WRITTEN QUESTION E-2426/03 by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission. Harmonisation of tax on the income from the savings of non-resident Union citizens and abolition of banking secrecy.
Date: 2003-07-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European tax cooperation, banking secrecy, disclosure of information, tax convention, tax harmonisation, tax on investment income, third country

C 65 E/148

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

are widely diverging in their views. There are also existing or ongoing studies initiated by official bodies in
Member States concerned. All information available is currently being examined further.

In the light of the results of this examination, the Commission will then propose the most appropriate
measures regarding aerial spraying, taking into account a high level of protection for human health and
the environment, technical feasibility, and the necessary crop protection.

(1) COM(2002) 349 final.

(2004/C 65 E/164)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2426/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject: Harmonisation of tax on the income from the savings of non-resident Union citizens and abolition

of banking secrecy

Knowing that:

(cid:1) at the Feira summit on 19/20 June 2000 the EU finance ministers decided that as of 2011 the
automatic exchange of information would be introduced for all Union countries in the interests of
harmonising, at Community level, the tax on income from the savings of Union citizens;

(cid:1) on 21 January 2003 the EU finance ministers initialled a policy agreement, which is subject to

acceptance of equivalent measures by other third countries and stipulates that:

(a) as of 1 January 2004 twelve Member States will initiate the automatic exchange of information;

(b) Luxembourg, Austria and Belgium will initiate the automatic exchange of information ‘if and
when’ the Council unanimously agrees that Switzerland, the United States, Liechtenstein, Andorra,
San Maríno and Monaco accept the exchange of information on the basis of OECD’s 2002
parameters, which define criminal and civil offences in the areas of taxation and fraud.

(cid:1) on 3 June 2003 the EU finance ministers approved an arrangement negotiated with Switzerland.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Why do the third countries do not include the Vatican State, despite the fact that:

(a)

(b)

the central bank, the Istituto Opere di Religione (IOR) does not belong to any international
monitoring body;

the IOR takes part indirectly in the payment systems of the euro zone (cid:1) with dual access via two
major banks, one of them German, the other Italian, which are themselves linked to the system (cid:1)
thereby evading surveillance by the banking authorities to which only direct participants are
subjected;

(c)

it has no legislation to combat money-laundering;

(d)

(e)

it has not accepted the exchange of information on the basis of the 2002 OECD parameters,
which define criminal and civil offences in the areas of taxation and fraud;

it has on several occasions been involved in financial transactions with serious implications,
which have never been the subject of legal proceedings because of the concordat with the Italian
Republic guaranteeing the Catholic hierarchy absolute impunity?

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/149

2. What arrangements will apply in overseas territories,

in particular British ones, and, apart from
Switzerland, which has signed a negotiated solution, what are the current positions of the United
States, Liechtenstein, Andorra, San Maríno and Monaco on the exchange of information on the basis
of the 2002 OECD parameters?

3. Can the Commission give an assurance that in Luxembourg, Austria and Belgium banking secrecy will
be maintained at least until 2011, and say under what conditions it might remain in force even after
that date?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2003)

1.
I would draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that the final text of Council Directive
2003/48/EC on taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments, adopted by the Council on
3 June 2003, was published in the Official Journal of the European Union in all the Community languages
on 26 June 2003 (1). If he examines the text, the Honourable Member will find it confirms that the
purpose of the Directive is to enable tax to be levied on interest payments made to individuals alone.

To ensure that European financial markets stayed competitive, in the margins of the European Council in
Feira in June 2000 the Finance Ministers of the Member States agreed on a list of third countries and
dependent or associated territories in whose territory, because of the existing or potential volume of
interest payments made to individuals, it would be desirable for the Community to obtain the introduction
of equivalent or identical measures to those of the newly-adopted Directive.

The Vatican City State does not figure in the list drafted by the Council, and it is therefore up to the
Council to explain its reasons to the Honourable Member if he should require them. The Commission can
only note that the current role of the Vatican’s financial system in the payment of interest to individuals
does not appear to threaten the competitiveness of European financial markets.

The Honourable Member’s question refers to the conclusions adopted by the Council on 21 January
2.
2003. The last subparagraph of point 6 states that ‘The Council assesses that sufficient reassurances have
been obtained with regard to the application of the same measures applying the same procedures as the
12 Member States or as Austria, Belgium and Luxembourg,
in all relevant dependent or associated
territories (the Channel Islands, Isle of Man, and the dependent or associated territories in the Caribbean)’.
Those territories must therefore either participate in the automatic exchange of information with the
Member States or apply a withholding tax with revenue sharing in the same way as Belgium, Luxembourg
and Austria. In the statements accompanying the adoption of the Directive on 3 June 2003 the Council
asked the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, subject to their constitutional powers, to ensure that the
dependent or associated territories in question applied the measures from the date of implementation of
the Directive on 1 January 2005, ‘it being understood that, if and when Austria, Belgium and Luxembourg
will implement automatic exchange of information, any territory applying the withholding tax will also
implement automatic exchange of information from the same date as those Member States.’

While all the Member States are also members of the Organisation for Cooperation and Economic
Development (OECD), the Commission cannot reply on behalf of the OECD to the Honourable Member.

The Commission wishes only to note that:

(cid:1) the United States, a member of the OECD, is committed to the exchange of tax information as a

means of combating fraud and tax evasion;

(cid:1) San Maríno gave undertakings to the OECD on 4 April 2000, in an ‘advance commitment letter’, so

that it was not included in the OECD’s list of uncooperative tax havens;

(cid:1) by contrast, the Principalities of Andorra, Liechtenstein and Monaco are still on the list, which also

includes the Marshall Islands, Liberia and Nauru.

C 65 E/150

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

Article 10 of the final text of Council Directive 2003/48/EC on the taxation of savings income in the
3.
form of interest payments only lays down the starting date of the transitional period in which Belgium,
Luxembourg and Austria will not be required to apply the provisions on the automatic exchange of
information between tax administrations. As is clear from Article 10(2), the duration of the transitional
period is no longer set in advance, as it depends on the date on which Switzerland, Liechtenstein, San
Maríno, Monaco and Andorra undertake to exchange information with all the Member States upon
request, as defined in the OECD Model Agreement of April 2002 (confirmation of the same undertaking
should also relate to the United States).

The final text of the Directive therefore does not provide any guarantee as to how long the restrictions on
access to banking information for tax purposes which still apply in Belgium, Luxembourg and Austria will
be maintained. The last sentence of Article 10(3) even offers any of the three Member States the option of
electing to lift the restrictions before the end of the transitional period and participating fully in the system
of automatic exchange of
information with all the Member States, no longer having to apply the
withholding tax.

(1) OJ L 157, 26.6.2003.

(2004/C 65 E/165)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2427/03

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject: State aid for Italian dairy producers

What is the value of the State aid which the Council recently decided to grant to Italian dairy farmers in
relation to what would have been the amount if the superlevy had been paid when it was due?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

The Commission is not in a position to make such a calculation. The value of the State aid will depend on
various variables.

These are notably:

(cid:1) the date when a given superlevy payment should have been made by a farmer;

(cid:1) the amount of the superlevy for which the repayment facility authorised by the Council decision will

actually be used;

(cid:1) the applicable reference rate; and

(cid:1) the actual repayment period offered to and chosen by beneficiaries of the facility.

(2004/C 65 E/166)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2430/03

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 July 2003)

Subject: State aid to Italian farmers

Will the Commission challenge the Council’s decision to approve Italian State aid to Italian milk producers
in the Court of Justice?