WRITTEN QUESTION E-3801/02 by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission. Tobacco excise on medicinal herbal cigarettes.
Date: 2003-01-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: excise duty, medical plant, tax harmonisation, tax system, tobacco

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/583

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2003)

With regard to the existing compulsory exemption from the harmonised excise duty on mineral oils used
as fuels for the purpose of air navigation, other than for private pleasure crafts, the Commission can
inform the Honourable Member of the following:

1. The Commission has taken a position in favour of abolishing this exemption since 1996 (1). The
Commission presented a proposal restructuring the taxation of energy products in March 1997 (2),
which includes provisions, under its Article 13, allowing Member States to extend the application of
the harmonised excise duty on aviation fuel for domestic flights or, via bilateral agreements, on intra-
Community flights carried out by Community carriers.

Concerning taxation of kerosene used by international aviation the Commission presented a
Communication on aircraft fuel taxation, in March 2000 (3), suggesting, inter alia, to intensify the
work within the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) framework for the introduction of
taxation of aircraft fuel, or other measures with similar effects. Following the Community’s request,
taxation of aircraft fuels appeared on the agenda of the ICAO 33rd Assembly, held in Montreal
between 25 September 2001 and 5 October 2001. However, it proved impossible to obtain support
from the other ICAO Members, particularly in view of the very unfavourable conditions for aviation
following the events of 11 September 2001.

2. The Commission does not intend to submit an additional proposal on taxation of aircraft fuel, as in its

opinion this issue is sufficiently covered by its 1997 proposal on taxation of energy products.

3. Discussions on the proposal on taxation of energy products have been intensified in the Council
during recent months, and it is hoped that it may be adopted in due course. During the discussions on
a potential political agreement, presented by the Danish Presidency in December 2002, it appeared
that all but one Member State, could agree that, as a matter of principle, commercial aircraft fuel
should be taxed on the same basis as any other fuel. However, it is necessary to take into account the
question of competition with third countries, and the avoidance of any distortion of competition with
consequent socio-economic implications. Therefore, it is appropriate to pursue the discussion on this
matter within the ICAO, and take the decision on whether to tax kerosene used by international
aviation if its taxation is allowed at international level.

However, the Council could approve the provisions, included in the Commission proposal, providing
for the optional application by Member States of a lower level of taxation on kerosene to be used for
domestic or intra-Community flights.

(1) OJ C 382, 18.12.1996.
(2) OJ C 139, 6.5.1997.
(3) COM(2000) 110 final.

(2004/C 88 E/0596)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3801/02

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 January 2003)

Subject: Tobacco excise on medicinal herbal cigarettes

With reference to the Commission’s answers of 23 April 2002 (E-0721/02 (1)) to questions by Jules
Maaten, I should like to put some supplementary questions:

1.

Is the Commission aware that in some European countries (e.g. Belgium, France, Britain, Ireland and
Italy), medicinal herbal cigarettes have for years been sold free of tobacco excise even though these
countries have not, like Denmark, exempted these products from excise?

C 88 E/584

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

2.

Is it right that it should be left to the discretion of national authorities to decide whether to place
products on lists of pharmaceutical products which serve exclusively medical purposes,
in the
knowledge that this could result in national authorities arriving at different points of view, so that
different rates of excise are levied on the same product in different Member States?

(1) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 81.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2003)

1.
Article 4 of Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes
which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco provides a definition of ‘cigarettes’. According to
Article 7(2) of this Directive products consisting in whole or in part of substances other than tobacco but
otherwise conforming to the definition of cigarettes, shall be treated as cigarettes as well.

On the other hand, products containing no tobacco and used exclusively for medical purposes shall not be
treated as manufactured tobacco. Since they are not to be regarded as tobacco products Member States are
not permitted to levy harmonised excise duty on them.

The reply of the Commission to written question E-0721/02 was based on its interpretation of the
information provided by the Member States a number of years ago. On the basis of the information
provided by the Honourable Member in his present question, the Commission intends to investigate the
current application of the above mentioned rules by the Member States again and to clarify possible
doubts on the occasion of the next meeting of the excise committee (beginning of April). The Commission
will send this information directly to the Honourable Member.

2. When the Council agreed on the product definitions in Directive 79/32/EEC (replaced by Directive
95/59/EC), it did not define explicitly the exact meaning of ‘used exclusively for medical purposes’.

The decision whether a certain product is used exclusively for medical purposes (cid:1) which is not a question
of taxation (cid:1) has to be made by national health authorities or equivalent official bodies in the Member
States.

Such decision, however, must respect the aims of Article 7(2), second subparagraph, of Directive 95/59/EC,
which is to leave goods outside the scope of harmonised excise duty, provided they contain no tobacco
and are used exclusively for medical purposes.

(2004/C 88 E/0597)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3926/02

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 January 2003)

Subject: Production levy in France

Further to my question No. P-2720/01 (1), will the Commission provide details of the measures taken on
this matter and the grounds on which they were taken?

Can the Commission also say when a solution may be expected?

(1) OJ C 93 E, 18.4.2002, p. 179.