EN ECB-PUBLIC  
 
 
OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK 
of 27 November 2012 
on the introduction of the euro 
(CON/2012/97) 
 
Introduction and legal basis  
On 12 November 2012, the European Central Bank (E CB) received a request from  the Latvian Ministry 
of Finance for an opinion on a draft law on the introduction of the euro (hereinafter the ‘draft law’). The 
ECB was already consulted on an earlier version of the draft law and provided its observations in Opinion CON/2012/73
1. 
The ECB’s competence to deliver an opinion is based on Articles 127(4) and 282(5) of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union and the first and second indents of Article 2(1) of Council Decision 
98/415/EC of 29 June 1998 on the consultation of the European Central Bank by national authorities 
regarding draft legislative provisions2, as the draft laws relate to curr ency matters and means of payment. 
In accordance with the first sentence of Article 17.5 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Central 
Bank, the Governing Council has adopted this opinion. 
 1. Purpose of the draft law 
The purpose of the draft law is to prepare for the introduction of the euro in Latvia and to ensure that this 
is done in an efficient and transparent manner. In pa rticular, the draft law determ ines measures related to 
the cash changeover, the exchange of non-cash and el ectronic money and the dual display of prices of 
goods and services. It also provides for measures for the restatement in euro of accounting records and 
financial reports and the adjustment of financial mark ets for the introduction of euro. The draft law also 
contains provisions concerning the am endment and enforcement of the law.  
 2. General observations 
The ECB welcomes the fact that the Latvian authorit ies have taken into accoun t the observation on the 
earlier version of the draft law made in paragraph 2. 1 of Opinion CON/2012/73 and have clarified that the 
day on which the euro is introduced in Latvia is th e day on which the abrogation of the derogation in 
accordance with Article 140(2) of the Treaty enters into force.  
 
                                                 
1 All ECB opinions are published on the ECB’s website at www.ecb.europa.eu. 
2  OJ L 189, 3.7.1998, p. 42.  
ECB-PUBLIC  
2 3. Specific observations  
Expression of amounts in legislative provisions  
3.1 With regard to the adjustment of Latvian legal acts to the introduction of the euro, the ECB notes 
that the currency of a Member State with a deroga tion is its national currency until the entry into 
force of the Council decision abrogating the derogation under Article 140(2) of the Treaty. In accordance with this principle, the national author ities should ensure that the entry into force of 
national law provisions introducing amounts in euro that replace the national currency do not take 
place prior to the date of the introduction of th e euro, following the Council decision abrogating the 
Member State’s derogation
3. 
Rounding rules and the principle of neutrality  
3.2 Article 7 of Council Regulatio n (EC) No 974/98 of 3 May 1998 on the introduction of the euro4 
lays down the principle that ‘The substitution of  the euro for the currency of each participating 
Member State shall not in itself have the effect of  altering the denomination of legal instruments in 
existence on the date of substitution’  (hereinafter the ‘principle of neutrality’). Moreover, pursuant 
to Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1103/97 of 17 June 1997 on certain provisions relating 
to the introduction of the euro5, any monetary amount to be paid or accounted for must be rounded 
up or down to the nearest cent. This provision is reflected in Article 6 and paragraph 1 of 
Article 31(2) of the draft law. 
 However, paragraph 2 of Article 31(2) of the dr aft law also allows rounding up or down of the 
converted amount by a number of  digits not exceeding the number of digits in the initial legal 
provision provided that: (a) the am ended legal provision is no more unfavourable for an individual 
than the initial legal norm, save for the legal pr ovisions setting fines, and (b) the substitution of 
numerical value does not have a significant adverse effect on the state budget.  
In this regard, the ECB notes that the principle of neutrality6 does not prevent the national legislator 
from using its sovereign powers when expressing monetary amounts such as fines, fees, minimum capital, taxes, allowances, salaries, etc. in legislative provisions. 
 Accordingly, the national legislator remains free to legislate on the increase or decrease of any 
monetary amounts when addressing euro changeover matters. In doing so, however, it is bound to act in accordance with the principles of legal certa inty and transparency, i.e. it must ensure that 
economic agents are able to make a clear distinction
7 between a decision of the Latvian authorities 
                                                 
3 See also paragraph 3.2 of Opinion CON/2006/28 and paragraph 5.1 of Opinion CON/2007/43. 
4  OJ L 139, 11.5.1998, p. 1. 
5  OJ L 162, 19.6.1997, p. 1. 
6  As stated in paragraph 25 of Case C-359/05 Estager SA v Receveur principal de la recette des douanes de Brive  [2007] 
ECR I-00581, ‘The principle of the continuity of legal instrume nts and the objective that the transition to the euro should 
be neutral apply to the “terms” or to the “wording” of the “legal instruments” within the meaning of Regulations No 1103/97 and No 974/98’. 
7  This applies not only to legislative acts, but also to impl ementing measures or other legal instruments, e.g. collective 
agreements governing the issue of rounding of certain monetary amounts up or down to more than one cent.  
ECB-PUBLIC  
3 to increase or decrease any amount and the process of converting an amount into euro and rounding 
it8. 
 
This opinion will be published on the ECB’s website. 
  
Done at Frankfurt am Main, 27 November 2012. 
 
[signed] 
 
The President of the ECB 
Mario DRAGHI 
                                                 
8  In Estager , the Court of Justice held that ‘Regulations No 1103/97 No 974/98 must be interpreted as precluding national 
legislation which, on effecting the conversion into euros of an amount … raised it to an amount higher than that which 
would have resulted from application of the rules of conversion provided for in those regulations, unless such an increase meets the requirements of legal certainty and transparency guaranteed by those regulations, which presupposes that the legislative texts at issue make it possi ble to distinguish clearly the decision of the authorities of a Member State to 
increase that amount from the operation of conversion of that  amount into euros.’ See also paragraphs 34, 35 and 37 of 
the judgment in Estager . See also paragraph 3.2 of Opinion CON/2008/40.