WRITTEN QUESTION E-3067/02 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Excise duty on wine.
Date: 2002-10-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, Italy, alcoholic beverage, excise duty, tax harmonisation, wine

C 65 E/4

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

On 19 September on the eve of the World Day of Non-violent Struggle for Freedom and Democracy also
in Vietnam, promoted by the trans-national Radical Party and backed in the United States by Dr Que’s
brother, Dr Quan, about 20 policemen entered Dr Que’s house without a search warrant and, led by the
deputy head of the Saigon security forces, searched it for Articles and publications considered as being
against the State. The Lieutenant-Colonel tried to take Dr Que, who is in a critical state of health, to Saigon
by force. Dr Que resisted, throwing himself to the floor, in non-violent protest against this decision. After
approximately four hours the police left the house, leaving ten people to keep it under surveillance.

Is the Commission aware of this violation of the principle of habeas corpus vis-à-vis Dr Que, who is guilty
only of wanting to stay in Vietnam in order to try to promote democracy and freedom in that country and
not be sent into exile as the authorities in Hanoi would like. Does the Commission not consider that the
serious and continual violations of human, civil and political rights in Vietnam, such as those suffered by
Dr Que, are a blatant infringement of Article 2 of the Cooperation Agreement signed by the Commission
and the Vietnamese Government, and does it not consider that it should say what body is responsible for
monitoring compliance with this clause and what parameters are to be respected?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 November 2002)

The Commission, together with the Member States represented in Vietnam, monitors closely human rights
developments in Vietnam as part of the policy of the Union to encourage and support the continued
commitment of the Government of Vietnam to progress in the field of human rights. The Commission also
participates with the Member States in regular dialogue with and in all Union démarches to the
Government of Vietnam on human rights issues.

The Commission is indeed aware of Dr Nguyen Dan Que’s commitment to promoting democratic multi-
party elections in Vietnam by non-violent means and of press reports of the incident described in the
question. The Delegation of the Commission in Hanoi has not yet been able to obtain reliable confirmation
of these reports, but is continuing its enquiries.

The Community-Vietnam Co-operation Agreement, which was signed in 1995, states in its first article that
respect for human rights and democratic principles is the basis of our co-operation. There is no specific
reference to human rights in Article 2 of the Agreement. Questions related to the respect for and the
promotion of human rights are addressed in meetings of the Community-Vietnam Joint Commission
established under the Co-operation Agreement.

Taking account of the overall situation in Vietnam since the signature of the Agreement in 1995 and of
the Government’s continued commitment to further progress, the Commission does not consider that it
would be appropriate to conclude at this stage that there has been a breach of the Agreement. The
Delegation of the Commission, together with the Member States represented in Vietnam, will continue to
monitor human rights developments in the country and to raise particular issues and individual cases of
concern through the appropriate diplomatic channels.

(2004/C 65 E/005)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3067/02

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(25 October 2002)

Subject: Excise duty on wine

It was reported in the Italian press in September 2002 that the European Commission is debating whether
to introduce a minimum rate of excise duty greater than 0 % on wine in all EU countries including Italy,
which are currently exempt from this duty. More specifically, the initial rates of duty, which would not
apply to anyone producing under 1 000 hectolitres per year, would be EUR 0,13 per litre from 1 January
2003 and EUR 0,15 per litre as from 1 January 2007.

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/5

this excise duty would add
The Italian Farmers’ Confederation has calculated that
EUR 500 million per annum to the prices paid by the consumer, which could well trigger a drop in
consumption. Furthermore, the introduction of a minimum rate of excise duty for wine would not only
adversely affect companies’ sales and profitability but also increase bureaucracy. All this would be contrary
to the Common Agricultural Policy, which aims to promote rural development and safeguard the
countryside.

the levying of

In view of this, does the Commission not consider that:

1.

tax harmonisation at European level should tend towards the reduction of existing excise duties rather
than the introduction of new ones;

2.

all the agricultural products listed in Annex 1 to the EC Treaty should be exempt from excise duty;

3.

the harmonisation of Italian legislation already constitutes full compliance with Article 7 of Directive
92/83/EEC (1) and Article 5 of Directive 92/84/EEC (2)?

(1) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 21.
(2) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 29.

(2004/C 65 E/006)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3393/02

by Luciana Sbarbati (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 November 2002)

Subject: Excise duty on wine

The Commission’s proposal to tax alcoholic beverages (which would hit wine in particular) with the aim of
‘upward harmonisation’ is likely to increase inflation and reduce consumption. It may definitely make fraud
more widespread by reducing the competitiveness of the market and would have an unpredictable impact
in the context of enlargement. The proposal does not take account of the standard of living in the
candidate countries and would make market penetration more difficult for EU producers and have adverse
effects on local production.

Organisations representing wine producers consider the proposal to be a dangerous mistake, since it would
place a burden on the whole sector in Italy, where there are 314 DOC wines (controlled designations of
origin), 24 DO CG wines (DOC with additional guarantees), 729 000 hectares of vineyards and a national
production of more than 50 million hectolitres.

The proposal does not make allowance for the division of the sector into small units (cid:1) micro-enterprises
with an average of 4-5 hectares (cid:1) which play an important socio-economic and environmental role.

Unlike VAT, excise duty should tackle the external costs of product consumption, rather than being an
additional tax, and manufacturing levies should be imposed on industrial rather than natural products.

Can the Commission explain whether:

(cid:1) the proposal meets the legal and financial requirements of conformity;

(cid:1) the proposal

is in conflict with the new COM in wine, which emphasises the need to convert
vineyards in order to promote production with market outlets rather than the abandonment of
vineyards;

(cid:1) the adverse impact which the application of excise duty (a fixed amount) would have on average

products and hence on consumers has been assessed?