EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DIRECTORATE-GENERAL TAXATION AND CUSTOMS UNION INDIRECT TAXATION AND TAX

ADMINISTRATION Indirect Taxes (other than VAT)

TAXUD/C2

Consultation paper

Review of existing legislation on the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages

Note

This document is being circulated for consultation to public concerned by the plan to review the current excise structures set out in the Council Directive 92/83/EEC adopted on 19 October 1992.

The sole purpose of this consultation is to collect relevant evidence and information from stakeholders to help the Commission develop its thinking in this area.

This document does not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission, and should not

be interpreted as a commitment by the Commission to any official initiative in this area.

The stakeholders concerned are invited to submit their comments no later than 27/11/2015.

This PDF version is for visualisation purposes only. Only contributions received online can be taken into account.

LANGUAGE SELECTION

Please select language /  Bitte wählen Sie Ihre Sprache / Veuillez sélectionner votre langue
•	English 
•	Français 
•	Deutsch 

INTRODUCTION TO OPEN CONSULTATION

This open consultation is part of the evaluation of the alcohol structures Directive (92/83/EEC), under the recently adopted Commission's Better Regulation Framework. It seeks to capture the views of all interested parties.

Your contribution will automatically be registered upon completion of this online survey.

The Commission services would like to point out that this is an open public consultation. A targeted consultation is being conducted simultaneously with interested stakeholders from industry and from the administrations in the Member States.

The targeted consultation of stakeholders directly impacted by Directive 92/83/EC which seeks to capture the views of the categories of stakeholders below can be accessed here:  https://www.survey-

 xact.dk/LinkCollector?key=EWE3XHUQ329K

•	Producers of beer 

•	Producers of wine / winegrowers 

•	Producers of fermented beverages other than wine or beer 

•	Producers of intermediate products 

•	Producers of spirits 

•	Producers, importers, distributors or users of denatured alcohol 

•	Organisations representing the interests of the abovementioned stakeholders 

Stakeholders are invited to reply to those questions that are of concern for them. Figures and concrete examples of fraud, evasion and abuse, and the distortion of competition within the internal market or of specific problems encountered due to the current excise rules would be highly appreciated.

As already indicated above, it is important to keep in mind that this public consultation is part of the assessment process and that no policy decisions have been taken at this stage.

2

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE STAKEHOLDER

The Commission services would be interested in receiving contributions from all interested stakeholders on the issues described below. In order to analyse the responses, it will be useful to group the answers by type of respondent. For this reason, you are kindly requested to complete the following form.

•	You are included in one of the following groups: 

□	Citizen / Consumer 

□	Multinational enterprise 

□	Large company 

□	Small and medium sized enterprise (SMEs) 1 

□	National Association 

□	European Association 

□	Non-Governmental organisation (NGO) 

□	Tax advisor or tax practitioner 

□	Academic 

□	Others. Please specify ........................................... 

•	Name of your organisation/ entity/ company : Active – Sobriety, Friendship and Peace 

•	Country of domicile ................................................. 

•	Austria 

•	Belgium 
•	Bulgaria 
•	Croatia 
•	Cyprus 
•	Czech Republic 

•	Denmark 
•	Estonia 
•	Finland 
•	France 
•	Germany 

•	Greece 
•	Hungary 
•	Ireland 
•	Italy 
•	Latvia 

•	Lithuania 
•	Luxembourg 
•	Malta 
•	Netherlands 
•	Poland 

•	Portugal 

•	Romania 
•	Slovakia 

1	According to the Commission Recommendation (2003) 361 of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (its Annex, Title I, Article 2), SMEs are defined as enterprises which employ fewer than 250 persons and which have an annual turnover not exceeding EUR 50 million, and/or an annual balance sheet total not exceeding EUR 43 million. Within the SME category, a small enterprise is defined as an enterprise which employs fewer than 50 persons and whose annual turnover and/or annual balance sheet total does not exceed EUR 10 million, and a microenterprise is defined as an enterprise which employs fewer than 10 persons and whose annual turnover and/or annual balance sheet total does not exceed EUR 2 million. 

