POX: Objections to the rational use of the hotel by-products charge

on the rational use of the end of by-products paid to the local government is expressed by the Panhellenic Federation of Hotels (POX), in a letter to the Minister of Interior, Theodoros Livianos, stressing, inter alia, that it has been created that any rational planning is absent, POX President Giannis Hatzis adds: “As long as we do not continue to operate this way, we will still see our money thrown into a barrel without a bottom”. The basis for this finding was the promoted action of the competent ministry, as stated in the letter, to give “flexibility to the Government so that municipal councils would set from 0.5% to 2% the end of hotel by-products depending on the geographical area, settlement or activity category (e.g. 2% in residence and 0.5% in focus)”. Mr Hatzis notes that ultimately, on the basis of the provision put forward for consultation, the increase in the end of residence by-products did not reach 300%, but was “limited” to 50% – this fee may be increased to 0.75%. Also, from the reading of the proposed provision it appears that the end of residence by-products has nothing to do with the charge originally enacted, as this can now be made available for the payment of any costs incurred by TTAs. Following these, POX points out: ‘If the subsistence charge is to be used to improve the infrastructure and image of destinations (and this should be expressly provided for in the relevant provision) we are opposed to any increase in this. We consider that if the income that will come from the application of the residence charge by way of short-term rental (under the self-evident condition that it is guaranteed and this is the responsibility of the state that they will respond to the actual income of this activity) the total amount is more than sufficient to meet the specific needs, much more so since it has been announced, for the same purpose it will be used part of the revenue from the climate crisis resistance fee. However, if, as is apparent from the text of the provision, the income from the subsistence charge is intended to cover all costs incurred by municipalities, in our view it should be abolished, since it does not only concern the tourist accommodation sector and should therefore not only burden it and be replaced by another charge, which will concern all the undertakings operating in each municipality.’