WRITTEN QUESTION P-1234/02 by Professor Sir Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Tax stamps and control of smuggling.
Date: 2002-04-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, alcoholic beverage, excise duty, fight against crime, illicit trade, stamp duty

C 28 E/86

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2003

(2003/C 28 E/093)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1205/02

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(26 April 2002)

Subject: ACP debt relief

Would the Commission clarify whether the proposal to ‘settle’ all outstanding special loans to each least
implementation of HIPC means full cancellation of stock (after
developed ACP country after the full
completion point)?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(27 May 2002)

The terminology referred to in the question by the Honourable Member is from the Decision of the
ACP-EC Council of Ministers of 20 December 2001. The Council, through the decision, requires the
Commission to take the measures necessary to utilise EUR 60 million from European Development Fund
(EDF) resources to settle all ACP Least Development Countries (LDCs) (cid:1) Highly Indebted Poor Countries
(HIPC) Special Loans, which would remain after full application of normal HIPC mechanism.

A financing proposal is currently under preparation and scheduled for approval by the Commission in July
2002. Operationally, once the beneficiary country will reach ‘completion point’ the outstanding stock of
special loans should be fully relieved or cancelled from the country books. Such a proposal will bring the
total contribution of the European Union, acting as a creditor, to EUR 408,97 million of which EUR 200
million have been already transferred to a special account managed by the European Investment Bank. The
Union is also contributing to the HIPC initiative by funding the HIPC as a Donor to an amount of
EUR 680 million, out of which EUR 670 million are channelled through a Trust Fund managed by the
World Bank. EUR 500 million have already been disbursed. Both proposals are in favour of ACP HIPC
countries.

The non-ACP HIPC countries are covered from non-EDF sources of funding.

(2003/C 28 E/094)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1234/02

by Professor Sir Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Tax stamps and control of smuggling

(23 April 2002)

Faced with the problem of the smuggling of bottled spirit drinks in the Union, some Member States may
consider resorting to the device of tax stamps, with obligatory affixing of such to each bottle lawfully sold.

Has the Commission any advice on the question:

(a) whether this is likely to be an effective way of combating the evil in question; and

(b) whether there is any risk of conflict with single market law on non-discrimination?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2002)

As regards the Honourable Member’s point (a), attitudes towards the effectiveness of tax markings in the
control of smuggling and fraud vary, not only from Member State to Member State, but also from product

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28 E/87

to product, and (cid:1) as conditions alter (cid:1) over the course of time. The Commission would not therefore
wish to offer any opinion on their overall usefulness. In the particular field of bottled spirits drinks,
according to the Commission’s information, only Denmark, Spain, Italy and Portugal currently require
fiscal markings.

As regards point (b), the detailed rules on the application of tax markings are laid down in Article 21 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 (1). In particular, Article 21
provides that:

1. Without prejudice to Article 6(1), Member States may require that products released for
consumption in their territory shall require tax markings or national identification marks used for
fiscal purposes.

Any Member State which requires the use of tax marking or national identification marks as set
2.
out in paragraph 1 shall be required to make them available to authorized warehousekeepers of the
other Member States. However, each Member State may require that fiscal marks be made available to
a tax representative authorized by the tax authority of that Member State.

Without prejudice to any provisions they may lay down in order to ensure that this Article is
implemented properly and to prevent any fraud, evasion or abuse, Member States shall ensure that
these marks or markings do not create obstacles to the free movement of products subject to excise
duty.

3.
Tax markings or identification marks within the meaning of paragraph 1 shall be valid in the
Member State which issued them. However, there may be mutual recognition of these markings
between Member States.

Article 6(1) of Directive 92/12/EEC (cid:1) referred to above in paragraph 1 of Article 21 (cid:1) provides that ‘excise
duty shall become chargeable at the time of release for consumption’ … (which the provision goes on to
define in detail) …‘or when shortages are recorded which must be subject to excise duty …’.

Therefore, a Member State’s requirement that products bear tax markings may not affect the moment
when excise duty becomes chargeable on them.

(1) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992.

(2003/C 28 E/095)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1246/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 April 2002)

Subject: Refusal to restore confiscated property to Assyrian Syrians from Tur Abdin

In 1984, the Kurds launched their armed struggle against the Turkish State. This civil war in south-eastern
Turkey gradually developed into a ruthless war which severely affected civilians throughout the south-east
region. Despite much provocation by the Turkish State, the Assyrian Syrians refused to take part in the
hostilities on either side. This did not prevent the Turkish State from deporting Assyrian Syrians from a
large number of their villages. The Turkish State reacted to their neutrality as if they were enemies of the
state. The method used by the Turkish State was often to gather the villagers together violently at gunpoint
and order them to leave the village within 24 hours. In a large number of Assyrian Syrian villages, the
population was driven out and replaced with the State’s own supporters.

The following are only two examples of 32 villages which received the same treatment. The villages of
Sare (Turkish Sari) and Gaznag (Turkish Gevizagaci) were both emptied of their Assyrian Syrian population
in 1996. Since then, the villagers have appealed to every conceivable authority in an attempt to recover
their property and the village but to no avail. Recently, the villagers appealed to the Turkish President, to
the same effect.

What steps will the Commission take to enable the Assyrian-Chaldean-Syrians to recover their confiscated
villages?