Debašu stenogramma

Pirmdiena, 2006. gada 13. februāris - Strasbūra

15. Grieķijas varasiestāžu veiktā automašīnu konfiskācija (debates)

  El Presidente. El punto siguiente es el informe de Michael Cashman, en nombre de la Comisión de Peticiones, sobre la confiscación de automóviles por las autoridades griegas (2005/2005(INI)) (A6-0394/2005).

  Michael Cashman (PSE), rapporteur. – Mr President, it is a sadness to have to deal with this issue, which goes to the heart of the acquis communautaire. One could say that we are dealing with a Greek tragedy, but one that affects other EU citizens. On the Committee on Petitions, above all other committees, I believe we have to put aside our national and party political obligations and allegiances in order to deliver natural justice for the citizens who approach us.

We have received numerous petitions from citizens across the EU concerning confiscation of their cars by the Greek authorities. The petitioners have stated that Greece has not properly implemented Directive 83/182/EEC, which concerns conditions for the exemption of certain taxes and excise duties for EU citizens who are normally resident – and that is key – in another Member State. The Greek authorities have also imposed disproportionately high administrative penalties and confiscated petitioners’ property, claiming that those concerned were attempting to evade tax payments. The petitioners have been asked, in some instances, to pay up to ten times the level of customs duties without any due recognition of the actual value of the motor vehicle.

This report has been discussed several times in committee and was adopted by a large majority at the end of November. The petitioners came to present their petition, explaining that, in some cases, they have had to pay fees and fines of up to EUR 45 000 to retrieve their property, after the Greek authorities had impounded and confiscated their vehicles. Both I, as rapporteur, and the chairman of the Committee on Petitions have been in regular contact with the Greek authorities to try and resolve these issues and the cases that are currently before them.

An amendment to the law on the Greek national customs code has been adopted by the Greek Parliament. However, I am informed that this law still gives the Greek Government the power to confiscate vehicles in this situation. It is worth remembering that the petitioners have fulfilled the conditions for exemption, laid down in Directive 83/182/EEC, from, in particular, turnover tax, excise duty and other consumption tax, in respect of temporary imports from another Member State of motor-driven road vehicles. All the petitioners have their normal residence – i.e., the place where they live at least 185 days in each calendar year, because of personal or occupational ties – in a Member State other than Greece; that is, they fulfil the conditions laid down in the directive.

The petitioners were also able to give absolute proof of their normal place of residence by appropriate means, such as identity cards or other valid documents. Furthermore, the imposition of a special administrative penalty and, in particular, of fines set at a flat rate on the basis of the sole criterion of the cubic capacity of the vehicle – with no account being taken of the age of that vehicle – as well as of an increased duty, which, in some cases, can amount to up to ten times the taxes in question, is – not only in my opinion, but in the opinion of the Commission – incompatible with the Community principle of proportionality.

Finally, I hope that the adoption of this report will send a very strong signal to the Greek authorities that they must amend their law so that it is in conformity with the EU directives that I have referred to. Often in the EU, we believe that the acquis communautaire is an à la carte menu from which we can pick and choose what we like. On the contrary: the acquis communautaire and being a member of the EU means that we adopt fully and transpose properly the acquis.

I call on the Commission to tell us what actions it will be taking if the Greek authorities fail to implement the Community directive appropriately.

  László Kovács, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I am pleased to contribute to this debate on the confiscation of cars in Greece. I have read, and now I have heard, Mr Cashman’s report with great interest, and I share all the concerns expressed in it. The issues highlighted in the report are of great importance not only for this specific case but also as regards their impact on the Commission initiatives in the field of car taxation and the fundamental rights of citizens.

Let me say a few words on the case in question. In addition to the numerous petitions received by Parliament, the Commission has received a great number of complaints over recent years about an administrative practice which leads to the confiscation of cars. I do not intend to go deeply into technical details, but, as you know, Community law allows a citizen resident in one Member State – I emphasise ‘resident’ and not ‘national’ – to use his or her car for personal reasons in another Member State without being obliged to register his or her car in that other Member State, provided certain conditions are met. One of these conditions is that the use in the other Member State does not exceed six months in one year.

The application of this directive has been quite problematic in Greece. It has led to an administrative practice which, unfortunately, has disregarded the fact that, in many cases, the normal residence of Greek citizens is in a state other than Greece. This practice penalises mostly Greek nationals who do not live and work in Greece on a permanent basis. The outcome has been, as you can see from the report, the imposition of very high fines resulting in the confiscation of the vehicles concerned, followed sometimes by their sale at auction, even before a national judge could come to a decision on the case. The Commission has also been informed in the past that, in some cases, this has led to prison sentences. For these reasons, the Commission has launched an infringement procedure and brought the case before the European Court of Justice.

