Stenograma dezbaterilor

Luni, 17 noiembrie 2008 - Strasbourg

23. Regimul general al accizelor (dezbatere)

  Przewodniczący. − Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego jest sprawozdanie sporządzone przez Astrid Lulling w imieniu Komisji Gospodarczej i Monetarnej w sprawie wniosku dotyczącego dyrektywy Rady w sprawie ogólnych warunków dotyczących podatku akcyzowego (COM(2008)0078 - C6-0099/2008 - 2008/0051(CNS)) (A6-0417/2008).

  Astrid Lulling, rapporteure. − Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, cette proposition de directive, qui est censée remplacer la directive de 92, a notamment pour objet de rendre conforme à la législation l'entrée en fonction, au 1er avril 2009, du contrôle des mouvements de produits soumis à l'accise par voie électronique, le fameux système EMCS.

C'est donc une mesure technique, mais en même temps un progrès vers moins de bureaucratie, plus de rapidité et moins de fraude.

À part quelques amendements, que j'ai proposés et qui ont été acceptés, pour assurer plus de cohérence au fonctionnement du nouveau système, nous sommes d'accord avec ce volet de la proposition de la Commission européenne.

Dans son avis, la commission de l'industrie a considérablement alourdi le rapport de la commission économique et monétaire en copiant bon nombre d'amendements négociés au sein du Conseil. En fait, cette démarche n'apporte rien de substantiel de notre part.

Le débat politique se situe ailleurs. Il a trait aux conditions de circulation et d'imposition des produits qui sont soumis à accises, notamment l'alcool et le tabac acquis par les particuliers. La Commission européenne a eu la sagesse, pour une fois, de proposer un texte qui se base sur la jurisprudence récente, c'est-à-dire qui autorise les Européens à transporter les produits d'accises acquis dans un État membre, autre que celui de leur résidence, sans restrictions quantitatives, pour autant que la marchandise ait été acquise à des fins de consommation privée.

Ma proposition et ma position de rapporteure sont sans équivoque: je suis tout à fait en faveur de ce texte de la Commission qui est clair, précis et qui se fonde sur les principes régissant le marché intérieur. Mais certains collègues, notamment socialistes et libéraux, se sont crus obligés de proposer des amendements qui feraient réapparaître des frontières fiscales telles qu'elles existaient avant 92, en réintroduisant des limites indicatives.

Or, limite indicative en théorie veut dire restriction quantitative dans les faits. Au gré des absences et profitant de l'ignorance de certains collègues, ils ont obtenu une majorité en commission. Unanimement, mon groupe politique a décidé de proposer des amendements pour rétablir les propositions initiales de la Commission européenne. Ce n'est que justice. Nous ne voulons pas revenir aux frontières et aux pratiques telles qu'elles existaient avant le marché unique.

Nous voulons, au contraire, des solutions qui soient adaptées à notre époque, y compris en ce qui concerne le commerce électronique. Notre message au Conseil doit être clair: ne proposons pas à nos concitoyens de revenir en arrière sur les acquis communautaires.

Tout aussi incompréhensible paraît l'attitude de certains socialistes et libéraux désireux de supprimer les derniers magasins hors taxes aux frontières terrestres de l'Union européenne. La Commission le veut aussi, malheureusement, alors que ces comptoirs ne perturbent en aucune façon le marché unique. Leur suppression conduirait, quand même, à la perte de milliers d'emplois, notamment aux frontières de la Grèce. C'est vraiment le moment de proposer de telles choses!

Mais il y a encore pire. La majorité de circonstance en commission économique et monétaire a même refusé mon amendement qui consistait à maintenir la possibilité d'acheter hors taxes pour les voyageurs en destination finale d'un État tiers afin de tenir compte des réalités en matière de vols avec correspondance.

Pourquoi, si je me rends à Singapour depuis Luxembourg, en passant par Francfort ou par Paris, ne puis-je pas acheter de "tax free" dans l'aéroport de départ? Je dois dire que ceci est assez déprimant, Monsieur le Président, j'ai six minutes, je vous le signale, mais je ne les utiliserai pas. J'ai confiance maintenant dans le bon sens de la majorité de nos collègues – c'est dommage qu'ils ne soient pas là – pour adopter une solution qui soit aussi dans l'intérêt des consommateurs et qui ne réinvente pas de nouvelles barrières fiscales et bureaucratiques.

Ceux qui voteront contre nos propositions raisonnables demain, auront du mal à expliquer ce retour en arrière à leurs compatriotes. Ils peuvent compter sur moi et sur mes collègues pour dénoncer leurs vues d'arrière-garde.

