WRITTEN QUESTION E-3819/03 by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Circulation in Greece of private vehicles fitted with Community numberplates.
Date: 2003-12-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, application of EU law, case-law (EU), confiscation of property, fine, free movement of goods, free movement of persons, motor car, tax harmonisation, tax system, tax-free allowance, vehicle registration, vehicle tax

C 88 E/156

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2004)

It is important to stress that Commission Delegations in Asia and Latin America (ALA) were instructed to
consult government and civil society when drafting the Country Strategy Papers (CSPs). Although there
may be differences between the relative participation of Headquarters and Delegations, it is not the case
that for any region CSPs would have been written ‘from behind the desks of officials in Brussels’.

As regards the guidelines for the Mid Term Review (MTR) exercise, the Commission is required to involve
civil society/non-state actors in the programming and implementation processes and so consult with
stakeholders. Such consultations are a key requirement for the review.

In order to maintain coherence and consistently high quality in the CSP process, it is accepted that certain
basic principles should apply to the MTR of Country Strategy Papers (CSPs) in all regions.

On 7 October 2003, the Directors General of Directorate General Development and External Relations
approved a document prepared by the inter-service Quality Support Group ‘Framework for Assessing,
revised Strategy and Programming Documents’ which builds on the orientations laid down in the Council
Conclusions as regards the Mid Term Review (MTR) of CSPs (1), and sets down the basic principles that
apply to an MTR.

Both the Asia and Latin America regions have been engaged in a Mid Term Review of country strategies
and programmes. In the light of this review, a number of revised strategies and programmes are being
prepared. It is very important to note that, given the programming horizon, the mid-term reviews for Asia
and Latin America have had to begin much earlier than those for the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP)
countries. Moreover, the review has to be carried out in full accordance with the ALA Regulation which
governs Community cooperation with these regions.

The MTR assessment will focus on four key requirements:

(cid:1) Main political, economic and social developments in the country (cid:1) ensuring that the strategy is up-to-

date.

(cid:1) New Community/Union policy objectives and commitments (cid:1) ensuring that these are taken into

account and put into operation.

(cid:1) Results, performance and lessons learned to the extent that these can already be assessed.

(cid:1) Quality improvements where these are needed (cid:1) ensuring a constant improvement of the quality of

strategy documents, in particular correcting some weaknesses in the first generation of CSPs.

The revised documents will be submitted to the inter-service Quality Support Group (iQSG) and the
relevant management committees according to the existing procedures and guidelines. For the ALA region
these submissions will take place in the next few months.

(1) 18 March 2003: Common Framework for Country Strategy Papers (cid:1) Council Conclusions, item adopted without

debate, Doc. 6377/03.

(2004/C 88 E/0166)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3819/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject: Circulation in Greece of private vehicles fitted with Community numberplates

Freedom of movement of persons in the European Union is guaranteed, and any Community national may
elect to reside in any EU country, register his name on the relevant lists and (cid:1) if he so wishes (cid:1) purchase

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/157

a private vehicle fitted with numberplates from the Member State in which he has opted to reside. In this
way many Greeks have legally acquired private vehicles with Community numberplates which they drive
in Greece. However the Greek authorities severely penalise this practice, since they do not allow such
vehicles to circulate for more than six months and, where this period is found to have elapsed, they
impound the vehicle and impose very heavy fines, despite the fact that the owners of these vehicles are
legally resident in (and even nationals of) another EU Member State.

Are these actions by the Greek authorities in line with Community legislation? In which other EU Member
States are vehicles circulating with numberplates from another EU Member State impounded and their
owners given draconian fines? Does it intend to take any action and, if so, what action to put an end to
this state of affairs caused by the distorted Greek tax system which excessively taxes vehicles over 1 800 cc.
which are exceedingly expensive in Greece (the country with the lowest per capita income in the EU (cid:1) a
mere 67 % of the Community average, according to the latest Eurostat statistics), thereby forcing many
Greeks to purchase vehicles with numberplates from another Member State?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2004)

The free movement of Union (EU) citizens is a fundamental right acknowledged by Article 18 of the EC
Treaty. According to this article, each EU citizen has the right to choose the place where (s)he prefers to
reside inside the EU and to freely circulate under the conditions foreseen by the EC Treaty. Normally, the
EU citizen registers his car, legally bought, in the Member State where he is resident and it can likewise
happen that the Member State of his residence does not coincide with his country of nationality (for
instance, in the case of a Greek national, who is legally resident in Germany in which (s)he buys and
registers a car).

As regards the specific Community tax legislation concerning the written question, it should be noted that
on 28 March 1983 Council Directive 83/182/EEC on tax exemptions within the Community for certain
means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another (1) was approved. That
Directive is, according to its recitals, designed to eliminate obstacles to the free movement of persons, and
to the establishment of a European internal market, that result from the different tax regimes in the
Member States applicable to the temporary importation of certain means of transport.

According to the Directive, when a means of transport is temporarily imported, exemption from vehicle
registration tax and from normal road taxes is granted for a period, continuous or otherwise, of not more
than six months in any twelve months, provided the following conditions are met:

(cid:1) the means of transport has been acquired in accordance with the general conditions of taxation in

force on the domestic market of a Member State;

(cid:1) the individual importing that means of transport has his normal residence in a Member State other
than the Member State of temporary importation and employs the means of transport in question for
his private use;

(cid:1) the means of transport is not disposed of or hired out in the Member State of temporary importation

or lent to a resident of that State.

The Commission is aware that the application of this Directive in Greece has been very problematic. Three
judgments of the Court (2) address this matter.

In this respect, according to the Commission’s information, the main problems are the following:

(cid:1) The determination of the place of ‘normal residence’ in the case of Greek nationals.

(cid:1) The extremely severe penalties which are imposed in case of infringement of the rules set out in
Directive 83/182/EEC. In this respect, the Court, in its judgment in Case C-262/99, noting that the
penalty ‘must not be so disproportionate to the gravity of the infringement that it becomes an obstacle
to the freedoms enshrined in the Treaty’, ruled that a penalty in this field ‘is compatible with the
principle of proportionality only in so far as it is made necessary by overriding requirements of
enforcement and prevention, when the gravity of the infringement is taken into account’ and that

C 88 E/158

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

‘where the determination of the arrangements applicable has given rise to difficulties, account must be
taken of the good faith of the offender when determining the penalty actually imposed on him’.
Moreover, the seizure of the car in cases of presumed breach of Directive 83/182/EEC (which could
drive to an accusation of smuggling that in Greece may lead, at least according to some information at
the disposal of the Commission, to cases in which the car is sold by the authorities and therefore is
never given back to its previous owner, even in cases in which the competent Court eventually decides
that the EU citizen is innocent) could raise further problems following the adoption of the EU Charter
of Fundamental Rights (3).

After receiving a number of complaints from Greek nationals, the Commission initiated an infringement
procedure and decided to bring Greece to the Court. Moreover,
it must be said that the Commission
presented a Proposal for a Council Directive (4) in 1998, with the overall objective of bringing the tax
treatment of vehicles more in line with the concept and principles of the single market.

The Commission presented a Communication on taxation of passenger cars in the Union (5) in September
2002, in which it explores, ‘inter alia’ , ways of removing the present tax obstacles to the free movement
of passenger cars within the internal market. On the basis of
the principles outlined in the
Communication, the Commission will present a fresh Proposal for Community legislation in 2004.

(1) OJ L 105, 23.4.1983.
(2)

Judgment of 2 August 1993 in Case C-9/92, Commission versus Hellenic Republic; judgment of 29 May 1997 in
Case C-389/95, Siegfried Klattner versus Hellenic Republic; judgment of 12 July 2001 in Case C-262/99, Paraskevas
Louloudakis versus Hellenic Republic.
In particular, Article 17 of the Charter includes the right of property as a fundamental right of the EU citizen.

(3)
(4) OJ C 108, 7.4.1998.
(5) Communication to the Council and the Parliament on ‘taxation of passenger cars in the Union (cid:1) options for action

at national and Community levels’, of 6 September 2002, COM(2002) 431 final.

(2004/C 88 E/0167)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3824/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject: Labels of origin for imports

Counterfeiting and commercial piracy are causing immense harm to EU manufacturers. Dumping
continues to be used by some States as a means of gaining access to EU markets for their products.
In Italy, footwear manufacturers are among those hardest-hit by fraudulent imports. With a view to
ensuring fair trade, more controls should be introduced, together with rules enabling products to be clearly
identified. Furthermore, the Union should decide to introduce a label for EU products, such as ‘EU’,
followed by the name of the Member State of origin.

Can the Commission state:

(cid:1) why it does not insist upon a compulsory label of origin for products from non-EU countries?

(cid:1) why it does not consider equal customs duties to be a necessary part of reciprocity in world trade?

(cid:1) why it does not make a label of origin compulsory for EU products as well, in order to ensure that

consumers are properly informed?

(cid:1) how it intends to curb the flood of fraudulent imports and to remedy this situation, which is

penalising large sections of various Member States’ manufacturing industries?