WRITTEN QUESTION E-2261/01 by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Harmonisation of energy taxation proposed in the Green Paper on Security of Energy Supply.
Date: 2001-07-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC Directive, EU publication, competition law, energy policy, environmental protection, security of supply, tax harmonisation, tax system

C 93 E/92

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2002

Within the limits of the financial perspective until 2006, as agreed by the Berlin European Council (24-
25 March 1999), the Commission’s Communication focuses on the improvement and enhancement of
existing Community policies.

In drawing up the Community Action for Border Regions, the Commission took due account of detailed
information on the requirements of border regions provided by the chambers of commerce of the relevant
regions as well as by individual Member States concerned. In addition, the Commission took account of
the views of local and regional authorities set out in various documents and expressed in the course of
bilateral discussions with representatives of the border regions.

(1) COM(2001) 437 final.

(2002/C 93 E/110)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2261/01

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Harmonisation of energy taxation proposed in the Green Paper on Security of Energy Supply

The Commission’s Green Paper entitled ‘Towards a European strategy for the security of energy supply’ (1)
represents a significant strategic gambit in the debate on the development of energy supply in the coming
years and decades. It follows in detail developments in the energy field from the point of view of energy
sufficiency, of access to energy supplies and of the environment. It also discusses the development of
energy taxation together with its fiscal objectives and its effects on regulating behaviour.

The Green Paper shows how much tax was paid on energy production and transport costs in 1997.
According to my information, energy taxation has risen since 1997, especially in Finland.

According to the Green Paper, energy taxation is an effective tool for regulating energy use. For this reason
it is proposed that a sufficiently high level of taxation should be adopted in the energy sector. But what is
‘sufficiently high’ and what does it mean in practice? The harmonisation of Community taxation is
regarded as an essential instrument from the point of view of competition, to prevent distortions in the
energy sector.

How can the proposed harmonisation of energy taxation be used to ensure that the northern

1.
Member States are not forced into a less favourable position with regard to energy taxation?

How can the renewal of industry and energy production and the development potential essential for

2.
the environment be achieved when increasing taxation weakens competitiveness?

3.

How can the competitiveness of EU industry be protected in relation to third countries?

(1) COM(2000) 769.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 2001)

In 1997 the Commission proposed a Council Directive restructuring the Community framework for the
taxation of energy products (1). The proposed Directive would lay down the rates of excise duty applicable
to energy products, to be increased in three stages.

18.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93 E/93

The aims of the proposed Directive are to:

A limit distortions of competition between Member States and between energy products in order to
improve the operation of the internal market and increase the margin of manoeuvre for States
carrying out certain desirable tax reforms, and

A contribute effectively to the reduction of pollutant emissions and greenhouse gases in the context of
the Kyoto Protocol by harmonising the structures and approximating the rates of duties applicable to
all energy products.

The proposed Directive would also improve the security of the Community’s energy supply, particularly
through the possibilities it provides for guiding the selection of energy products consumed and through its
impact on overall demand.

The proposed Directive, which clearly fits in with the sustainable development strategy initiated by the
Commission, would benefit all the Member States.

The statistics on energy costs (including taxes) show that companies with high energy consumption in the
northern Member States do not bear a heavier burden than companies in the other Member States. The
harmonisation of structures and approximation of excise duties leads to a better distribution of energy
costs among economic operators in the Member States.

The 1997 proposal for a Directive and current discussions at the Ecofin Council fully take on board
concerns about the competitiveness of European businesses, envisaging as they do compulsory exemptions
or optional reductions for businesses with high energy consumption. Community rules on State aid have
also been adapted to take fuller account of the need to maintain industrial competitiveness at the same
time as protecting the environment.

Lastly, the Commission would point out that a ‘green’ tax reform such as the one put forward in the 1997
proposal for a Directive,
i.e. one that observes the principle of budget neutrality, could bear double
dividends by both combating pollutants more effectively and promoting job creation and growth in the
Member States.

(1) OJ C 139, 6.5.1997.

(2002/C 93 E/111)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2275/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Prevention of EU subsidies circulating between the richer Member States

1. Will the recovery of substantial ESF payments from the Netherlands give the Commission an
opportunity to review critically the extent to which and the way in which subsidies from EU funds are
allocated to the Member States, particularly in view of the fact that current methods of allocation will
become even more difficult when the EU is enlarged to include many new Member States with a standard
of living lower than the current EU average?

Does the Commission share my view that the circulation of funds between the richest Member States
2.
requires comparatively extensive administrative cooperation and control
from Brussels and distorts
democratic decision-making and freedom of choice at local and regional level and that, in the longer term,
this approach has few advantages over a situation in which the projects concerned are financed totally
from national funds or with monies decentralised by the Member States to lower levels of government?

3. What does the Commission intend to do to prevent undue payments in the future? Is it envisaging
even more controls and bureaucratic procedures, which require a great deal of time and human effort and
create annoyance on all sides, or is it thinking of simplifying and limiting the regulations?