Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 92/81/EEC and Directive 92/82/EEC to introduce special tax arrangements for diesel fuel used for commercial purposes and to align the excise duties on petrol and diesel fuel" (COM(2002) 410 final — 2002/0191 (CNS))
Date: 2003-01-23
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: common transport policy, diesel fuel, excise duty, motor fuel, petrol, tax harmonisation, tax system

8.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/133

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council
Directive amending Directive 92/81/EEC and Directive 92/82/EEC to introduce special tax
arrangements for diesel fuel used for commercial purposes and to align the excise duties on
petrol and diesel fuel’

(COM(2002) 410 final — 2002/0191 (CNS))

(2003/C 85/28)

On 4 September 2002 the Council, decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion, which was
responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 26 November
2002. The rapporteur was Mr Levaux.

At its 396th plenary session, held on 22 and 23 January 2003, (meeting of 23 January), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 67 votes to 29, with six abstentions.

1.

Introduction

the proposal

The aims of

1.1.
for a Directive are to
‘uncouple the tax arrangements for fuel used for commercial
purposes from those for fuels used for private purposes’ and
‘in the long term, arrive at a point where taxes on commercial
diesel
fuel are harmonised upwards, which would reduce
distortion of competition between operators’.

1.2. With a view to achieving these aims, the Commission
proposes to amend the two Directives on which the Com-
munity system for taxing mineral oils has been based since
1992, namely:

— Directive 92/81/EEC on the harmonisation of the struc-

tures of excise duties on mineral oils, and

— Directive 92/82/EEC on the approximation of the rates

of excise duties on mineral oils.

These two directives, which have already been amended by
Directive 94/74/EEC, lay down a minimum tax rate for each
type of mineral oil, depending on whether it is used as a fuel
for industrial or commercial purposes or for heating.

The Commission notes that the minimum rates of the
1.3.
excise duty have not been reassessed since 1992 and that the
actual rates of excise duty applied differ very considerably
from one Member State to another. In the case of diesel fuel,
the rates of excise duty range from EUR 245 to EUR 750 per
1 000 litres.

1.3.1.
The Commission therefore proposes on the one
hand, a major, progressive increase in the rate of excise duty
on commercial diesel fuel by establishing a central rate of duty
set at EUR 350 per 1 000 litres, compared with the current
minimum rate of excise duty of EUR 245 per 1 000 litres.

— A fluctuation band, set at plus or minus EUR 100, around
the central rate in order to take account of current
disparities between the rates set by the Member States.

— Annual indexation of the central rate on the basis of the
harmonised consumer price index (for EU-15) for the
previous year. The maximum correction is to be 2.5 %.

— An annual progressive reduction of the fluctuation band,
culminating in the establishment of a harmonised Com-
munity rate by 2010.

1.3.2.
On the other hand, an increase in the minimum rate
of excise duty applied to non-commercial fuels, with a view to
bringing the rate on diesel fuel into line with the rate on petrol.

In the Explanatory Memorandum and the recitals
the Commission
for a Directive,

1.4.
preceding the proposal
highlights a number of points, including:

— the need to reduce distortions of competition in the fields

of road haulage and road passenger transport;

— the need to protect the environment;

— the modest cost of the proposed measures, bearing
in mind their economic, budgetary and environmental
impact on industry, the general public, the candidate
states and legal certainty.

2. General comments

2.1.
The EESC has always encouraged policies aimed at
promoting the opening-up of markets and balanced free
competition. It therefore encourages all measures designed to
reduce or remove distortions of competition which confer
unjustified advantages on some operators. This is the aim of the
proposal, and the EESC therefore supports the Commission’s
objectives, subject to the comments set out below.

C 85/134

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.4.2003

2.2.
The EESC notes that, although the proposal takes
account of the situation in the candidate states, it makes no
mention of the competition from non-EU states, such as
Russia, Ukraine and Turkey.

