WRITTEN QUESTION E-2378/03 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. Transparency requirements.
Date: 2003-07-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: dissemination of EU information, drafting of EU law, financial legislation, issue of securities, securities

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/137

(2004/C 65 E/151)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2369/03

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 July 2003)

Subject: Local registration of EU citizens resident in Member States of which they are not nationals

Freedom of movement and establishment are enabling millions of EU citizens to settle in Member States of
which they are not nationals, thus remaking their lives and concretising one of the Union’s great successes.

However, in most cases, when EU citizens settle in a locality of a Member State of which they are not
nationals, they do not register with the local authorities. This is prejudicial to the locality concerned, which
has no record of its new resident and therefore does not receive its due payment from national tax
revenues.

What steps does the Commission believe it can take to tackle the failure of EU citizens to register in their
chosen locality in a Member State of which they are not nationals, in the interests of the host local
authorities, given that otherwise the latter will have to support their new residents without receiving the
corresponding funds from central and regional government?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2003)

Community law on free movement and residence requires Member States to recognise the right of
residence on their territory of persons who meet certain conditions: in particular, they must pursue an
is
economic activity either as employed or self-employed persons or possess resources. This right
acknowledged by the issuing of a residence card. With regard to periods of residence of under three
months or in the case of frontier or seasonal workers, the host Member State is not required to issue a
residence permit to a Union citizen, but may ask the person in question to report his/her presence within
its territory.

On their own initiative, some Member States have already removed or are planning to remove from their
national legislation implementing the Community law referred to, the obligation on Union citizens, with
the exception of persons not engaged in an economic activity, to obtain a residence card.

The amended proposal for a Parliament and Council Directive on the right of citizens of the Union and
their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (1) goes further
and proposes to abolish the residence card for all categories of Union citizen and to replace it by the
option for host Member States to require Union citizens to register with the competent authorities. It
provides that the host Member State may require the person in question to report his/her presence within
its territory. Failure to fulfil the obligations to register and report can be liable to non-discriminatory and
proportionate penalties.

Where a Member State imposes the obligation on a Union citizen to obtain a residence card or to report
his/her presence within its territory, it must establish a system of effective and dissuasive penalties to be
applied in the event of failure to fulfil this obligation, but these penalties must be proportionate and non-
discriminatory in relation to those applied to nationals for comparable offences.

(1) COM(2003) 199 final.

(2004/C 65 E/152)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2378/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 July 2003)

Subject: Transparency requirements

Further to the Commission’s answer to question E-1885/03 (1) on 3 July, will the Commission now list as
requested all
those individuals and organisations which submitted written documents concerning
transparency obligations, and will it note in each case whether that submission was supportive of or

C 65 E/138

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

antagonistic towards or indifferent to quarterly reporting of one form or another? Will the Commission
forward and publish the summary document prepared for the Commissioner on the results of the
consultation?

(1) OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 152.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2003)

In addition to the answer already given to the Honourable Member’s Written Question E-1885/03, the
Commission is in a position to provide the following information:

(cid:1) Prior to its proposal for a Directive (1) on the transparency obligations for security issuers, the

Commission services carried out two written consultation rounds.

(cid:1) In the first consultation round, the Commission presented the idea of making quarterly reports
mandatory for both share issuers and bond issuers for each quarter of the financial year. A summary
of the replies received has been published on the Commission website in December 2001 (2).

(cid:1) In the second consultation round which lasted from May until July 2002, the Commission presented
the idea of making quarterly reports mandatory for shares issuers for the first three quarter of a
company’s financial year; smaller share issuers should only be subject to lighter financial reporting
requirements whereas the other issuers should be subject
to compliance with the international
accounting standards for interim financial reporting (IAS 34). In total, the Commission received 93
responses. The pros and cons on the issue of quarterly financial information were already explained in
detail in the explanatory memorandum of the Commission proposal.

In purely statistical terms based on the number of responses received, the outcome has been as
follows:

(cid:1) 65 respondents reacted on the question of quarterly reporting. 35 respondents thereof (= 53,9 %)
supported the principle of quarterly reporting based on IAS 34 whereas 30 (= 46,1 %) opposed
the principle as such;

(cid:1) 14 out of the favourable respondents rejected the idea of having a lighter regime for smaller
issuers whereas 14 others supported this; seven respondents did not touch on the issue of smaller
share issuers.

(1) COM(2003) 138 final.
(2) http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/finances/mobil/transparancy.htm

(2004/C 65 E/153)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2384/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 July 2003)

Subject: State aids assessment

1.
Given that the stamp duty exemption scheme introduced by the United Kingdom is said to extend to
23 per cent of the UK population, and nearly half of the coverage falls outside the regional aid map, will
the Commission state why it thought that the geographical coverage of the stamp duty exemption is
compatible with the regional aid guidelines?

2. Will the Commission describe why it feels that the Canary Wharf financial centre in London is a
disadvantaged area for the purposes of state aid?