WRITTEN QUESTION E-2585/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Taxation of low-proof alcoholic beverages.
Date: 2003-08-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law - national law, alcoholic beverage, excise duty, interpretation of the law, tax system, young person

C 88 E/102

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

(2004/C 88 E/0106)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2585/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 August 2003)

Subject: Taxation of low-proof alcoholic beverages

In the light of the commercial success of the new alcoholic beverages commonly referred to as Ready-To-
Drink, could the Commission say whether the following interpretation of Community law is accurate? If a
government decides to increase excise duties on spirit-based RTDs only, without altering taxes on
traditional spirits, for public health reasons, is that decision in breach of Community law? These drinks are
usually sweetened and in fact predominantly consumed by young people, which creates a considerable
public health problem.

Would the Commission’s answer be different if the receipts from this tax were not directly assigned to the
general national budget but were earmarked for a specific purpose (i.e. for a body specifically responsible
for public health)?

Does the case law of the Court of Justice in regard to the French social security contribution levied on
alcoholic beverages (judgment of 24 February 2000 in case C-434/97) (1), which applied the scope offered
by Article 3(3) of Directive 92/12, not provide a basis for Member States to tax traditional spirits and
spirit-based RTDs differently (see point 19 of the judgment)?

Does the Commission not consider that this category of drinks, which primarily seeks to appeal to young
people through being sweet, should be specifically defined, at least for taxation purposes? This question is
all the more apposite given the evidence that manufacturers of RTDs do not hesitate to alter the alcohol
content of these drinks in order to avail themselves of competitive tax benefits (as is the case with
‘malternatives’ in the USA, for example).

(1) OJ C 052, 24.2.2000, p. 2.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 September 2003)

A tax in some respects similar to that described by the Honourable Member has already been introduced in
one Member State. It has attracted a number of complaints to the effect that it is contrary to both
Article 90 of the EC Treaty and to Article 3(2) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on
the general arrangements for products subject
to excise duty and on the holding movement and
monitoring of such products (1).

The Commission’s inquiry into those complaints includes, among other matters, investigation of the legal
questions being raised by the Honourable Member. The Commission has yet to conclude that inquiry.

The Commission has no intention of specifically defining for tax purposes the drinks described by the
Honourable Member.

As regards non-tax aspects, the Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member of the Council
Recommendation 2001/458/EC of 5 June 2001 on the drinking of alcohol by young people, in particular
children and adolescents (2), which addresses the issue from a public health perspective.

(1) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992.
(2) OJ L 161, 16.6.2001.