3

•	Slovenia 

•	Spain 

•	Sweden 

•	United Kingdom 

•	Other, please specify 

•	Do you agree to the publication of your personal data? 

 Consultation paper	 1	

 Review of existing legislation on the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages 1

 •	 English	 2	
 •	 Français	 2	
 •	 Deutsch	 2	
 •    You are included in one of the following groups:	 3	
 •    Name of your organisation/ entity/ company	 3	
 •	 Country of domicile	 3	
 •	 Austria	 3	
 •	 Belgium	 3	
 •	 Bulgaria	 3	
 •	 Croatia	 3	
 •	 Cyprus	 3	
 •	 Czech Republic	 3	
 •	 Denmark	 3	
 •	 Estonia	 3	
 •	 Finland	 3	
 •	 France	 3	
 •	 Germany	 3	
 •	 Greece	 3	
 •	 Hungary	 3	
 •	 Ireland	 3	
 •	 Italy	 3	
 •	 Latvia	 3	
 •	 Lithuania	 3	
 •	 Luxembourg	 3	
 •	 Malta	 3	
 •	 Netherlands	 3	
 •	 Poland	 3	
 •	 Portugal	 3	
 •	 Romania	 3	
 •	 Slovakia	 3	
	4		

 •	 Slovenia	 4	
 •	 Spain	 4	
 •	 Sweden	 4	
 •	 United Kingdom	 4	
 •	 Other, please specify	 4	
 •    Do you agree to the publication of your personal data?	 4	
	□		

2. CURRENT EU LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

The general objective of the Directive on the structures of excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages is to provide a harmonised effective legal base for the EU excise duty system for alcohol products in terms of its capacity to safeguard Member States' budgetary objectives, and ensure the proper functioning of the Internal Market while avoiding distortions in competition. To ensure equal fiscal treatment, fair competition and level playing fields, as preventing fraud, evasion and abuse of the regimes.

There are five broad categories of alcohol and alcoholic beverages defined in the Directive:

1.	Beer 

2.	Wine 

3.	Fermented beverages (other than beer and wine) 

4.	Intermediate Products 

5.	Ethyl alcohol 

Classification of alcohol and alcoholic beverages

The definitions used for classifying products are to a large extent reliant on how a product would have been classified, at the time the Directive entered into force, under the customs nomenclature headings 2203, 2204, 2205, 2206, 2207, and 2208. When declared to customs in the Community, goods must generally be classified according to the Combined Nomenclature (CN). Imported and exported goods have to be declared stating under which subheading of the nomenclature they fall. This determines which rate of customs duty applies and how the goods are treated for statistical purposes:

2203	Beer made from malt	
2204	Wine made from fresh grapes, including fortified wines ; grape must other than that other	
	heading 2009	
2205	Vermouth and other wine of fresh grapes flavoured with plants or aromatic substances	
2206	Other fermented beverages (for example cider, perry, mead); mixtures of fermented	
	beverages and mixtures of fermented beverages and non-alcoholic beverages, not	
	included elsewhere specified or included	
2208	Undenatured ethyl alcohol of an alcoholic strength by volume of less than 80% vol;	
	spirits, liqueurs and other spirituous beverages	

5

The structures for classifying products under Directive 92/83/EEC are categorised, in broad terms, as follows:

Article	Product		Detail		
					
			The definitions & Combined Nomenclature (CN) codes  - CN heading		
			2203 and beer mixed with non-alcoholic beverages classified to 2206		
1-6	Beer				
			Chargeability, reduced rates and own consumption / private production.		
					
