WRITTEN QUESTION P-1725/01

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 June 2001)

Subject: Structure of, and timescale for, a European energy tax on the basis of enhanced co-operation

At Parliament's hearing of the then Commissioner-designate Mr Bolkestein, I asked him on behalf of the Environment Committee whether in view of Spain's veto of the introduction of an energy/CO2 tax throughout the EU he was prepared to use the enhanced co-operation clause in the Treaty. He replied that he needed a year in order to be able to give an answer. It is now over a year and a half on, and we have an IGC behind us. Spain remains as strongly opposed as ever, and no decision was taken at Nice to move from a requirement for unanimity in the area of taxation of energy to deciding by a qualified majority.

In order to find a way out of this impasse, the Swedish Presidency proposed that agreement first be reached on the structure of the energy tax. And the Commission recently indicated that it was now seriously considering using the enhanced co-operation instrument in the area of energy taxation (COM(2001) 260). Member States hope to take the first steps in that direction at the Ecofin Council meeting on 5 June.

Does the Commission intend to ensure that this new structure does not include any exceptions for large and intensive energy users that go further than those already provided for in its 1997 proposal?

When does the Commission intend to take steps to propose a European energy/CO2 tax on the basis of the enhanced co-operation clause?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2001)

The Commission is pursuing its efforts to get the Council to adopt a Directive to restructure the taxation of energy products. As recently reiterated in the communication entitled A Sustainable Europe for a Better World: A European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development(1), a directive on energy taxation would need to be adopted by 2002 if for no other reason than to limit the effects of climate change. Such a directive is also still needed to reduce distortions in competition due to the very major divergences between the tax rates and bases which the different Member States apply to energy products. The Commission therefore supported the Swedish Presidency's efforts to relaunch the discussion of energy taxes in the Council.

The Swedish Presidency wanted to begin by examining the practical aspects of the energy tax structure. One of the specific questions raised was that of excise duty exemptions or reductions granted to large-scale consumers of energy, but there were also others such as the arrangements for taxing electricity. All Member States encouraged this approach. However, the Commission insisted that any discussion of the tax structure should be accompanied by a reopening of the debate on future levels of excise duty. Several Member States share this view. These discussions should continue under the Belgian Presidency.

As the communication Tax policy in the European Union Priorities for the years ahead(2) states, the option introduced by the Amsterdam Treaty which is designed to allow closer co-operation between sub-groups of like-minded Member States could also be considered in certain cases. Where indirect taxation is concerned the possibility of closer co-operation might be the way forward for environment and energy taxes.

The Commission is still working on the details of various complex economic and legal aspects of closer co-operation. This approach must not be allowed to undermine the single market, become a trade barrier or result in trade discrimination, falsify the conditions of competition or affect the jurisdictions, rights and obligations of Member States that do not participate.

(1) COM(2001) 264 final.

(2) COM(2001) 260 final.