WRITTEN QUESTION E-0301/04 by Olle Schmidt (ELDR) to the Commission. Swedish nuclear power and the internal market.
Date: 2004-02-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Sweden, electrical industry, liberalisation of the market, nuclear energy, nuclear power station, restriction on competition, tax system

C 84 E/570

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

In this respect the task of the Commission is to ensure that normal conditions of competition are
established, maintained and complied with. The evidence provided by the Honourable Member, is not
however sufficient at this stage to conclude the illegal use of EU or national funds.

The Commission is currently examining the compatibility of aid in favour of coal industry in the region
where Uminsa is located (2), as well as the compatibility of a long-term restructuring plan for the period
2003 to 2006 of the Spanish coal industry. The examination of all relevant state aid aspects will be carried
out in light of Council Regulation 1407/2002.

(1) OJ L 205, 2.8.2002.
(2) OJ C 105, 1.5.2003.

(2004/C 84 E/0647)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0301/04

by Olle Schmidt (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject: Swedish nuclear power and the internal market

Since 1984 there has been a special production levy on nuclear power in Sweden which has been
subsequently increased and, since 2000, has been converted into a fixed tax on the thermal effect of
nuclear reactors. Sweden is the only Member State to impose this tax, which distorts competition on the
internal market and gives electricity generated abroad competitive advantages on the deregulated electricity
market. The tax has a powerful effect on the competitiveness of nuclear power producing companies and,
therefore, on trade between Member States. In the draft budget for 2004, the Swedish Government states
that the ‘effect tax’ may be compared to an extra income tax imposed on certain companies and is
therefore to be regarded as a penalty. In other words,
it discriminates solely against Swedish nuclear
power.

The EU’s directive on deregulation of the electricity and gas markets is being put into effect with the aim
of creating more equal conditions. Some of the larger power companies in Sweden now have owners in
other Member States, such as Finland and Germany. For such foreign owners, the impact of the Swedish
tax on nuclear power is clearly detrimental since almost half of the electricity generated in Sweden is
produced by nuclear power plants.

In recent years, the Commission has indicated in various ways that nuclear power is an important source
of energy with beneficial environmental effects, not only in Europe but also worldwide, and that it is an
targets for the reduction of CO2 emissions. The
effective means of achieving the Kyoto Protocol
Commission should, therefore, take a particularly serious view of the fact that Swedish nuclear power is
taxed in such a way as to reduce the scope for investment. It is extremely unfortunate to restrict the
production of nuclear power in smoothly operating nuclear power plants in this way, bearing in mind the
work currently in progress to draft a directive on measures to safeguard security of electricity supply and
infrastructure investment.

In the light of the foregoing, what measures will the Commission take in response to the Swedish ‘effect
tax’ on nuclear power, which is adversely affecting and distorting competition in power production on the
internal market, impeding the process of deregulating the electricity market in the EU and reducing cross-
border trade in electricity for the internationally owned and internationally operating energy companies
concerned?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2004)

Community law does not forbid reverse discrimination and does not affect Member States’ energy policy
with reference to their choice of energy sources. Specifically, Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October
2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (1) only

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/571

fixes minimum level taxation, leaving Member States free to apply higher taxes. The mentioned tax/levy
has not hindered the development of an open efficient and competitive market among Sweden, Norway,
Finland and Denmark: power quantity turned over (2) grew from 18,4 Terawatt-hour (TWh) in 1993 to
3 232,1 TWh in 2002, while traded volume grew from 18,4 TWh in 1993 to 1 143,1 TWh in 2002.

(1) OJ L 283, 31.10.2003.
(2) Source: Nord Pool website: http://www.nordpool.com/information/index.html

(2004/C 84 E/0648)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0305/04

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

Subject: Request for PDO for ‘Sant Andrea Piemonte rice’

(2 February 2004)

On 27 May 2003 the Italian Ministry for Agricultural Policy submitted to the Commission, pursuant to
Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (1), a request for registration of ‘Sant Andrea Piemonte’
rice as a PDO. By letter of 22 July I asked the Directorate-General for Agriculture for information on the
progress of this application. On 14 August I received a reply from the director informing me that the
application was being carefully considered by the Commission and that, if the request included all the
particulars required under Community law, the Commission would, as provided for in Article 6 of the EEC
regulation, publish an initial notice in the EU Official Journal.

Given that six months have elapsed since the request was submitted, i.e. the period within which, under
Article 6(1), the Commission must verify whether the registration application includes all the particulars
provided for in Article 4, and that no notification has been received by those directly concerned or by the
Italian Ministry for Agricultural Policy from the relevant services:

The Commission:

1. Can it explain the reasons for this unjustified delay?

2. Does it not consider, given the deadline set by the regulation, that the least it can do, in terms of
transparency and efficiency, is to contact those directly concerned to explain the reasons for the delay?

3.

If the delay is due to staff shortages, could it not propose recruiting additional staff or using some of
the hundreds of ‘stagiaires’ who work at the Commission?

4. Does it not consider that, if the European Union is to be close to its citizens, it should show itself
the

responding to the requests of bodies,

individuals and institutions

more capable of
implementation of measures provided for in EU legislation?

for

(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2004)

We do not dispute the facts of the situation as described by the Honourable Member.

The time taken to process applications for registration lodged with us under Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical
indications and designations of
origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs has been increasing in recent months. Although twice as
many registrations were made in 2003 as in 2002, the number of applications being processed at any one
time has also been rising.