WRITTEN QUESTION E-1791/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) and Sergio Berlato (UEN) to the Commission. Harmonisation of the prices of petroleum products.
Date: 2000-06-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: harmonisation of prices, less-favoured region, petroleum product, price disparity, single market

C 113 E/42

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2001

The Commission is aware of various studies published by the Spanish electricity and gas regulator
2.
((cid:145)Comisi(cid:243)n Nacional de la Energ(cid:237)a(cid:146)). In particular,
it is worth mentioning the comparative study CNSE
OI002/99, published in the internet site (cid:145)http/wwwint.cne.es/pdf/OI001_99.pdf(cid:146). The Comisi(cid:243)n Nacional
notes in paragraphs 20 and 30 of the report that prices of electricity in Spain for the years 1997 and 1998
have fallen. The Commission is not aware of the studies carried out by the Comisi(cid:243)n Nacional and
mentioned by the Honourable Member where it is allegedly stated that prices of electricity have increased
in Spain both for 1998 and 1999.

The Commission also notes that
the Comisi(cid:243)n Nacional has, on various occasions, provided the
Commission with various charts and figures that show again that nominal prices of electricity have fallen
by 7,8 % for domestic consumers, and by 12,1 % for industrial consumers. Differences between these
figures and those calculated by the Commission are probably due to the use of a different methodology. In
particular, prices used by the Comisi(cid:243)n Nacional include the tax on the Spanish electricity for 1998 and
1999, whereas the figures from the Commission are tax excluded.

(1) COM(2000) 297 final.

(2001/C 113 E/038)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1791/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) and Sergio Berlato (UEN) to the Commission

Subject: Harmonisation of the prices of petroleum products

(8 June 2000)

It is common knowledge that the prices of petroleum products differ greatly from one Member State to the
next. As at 1 December 1999, prices for unleaded petrol ranged from ITL 1 378 per litre in Greece to
ITL 1 946 per litre in Italy, while heating oil cost ITL 752 per litre in Austria and ITL 1 544 in Italy. Now
the price of petrol in Italy has risen again, and diesel oil has reached ITL 1 705 per litre. The prices of
these products in Italy are far higher than the European average. In the Commission(cid:146)s view:

1.

2.

what are the reasons for these divergences?

can a single market in petroleum products ever be established as long as prices differ so greatly?

do such differences not undermine competitiveness, to the detriment, in particular, of those countries

3.
and areas (such as mountain areas in the case of heating oil) where prices are high?

4.

what, if any, are the objective obstacles preventing it from proposing harmonisation in this area?

why are the higher costs for heating products not taken into account in the measures relating to the

5.
less-favoured mountain areas, given their cooler climate?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

1.
The structure of fuel prices is composed of three principal factors: the cost of the crude, the refining
cost and distribution, and finally taxes. In general, fuel price differentials are mainly due to differences in
tax levels and in particular the way each Member State applies the fiscal provisions included in the
Community legislation. Differences in competitive structures of the markets can also play a role.

2.
Since 1992 the Community system for taxing energy products has been based essentially on two
directives relating to excise duties on mineral oils, which were drawn up with a view to establishing the
internal market on 1 January 1993. These are Council Directives 92/81/EEC (1) and 92/82/EEC1 (2), which
establish a minimum tax level for each mineral oil to be applied Community-wide according to its use

18.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 113 E/43

(motor fuel, industrial or commercial use, heating purposes). In practice, most Member States apply rates
that by far exceed these Community rates. However, these directives were the first step in an effort aimed
at reducing existing differences in the levels of taxation of energy products and similar efforts were
expected to follow.

3 and 5.
Council Directive 92/81/EEC provides in its Article 8 for the possibility for total or partial
exemptions or reductions in the rate of duty to mineral oils, under fiscal control, in order to take into
account parameters such as the environment and competitiveness of industry in disadvantaged geographi-
cal areas. Article 8(4) of Directive 92/81/EEC allows Member States, following a unanimous decision of the
Council, to introduce exemptions or rate reductions other than those expressly provided in the Directive,
on the basis of specific policy considerations. Italy has been authorised so far to apply reduced rates of
duty on domestic fuels, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and other mineral oils consumed in certain regions
or particularly disadvantaged geographical areas (3).

4.
The Commission has no plans, for the time being, to propose legislation aimed at harmonising the
levels of taxation of mineral oils in all Member States. In 1997 the Commission adopted a proposal for a
new directive, restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products (4). This
proposal, if adopted, would modernise the Community system for the taxation of mineral oils and would
extend its scope to all energy products. It would also allow the Community to reap the full benefit of the
single market and meet its environmental objectives. The proposal is still under discussion in the Council
and its adoption has proved very difficult to achieve due to the need for unanimous decisions on fiscal
matters.

(1) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992.
(2) OJ L 331, 23.12.1999.
(3) 1999/880/EC: Council Decision of 17 December 1999 authorising Member States to apply and continue to apply
to certain mineral oils, when used for specific purposes, existing reduced rate excise duty or exemptions from excise
duty, in accordance with the procedure provided for in Directive 92/81/EEC (OJ L 331, 23.12.1999).

(4) OJ C 139, 6.5.1997.

(2001/C 113 E/039)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1830/00

by Giorgio Lisi (PPE-DE) to the Council

(5 June 2000)

Subject: Council(cid:146)s position on the problems linked with alcohol shipments subject to excise duty

This question has been transformed into an oral question H-0876/00.

Reply

(20 November 2000)

1.
The Council would remind the Honourable Member of the conclusions that it adopted at its meeting
on 19 May 1998 on fraud in the alcohol and tobacco sectors. At that meeting the Council emphasized the
need for the Member States and the Commission to tackle fraud in the field of excise duties on alcohol and
tobacco products. It also endorsed the summary of the report of the High Level Group on Fraud in the
tobacco and alcohol sectors. Lastly, it underlined the importance, subject to the outcome of the feasibility
study proposed by the Commission, of a computerised control system as a long term goal and gave a
commitment to work towards the speedy implementation in the meantime of an effective early warning
system to be operated on a selective basis. Since then the Commission has worked along these lines in
these areas and the Council would invite the Honourable Member to address the Commission itself for
further details and for the extent of progress made in the measures quoted above.

2.
The current situation in general regarding both direct and indirect tax fraud and the possibility of
enhancing administrative cooperation in these areas were discussed by the Ecofin Council at its meeting on
5 June 2000.