WRITTEN QUESTION P-1335/03 by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Danish packaging tax.
Date: 2003-04-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Denmark, State aid, beer, beverage industry, control of State aid, deposit on a polluting product, export aid, export tax, packaging product, tax rebate

C 33 E/102

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

Since this directive was adopted, various packaging return schemes have been set up in some Member
States, including Denmark where Dansk Retursystem A/S uses a deposit system to ensure re-collection of
the packaging of beer and some soft drinks. In practice, however, this system, which was introduced to
protect the environment, has first and foremost closed the Danish market to imports of foreign beer.

Does the Commission therefore intend to submit a proposal for a common, uniform and harmonised
deposit system applicable to all Member States in order to prevent effectively technical obstacles to trade
and distortion and restriction of competition?

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10.

(2004/C 33 E/102)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1335/03

by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject: Danish packaging tax

A large proportion of beer and carbonated drink bottles on the Danish market arrive in Denmark by way
of organised imports from Germany. Consumers and enterprising businesspeople collect hundreds of crates
in Germany and sell them from drinks machines in Danish shops, because the deposit is higher in
Denmark.

Thanks to these extensive ‘private’ imports, Danish breweries obtain bottles brought into Denmark without
the intervention of the tax authorities. The breweries thus avoid paying the packaging tax which they
would normally have to pay on empty bottles from Germany.

At the same time the breweries are refunded the packaging tax on the bottles they export.

The Danish Treasury estimates that this trade costs the Danish state some DKR 15 million per year, while
the canning industry reckons it is losing some DKR 50 million per year.

In the Commission’s view, does the Danish packaging tax constitute an indirect State aid to breweries and
the cross-border trade? If so, what does the Commission propose to do to stop it?

Could the Commission also state its opinion of the fact that Danish nationals are not required to pay a
deposit on cans purchased in Germany provided they sign a declaration that they are taking the cans with
them to Denmark?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-1252/03 and P-1335/03
given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2003)

The Commission is aware of the introduction of, or plans to introduce, deposit and return systems for
packaging in some Member States, such as Denmark, Germany and Sweden. It follows from Articles 5 and
15 of Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging
waste (1) as well as recital 32 that Member States are allowed to encourage environmentally friendly reuse
systems and to adopt economic instruments, provided that the EC Treaty provisions are respected. If such
national systems constitute technical regulations in terms of Directive 98/34/EC of the Parliament and of
the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of
technical standards and regulations (2), the national draft legislation setting up such a system has to be
notified to the Commission (see also Article 16 of Directive 94/62/EC). The Commission therefore has the
opportunity to examine the national systems in question on their conformity with Community law prior

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/103

to their formal adoption. If the Commission finds that such national systems constitute undue trade
barriers or restrictions to competition, violating Community law,
tackle these
problems with the Member State concerned.

the Commission will

Once formally adopted, the Commission will continuously monitor the application and functioning of
these national systems and will in light of the available information take the appropriate measures with the
Member States concerned to eliminate such obstacles to the internal market or competition to which the
Honourable Member refers. There are, however, currently no intentions to propose legislative measures at
Community level with a view to harmonise national deposit- and return systems.

On the basis of the information available to the Commission, the Danish packaging tax does not seem to
constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty. The tax itself seems to be levied
on both bottles produced in Denmark and on imported bottles on a non-discriminatory basis. Therefore, it
does not seem to grant a selective advantage, which is one of the requirements in order to qualify a
national measure as State aid under the Union rules.

For the moment, the Commission has insufficient information at its disposal in order to form a proper
opinion on the alleged fact that Danish nationals would not be required to pay a deposit on cans
purchased in Germany, if they sign a declaration that they import the cans into Denmark.

On the basis of the system outlined in this question, the Danish national tax system does not seem
incompatible with the prohibiting of fiscal discrimination against products from other Member States to
indirectly protect domestic products, within the meaning of article 90 of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.
(2) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.

(2004/C 33 E/103)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1279/03

by Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso (NI) to the Commission

Subject: Lack of medical care for Basque political prisoners

(4 April 2003)

Lack of medical care for Basque political prisoners shows how laws are not equally implemented in the
Spanish Kingdom.

Bautista Barandalla’s case is one of the clearest examples of that. This 38-year old Navarrian has been in
prison for over 12 years. In 2000 he was diagnosed with ulcerous proctitis but he was not admitted into
hospital until March 2002. From that time, 13 times he has had parts of his colon and rectum removed.
He was always moved from hospital to prison too early. Given Barandalla’s situation a request was made
to the Criminal Court of Zaragoza for Barandalla’s release under Article 92 of the Penal Code due to his
sufferings and incurable illness. This request was repeated several times and all of them were refused in
spite of additional reports from different doctors and hospitals that consider it absolutely necessary for
Barandalla to be released.

Can the Commission say what steps it will take in a humanitarian bid to remedy this situation?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2003)

Matters relating to the release of prisoners on health grounds are the responsibility of Member States.

Consequently, the Commission is not in a position to take any action under Community law in such cases.