WRITTEN QUESTION No. 42/98 by Heidi HAUTALA to the Commission. Compatibility of the Finnish system of taxation of electricity with the Treaty before 1 January 1997
Date: 1998-01-15
Institutions: European Parliament, HAUTALA
Subjects: EU law - national law, Finland, Sweden, competition, customs duties, electrical energy, energy policy, environmental protection, harmonisation of standards, import policy

22. 6. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 196/111

(98/C 196/154)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0042/98

by Heidi Hautala (V) to the Commission

(15 January 1998)

Subject: Compatibility of the Finnish system of taxation of electricity with the Treaty before 1 January 1997

The Advocate-General of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has published his opinion on the
case  of  Outokumpu  Oy  versus  the  State  of  Finland.  Outokumpu  Oy  was  seeking  a  refund  from  the  State  of
Finland of the tax levied on the electricity it had imported from Sweden, which it regarded as a form of import
duty prohibited by Community law. The Advocate-General(cid:146)s opinion does not support Outokumpu Oy(cid:146)s claim.

The Commission had informed Finland on 23 November 1995 that it regarded the electricity tax which was then
in force in Finland as discrimination contrary to Article 95 of the Treaty. Largely on this basis, the bias in favour
of the environment was abandoned in the taxation of electricity in Finland with effect from 1 January 1997.

According  to  the  Advocate-General,  the  Treaty  does  not  prohibit  taxation  of  electricity  which  favours  less
environmentally  damaging  production  methods.  Similarly,  the  Directive  on  the  transmission  of  electricity
stipulates that energy policy should not have the sole object of reducing costs and maintaining competition but
that account should also be taken of the compatibility of energy with the environment.

If the Court decides to uphold the opinion of the Advocate-General, will the Commission even then consider that
the electricity tax levied in Finland before 1997 was contrary to the Treaty, or would Finland have had the right to
retain its taxation system, which served to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide in electricity production?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 1998)

In the current state of the proceedings the answer to the Honourable Member can only be that the ruling of the
Court of justice should be awaited. Any reflection on what the Commission will do, depending on the outcome of
these proceedings, is premature. After the pronouncement of the judgment and taking into account the reasoning
of the Court of justice the Commission will analyse the matter and draw its conclusions.

At the moment of the pronouncement of the judgment it will become apparent to what extent Finland could from
the point of view of Community law eventually have upheld the former taxation model of electricity. Therefore,
the second question of the Honourable Member will be answered by the decision of the Court in the matter.

It is useful to recall that the Commission has not questioned the right of the Member State to use taxation to
promote environmental issues provided that such taxation is compatible with Community law.

(98/C 196/155)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0043/98

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(15 January 1998)

Subject: Moroccan failure to comply with the fisheries agreement with the EU

The  Kingdom  of  Morocco(cid:146)s  unilateral  decision  to  extend  the  biological  rest  period  for  cephalopods  to  four
months in 1998 infringes the provisions of the current fisheries agreement with the EU. Moreover, it is a known
fact that Morocco does not respect the cephalopod breeding areas within the 12 mile limit, so that as a means of
conserving resources, the supposed biological rest periods are no more than pseudo-measures.

What  steps  has  the  Commission  already  taken,  and  what  further  steps  does  it  intend  to  take  to  prevent  the
Moroccan authorities from violating the current fisheries agreement in this way?