WRITTEN QUESTION P-3926/02 by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission. Production levy in France.
Date: 2003-01-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: State aid, beef, control of State aid, professional association, quasi-fiscal charge

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.

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/585

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 August 2003)

Further to its first answer, the Commission is now able to provide the following information. Following an
initial examination of the case, the Commission decided on 9 July 2003 to initiate a formal examination
procedure within the meaning of Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty with regard to France’s contributions to the
national intertrade association for livestock and meat.

The Honourable Member is requested to take note of the details of that procedure when they are published
shortly in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Commission will endeavour to take a decision
within 18 months of the start of the procedure, and will inform the Honourable Member of the final
outcome of its examination.

(2004/C 88 E/0598)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0020/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(10 January 2003)

Subject: Caste-based discrimination in India

Dalits, formerly called untouchables, suffer from every conceivable form of discrimination. They are classed
as below the lowest group of the social caste system in India and are not allowed to live with, marry or
even drink the same water as those born into high-caste families. On 10 October 2002 at the third EU-
India Summit, the EU issued a declaration with India, affirming a mutual commitment to strengthening
human rights and to maintaining continual bilateral dialogue on the issue. Just days after this declaration,
five Dalits were beaten to death by upper-caste locals for skinning dead cows (something which they do to
earn a living) due to a rumour that they had illegally slaughtered the animals. This incident exemplifies the
caste tensions and continuing caste discrimination that characterise life in rural India.

What specific measures does the EU envisage taking in bringing pressure to bear on the Indian authorities
to stop the widespread discrimination and repression suffered by India’s repressed castes?

Does the Commission agree that discussion in the EU should be more strongly promoted in order to
sufficiently address the issue of caste-based and related forms of discrimination, and what steps are likely to
be taken towards this?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2003)

The Commission is aware of the many cases of caste discrimination that, regrettably, still persist in modern
India. Nevertheless, important progress has been made. For example, India’s most populous state (Uttar
Pradesh) has a female Dalit as Chief Minister, something that would have been inconceivable not too long
ago.

As the Honourable Member rightly points out, the joint Press Statement at the 2002 Union-India Summit
in Copenhagen reiterates the firm commitment by both partners to maintain a dialogue on human rights.
This endeavour is already followed up in all high level meetings between the Union and India.

It should, however, be remembered that India is a democracy governed under the rule of law and that the
press is free and active. The internal debate is the most important vehicle for change in this area.
Furthermore, India has the world’s largest and oldest affirmative action programme. Not only are jobs in
government or places at university reserved for the people on the basis of their caste, but also 85 out of
535 seats in parliament are reserved for Dalits.