92000E3615

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3615/00

by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: ECJ judgment in Case C-205/98 tolls levied on goods vehicles using the Brenner motorway

The European Court of Justice ruled on 26 September 2000 that the Federal Republic of Austria had infringed European Treaty provisions prohibiting discrimination by reason of its introduction or structuring of tolls on goods vehicles using the Brenner motorway.

The Commission is asked:

1. The decision by the European Court of Justice applies exclusively to goods transport. To what extent does this judgment also have implications for bus traffic using the Brenner motorway and for tolls levied on bus traffic?

2. Subsequent to the most recent increase in charges for bus traffic using the Brenner motorway, a price adjustment has been applied as at 1 December 2000. The effect is to raise the price of the 10-day and monthly toll discs by 16,27 %, while the annual toll disc will increase by 32,56 %. Does the European Commission consider those increases, and the discrepancies in the percentage increase, as appropriate?

3. Does the Commission consider this action as also amounting to an infringement of the ban on discrimination?

4. What action will the European Commission take where necessary to counteract infringements of the ban on discrimination?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2001)

1. The decision by the Court of Justice applies exclusively to goods transport and has no implications for bus traffic using the Brenner motorway and for tolls levied on bus traffic.

2. and 3. While value added tax on tolls has to comply with the rules of the Sixth VAT Directive of the Council 77/388/EEC such as interpreted by the Court in several recent judgements(1), there is no Community legislation aimed at harmonising tolls on buses as such. These tools therefore need only respect the basic principles of the EC Treaty, amongst which is the overall requirement of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality. The information supplied by the Honourable Member does not indicate the presence of any such discrimination. In

addition, the discrepancies in the percentage increase mentioned between the 10-day and monthly toll discs on one hand and the annual toll disc on the other do not raise any suspicion of indirect discrimination either. The Commission has therefore no reason or legal basis for investigating further the increases or the discrepancies in the percentage increase.

4. Whenever the Commission considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under the EC Treaty it follows the procedure defined in the EC Treaty itself (Articles 226 and 228 (ex Articles 169 and 171)) for this purpose.

(1) Judgements of 12.9.2000, cases C-276/97 and four others, Commission v. France and four other Member States and judgement of 18.1.2001, case C-83/99, Commission v. Spain (not yet published in the ECR).