WRITTEN QUESTION E-4022/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) and Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Council. Abolition of tax privileges for staff in the diplomatic service.
Date: 2001-01-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: VAT, diplomatic representation, excise duty, institutional reform, privilege, tax exemption

C 187 E/110

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.7.2001

(2001/C 187 E/116)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4021/00

by Lisbeth Gr(cid:246)nfeldt Bergman (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Finnish environmental rules on packaging hinder competition

The deposit system on aluminium cans and PET bottles in Sweden has been criticised because it hinders
the
imports and restricts competition on the Swedish market. That being so,
Commission has not intervened at all in the (cid:145)environmental levies(cid:146) in use in Finland which apply to the
same products. In order to have access to the Finnish market, foreign producers have to pay a FIM 6
(€ 1,01) per bottle environmental levy, which amounts to a supplement of some 200 % on the product
price.

is noticeable that

it

In the light of the above, how does the Commission justify approval of the Finnish environmental levy,
considering that it considerably weakens the competitive position of foreign producers in Finland?he

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2001)

Concerning the Swedish deposit system, the Commission is not aware of what criticism the Honourable
Member refers to. In any case, there is currently no indication that this system is not in conformity with
Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994, on packaging and packaging waste (1)
or the EC Treaty.

Concerning the Finnish system, two facts should be specified. Firstly, the supplementary levy for beverages
which do not belong to an approved recycling or re-use system amounts to FIM 4 per litre (and not
FIM 6 per bottle). Secondly, the supplementary levy is applicable not only to foreign products but also to
products of domestic origin.

Concerning the compatibility of the system of the Finnish supplementary levy with the Directive and the
internal market rules, the Commission is at present examining the issue on the basis of registered
complaints.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(2001/C 187 E/117)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4022/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) and Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Council

Subject: Abolition of tax privileges for staff in the diplomatic service

(3 January 2001)

Provisions governing diplomatic privileges are laid down in the 1961 Vienna Convention. During the past
few months, the undersigned have repeatedly forwarded written questions to the Commission, arguing that
this Convention has since become outdated and should be reviewed, in particular with the aim of resolving
the issue as to whether existing privileges are at all justified in the prevailing EU internal market.

In its answers, the Commission (in particular see E-1996/00) constantly referred to the fact that the
for an amendment to current Community
abolition or revision of diplomatic privileges would call
legislation and at the same time would require a unanimous Council decision.

Does the Council intend to review the diplomatic privileges which are certainly no longer justified in
today(cid:146)s EU internal market? Will it also be considering the relevance of the 1961 Vienna Convention in
connection with efforts to bring about a reform of the Commission?

3.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 187 E/111

Reply

(24 April 2001)

Under Community legislation, exemption from VAT and excise duty may be granted by way of diplomatic
privilege in accordance with the rules of customary international law, as codified by the 1961 Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The Community is under a duty to abide by these rules. (See ECJ
judgment of 16 June 1998, paragraph 45).

In terms of the single market, supposing there were no longer felt to be any justification for granting
exemption to Member States(cid:146) missions to other Member States, current Community legislation would have
to be amended first, and this would require a unanimous Council vote on a Commission proposal.
However, this would presuppose that the Member States had agreed not to apply, as between themselves,
the relevant provisions of the 1961 Vienna Convention, which are binding on them under international
law. The Council has not received any indication to that effect, nor, to date, any Commission proposals for
amendment of the relevant exemption provisions of Directives 77/388/EEC (6th VAT Directive) and 92/
12/EEC (products subject to excise duty). Moreover, the Commission has made known (reply to Written
Question E-1996/99) that it does not intend to submit any proposals on this issue in the near future.

(2001/C 187 E/118)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4028/00

by Angelika Niebler (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Harmonisation of the law on advertising in the European Community

This May the European Parliament adopted the Directive on electronic commerce at second reading. The
Directive centres on the country of origin principle under which persons offering goods and services over
the internet only have to obey the rules on advertising applying in the country of where they are
established. In view of the differing legislation on advertising in the Member States this can produce
discrimination against nationals of a country where advertising regulations are strict such as the Federal
Republic of Germany.

The strict advertising laws in Germany include a Discount Act and a Free Gift Act. The German Free Gift
Act, which requires the offer of a free gift not to be made dependent on purchase of the principal article
being advertised, would appear to be an inadmissible obstacle to the free trade in goods via the internet.
This far-reaching prohibition also covers services and guarantees which are normal commercial practice in
the other Member States and extensively used as a marketing tool (e.g. (cid:145)buy one, get one for free(cid:146)). This
discriminates against German consumers who are deprived of extra inducements and against undertakings
based in Germany in relation to their foreign competitors.

The harm caused on the internal market was particularly apparent in a recent decision by the Saarbr(cid:252)cken
Higher Regional Court, which ruled that a lifetime guarantee given by one company for its products was
a breach of the Free Gift Act and was therefore prohibited in Germany. The company had given the same
guarantee in all Member States and throughout the world.

In the light of this clear discrimination against Germans, does the Commission believe there to be a need
for harmonisation of advertising legislation within the Community and has it given instructions to prepare
such harmonisation or will it be doing so? Will the Commission be taking appropriate measures against
Germany on account of these provisions in the Free Gift Act which are an obstacle to cross-border
competition?