WRITTEN QUESTION E-3159/03 by Dirk Sterckx (ELDR) to the Commission. Unequal treatment of professional removal firms importing loads into the EU from non-Member States as a result of differing interpretations of Regulation (EEC) 918/83.
Date: 2003-10-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom, VAT, application of EU law, customs regulations, exemption from customs duties, free circulation, interpretation of the law, personal effects, restriction on competition, tax exemption, transport company

C 88 E/132

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

The Commission draws attention to the fact that any initiative the Commission might take, in the light of
the outcome of this discussion within the Council and the Parliament, targeting the approximation of
taxation of passenger cars, has to receive the unanimous agreement of Member States at the Council.

Concerning the ban on diesel cars in the two largest Greek cities, the Commission would like to recall that
in assessing the environmental impact of diesel cars, a distinction should be made between ambient air
pollution and climate change issues. If compared with petrol cars, modern diesel cars allow a reduction in
CO2 emissions, which is a key issue in addressing climate change. On the other hand, however, the
emissions of diesel cars are significantly higher as regards the pollutants that adversely affect ambient air
quality, such as particulate matter and nitrogen oxides. The concentration of such pollutants in ambient air
is regulated by Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide,
nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air (2), which lays down
limit values and margins of tolerance. According to the reports submitted to the Commission under the air
quality framework Directive, limit values and margins of tolerance are still exceeded in the Attica Region,
and this makes it necessary to adopt or maintain measures addressing specific sources of pollution,
provided that such measures are compatible with the EC Treaty.

For further details on ambient air pollution in Greece, the Honourable Member may wish to refer to the
reply given by the Commission to Written Question E-3217/03 by Mr Antonios Trakatellis (3).

(1) COM(2002) 431 final.
(2) OJ L 163, 29.6.1999.
(3) OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 791.

(2004/C 88 E/0140)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3159/03

by Dirk Sterckx (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 October 2003)

Subject: Unequal treatment of professional removal firms importing loads into the EU from non-Member

States as a result of differing interpretations of Regulation (EEC) 918/83

When loads are imported by removal firms from outside the European Union into another Member State
via the United Kingdom, the Netherlands or Sweden, the goods are exempted by these countries’ respective
local customs authorities from import duties and VAT for the whole EU territory.

On the other hand, a number of Member States, such as Belgium, issue former residents of third countries
with a T-form (pan-European transport document) when they arrive in the EU, whereby their effects are
only exempted from import duties and VAT up to the border of the country of final destination, where
they have to be declared. This means that the decision about exemption from import duties and VAT is
taken by the customs authorities of the country of final destination.

It goes without saying that removal firms based in Member States that apply the procedure with the
T-form are put at a disadvantage as compared with their competitors in the United Kingdom, the
Netherlands and Sweden: because of their more flexible rules, more and more of their clients are changing
to removal firms based in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Sweden.

Does Article 128 of Regulation (EEC) 918/83 (1) allow the Member State of arrival (as opposed to the
1.
country of final destination) to issue an immediate exemption from import duties and VAT for the whole
territory of the European Union?

If so,

2.
immediate exemption from import duties and VAT in order to comply with Regulation (EEC) 918/83?

is Belgium obliged to revise its procedure using the T-form in favour of a procedure of

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/133

If not,

3.
example, by the United Kingdom, not in breach of Regulation (EEC) 918/83?

is the procedure of immediate exemption from import duties and VAT as applied, for

(1) OJ L 105, 23.4.1983, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2003)

1. When customs offices in the Member States release removal goods coming from a third country into
free circulation in the Community free of Common Customs Tariff duties (CCT duties) and Value Added
Tax (VAT), they apply legislation based on two different legal sources. Whereas the relief of CCT duties is
based on Articles 2 to 10 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 (1), the relief of VAT is based on national
tax legislation implementing Article 14 of Council Directive 77/388/EEC (2) and Articles 2 to 10 of Council
Directive 83/181/EEC (3).

In its reply to Written Question E-0243/02 by Mrs Peijs (4), the Commission set out principles concerning
the customs clearance of these removal goods and implied that Article 128 of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 918/83 does not apply to these imports.

i.e. the
Article 128 only applies to goods which have to be put to a particular use by the recipient,
declarant,
in order to benefit from a specific duty relief. The restrictions set out in Article 7(1) of
Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 in respect of removal goods, however, only require that the declarant remains
the unrestricted owner of the removal goods for a period of 12 months. Within that period, the declarant
can use these goods for whatever private purpose he likes. He can, for example, use them for furnishing
his new residence or store them at the premises of his removal company. Given these circumstances, the
Commission considers that the restriction of Article 7(1) does not create an obligation to put the removal
goods to a particular end use as required by Article 128. The Commission interprets this restriction as a
prohibition to commercialise these goods, similar to the restrictions set out in Article 29 (consignments
sent by one private individual to another) or Article 45 (goods contained in travellers’ personal luggage) of
Regulation (EEC) No 918/83.

