WRITTEN QUESTION E-3156/01 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Seizure of suspected contraband by HM Customs at UK points of entry.
Date: 2001-11-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: United Kingdom, alcoholic beverage, customs formalities, excise duty, fight against crime, free movement of goods, illicit trade, seizure of goods, tax harmonisation, tobacco

29.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 205 E/25

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2002)

There is no reason whatsoever to prevent British citizens from receiving ‘Euro Made Easy’ information
packs aimed at all European citizens without distinction, if they ask for it. The only reasons for which this
has not happened are that the Commission has until now not been approached by the organised British
civil society to offer supporting materials in the framework of a given action. Even if requests were to
come in after the introduction of the Euro, the Commission will be happy to help, to the extent remaining
stocks allow it.

(2002/C 205 E/025)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3156/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 November 2001)

Subject: Seizure of suspected contraband by HM Customs at UK points of entry

Does the Commission object to the seizure by HM Customs of large quantities of alcohol and cigarettes at
UK points of entry from individuals suspected of importing these items not for personal consumption but
in order to sell them to others, on the grounds that it violates the presumption of innocence, and, if so,
would it have no objections were HM Customs instead to mark bottles, packets or crates which it suspects
of being destined for sale with visible or invisible markings which could then form the basis of subsequent
prosecutions?

Does the Commission also believe that it would be helpful if the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer were to
reduce the current level of excise duty on these items to nearer the levels on the Continent, to reduce the
incentive for individuals or gangs to bring large quantities into the U.K. for the purposes of illegal sale?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 2001)

Under Council directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject
to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (1), Member States are
required to make a distinction between products subject to excise duty (e.g. tobacco products) when such
products, having been released for consumption in one Member State, are held by private individuals in
another Member State. If the products are held for the individuals’ own use, then the excise duties are due
in the Member State in which the goods were acquired. If, on the other hand, the products are held for
commercial purposes, then the excise duties are due in the second Member State. In order to make this
distinction between goods held for private or commercial purposes, the Member State must follow the
indications laid down in Article 9(2) of the Directive 92/12/EEC. In cases of breach of the excise duty rules,
the Member States are entitled to use such sanctions as they deem appropriate, as long as the sanctions
remain necessary and proportional.

As the Honourable Member is no doubt aware, the Commission recently decided to initiate proceedings
against the United Kingdom under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty. The Commission has
issued a letter of
formal notice concerning the application of the above mentioned aspects of the
harmonised excise duty rules and the proportionality of certain sanctions applied by the United Kingdom,
and is now awaiting the United Kingdom’s reply to this letter.

As concerns the methods for marking excised goods suggested by the Honourable Member,
the
Commission notes that such measures are not expressly covered by the harmonised rules of Directive
92/12/EEC. The Member States are, in principle, free to determine which methods are best suited to put
the Directives into practice. It must however be emphasised that they may not apply measures which give
rise to formalities linked to the crossing of the borders between Member States.

C 205 E/26

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.8.2002

Regarding excise duty rates, the Commission maintains its view that, in the longer term, the convergence
of duty rates would be beneficial to the smooth working of the Internal Market. However, the present
Community legislation only fixes minimum rates, and the determination of national excise rates on alcohol
and tobacco products, above the Community minimum rates, remains a matter for Member States to
decide.

(1) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992.

(2002/C 205 E/026)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3160/01

by Jannis Sakellariou (PSE) to the Council

(23 November 2001)

Subject: Motor vehicle tax

A German who works in Munich and lives in Hungary regularly commutes by car between the two
countries.

Each country, not to mention Austria as the country of transit, imposes different, sometimes contradictory,
motor vehicle registration requirements in terms of administrating tax and customs rules, generating severe
organisational problems and additional costs for the person concerned.

Does the Council intend, in the foreseeable future, to conclude agreements within the EU and vis-à-vis the
applicant countries which provide for recognition of the respective national rules?

Reply

(13 May 2002)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that, as Community law stands at present, Directives
83/182/EEC and 83/183/EEC regulate the question of the taxation of passenger motor vehicles when there
is a permanent or temporary transfer to a Member State other than that in which the vehicle is registered.

Negotiations currently under way with the candidate countries envisage that those countries will apply the
‘acquis communautaire’, of which the two Directives mentioned above form part, once they have acceded
to the Community.

(2002/C 205 E/027)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3278/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 November 2001)

Subject: Problems in the financing budget for the construction of Kyllini spa in Greece

In a letter dated 10 June 1998 from its Directorate-General XVI to the General Secretary of the Greek
Tourist Board, the Commission refers to problems which had arisen in the financing budget for the
construction of Kyllini spa. Funding for the project
from the Integrated
Mediterranean Programme for the Peloponnese, while for the 1989-1993 period it was funded under the
operational programme for tourism and for the 1994-1999 period under the operational programme for
tourism and culture. Although project construction has been completed, it is not in operation.

initially came,

in 1988,