Let me stress that it is neither the intention nor to the benefit of the Commission to single out one Member State instead of another, since in one way or another every Member State faces its own difficulties in the path towards the realisation of a real internal market, where fundamental freedoms and the respect of Community law should be guaranteed.

To a large extent, car taxation is not yet harmonised at Community level. Nevertheless, the freedom that Member States enjoy has to be exercised within the framework laid down by the directives applicable in this field and within the general principles of Community law, which represent the fundamentals of the construction of the European Union.

When an individual incurs significant adverse economic consequences if he or she seeks to make use of his of her car for a certain period of time in another Member State, especially when this is allowed by Community law, this represents a risk to the free movement of citizens within the Union.

It is also true that Member States are free to determine the fines that they feel are adequate for an infringement of their laws, assuming that an infringement really occurs. However, they should respect the principle of proportionality. A practice which also disregards the evidence that residence is maintained in a Member State or which imposes high fines without taking into account the good faith of the offender should also be rectified.

The Commission, at this stage, has taken all the necessary steps allowed by the Treaty in order to tackle this situation. However, the Commission welcomes an initiative like this, which allows a further reflection on the impact that vehicle taxation has on the life of EU citizens.

To conclude, let me say that, looking at the broader perspective, the Commission is not only proceeding with its infringement policy but is also taking a proactive approach in the field of legislative proposals. In July 2005, the Commission adopted my proposal on a draft directive on car taxation, which is intended to remove existing tax obstacles to the transfer of passenger cars from one Member State to another and thus improve the functioning of the internal market. One of the objectives of the proposal is the abolition of the registration tax in order to incorporate it into the annual circulation tax over a period of five to ten years. The proposal is currently being discussed in various parliamentary committees and in the Council, and I call for your support on this matter.

I thank you for your attention and look forward to the debate.

  Μαρία Παναγιωτοπούλου-Κασσιώτου, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας PPE-DE. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, η έκθεση Cashman δεν συντάχθηκε για να υπερασπιστεί το ευρωπαϊκό κεκτημένο. Βασίζεται ουσιαστικά σε λιγότερες από μια δωδεκαριά αναφορές υποθέσεων προ του 2004, των οποίων οι συντάκτες ή έχουν συμβιβαστεί με τις ελληνικές αρχές ή βρίσκονται στα δικαστήρια και χρειάζονται υποστήριξη.

Θα αναφερθώ σε τρία θέματα: Ως προς τη σχέση της έκθεσης με τη λειτουργία της Επιτροπής Αναφορών, έχω να παρατηρήσω ότι σκανδαλωδώς, και ενώ ζητήθηκε επισήμως, ποτέ δεν δόθηκε γραπτή γνωμάτευση της Νομικής Υπηρεσίας του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου για το κατά πόσο, ενώ υπάρχει εκκρεμοδικία τόσο στο ΔΕΚ όσο και στα εθνικά δικαστήρια, είναι δυνατό να συνταχθεί έκθεση και να έρθει προς ψήφιση στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο. Δεν υφίστανται διακριτική μεταχείριση οι πολίτες για τις αναφορές των οποίων δεν συντάχθηκε έκθεση ακριβώς λόγω εκκρεμοδικίας;

Ως προς το περιεχόμενο, επελέγησαν αναφορές μόνο ενός κράτους μέλους, της Ελλάδας, ενώ σύγχυση για τη χρήση των ιδιωτικής χρήσεως αυτοκινήτων με ξένες πινακίδες υπάρχει και στα άλλα 24 κράτη μέλη. Γι' αυτό ακριβώς η Επιτροπή έχει προτείνει νέα πρόταση οδηγίας, όπως είπατε, και έχει ήδη οδηγήσει την Ελλάδα στο ΔΕΚ για παράλειψη, βάσει της οδηγίας του '83. Αυτό είχε ως αποτέλεσμα να αλλάξει η νομοθεσία της Ελλάδας, τόσο από τη σοσιαλιστική κυβέρνηση της Ελλάδας του 2001 όσο και πρόσφατα από την κυβέρνηση της Νέας Δημοκρατίας το 2005, πράγμα που η έκθεση αγνοεί. Γιατί λοιπόν συντάχθηκε η έκθεση; Οι συγκεκριμένες ελάχιστες αναφορές που οδήγησαν στη σύνταξή της δεν είναι αντιπροσωπευτικές αλλά οι συντάκτριές τους δίνουν την εντύπωση ότι έχουν προσωπικές σχέσεις εύνοιας με το Κοινοβούλιο. Η Επιτροπή Αναφορών δεν έχει το δικαίωμα να παίξει ρόλο δικαστή και να θεωρήσει αληθή, χωρίς αποδείξεις, στοιχεία όπως εκείνο της μόνιμης κατοικίας, για τα οποία καλούνται να αποφασίσουν τα δικαστήρια.

