WRITTEN QUESTION P-0442/03 by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission. Business Tax.
Date: 2003-02-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: China, Italy, bilateral agreement, business tax, international competition, maritime transport, restriction on competition, transport company

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/41

(2004/C 33 E/038)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0399/03

by Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Compulsory registration for visitors to health spas

(17 February 2003)

The spa tax regulations of a German community stipulate that persons from outside the community who
are accommodated free of charge not only have to register their presence on the next working day after
arrival, and register their departure at the latest on the last day of their stay, but that they also have to pay
spa taxes for the period of their stay.

These measures also apply to visitors from other Member States of the European Union.

This requirement means that people who stay overnight in the community, while visiting friends or
relatives for example, have to pay spa taxes.

Does the Commission take the view that these regulations are compatible with European Union provisions
on the free movement of persons?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2003)

In the absence of harmonised fiscal legislation at Community level, the Member States and their local
authorities are free to design their taxes according to their political preferences. In doing so, however, they
must respect the general freedoms and principles enshrined in the EC Treaty. Neither the local tax,
described by the Honourable Member, nor the corollary registration obligation, discriminate against
nationals of other Member States, since all visitors, irrespective of their nationality or place of residence,
are subject to it. Therefore, the Commission does not consider that these taxes interfere with the principle
of free movement of persons.

(2004/C 33 E/039)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0442/03

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 February 2003)

Subject: Business Tax

Italian shipping companies working with the People’s Republic of China are obliged to pay Business Tax, a
levy on the provision of services, at a rate of 3 % of locally produced turnover for transport and
communications. The Agreement on Sea Transport between Italy and China of 8 October 1972 only
covers tax on revenue and makes no provision for Business Tax, nor does the Protocol of 3 June 2002
amending the Agreement. Similarly, the Agreement between Italy and China against double taxation of
31 October 1986 only refers to direct taxation.

Shipping companies of other EU countries working with the People’s Republic are not subject to Business
Tax, since the relevant shipping and/or bilateral agreements provide for an exemption. The only
exceptions, apart from Italy, are Spain, Austria and Luxembourg, which do not have any substantial
shipping traffic with China.

The shipping companies of the People’s Republic currently operating in Italy are not subject to any kind of
levy comparable or similar to the Business Tax.

This situation creates a substantial disparity in treatment between European Union companies, giving rise
to a blatant violation of the principles of free competition and equality of treatment between the Member
States.

C 33 E/42

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

In order to remedy this situation, which causes an unintentional but nevertheless real discrimination
between Member States, the Italian Government some time ago asked the Chinese authorities to amend the
existing shipping agreements. So far the Chinese government has shown no real willingness to do so.

Can the Commission say:

1. how it interprets this situation, which creates a real disparity in treatment between the Member States;

2. whether it considers that it should take steps to put an end to this situation;

3. what measures it will take in this context?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2003)

The Commission does not have any additional
information on the matter raised by the Honourable
Member concerning the business tax paid by Italian shipping companies working in the People’s Republic
of China. The Agreement on Sea Transport between Italy and China does not appear to include the
relevant provisions on the business tax, whereas such provisions are foundin the aggreements that other
Member States have concluded with China.

Agreements on double taxation are normally exempted from the Most Favoured Nations (MFN) obligation
of the GATS agreement (General Agreement on Trade in Services). Article XIV of the GATS allows for
measures that are inconsistent with Article II (the MFN principle), provided that the difference in treatment
is the result of an agreement on the avoidance of double taxation or provisions on the avoidance of double
taxation in any other international agreement or arrangement by which the Member is bound.

The ‘business tax’ issue is also exempted from the recently signed EU (cid:1) China Maritime Agreement. In
particular Article 2 (Scope), paragraphe 2 states that the agreement shall not affect the application of the
bilateral maritime agreements concluded between China and the member States of the Community for
issues not falling within the scope of the agreement.

The responsible Commission Services are in close contact with the respective National Administrations of
Member States and with shipping industry representatives and associations in order to ensure the early
ratification as well as the accurate implementation of the EU-China Maritime Agreement to the benefit of
the European shipping industry.

(2004/C 33 E/040)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0474/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 February 2003)

Subject: Harsher punishment of incitement to hunger strike in Turkey instead of an improvement in the

situation of political prisoners

1.
Is the Commission aware of the reports by human rights organisations, such as IHD in Diyarbakir,
that the number of arrests and disappearances in Turkey remains unchanged and that in practice the
human rights situation has not been brought into line with recently adopted liberal laws and has even
deteriorated?

2.
Is the Commission aware that more than 60 people have died in the hunger strikes by political
prisoners in Turkey since the end of 2000 to protest at their transfer from group detention in old prisons
to solitary confinement in new prisons?

3.
Is the Commission also aware that the Turkish government wants to end the hunger strikes not by
improving the conditions of detainees but by increasing the maximum prison sentence for people calling
for hunger strikes from four years to 20 years?