WRITTEN QUESTION E-3373/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 November 2002)

Subject: Video amateurs' right to edit videos

Since October 2002, German customs (reportedly with the Commission's consent) have begun to take an active part in restricting the right of video amateurs to edit videos.

Practically all video cameras imported into the Member States are reprogrammed by the manufacturers, i.e. they are doctored to meet EU requirements. Video cameras which have not been doctored are subject to a punitive tariff of some 10 % when imported into the EU, which prevents EU citizens from editing their videos on a computer. Over five years, a whole new industry has developed in the Member States to restore video cameras to a democratic state. It is now claimed that the Commission is playing a part in stifling that industry.

Is it reasonable for non-doctored video cameras to be subject to an almost 10 % higher rate of duty than those which have been doctored to meet EU requirements? Are there any plans to change the rate of duty?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2003)

The Community's Common Customs Tariff (CCT)(1) includes two subheadings for video cameras (other than still-image video cameras and digital cameras): one of the subheadings (CN code 8525 40 91, duty-rate 4,9 %) concerns cameras which are only able to record sound and images taken by the television camera, and the other (CN code 8525 40 99, duty-rate 14 %) concerns the other types.

Video camera users have drawn the Commission's attention to the fact that, on the market, there are both non-doctored and doctored video cameras, urging it to revise the current situation.

It should be pointed out that, at importation, video cameras are classified according to the function they are capable of performing, on the basis of an evaluation of the physical characteristics of the product. Thus, the doctored video cameras would have the necessary hardware to be able to record or reproduce sound and images other than those taken by the television camera itself. Consequently, they are classified under tariff subheading 8525 40 99. In 2002, an Explanatory Note to the Combined Nomenclature(2) was published, to clarify the situation in this respect. The practice is uniform in the whole of the Union.

The duty-rates in question are the outcome of the General Agreement on Tarifs and Trade (GATT) and, then, of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations for the post-Uruguay Round Information Technology Agreement (ITA), and reflect an equitable balance between what was given to the Union and what it offered in terms of market access.

Many members of the World Trade Organisation, including the Community, are parties to the ITA. It is worth stressing that most ITA participants were opposed to the inclusion of consumer electronic products (such as digital video cameras); as a result, the ITA focused on eliminating duties on core Information Technology (IT) products.

However, it is the Commission's view that the current multilateral trade negotiations (the Doha Round) should be comprehensive, covering all industrial products without a priori exceptions. In the context of these negotiations, the Community has proposed to compress duties sharply, including for the products in question. The outcome will depend on the modalities agreed by WTO partners in order to achieve a balanced and satisfactory outcome of concessions.

(1) The CCT rates for 2002 are published in OJ L 279, 23.10.2001.

(2) OJ C 256, 23.10.2002.