WRITTEN QUESTION E-3300/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Harmonisation of alcohol tax.
Date: 2001-11-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: alcohol, alcoholic beverage, excise duty, tax harmonisation

C 172 E/34

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

dumping. Since firms will be able to select their employees without restriction, it is possible that current
agreements with the employers’ organisation, Sveriges hamnar, will not be respected and that employees
who accept
fierce
competition in the industry already, but it is between ports.

lower wages than the present dock workers will be recruited. There is in fact

The deregulation proposal is based on the assumption that current stevedoring is inefficient. Many in the
industry believe that to be wrong. The port of Gothenburg, for instance, competes with Hamburg and
other major ports. However, that level of competition will be constrained if 10 to 15 firms are to share
stevedoring between them, which will be the case in a port the size of Gothenburg if deregulation becomes
a reality.

If an exception is made for cargo handling, then piloting, towing and passenger services will be left to
open up to competition. According to the National Maritime Administration, piloting cannot be
deregulated, towing is already open to competition and there is no monopoly on passenger services.
Passenger services are in any case not extensive, amounting to no more than dockside boarding and
disembarkation.

Does the Commission not agree that competition does take place between various ports within the Union
at the present time and should that competition not be sufficient to ensure that stevedoring and other port
services continue to operate efficiently?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2002)

The purpose of the proposal submitted by the Commission is to establish a regulatory framework for
operating ports in line with the principles of economic efficiency, transparency and non-discrimination.

The Commission appreciates, understands and shares the particular concern which the Honourable
Member attaches to the social aspects of the proposal.

Generally, Article 15 proposes that Member States must take the necessary measures to ensure application
of their social legislation. This therefore makes it clear that the proposal is not intended to weaken the
existing social framework in the Member States; ports are and will remain subject to the social legislation
applicable in their country.

Article 6 proposes empowering the competent authority to lay down clear criteria governing service
providers’ activities in each port. In line with the subsidiarity principle, these criteria can vary from one
port to another, depending on local conditions. The criteria must be transparent, non-discriminatory,
objective,
in particular, may relate to the provider’s professional
qualifications. In other words, the competent authority may decide the qualification requirements for
workers at a given port and, therefore, bar anyone who fails to meet them from working there.

relevant and proportional and,

The fact that providers of port services would have the right to employ personnel of their own choice
(Article 6(5)) creates no new rule on port workers’ qualifications, since providers would be able to recruit
only workers with the qualifications required by the port authority.

(2002/C 172 E/037)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3300/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 November 2001)

Subject: Harmonisation of alcohol tax

There are significant differences between the Member States’ taxes on alcohol. Sweden has one of the
highest alcohol taxes, which is justified on the grounds that it takes account of public health.

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/35

According to the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter (13 October 2001), the Commission is planning to
submit proposals for common maximum and minimum levels of tax on alcohol within the Union.

Does the Commission thereby wish to establish a new principle, i.e. that alcohol tax in the Union should
be gradually harmonised? If so, can individual Member States obtain an exemption from that principle on
grounds of public health?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 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.

Council Directive 92/84/EEC, of 19 October 1992, deals with the approximation of the rates of excise
duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (1). Under the provisions of this Directive, it is necessary for the
rates laid down in the Directive to be reviewed periodically, on the basis of a Commission report taking
into account all the appropriate factors. The Commission is at present in the process of producing such a
report. It will take into consideration all aspects of the subject, including health issues.

(1) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992.

(2002/C 172 E/038)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3305/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 November 2001)

Subject: Gambling monopoly in Sweden

Foreign gaming companies have long attempted to break into the Swedish gambling market. The London-
based gaming company, SSP, has lost around ten cases in the Swedish courts. Ladbrokes, one of the
biggest gaming companies in the world, is also trying to break into the Swedish market. The objective is to
be established on the market by 2005. Swedish customers can in fact already place bets with SSP and
Ladbrokes via the Internet, in which case the money goes directly to the UK.

Has the Commission examined the Swedish monopoly on gambling and is it considered to be consistent
with the principle of freedom of movement on the internal market?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 2002)

The Honourable Member asks whether the Commission has examined the Swedish monopoly and whether
it is considered to be consistent with the principle of free movement enshrined in the EC Treaty. The
Commission has not had occasion to examine the workings of the Swedish monopoly in all its details and
implications. In the context of its work on an Internal Market Strategy for services, a number of interested
parties including Member States’
lottery operators have indicated that legal clarity is required at the
European level for gambling services. The Commission will be considering this issue in the context of its
work on the Internal Market for services. In so doing, it will take due account of existing jurisprudence of
the European Court of
Justice which has indicated that Member States’ restrictions to cross-border
provision of certain forms of gambling services are compatible with the EC Treaty in the absence of a
Community framework.