WRITTEN QUESTION E-3565/03 by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission. Enlargement preparations in EU border regions.
Date: 2003-12-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU employment policy, action programme, enlargement of the Union, frontier region, invitation to tender, professional qualifications, trade union

C 88 E/150

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

(2004/C 88 E/0159)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3485/03

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(17 November 2003)

Subject: EEA, Norway and taxation of EU workers

Although Norway is not a Member State of the EU,
it takes part in the internal market where the
principles of free movement of workers and equal treatment of all citizens apply. Nevertheless, the
Norwegian Government decided that, as of 1 January 2003, EU citizens, among others, working in
Norway would be taxed on journeys between their place of residence and their destination (in this
particular case a helicopter terminal/oil platform). Norwegian nationals working in Norway are not taxed
in this way.

Foreigners in Norway are allowed a deduction of 15 % on the basic rate of tax because they do not use
cultural and public social services to the same extent as Norwegians. Interest on loans, however, does not
qualify as tax-deductible.

Will the Commission say in this context to what extent Norway is allowed to adopt different taxation rules
for EU citizens and Norwegians working in Norway? Are the rules on the taxation of journeys consistent
with Norway’s agreements with the EU or does that country discriminate against workers from the EU?
Finally, what action does the Commission intend to take in the event that Norway has introduced
discriminatory rules?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

The Commission has not heard before of the problem raised by the Honourable Member. However, not
disposing of the applicable legal texts, the Commission can only refer to the fact that a distinction between
residents and non-residents is a basic and common feature in taxation, which the Court of Justice, in its
judgement of 14 February 1995 (case C-279/93 (cid:1) Schumacker), has accepted to be in principle not
contrary to Community law. However, if non-residents are in a comparable situation as residents, they may
not be taxed more heavily than the latter.

Since it is the particular charge of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Surveillance Authority
(ESA) to monitor and control the application of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement by the
EEA/EFTA States, the Commission will forward the problem raised to the ESA and ask the ESA to give it
the necessary follow-up.

(2004/C 88 E/0160)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3565/03

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(2 December 2003)

Subject: Enlargement preparations in EU border regions

In the run-up to enlargement
programme of ‘Preparatory Actions on the Impact of Enlargement in the Border Regions of the EU’.

the European Union is making appropriations available under the

The arrangements for 2004 include publication of a call for proposals for ‘qualification initiatives for
vulnerable groups of the labour force in EU regions bordering the candidate countries’ (1). One purpose of
the project is to assist employees at risk from enlargement by using qualification and training measures to
raise their occupational and geographical mobility. The programme provides for social partners,
educational institutions, vocational training centres and universities located in an EU Member State to
apply for a grant.

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/151

Why is it that, although the social partners as a whole are considered as eligible for assistance under this
programme, individual employee organisations are not?

Will a call for proposals for qualification initiatives for vulnerable groups in border regions be published
again in 2005? If so, will the range of organisations eligible for assistance then be extended to include
employee representatives? If not, why not?

What other projects are included in the arrangements for implementing the programme of ‘Preparatory
in which employee
Actions on the Impact of Enlargement
representatives’ organisations can take part?

in the Border Regions of

the EU’,

(1) OJ C 206, 2.9.2003, p. 25.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

The organisations eligible for the call for proposals to which the Honourable Member refers were ‘social
partners, educational institutions, vocational training centres and universities’. ‘Social partners’ encompasses
organisations representing employers and/or trade unions. Accordingly, individual employee organisations
are eligible for assistance. Applications are currently under evaluation. At
two trade union
organisations have submitted applications.

least

The Union budget does not provide for further measures in this field in the 2004 budget, hence no calls
for proposals can be expected in 2005.

As part of the programme of ‘Preparatory Actions on the Impact of Enlargement in Border Regions of the
Union’, trade union organisations were eligible as partners in the following calls for proposals:

(cid:1) ELARG/1/140503/SME/B53003: ‘Regional Partnership Events for Micro-enterprises in Union Regions

Bordering the Candidate Countries with a focus on Support Services’ (1).

(cid:1) ELARG/3/140503/ADM/B53003: ‘Cross Border Initiatives for Local and Regional Authorities in Union

Regions Bordering the Candidate Countries’ (1).

Proposals received in response to the above calls are currently being evaluated by the relevant committees.
Applicants will be notified of the outcome once the evaluation process has been completed within the next
few weeks.

(1) OJ C 206, 2.9.2003.

(2004/C 88 E/0161)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3589/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject: Syria (cid:1) US sanctions

A crushing majority (398 to 4) recently voted in the US Senate to authorise the imposition of sanctions on
Syria, following the adoption of a similar act by the House of Representatives in October 2003.

This new law grants the US President powers to impose various economic and diplomatic sanctions on
Syria and is intended to punish Damascus for its alleged links with terrorist groups and for the arms
programme it is supposedly developing.