PRESIDE: ALEJO VIDAL-QUADRAS
Vicepresidente

  László Kovács, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, let me first of all thank the rapporteur Mrs Lulling and the ECON Committee for the report and the speedy treatment of this proposal, which provides the legal basis for the computerisation of excise procedures as of April 2010.

Member States as well as the Commission have invested a lot in the Excise Movement Control System (EMCS). It replaces the current paper-based movement monitoring system with a new computerised one.

The greater use of trans-European networks for communication between traders and excise authorities, and between excise authorities themselves, will reduce the time needed for the discharge of tax liability for excise movements.

This will provide excise authorities with an essential tool to effectively address fraud and hence protect legitimate trade. At the same time, it will improve the services to taxpayers who will benefit from improved legal certainty and real-time information exchanges with their tax authorities.

Apart from these new provisions, the proposed Directive will entirely recast and update the old Horizontal Excise Directive of 1992. It will simplify and modernise the excise procedures, with the aim of reducing excise obligations for traders, in particular for traders carrying out cross-border business, without compromising excise controls.

Clearly, as the Commission had proposed a new and up-to-date legal framework for excise, some of the more political issues included in this legislation had to be re-discussed.

This concerns the issues of land-based tax-free shops, the position of transit airports and the maintaining of guide levels to distinguish commercial excise movements from movements of excise goods for personal use.

Many amendments proposed by Parliament already conform to the text of the general orientation agreed in the ECOFIN meeting of 4 November 2008, or go in the same direction. They are also acceptable to the Commission.

I am therefore confident that the proposal can be adopted soon and that the timely application of the EMCS is ensured.

  Manuel António dos Santos, relator de parecer da Comissão da Indústria, do Comércio Externo, da Investigação e da Energia. − Vou usar o primeiro dos dois minutos para relembrar rapidamente quais foram os princípios essenciais que orientaram o meu relatório, que foi aprovado por unanimidade na Comissão da Indústria.

E então esses princípios são os seguintes: aumentar a eficiência da proibição e distribuição de produtos e serviços, principalmente reduzindo a burocracia; melhorar as regras em vigor e adaptá-las às circunstâncias do momento, nomeadamente para facilitar a aplicação dos procedimentos de controlo pelas administrações nacionais; simplificar os procedimentos destinados a aumentar a transparência do comércio intracomunitário, forçando a segurança jurídica a regras para um comércio justo; e o sistema de cobrança e reembolso do imposto não deve dar lugar a critérios discriminatórios e deve ser evitada a dupla tributação.

Foram estes os princípios orientadores do parecer que, em nome da Comissão da Indústria, apresentei na Comissão da Economia. Parecer que, aliás, teve – repito – um amplo consenso no contexto da Comissão da Indústria.

Por isso é que não posso deixar de dizer, já como deputado socialista, utilizando o segundo minuto, que não compreendo a observação da Sra. Lulling (a relatora) quando diz que os Socialistas e os Liberais introduziram limites quantitativos – apenas os Socialistas e os Liberais. Não foram apenas os Socialistas e os Liberais, pelo menos na Comissão da Indústria foram todos, uma vez que, repito, o meu parecer foi aprovado por unanimidade.

E parece-me realmente extraordinário que os quantitativos não sejam introduzidos, porque efectivamente nós sabemos que este tipo de imposto detém várias vocações. Obviamente a receita fiscal, mas também a defesa da saúde pública. E naturalmente que cada país dá a cada um destes dois vectores uma relevância completamente diferenciada.

Portanto, parece-me que a solução que encontrámos (a solução de definir limites quantitativos) é uma solução justa e equilibrada, que não beneficia excessivamente nenhum país em especial, não prejudica também nenhum daqueles que, naturalmente, têm um entendimento diferente daquele que é o entendimento do país que a Sra. Lulling representa e que, naturalmente, eu respeito, mas cuja vontade, obviamente, não pode sobrepor-se à vontade geral dos restantes países da União Europeia.

Finalmente, uma última nota, 10 segundos apenas, para dizer que, naturalmente, os Socialistas defendem o mercado interno e defendem o aprofundamento do mercado interno e não acreditam que, com as propostas que foram aprovadas, quer na Comissão da Indústria, quer na Comissão da Economia, o mercado interno possa estar em causa.

  Bill Newton Dunn, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. − Mr President, Parliament defends individuals and small organisations, small businesses, as opposed to governments who want to sweep away inconvenient things and the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection feels very strongly that the external land-border shops should be allowed to remain. They should be better policed, as should all the policing against crime across borders in Europe be much better, but it is not a reason to sweep them away.

