WRITTEN QUESTION No. 42/98 by Heidi HAUTALA to the Commission. Compatibility of the Finnish system of taxation of electricity with the Treaty before 1 January 1997
22. 6. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 196/111 (98/C 196/154) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0042/98 by Heidi Hautala (V) to the Commission (15 January 1998) Subject: Compatibility of the Finnish system of taxation of electricity with the Treaty before 1 January 1997 The Advocate-General of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has published his opinion on the case of Outokumpu Oy versus the State of Finland. Outokumpu Oy was seeking a refund from the State of Finland of the tax levied on the electricity it had imported from Sweden, which it regarded as a form of import duty prohibited by Community law. The Advocate-Generalís opinion does not support Outokumpu Oyís claim. The Commission had informed Finland on 23 November 1995 that it regarded the electricity tax which was then in force in Finland as discrimination contrary to Article 95 of the Treaty. Largely on this basis, the bias in favour of the environment was abandoned in the taxation of electricity in Finland with effect from 1 January 1997. According to the Advocate-General, the Treaty does not prohibit taxation of electricity which favours less environmentally damaging production methods. Similarly, the Directive on the transmission of electricity stipulates that energy policy should not have the sole object of reducing costs and maintaining competition but that account should also be taken of the compatibility of energy with the environment. If the Court decides to uphold the opinion of the Advocate-General, will the Commission even then consider that the electricity tax levied in Finland before 1997 was contrary to the Treaty, or would Finland have had the right to retain its taxation system, which served to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide in electricity production? Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (17 February 1998) In the current state of the proceedings the answer to the Honourable Member can only be that the ruling of the Court of justice should be awaited. Any reflection on what the Commission will do, depending on the outcome of these proceedings, is premature. After the pronouncement of the judgment and taking into account the reasoning of the Court of justice the Commission will analyse the matter and draw its conclusions. At the moment of the pronouncement of the judgment it will become apparent to what extent Finland could from the point of view of Community law eventually have upheld the former taxation model of electricity. Therefore, the second question of the Honourable Member will be answered by the decision of the Court in the matter. It is useful to recall that the Commission has not questioned the right of the Member State to use taxation to promote environmental issues provided that such taxation is compatible with Community law. (98/C 196/155) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0043/98 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission (15 January 1998) Subject: Moroccan failure to comply with the fisheries agreement with the EU The Kingdom of Moroccoís unilateral decision to extend the biological rest period for cephalopods to four months in 1998 infringes the provisions of the current fisheries agreement with the EU. Moreover, it is a known fact that Morocco does not respect the cephalopod breeding areas within the 12 mile limit, so that as a means of conserving resources, the supposed biological rest periods are no more than pseudo-measures. What steps has the Commission already taken, and what further steps does it intend to take to prevent the Moroccan authorities from violating the current fisheries agreement in this way?