			The definitions & CN codes - All products classified to 2204 and 2205 not		
7-10	Wine		exceeding 15%  alcohol by volume  (abv)  provided  that  the  alcohol  is		
			entirely fermented; or not exceeding 18% provided that the alcohol is		
					
			entirely fermented and no enrichment has been used		
			Chargeability, reduced rates and own consumption / private production for		
			wine		
			The definitions & CN codes -  Those products, not falling as beer and		
	Fermented		wine, which are classified to 2204, 2205 and 2206 and do not exceed 10%		
			abv;  or  not  exceeding  15%  abv  provided  that  the  alcohol  is  entirely		
11-15	beverages	other			
			fermented;		
	than wine or beer			
				
			Chargeability, reduced rates and own consumption / private production		
			The definitions & CN codes - All products between 1.2% and 22% abv		
			classified to 2204, 2205 and 2206 which do not fall under the beer, wine		
			and fermented beverage categories. Member States also have discretion to		
16-18	Intermediate		treat products that would fall under the fermented beverages category as		
	products		Intermediate Product so long as the product exceeds 5.5% abv and the		
					
			alcohol is not entirely of fermented origin		
			Chargeability and reduced rates		
			The definitions & CN codes - (a) All products classified to 2207 and 2208,		
			even when they form part of a product that is classified under another		
19-23	Ethyl alcohol	chapter of the nomenclature. (b) Any product classified to 2204, 2205 and		
		2206 that exceeds 22% abv.		
					
			Chargeability, reduced rates, and certain derogations		
24-26	Miscellaneous	Includes the application of refunds		
	category				
					
27	Exemptions		Across a range of issues, including the application of the exemption in the		
			area of completely and partially denatured alcohol.		
					
28	Derogation (UK)	To  apply an  exemption for  concentrated malt  beverage,  and  aromatic		
		bitters.		

			6		

3.	THE QUESTIONNAIRE 

3.1	Classification of alcohol and alcoholic beverages 

Some producers can be inclined to alter their alcoholic products so that on appearence (taste, apparition, consistency, etc.) they resemble one product but are effectively taxed as a different product. It is not illegal to do so but can bring about two distortive consequences. Firstly, these products will be altered only slightly as to, typically, fall into a lower tax or customs duty category (e.g. through modifying the alcoholic strength, sugar content or alcoholic base of the drink), and thus causing revenue loss. Secondly, they are misleading the consumers into buying unknowingly and involuntarily a product different from the one intended. The 2 CN codes in this section are 2206 (Intermediate Product) and 2208 (Undenatured alcohol)

Question 1.1 – Given the current classification system, the consumer has enough information about what the types of alcohol they are buying and consuming?
 Strongly agree
 Agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Disagree
 Strongly disagree
 Don’t know

Please explain more about the availability of the information : 
Providing an answer to this question would not give a relevant, measurable and impactful image on whether the classification system is effective or not. There are three main reasons for that:
-	Firstly, the context of the question alludes that an industry operator, an individual or any type of an organization would give their own opinion on behalf of all the consumers in the EU. This means that a subjective opinion of a group of respondents would form the general opinion on the classification system and represent the opinions of the EU citizens. Normally, when examining an issue of such a scope, it is necessary to perform a deeper, objective EU-wide analysis. 
-	Secondly, aligning the word “consumers” to “alcohol” and suggesting a normality in “buying and consuming” alcoholic beverages causes serious concerns, from the public health perspective. Alcohol is not an ordinary product and alcohol-related harm costs the EU 156 billion EUR a year, a sum much higher than any “lost income from tax” which concerns this consultation.
-	Thirdly, a vast percentage of the world population, including Europeans, do not use or purchase alcohol at all, some of which are respondents to this questionnaire.

Question 1.2 – There is enough information readily available in your country about classification of alcohol products produced domestically or for any other Member State?
 Strongly agree
 Agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Disagree
 Strongly disagree
 Don’t know

Please explain more about the availability of the information :

From a Swedish perspective, we have experienced problems with the classifications in article 11-15 and 16-18 because of beverages which contain several different types of products, for example the so called “alcopops”. The Swedish cider is also a problem since it is not regulated in the EU. 
There are problems with the classification of certain beverages, mostly in the context that one beverage can be classified in more than one category, such as cream liquors, and by that be subjected to a different tax rate.