The EESC proposes that the Commission introduce
2.2.1.
arrangements similar to those adopted by Switzerland (1) by
bringing in a levy, payable at the frontiers of the enlarged EU,
on heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) from non-EU states wishing
to use the road networks of the EU.

2.3.
The EESC would however point out that disparities in
rates of excise duty are not the only source of distortion of
competition in the context of road transport. Differences
between Member States continue to exist as regards wage
levels and sometimes as regards effective working hours and
driving hours, as the checks continue to be inadequate.

2.3.1.
As the Commission points out, excise duties rep-
resent only part of the taxes levied on fuels. With a view to
eradicating the effects of a multifarious taxation system, the
Commission points out that ‘the White Paper on European
transport policy for 2010: proposes introducing a graduated
tax on transport infrastructure use and making the tax system
more consistent by bringing in a single tax on commercial
road transport fuel by 2003’.

2.3.2.
In the EESC’s view there is an urgent need to
introduce a coherent taxation system covering all taxes and
excise duties levied on commercial fuel. The present proposal
for harmonising excise duties should form part of the above-
mentioned plan for a single system of taxation.

As the income from these excise duties is allocated to
2.4.
both states and regions, harmonisation can only be in an
upward direction. The EESC does, however, deplore the fact
that the failure to increase the Community minimum rate
since 1992 has exacerbated the divergencies between states, as
is now evident. This has led the Commission to propose a
central rate for diesel fuel of EUR 350 (which represents a
42 % increase over the current minimum Community rate of
EUR 245). The EESC understands the need for this increase. It
will provide most states and regions with additional tax
income which should be earmarked for funding work on
transferring traffic from the roads to other greener modes, as
pinpointed in the White Paper.

2.5.
The Commission suggests that, by raising the cost of
transport, the proposed increase in excise duties should help
to reduce traffic. In this context, the EESC wishes to point out
that goods and passenger transport responds to needs which

( 1) See the White Paper on European transport policy for 2010: time
to decide (COM(2001) 370 final, Chapter II on the headache of
funding (section C)).

are reflected in the growing demand for transport generated
by trade (see the White Paper on European transport policy
for 2010). This trade is, moreover, seen as a sign of a healthy
economy, and it is bound to increase as EU enlargement grows
nearer. Against this background, the increase in excise duties
is not likely to reduce the demand for transport but rather to
generate additional resources which will enable transport’s
negative impact on the environment to be reduced, provided
that the funding is earmarked for this purpose.

2.6.
As it has long made clear on many occasions in its
opinions, the EESC is in favour of transferring long-distance
road freight to other modes of transport which are more
economical in their consumption of polluting fuels, such as
rail transport, inland waterway transport and the ‘motorways
of the sea’.

2.6.1.
The EESC wishes to take advantage of this oppor-
tunity to point out that implementation of the White Paper on
European transport policy for 2010 should be speeded up.

The EESC, drawing on the Commission’s desire to
2.7.
apply the ‘polluter pays’ principle, proposes that,
this
principle is to be effective, the additional funding generated by
the charges levied on ‘polluters’ be used to ‘pay’ for new
infrastructure which would make it possible, in the medium
term, to eliminate the bottlenecks that generate pollution.

if

2.8.
The EESC therefore asks the Commission to take
advantage of the proposed upward harmonisation of taxes and
excise duties to adopt an innovatory approach to solving the
infrastructure funding headache (see the White Paper on
European transport policy for 2010 — Part Two, chapter II)
by setting up a ‘European infrastructure fund’
into which
income would be paid continually (e.g. one cent per litre of
the
fuel or EUR 10 per tonne of
income from the per-kilometre charges for using transport
infrastructure, to be provided under a forthcoming framework
directive, the above-mentioned income would be used to
provide the proposed European infrastructure fund with an
annual allocation. The income would be collected by the
Member States and paid annually into the EU budget. The fund
would provide aid in the form of either grants or interest-rate
subsidies, to the priority projects identified by the White Paper
on transport, due to be updated in 2004.

Irrespective of

fuel).

