WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2550/97 by Ria OOMEN-RUIJTEN , Karla PEIJS to the Commission. Increase in excise duties on 1 July 1997
Date: 1997-07-24
Institutions: European Parliament, OOMEN-RUIJTEN, PEIJS
Subjects: Netherlands, application of EU law, competence of the Member States, economic consequence, excise duty, frontier region, mineral oil, motor fuel, single market, tax harmonisation













EUR-Lex - 91997E2550 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E2550

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2550/97 by Ria OOMEN-RUIJTEN , Karla PEIJS to the Commission. Increase in excise duties on 1 July 1997  


Official Journal C 134 , 30/04/1998 P. 0011 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2550/97 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE) and Karla Peijs (PPE) to the Commission (24 July 1997)Subject: Increase in excise duties on 1 July 19971. Is the Commission aware of the problems being experienced by Dutch filling stations in areas bordering Germany and Belgium because of the increase in excise duties on diesel and petrol on 1 July 1997?2. How does the Dutch increase in excise duty on unleaded petrol and diesel fit in with the Commission's intention of achieving greater harmonization within the Internal Market?3. Can the Commission indicate (see the answer given by Mr Monti on 9 October 1996 to written question P-2430/96 ((OJ C 60, 26.2.1997, p. 78. ))) whether the increase in duty in frontier areas will also have an effect on cross-border shopping? To what extent has there been consultation with the Dutch government in order to point out that the increase in duty will have an adverse effect not only on filling stations, but also on shopkeepers in the border areas?4. Can the Commission say to what extent the Dutch measure fails to achieve its objective, in that there will be no additional revenue for the government because motorists in the border areas will combine the advantages of a reduction in car owner's tax with buying petrol across the border, and hence the only likely result is a loss of jobs at filling stations and shops in the border areas?5. To what extent does the Dutch decision effect the draft action plan for the Internal Market as submitted by the Commission to the Amsterdam Council?6. Does the Commission feel that this unilateral increase by a Member State, where rates are already above average, will bring closer the objective of a European energy tax and harmonization in accordance with the action plan for the Internal Market?7. Has the Dutch government requested special treatment under the Internal Market programme for this increase in duty and, if so, what decision has been taken or what action is intended?Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (17 October 1997)1. The Commission is not aware of any difficulties being experienced by Dutch filling stations over and above those encountered by any such enterprise situated in a border area when lower excise duty rates are applied in neighbouring Member States.2. The Commission has for many years advocated greater harmonisation of excise duties but any such harmonisation requires the unanimous agreement of all Member States. This has not yet been forthcoming and Member States are free to set excise duty rates at whatever level they wish, subject to the provisions concerning minimum rates in Council Directive 92/81/EEC on the harmonization of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils ((OJ L 316, 31.10.1992. )). The effect on cross border shopping will be one of the factors that Member States are likely to take into account when setting levels of taxation.3. It is not possible for the Commission to estimate the effect of any variation in rates of excise duty between Member States as this will depend on a number of variable factors. These include the size of any differential, geographical circumstances and whether other goods are also cheaper - thus making a cross border visit more attractive. The only discussion which has taken place between the Commission and the Dutch authorities concerning the increase in duty rates was that necessary to gain Council approval under the terms of Article 8(4) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC. This was received on 30 June 1997 ((Council Decision 97/425/EC. OJ L 182, 10.7.1997. )).4. Apart from checking that the Dutch authorities have complied with Community law in respect of the derogation, it is not for the Commission to say whether the measure has achieved its objective. This is a matter that only the Dutch authorities can judge.5. The Commission proposal for a Council directive restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products ((OJ C 139, 6.4.1997. )) (which is included in the Commission's action plan for the internal market) does not make any provision for maximum rates of duty and would allow Member States to introduce differential rates without authorisation. As such, therefore, this decision does not affect the Commission draft action plan.6. The Commission feels that full harmonisation is a long term target and that the interests of the Community in the shorter term will be best served by a combination of agreed minimum rates which are subject to regular increases and a wider tax base along the lines it has put forward in its above - mentioned proposal.7. As mentioned in point 2 above, Member States are entirely free to decide the level of their national tax rates provided they respect the minimum rates laid down in Community law. However, as indicated at point 3 above, the tax differential introduced by the new law was submitted to the Council as required and has been duly approved.