WRITTEN QUESTION E-1705/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Imports of alcohol into Sweden.
Date: 2000-05-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Sweden, alcohol, intra-EU trade, quantitative restriction

3.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 103 E/21

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2000)

One of the main objectives of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural
products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), is to create, and to
promote, a market of organic products which is credible for consumers. Only a credible market will permit
a constant development of organic production within the Community and also in third countries which
export to the Community

In this way, major focus is given in this Regulation to the inspection measures, which consist, on the one
hand, of a specific inspection regime within the Community, established by Articles 8, 9, 10 and Annex III.
On the other hand, Article 11 provides for a requirement that products from third countries must have
been produced under inspection requirements which are accepted as equivalent to those applicable within
the Community. These requirements are in line with the Codex Alimentarius guidelines on production and
marketing of organically produced products, and, as indicated above, are necessary to ensure that
consumer confidence in this market is maintained.

The Regulation provides that the assessment of the equivalency and recognition of inspection bodies in
third countries is made either by the Commission on the basis of
information submitted by the
government of the third country (procedure of Article 11(1)) or by the Member States authorities on the
basis of information submitted by the interested importers (procedure of Article 11(6)). The Regulation
however leaves to the Commission and Member States authorities the possibility to take into account
information in the reports established by the International federation of organic agriculture movements
(IFOAM) concerning organic production in certain third countries, when these reports are submitted in the
context of the above mentioned procedures.

The imports from third countries are followed in much detail by the Commission and the Member States.
It appears that all types of organic products are imported into the Community from some 100 third
countries from all parts of the world. The Commission has not the impression that the above mentioned
measures have lead to substantial decreases of imports of organic products from third countries.

(1) OJ L 198, 22.7.1991.

(2001/C 103 E/022)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1705/00

by Jonas Sj(cid:246)stedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Imports of alcohol into Sweden

Sweden and the Commission are currently negotiating a possible extension to the exemption relating to
imports of alcohol into Sweden.

The temperance movement, IOGT-NTO, in Sweden claims that Article 28(1) of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) in
essence says that the Commission is to report to the Council on the operation of the exemption rules and
submit a proposal for a (cid:145)final system(cid:146). This system must in principle be the same as the arrangements
which are to apply within the EU, i.e. taxation only in the country of origin of the goods. Once the
Council has examined the report and found that the conditions are in place for a changeover to the final
system, the Council must decide unanimously, on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting
the European Parliament, on the rules which will apply to the final system. It is also said that the
transitional rules will be extended automatically until the date on which the final system enters into force.
According to IOGT-NTO, the agreement concluded in 1996 (paragraph 3 of Article 1 of Directive 96/99/
EC (2)) states that Sweden is entitled to continue to apply the current restrictions on quantity until 30 June
2000, subject to a review such as that referred to in Article 28(1) of Directive 77/388/EEC.

Does the Council share the IOGT-NTO(cid:146)s interpretation?

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 8, 11.1.1997, p. 12.

C 103 E/22

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2000)

The Commission put forward a proposal on 22 May 2000 to authorise Sweden to continue to apply
quantitative restrictions from 1 July 2000 until the end of 2003 for products subject to excise duties
brought into Sweden from other Member States (1). This proposal, which also provided for the gradual
liberalisation of the restrictions during that period, was adopted by the Council on 30 June 2000 (2). The
new provision adopted no longer contains a review mechanism similar to that mentioned by the
Honourable Member and contained in the previous version of the Directive. Therefore, the discussion on
the exact meaning of this review mechanism has become irrelevant.

As to this review mechanism, the Commission has always taken the view that the derogation granted to
Sweden expired on 30 June 2000 unless the Commission proposed, and the Council adopted by
unanimity, a further extension, as the restrictions derogate to the basic principle laid down in Council
Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty
and on the holding movement and monitoring of such products (3) that goods acquired by a private person
and transported by them are subject to excises in the Member State of purchase. This view is in accordance
with the well-established principle of Community law that any derogation contained in a directive must be
interpreted restrictively.

The Honourable Member is requested to submit the last part of the question directly to the Council.

(1) COM(2000) 295 final of 22.05.2000.
(2) Council Directive 2000/44 of 30 June 2000 amending Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 as
regards temporary quantitative restrictions for products subject to excise duties brought into Sweden from other
Member States.
(3) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992.

(2001/C 103 E/023)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1707/00

by Karin Riis-Jłrgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Tendering

Over a four year period Danish local and district authorities have multiplied sevenfold the number of tasks
performed by one public authority for another for payment. This steep increase has occurred even though
the Danish Government has on several occasions assured the Commission that local and district authorities
would perform tasks only where there was no or no more than restricted competition with private
undertakings.

On the basis of the Danish Ministry of the Interior(cid:146)s statement to the Commission of 31 March the Danish
Trades Council has ascertained that some 90 % of the work carried out for a total of Kr. 174 million could
have been carried out by private firms. The work involved included gardening, care of green spaces, street
laboratory work and analyses, delivering food, sale of frozen meals, laundry services, minor
sweeping,
landscaping and building work, painting, blacksmith(cid:146)s work, transport services, cleaning, computer services
etc. Since 1997 activities as a whole have increased from scarcely Kr. 250 million a year to Kr. 174 million
in 1999 (including tenders not yet carried out) and there are strong indications that the proportion of
work which could also have been carried out by private undertakings has also risen.

What is the Commission(cid:146)s attitude towards this increase in activity in relation to Law No 378 of 14 June
1995 on local and district authorities(cid:146) performance of work for other public authorities and the Danish
Ministry of the Interior(cid:146)s statement to the Commission of 31 March 2000, in the light of the fact that the
vast majority of this work could also have been carried out by private undertakings?