91997E4213

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4213/97 by Bryan Cassidy (PPE) to the Commission (21 January 1998)

Subject: Judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on 26 October 1996 in the case of Elida Gibbs Limited (Case C-317/94)

This ECJ judgment appears to be frustrated by its non-application in Germany and its partial application in France and Greece.

Where wide-ranging changes to the VAT, which may potentially distort competition between businesses, are contemplated by the European Commission, is it unusual to exclude economic operators entirely from the consultation process?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-4213/97 and E-4214/97 given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (6 April 1998)

As indicated in the joint reply to the Honourable Member's Written Questions E-4208/97 to 4211/97 ((OJ C 223, 17.7.1998, p. 72. )), the Commission drew the necessary conclusions from the Elida Gibbs judgment of 24 October 1996 (Case C-317/94), writing to all the Member States and deciding to initiate or continue several proceedings under Article 169 of the Treaty, including against the Member States referred to by the Honourable Member.

The Commission would point out that, under the Treaty, the Court of Justice is competent to interpret existing Community law and that it is not for the Commission, much less its officials, to ignore its judgments. However, in so far as some Member States, as in the case in point, have difficulty in applying a judgment, the Commission cannot prevent such difficulties being raised in ad hoc committees. This is how this matter came to be discussed in the VAT Committee.

At this point in time, no proposal on the subject mentioned by the Honourable Member is being prepared by the Commission. It goes without saying that, if an initiative were to be taken, those involved in business would be consulted as always, principally by means of the respective opinions of Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee and through regular contacts with those business interests.