Jag ställde i april följande fråga till Europakommissionen via det administrativa verktyg vi parlamentariker har till vårt förfogande för att närmare utreda kommissionens verksamhet:

Since 2004 the European Anti-Fraud Office, OLAF, has signed agreements with the world’s four leading tobacco producers with the aim of reducing cigarette smuggling — as well as the resulting losses to customs, VAT and excise duties — and other illicit trading in cigarettes.

In the first article of three of these agreements there is a definitions section which tackles different aspects of cigarette smuggling, contraband cigarettes (that have been imported into, distributed in, or sold in a Member State, or were en route to a Member State for sale there in violation of the applicable tax, duty or other fiscal laws) and counterfeited cigarettes (cigarettes that are manufactured by a third party without the consent of the cigarette manufacturer holding the given registered trademark). However, the agreement signed by OLAF and British American Tobacco in July 2010 contains no definition of ‘contraband cigarettes’, whilst there is a definition of ‘counterfeited cigarettes’.

Given that the Commission and OLAF, in the other agreements signed with Japanese Tobacco International, Imperial Tobacco Limited and Philip Morris International, have emphasised the difference between contraband and counterfeit cigarettes in the definitions, how does the Commission justify the absence of such a differentiation and the lack of a definition of ‘contraband cigarettes’ in the British American Tobacco agreement?

Furthermore, how will the Commission guarantee that this lack of differentiation does not give rise to confusion between counterfeit and contraband, thus hindering the response to the problem of tax fraud and tax evasion?

Frågan ställdes som en del av mitt löpande arbete i budgetkontrollutskottet, CONT. Svaret kom några veckor senare och lyder som följer:

1. The treatment of contraband and counterfeit cigarettes remains exactly the same across all four agreements. In effect, all four agreements call for payments to be made on seized contraband cigarettes bearing the cooperating company’s trademarks, as long as those seized cigarettes are genuine; i.e., were in fact made by the cooperating company or by some third party acting with authorisation from the cooperating company. The operative provisions in the BAT Agreement(1) are functionally identical with those in the other agreements(2). As such, the emphasis placed by each agreement on the difference between contraband and counterfeit remains exactly the same. The fact that there is no definition of contraband in the BAT Agreement does not affect this result.

2. In each agreement, great care has been taken to clearly differentiate between seized genuine cigarettes (upon which additional payments are due, and in relation to which each company must cooperate, including the provision of information) and counterfeit cigarettes (for which the cooperating company is not responsible). However, while the plain meaning of the word contraband is clear, it was determined that the European Union/Member States wanted to limit the use of the designation of counterfeit. The reasons for this were several and included the fact that designation of cigarettes as counterfeit served to relieve the cooperating company of responsibility in relation to a particular seizure of cigarettes. As such, a definition was used in each agreement which serves to limit this exception and clarifies several situations in which cigarettes are not to be deemed counterfeit for purposes of the agreements.

(1) §§ 3.1-3.7.
(2) see PMI Article 4.01(a)‑4.01(k); JTI §§ 7.1‑7.11; ITL Article 5.1‑5.4 and Article 6.1‑6.4.

Den som vill veta mer om vart och ett av tobaksavtalen kan hitta texterna och bakgrunden till texterna, samt implementeringsrapporter på denna hemsida. Svaret är ganska tekniskt, men innebär i stort sett att kommissionen anser att eventuella skillnader i formulering mellan avtalen inte nödvändigtvis behöver ha en juridisk innebör. Målet med avtalen, vilket är att undvika situationen att cigarettbolag använder sig av medlemsländer och jurisdiktioner med låga skattesatser på tobaksprodukter för att sprida sina produker in i länder med höga skattesatser utan att skattat ordentligt, går att uppnås även med en varumärkescentrerad avtalsformulering.