Secondly, on sea and air travel, the Internal Market Committee believes strongly that travellers – based on their final destination, as opposed to a transit destination – should be allowed to buy duty-free because that would help small regional airports generate revenue. It may be inconvenient to the governments, but we defend it very strongly.

The third and final point that I want to make – which it is very regrettable that the Commission did not include in its 2006 consultation on this legislation – is the removal of these exemptions which it is now proposing. Why did it not include it? Why did it not carry out an impact assessment on what it would mean before it proposed it?

  Zsolt László Becsey, a PPE-DE képviselőcsoport nevében. – Köszönöm, elnök úr. Szeretnék gratulálni mind a Bizottságnak, mind a jelentéstevőnek a munkához, én is azt hiszem, hogy ez az elektronikus korszerűsítési rendszer időszerű és nagyon pozitív hatást hoz.

Két megjegyzésem lenne. Az egyik: a belső piacot hagyjuk működni. Ha jól működik az adó-nyilvántartási rendszer és az adatcsere, akkor azt hiszem, hogy a magáncélú forgalom nem fog óriási károkat okozni. Ha valaki valahol – ahol megvásárolta az árut magáncélra – kifizeti a jövedéki adót, akkor utána a termelői árak, meg egyébként részben az eltérő héák is úgyis versenyezni fognak egymással.

Nem kell mindent korlátozni, teljesen fölösleges a magas árszínvonalú országok kincstárainak a védelme érdekében negatív üzeneteket küldeni. Különösen Schengenen belül nagyon furcsa lenne az, hogyha rendőri meg vámszervzaklatásokkal állnánk elő a polgárok felé, hiszen azt tudjuk, hogy ilyen nagyobb teherautókat vagy bármi más egyéb módszerekkel is át lehet világítani. Tehát én nem látom értelmét az indikatív listázásnak.

A másik, hogy én is támogatom a belső piacot elhagyó polgároknak azt a jogát, hogy ha elhagyják ezt a piacot, akkor vehessenek ilyen termékeket. Szárazföldi viszonylatban nem hiszem, hogy hatalmas csempészésekre kerülne sor, vagy óriási veszteségeket szenvednének el ez által a határos tagországok, hiszen a szomszédos harmadik országokban az árszínvonal jóval alacsonyabb, mint a nálunk lévő tagállamokban. Tehát én ipari méretű termékkivitelre nem gondolok.

Ugyanezt feltételezem a repülőterek esetében is, hiszen a repülőtereken kézben, poggyászban nem tudunk olyan rengeteg terméket kivinni, hogy ne mondhatnánk azt, hogy a harmadik országokba, a vámunión kívülre magáncélra ne lehetne kivinni ilyen termékeket. Köszönöm szépen, elnök úr, a lehetőséget.

  Elisa Ferreira, em nome do Grupo PSE. – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, caros Colegas, começo por cumprimentar a relatora principal, Mme. Lulling, e os relatores-sombra Benoît Hamon e Olle Schmidt. Por motivos de força maior, o meu colega Benoît Hamon não pode estar hoje aqui e eu procurarei transmitir a sua posição, que é a posição do nosso grupo político, sobre um assunto que merece toda a nossa atenção. De facto, uma questão sensível, que é a tributação no caso dos impostos especiais.

Ao falar de impostos especiais, devemos relembrar que eles incidem sobre bens e serviços de consumo bem identificados: o tabaco, o álcool, produtos energéticos.

A proposta da Comissão vem alterar um texto que data de 1992, e o mercado interno destes produtos mudou muito. Note-se ainda que o novo sistema electrónico de gestão e controlo de transacções é uma alteração que saudamos e que deverá simplificar o funcionamento do sistema, quer para os operadores quer para as autoridades fiscais, de acordo com aquilo que o Sr. Comissário acabou de referir.

Quanto a estes aspectos mais técnicos – e onde se incluem também os prazos de transmissão dos documentos, as regras de constituição de garantias financeiras pelos operadores, etc. –, a proposta da Comissão e da relatora merecem aplauso, merecem consenso e representam avanços sérios e úteis.

Porém, nos impostos especiais de consumo, o conteúdo político não se esgota em aspectos técnicos, como já referiu o meu colega Manuel dos Santos. Trata-se de produtos sensíveis, cuja venda não deve sujeitar-se ao mero jogo da concorrência apenas. E, portanto, eu gostaria neste aspecto de focar duas questões ilustrativas. Uma delas são os limites indicativos ao transporte pessoal destes bens e a outra são as regras aplicáveis à venda por Internet.

