WRITTEN QUESTION E-2277/99 by Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Purchase of holiday homes by foreign nationals.
C 303 E/42 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 24. 10. 2000 There are no plans to set up a supervisory authority at European level. However, the European Union supports Member Statesí actions by specific measures to improve judicial cooperation in this area. In particular, there is a draft joint action to combat child pornography on the Internet, on which the Council Presidency decided to consult the European Parliament before the Amsterdam Treaty entered into force and which will be transformed into a decision on which the Council will consult the European Parliament in accordance with Article 39 of the Treaty on European Union. The Honourable Member will also note that the proposal for a Directive on certain aspects of electronic commerce on the international market contains provisions limiting the responsibility of access providers. Lastly, the Council has adopted a joint position of the Member States to be defended in negotiations in the Council of Europe on a Convention on cybercrime, which also covers measures against criminal offences committed via the Internet. With the same goal in mind, on 25 January 1999 under Decision 276/1999/EC the European Parliament and the Council adopted a multiannual Community action plan on promoting safer use of the Internet by combating illegal and harmful content on global networks. The action plan covers the period 1 January 1999 to 31 December 2002; EUR 25 million has been allocated to its implementation. (1) Article 2 of the Council Act of 26 July 1995 drawing up the Convention based on Article K. 3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the establishment of a European Police Office (OJ C 316, 27. 11. 1995, p. 5). (2) Article 1 of the Council Decision of 3 December 1998 supplementing the definition of the form of crime átraffic in human beingsí in the Annex to the Europol Convention (OJ C 26, 30. 1. 1999, p. 21). (2000/C 303 E/038) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2277/99 by Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (13 December 1999) Subject: Purchase of holiday homes by foreign nationals Most countries used to restrict foreign nationals to purchase property. Sweden has a derogation from the current rules until the end of the year, but all parties now agree that such restrictions should be scrapped. the right of A potential problem that would eventually have to be resolved is that house prices in attractive areas could skyrocket to such an extent that locals find themselves priced out of the property market. In the long run, this could mean that communities wither away and come to life only during the summer months. Many coastal municipalities in particular are deeply concerned about such trends. interests are According to an ECJ judgment last summer, acceptable provided that certain conditions are met. They must not, for instance, be discriminatory or more stringent than is required to achieve their objectives. laws designed to protect or promote local What, in the Commissionís view, are acceptable regional or local factors which Member States may take into account, and what must the objective of such laws be? Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (4 February 2000) The EC Treaty stipulates, in Article 56 (ex Article 73b), that á all restrictions on the movement of capital between Member States and between Member States and third countries shall be prohibitedí. This rule is applicable to the acquisition of real estate by non-residents, since such acquisition is a capital movement. The EC Treaty provides for some exceptions to this general rule. Of relevance in the present context is Article 58 (ex Article 73d) of the EC Treaty which allows Member States áto take measures which are that Article also stipulates that such justified on grounds of public policy or public securityí. But 24. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 303 E/43 measures á shall not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on the free movement of capital í. Moreover, judgements of the Court of justice (e. g. Case 17/92) indicate that economic grounds as such are not acceptable grounds for an exception. The mere fact that the opening of borders for capital movements puts an upward pressure on prices does not justify an exception from the freedom of such movements. However, if a large demand for secondary homes in a certain, but limited, area leads to undesirable social consequences such as that described by the Honourable Member, certain restrictions on the acquisition of second homes may be justified on grounds mentioned in the EC Treaty. Such restrictions could be accomplished by town and country planning guidelines, which may restrict the building of second homes and the use of existing buildings as second homes in certain limited areas, reserving those areas in a municipality or region to other land uses. The applicability of such measures was confirmed in a joint declaration on secondary residences (Declaration no. 5 in the Treaty of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden), which states that ánothing in the íacquis communautaireá prevents individual Member States from taking national, regional or local measures regarding secondary residences, provided that they are necessary for land-use planning and environmental protection and apply without direct or indirect discrimination between nationals of the Member States í. That declaration recalls that discrimination vis-à-vis non-residents, in particular Community nationals, must be avoided when applying such planning guidelines. The recent Court judgement mentioned by the Honourable Member (Konle vs. Austria of June 1999) provides further interpretation of this condition, as well as recalling the need to observe proportionality á to the extent that a Member State can justify its requirement of prior authorisation by relying on a town and country planning objective such as maintaining in the general interest, a permanent population and an economic activity independent of the tourist sector in certain regions, the restrictive measure inherent in such a requirement can be accepted only if it is not applied in a discriminatory manner and if the same result cannot be achieved by other less restrictive proceduresí (Case C-302/97). The Commissionís answer to the Honourable Memberís question is therefore that a Member State may apply town and country guidelines which include a restriction on the acquisition of second homes in certain limited areas, if there is a clear risk of social disruption. Such a restriction must be clearly non- discriminatory, that is, it must also apply to the residents or nationals of the Member State in question. The regime implementing the restriction shall not constitute a disguised (indirect) discrimination. Furthermore, the regime must be proportional to the aim of the restriction. Following the Court of justiceís judgement in Konle vs. Austria, a prior authorisation scheme should not be used, since there exist other, preferable, implementation schemes, such as, for instance a declaration procedure. Furthermore, a restriction may not be applied if there exist other, preferable, means to accomplish the purpose of safeguarding the residential needs of for instance, by subsidised rents or municipal housing projects. inhabitants of modest financial means, local (2000/C 303 E/039) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2286/99 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (24 November 1999) Subject: Amendment to the EU chocolate directive In late October the Council adopted an amendment to the EU chocolate directive which results in a lowering of the cocoa standard for chocolate. Once the amended directive enters into force, chocolate producers will be able to use cheaper raw materials which are cocoa substitutes. In eight of the fifteen EU Member States the term áchocolateí is currently limited to products with 25 % cocoa components, 14 % milk and no vegetable fat. This amendment to the cocoa directive will inflict serious social and economic damage on the cocoa- producing countries and the cocoa farmers. Moreover, the amended directive is clearly at variance with the international cocoa agreement of 1995 in which all cocoa-importing countries, including the fifteen Member States of the EU, undertook to encourage consumption of cocoa