WRITTEN QUESTION P-1725/01 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Structure of, and timescale for, a European energy tax on the basis of enhanced co-operation.
Date: 2001-06-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, derogation from EU law, enhanced cooperation, environmental tax, fiscal policy, power of initiative

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/215

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2001)

The case mentioned by the Honourable Member is currently under consideration by a Swedish Court. The
Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the question asked, which is a matter solely for the national
authorities and cannot intervene in a case while a judgement is expected from a national court.

(2001/C 350 E/240)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1725/01

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 June 2001)

Subject: Structure of, and timescale for, a European energy tax on the basis of enhanced co-operation

At Parliament(cid:146)s hearing of the then Commissioner-designate Mr Bolkestein, I asked him on behalf of the
Environment Committee whether (cid:129) in view of Spain(cid:146)s veto of the introduction of an energy/CO2 tax
throughout the EU (cid:129) he was prepared to use the enhanced co-operation clause in the Treaty. He replied
that he needed a year in order to be able to give an answer. It is now over a year and a half on, and we
have an IGC behind us. Spain remains as strongly opposed as ever, and no decision was taken at Nice to
move from a requirement for unanimity in the area of taxation of energy to deciding by a qualified
majority.

In order to find a way out of this impasse, the Swedish Presidency proposed that agreement first be
reached on the structure of the energy tax. And the Commission recently indicated that it was now
in the area of energy taxation
seriously considering using the enhanced co-operation instrument
(COM(2001) 260). Member States hope to take the first steps in that direction at the Ecofin Council
meeting on 5 June.

Does the Commission intend to ensure that this new structure does not include any exceptions for large
and intensive energy users that go further than those already provided for in its 1997 proposal?

When does the Commission intend to take steps to propose a European energy/CO2 tax on the basis of the
enhanced co-operation clause?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2001)

The Commission is pursuing its efforts to get the Council to adopt a Directive to restructure the taxation
of energy products. As recently reiterated in the communication entitled A Sustainable Europe for a Better
World: A European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development (1), a directive on energy taxation would
need to be adopted by 2002 if for no other reason than to limit the effects of climate change. Such
a directive is also still needed to reduce distortions in competition due to the very major divergences
between the tax rates and bases which the different Member States apply to energy products. The
Commission therefore supported the Swedish Presidency(cid:146)s efforts to relaunch the discussion of energy
taxes in the Council.

The Swedish Presidency wanted to begin by examining the practical aspects of the energy tax structure.
One of the specific questions raised was that of excise duty exemptions or reductions granted to large-scale
consumers of energy, but there were also others such as the arrangements for taxing electricity. All
Member States encouraged this approach. However, the Commission insisted that any discussion of the tax
structure should be accompanied by a reopening of the debate on future levels of excise duty. Several
Member States share this view. These discussions should continue under the Belgian Presidency.

C 350 E/216

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

As the communication Tax policy in the European Union (cid:129) Priorities for the years ahead (2) states, the
option introduced by the Amsterdam Treaty which is designed to allow closer co-operation between sub-
groups of like-minded Member States could also be considered in certain cases. Where indirect taxation is
concerned the possibility of closer co-operation might be the way forward for environment and energy
taxes.

The Commission is still working on the details of various complex economic and legal aspects of closer co-
operation. This approach must not be allowed to undermine the single market, become a trade barrier or
result in trade discrimination, falsify the conditions of competition or affect the jurisdictions, rights and
obligations of Member States that do not participate.

(1) COM(2001) 264 final.
(2) COM(2001) 260 final.

(2001/C 350 E/241)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1732/01

by Isidoro SÆnchez Garc(cid:237)a (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Large shopping centres and unfair competition

(14 June 2001)

There appears to be a general tendency (cid:129) other than in those Member States where such practices are
expressly banned (cid:129) to install petrol pumps or service stations in large shopping centres. These centres are
in some cases in a position to trim their profit margins or, indeed, resort to dumping in order to cut prices
as a means of attracting customers to their petrol pumps. This results in situations of unfair competition,
with the resultant losses for consumers and other retailers (service stations).

Can the Commission state whether it has adopted any recommendation to the Member States to

1.
prevent such practices or whether it intends to adopt any control measures in this connection?

Can the Commission state what specific measures it will adopt to promote consumers(cid:146) interests and

2.
transparency as regards fuel prices at petrol pumps or service stations located in large shopping centres?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2001)

The Commission has not adopted any recommendation to Member States to prevent that large shopping
centres engage in motor fuel retailing, applying, in some cases, a strategy of cutting retail prices, nor does
it intend to adopt any control measures in this regard.

In general, the Commission considers that the presence of new entrants and independent, non-integrated
companies is essential to maintain and improve the competitive pressure in the motor fuel retail markets.
In its press release of 2 October 2000 (1), the Commission pointed out that the experience of the Member
States shows that markets where independent non-integrated operators with a countervailing buying
power are present typically show a more competitive performance than markets where only integrated oil
companies are present. Examples of Member States where supermarkets have proven to be successful
entrants at retail level markets are France and the United Kingdom.

Moreover, motor fuel retail markets tend to be regional, or at most, national in scope. The effects of
restrictions of competition are therefore likely to be felt mainly within one Member State. In this case, it
seems that the questions invoked by the Honourable Member would primarily be a matter for national
authorities rather than for the Commission.

It should finally be noted that undertakings are free, under Community competition rules, to sell at
whatever price they decide. Community competition law does thus not prohibit undertakings from selling
at low prices as a means of attracting customers. Only in case of dominant undertakings this freedom may
be limited to a certain extent.