WRITTEN QUESTION E-2683/02 by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Council. Charges on European roads.
Date: 2002-09-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law - national law, Germany, competence of the Member States, motor fuel, motorway, restriction on competition, road transport, tax harmonisation, tax system, toll

12.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137 E/109

Reply

(18 February 2003)

The Council has taken note of the resolution of the European Parliament of 14 January 1999 on the

1.
human rights situation in the Philippines.

The Council has not discussed the statement of 3 September 2002 by the Negotiation Panel of the
terrorist

the Philippines entitled ‘Why the CPP and NPA are not

2.
National Democratic Front of
organisations’.

3.
Following an in-depth examination of the information available in accordance with the criteria laid
down in Article 1(4) of Common Position 2002/931/CFSP, the Council has decided to include the New
Peoples’ Army and its leader Jose Maria Sison in its latest update (1) of the list of persons or organisations
to which the measures set out in Common Position 2001/931/CFSP apply.

(1) Common Position 2002/847/CFSP, OJ L 295, 30.10.2002.

(2003/C 137 E/122)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2683/02

by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(26 September 2002)

Subject: Charges on European roads

Germany has recently reached an agreement on introducing a motorway tax as from 31 July 2003. Austria
has also decided to introduce a similar charge as from 1 January 2003. At the same time many other EU
Member States are considering similar initiatives.

While this obviously presents opportunities for promoting a modal shift, e.g. towards the railways, the
above-mentioned decisions will hit some Member States’ haulage firms harder than others.

Can the Council, therefore, explain how these schemes are compatible with the rules of the internal
market, and how they can be justified in view of their competition-distorting nature?

In addition, what initiatives are being considered with a view to the introduction of a uniform European
system of road charges, fuel taxes and eco-points?

Reply

(18 February 2003)

The Council underlines that matters of national taxation fall within the competence of the Member States.
Such taxation should at all times respect the fundamental principle of non-discrimination, it is for the
Commission to check the compatibility of such measures with the general rules of the internal market.

As to the substance of the question regarding a uniform European system of road charges, the Council
informs the Honourable Parliamentarian that the Commission:

(cid:1) plans to present by the end of this year its Communication on a charging system for the use of

infrastructure for all modes of transport;

(cid:1) in its White Paper ‘European Transport Policy for 2010: time to decide’, announces a proposal for a
Directive designed to guarantee the interoperability of toll systems on the trans-European road
network;

C 137 E/110

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

12.6.2003

(cid:1) with regard to taxation, presented, on 27 August, a proposal for a Council Directive (1) defining the
conditions for implementing special tax arrangements for diesel fuel used for commercial purposes.
This matter is under examination within the Council’s preparatory bodies.

(1) COM(2002) 410 final.

(2003/C 137 E/123)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2689/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(26 September 2002)

Subject: Definition of terms in the EU Code of Conduct for Arms Exports

In 1998 the Council approved the EU Code of Conduct for Arms Exports. In this Code of Conduct the EU
Member States declare themselves to be ‘determined (sic) to prevent the export of equipment which might
be used for internal repression or international aggression, or contribute to regional instability’.

Criterion 3 refers to the internal situation in the country of final destination: ‘Member States will not allow
exports which would provoke or prolong armed conflicts or aggravate existing tensions or conflicts in the
country of final destination’.

Can the Council tell me exactly what the signatories understood ‘armed conflicts’ and ‘existing tensions or
conflicts’ to mean?

Can the Council tell me exactly what the signatories had in mind when they spoke of ‘provoking’ and
‘prolonging’ a conflict? And what actions were the signatories referring to when they spoke of these
possibly ‘aggravating existing tensions or conflicts’?

Reply

(18 February 2003)

The Council informs the Honourable Parliamentarian that the day to day interpretation and application of
the Code’s principles is carried out by each Member State individually, when taking a decision on whether
to grant an export licence. It does not lie in the Council’s purview to exercise a review of such decisions.

(2003/C 137 E/124)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2690/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(26 September 2002)

Subject: European system of end-use certificates

Point 1.2.2 of the final report of the Subcommittee on Arms Trading (doc. 614/4 (cid:1) 95/96, 28 April 1999)
of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Belgische Kamer van Volksvertegenwoordigers (Belgian Chamber
of Parliamentarians) reads as follows: ‘A watertight system of controls for these transactions continues to
be a necessity. In the light of this, we point particularly to the need for a rigorous joint system for the
delivery and verification of end-use certificates’.

Can the Council say whether it is aware of the wish expressed here and whether it shares the Belgian
Federal Parliamentarians’ analysis of the situation?

If so, what steps has it already undertaken to set up such a system, and when does it think it will

1.
become operational?

If not, why not? Is the Council thinking of putting this point to the members for consideration when

2.
the opportunity arises? If so, approximately when?