit a proposal for the introduction of a kerosene tax?

If the Commission is unable to submit a proposal in the near future, can it indicate why and what

2.
are the obstacles thereto?

Can the Commission indicate which Member States are in favour of a kerosene tax and which are

3.
against?