WRITTEN QUESTION E-0904/03 by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission. Use of agricultural diesel in border areas.
Date: 2003-03-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, Netherlands, customs harmonisation, diesel fuel, excise duty, fuel tax, interpretation of the law

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/17

Answer given by Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2003)

The situation described in the question of the Honourable Member should not be considered as a
discrimination linked to the nationality of the shareholders of Jiho Ceska Plynarenska (JCP), the south
Bohemian energy supply company. Two German companies, RWE and EON are apparently among the
largest JPC shareholders. It appears that Czech municipalities are also major shareholders in the capital of
this company and have a controlling stake (34 percent). It would appear that municipalities hold JCP
shares which are not legally tradable, which is not the case for the other JCP shares held by other
investors.

Community legislation requires shares of companies which are traded on an official stock exchange listing
to be freely negotiable (Article 46(1) of Directive 2001/34/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of
28 May 2001 on the admission of securities to official stock exchange listing and on the information to be
published on those securities (1)). However, paragraph 3 of the said Article authorises an approval clause
under the condition that it does not distort the market.

JCP is listed on the Czech Stock Exchange. To the extent that the shares held by the Czech municipalities
are of a different category and not admitted to the official list on the Czech Stock Exchange, this practice is
not incompatible with Community law. Only in the case of shares which are listed and for which a
restriction of selling clause could not be assimilated to an approval clause, as explained above, any
potential contradiction with Community legislation would need to be verified.

The Commission is in contact with the Czech Authorities to ensure that the relevant ‘acquis’
complied with.

is fully

It should be noted that the Czech Republic has obtained a Transition Period, within the framework of the
Accession Negotiations, concerning liberalisation of the gas market until the end of 2004 and this is set
down in the Accession Treaty.

The investment provisions of the European Energy Charter Treaty concern only the requirements with
respect to investors from another Contracting Party. For established investments, there is a requirement
that such investments of an investor from any other Contracting Party be treated no less favourably than
the established investments of an investor from the Contracting Party in question (‘national treatment’). For
the ‘Making of Investments’, however, which appears to be the case in question, there is only a ‘best
endeavours’ requirement to give such ‘national treatment’.

The award to RWE of the privatisation tender in the gas sector was concluded after clearance by the Czech
Competition Office, which is responsible under the Europe Agreement currently in force. As stated in the
2002 Regular Report (2), the Commission believes that the privatisation process has helped to prepare the
Czech gas sector for the competitive internal energy market.

(1) OJ L 184, 6.7.2001.
(2) COM(2002) 700 final.

(2004/C 88 E/0016)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0904/03

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 March 2003)

Subject: Use of agricultural diesel in border areas

Netherlands farmers working their land in Germany with red diesel in the fuel tanks of their farm vehicles,
face fines imposed by the German customs authorities, who do not allow this diesel, on which there are
tax concessions, to be used on German territory.

A German court has evidently referred the matter to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary
ruling.

C 88 E/18

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

In answer to questions put by members of the Netherlands Second Chamber (883, parliamentary year
2002-2003), State Secretary Van Eijck wrote that, as it has proved impossible to find a bilateral solution,
the matter is now being discussed by the Committee on Excise Duties and the European Commission has
promised to bring forward a proposal to deal with the problems of implementation that may arise in this
connection.

1. When can such a proposal be anticipated?

Does the Commission share the view that farmers should be able to use the special diesel in the fuel

2.
tanks of farm vehicles without problems when entering another Member State?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2003)

The problem referred to by the Honourable Member is indeed being discussed in the Committee on
1.
Excise Duties. On its meeting of 4 April 2003 all Member States except Germany could accept the
following practical solution: Member States that apply the normal rate of excise duty for fuel used by, for
example, agricultural vehicles, should accept that vehicles from another Member State can use on their
territory fuel, supplied in that other Member State at a reduced rate or exempted. The approval by Member
States only refers to the fuel, containing the common fiscal marker, which is already in the vehicle’s
standard tanks. If these vehicles have to refuel whilst operating in a Member State that applies the normal
rate, they must do so with fuel taxed at the normal rate.

The Honourable Member is correct; a German court has referred the matter to the European Court of
2.
Justice for a preliminary ruling (case 292/02). The view of the Commission is outlined in the above-
mentioned solution. The Commission is awaiting the decision of the European Court of Justice.

(2004/C 88 E/0017)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1139/03

by Joke Swiebel (PSE) to the Commission

(24 March 2003)

Subject: Extortion against holidaymakers travelling through Bulgaria

In recent years, Netherlands residents have very regularly been the victims of extortion and other unfair
practices by government officials while in transit through Bulgaria on the way to Turkey during the
summer holidays. Sums of money are taken from them in various ways, including in the form of fines, as
‘tolls’ or for ‘visas’ at the border. A file containing accounts confirming such practices, compiled by the
Netherlands Foundation entitled ‘Participation Organisation for Turks in the Netherlands’, will be
forwarded to you.

Under the 2002 PHARE programme, Bulgaria has received money from the EU to enable it, among other
things, to take anti-corruption measures and to (further) develop a policy on customs and border controls.
A total of EUR 36 million is available for this sub-heading (1).

In a few months it will be the summer holidays again and many people will be wanting to travel to Turkey
via Bulgaria and the Balkans. Can the Commission state how the execution of the PHARE programme in
Bulgaria works, particularly in the terms of combatting corruption by police officers and in customs and
border control policy? What measures has the Commission taken to bring the problem of extortion against
holiday-makers in Bulgaria to the attention of the relevant Bulgarian authorities? What solution has been
found to prevent yet more holidaymakers being the victim of such practices in future? Can the
Commission confirm that legal redress exists for holiday-makers who have been cheated in this way? If not,
what does the Commission plan to do about it?

(1) Source: SEC(2002) 1400, p. 13.