Question 1.3 I have seen / purchased alcoholic products which were packaged to look like their equivalent higher strength spirits but lower priced than the equivalent products in the higher tax band?
 Very often

 Often
 Rarely
 Sometimes
 Never
 Don’t know

If relevant, please provide additional information <Write answers here>

7

Question 1.4 – In your view, is it easy to classify alcohol and alcoholic beverages under the headings listed above (for example 2206 – intermediate product, 2208 - spirit?
 Very easy
 Easy
 Neither easy nor difficult
 Difficult
 Very difficult
 Don’t know

Please explain more about the availability of the information : 

It appears that there is a challenge with the implementation of the classification, firstly because it seems possible to classify one type of alcoholic beverage under several categories, and secondly because some types of alcoholic beverages that are very country-specific, fail to be recognized or classified with the headings. For example, the Swedish cider. 

Question 1.5 - Can you give us examples of drinks where it is not immediately obvious to you what classification they fall into and how they compare in terms of price to the similar products?

Answer	Yes

No

If yes, please give examples

In the Siebrand case, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that the decisive criterion for the classification of goods for customs purposes is in general to be sought in their “objective characteristics” and that it was necessary to identify, from among the materials of which they are composed, the one which gives them their “essential character”.

Question 1.6 – Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statement:

The criteria of the ECJ in Siebrand reduces any present and future classification problems
 Strongly agree
 Agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Disagree
 Strongly disagree
 Don’t know

Please explain:

“Objective characteristics” and “Essential character” are terms that do not give a precise guideline on how to classify alcoholic beverages for customs purposes. Both terms seem subjective in nature and mislead Member States on how to classify. 

Question 1.7 – In your opinion, if you agree that there is a problem, what would be the best solution to solve these issues? 
 The ECJ continues providing its rulings on a case by case basis

 The customs common nomenclature (CCN) for classification of products should be the only classification system
 More precise criteria for product classification should be established
 Other, <Write answers here> 

3.2	Reduced rates for small producers of beer and ethyl alcohol 

For small producers the Directive allows Member States to introduce reduced rates in respect of certain alcoholic product categories:

•	For beer, Article 4 of Council Directive 92/83/EEC gives Member States the option to apply reduced rates to brewers producing no more than 200,000 hectolitres (20 million litres) per year. 

•	For ethyl alcohol (spirits), Article 22 gives Member States the option to apply reduced rates to distillers 

8

producing no more than 10 hectolitres (1,000 litres) of alcohol per year, or 20 hectolitres (2,000 litres) if already provided when the Directive was adopted

With regard to the other three categories of alcohol products (Wine; Fermented beverages other than Wine and Beer; and Intermediate Products) there are simply no reduced rate provisions specifically aimed at small producers.

Question 2.1 – Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statement:

There are overall benefits of establishing common EU rules for the application of reduced rates to small producers across the EU
 Strongly agree
 Agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Disagree
 Strongly disagree
 Don’t know

Please say why:

The way the question is formulated makes it hard to answer for anyone who is familiar and working with public health. Firstly, there are no benefits of using alcohol, based on both research from the World Health Organization and the European Commission, who both recommend that the best decision is to not use any alcohol at all. Secondly, an effective alcohol policy focuses on the affordability of alcohol, meaning that the higher the price of alcohol, the smaller the consumption. Thirdly, the small producers of alcoholic beverages across the EU cannot be compared to any other types of producers of agricultural products. The small producers, regardless of their size, are still producing a harmful product, whose consumption directly influences public health. Neither alcohol nor alcohol policy can be seen as a part of the agricultural policy of EU, or compared to it and its measures. 
What constitutes the alcohol problem in EU are the alcoholic beverages, regardless of the content of alcohol they have, since the major problem regarding any kind of alcoholic beverage is the ethanol itself, and who has produced them (small, medium or big enterprises), there is therefore no legitimate reason for any incentives for producing alcoholic beverages to exist. Lowering the costs of alcoholic beverages for safeguarding commercial interests and at the cost of ignoring public health is not only undermining to the work of all public health initiatives that the EU has funded so far, but is also contradictory to the TFEU. 