Estas matérias separam-nos claramente da relatora.

Seja no álcool ou no tabaco, e também nos combustíveis, as disparidades entre a fiscalidade dos Estados-Membros são muito, muito grandes e, por conseguinte, também as diferenças nos preços de venda ao público. Basta recordar que o preço de um maço de tabaco pode variar entre 1 e 7 euros dentro da União devido às grandes diferenças fiscais.

Em regra, os impostos são devidos no país de consumo e são excepção os bens transportados na União Europeia. Segundo as regras actuais, certos limites quantitativos devem ser respeitados, sob pena de se presumir que os produtos transportados têm fins comerciais.

Ora, a proposta da Comissão vai no sentido de abolir estes limites quantitativos, e houve acordo da relatora, Mme. Lulling, neste aspecto concreto. Não foi este o entendimento da Comissão Parlamentar dos Assuntos Económicos. Pelo contrário, aí acordámos no abaixamento desse limite, na sequência das iniciativas dos relatores-sombra, Benoît Hamon, Olle Schmidt, e também de mim própria.

A liberalização permite a certos consumidores, de facto, reduzir as despesas de aquisição desses bens, mas não faz sentido que isso aconteça em prejuízo das finanças públicas dos Estados-Membros, em prejuízo de objectivos de saúde pública que os Estados-Membros têm o direito de salvaguardar e, por último, alimentando assim o mercado paralelo, o que todos nós devemos evitar.

Portanto, o acordo final obtido em comissão parlamentar prevê manter os limites a um nível razoável, 400 cigarros ou 45 litros de vinho por pessoa. É isto que se assume como sendo o necessário para consumo pessoal, sem afectar os viajantes que de facto adquirem até este limite estes bens.

Pelas mesmas razões opomo-nos à emenda 68 do Grupo do PPE, que propõe tributar as vendas à distância, nomeadamente as realizadas por via Internet, no país do vendedor e não no país do consumidor, o que é uma inversão (que não se justifica) do princípio geral a que obedece a taxação. Esta alteração abriria portas, por outro lado, também ela, a um mercado paralelo de grande amplitude, devendo ser rejeitada em absoluto.

Por fim, e para terminar, evocarei apenas a questão das lojas francas, das duty free. O princípio internacionalmente reconhecido é que estas apenas poderão existir nos portos e nos aeroportos para permitir um controlo óptimo e prevenir qualquer risco de fraude ou de abuso. Ainda assim, devemos conceder o tempo adequado para adaptação e por isso propusemos, em nome do Grupo Socialista, um período transitório para os Estados-Membros que dispõem ainda de lojas francas, permitindo-lhes que façam um ajustamento gradual à nova situação e propondo a data de 1 de Janeiro de 2017, isto é, uma data longínqua, para permitir uma aproximação gradual à regra comum.

Portanto, pensamos que esta linha é a linha adequada. É uma linha que gerou consenso. Não é um consenso total, mas uma aprovação maioritária ao nível do Comité Económico e Monetário, e eu espero que ele seja amanhã sufragado neste plenário.

  Olle Schmidt, för ALDE-gruppen. – Herr talman, herr kommissionär och Astrid Lulling. Så möts vi åter igen i denna fråga. Det är ju inte första gången vi hamnar i konflikt med varandra, Lulling och jag, om hur punktskatterna i Europa ska utformas. Däremot är det nog första gången som jag upplever att det är jag som har majoriteten på min sida. Det är farligt att förutsäga saker, men vi får se hur det går.

Om det nya tekniska systemet, EMCS, är vi helt överens. Det är om den känsliga frågan om införselkvoter som åsikterna på allvar går isär.

Går utskottets linje igenom så har parlamentet markerat både sitt engagemang för den fria rörligheten i Europa och sitt engagemang för en vilja till en sansad folkhälsopolitik. Som alltid med skattefrågorna gäller det att finna balansen mellan vad som bör förbli en medlemsstats kompetens och vad som är ett gemensamt ansvar. Får vi igenom utskottets förslag innebär det att Europaparlamentet slår fast att tobak och alkohol inte är varor som alla andra, precis som vi tidigare hörde här, och måste behandlas på ett annat sätt. Det är ju inget revolutionerande, det är ju många som har konstaterat det under en lång tid.