All the income from charges on commercial diesel,
2.9.
including the income earmarked for the proposed fund, would
come from the Member States which would transfer surplus
revenue accruing in the future from taxes and excise duties.
The surplus would comprise the annual difference between the
rates of taxes and excise duties actually charged in the various
Member States and the rates set out in the table in point 3.2 of
the proposal’s explanatory memorandum.

8.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/135

(in EUR/1 000 litres, as at February 2002)

B

DK

D

GR

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

Eurosuper

507

548

624

296

396

574

401

542

372

627

414

479

560

510

742

Diesel fuel

290 (*) 370 (*) 440 (*) 245

294

376

302 (*) 403

253 (*) 345 (*) 282

272

305 (*) 337 (*) 742 (*)

(*) Diesel fuel with a sulphur content of less than 50 ppm.

2.9.1.
By way of an example, using as a basis of assessment
an overall consumption figure of approximately 300 million
tonnes of diesel fuel and petrol per year for passenger and
goods transport (Source: Eurostat), a levy of EUR 10 per tonne
for the proposed European infrastructure fund would generate
an annual income of EUR 3 billion or EUR 90 billion over a
period of 30 years.

2.10.
The management of the European infrastructure fund
could be entrusted to the European Investment Bank, which
would subsidise with the aid of this fund the priority projects
designated by the Commission and approved by the European
Parliament and the Council; the aid would take the form of
either interest rate subsidies in respect of loans or financial
guarantees to project developers.

3. Specific comments

The EESC endorses all of the proposal’s recitals, which
3.1.
make out a detailed case in favour of the proposed measure; it
does, however, suggest that the proposed transitional period,
due to expire in 2010, in respect of the central rate of excise
duty be reduced by one or two years.

3.2.
In the light of its proposal to follow the example of
Switzerland by adopting a new approach to solving the
intractable problem of funding transport infrastructure, the
EESC suggests that a further paragraph be added to the recitals,
worded as follows:

‘If the priority projects provided for in the White Paper on
European transport policy for 2010 are to be implemented,
major sources of funding must be available to draw upon.
With this aim in view and taking advantage of the increase in
the rates of taxes and excise duties up to 2010, each Member
State shall set aside EUR 10 per tonne of fuel from these
charges, i.e. one cent per litre on all fuel consumed by goods
and passenger transport.

The sums collected each year shall be used solely to fund the
priority projects proposed by the European Commission in its
revision of the White Paper, scheduled for 2004. Depending
on the nature of the project and subject to certain criteria
(relating to sustainable development, economic viability, the
provision of funding by the Member States concerned, etc.),
the fund shall provide an additional subsidy and, if necessary,
an interest rebate in respect of loans, which should then be
taken out with the European Investment Bank, responsible for
the fund management.’

Article 1 of the proposed Directive: the EESC approves

3.3.
this article.

3.4.
Article 2 of the proposed Directive: the EESC approves
this article, subject to the introduction of a proposed new
Article 5, as requested below.

3.5.
The EESC asks the Commission to introduce a new
Article 3 defining the ‘European infrastructure fund’ and how
it is to operate and be implemented, in line with the remarks
made above.

The present Article 3, which would then become

3.6.
Article 4, is also approved.

3.7.
The EESC calls for the introduction of the new Article 5,
setting out measures for monitoring implementation of the
proposal for a Directive, covering, inter alia:

— implementation of the arrangements for harmonising
rates of excise duty over a ten-year period, with a mid-
term review after five years, which would include a special
examination of the situation in the new Member States,
following enlargement of the EU on 1 January 2004, and
the application of the principle of indexing the central
Community rate, as provided for in Article 2 of the
proposal for a Directive;

— monitoring of the establishment of the European infra-
structure fund and the use of receipts from taxes and
excise duties for implementing the priority projects.

The EESC asks to be involved in these two monitoring
provisions.

The present Article 4, which would then become

3.8.
Article 6, is approved.

This permanent income shall be paid into a special infrastruc-
ture fund created within the budget of the European Union.

