Portuguese MEP Nuno Melo has questioned the legality of Lisbon’s tourist tax in a series of written questions put to Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission.
Melo asks whether competition rules are being violated and what penalties may be imposed on Portugal if the tourist tax indeed is illegal.
The MEP and vice-president of the CDS-PP wants to know how the European Commission views the tourist tax currently in force in Lisbon which is in danger of spreading to other avaricious councils which have the benefit of airports in their areas.
The so called ‘António Costa Tax,' named after the then Lisbon mayor, is charged to foreign nationals who come to Portugal via Lisbon airport. The tax is not based on their reason for arriving nor is it based on their final destination which may be outside Lisbon.
Melo notes that airports operator ANA, which in Lisbon has offered to pay the tax on a temporary basis, will end up paying around €4 million to Lisbon to the detriment of other municipalities "that may be the actual destination for foreign travellers.”
The Commission, chaired by Jean-Claude Juncker, will decide if the current António Costa tax "does or does not violate the competition and other EU rules, as ANA is financing Lisbon council and not other councils, and what penalties Portugal may be subject to should the tax be considered illegal."
In the letter addressed to the EC president, Melo noted that the Commissioner for Justice, Vera Jourová, found that the tax may violate "EU legislation prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of nationality."
Other councils that have ANA-run airports on their patch have got together to demand ANA also pays a tax per passenger to them.
Faro council is included in this latest example of money for nothing, forgetting as it has the financial benefits derived from the daily influx of tourists to its council area.
Comments
ANA Group is now owned by the French Vinci Airports International, SA which paid the government over a billion for the priviledge...
Neither I, nor other far brighter media people, have yet worked out why a private French infrastructure company should offer to pay €3.5-€4 million in additional taxes when it was under no obligation at all to do so.
There is a deeper story here somewhere just itching to get out...
Ed
Surely there is a scam buried in this - Like surcharging the low cost operators that compete with TAP ? Not just therefore forcing up the price of a cheap seat but also maybe discreetly topping up TAP coffers with the proceeds. To attempt to reduce TAP's mountain of debt....