Genom att besluta om att halvera de indikativa införselnivåerna samtidigt som principen om ett gränsvärde behålls ger vi medlemsstaterna en hel del utrymme att föra sin egen politik samtidigt som det gemensamma regelverket underlättar för företag och privatpersoner när de handlar över gränserna. Eller enklare uttryckt: Sverige ges manöverutrymme att prioritera folkhälsofrågorna samtidigt som Lullings Luxemburg kan fortsätta med sin inslagna lågskattepolitik. Den inre marknaden kan inte byggas med spritturism som förebild.

Fylleriet och dess konsekvenser är inte ett svenskt problem, som jag ibland får höra. Senast kunde man höra krav på kraftfulla åtgärder mot fylleriet i Storbritannien, något som kanske de brittiska kollegorna också borde fundera över. Jag tycker att det är hög tid att Europaparlamentet intar en mer sansad syn på dessa frågor och ger möjlighet för medlemsstaterna att agera i folkhälsoriktning.

  Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk, w imieniu grupy UEN. – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Zabierając głos w imieniu grupy UEN w tej debacie chcę zwrócić uwagę na trzy kwestie. Po pierwsze, zmiany w podatkach dokonywane na poziomie Unii Europejskiej powinny sprzyjać zwiększaniu produkcji i dystrybucji towarów i usług, głównie poprzez ograniczanie biurokracji, ale także ułatwiać krajowym administracjom stosowanie procedur kontrolnych opartych na analizie ryzyka.

Po drugie, proponowane w tej dyrektywie rozwiązania spełniają te postulaty. Upraszczają procedury administracyjne, a elektroniczny system wymiany informacji stanowić będzie dla władz podatkowych krajów członkowskich narzędzie umożliwiające lepsze, lepiej ukierunkowane kontrole. Po trzecie wreszcie, należy poprzeć proponowane przez sprawozdawczynię rozwiązania dotyczące objęcia rozporządzeniem także sprzedaży wysyłkowej wyrobów akcyzowych, a także w procedurze zawieszania poboru akcyzy stosowanie obniżonych gwarancji w stosunku do podmiotów, które spełniają warunki dobrego postępowania i regularnie korzystają z systemu gwarancji.

  Trevor Colman, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, the Commission proposal relating to procedure 2008/0051(CNS) states in Article 10 that ‘Member States may […] make excise goods which have been released for consumption eligible for reimbursement [...] of excise duty’. On this basis, Ms Lulling tells us that, as regards the conditions for reimbursement of excise duty, the proposal lays down, as a general principle, that it is for Member States to determine these conditions.

However, Article 10 goes on to say: ‘provided that such reimbursement [...] does not give rise to exemptions other than those referred to in Article 11’. Article 11 refers to exemptions for diplomatic purposes, for subsidising international organisations, for assisting the armed forces of NATO and under special arrangements with non-EU countries, all of which – I think you will agree – are rather specialised exemptions which, contrary to Ms Lulling’s assertion, do not uphold the general principle that it is for Member States to determine the conditions for reimbursement.

There is no exemption for Member States in this proposal, and on these grounds I commend to Members Amendment 54, which seeks to repair a glaring flaw in this proposal.

  Μαργαρίτης Σχοινάς (PPE-DE). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, βρισκόμαστε μπροστά σε μια ακόμα εκκεντρική πρόταση της Επιτροπής: ούτε λίγο ούτε πολύ με μια πολιτική μπουλντόζας προτείνει να καταργηθεί κάθε σταθμός αφορολογήτων ειδών στα χερσαία σύνορα της Κοινότητας με τρίτες χώρες.

Προβάλλει ένα πολύ μεγάλο "γιατί": γιατί, κύριε Επίτροπε, είχατε αυτή τη σκέψη και, αφού την είχατε, γιατί δεν την είχατε θέσει στη διαβούλευση που οργανώσατε το 2006 και γιατί δεν την συμπεριλάβατε σε ένα impact assessment, που είστε υποχρεωμένοι να κάνετε στα πλαίσια της νέας αρχής του better regulation;

Πρέπει λοιπόν να μας εξηγήσετε γιατί θα πούμε σε εκατοντάδες εργαζόμενους ότι θα χάσουν τη δουλειά τους, ειδικά στους δύσκολους τωρινούς καιρούς της κρίσης· πρέπει να μας εξηγήσετε ποιος είναι αυτός ο αντίκτυπος στην εσωτερική αγορά που είναι τόσο σημαντικός για να καταργήσετε συλλήβδην όλους τους χερσαίους σταθμούς στα σύνορα με τρίτες χώρες, που στην περίπτωση της δικιάς μου της χώρας, της Ελλάδας, λειτουργούν με μεγάλη επιτυχία χωρίς κανένα πρόβλημα απάτης, χωρίς κανέναν αντίκτυπο στην εσωτερική αγορά. Πρέπει και το Κοινοβούλιο και οι πολιτικές ομάδες που συμμερίζονται αυτή την άποψη να αναλάβουν την πολιτική ευθύνη να εξηγήσουν στους εργαζόμενους τι είναι αυτό που πρέπει να μας κάνει να καταργήσουμε αυτή την πετυχημένη λειτουργία των καταστημάτων.

