This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 92001E003620
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3620/01 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission. Individual rights in the EU.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3620/01 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission. Individual rights in the EU.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3620/01 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission. Individual rights in the EU.
Dz.U. C 301E z 5.12.2002, pp. 14–15
(ES, DA, DE, EL, EN, FR, IT, NL, PT, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 08/01/2002; Data przesłania
- Date of dispatch:
- 08/01/2002
- Date of reply:
- 08/02/2002; Odpowiedź pisemna
- Author:
- Parlament Europejski, Not available
- Form:
- Pisemne zapytanie
- Addressee:
- Komisja Europejska
- Parliamentary term:
- piąta kadencja
- Political group:
- Grupa Europejskiej Liberalno-Demokratycznej Partii Reform
- Link
- Link
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Link
- EUROVOC descriptor:
92001E3620
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3620/01 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission. Individual rights in the EU.
Official Journal 301 E , 05/12/2002 P. 0014 - 0015
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3620/01 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission (8 January 2002) Subject: Individual rights in the EU What is the Commission's current view of the operation of double taxation on a single income in EU Member States (as, for example, operated between Sweden and the United Kingdom)? In the case of residence in a Member State other than the country of origin, may an individual make a free choice as to the country in which that individual pays his or her taxes? If not, is this not contrary to the spirit of the founding principles of the European Union which aim to enable EU citizens to seek employment and a home wherever they will in the EU? Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (8 February 2002) In the absence of unifying or harmonising measures in the Community, direct taxation falls essentially within the competence of Member States, subject always to their obligations under the EC Treaty. They have concluded conventions with a view to avoiding double taxation, and in so doing have allocated tax jurisdiction between themselves. The legitimacy of that practice has been recognised by the Court of Justice (Case C-336/96 Gilly [1998] ECR 2793; see in particular paragraph 30). It follows that an individual having moved residence to another Member State does not have the choice in which Member State to pay his or her taxes. Nor can this lack of choice be considered contrary to the founding principles of the Union. A citizen should not, however, incur any double taxation by virtue of being subject to the tax systems of more than one Member State. It may be considered that the conclusion of bilateral conventions is an effective method of avoiding double taxation, since it makes it possible to take into account the interaction of the taxation systems of the Member States concerned. Nevertheless, as the Commission recognised in its Communication Towards an Internal Market without tax obstacles of 23 October 2001(1), the current tax treaties of Member States need to be improved in order to comply better with the principles of the Internal Market enshrined in the EC Treaty. This issue is being examined further by the Commission as part of the follow-up to that Communication. (1) COM(2001) 582 final.