Misstänksam som jag är gjorde jag en jämförelse av de artiklar kommissionen föreslår är operativt identistiska i sitt svar. Den jämförelsen ser ut som nedan:

Japanese Tobacco InternationalImperial Tobacco LimitedPhillip Morris InternationalBritish American Tobacco
Art 7.1 It is the practise of OLAF to maintain, for five year, detailed records of all seizures that are notified to OLAF. As such, this practice would be equally applicable to all seizures of Japan Tobacco Cigarettes that are notified to OLAF after the Execution Date.Art 5. For Seizures of Cigarettes bearing Imperial Tobacco Trademarks by the Member States1 after the Execution Date, the Parties agree to the following procedures:
Section 4.01 Subject to the limitations in subsections (k)-(u) below, for seizures of Cigarettes bearing Philip Morris Trademarks by the Member States after the Execution Date, the Parties agree to the following procedures:
3.1(a) If there is a seizure by the authorities of any Participating Member State of 50'000 or more Cigarettes bearing a BAT Company trademark and which the authorities reasonably believe to be BAT Cigarettes, the seizing Participating Member State may notify OLAF of such seizure.
7.2 It would be the normal practise of OLAF, to the extent permitted by law, and provided that doing so would not jeopardise any Member State or EC investigation or activity, to provide Japan Tobacco Companies within 30 days of notification to OLAF by a Participating Member State,2 with a notice of seizure by a Participating Member State of 50'000 or more Cigarettes bearing Japan Tobacco Trademarks or bearing descriptors, logos and other designs giving the appearance of being Japan Tobacco Trademarks, including:5.1 Within 30 days after notification to OLAF of a Seizure by a Member State of 50,000 or more Cigarettes bearing Imperial Tobacco Trademarks or bearing descriptors logos and/or other designs giving the appearance of being ITL Trademarks, OLAF may provide ITL with a notice of Seizure, which shall include:
4.01(a) Within 30 days after notification to OLAF of a seizure by a Member State of five Master Cases or more3 of Cigarettes bearing Philip Morris Trademarks, OLAF may provide Philip Morris International with a notice of seizure, which shall include:
 3.1(b) Upon receipt by OLAF of specific notice of such a seizure from the Participating Member State, OLAF may notify BAT of the seizure of the presumed BAT Cigarettes.4
7.3 To the extent permitted by law, Japan Tobacco Companies shall be permitted to inspect such seized Cigarettes in the condition they were in at the time of seizure within 30 days of the notice of seizure, and to select random samples of the seized Cigarettes for examination. The seizing authority may also select samples that Japan Tobacco Companies must examine.5.2(a) To the extent permitted by law, ITL may, for a period of 30 days from receipt of the notice provided pursuant to Section 5.1 above, inspect such seized Cigarettes in the condition they were in at the time of Seizure, and select representative random samples of the seized Cigarettes for examination. ITL shall notify OLAF and the seizing authority promptly whether it intends to exercise such option. The seizing authority may also make a selection of such samples which ITL must examine. 4.01(b) Philip Morris International shall be permitted5 to inspect the seized Cigarettes in the condition they were in at the time of seizure within 30 days after transmittal of the notice of seizure described in subsection (a) above, and to select random samples of the seized Cigarettes for examination. The seizing authority may also select samples which Philip Morris International must examine. 3.1(c) BAT shall then consult with the relevant authority of the Participating Member State that made the seizure in order to arrange for inspection of the seized Cigarettes and the taking of samples by or on behalf of BAT wihin 30 days of receipt of the seizure notification from OLAF in order to determine the origin and source of the BAT Cigarettes, and whether they are Counterfeit or genuine. The seizing authority may also select samples that BAT must examine.
7.8 Where a notice of seizure has been delivered reasonably in accordance with the requirements of sub-Clause 7.2, if the seized Cigarettes are Contraband Japan Tobacco Cigarettes6 manufactured after the Execution Date, Japan Tobacco Companies' response as required under sub-Clause 7.5 shall include as much information as is available to them concerning:
5.3(b) if the seized Cigarettes are Contraband Imperial Tobacco Cigarettes manufactured after the Execution Date, ITL's response shall include as much information as is available to it concerning:4.01(e) Subject to the limitations in subsections (k)-(u) below, where notice of seizure described in subsection (a) above has been delivered reasonably in accordance with the requirements of subsection (a) above, if the seized Cigarettes are Contraband Philip Morris Cigarettes manufactured after January 1, 2004, Philip Morris International's response shall include as much information as is available to it concerning:3.2 If the products are genuine BAT Cigarettes:7 (a) BAT shall provide OLAF with the following information concerning the seized BAT Cigarettes, if reasonably available:
1. the place of manufacture of the seized Cigarettes 8;
2. the date of manufacture of the seized Cigarettes;
3. the Intended Market of Retail Sale of the seized Cigarettes;
4. any intervening warehousing and shipping;
5. the identity of the First Purchaser of the seized  Cigarettes;
6. the identity of any known Subsequent Purschaser of the seized Cigarettes;
7. invoices to the First Purschaser that relate to the seized Cigarettes; and
8. payment records from the First Purchaser covering the seized Cigarettes;
1. the place of manufacture of the seized Cigarettes;
2. the date of manufacture of the seized Cigarettes;
3. the Intended Market of Retail Sale of the seized Cigarettes;
4. any intervening warehousing and shipping;
5. the identity of the First Purchaser of the seized  Cigarettes;
6. the identity of any known Subsequent Purschaser of the seized Cigarettes;
7. invoices to the First Purschaser that relate to the seized Cigarettes; and
8. payment records from the First Purchaser covering the seized Cigarettes;
1. the place of manufacture of the seized Cigarettes;
2. the date of manufacture of the seized Cigarettes;
3. the Intended Market of Retail Sale of the seized Cigarettes;