Καθόσον με αφορά -και η κ. Lulling το είπε ξεκάθαρα όπως το είπε ξεκάθαρα και η IMCO στη γνωμοδότησή της - δεν έχουμε λάβει καμιά πειστική απάντηση. Αυτό μας κάνει να πιστεύουμε ότι η Επιτροπή το θεωρεί πιο πολύ σαν καπρίτσιο. Δεν έχουμε λάβει καμία πειστική απάντηση.

Κάνω λοιπόν μια έκκληση της τελευταίας στιγμής: αύριο στην ψηφοφορία οι τροπολογίες 63, 64 και 65 να υπερψηφιστούν, για να μην επιτρέψουμε στην πολιτική της μπουλντόζας να ισοπεδώσει ακόμα μια φορά ό, τι δουλεύει στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση.

  Κατερίνα Μπατζελή (PSE). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, θα κάνω μία συγκεκριμένη πρόταση για το σύστημα της εξαίρεσης των καταστημάτων land based.

Κύριε Επίτροπε, σχετικά με τα καταστήματα land based, τα εισάγετε σε μία γενική εξαίρεση η οποία αποτελεί διακριτική μεταχείριση εις βάρος των επιχειρήσεων· και αυτό έχει σημαντικές επιπτώσεις στη λειτουργία αυτών, των υγιών κατά τα άλλα επιχειρήσεων, με ουσιαστική συμβολή στις εθνικές κοινωνίες και στην τοπική απασχόληση.

Σε κράτη μέλη, όπως η Ελλάδα, με εκτεταμένα χερσαία σύνορα σε τρίτες χώρες, η αντικατάσταση των καταστημάτων αυτών παρουσιάζει μια συνεχή μακρά πορεία, ομαλή λειτουργία των επιχειρήσεων και με κερδοσκοπία, ενώ από την άλλη πλευρά το θέμα της συστηματικής παραβίασης του κριτηρίου αγοράς για προσωπική χρήση ή οι περιπτώσεις συστηματικής κατάχρησης και φοροδιαφυγής ελέγχονται με σαφή τρόπο από τις εθνικές αρχές. Θεωρώ ότι η διατήρηση της λειτουργίας των καταστημάτων αφορολόγητων που βρίσκονται σε χερσαία σύνορα θα αποτελούσε λύση συνεπή και με τις ίδιες τις προτάσεις της Επιτροπής, ενώ το βάρος ελέγχου του τρόπου λειτουργίας και πάταξης περιπτώσεων φοροδιαφυγής θα συνέπιπτε όπως και στα άλλα καταστήματα επί των λιμανιών και των αεροδρομίων.

Θεωρώ λοιπόν ότι και στην επόμενη ψηφοφορία θα πρέπει να υποστηρίξουμε τις τροπολογίες 57, 63, 64, 65, και στην τελική περίπτωση την τροπολογία 69, η οποία δίνει μια παράταση της λειτουργίας των καταστημάτων αυτών μέχρι το 2012.

  Colm Burke (PPE-DE). - Mr President, I welcome the report on general arrangements for excise duty. I wish to highlight the progress made in the matter of purchasing duty. The original proposal, if implemented, would have restricted passengers to purchasing duty-free goods only in the final airport of departure before leaving the EU. In practical terms this would have meant that if a person went on a journey from Cork in Ireland to Dubai via Paris they would only be able to purchase duty-free goods in Paris. This would have decimated the profitability of Irish regional airports, as many currently rely on commercial activities for the bulk of their income. This would undoubtedly have led to job losses. However, this has now been addressed and accordingly I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on working to address our concerns.

This represents a welcome development at a time when the Irish Government has introduced a new airport tax which will discriminate against beleaguered smaller regional airports to the advantage of the already congested Dublin airport. In that regard I call on the Commission to investigate the legality of this measure under EU competition rules. I welcome the report from Mrs Lulling and the Commission.

  Peter Skinner (PSE). - Mr President, perhaps if I were Mrs Lulling living in Luxembourg I might feel as strongly about not having indicative limits.