Η έκθεση ξεκίνησε με υποτιθέμενο αριθμό αναφορών 40 και αποδείχθηκε ότι οι αναφορές είναι ελάχιστες, εξ αυτών δε άλλες έχουν κλείσει με συμβιβασμό και άλλες εκκρεμοδικούν. Καλώ τους συναδέλφους όλων των ομάδων να καταψηφίσουν την έκθεση και να αποδώσουν στην Επιτροπή Αναφορών το κύρος που της αξίζει, σεβόμενοι το κράτος δικαίου και τη μη παρέμβαση στο έργο της δικαιοσύνης.

Εύχομαι, κύριε Επίτροπε, η προταθείσα νέα οδηγία του 2005 να έχει αίσια και ταχεία εξέλιξη.

  Μαρία Ματσούκα, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας PSE. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, ως αντιπρόεδρος της Επιτροπής Αναφορών του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου και δεδομένου ότι συζητούμε την έκθεση του συναδέλφου Cashman για τις κατασχέσεις των αυτοκινήτων στην Ελλάδα, οφείλω να επισημάνω τα ακόλουθα: Πρώτον δεν έχουν τελεσιδικήσει όλες οι υποθέσεις ενώπιον των δικαστικών αρχών, κατά συνέπεια υπάρχει εκκρεμοδικία, και, αν υποθέσουμε ότι έχουμε την αρμοδιότητα αυτή, τότε γιατί δεν έχει εφαρμοστεί και σε άλλες ανάλογες περιπτώσεις. Ενδεικτικά σας αναφέρω το παράδειγμα της αναφοράς των απολυμένων από το εργοστάσιο λιπασμάτων SY.EL.AE, θέμα για το οποίο ζητήθηκε η σύνταξη σχετικής έκθεσης, με την επίκληση όμως εκκρεμοδικίας ουδέποτε συντάχθηκε.

Δεύτερον, η έκθεση αφορά μόνο την Ελλάδα, τη στιγμή που αντίστοιχες αναφορές έχουν κατατεθεί και για άλλα κράτη μέλη της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Από τα παραπάνω συνάγεται αυτονόητα ότι οι Ευρωπαίοι πολίτες υφίστανται διακριτική μεταχείριση από το ίδιο το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο.

Ας δούμε τώρα την έκθεση, τις αναφορές και τα δεδομένα: Η κοινοτική οδηγία 83/182 που αφορά φορολογικές ατέλειες καθορίζει τις προϋποθέσεις υπαγωγής στο καθεστώς της προσωρινής εισαγωγής και μεταφοράς αυτοκινήτων ιδιωτικής χρήσης. Δεν προσδιορίζει τα πρόστιμα που επιβάλλονται, ζήτημα για το οποίο αρμόδια είναι τα κράτη μέλη. Η ελληνική νομοθεσία σχετικά με τα πρόστιμα θεσπίστηκε προκειμένου να καταστείλει το οικονομικό έγκλημα στον τομέα των αυτοκινήτων, σε μια περίοδο που βρισκόταν σε έξαρση. Εξάλλου τα πρόστιμα δεν αφορούσαν μόνο ιδιώτες αλλά εμπόρους και οργανωμένες ομάδες που αποδεδειγμένα στόχευαν στη φοροδιαφυγή.

Αναφορικά με τη μη εφαρμογή της αρχής της αναλογικότητας, που επικαλείται η έκθεση για επιβολή προστίμων με μόνο κριτήριο τον κυβισμό των οχημάτων, το δικαστήριο σημειώνει ότι η θέσπιση τέτοιων μέτρων καθίσταται αναγκαία εκ των επιταγών της καταστολής και της πρόληψης. Η ελληνική νομοθεσία έχει ήδη βελτιωθεί με το νόμο 2960/2001, καταργώντας την ποινή της λαθρεμπορίας και την κατάσχεση των οχημάτων, προβλέποντας μόνο την προσωρινή δέσμευση μέχρι την καταβολή του επιβαλλόμενου προστίμου για λόγους διασφάλισης του ελληνικού δημοσίου. Ως εκ τούτου εκδόθηκαν απαλλακτικές δικαστικές αποφάσεις ως προς το ποινικό μέρος και όχι ως προς τα πρόστιμα.