Question 2.2 – Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statement:

The rules for small producers should apply to all categories of alcohol and alcoholic beverages
 Strongly agree
 Agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Disagree
 Strongly disagree
 Don’t know

Please say why:

Again, the proposed measure in this question goes against the aforementioned interests of public health that are enshrined in the treaties of the European Union. 

According to WHO there are 3.3 million deaths every year that are the result from harmful use of alcohol, in the age group 20 – 39 years approximately 25 % of the total deaths are alcohol-attributable but beyond health consequences, the harmful use of alcohol brings significant social and economic losses to individuals and society at large.

The total tangible cost of alcohol to the EU society in 2003 was estimated to be €156bn, which is roughly the same value as that found recently for tobacco (Thomas Babor (Ed.). (2010). Alcohol: no ordinary commodity: research and public policy. Oxford University Press.). The consumption of alcohol was estimated to have created a burden of disease larger than that of tobacco in Europe (Hu, G., & Mamady, K. (2013). Alcohol-related road traffic injury and Global Burden of Disease 2010. The Lancet, 382(9898), 1092-1093)

Question 2.2 - Are there any concrete situations that you are aware of whereby the application of a reduced rate on certain alcohol and alcoholic beverages for small producers by one or more Member States is resulting in distortion of competition within the Single Market? Please explain and, if possible, give an indication of the economic impact of the distortive effects

Answer	Yes

No

I don’t understand the question

There are though very concrete examples of the problems that reduction to prices for alcoholic beverages create, one recent example is from Finland.  In order to curb the expected growth of travelers’ imports from Finns travelling back and forth to Estonia, where the alcoholic beverages are much cheaper, to maintain the tax base of alcoholic beverages and jobs created by the alcohol industry in Finland and to prevent the emergence of gray markets based on travelers’ imports, the Finnish state decided to cut the taxes on alcoholic beverages. This only lead to an increase in alcohol consumption by 10% in 2004, increase in alcohol-related harms and alcohol-induces liver disease increased by 46% in 2004. It was also shown that it was the worst-off parts of the population that paid the highest price in terms of health for cuts in alcohol prices. 

3.3	Exemptions 

Denatured alcohol (or non-commercial / industrial or "surrogate" alcohol) that is used in the manufacture of some products not destined for human consumption, (for example screen wash, anti-freeze, hand sanitizer, mouthwash, nail varnish remover, perfumes and aftershaves) is exempt from excise taxes. As a tax-exempted finished product, it is moved between the EU countries outside of the EU monitoring system for excisable products (Excise Movement and Control System - EMCS), meaning with little or no fiscal control. Those same products are often targeted by criminals to be reverted / "cleaned up" into drinking alcohol and sold on as such to shops, restaurants and/or bars. In most cases where alcohol is sold very cheaply, the consumer may know he/she is probably buying illegal alcohol, but not necessarily know that it may also actually be industrial alcohol "cleaned up" for drinking purposes, unaware of the

9

genuine provenance and safety of the "drink".

Question 3.1 – Are you aware that the fraud described above is happening?

Answer	Yes

No

I don’t understand the question

Question 3.2 – Have you, your friends, or any member of your family ever been offered / bought very cheap (for example, less than supermarket prices) spirit?

Answer	Yes

No

I prefer not to say

Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements:

i	The problem of denatured alcohol being reverted into spirit and sold illegally is widespread? 
 Strongly agree 
 Agree 
 Neither agree nor disagree 
 Disagree 
 Strongly disagree 
 Don’t know 

If possible, please provide evidence: 

This answer to this question depicts only personal views whether the problem is widespread or not. To get a measurable and realistic view of the problem, it is preferable to approach the question in a more objective and holistic way and conduct a research. 
If we choose to consult existing research, According to Lachenmeier in 2000 30% of global alcohol consumption was estimated to be unrecorded, with a high proportion in low-income countries and in former Soviet Union. This means that the so called problems with denatured alcohol in the EU are exaggerated.  
But in this overall situation, it is even more important to change the discussion and discuss taxes and their connection to public health. It is important to work in a holistic way in order to reduce alcohol consumption, and as we showcased in the answers above. Taking a holistic approach is the choice of work for DG SANTÉ, and connecting public health and taxes is an excellent way of doing that, especially when implementing Health in all policies. 