4. any intervening warehousing and shipping;
5. the identity of the First Purchaser of the seized  Cigarettes;
6. the identity of any known Subsequent Purschaser of the seized Cigarettes;
7. invoices to the First Purschaser that relate to the seized Cigarettes; and
8. payment records from the First Purchaser covering the seized Cigarettes;
1. the place of manufacture of the seized BAT9 cigarettes;
2. the date of manufacture of the seized BAT Cigarettes;
3. the Intended Market of Retail Sale of the seized BAT Cigarettes;
4. any intervening warehousing and shipping;
5. the identity of the First Purchaser of the seized BAT Cigarettes;
6. identification of the invoices to the First Purchaser in respect of the seized BAT Cigarettes;
7. payment records from the First Purchaser covering the seized BAT Cigarettes; and
8. if known, the identity of any subsequent customer.
7.7 If OLAF or any Participating Member State takes issue with the determination that the seized Cigarettes are Counterfeit Japan Tobacco Cigarettes, the matter will be referred to an independent laboratory designated by mutual agreement of the Parties by the Execution Date. The determination of the indepdenent laboratory, which shall take into account the factors listed in sub-clause 7.6 above and any other physical factors it considers relevant, shall be final. Any costs associated with the decision by the independent laboratory shall be paid b the non-prevailing party.Section 5.4 OLAF or any Participating Member State may sample and test seized Cigarettes at any time. If OLAF10 disputes the determination made by Philip Morris International as to whether the seized goods are Counterfeit Imperial Tobacco Cigarettes or Contraband Imperial Tobacco Cigarettes, OLAF shall reply in writing to Philip Morris International detailing the basis for the dispute
4.01(j) OLAF or any Participating Member State may sample and test seized Cigarettes at any time. If OLAF11 disputes the determination made by Philip Morris International as to whether the seized goods are Counterfeit Philip Morris Cigarettes or Contraband Philip Morris Cigarettes, OLAF shall reply in writing to Philip Morris International detailing the basis for the dispute 3.3(c)(1) If OLAF or the Participating Member State which seized the BAT Cigarettes contests the determination that the seized Cigarettes are Counterfeit or that they are genuine but not BAT Cigarettes12, OLAF shall so notify BAT.
(cont)... within 60 days after receing the response referred to in Section 5.3, nd thereafter ITL and OLAF shall meet and confer and attempt to resolve the dispute in good faith.
(cont)... within 60 days after receing the response referred to in section 4.01(c), nd thereafter Philip Morris International and OLAF shall meet and confer and attempt to resolve the dispute in good faith.
3.3(c)(2) The matter will then be referred to a duly designated OLAF representative and a duly designated BAT representative, who shall meet and confer in good faith o the matter within 30 days of the date of such notice in order to resolve the matter.
(cont)... If the dispute cannot be resolved within 30 days of Philip Morris International receiving OLAF's reply, the samples in dispute shall be submitted to an independent laboratory or facility for examination to determine whether the Cigarettes are Counterfeit Philip Morris Cigarettes or Contraband Philip Morris Cigarettes in accordance with the factors set forth in Schedule 4 /.../(cont)... If the dispute cannot be resolved within 30 days of Philip Morris International receiving OLAF's reply, the samples in dispute shall be submitted to an independent laboratory or facility for examination to determine whether the Cigarettes are Counterfeit Philip Morris Cigarettes or Contraband Philip Morris Cigarettes in accordance with the factors set forth in Appendix F /.../3.3(c)(3) If the matter remains unresolved within 45 days of such meeting, the matter will be referred to an independent laboratory designated by mutual agreement of the Parties by the Execution Date. The determination of the independent laboratory shall be final and shall take into account the factors listed in 3.3(b) and any other physical factors it considers relevant. Any costs associated with the decision by the independent laboratory shall be paid for by the non-prevailing Party.
No equivalentNo equivalent4.01(f)(ii) If the Contraband Philip Morris Cigarettes seized, when added to the number of Contraband Philip Morris Cigarettes already sezied in the same calendar year in the Member States that were Member States on January 1, 2004, results in a total number that exceeds the Baseline Amount, Philip Morris International's Supplemental Payment shall include an additional amount equal to four times the amount under subsection (f)(i), which shall compensate the EC for any costs not compensated by the amount under subsection (f)(i) and which may provide13 the EC with a source of additional funding for anti-contraband and anti-counterfeit efforts.3.6 Payments under Section 3.5 shall be to compensate the EU and the seizing Participating Member State for lost taxes, duties and othercosts, and may, in the case of payments under Section 3.5(b), provide the EU and Participating Member States with a source of additional funding for tobacco related anti-smuggling 14 and 15 anti-Counterfeit efforts. 16
1 All member states.
2 Participating member state! Only some of the member states have signed?
3 Defining amount in master cases rather than number of cigarettes?
4 No time-limit for the notification? Only a conditional notification?
5 Shall definitely be permitted to inspect.
6 Contraband is the positive outcome. The tax fraud is emphasized.
7 Not counterfeit is the positive outcome. The trademark veracity is emphasized.
8 Note lack of repeated brand name.
9 Note repetition of brand name.
10 Competence only of OLAF.
11 Competence only of OLAF.
12 Sudden safe-guard against the contingency that OLAF or a member state has misidentified a BAT trademark?
13 Could also be a sign of federalization? The EC surely is not able to collect its own levies from companies as it is now?
14 Use of the word smuggling instead of contraband.
15 Inclusive “and”, although “or” would not be better I guess.
16 Section 3.5 details the duty to pay 100% of lost tax revenue. If amount of seized cigarettes is very large (150'000'000 or more), then 400% duties shall be paid on the or more-part according to 3.5.b. Section 3.5 applies to the Participating Member States.