Αναφορικά με τα πρόστιμα, κατατέθηκε σχέδιο νόμου στην Ελληνική Βουλή στις 22.12.2005, το οποίο προβλέπει τη μείωση καθώς και την εφαρμογή προσωρινής δέσμευσης μόνο σε εξαιρετικές περιπτώσεις. Είναι νομίζω σαφές ότι είμαστε όλοι υπέρμαχοι της εφαρμογής του κοινοτικού δικαίου, αναγνωρίζοντας όμως παράλληλα τις κρίσιμες ιδιαιτερότητες των χωρών μελών.

  David Hammerstein Mintz, en nombre del Grupo Verts/ALE. – Señor Presidente, ante todo, quisiera agradecer al señor Cashman su informe, muy claro, conciso y certero.

Por el tono del debate parece que algunas personas no entienden muy bien qué es la Comisión de Peticiones; nosotros respondemos a las quejas, a las preocupaciones de los ciudadanos, de cualquier país. Nosotros no tratamos un asunto interno de un país, todo lo contrario: tratamos los asuntos de ciudadanos europeos cuyos derechos han sido vulnerados.

Eso es lo que hace la Comisión de Peticiones. No somos ni juez ni parte. En la Comisión de Peticiones no decidimos nada. Somos mediadores. Respondemos a la ciudadanía europea.

En este caso, creo que la mayoría de los miembros de la Comisión de Peticiones opina que se han vulnerado derechos y directivas y que la práctica de las autoridades griegas de confiscar los coches, la práctica de imponer unas multas astronómicas, es completamente inaceptable.

Hay una vulneración manifiesta de la Directiva 83/182, y eso afecta a toda Europa. Una Administración no debe financiarse ni actuar de forma tan poco clara e injusta respecto a sus ciudadanos y, en definitiva, respecto a todos los europeos que quieren visitar ese país tan precioso, tan maravilloso, con tanta historia, que es Grecia. Quisiéramos poder visitar Grecia sin el miedo de que nos quiten el coche, o de las cosas que ocurren allí.

Por último, quisiera agradecer el trabajo de mediación y de comunicación ejemplar, excelente, que ha realizado el equipo técnico de la Comisión, un trabajo profesional y, yo creo, muy eficaz. Espero que cuanto antes las autoridades griegas intervengan para cambiar la práctica tan criticable que hoy tratamos.

  Alessandro Battilocchio (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, in qualità di membro della commissione per le petizioni ho seguito da vicino la vicenda e ho incontrato alcuni dei firmatari della petizione, tra cui il sig. Louloudakis, autore della causa contro la Repubblica greca, che è giunta dinanzi alla Corte di giustizia. Sono rimasto seriamente colpito dalla gravità del caso.

In linea con il relatore Cashman, che ringrazio per l'ottimo ed equilibrato lavoro svolto, ritengo infatti intollerabile quanto accaduto in un'Unione europea che, proprio in questi mesi e in questi giorni, sta cercando di completare il mercato unico, attraverso la libera circolazione delle merci, delle persone e dei servizi economici.

E' inaccettabile che cittadini europei in possesso di documenti in regola, che si trovano temporaneamente in uno Stato membro per motivi di turismo o di lavoro, siano trattati come criminali e siano accusati di reati per i quali non esistono neppure i presupposti.

I firmatari della petizione si sono visti confiscare beni di cui erano regolarmente proprietari e infliggere multe di diverse centinaia di migliaia di euro che, in alcuni casi, hanno minato in modo serissimo la stabilità economica, fisica e morale delle famiglie colpite.

Per mezzo di questa Istituzione chiedo quindi che sia prestata una maggiore attenzione al rispetto del diritto comunitario e dei suoi principi generali di libertà e di proporzionalità, attraverso un severo controllo delle procedure doganali. Chiedo inoltre che le persone colpite siano debitamente compensate per tutti i danni materiali e morali finora subiti ingiustamente. Infine, chiedo di vegliare affinché il potere di controllo, che è legittimo in ogni paese, non sfoci in un più o meno deliberato abuso.

  László Kovács, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I have listened to the debate attentively and I wish to comment on a few aspects.