ii.	The trade and consumption of illicit alcohol can be justified 
 Strongly agree 
 Agree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Disagree
 Strongly disagree
 Don’t know

Please say why :

Experience from tobacco policy shows that a fully functioning board control is all that is needed in order to decrease the trade and consumption of illicit products. There is no need to lower taxes since it has been proven to only increase consumption and problems in the society. If we compare with tobacco; The World Bank states that even in the face of smuggling, the evidence from a number of countries shows that tax increases still increase revenues and reduce cigarette consumption. This shows that the best way to tackle the trade and consumption of illicit alcohol is in fact to raise the taxes. 

From a public health perspective, the usage of alcohol in any quantity is the one that causes harm, and it is irrelevant to label whether the alcohol comes from legal or illegal channels, or to assess the strength of ethanol. 

iii. How important it is for you to know that the alcohol you are drinking is both legitimate and safe to drink?
 Very important
 Important
 Neither important nor unimportant
 Not important
 Don’t know

Please say why:

The majority of the world population lives alcohol free, and a big number of Europeans fall into this category. It is unclear and puzzling to read a question of this kind in a consultation organized by the European Commission. We cannot see a relation between an answer to this question and improvements in DG Taxud’s alcohol tax strategy.

Furthermore, we have noted that DG Taxud has not put any age limitations to the respondents who can answer this consultation. This means that minors, who are not even legally allowed to purchase alcohol in many EU countries, can be respondents to this consultation. By that, minors are exposed to questions that put using alcohol in the context of normality, such as the question above. 

We are urging DG Taxud to focus on the key points and the relevant rhetoric of today’s alcohol policy discussions in DG Sante and other relevant bodies, and to reconsider the enforcement of social norms in European Commission communications. 

Question .3.3: Are you willing to pay more for the certainty to know you are buying a legitimate product?

Y/N/ Don’t know  - NO ANSWER TO THIS

10

Question 3.4: Are you aware that there are potentially serious health risks of consuming some of the types of illicit alcohol (for example blindness, even death)?

Y/N  -  NO ANSWER 

Question 3.5: What in your opinion could be done to solve this problem? What do you expect the Member States to do and what should the EU do?

With reference to the questions 3.3 and 3.4, we have to highlight once again the irrelevance of the answer to these questions, to the taxation discussion. 

In 3.3., the question suggests that the respondent should make a difference between legitimate and illegitimate alcoholic beverage. The truth is that regardless if the alcoholic beverage is produced legally or illegally, the health effects on the user will be the same, when it comes to the health consequences and social consequences. 

In question 3.4, the question focuses on the awareness of the respondent on health risks, when consuming “some of the illicit alcohol”. Firstly, whether an individual is aware of the health risks, does not determine the existence of health risks. All modern research, including WHO, has indicated that risk-free alcohol use does not really exist, as every drop of ethanol increases the risk of cancer in an individual, among other issues. Connected to that, the second part of the question, does not reflect the scientific reality – that every drop of alcohol, no matter of the origin, brings negative health effects.

With reference to question 3.5, the Member States and the EU are already widely engaged in the work on reducing alcohol-related harm. So there is already a set of measures and policies that are being set to address the risks that alcohol use causes. The best way forward would be to improve the European Alcohol Strategy and include policy measures for taxes.

Alcohol is not an ordinary commodity and in that sense, EU needs to reexamine the situations when its orientation to single market undermines the national legislation, causing harm to the EU citizens. Examples of this are cross-border alcohol purchase (licit and illicit alcohol), marketing etc. 

What is important to highlight to DG Taxud is that basic public health research states that the health risks and many other risks that are related to alcohol use are present, regardless if the alcohol used is licit or illicit. Therefore this question is irrelevant to the present alcohol policy discussions. 

