WRITTEN QUESTION P-0870/03 by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Averting alcohol-related harm in Finland.
Date: 2003-03-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Finland, accession to the European Union, alcoholic beverage, alcoholism, derogation from EU law, exemption from customs duties, public health

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/85

in its Conclusions of 5 June 2001, called on the
level of human health protection. The Council,
Commission to put forward proposals for a comprehensive Community strategy aimed at reducing
alcohol-related harm and has identified excise duties as one means of pursuing such a strategy.

Contrary to what was stipulated in the text, Directive 92/84/EEC (2) on minimum excise duty rates was not
reviewed by the end of 1994. The Union could do much to prevent the harm which alcohol does to public
health by imposing standard excise duties on alcoholic beverages above the present rates. Should tax
harmonisation on the basis of public health considerations fail to happen, Finland will have no possibility
of protecting itself from the worsening adverse consequences of alcohol drinking unless it is allowed to
continue to restrict alcohol imports.

1. Will the Commission embark on an initiative with a view to raising the minimum assessment base
for excise duty on alcoholic beverages, taking into account the effects of alcohol consumption on public
health?

How would the Commission view a possible Finnish request to continue the restrictions on alcohol

2.
imports?

(1) OJ C 175, 20.6.2001, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 29.

(2004/C 33 E/081)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0870/03

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 March 2003)

Subject: Averting alcohol-related harm in Finland

The assessment base used for excise duties on alcoholic beverages in Finland is substantially higher than in
most Member States. However, its yield does not match the costs to society incurred because of alcohol-
related harm.

By virtue of an exception granted in the membership negotiations, Finland has been allowed to restrict
quantities imported for private consumption so as to prevent the import incentive resulting from the
differences in excise duties from giving rise to insurmountable problems. That exception is now coming to
an end.

If a Member State can show that complete freedom as regards private imports causes serious problems
from the point of view of public morality, public policy, public security, or health, as referred to in
Article 30 of the EC Treaty, or specific public health problems within the meaning of Article 95, can it act
to put matters right? What kind of measures are possible in such a situation?

Joint answer
to Written Questions P-0810/03 and P-0870/03
given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2003)

1.
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 is preparing such a report at present, which will take into account all
relevant issues,
in particular the proper functioning of the internal market, competition between the
different categories of alcoholic drinks, the real value of the rates of duty and the wider objectives of the
EC Treaty, as provided by Article 8 of the said Directive. These considerations will also include the public
health considerations mentioned by the Honourable Member.

C 33 E/86

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

As the Commission has already highlighted in its report of 24 May 2000 (1), the restrictions applied
2.
by Denmark, Finland and Sweden to the quantities of excise products that can be brought into the
territory of these countries from other Member States by travellers constitute a derogation to the principle
of free movement in the Internal Market, and were granted by the Council
in order to enable these
Member States to adapt their policy gradually to the full requirements of the Internal Market. In this
report, the Commission urged the Member States concerned to take the necessary steps in order to prepare
for a smooth transition to the application of the general rules in force after the expiry of the derogation at
the end of 2003.

The Commission also encourages Member States to take other measures aimed at reducing the adverse
health effects of alcohol consumption. In particular, the Community action programme in the field of
public health (2003-2008) (2) includes provision for the ‘preparation and implementation of strategies and
measures, including those relating to public awareness, on lifestyle related health determinants, such as
alcohol, including measures to take in all Community policies and age and gender specific strategies’. A
call for proposals and a work plan for 2003 (2) in connection with this programme have recently been
published.

(1) COM(2000) 316 final.
(2) OJ L 271, 9.10.2002.

(2004/C 33 E/082)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0813/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI), Marco Cappato (NI), Emma Bonino (NI),
Marco Pannella (NI) and Gianfranco Dell’Alba (NI) to the Commission

(17 March 2003)

Subject: War on drugs in Thailand

Taking into account the fact that according to information on ‘UN Wire’ of 4 March 2003:

(cid:1) the Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra affirmed that Thailand’s month-old drugs crackdown will
be stepped up, despite expressions of concern by the UN rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, Asma
Jahangir, and others over reports that summary executions have been committed in the context of the
campaign; he notably declared: ‘The crackdown will become more intense, I guarantee … Don’t worry.
(The) UN isn’t my father. If they want to come, come. If they want to inspect, go ahead’;

(cid:1) the Thai Prime Minister also affirmed that more than 1 140 have been killed in the crackdown, which
began on 1 February and is to last three months; police also said that as of Friday, 29 501 suspects
were arrested in the crackdown; they said officers acting in self-defence killed 31 people and that drug
gangs killed the others; a Ministry spokesman furthermore affirmed that ‘Nothing is above the law in
this campaign’;

Did the Commission express EU concern to the Thai authorities about
the government-sponsored
massacres in the war on drugs? Did it ask the government to stop these widespread killings that are
contrary to all internationally recognised human rights and fundamental freedoms?

What progressive measures will be enacted by the Commission if the Thai government continues the
massacre and ignores international requests to stop?

Is the Commission aware of the fact that, like Thailand, China, Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore, Kuwait, Iran,
Philippines and Indonesia also apply the death penalty for drugs-related crimes, and does it agree that a
way forward would be to amend the international conventions on drugs to expressly prohibit the death
penalty, notably in view of the April 2003 UN meeting on drugs?