WRITTEN QUESTION E-3371/03 by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission. Legal implications of ratification of EU draft Constitution.
Date: 2003-11-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Constitution, European treaties, Treaty on European Union, protocol to an agreement, repeal

C 78 E/532

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Do Romano Prodi’s comments also represent the views of the Commission? If so, can the Commission
explain in greater detail why the Swedes are afraid of new developments and elaborate on the significance
of the distance referred to between the Swedish and European peoples?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2004)

At Parliament’s plenary session of 16 January 2002, the President of the Commission said that ‘to millions
of European citizens, the euro notes and coins in their pockets are a concrete sign of the great political
undertaking of building a united Europe. As a symbol of that unity, the euro is having an even greater
psychological impact than the abolition of passport controls at Europe’s internal borders. So the euro is
becoming a key element in people’s sense of shared European identity and common destiny. It is tangible
evidence that European integration is now irreversible. … We must take this as a valuable lesson in our
step-by-step progress towards enlargement’.

This well known position is that of the whole Commission, and there was no reason to modify it during
the campaign prior to the referendum on the adoption of the euro in Sweden.

As for the remarks reported by the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet, they would seem to have been based
on an interview with President Prodi which appeared in the Italian newspaper La Repubblica on
15 September 2003.

In fact the President of the Commission did not make the remark attributed to him by the Swedish
newspaper; he did say, in accordance with the Commission line on the subject: ‘It is a pity, because many
Swedes understand the advantages of the euro for growth. But a majority of public opinion is still afraid of
change. This was the political choice of those who want to emphasise what distinguishes them and who
fear losing what they consider to be their essential identity (cid:1) even losing economic advantages. … Every
nation has the right to express its views. And it is our duty to respect the beliefs revealed in any
democratic consultation.’ And: ‘In northern Europe, part of the population remains firmly convinced that a
given social model can defend itself better by concentrating on its own chosen identity in politics rather
than economics.’

(2004/C 78 E/0554)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3371/03

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject: Legal implications of ratification of EU draft Constitution

Article 311 of the Treaty establishing the European Community states that the protocols form an integral
part of the Treaty. As the existing treaties (cid:1) the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the
European Community (cid:1) will cease to be valid once the EU’s draft Constitution is ratified, it must also be
expected that the existing protocols will also cease to be valid and will be renegotiated in accordance with
the principle set out in Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union.

Moreover, Part IV of the Convention’s draft Constitution, Articles IV-2 and IV-3, in particular the second
paragraph thereof, states that only those protocols mentioned in the protocol annexed to the Treaty
establishing the Constitution will remain in force. This must be construed as meaning that the other
protocols which are not listed in the protocol annexed to the Constitution cease to be valid and are to be
renegotiated by the Heads of Government at the Intergovernmental Conference. Can the Commission
confirm this to be the case?

Can the Commission say what the legal implications of ratification of the EU’s draft Constitution will be in
relation to the protocols which are currently annexed to the present Treaties?

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/533

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2003)

Article IV(2) of the draft Constitution provides for the repeal of the EC and EU Treaties, including all the
protocols attached to those Treaties.

Accordingly, when the Constitution enters into force, all the protocols in question will be repealed.

The Presidency of the Intergovernmental Conference has instructed a group of legal experts from the
delegations, under the chairmanship of Mr Piris, an IGC juris consult, to check the legality of the draft
Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe drawn up by the Convention. The exercise also involved
looking into the matter of which protocols attached to the EU or EC Treaty should be included or adapted.
The result of this work has been submitted to the Conference (doc. IGC 50/03-ADD 1); if the Conference
endorses the result, the protocols in question, revised by that group, will be attached to the Treaty
establishing a Constitution for Europe.

(2004/C 78 E/0555)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3376/03

by Christine De Veyrac (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject: Reduced rates of VAT (cid:1) hairdressing

Since 1999, on a trial basis, the European Union has authorised the application of reduced rates of VAT to
‘highly labour-intensive services’. An exhaustive list of eligible sectors was drawn up. Three EU Member
States (Spain, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) decided to apply the lower rate in the hairdressing sector
and would now seem to be willing to continue the experiment. However, in its most recent proposal for a
directive concerning VAT the Commission proposes that hairdressing should be removed from the list of
services eligible for a reduced rate. That measure is based on a study carried out by the Commission which
concludes that the reduced rate has had no favourable impact on employment and that its impact on
prices is unclear.

The Commission’s standpoint is regrettable in that the conclusions of the study reflect statistics drawn up
over only two or three years, depending on the country concerned. Such an assessment would seem to be
far from adequate as the basis for a definitive economic judgment.

In the light of the above, can the Commission state whether it regards two (or three) years’ statistics as
sufficient to assess the economic effectiveness of a tax measure and whether, accordingly, it would not
make sense to continue the current experiment by retaining hairdressing on the list of ‘highly labour-
intensive services’ eligible for reduced rates of VAT?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2003)

The reduced rate of VAT for hairdressing was introduced by Directive 1999/85/EEC of 22 October 1999
which allows a reduced VAT rate to be applied on an experimental basis to labour-intensive services (1).
This experiment was introduced for a specific period and evaluation reports have to be presented by both
the Member States taking part in the experiment and the Commission.

The Commission adopted its evaluation report on 2 June 2003 (2). This concluded that in the view of
‘information supplied by Member States and the inherent limitation of analytical methods applied, it was
not possible to find solid evidence of such reductions in VAT boosting job creation. For the effect on the
reduction on the black economy the same observation can be made’.