3.4	Own consumption / private production 

The Directive allows an exemption for the private production and own consumption (by the producer, members of his family or his guests) in the categories of beer, wine and fermented beverages.

Question 4.1: Are you aware of this exemption in these categories?

Y/N/No opinion

Question 4.2: Do you think the exemption should be extended to all the categories i.e. also include Intermediate Product and Ethyl Alcohol?
Y/N

Question 4.3: Would any extension of the provisions encourage fraudulent production and sale of ethyl alcohol? Could it also impact if there was cross-border activity with such alcohol?

Y/N/ No opinion

3.5	Excise structure's importance for policy making 

Question 5.1 – In your view, can the structures of excise duties on alcoholic beverages have an impact on any other policy aspects (e.g. health policy, social policy, cultural policy, agricultural policy, revenue raising, etc.)?

 Significant impact  Some impact
 No impact

PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR CHOICE: 

The excise duties of alcohol and alcohol tax has a wide impact to alcohol policy, and by that to all related fields (child rights policy, youth policy, health policy, employment policy, social policy, trade policy, environment policy, agricultural policy etc.). It is important to look into alcohol policy in a holistic way and to think of alcohol as a factor in more than just health policy discussions. 

Question 5.2 – Do you agree that the calculation of excise duty based on the volume of the product rather than the actual alcoholic content is in line with the health policy in your country.

 Strongly agree  Agree

 Neither agree nor disagree  Disagree
 Strongly disagree
 Don’t know

11

PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR CHOICE:

The excise duties should be calculated based on percentage of alcohol content in a beverage. This would be the most public health – efficient measure due to the fact that the associated harm that comes from alcohol use is related to the alcohol content and not to the type of alcoholic beverage. A certain percentage of alcohol should lead to a certain tax rate, regardless if it is in beer, wine or any other type of product, which mean that each percentage of alcohol should lead to higher tax.

In addition to this, a strong enforcement system is needed to ensure that the proposed measures are to be implemented in all Member States.

Ultimately, it is necessary to adjust the excise duties in accordance to the level of inflation. This is something that EU has not been successful at doing, and which makes today’s excise rates equal the realities of the 1990-ies. 

If all these mechanisms are to be put into place, and if all of the EU institutions get to build up on their work in alcohol policy, then we can say that EU has an effective mechanism at place. 

Beyond the answers and comments provided above, if you wish to submit any other comments on the functioning of the Directive, please do so here?

<WRITE HERE>

4. SOME IMPORTANT MESSAGES ABOUT THIS CONSULTATION

The Commission would like to thank you for taking part, your views will be an important contributor to the evaluation. The Commission services would like to point out that this is an open public consultation. A targeted consultation is being conducted simultaneously with interested stakeholders from industry and from the administrations in the Member States.

Stakeholders are invited to reply to those questions that are of concern for them. Figures and concrete examples of fraud, evasion and abuse, and the distortion of competition within the internal market or of specific problems encountered due to the current excise rules would be highly appreciated.

As already indicated above, it is important to keep in mind that this public consultation is part of the assessment process and that no policy decisions have been taken at this stage.

12

5. FINAL OBSERVATIONS

It is important for contributors to identify clearly: name, address, e-mail, activity, other information and, in the event of representative organisations, the level of representation.

It is important to read the specific privacy statement on how your personal data and contribution will be dealt with on the following website:  http://ec.europa.eu/taxation customs/index en.htm.

In line with the specific privacy statement of this open public consultation, respondents should be aware that contributions received will be published on the website of DG TAXUD together with the identity of the contributor unless the contributor objects to the publication of his personal data on the grounds that such publication would harm his or her legitimate interests. In this case the contribution may be published in anonymous form. Otherwise the contribution will not be published nor will its content be taken into account.

The results will be summarised in a report to be published on the same website. Feedback would also be presented in the impact assessment report and explanatory memorandum relating to a Proposal for a Directive if the Commission decided to pursue this avenue.

13