WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3122/97 by Armelle GUINEBERTIERE to the Commission. Unequal rights of grower/distillers in the European Union
C 158/38 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 25. 5. 98 (98/C 158/47) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3122/97 by Armelle Guinebertie‘re (UPE) to the Commission (13 October 1997) Subject: Unequal rights of grower/distillers in the European Union Grower/distillers, farmers who have the right to distill alcohol from some of the fruit they grow, or to have it distilled on their behalf, are particularly heavily taxed by the French tax system. Distortions of competition arise at Union level, however, as the right to distill alcohol differs widely from one Member State to another. There are significant differences, for example, between the liberal Spanish system and the more rigid French system. That being so, what action does the Commission intend to take to reduce these differences between national rules, which are detrimental to the interests of grower/distillers? Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (12 November 1997) Under the derogation set out in Article 22 of Directive 92/83/EEC on the harmonization of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (1), Member States may apply reduced rates of excise duty to ethyl alcohol produced by small distilleries. The derogation may be applied only within certain production limits and subject to certain conditions. Provided that Member States special systems remain within the parameters thus laid down by Community law, the precise manner in which they apply the derogation is not further regulated. Many Member States choose not to use the derogation, and the Commission is unaware of serious problems arising in Member States which do take up the option. It does not therefore intend proposing any amendment to Article 22. The Honourable Member is, however, invited to provide additional information on the problem encountered by French small distillers, so that the position may be studied. As regards distilling rights themselves and different systems in Member States, it should be noted that in the absence of a common market organization in alcohol each Member State is entitled to lay down provisions on the production and marketing of ethyl alcohol which must be compatible with the basic provisions of the EC Treaty. (1) OJ L 316, 31. 10. 1992. (98/C 158/48) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3123/97 by Nel van Dijk (V) and Edith Mu¤ ller (V) to the Commission (13 October 1997) Subject: Flower warsí in Cologne: interference with freedom of competition Is the Commission aware of the reports in the German and Dutch press (1) concerning the determined efforts of Cologne City Council to close a floristsí business run by two young Dutch entrepreneurs at Cologneís Western Cemetery? Is the Commission aware of the illogical argument used by Cologne City Council to justify terminating the floristsí lease and threatening to have their stall forcibly removed, citing áserious considerations of city-wide importanceí (2) after the florists had allegedly breached a verbal agreement to restrict their selection of goods? Does the Commission endorse the view of a majority of the Cologne-Ehrenfeld District Council representatives that the termination of the lease constitutes an áinterference with freedom of competitioní (3) prompted by complaints from long-standing competitors about the Dutch floristsí lower prices?