The present Article 5 which would then become

3.9.
Article 7, is also approved.

C 85/136

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.4.2003

4. Conclusions

4.1.
The EESC approves all the provisions of the proposal
for a Directive but calls for the addition of its own proposals,
as detailed above; these take the form of four measures:

— a reduction of one or two years in the transitional period,
with the aim of achieving a central Community rate of
excise duty by 2008 or 2009;

— the introduction, for the benefit of the EU budget, of a
system of charges — similar to the system applied in

Brussels, 23 January 2003.

Switzerland — which would be levied on non-EU HGVs
entering the EU;

— the establishment of the European infrastructure fund
financed by (a) a European tax of one cent per litre on
fuel (generating approximately EUR 10 per tonne of fuel
or EUR 3 billion per year) and (b) the charges levied on
non-EU HGVs entering the EU;

— entrusting the management of the EUR 3 billion per year
and the income from charges levied on non-EU HGVs to
the European Investment Bank in order to enable it to
subsidise and grant interest rebates on loans for the
priority transport infrastructure projects agreed on by the
European Parliament and the Council in 2004.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH

APPENDIX

to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

The following amendments were put jointly to the vote and rejected in the course of the discussions (Rule 54(3) of
the Rules of Procedure):

Point 2.1

Replace last phrase of last sentence (from ‘objectives’ onwards) as follows:

‘... but does not consider that the time has yet come to take a stand on the Commission’s concrete proposals for
harmonisation of taxes on diesel fuel. There are also several major practical matters and issues of principle which are
not dealt with in sufficient detail in the Commission’s proposal.’

Reason

To be given orally.

Point 2.1.1

Add the following new paragraph:

‘The Committee considers that it is not possible at this juncture to take a stand on the Commission’s proposals, for
the following reasons:

— a decision on the proposal for a directive on tax arrangements for diesel fuel cannot be taken until the

Commission’s forthcoming framework directive on infrastructure charging is known and has been analysed;

— the Commission has not shown how the proposed system of uncoupling the taxes for diesel fuel used for

commercial purposes from those on non-commercial purposes could work in practice;

— the Commission has underestimated the important matters of principle which are raised in the proposal to

change from a minimum rate to a central/harmonised rate.’

8.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/137

Reason

To be given orally.

Result of the vote

For: 40, against: 58, abstentions: 5.

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council on the inspection and verification of good laboratory
practice (GLP) (codified version)’

(COM(2002) 529 final — 2002/0233 (COD))

(2003/C 85/29)

On 28 November 2002, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption was responsible for the Committee’s
work on the subject. The Committee appointed Mr Bedossa as rapporteur-general.

At its 396th plenary session (meeting of 23 January 2003), the European Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by a unanimous vote.

Introduction

EU legislation clearly needs to be reviewed on a regular basis.

With this aim in view, the draft directive’s objectives are clear
and simple. They are geared, above all, to securing tangible
results.

The formal review of the draft directive with a view to
codification, even the inspection and verification of good
laboratory practice (GLP). The document, which focuses not
only on the future but also on existing law, is designed to
simplify and improve the methods employed.

Specific comments

The EESC endorses the initiative behind the draft directive for
the following reasons:

— Whilst the main concern should of course be to remove
obsolete provisions, simplification of legislation must
also bring benefits by enhancing the clarity and trans-
parency of EU law.

Brussels, 23 January 2003.

— Regular updating and codification ensures legal certainty
at any given moment in respect of the law on a given
issue.

— Simplification is important in the context of the single
market:
failure to harmonise legislative instruments,
constitutes a major obstacle which may trigger a large
number of disputes in respect of GLP.

— Simplification is being introduced at the right time,

namely on the eve of EU enlargement.

— Although the draft directive dealing with GLP is purely a
formal provision, it is nonetheless necessary as legislation
in this field is essential.

— Finally, the draft directive is a step in the right direction
as it speeds up the simplification and codification of
existing provisions, whilst enabling the legislation to be
reviewed.

The consolidated presentation is also excellent.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH