Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-13-Speech-1-177"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060213.15.1-177"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I have listened to the debate attentively and I wish to comment on a few aspects.
The Commission very much welcomes the encouraging signals that it has received from the Greek authorities during the debates in Parliament and would also welcome this being consolidated by the adoption of the new law.
Thank you very much for your attention.
It is true that since the beginning of the infringement procedure, the situation has improved in the Member State concerned. I would like to recall that until a few years ago the fines imposed were those applying to infringement of the customs legislation and also that smuggling was one of the crimes envisaged by the national law. This, fortunately, is no longer the case and the Commission wants to express its satisfaction at the progress made. However, further steps still have to be taken to align national practice with Community law.
Let me clarify one important point: the high registration taxes on vehicles that are applied in some Member States on the occasion of a permanent transfer of residence are a completely different issue from the one dealt with in Mr Cashman’s report.
On the one hand, the determination of the amount of registration tax due when a person registers a car in one state depends on the tax policy of the Member State concerned. European law – particularly the prohibition of discrimination against imported goods in favour of domestic goods – may have a bearing with respect to how the tax is calculated, especially with respect to the value attributed to second-hand cars. However, Community law does not prevent a Member State from applying a high registration tax on vehicles.
On the other hand, Mr Cashman’s report deals with the application of an existing directive, which allows a temporary use of a vehicle in another Member State without the obligation to re-register it. I would add that this is an issue of concrete application of Community law by national authorities. The report concerns, inter alia, the interpretation of the concept of ‘normal residence’ by the national authorities, which runs counter to the principles enshrined in the directive itself.
In fact, the directive is able to function properly only if a person who resides in one Member State is allowed to use his vehicle in the territory of a Member State other than that where the normal residence is located. If evidence of residence in the first state is not accepted or is rendered difficult by the second state, the directive has no chance of being applied correctly. I would also remind you that the issue concerns the freedom to provide and receive services in another Member State. This is the core point of the case being discussed now.
Before concluding, I wish to react to some of the issues and questions raised by some of the participants in the debate. It is true that other Member States are also infringing Community law, but these infringements are in connection with other aspects of car taxation, such as discrimination in levying registration tax, and there has been no confiscation of cars, which also points to the lack of proportionality.
Another issue raised during the debate was whether it was legal or legitimate that actions are being taken when the European Court of Justice is still discussing the case. We sought the opinion of Parliament’s Legal Service. It had no objections, and the Commission is certainly not in a position to review the view of Parliament’s Legal Service.
To conclude, I want to say that in this case, bearing in mind that the Commission is still receiving complaints on this issue, the Commission has taken all the action possible. A case is pending before the European Court of Justice. Of course this pending case does not in any way prevent a Member State that wishes to comply with Community Law from changing its legislation in the meantime before the decision is issued. We have indeed heard that Greece has drafted or is drawing up legislation, but as we have not received any official signal from the Greek authorities, we cannot give our opinion on it."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples