WRITTEN QUESTION E-1796/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Swedish ceiling on carbon dioxide tax.
Date: 2000-06-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Sweden, control of State aid, derogation from EU law, environmental tax, greenhouse gas

20.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 89 E/87

After falling to an all-time low of 4 240 tonnes, white sugar equivalent, in the 1995/1996 marketing year,
market statistics show that the cultivation of sugar cane is recovering and looks set to return to the
historical level of 15 000 tonnes, white sugar equivalent, annually.

The sugar sector as a whole, like the other agricultural sectors in the Community, is having to adapt to
changing world trade conditions in agricultural products and the future survival of marginal productions in
sensitive rural areas may well depend upon non-production linked grant-aids of the kind provided by the
structural funds.

(1) OJ L 252, 25.9.1999.
(2) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 89 E/090)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1796/00

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

(8 June 2000)

Subject: Swedish ceiling on carbon dioxide tax

The only carbide factory in Sweden, Akzo Nobel, which employs 50 people at Stockvik close to Sundsvall,
is threatened with closure if EU legislation prohibits Sweden from capping its carbon dioxide tax. Raising
the level of carbon dioxide tax would result in the carbide factory no longer being profitable. Sweden has
the highest level of carbon dioxide tax in the EU but a ceiling was introduced in 1997 so that energy-
intensive industries would not be excessively affected.

According to media reports, however,
government aid in breach of EU competition rules. Are these reports correct and,
Commission justify its position?

the Commission regards the Swedish ceiling on the tax as
if so, can the

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2000)

In 1997 the Commission approved a Swedish proposal for a lower carbon dioxide (CO2) tax rate on fuel
for energy-intensive industrial activity and greenhouse heating in connection with commercial greenhouse
cultivation. The approval was based on the Community guidelines on state aid for environmental
protection (1). It is therefore correct that the Commission considers the ceiling on the CO2 tax to constitute
state aid.

A relief from a general tax falls under the scope of Article 87(1) (ex Article 92) of the EC Treaty when the
relief is targeted at certain undertakings and this in turn has an effect on trade between Member States.
The Swedish relief was estimated to benefit about 60 companies, and (cid:129) as appears from the question (cid:129)
it does affect trade within the Community.

Point 1.5.3 of the environmental guidelines stipulates that (cid:145)the introduction of environmental taxes and
charges can involve state aid because some firms may not be able to stand the extra financial burden
immediately, and require temporary relief. Such relief is operating aid. It may take the form of relief from
environmental taxes introduced in some Member States, where it is necessary to prevent their firms being
placed at a disadvantage compared with their competitors in countries that do not have such measures(cid:146).

C 89 E/88

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.3.2001

As to the compatibility of the aid with the common market, point 3.4 of the guidelines states that the
Commission does not normally approve operating aid, which relieves firms of costs resulting from the
pollution they cause. However, the Commission may authorise a temporary relief from new environmental
taxes where it is necessary to offset losses in competitiveness, particularly at international
In
principle, the aid should be degressive. A further factor to be taken into account is what the firms
concerned have to do in return, to reduce their pollution. The reduced CO2 tax rate on coal and natural
gas used in industrial manufacturing was approved until the end of 1999. The Commission has just
received further information from the Swedish authorities on the planned prolongation of the scheme, and
will proceed to assess it (2).

level.

(1) OJ C 72, 10.3.1994.
(2) State aid case N 2/2000.

(2001/C 89 E/091)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1797/00

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

(8 June 2000)

Subject: Cutbacks in Swedish customs service

What are the Commission(cid:146)s views on the proposal for cutbacks in the Swedish customs service, which
include a risk that Gotland, for example, will be left completely unmanned? Since Gotland should be
regarded as an external EU border, has the Commission examined the customs service(cid:146)s reductions in staff
and its plans for future activities?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2000)

The legal basis for protecting the external borders of the Community when it comes to matters of
Community competence is contained in the relevant Community legislation. Member States, acting on the
basis of such legal provisions, apply any resulting measures on behalf of the Community. The manner in
which they do this and the resources allocated to such actions fall under the responsibility of Member
States. The Commission is then able to check the application of any such measures through control visits
to Member States under its own resources responsibilities. The Commission also works with Member
States under the Customs 2002 programme on means of ensuring greater effectiveness of controls across
the Community.

(2001/C 89 E/092)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1798/00

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

(8 June 2000)

Subject: Ban on fireworks

A ban on the sale of fireworks is being discussed in Sweden. Is such a ban consistent with internal market
principles concerning the free movement of goods when fireworks are allowed to be sold in other Member
States?