You are on page 1of 2

3. 4.

98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 102/3

(98/C 102/03) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1515/97


by Markus Ferber (PPE) to the Council
(5 May 1997)

Subject: Planned abolition of duty-free sales in the European Union on 30 June 1999

The entry into force of the White Paper on the common internal market in January 1993 should have led to the
abolition of duty-free sales at that time, but for economic and employment policy reasons the Council felt obliged
to retain duty-free sales until 30 June 1999 to enable those concerned to adapt to the new conditions. In the
meantime it is evident that the employment situation throughout the EU has deteriorated to such an extent that
this change to the new conditions has not occurred, or only in very isolated instances. Nor is there likely to be any
radical improvement in the situation by 30 June 1999.

1. What specific action is the Council taking to counteract the adverse effects of the abolition of duty-free
sales (unemployment, losses of tax revenue)?

2. Is any attempt being made in the Council to extend the deadline again, not least in view of the argument
that, with 15 different tax systems in the Member States, a common internal market still does not exist?

3. Are there any Council opinions on the predicted adverse effects of the abolition of duty-free sales?

Answer
(6 August 1997)

As pointed out by the Honourable Member in his question, the Council decided when it adopted the directives
establishing the abolition of fiscal frontiers from 1 January 1993 to put an end to duty-free sales in
intra-Community passenger traffic with effect from 30 June 1999.

The reason for this measure lies in the incompatibility of such sales with the existence of a frontier-free internal
market.

The circulation between two Member States of goods bought by individuals for personal use no longer has
consequences from the point of view of fiscal legislation. Thus individuals may buy goods for personal use in
any Member State and bring such goods into any other Member State without need either to declare them or to
pay duty at the border. This being so, the application of duty-free allowances is no longer justified. It should be
pointed out that duty-free sales to travellers leaving the Community are to continue.

The Council’s reason for temporarily extending duty-free to intra-Community travellers until 30 June 1999 was
to alleviate social and regional difficulties which might have resulted from their sudden abolition. The intention
was to give sufficient time to the sectors concerned (airport suthorities, airlines, ferry companies, producers of
goods normally sold in duty-free shops and operators of the shops) to prepare for the disappearance of
intra-Community duty-free sales.

(98/C 102/04) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1534/97


by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission
(5 May 1997)

Subject: Phosphate ester poisoning due to the use of Tiguvon (Fenthion) manufactured by Bayer Leverkusen

The flea-repellant Tiguvon (Fenthion) manufactured by Bayer Leverkusen can be administered in different
forms. Tiguvon 10 is intended for cats over 2 kg in weight. The use of Tiguvon 20 is recommended for dogs
C 102/4 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 3. 4. 98

weighing between 3 and 10 kg, while dogs with a body weight of more than 10 kg should be treated with Tiguvon
20 G. People who have repeatedly treated their pets with Tiguvon (Fenthion) have suffered serious phosphate
ester poisoning. As it was unable to answer my Question E-1470/96 (1) on the same subject, I would ask the
Commission to answer the following questions as a matter of urgency:

When were these agents authorized for use on small animals, especially cats? By whom? Had adequate tests been
carried out? Were the tests reviewed and by whom?

(1) OJ C 345, 15.11.1996, p. 76.

(98/C 102/05) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1540/97

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(5 May 1997)

Subject: Phosphate ester poisoning due to the use of Tiguvon (Fenthion) manufactured by Bayer Leverkusen

The flea-repellant Tiguvon (Fenthion) manufactured by Bayer Leverkusen can be administered in different
forms. Tiguvon 10 is intended for cats over 2 kg in weight. The use of Tiguvon 20 is recommended for dogs
weighing between 3 and 10 kg, while dogs with a body weight of more than 10 kg should be treated with Tiguvon
20 G. People who have repeatedly treated their pets with Tiguvon (Fenthion) have suffered serious phosphate
ester poisoning. As it was unable to answer my Question E-1470/96 (1) on the same subject, I would ask the
Commission to answer the following questions as a matter of urgency:

To what extent have Tiguvon’s interaction with other cholinesterase inhibitors and its effect on humans and
animals been investigated? Which agents are compatible? How are pet-owners warned of possible substances
having a potentiating effect on Fenthion and other phosphoric acid derivatives?

(1) OJ C 345, 15.11.1996, p. 76.

(98/C 102/06) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1544/97

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(5 May 1997)

Subject: Phosphate ester poisoning due to the use of Tiguvon (Fenthion) manufactured by Bayer Leverkusen

The flea-repellant Tiguvon (Fenthion) manufactured by Bayer Leverkusen can be administered in different
forms. Tiguvon 10 is intended for cats over 2 kg in weight. The use of Tiguvon 20 is recommended for dogs
weighing between 3 and 10 kg, while dogs with a body weight of more than 10 kg should be treated with Tiguvon
20 G. People who have repeatedly treated their pets with Tiguvon (Fenthion) have suffered serious phosphate
ester poisoning. As it was unable to answer my Question E-1470/96 (1) on the same subject, I would ask the
Commission to answer the following questions as a matter of urgency:

Which institution examines the mode of action of ethical and freely available antiparasitics, especially for their
harmlessness to humans and animals and their compatibility with the environment? Is the Commission aware
that manufacturers wishing to continue marketing products registered before 1978 were required to submit the
results of all tests by the end of 1996? Did they do so? Is this governed by EU legislation? Were products
authorized after 1978 adequately tested?

(1) OJ C 345, 15.11.1996, p. 76.