WRITTEN QUESTION E-3461/01 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission. British customs restrictions on the free movement of goods.
Date: 2002-01-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Spain, United Kingdom, alcohol, application of EU law, approximation of laws, electronic commerce, excise duty, free movement of goods, originating product, tobacco

C 229 E/24

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.9.2002

(2002/C 229 E/023)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3433/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 December 2001)

Subject: The persecution of Christians in the Sudan

Is the Commission aware of a continuing campaign of intimidation, persecution and terror by the
extremist Jihad Muslim warriors against innocent Christian people in southern Sudan?

What pressure will the Commission bring to stop this senseless killing?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2002)

The Commission is closely following the evolution of the inter-Sudanese conflict particularly in the
southern regions. The Commission is aware of human rights violations committed by all parties in the
conflict. Together with the Member States it is applying concerted pressure on the government to ensure
these violations are brought under control. A recent Union Troika to Sudan expressed its concerns
regarding the situation of religious freedom to the Government of Sudan. This mission followed the
statement of Mr. Gerhart Baum, Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation
of human rights in the Sudan, New York, 8 November 2001 and the identification mission for the
European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) which took place in October/November
2001.

The Commission is not aware of the particular group mentioned, the Jihad Muslim, nor of its involvement
in a specific campaign of terror in southern Sudan.

(2002/C 229 E/024)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3461/01

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(4 January 2002)

Subject: British customs restrictions on the free movement of goods

A number of Spanish companies in the e-commerce sector regularly encounter problems with the British
customs. These firms sell Spanish products (wine, jewellery, gifts, etc) and tobacco products (cigarettes,
cigars and loose tobacco). According to the current legislation, for sales within the European Community,
the companies may sell a maximum of four cartons of cigarettes and ten litres of alcoholic beverages per
person for personal use.

However, despite being in a single market, the British customs confiscates a large quantity of these
consignments addressed to customers of these companies, saying that they must pay tax in the United
Kingdom, although the tax has already been paid in Spain. The firms consider this to be an infringement
of the principle of free movement of goods sanctioned in the Treaty.

The United Kingdom Statutory Instrument 3155/1992 inaccurately transposes Council Directive 92/12/
EEC (1) of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the
holding, movement and monitoring of such products. Article 8 of the Directive states ‘As regards products
acquired by private individuals for their own use and transported by them, the principle governing the
internal market lays down that excise duty shall be charged in the Member State in which they are
acquired’. Since the customer himself pays separately to have the goods transported (the invoice sent
includes the despatching costs as a separate item) the legal requirements laid down in Article 8 of the
Directive are fulfilled.

26.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 229 E/25

Does the Commission consider that the British Government respects the principle of the free movement of
goods?

Does the Commission consider that the charging,
for a second time, of excise duty by the British
Government constitutes an infringement of the Directive on the general arrangements for products subject
to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products?

Does the Commission not consider that it is in actual fact a hidden customs duty, prohibited by Article 25
of the Treaty?

What steps will the Commission take vis-à-vis the British Government to ensure respect for the single
market?

(1) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2002)

It
is accurate that Article 8 of 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 stipulates that in the case of goods purchased by private individuals for their own use, the excise
duties are due in the Member State of purchase. However, for Article 8 to apply, the products must be
transported by the individuals themselves. If a carrier acting for the buyer transports the goods, Article 8 is
not applicable.

There are specific excise duty rules for distance sales between Member States in Article 10 of the Directive.
The principle is that products which are released for consumption in one Member State, and which are
transported or dispatched directly or indirectly by the vendor or on his behalf, shall bear excise duties in
the Member State of destination.

Article 10 of the Directive must be interpreted in the light of the Court of Justice’s ruling in case C-296/
95 (1). The Court has made a wide interpretation of the ambit of Article 10, stating (as concerns the
requirement that the products shall be transported by the vendor or on his behalf) that ‘the formula used
in that provision clearly indicates that the Community legislature is more concerned with the objective
nature of the transaction than with its legal form’ (point 46 of the judgement) and that Article 10 should
cover all cases of dispatch on behalf of the vendor.

In the Commission’s experience, most e-commerce sites of the kind referred to by the Honourable Member
offer to facilitate the transport or dispatch of the goods in such a way that they should be considered as
covered by the wording of Article 10. However,
the
circumstances may be such that the transport or dispatch of the goods are clearly organised by the buyer,
not the vendor. The Commission considers that, in light of the structure of the harmonised excise system
and the reasoning behind the Court’s judgement in case C-296/95, such cases must also be covered by
Article 10 of Directive 92/12/EEC.

it can not be excluded that

in some cases,

Hence, the Commission would like to reply to the questions of the Honourable Member as follows:

(a)

In the Commission’s view,
the measures taken by the British authorities, as described by the
Honourable Member, seem to be in conformity with the rules of the harmonised excise duty system,
which are expressly designed to put into practice the principle of free movement of goods for
products subject to excise duty.

(b) As explained above, the Commission considers that Article 10 of Directive 92/12/EEC applies to
‘distance sales’. In these cases, Article 10 provides for a procedure for the refund of the excise duty
paid in the Member State of departure by the vendor. Through this procedure, double taxation is
avoided.

C 229 E/26

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.9.2002

(c) The Commission does not consider that the levy of an excise duty by a Member State in accordance
with the harmonised excise duty rules of Directive 92/12/EEC can constitute a customs duty (as
prohibited by Article 25 of the EC Treaty).

(d)

In the light of the above, there seems to be no ground for the Commission to take action against the
United Kingdom.

(1)

Judgment of the Court of 2 April 1998, The Queen v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise, ex parte EMU Tabac
SARL, The Man in Black Ltd, John Cunningham, ECR 1998 I-1605.

(2002/C 229 E/025)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3478/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: NoVa-standard consumption levy

In Austria there is a standard consumption levy (NoVa) which has to be paid when a vehicle is imported
into Austria.

Are any such levies payable in other EU countries?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2002)

The Austrian tax to which the Honourable Member is referring, is a tax which can be characterised as a
registration tax. Under Austrian law, the tax is chargeable when a new car is delivered and when a car,
which is not yet registered nationally, is registered. Cars transferred from other Member States and cars
imported from third countries are thus subject to this tax.

Ten Member States are currently applying a registration tax. Germany, France, Luxembourg, Sweden and
the United Kingdom do not apply a registration tax.

It should be added that the Commission considers that aspects of the Austrian NoVa discriminate between
cars from Austria and cars from other Member States in a way that is contrary to Article 90 of the EC
Treaty. The Commission has therefore decided to challenge this tax before the Court of Justice.

(2002/C 229 E/026)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3487/01

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: EDF and EIB

How does the Commission see the relationship between the European Development Fund and the
European Investment Bank?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2002)

According to the Cotonou Agreement, the Investment Facility (IF), by providing investment financing, in
the form of loans, equity and quasi equity, as well as guarantees, aims to promote commercially viable
businesses, primarily in the private sector. It will be operated by the European Investment Bank (EIB) as a
revolving fund and be expected to earn a positive real rate of return.