WRITTEN QUESTION P-3393/02 by Luciana Sbarbati (ELDR) to the Commission. Excise duty on wine.
Date: 2002-11-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, Italy, alcoholic beverage, excise duty, tax harmonisation, wine

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?

C 65 E/6

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-3067/02 and P-3393/02
given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2003)

Council Directive 92/84/EEC, of 19 October 1992, deals with the approximation of rates of excise duty on
alcohol and alcoholic beverages. Under its provisions it is necessary for the excise duty rates laid down in
that Directive to be reviewed periodically by Council. This review shall be based upon a Commission
report.

The Commission services are at present preparing such a review. On 11 September 2002 the Commission
held a comprehensive orientation debate on the EU alcohol taxation regime. A final decision on the
Commission’s approach in this area has not yet been taken. As provided by Article 8 of Directive 92/84/
EEC, the wider objectives of the Treaty will be taken into account.

As regards tax harmonisation at European level, the Commission believes that such harmonisation requires
the enhanced commitments of both high taxing and low taxing Member States.

On the other hand, there is no link between Annex 1 of the EC Treaty (referred to in Article 32, defining
the products subject to Articles 33 to 38 of the Treaty) and the question whether or not a product is
subject to excise duty.

Italy applies a zero rate of excise duty to both still and sparkling wines. This legislation is in line with the
present ‘acquis communautaire’.

(2004/C 65 E/007)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3350/02

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 November 2002)

Subject: Trade agreements and the liberalisation of the textile and clothing sector

On 6 November the Commission announced the signing of the EU-Brazil Memorandum of Understanding
on the liberalisation of the textile trade, in which the EU undertakes to remove all textile quotas applicable
to Brazil. The Commissioner Pascal Lamy said that the agreement constituted a clear signal that the EU is
ready to open up its textile market earlier than the deadline of 2005 envisaged by the WTO. This means
that it is willing to call into question compliance with the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC),
in its answer to Written Question E-3079/01 (1), did not consider that such
whilst the Commission,
bilateral agreements would jeopardise the timetable for the ATC. On the same day, in the context of aid to
developing countries and as a follow-up to the WTO Doha Round, it submitted a proposal to reduce
customs tariffs by 70 % for all non-agricultural products, proposing drastic cuts in quotas and tariffs
covering textile products and footwear, without mentioning any compensatory measures for the sectors
affected.

These proposals follow other recent agreements aimed at anticipating the strategy of liberalising the trade
in textiles and clothing, so that this sector (like the agricultural sector) may become a bargaining counter
for openings in other sectors covered by the negotiations, for example services, public contracts or
investment. The reason for the timetable laid down in the ATC was to delay opening up the market to
more sensitive products, in order to give the industry time to restructure and adapt to a situation of
liberalisation. At the time it was considered in some quarters that the deadline of 10 years for the ATC was
too short, in view of the socio-economic impact of liberalisation, especially in regions dependent on the
sector and countries such as Portugal, where textiles, clothing and footwear play an important role in
production, export and employment.