WRITTEN QUESTION E-3515/00 by Werner Langen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Emergency measures to offset the additional burden of increased energy costs.
Date: 2000-11-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, France, Netherlands, common commercial policy, control of State aid, motor fuel, price increase

C 174 E/66

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

19.6.2001

(2001/C 174 E/066)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3513/00

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 November 2000)

Subject: Commission(cid:146)s Standing Group on Seeds

Can the Commission say why the Standing Group on Seeds, which comes under the Advisory Committee
on Agricultural Product Quality and Health, has not held any meetings since 28 April 1999?

On what specific date does the Commission intend to convene the Standing Group on Seeds and what
subjects does it intend to discuss with the sector concerned?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2001)

The Commission is pleased to inform the Honourable Member that, as foreseen in Action 81 of the white
paper on food safety, it is working on the preparation of a legal basis for a consultative committee on food
safety (1). It aims to improve involvement of all stakeholders in the Community food safety policy by
streamlining the existing consultative committees and their permanent groups including the advisory
standing group on seeds. Such preparations, unfortunately, take time.

In the meanwhile, the Commission is also planning to organise a meeting of the existing standing group
on seeds by February/March 2001. The main item of the agenda will be the outstanding issues for the
amendments of the current seed Directives.

(1) COM(1999) 719 final.

(2001/C 174 E/067)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3515/00

by Werner Langen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Emergency measures to offset the additional burden of increased energy costs

France, Belgium and the Netherlands have taken emergency measures to offset the huge additional burden
imposed by increased energy costs.

The Commission is therefore asked to answer the following questions:

1. What specific form do these emergency measures take?

2. Are the measures that have been adopted compatible with the EC Treaty or do they contravene

European competition law?

3. Does it plan to intervene?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Like Belgium, France and the Netherlands, Spain, Italy and the United Kingdom have adopted or are
planning to adopt emergency measures to offset the additional burden of increased energy costs.

19.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 174 E/67

According to the information currently available to the Commission, the measures for the road transport
sector are as follows:

(a) France has provided for a reduction (cid:129) in the form of a special reimbursement (cid:129) in the domestic duty
on petroleum products (TIPP) for road haulage vehicles of over 7,5 tonnes and passenger transport
vehicles which have more than 9 seats, from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2001. From 2002, the
French Government will fully reimburse annual TIPP increases, amounting to around + FRF 0,07
(approximately € 0,01) per litre of gas oil. From 2001 France also plans to repay to road haulage
operators the extra VAT collected by the State since oil prices increased. In addition, in a letter dated
17 October 2000 France requested the extension of all reduced rates of excise duty or exemptions
from excise duty mentioned in Council Decision 1999/880/EC (1).

(b) The Netherlands will grant all road transport operators a further reduction in the excise duty on diesel
used by commercial vehicles, from 1 January 2000 until 31 December 2000, also in the form of a
special reimbursement. With regard to Council Decision 1999/880/EC (1),
the Netherlands have
requested the extension of the reduced rates of duty on diesel until 31 December 2002 and the
differential rates of excise duty on liquid petroleum gas (LPG) used as fuel for buses and coaches until
31 December 2005. From 1 January 2001 the Dutch Government will also lower the rate of excise
duty on diesel with a low sulphur content, reducing its price at the pump.

(c)

In September 2000 Italy adopted a Decree-Law which,
from 1 September 2000 until
31 December 2000, provides for a further reduction in the rate of excise duty on diesel for road
haulage operators with vehicles over 3,5 tonnes, public companies running local transport operations
and taxis. With regard to Council Decision 2000/446/EC (2), Italy has also requested the extension of
the reduced rate of excise duty on diesel used by road transport operators until 31 December 2002.

(d) For certain types of heavy goods vehicle Belgium has arranged for road tax to be paid at the end of a
given period, no longer in advance, changed the annual tax on insurance contracts and abolished the
general fee for vehicle registration and re-registration.

(e)

In October 2000 Spain adopted a Decree-Law introducing emergency measures in the agriculture,
fisheries and transport sectors. For the latter, provision is made for aid (cid:129) in the form of tax reductions
(cid:129) for investments in satellite navigation and location systems and equipment to facilitate the access of
disabled persons to road transport vehicles, and for retirement incentives for people aged between 60
and 65 working in the transport sector. In addition, aid for the purchase of less polluting and safer
vehicles is being considered.

