WRITTEN QUESTION E-2750/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Cars confiscated on the border between Finland and Sweden.
Date: 2001-10-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Finland, Sweden, application of EU law, interpretation of the law, vehicle tax

C 205 E/8

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.8.2002

The directives on excise goods and the case-law of the Court of Justice lay down that for each product
subject to a harmonised excise structure at EU level, Member States must apply a single national rate of
taxation which must be higher than the minimum rate stipulated by the directive concerned. The Council
may authorise a Member State to introduce additional exemptions or reductions (3) if they are justified by
social, environment or transport policy considerations.

On a more general note, it should be pointed out that under the case-law of the Court of Justice (4),
Member States are solely responsible, under Community law, for the measures adopted by their territorial
entities. It is therefore for the individual Member States to set up a framework within which legislative
power is exercised in this field, in order to ensure compliance with Community law and, in particular, with
Community rules on state aids.

(1) Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
turnover taxes / Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment / OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, as last
amended by Council Directive 2001/4/EC of 19 January 2001, with regard to the length of time during which the
minimum standard rate is to be applied / OJ L 22, 24.1.2001, and corrigendum in OJ L 26, 27.1.2001.

(2) Council Directive 92/77/EEC of 19 October 1992 supplementing the common system of value added tax and

amending Directive 77/388/EEC (approximation of VAT rates) / OJ L 316, 31.10.1992.

(3) See Article 8(4) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of
excise duties on mineral oils / OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, as last amended by Council Directive 94/74/EEC of
22 December 1994 amending Directive 92/12/EEC on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty
and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, Directive 92/81/EEC on the harmonisation of the
structures of excise duties on mineral oils and Directive 92/82/EEC on the approximation of the rates of excise
duties on mineral oils / OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.
Judgment of 14 October 1987, C-248/84, Germany v Commission, ECR page 4013 and judgment of 8 March
1988, joined cases C-62/87 and 72/87, Exécutif régional wallon and SA Glaverbel v Commission, ECR page 1573.

(4)

(2002/C 205 E/008)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2750/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 October 2001)

Subject: Cars confiscated on the border between Finland and Sweden

In 1997 several Swedish citizens had their cars confiscated by the Finnish customs authorities. One of
them was a Swedish citizen whose car was confiscated on the grounds that he had spent more than 185
nights in the year with his Finnish fiancée. The Swede had driven from Haparanda where he lives and
works across the border to Torneå. The Finnish customs claimed that he should then be deemed to be
living in Finland and required to pay vehicle tax there. They referred to EU Directive 83/1827/EEC (1).

Their interpretation was disputed in this case and the then MEP Birgitta Ahlqvist (s) in January 1998 asked
the Council Presidency, the UK on that occasion, for an interpretation. The Council President referred to a
practical identical case on the Danish and German border. The court in that case had ruled that a person
living and working in one country may not be regarded as living in another country simply because he or
she was spending their nights with a person in the other country. The Council pointed out that the
Commission had to ensure that the Court of Justice ruling was complied with, and should therefore
examine this particular case.

What was the outcome of the Commission’s examination of this case?

(1) OJ L 105, 23.4.1983, p. 59.

29.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 205 E/9

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2001)

The Commission is aware of a number of controversial cases concerning the temporary use of vehicles
between Sweden and Finland and between other neighbouring countries. These cases are dealt with on the
basis of Council Directive 83/182/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions within the Community for
temporarily imported into one Member State from another (1) and the
certain means of
legislation on the free movement of persons within the European Union.
Infringement proceedings
initiated by the Commission against Denmark in March 2001 under Article 226 (ex-Article 169) of the EC
Treaty are already before the Court of Justice and the Commission is currently considering initiating
infringement proceedings against Finland.

transport

Subject to verification of the facts with the competent authorities, the Commission shares the view of the
Honourable Member on the case he has brought to its attention (a person living and working in Sweden
and going to Finland to spend the night with his fiancée), i.e. that it is similar to the Ryborg case on which
the Court of Justice ruled in case C-297/89 (2). The Swedish authorities will contact the Finnish authorities
to seek an appropriate solution.

(1) OJ L 105, 23.4.1983.
(2)

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 April 1991, Rigsadvokaten v Nicolai Christian Ryborg, ECR 1991,
page I-1943.

(2002/C 205 E/009)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2827/01

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 October 2001)

Subject: Protection of women’s rights

Despite all the pronouncements about the situation of women in less-developed countries, especially since
the World Conference in Beijing and the resolution on development and gender issues adopted by the
Development Council on 20 December 1995, the situation of women in developing countries continues to
be precarious.

In view of the fact that the promotion of women is an essential part of a global development strategy for
the developing countries, what specific policies is the Council thinking of adopting to step up the
promotion of their rights, health and education?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 2001)

The Commission agrees on the importance of gender equality in development cooperation. In spite of the
fact that women have won more independence and freedom of action during the last decades than ever
before, it is true that gender inequalities still exist around the world, in particular in the poorest countries
and among the poorest populations. Therefore, gender equality and the development approach to gender
mainstreaming adopted in the wake of Beijing, has been placed high on the agenda for many years in
development co-operation policies of the Community.

Recently, the Commission presented a Communication to the Parliament and to the Council (1) on a
Programme of Action, in which concrete actions and measures for mainstreaming of gender equality are
proposed.

The Programme, planned over five years, will
include interventions in particular related to health,
education and rule of law as part of the six priority areas of the Community’s Development Co-operation.