WRITTEN QUESTION P-0063/00 by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission. Reduction of VAT on repairs to historic buildings.
3. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/167 was that British Airways had reduced the basic commission paid to travel agents in the United Kingdom, and introduced a new scheme by which travel agents could earn extra commission by meeting certain targets. The decision found that these supplementary commission schemes were abuses of British Airwaysí dominant position on the United Kingdom market for travel agents services. These commission schemes secured the loyalty of travel agents rather than being given in return for extra services from the travel agents or cost savings realised by British Airways. Several complaints have been received of similar behaviour by other Community airlines. The Commission is taking all measures necessary to ensure that the principles in the British Airways decision are applied to other Community airlines in equivalent situations. However the Commission does not currently have evidence that airlines have colluded to lower their basic commissions simultaneously. Also it does not have any indication that the majority of travel agents are introducing the átransaction levyí described in a concerted fashion. As a result it is not clear that the áincrease in air faresí described is taking place. The Commissionís efforts have been focussed on the new supplementary commission schemes introduced by some airlines which allow travel agents to compensate for the reduction in basic commission. The Commission has no view on the relative merits of direct purchases of air tickets by consumers and purchase through travel agents. The Commission shares the Honourable Memberís concern that the relationship between some airlines and travel agents could have serious negative effects on other airlines, travel agents and ultimately on consumers. Current actions are designed to ensure that the relevant principles of European law are respected, protecting against these negative effects. (1) Commission Decision 1999/1973/EC British Airways, not yet published. (2000/C 280 E/190) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0063/00 by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission (18 January 2000) Subject: Reduction of VAT on repairs to historic buildings Could the Commission clarify whether the Directive 1999/85/EC (1), providing for an experimental reduced rate of VAT for selected labour-intensive services, has in any way affected the Commissionís position regarding the reduction of VAT on repairs to historic buildings? Could the Commission also clarify the position regarding the reduction of VAT on repairs to historic buildings? (1) OJ L 277, 28. 10. 1999, p. 34. Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (17 February 2000) In principle, current Community legislation does not allow Member States to apply reduced rates of VAT to services consisting of repairs to historic buildings as such. Council Directive 1999/85/EC of 22 October 1999 amending Directive 77/388/EEC as regards the possibility of applying on an experimental basis a reduced VAT rate on labour-intensive services (1) allows Member States that have submitted an appropriate request to apply reduced rates to labour-intensive services on an experimental basis from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2002, on condition, of course, C 280 E/168 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3. 10. 2000 that they satisfy the conditions laid down ü in particular that they are provided direct to final consumers and are covered by the list of eligible sectors. The Council changed the Commissionís proposal (2) by introducing an exhaustive list which in the building sector covers only services consisting of the renovation and repairing of private dwellings, excluding materials which form a significant part of the value of the service supplied. Following the Councilís decision, work to repair historic buildings will qualify for VAT reductions, but only where the buildings contain private dwellings and the Member State has made a request. The Member States that have made requests are Belgium, Spain (for masonry work only), France, Italy, the Netherlands (for painting and plastering only), Portugal and the United Kingdom (for the Isle of Man only). (1) OJ C 102, 13. 4. 1999. (2) COM(99) 705 final. (2000/C 280 E/191) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0064/00 by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission (18 January 2000) Subject: Definition of fundamental change in pharmaceutical products Commission Regulation (EC) No 541/95 (1) states that certain changes to the terms of a pharmaceutical product marketing authorisation are fundamental and as such require that a new, complete scientific evaluation be conducted (such as in the case of replacement of the active substance by a different salt/ester. Can the Commission confirm that: 1. The rationale for defining fundamental changes and requiring them to be the subject of new applications rather than variation applications was that special scrutiny of the research data relating to that change would be required by the competent authorities before it could properly be concluded that the public health criteria of quality, safety and efficacy were still met for the production in question, and In principle the same cautious approach should apply if the same fundamental differences exist 2. between two products where it is claimed that one is a generic copy of the other and that that copy can be authorised on the basis of the research data generated for the first product? (1) OJ L 55, 11. 3. 1995, p. 7. Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (11 February 2000) Commission Regulation (EC) No 541/95 of 10 March 1995 concerning the examination of variations to the terms of a marketing authorisation granted by a competent authority of a Member State, and Commission Regulation (EC) No 542/95 of 10 March 1995 concerning the examination of variations to the terms of a marketing authorisation falling within the scope of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/ 93 (1), as amended (2), lay down rules governing the examination of variations to a marketing authorisation granted for a medicinal product by either of the following Community procedures: the mutual recognition procedure or the centralised procedure. The Regulations provide for three types of variation to the terms of a marketing authorisation, depending on their importance and the time allowed for their assessment: minor variations (type I), listed in Annex I, major variations (type II) and changes which fundamentally alter the terms of the authorisation. The latter