Unfortunately, I live on an island where there is a lot of smuggling and much of the alcohol and tobacco which people think that they can use for their own particular purposes is in fact later sold on to other people through commercial resale. I am afraid that anything we do to end the indicative limits would send a signal and a message to those smugglers who look for the resale of alcohol and cigarettes.

Indicative limits may not seem like a safe guide for consumers but they are a safe guide for children, children who often end up taking the alcohol and cigarettes sold by bootleggers and smugglers who bring them into my region in the South-East and sell them in the streets, on the back streets and on the estates, for small change, one or two cigarettes at a time perhaps, but enough to get kids started.

It is this trade which needs to be controlled and can only be controlled by setting indicative limits so that we can get to the source of the people who are trying to do this and trying to smuggle it past our police and customs officers.

That is why I believe that indicative limits should stay. It is not, as I say, an end to the integration of the single markets, but it certainly does bring about a better idea of social cohesion and social behaviour and, in the United Kingdom, the customs and excise officers and the police officers asked for this. They asked for it because it gives good guidance as to what people would be expected to bring back for their own personal use.

Tobacco has a life of only six months, so when you stop vans packed to the ceiling with cigarettes, you have to ask the question: is that really for personal use or is it going elsewhere for resale, and often to children?

  Gabriela Creţu (PSE). - Stimaţi colegi, accizele, sistemul electronic de taxare în general, par aspecte tehnice, dar care servesc unor obiective foarte politice. Folosirea lor trebuie să ţină totuşi cont, pe lângă teoriile abstracte, şi de situaţiile concrete din statele membre. În acelaşi timp, trebuie să menţinem coerenţa cu principii mai generale ale politicilor pe care le aplicăm. De exemplu, cu principiul tratamentului egal.

Raportul de faţă ar îndeplini ambele condiţii dacă se acceptă o propunere; în special, este vorba de amendamentul 69, cu referire la menţinerea duty-free-urilor la punctele de vamă ale Uniunii altele decât porturile şi aeroporturile, până în 2017. Prin acest amendament, se îndepărtează o discriminare între cei care călătoresc pe apă sau cu avionul şi cei care călătoresc pe uscat, absolut nejustificată din punct de vedere economic, teoretic, dar şi practic. În acelaşi timp, conferă un anume avantaj pentru cei care locuiesc în zonele de frontieră, cum s-a precizat deja. Acestea sunt în general dezavantajate economic, din cauza statutului lor periferic, iar dispariţia unor locuri de muncă le-ar afecta negativ.

Stimaţi colegi, există motive serioase să acceptaţi acest amendament la votul de mâine; faţă de cheltuielile uriaşe pe care suntem dispuşi să le facem fără obiecţii pentru salvarea corporaţiilor, această exceptare are consecinţe financiare minore.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE-DE). - Pane předsedo, bezbariérový pohyb lidí a zboží patří k velkému úspěchu Evropské unie, ale špatně funguje u zboží, kde je ve hře různě vysoká spotřební daň mezi členskými státy. Nesmiřitelná stanoviska Komise, výboru, Evropského soudu a zpravodajů o množstevní politice odhalila, že nedokážeme najít dobré řešení, dokud tyto daňové rozdíly budou existovat. Mrzí mne, že Komise neprovedla dopadovou studii, abychom posoudili ekonomický význam paralelního trhu, ten společenský význam omezující občany snad nahlížíme všichni. Přála bych si, aby tato rozprava inspirovala ke koordinaci spotřební daňové politiky pro alkohol a tabák, mimo jiné i kvůli zdravotním rizikům. Vždyť země s vysokou daní se nemohou pochlubit viditelným úspěchem v boji s alkoholismem.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (PSE). - Domnule Preşedinte, domnule Comisar, capitolul 4 stabileşte dispoziţiile de bază şi procedurile care se aplică în cadrul sistemului informatizat pentru monitorizarea circulaţiei produselor accizabile. Noutatea constă în introducerea sistemului şi documentului administrativ în format electronic.

Pentru garantarea unei exploatări eficiente a sistemului informatizat, statele membre ar trebui să adopte, în cadrul aplicaţiilor naţionale, un set de date şi o structură a datelor, uniforme pentru a oferi agenţilor economici o interfaţă fiabilă.

Perioada de tranziţie pentru adaptarea la sistemul informatizat de monitorizare a circulaţiei produselor accizabile în regim suspensiv de accize trebuie să aibă în vedere fezabilitatea punerii în funcţiune a sistemului informatic în fiecare stat membru. În acest scop, statele membre şi Comisia iau măsurile necesare pentru implementarea la nivel naţional a infrastructurii de chei publice şi pentru a asigura interoperabilitatea acestora.