It is true that since the beginning of the infringement procedure, the situation has improved in the Member State concerned. I would like to recall that until a few years ago the fines imposed were those applying to infringement of the customs legislation and also that smuggling was one of the crimes envisaged by the national law. This, fortunately, is no longer the case and the Commission wants to express its satisfaction at the progress made. However, further steps still have to be taken to align national practice with Community law.

Let me clarify one important point: the high registration taxes on vehicles that are applied in some Member States on the occasion of a permanent transfer of residence are a completely different issue from the one dealt with in Mr Cashman’s report.

On the one hand, the determination of the amount of registration tax due when a person registers a car in one state depends on the tax policy of the Member State concerned. European law – particularly the prohibition of discrimination against imported goods in favour of domestic goods – may have a bearing with respect to how the tax is calculated, especially with respect to the value attributed to second-hand cars. However, Community law does not prevent a Member State from applying a high registration tax on vehicles.

On the other hand, Mr Cashman’s report deals with the application of an existing directive, which allows a temporary use of a vehicle in another Member State without the obligation to re-register it. I would add that this is an issue of concrete application of Community law by national authorities. The report concerns, inter alia, the interpretation of the concept of ‘normal residence’ by the national authorities, which runs counter to the principles enshrined in the directive itself.

In fact, the directive is able to function properly only if a person who resides in one Member State is allowed to use his vehicle in the territory of a Member State other than that where the normal residence is located. If evidence of residence in the first state is not accepted or is rendered difficult by the second state, the directive has no chance of being applied correctly. I would also remind you that the issue concerns the freedom to provide and receive services in another Member State. This is the core point of the case being discussed now.

Before concluding, I wish to react to some of the issues and questions raised by some of the participants in the debate. It is true that other Member States are also infringing Community law, but these infringements are in connection with other aspects of car taxation, such as discrimination in levying registration tax, and there has been no confiscation of cars, which also points to the lack of proportionality.

Another issue raised during the debate was whether it was legal or legitimate that actions are being taken when the European Court of Justice is still discussing the case. We sought the opinion of Parliament’s Legal Service. It had no objections, and the Commission is certainly not in a position to review the view of Parliament’s Legal Service.

To conclude, I want to say that in this case, bearing in mind that the Commission is still receiving complaints on this issue, the Commission has taken all the action possible. A case is pending before the European Court of Justice. Of course this pending case does not in any way prevent a Member State that wishes to comply with Community Law from changing its legislation in the meantime before the decision is issued. We have indeed heard that Greece has drafted or is drawing up legislation, but as we have not received any official signal from the Greek authorities, we cannot give our opinion on it.

The Commission very much welcomes the encouraging signals that it has received from the Greek authorities during the debates in Parliament and would also welcome this being consolidated by the adoption of the new law.

Thank you very much for your attention.

  Michael Cashman (PSE), rapporteur. – Mr President, there was a suggestion, interestingly from my own side of the House, that we were targeting Greece unfairly. Let me just say that, in the Committee on Petitions, we can only react to and deal with petitions that we have received and we have received no petitions from any other Member State regarding the confiscation of vehicles. As Commissioner Kovács quite rightly said, where there are problems, vehicles have not been confiscated. I therefore say to Members of the House that they should look at the title of this report. Quite clearly Greece is not in compliance with this directive. There are clear violations, otherwise the infringement process would not have begun.

When we sign up to laws, we have to implement them properly. Whether the case is before the Court or not, given that we are co-legislator it would be staggering if the European Parliament did not have an opinion on whether a Member State is compliant.

Finally, the resolution of this problem quite clearly lies with the Greek authorities. They can resolve it swiftly or they can leave it to the European Court of Justice.

  Μαρία Παναγιωτοπούλου-Κασσιώτου (PPE-DE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, θέλω να σας ρωτήσω αν θα έχουμε δευτερολογία, επειδή δώσατε τον λόγο στον κύριο Cashman. Αν είναι έτσι, να μιλήσουμε και εμείς. Να ρωτήσουμε τον Επίτροπο γιατί έχει αυτή την αρνητική συμπεριφορά.

  László Kovács, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I do not think my attitude was negative: it was objective, based on the facts made available to us and on the complaints we have received from Greek citizens who have their residence in a country other than Greece. It related to the lack of proportionality expressed by the confiscation of cars and the very high fines. These were the basic points of the infringement procedures, which we had to launch because this is a violation of Community law, and the Commission is ex officio Guardian of the Treaties.

  El Presidente. Se cierra el debate.

La votación tendrá lugar el martes a las 12.00 horas.