(f) According to the information available, the United Kingdom plans to introduce, in its 2001 budget, a
reduced rate of excise duty on diesel with a low sulphur content, tax reductions for the least polluting
alternative fuels, the modulation of road tax according to vehicle CO2 emissions, and temporary
reimbursement of road tax for heavy goods vehicles. For the period 2001-2004 the British Govern-
ment plans to set up a fund to promote innovation, modernisation and reduction of the environ-
mental impact of the road haulage system.

Although the Commission recently submitted to the Council for approval a proposal extending some of
the abovementioned derogations,
including those concerning the excise duty on fuel, the proposal(cid:146)s
provisions are without prejudice to the application of Article 87 of the EC Treaty. Therefore, to prevent
any distortion of intra-Community competition, the Commission is also carefully examining each dossier

C 174 E/68

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

19.6.2001

in the light of the European rules on state aid. The procedure provided for in Article 88 of the Treaty
might be initiated for some of these measures.

(1) Council Decision of 17.12.1999 authorising 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, OJ L
331, 23.12.1999.

(2) Council Decision of 17.07.2000 authorising Italy to apply reductions in excise duties on certain mineral oils used

for specific purposes, OJ L 180, 19.7.2000.

(2001/C 174 E/068)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3517/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Inntrepeneur Beer Tie

A number of public houses in the UK are let under an Inntrepeneur twenty-year lease, which imposes an
obligation on those tenants to buy their beer from a supplier nominated by Inntrepeneur (what is known
as the (cid:145)Beer Tie(cid:146)). The validity of the Inntrepeneur Beer Tie was the subject of a large number of complaints
to the Commission by tenants and tenants(cid:146) groups who felt that the Beer Tie infringed the Union(cid:146)s rules on
competition under Article 81 (formerly Article 85) of the Consolidated Treaty. In November 1997, the
European Commission rejected Inntrepeneur(cid:146)s application for an individual exemption in respect of the
beer tie on the basis that it was unreasonable. The European Commission decided against publishing a
formal decision to that effect on the grounds that it was not necessary to do so since Inntrepeneur had
withdrawn its application for an exemption and that the tenants who had suffered damages as a result of
the imposition of the unlawful beer tie would have an adequate remedy in the national courts.

Hundreds of Inntrepeneur(cid:146)s tenants have pursued their claims in the English courts, and their claim for a
remedy in damages for the imposition of the (cid:145)Beer Tie(cid:146) in the past has been referred to the European Court
of Justice by the Court of Appeal in the test case Crehan -v- Courage. However, they have been prevented
from pursuing two other important aspects of their claim by a decision of the House of Lords taken on
16 July 1999 to refuse leave to appeal in two other cases (cid:129) Inntrepeneur -v- Langton and Passmore -v-
Morland. In the Langton case, the tenant was seeking a ruling (inter alia) that the principle of effective
remedy under European law entitled a tenant to be permitted to set off any claim for rent arrears against a
claim against the landlord. In the Passmore case, the tenant sought a ruling on the interpretation of Article
81(2) which provides that (cid:145)any agreements or decisions prohibited pursuant to this Article shall be
automatically void(cid:146). In that case, the landlord was arguing that (cid:145)automatically void(cid:146) meant void only so
long as the economic circumstances giving rise to the infringement of Article 81 remained in existence,
whilst the tenant argued that the clear and obvious meaning of (cid:145)automatically void(cid:146) was that the restriction
was void, and could never be resurrected irrespective of any change in circumstances. Is the Commission
aware of the legal reasons given the House of Lords for non-referral, and does the Commission propose to
refer the cases itself?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(10 January 2001)

In the cases to which the Honourable Member refers, the House of Lords did not refer any question to the
Court of Justice pursuant to Article 234 (ex Article 177) of the EC Treaty because it refused leave to appeal
from the Court of Appeal. Consequently, the House of Lords was not seised of the case. As a matter of
English law, the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords does not state reasons for granting or refusing
leave to appeal. As a result, the Commission does not know of the reasons why the House of Lords refused
to consider the matter of the appeal and of a preliminary reference, if such a reference had been requested
in the Petition of the Appellants.