WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2666/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Excise duties on alcoholic beverages
Date: 1996-10-15
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament
Subjects: alcoholic beverage, approximation of laws, excise duty, illicit trade, restriction on competition, tax harmonisation













EUR-Lex - 91996E2666 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2666

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2666/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Excise duties on alcoholic beverages  


Official Journal C 083 , 14/03/1997 P. 0045 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2666/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (15 October 1996)Subject: Excise duties on alcoholic beveragesThe different rates of excise duty applied by the various Member States have led to increased smuggling, fraud, illegal production and undeclared consumption.The rate of excise duty levied on alcoholic beverages is five times higher than the minimum laid down in the European Directive (ECU 550 per hectolitre of pure alcohol) in Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom. Wine is zero-rated in Italy, Germany, Greece, Spain, Luxembourg, Austria and Portugal, while the rate of excise duty levied on beer varies from 1% in Spain to 15% in Finland (where the excise duty is 1.87 ECU per hectolitre of alcohol of finished product).As it is obvious that this situation cannot continue, would the Commission take action to harmonize excise duties by fulfilling its obligation to lay down revised minimum rates and establish maximum rates that may not be exceeded?Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (3 December 1996)In its 1985 white paper ((COM(85) 310. )), the Commission stressed the need, in a Europe without frontiers, for a closer approximation of excise duty rates, and in 1987 it proposed common rates of excise duty for alcoholic drinks.When both the Parliament and the Council rejected this approach, the Commission proposed minimum rates of excise duty for all products, together with higher target rates to which all Member States were to move over time. The difference between the two rates was the maximum which, in the Commission's opinion, could be permitted before unacceptable distortion of competition or deflection of trade or revenue arose.In adopting those proposals in time for the removal of fiscal frontiers on 1 January 1993, the Council removed all mention of target rates from their texts, and severely reduced the levels of the minimum rates which had been proposed (in the case of wine to zero).Since that date the Commission has produced its first review ((COM(95) 285 final. )) of the operation of the existing minimum rates. For the reasons set out in that review, it made no proposal to alter them, but instead undertook a wide-ranging consultation process. That approach was generally well received by both Parliament and Council, and for its part, Parliament contributed to the consultation process by adopting an opinion on the Commission's report.The Commission is now carrying out its second review of minimum rates. This will take account of the background outlined in the Honourable Member's question, and will be presented - together with any proposals - to Parliament and Council in the first quarter of 1997. It will be recognised that no change in the existing minimum rates can be adopted without the unanimous agreement of Council.