WRITTEN QUESTION E-3950/00

by Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Introduction of the euro in the Yugoslav Republic of Montenegro

1. Is the Council aware whether and, if so, how and by what specific means and to what extent the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Bundesbank have supported and promoted the introduction of the Deutschmark in the Yugoslav Republic of Montenegro?

2. What is the Council's view of the declared intention of the Government of the Yugoslav Republic of Montenegro of introducing the euro as its sole currency with effect from 1 January 2002?

3. Does the Council believe that the Yugoslav Republic of Montenegro currently fulfils, or can fulfil by 1 January 2002, the stability criteria for membership of the single currency set out in the Treaties (in particular, in Article 121 of the EU Treaty and Protocols 11 and 12 to the Amsterdam Treaty)?

4. What specific action to prevent the introduction of the euro in Montenegro will be taken by the Council, in the light of section III.3 of the Commission's most recent strategy paper on enlargement, which states that the introduction of the euro in new Member States (as in the case of the original Euro-zone participants) will only be decided when it has been ascertained, in accordance with Article 121 of the EU Treaty, whether a high degree of sustainable convergence has been achieved?

5. Does the Council know whether the euro is also to be introduced in the Yugoslav region of Kosovo from 2002 and, if so, does Kosovo, in the opinion of the Council, fulfil the stability criteria enshrined in the EU Treaty and applying to all States participating, or wishing to participate, in the single currency?

6. What specific action does the Council propose taking in order to prevent the introduction of the euro in Kosovo if the latter does not achieve the stability criteria for membership of the euro by 2002?

7. How does the Council view the introduction of the Deutschmark in Montenegro and Kosovo in the light of UN Resolution 1244, which establishes the territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?

8. What are the consequences, in the view of the Council, of the fact that 33 % of all Deutschmark notes and coins are in circulation abroad, and what are the consequences as regards the resistance of the euro to forgery?

Reply

(7 May 2001)

On 7 November 2000 the Ecofin Council examined the exchange rate policy to be pursued by candidate countries for accession in preparation for their subsequent adoption of the euro and adopted conclusions on the subject. In the conclusions the Council pointed out that, following accession, the new Member States would not be able to adopt the euro immediately: they would first have to satisfy all the relevant requirements of the Treaty, in particular the convergence criteria.

The Council also pointed out that any unilateral adoption of the single currency by euroisation would conflict with the economic considerations underlying economic and monetary union in the Treaty and that, consequently, unilateral euroisation was not a means of by-passing the stages laid down in the Treaty for adoption of the euro.

The same holds true for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in so far as it is a potential candidate for accession to the European Union in accordance with the conclusions of the Cologne, Feira and Nice European Councils.

The Council has not looked into the issues raised by the Honourable Member in the eighth paragraph of her question. However, the European Council in Nice invited the Council to adopt effective measures to protect the euro against counterfeiting as soon as possible in 2001 and the Council is pressing ahead with work on this matter, on the basis of a Commission proposal.