WRITTEN QUESTION P-1632/03 by Renato Brunetta (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Sale of the Vittoriosa Gaming company by the Casinò Municipale di Venezia.
Date: 2003-05-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law - national law, application of EU law, consultancy, gaming establishment, public contract, public sector, sale, shareholding

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/375

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the joint reply it gave to oral questions
H-0266/03, H-0268/03, H-0270/03, H-0272/03, H-0278/03, H-0283/03, H-0287/03 by Mr Lipietz,
Mrs Banotti, Mr Cushnahan, Mrs Morgantini, Mr Pronk, Mr Dhaene and Mrs Sandbaek during question
time at Parliament’s May 2003 session (1).

(1) Written reply of 13.5.2003.

(2004/C 78 E/0397)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1595/03

by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(6 May 2003)

Subject: Cross-border payments in euro

With reference to written question P-0327/03 (1) of 31 January 2003, the Commission’s answer to which
was unclear, the questioner once again seeks clarification as to whether an electronic card which serves as
both a credit card and a debit card in Portugal can only be used as a credit card in the other euro
countries.

More precisely, can a card which is used to withdraw cash from ATMs free of charge in Portugal be used
for the same purpose in the other countries in the euro zone or might the withdrawal, without prior
warning, be considered as a cash advance with the charges that entails?

Similarly, can the Commission say what it means by ‘deferred debit cards’ mentioned in point 23 of
Commission Decision 2002/914/EC (2) of 24 July 2002 and what the advantages are for consumers?

(1) See page 354.
(2) OJ L 318, 22.11.2002, p. 17.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2003)

The Commission is still conducting an investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and
will inform her of the outcome as soon as possible.

(2004/C 78 E/0398)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1632/03

by Renato Brunetta (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 May 2003)

Subject: Sale of the ‘Vittoriosa Gaming’ company by the ‘Casinò Municipale di Venezia’

According to reports in the Venetian press, the ‘Casinò Municipale di Venezia SpA’, an entirely public
company of which the Venice municipality is the main shareholder, has been involved in a major
transaction to sell its holding in ‘Vittoriosa Gaming Ltd’ (which runs the Casino in Malta).

It has also been reported that the ‘Meliorbanca’ bank acted as advisors in this transaction.

C 78 E/376

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Will the Commission ascertain:

(cid:1) whether this transfer has been carried out and, if so, on what terms, given that until recently the mere

intention was denied and/or ruled out?

(cid:1) whether the transaction advisor was selected on the basis of a public tender procedure or, at least, a

public selection procedure?

(cid:1) whether, if it is true that Mr Ferruccio Piantini, son of Mr Giorgio Piantini, chairman of the ‘Casinò
Municipale di Venezia SpA’ company, is vice-chairman of Meliorbanca, this is not tantamount to an
unacceptable ‘conflict of interests’, especially if the contract is awarded by the Casinò di Venezia
company to the Meliorbanca bank by direct private negotiation?

(cid:1) whether such sales transactions are being conducted in compliance with Community and national

(Maltese and Italian, in particular) law?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 June 2003)

At this stage, the Commission is unable to determine whether the transaction in question has indeed taken
place and whether it has been carried out in compliance with relevant Community rules.

The Commission invites the Honourable Member to provide further information on this issue, bearing in
mind however that the Commission is only competent to monitor the application of Community law and
will consequently not be able to answer any question related to the correct application, by the Italian
bodies involved, of the relevant Italian and Maltese legislation.

With regard to the specific issue of whether the ‘Casinó municipale de Venise SpA’ company complied
with the Community rules on public procurement when choosing the ‘advisor’ for the sales transaction in
question, the Commission does not yet have the information required in order to answer the question
asked by the Honourable Member.

The Commission will therefore contact the Italian authorities to obtain the information required in order
to ascertain, first of all, whether the ‘Casinó municipale de Venise SpA’ company can be defined as a
contracting authority under the terms of the Community public procurement directives and if it is thus
obliged to apply the aforementioned rules. Should these rules apply, the Commission will
investigate
whether they have been observed in the choice of ‘advisor’ for the share transfer transaction mentioned by
the Honourable Member.

(2004/C 78 E/0399)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1636/03

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 May 2003)

Subject: Sixth VAT Directive

The Sixth VAT Directive (Directive 77/388/EEC (1) 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) covers
In Ireland stamp duty is frequently levied on newly built
immovable property among other things.
properties in addition to VAT. It is doubtful whether the uniform basis of assessment within the meaning
of the Sixth VAT directive is applied when stamp duty is levied.

Does the Commission consider that the simultaneous imposition of stamp duty and VAT is in breach

1.
of the VAT Directive? Is there any case law relating to this matter?

2.

Are such taxes compatible with other European legislation on freedom of movement?

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.