Domnule Comisar, având în vedere preconizata criză alimentară şi importanţa socială şi economică a agriculturii europene, consider că ar trebui să analizăm posibilitatea eliminării accizelor pentru combustibilii utilizaţi pentru lucrările agricole, precum şi pentru energia utilizată pentru pomparea apei pentru irigaţii.

  László Kovács, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, from the discussions I do see a general support for the main objective of the Commission proposal, which is to provide the legal basis for the computerisation of excise procedures by April 2010.

I want to emphasise and confirm that the purpose of the proposal is to simplify and modernise the excise procedure, to improve control of the movement of excise goods and at that same time to reduce red-tape excise obligations for traders and to reduce the burden on private travellers. These were the guiding principles for the proposals.

I would like to make some observations in relation to the amendments concerning some of the more sensitive issues in the proposal.

On the ‘guide levels’, the Commission could accept to maintain guide levels as a tool, although we did not want to introduce or propose guide levels. However, the present quantitative reference values have to be kept. We cannot accept a reduction of these values, which would be a step backwards in comparison with the 1993 Directive.

On the abolition of tax-free shops at land borders, which is another sensitive issue, I want to remind you that the origin of this approach dates back to as early as 1960, when the WCO, the World Customs Organisation, recommended the abolition of land-border tax-free shops, and I also want to remind you that in 2002, when the accession talks with 10 new countries were completed, countries like Slovenia, Hungary and some others were forced to abolish their land-based tax-free shops; so I think that the proposed solution, which provides a very long transitional period for Greece and for Romania, is quite fair in comparison to the stand taken with regard to the former new countries.

On the reimbursement of excise duty to small fuel distributors, the Commission maintains the principle that the insolvency of the final consumer cannot be a ground not to charge excise duty. At the same time, in view of the ongoing economic crisis and sometimes remaining high fuel prices, and to ensure fuel distribution to end users, it should be possible for Member States to otherwise safeguard the interest of small distributors, provided that such measures do not disturb competition.

Concerning the impact assessment, a point which many speakers raised, I want to remind you that an impact assessment was already made in 2004, so we simply did not find it necessary to repeat it two years later.

In conclusion, I would like to thank Parliament for its support and constructive approach. Providing the legal basis for the new Excise Movement Control System will allow the Member States to speed up their preparation for the introduction of the system, foreseen by April 2010. The Commission will take all necessary steps to ensure that all central systems will be operational by that date, as well as provide support to allow a smooth transition to the new paperless environment.

  Astrid Lulling, rapporteure. − Monsieur le Commissaire, nous voulons absolument que le régime EMCS remplace le régime papier en avril 2009 et nous espérons que toute la malheureuse discussion sur les limites indicatives ne retardera pas l'adoption de la directive.

Je voudrais dire à M. Dos Santos que ces limites indicatives n'ont rien à voir ni avec la santé, ni avec le Luxembourg. À Mme Ferreira, je voudrais rappeler qu'en 2005, nous avons adopté, ici, le rapport du socialiste Rosato, dans lequel nous nous sommes déjà prononcés pour l'abolition des limites indicatives. D'ailleurs, M. Hamon, qui maintenant a d'autres soucis, avait proposé dans son amendement des limites beaucoup plus élevées que celles du fameux compromis social-libéral concocté derrière mon dos. À M. Olle Schmidt, je voudrais dire qu'il ne faut vraiment pas mélanger les torchons et les serviettes et parler dans le même souffle de fiscalité et de santé. D'ailleurs, le fléau de l'alcoolisme est, malheureusement, directement proportionnel au niveau des accises; plus les taux d'accises sont élevés, plus le fléau de l'alcoolisme est grand dans les pays, qui sont évidemment libres de pratiquer des taux d'accises aussi élevés qu'ils le veulent, parce que nous n'avons que des taux minima et pas de taux maxima; Mais s'il vous plaît, ne nous parlez pas de politique de santé lorsque vous pratiquez ces taux.

Je voudrais dire à M. Skinner que vraiment les contrebandiers se foutent des niveaux et des limites indicatives. D'ailleurs, dans la proposition de la Commission, il y a des critères pour définir les marchandises acquises à des fins de consommation privée, qui sont de meilleurs garde-fous que des limites indicatives y compris contre la contrebande et j'espère que nous pourrons trouver demain la bonne solution, qui est celle que je propose.

  El Presidente. − Se cierra el debate.

La votación tendrá lugar mañana, a las 12.00 horas.