WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1549/98 by Luigi CALIGARIS to the Commission. Reduced rates of excise duty or exemptions from excise duty under Directive 92/81/EEC
Date: 1998-05-19
Institutions: CALIGARIS, European Parliament
Subjects: derogation from EU law, excise duty, fiscal policy, mineral oil, regions of Italy, tax exemption, tax harmonisation, tax on consumption

C 386/148

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.98

(98/C 386/202)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1549/98

by Luigi Caligaris (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 May 1998)

Subject: Reduced rates of excise duty or exemptions from excise duty under Directive 92/81/EEC

Council Decision 97/425/EC (1) authorizes Member States to apply and continue to apply to certain mineral oils,
when used for specific purposes, existing reduced rates of excise duty or exemptions from excise duty, in
accordance with the procedure provided for in Directive 92/81/EEC (2). The list contained in Article 1 of this
decision no longer includes the Italian province of Trieste or the 25 communes concerned in the province of
Udine, although the regions of Val D(cid:146)Aosta and Gorizia still appear.

The exclusion of these areas creates an unacceptable disparity in the treatment of the provinces in question, given
that the law establishing the free zone of Gorizia in 1945, which is still in force, states that: (cid:145)the concessions
granted to the region of Gorizia shall be extended to the province of Trieste(cid:146). It is well known that the reasons for
which these concessions were granted continue to prevail, in particular in the province of Trieste which suffered
badly from the effects of the Second World War.

1.
Does the Commission not consider that this situation represents discrimination, severely penalizing the
people of the communes concerned and, more generally, the economy of the provinces of Trieste and Udine?

2. Will the Commission explain why it has excluded the provinces of Trieste and Udine from the special
reductions in or exemptions from excise duty under the procedure provided for in Directive 92/81/EEC?

In the light of the above factors, does the Commission not consider that the provinces of Trieste and Udine

3.
should be included in Article 1 of Directive 92/81/EEC?

(1) OJ L 182, 10.7.1997, p. 22.
(2) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 12.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 1998)

The Commission does not accept that Council Decision 97/425/EC of 30 June 1997 authorizing
1. and 2.
Member States to apply and to continue to apply to certain mineral oils, when used for specific purposes, existing
reduced rates of excise duty or exemptions from excise duty, in accordance with the procedure provided for in
Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils, to
which the Honourable Member refers, represents discrimination against the provinces in question as the Decision
merely separates out the existing derogations into several categories depending on the terms of the original
approval. The provision relating to Val d(cid:146)Aosta and Gorizia is included in Article 1 of the Decision as it was
originally approved without an end date. The provision for reduced rates of duty for Udine and Trieste appears in
Article 3 of the Decision as it was originally approved with a specific end date and was subsequently renewed.
Nothing has therefore changed and the provision is still in force.

3.
It is not clear to which provision the Honourable Member is referring. Article 1 of Council Directive
92/81/EEC, merely refers to the introduction of harmonised rates of duty. It has no geographical impact.

However, Article 1 of Council Decision 97/425/EC only applies to derogations which were approved without an
end date.