WRITTEN QUESTION E-3257/03 by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission. VAT — recycling firms.
Date: 2003-11-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: VAT rate, clothing industry, professional association, social dialogue (EU), tax harmonisation, tax relief, waste recycling

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/639

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Currently, the rules on payment deadlines are laid down in Article 106 of the Implementing Rules of the
Financial Regulation (1). The general rule is 45 days from the date on which an admissible payment request
is registered; or 30 days for payments relating to service or supply contracts, except where the contract
provides otherwise.

In accordance with Article 106 (4) of the Implementing Rules, a decision to suspend the deadline for
payment can be taken when the supporting documents which are produced do not justify the payment
request or when the Commission has doubts about the eligibility of the payment request.
In those
situations, the payment period will begin to run again when a properly formulated payment request is
registered. The Commission believes that this provision is essential to ensure that ineligible payments are
avoided and to guarantee sound financial management.

Directorate General (DG) Development (DEV) makes every effort to process payments, following the rules
established in the new Financial Regulation, within the shortest possible time period. Guidelines,
establishing a timetable of maximum delays at each level of the internal financial circuit, have been sent
to all operational units concerning the respect of payment delays. A financial indicator for payments,
taking data from the Commission accounting system, has been used to monitor payment delays. The
average payment delay for DG DEV (delay between the date of registry of the invoice and the bank value
date) for the year 2003 is 44 days for the A budget lines (administrative expenditure) and 22 days for the
B budget lines (operational expenditure). Taking into account both types of budget lines, the average
payment delay for DG DEV for the year 2003 is 32,13 days. Payments made by DG Administration and
Personnel (ADMIN) for two A lines (missions; meetings with experts) are not included.

The only report produced by DG DEV concerning the time scale of payments made in 2003 is the
‘Reporting on financial
information purposes. The report on
financial
indicators provides an important feedback on financial performance to Management, to the
Authorising Officers by Sub-Delegation (AOSDs) and to the Financial Cell of the DG.

indicators’ produced for Management

(1) Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the
implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the
general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 357, 31.12.2002.

(2004/C 88 E/0656)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3257/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject: VAT (cid:1) recycling firms

One of the main tasks of recycling firms is to identify recycling possibilities and put them into practice.
They do this by collecting, selecting, repairing and remarketing end-of-life products. In Belgium the
recycling industry is allowed some leeway with the 6 % VAT rate on the basis of social arguments.
Repeated attempts have been made to enable the recycling industry in the Netherlands to apply a VAT rate
of less than 6 % on the basis of social and environmental arguments, but so far without success. In the
meantime the Commission has presented communication (1) on integrated product policy to Parliament
and the Council. This makes many references to granting tax concessions to environmentally friendly
projects. However, the recycling industry is not specifically mentioned.

Is the Commission in dialogue with the European organisation representing recycling firms (RREUSE)

1.
on this subject?

If so, what is the outcome of the dialogue in concrete terms? If not, why is such a dialogue not

2.
taking place?

C 88 E/640

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Does the Commission not share the view that the recycling industry makes a valuable contribution to

3.
a sustainable society?

4.

How does the Commission intend to involve the recycling industry in integrated product policy?

Does the Commission not share the view that the recycling industry has a claim, on the basis of

5.
social and environmental arguments, to tax advantages, i.e. to a VAT rate of less than 6 %?

(1) COM(2003) 302.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

The Commission is currently concluding its stakeholder consultation regarding the Thematic Strategy on
the Prevention and Recycling of Waste. In this context it has established contacts with, among many other
stakeholders, Rreuse, mainly on the issues of repair and reuse of products and equipment.

The consultation period on the Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste (1) has just
ended, on 30 November 2003. Economic instruments are among the topics addressed in the
Communication. However, no concrete conclusions on the contributions of individual stakeholders have
been reached yet.

As stated in its Communication, the Commission appreciates the valuable contribution which the recycling
industry makes to sustainable development. In fact the Communication addresses a large number of
recycling issues which potentially play key roles in the overall concept for the sustainable management of
resources.

