WRITTEN QUESTION P-2673/03 by Georges Berthu (NI) to the Commission. VAT on repairs to old buildings.
Date: 2003-09-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: VAT rate, building industry, improvement of housing, tax harmonisation, tax relief

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/187

1.

Is the Commission aware of the sacking of these workers?

Is it known whether the contracts cover social security payments, sick leave and compensation for

2.
dismissal? What labour law applies to these contracts?

3. What measures does the Commission intend to propose with a view to preventing situations like this
occurring, in which vocational training and qualifications (cid:1) and consequently, both properly carried out
work and safety considerations are sacrificed (cid:1) on unacceptable economic pretexts?

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 2003)

The Commission deplores the facts reported by the Honourable Member concerning third-country

1.
vessels, of which it had no previous knowledge.

2. While the Commission does not have the information to enable it to take a view on this particular
case, it would point out that the law applicable to the employment contract of a person working on board
a vessel depends primarily, in the event of a dispute, on the rules of private international law of the court
hearing the case. In most cases, these rules refer to the law of the country in which the vessel is registered
and whose flag it flies (cf. Article 6(2) of the Rome Convention of 1980 on the law applicable to
contractual obligations).

As far as Community legislation is concerned, the scope of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on
the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (1) excludes the
crews of seagoing vessels. The Commission had originally proposed that they be included, but this was not
accepted by the other institutions.

3.
Against the backdrop of global economic competition, the Commission is in favour of strengthening
the employment law applicable to seafarers, regardless of their nationality. Over and above the acquis
communautaire, the conventions of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) define the employment
framework and are an important instrument for reconciling the interests of seafarers and their employers.
As it is, 30 of the ILO’s approximately 180 Conventions and 23 of its 192 Recommendations relating to
the shipping sector have often not achieved a sufficient level of ratification, especially by third countries,
and this is detrimental to their impact.

The ILO is currently consolidating the conventions on the industrial relations and employment aspects of
shipping law with a view to incorporating all the provisions of these texts into a single convention which
any country that wanted its registered vessels to fly the national flag with dignity would have to ratify.

The Commission strongly supports this initiative.

Pending the adoption of this convention, the Commission is urging the Member States to continue and,
where appropriate, speed up the process of ratifying the ILO’s international conventions on shipping.

(1) OJ L 225, 12.8.1998.

(2004/C 65 E/204)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2673/03

by Georges Berthu (NI) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject: VAT on repairs to old buildings

The trial period during which Member States may charge a lower VAT rate for highly labour-intensive
services, including repair work on old buildings, is due to expire on 31 December 2003.

C 65 E/188

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

Given the current economic woes, and especially the rise in the Union’s average unemployment rate, there
are strong reasons to make the experiment an established practice. Competition among Member States has,
moreover, hardly been distorted, because the type of services in question, which are essentially of a local
nature, are difficult to relocate.

Can the Commission say whether, as seems desirable, it will submit a proposal at the end of the year
whereby Member States would be authorised on a permanent basis to charge the lower VAT rate for
building repairs?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 2003)

The Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive on reduced VAT rates (1) on 23 July this year
proposing that Member States be allowed to apply a reduced rate to the supply, construction, conversion,
renovation, repair, maintenance or cleaning of private dwellings. Consequently, a reduced rate can
continue to be applied to the repair of old buildings provided they are used as private dwellings.

The optional nature of these reduced rates has never been called into question and Member States are free
to decide on the sectors to which they wish to apply these rates.

After Parliament has given its opinion the Council will have to decide by unanimity on the future scope of
reduced VAT rates.

(1) COM(2003) 397 final.

(2004/C 65 E/205)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2675/03

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject: EU subsidies for transeuropean networks

In the last 20 years, the Commission has been allocating part of its budgetary resources to what it calls
‘developing transeuropean networks’.

A recent university analysis of where these funds have gone within Spain reveals that 43 % of these
investments have directly benefited the Madrid Autonomous Community.
If we add to this all the
investment from which the Madrid Autonomous Community has emerged as a beneficiary, whether
directly or indirectly, within the last 20 years, Madrid’s percentage rises to 80,2 % (EUR 138,67 million).

Over the same period the so-called Mediterranean axis (cid:1) Spanish frontier/France-Barcelona-Valencia-
Murcia (cid:1) has received 13,4 % of the subsidies (EUR 215,18 million). And while the last time Barcelona
benefited from Community transeuropean network subsidies was in 2000 (installing a voice control system
in Prat airport) and Valencia in 2001 (improving access to the city’s port), Madrid has continued to
received subsidies of this kind every single year.

Can the Commission state what criteria have been used and are used for allocating these subsidies?

Could the Commission explain the massive imbalance in the allocation of these funds?

How does the Commission actually view the so-called ‘Mediterranean Axis’ (France-Barcelona-Valencia-
Murcia)?