As the legal provisions of Articles 2 to 10 of Council Directive 83/181/EEC are almost identical to the text
of the same Articles of Regulation (EEC) No 918/83, Member States’ VAT legislation should be similar to
the Community customs rules for removal goods. It remains to the discretion of the national customs and
tax authorities in which way they want to ensure compliance of the declarant with the restrictions
imposed by Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 and the similar provision in national VAT
legislation. The method to control compliance should, however, not create additional costs at the expense
of the declarant and should not deviate too much from the methods applied in the examples mentioned in
the previous paragraph.

2. and 3.
As already stated in the answer to the Written Question E-0243/02, the request for release into
free circulation under relief of customs duties and VAT has to be submitted by, or on behalf of, the person
transferring his/her residence from a third country to the Community to any customs office the declarant
chooses to use for this purpose. Nevertheless, as explained previously, Member States have a certain
discretion in respect of
the documentary evidence to be provided. This discretion stems from the
differences in the national legislation of Member States in respect of the administrative procedures and
requirements for a person taking residence in a country. The customs authorities in the Member States,
however, should not use this discretion to discriminate in their customs treatment between persons taking
residence in the country of the customs authority and persons taking residence in another Member State of
the Community. Since the place of presentation of the request has normally to be determined by the
person transferring his/her
including the procedures and
requirements in force in the different Member States, both procedures release into free circulation at the
point of entry into the Community or in any other Member State are possible. In the latter case a T-form
is necessary to ensure the transport to the place where the release into free circulation will take place.

residence based on different elements,

C 88 E/134

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Should the Honourable Member or any other person dispose of documentary evidence which indicates
that particular legal provisions for removal goods of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 or Council
Directive 83/181/EEC have been infringed by these authorities he/she may either lodge a formal complaint
on the issue to the Commission or use the normal
legal procedures foreseen in the Member States’
legislation for such cases in order to defend this person’s interests.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs

duty.

(2) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States
relating to turnover taxes (cid:1) Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, OJ L 145,
13.6.1977.

(3) Council Directive 83/181/EEC of 28 March 1983 determining the scope of Article 14(1)(d) of Directive 77/388/EEC
as regards exemption from value added tax on the final importation of certain goods, OJ L 105, 23.4.1983.

(4) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002.

(2004/C 88 E/0141)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3163/03

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(24 October 2003)

Subject: Regional policy in Hungary

What regional policies have been implemented in Hungary? How have pre-accession programmes/subsidies
been used/distributed in Hungary (i.e. number/type (cid:1) private, state, corporate (cid:1) of applicants/recipients
for each programme; distribution through counties; major projects’ success/cost/location; ISPA/PHARE/
Sapard fund usage;
integration of EU projects into Hungarian Government’s own rural development
programmes; long-term EU goals for Hungarian regional policy after accession)?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2003)

In Hungary, the importance attributed to regional development is reflected in the 1996 Act on Regional
Development and Physical Planning. As a result of the Act, Regional Development Councils have been set
up and currently operate. Regional development strategies have been identified respectively in the
preliminary National Development Plan (2000-2002) and subsequently in the National Development Plan
(2003-2006).

The European Commission has supported Hungary’s efforts to prepare for its future participation in the
Union’s Regional Policy and thus for the future management and utilisation of the Structural and Cohesion
Funds, through pre-accession funds (PHARE, ISPA and Sapard).

Under PHARE, comprehensive Institution building support (EUR 12,5 million over different budget years)
has been provided since 1998 in order to establish and strengthen institutional structures, to provide in
future for a sound and efficient management of Union Structural and Cohesion Funds and in order to
support the programming process. Support is also being provided to assist Hungary in the creation of an
adequate projects pipeline (EUR 15 million). PHARE funded activities will continue into 2004 to assist
Hungary in the first phase of Structural Funds operations.

PHARE funds have also provided support with investment actions.
‘sub-
programme’ has been designed for the period 2002-2003 chiefly aimed at providing assistance more in
line with the Objective 1 approach to the Structural Funds. This programme, based on the preliminary
National Development Plan (pNDP), and co-financed by PHARE and the Hungarian Government
(EUR 84 million and EUR 66,23 million respectively), focuses on three measures aimed at supporting
labour market re-integration of the long term unemployed (and in particular the Roma), the introduction
of information technology in primary schools and the promotion of local development.

In this respect, a special