WRITTEN QUESTION E-3462/03 by Helmuth Markov (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Plans for weight restrictions at the Guben-Gubinek border crossing and EU funds.
Date: 2003-11-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, Poland, carriage of goods, commercial vehicle, customs, environmental protection, road traffic, traffic regulations

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/147

Transactions of the type described as being operated by Smokes Direct are known as distance selling and
are covered by Article 10 of the Directive. Briefly, it provides that where a private individual purchases
excise goods that are dispatched or transported directly or indirectly by the vendor or on his behalf, excise
duty is due in the Member State of destination, i.e. the Member State to which the goods are dispatched.
Furthermore,
the excise duty is chargeable to the vendor at the time of delivery, who may claim
reimbursement of the duty previously paid in the Member State of dispatch. The position regarding ‘agents’
in transactions of this kind is subject to Community case law C-296/95 (1), and does not affect the above
position.

As, within the Internal Market, the scope for the Member State of destination to ensure respect of these
provisions is limited, responsibility for ensuring that vendors comply with the requirements set down in
Article 10 rests to a large extent with the Member State in which the vendor is established, as provided for
in paragraph 3 of that Article.

The sale of tobacco products, particularly through the internet, to individuals in other Member States by
companies falsely claiming that excise duty is not due in the Member State of destination is a growing
problem within the Union and is being actively investigated by the Commission’s European Anti-Fraud
Office and by the appropriate authorities in the Member States, with a view to developing measures to
combat this type of fraud.

So far as gifts are concerned, it is the Commission’s view that they are not subject to payment of the excise
duty in the Member State of destination, providing the gift is sent by a private individual in one Member
State to a private individual
in another Member State, that it is intended for the personal use of the
individual, that it is of an occasional nature and that it is not subject to payment of any kind. The
transactions operated by Smokes Direct do not meet these requirements and cannot, therefore, be treated
as gifts.

Finally, the Commission would point out that it will soon present a review of Articles 7 to 10 of Directive
92/12/EEC which will, amongst others, clarify the issues raised by the Honourable Member.

(1)

Judgement of the Court of 2 April 1998 (cid:1) European Court reports 1998 Page I-01605.

(2004/C 88 E/0156)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3462/03

by Helmuth Markov (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 November 2003)

Subject: Plans for weight restrictions at the Guben-Gubinek border crossing and EU funds

The district of Spree-Neisse (in Brandenburg Land, Federal Republic of Germany) intends to restrict the
total weight of vehicles crossing the border at Guben-Gubinek to 20 tons. This restriction on goods
transport is to apply in one direction only (cid:1) Germany to Poland (cid:1) and will create a range of problems for
the local economy. The Guben-Gubinek border crossing at Schlagsdorf was also set up with EU funding.
On the exporting side, therefore, part of the funding invested by the EU will be practically worthless.
In addition, such a unilateral restriction is contrary to the spirit of the EU funding, the intention being to
promote goods transport between the accession countries and the EU.

The Commission:

(cid:1) what view does it take of the restriction on goods transport at the Guben-Gubinek border crossing in

the light of the EU funding used to set up that crossing;

(cid:1) can it take measures against this restriction and, if so, will it;

(cid:1) what form might/will those measures take?

C 88 E/148

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2004)

The PHARE Programme cofinanced the border post of Gubinek, which is for goods traffic only and is
located beside the border post of Gubin reserved for passenger traffic. The cofinanced work was completed
in 1998.

It is true that on the German side in the direction of Poland goods traffic has been restricted on Thursdays
and Fridays to heavy goods vehicles under 20 tonnes. This decision was taken because, on the German
side, there is as yet no alternative route around the town so that, at the moment, all heavy goods traffic
has to pass through the town. The inhabitants of the German town complained to the competent German
authorities and asked for traffic restrictions to be introduced. The restrictions were the subject of an
agreement between the German and Polish authorities.

Work on the alternative route on the German side has already begun and should be completed next year.
The restrictions are therefore only temporary. On the Polish side, there is already an alternative route so no
such problems are expected. For these reasons, the Commission does not consider that the funds invested
were ill spent.

As to the actual restrictions, current Community legislation does not cover prohibitions on traffic. Taking
into account the fact that the temporary restriction is a one-off occurrence and is based on sound road
safety and environmental protection criteria, the Commission does not believe any action is called for.

(2004/C 88 E/0157)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3478/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject: Colombian flower imports and GSP

Why is it proposed to ‘graduate’ Colombian Sector V (including cut flower) imports from GSP so they will
be denied tariff preference?

Given that the share of Colombian flowers on the EU market declined from 20,15 % in 1997 to 15,41 % in
2001 and that Colombia’s competitors Israel and Kenya will not be graduated, how can this be justified?

Since the reasons for the GSP ‘drugs’ regime unfortunately still persist, will not an EU withdrawal of tariff
preference for flowers force more Colombians back into economic reliance on the drugs trade?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2004)

At the end of 2002, the Commission intended to graduate certain sectors for beneficiary countries
according to Article 12 of the Council Regulation No 2501/2001 on a scheme for generalised tariff
preferences (GSP). This provision requires the Commission to decide on an adjustment on the GSP
products coverage on a yearly basis. The objective is to enhance the efficiency and fairness of the scheme,
by focussing its benefits on those countries and sectors which need them most. Nevertheless, this decision
is not of a political nature, and is solely based on economic criteria. Prior to its decision, the Commission
has to be backed by the Member States (qualified majority) according to the Union procedures
(Comitology).

The GSP is incentive oriented. In particular, it urges the beneficiaries to diversify economically as a means
to development. If a beneficiary country relies too much on one sector in its exports, this can be
detrimental for its development, and allows for the graduation. Accordingly, in the case of Colombia, this
is not the Union’s market share that has been the criterion for the graduation, but the too important share
of a sector in Colombia’s exports.