WRITTEN QUESTION P-2287/03 by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission. VAT rates for soy products.
Date: 2003-07-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, Spain, VAT rate, milk product, soya bean, tax harmonisation

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/245

On 19 December 2001 the Commission informed the Greek authorities that payments for the project
would be blocked since it did not appear possible to terminate it within the time limit set under the
amending decision (31 December 2001). By 31 October 2001 only 41 % of the work had been completed.

On 29 November 2002 the Commission asked the Greek authorities for detailed information on the state
of advance of the project on two fronts: physical realisation and financial management.

On 23 December 2002 the Greek authorities informed the Commission that the paying authority had
been asked to check the project on the spot and that on receiving the report they would transmit
particulars of the state of advance and prospects for completion.

These have not yet been received.

(2004/C 33 E/251)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2275/03

by Georges Berthu (NI) to the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Subject: Agriculture (cid:1) drought and set-aside land

Some parts of France are currently suffering from serious drought, and grass for use as cattle fodder is
becoming scarce. Would it be possible in such cases for derogations to be granted so that set-aside land
might be used for the growing of animal fodder crops, with a view not only to coping with the current
crisis but also to combating the droughts which are likely to occur in the future?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 July 2003)

The Commission is aware of the fact that the drought became worse in several regions of the Community
in June 2003 and, following a favourable opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals delivered on
3 July 2003, has decided to authorise the use of set-aside land for fodder in the regions concerned in
Germany, France, Italy and Austria in the 2003/04 marketing year. This measure applies from 4 July
2003.

The use of set-aside land for animal feed must remain an exceptional measure to be adopted only where
specific regional circumstances so require.

(2004/C 33 E/252)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2287/03

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Subject: VAT rates for soy products

Soy products are mainly used as substitutes for milk products of animal origin (often in case of lactose
intolerance or milk protein allergy) since they are able to provide an equivalent nutritional value to dairy
products, which leads to the fact that soy and dairy products are directly competing on the market.

Whereas all Member States apply reduced VAT rates on dairy products, several Member States apply the
standard VAT rate (cid:1) which is considerably higher (cid:1) on soy products (e.g. Spain and Austria).

C 33 E/246

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

Member States have to respect the principle of ‘fiscal neutrality’ which prohibits the application of different
VAT treatments on equal/similar competing products since it leads to a distortion of competition. Also the
European Court of Justice decided in several cases that similar goods/services have to be subjected to a
uniform VAT rate.

Has the Commission taken or does it envisage any concrete measures to protect the principle of

1.
‘fiscal neutrality’ within the Member States in the case of soy products?

2.
Is the Commission planning to include recommendations to the Member States on applying uniform
VAT rates on soy and dairy products in the framework of the general review of reduced rates planned for
2003 or in its biannual report reviewing the scope of the reduced VAT rates?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(8 August 2003)

The current Community rules on VAT rates (Article 12(3) of the Sixth VAT Directive (1)) do indeed give the
Member States the option of applying a reduced rate to food products, since that category is listed in
Annex H to the Sixth Directive. If they opt to do so, they are not, however, obliged to apply a reduced rate
to all food products.

The Commission has recently approved a proposal for a directive on reduced rates of VAT (2). The main
purpose of this proposal is to improve the working of the internal market by rationalising the Member
States’ use of reduced rates in order to avoid potential distortions of competition by giving all Member
States equal opportunities to apply reduced rates.

Though its proposal does not affect the category of foodstuffs, the Commission has nevertheless taken this
opportunity to remind Member States of the need to bear in mind the case-law of the Court of Justice
when defining the scope of their reduced rates. In particular, they need to respect the principle of fiscal
neutrality, which includes two other principles, namely the principles of VAT uniformity and of
elimination of distortion in competition.

(1) Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
turnover taxes (cid:1) Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment; OJ L 145, 13.6.1977. Last
amended by Directive 2002/93/EC; OJ L 331, 7.12.2002.

(2) COM(2003) 397 final.

(2004/C 33 E/253)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2305/03

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(14 July 2003)

Subject:

‘For Diversity, Against Discrimination’ campaign

On 16 June 2003, Mrs Diamantopoulou, Member of the Commission, launched her ‘For Diversity, Against
Discrimination’ campaign. One of the campaign’s instruments was the creation of a website which is
accessible in just three languages (English, French and German). The home page claims that ‘In the future
this website will be available in all EU languages.’ However, on 2 July 2003, a good two weeks after the
launch of the said website, the texts were still not available in the other official languages of the European
Union.

Why was the said campaign launched before the texts had been translated?

Why does the translation thereof take so long?

Does not the provision of a website in just three EU languages, when the cost thereof also being borne by
taxpayers in other linguistic regions, itself constitute a form of discrimination?