Anledningen till att jag ställde frågan till att börja med var en rapport från Världshälsoorganisationen om att varumärkesförfalskning exkluderats från organisationens nya avtal om tobak och hälsa. Anledningen var en önskan om att inte allt för tätt sammanblanda dessa två olika fenomen: tobaksföretagens immateriella tillgångar och tobakskonsumtionens hälsoeffekter. Politiskt innebär det förstås fortfarande en skillnad att ett av tobaksföretagen lyckats undandra sig skatteplaneringsfokuserade formuleringar i sitt avtal. Mycket av avtalets implementering kommer nu att hänga på OLAF:s moral i skatteupprätthållningsfrågor snarare än en tydlig politisk riktning. Det tycker jag är ett problem.

Därför frågade jag också tidigare idag kommissionär Algirdas Šemeta på twitter om kommissionens direktorat för skatte- och gränsfrågor släpper rapporter inte bara över sitt arbete mot varumärkesförfalskning, utan också över sitt arbete mot skattefusk. Han har inte svarat, men olika direktorat hanterar sina twitter-konton olika så det kanske kommer.

För tillfället är jag nöjd med kommissionens svar. Jag tror att de svarat inom sin verksamhetsram och efter vad som kan anses vara rimligt för dem att svara. Resten av problemet är politiskt, inte juridiskt, och det är inte upp till kommissionen utan ministerrådet att förändra sådana politiska tankebanor. Följdfråga till ministerrådet om vad de tycker kanske?