Integrated Product Policy (IPP) addresses the environmental performance of products over their entire life
cycle. Recycling and reuse are therefore genuine concerns of IPP. Technologies and procedures used in
recycling operations can help to avoid a negative environmental impact at the end of a product’s life, save
energy and resources, and may contribute to a more ecologically friendly product design.

As announced in its Communication on VAT strategy adopted in 2000 (2), on 23 July 2003 the
Commission adopted a proposal for a directive on reviewing and rationalising the rules and derogations
applying to reduced rates of VAT (3). Its main objective was to improve the internal market, in particular
by simplifying VAT and applying it in a more uniform manner.

The proposal does not include any specific provision relating to the recycling industry: there are already
measures favourable to this sector in the sixth VAT Directive (4).

Firstly, the recycling industry is in most cases covered by the special arrangements applicable to second-
hand goods, works of art, collectors’ items and antiques introduced by Article 26a of the sixth Directive.
This means that sales of second-hand goods by recyclers, who are classified as taxable dealers, are taxed
only on the profit margin made. The profit margin is equal to the difference between the selling price
charged by the taxable dealer for the goods and the purchase price.

Secondly, under Annex H, category 14, of the sixth Directive, Member States may apply a reduced rate of
VAT (minimum 5 %) to the ‘supply of goods and services by organisations recognised as charities by
Member States and engaged in welfare or social security work, insofar as these supplies are not exempt
under Article 13’. This means, for example, that a Member State could apply a reduced rate of VAT to the
resale of recovered goods by organisations recognised as charities.

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/641

The general rule in relation to rates of VAT, however, is that the standard rate applies. Member States have
the option of applying a reduced rate which may explain why some have a reduced rate in this respect and
others do not.

To conclude, there appears to be no need for further special measures to reduce the rate of VAT in this
sector.

(1) COM(2003) 301 final.
(2) COM(2000) 348 final.
(3) COM(2003) 397 final.
(4) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/CEE of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States

relating to turnover taxes, OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.

(2004/C 88 E/0657)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3305/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject: Human rights in Tunisia

Article 2 of an Association Agreement with Tunisia states that ‘Relations between parties, as well the
Agreement itself, shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles which guide their
domestic and international policies and constitute an essential element of the Agreement.’ Yet despite this,
and President Zine El Ben Ali’s commitment to improve their human rights record, these rights are
continually abused.

Could the Commission please explain what measures, if any, are in place to ensure that such pledges to
respect human rights are actually being enforced by authorities in Tunisia?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2003)

The Union-Tunisia Association agreement contains an article outlining what the parties consider as the
essential values and principles underpinning their association.

The Association agreement provide for the necessary structures to discuss all aspects of the agreement,
namely the Association Council
the Association Committee (senior officials) and, since
September 2003, a series of sector specific sub-committees (experts). All of these fora are competent to
deal with issues concerning human rights and democracy in the appropriate way.

(ministerial),

In addition, the recent Association Council held on 30 September 2003 agreed that ‘should the parties so
decide … these issues may also be discussed by a specific working party or sub-committee of the
Association Committee’. Human rights issues were also discussed during the political dialogue that took
place with Tunisia on 29 September 2003 in the margins of the Association Council.

In this context the Union recalled the ‘importance it attaches to pursuing and deepening discussions on
human rights and democratisation with Tunisia in a structured way and in view of reaching points of
common understanding on these issues’ (Union Declaration at the 4th Association Council). Such specific
sub-committees are already being established with Morocco and Jordan. Such consultations are in addition
to the traditional diplomatic instruments such as demarches and declarations made by the Union with the
aim of promoting human rights objectives.

The actual impact of these consultations obviously depends on the strength with which they are delivered
(the Commission always acts on these issues in tight coordination with the Member States) and the way in
which they are received by the Partner country. It is believed that both the Commission’s initiatives on a
Wider Europe neighbourhood policy and its Communication on reinforcing human rights in the
Mediterranean (1) will be useful
formal
commitments.

to more action behind their

for our partners

incentives