WRITTEN QUESTION E-0130/99

by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Commission

(2 February 1999)

Subject: Cost of introducing the euro

1. Is the Commission aware that, following the introduction of the euro, banks are charging their customers FL 5 per transaction when they withdraw money at cashpoints abroad?

2. Is it also aware that banks are charging their customers FL 0,50 per transaction when they withdraw money at cashpoints in their own country?

3. Does it realise that, in particular owing to the FL 5 charge abroad, bank customers are being forced to withdraw larger amounts in order to cut costs, as the charge for withdrawing FL 500 once is FL 5, whilst the charge for withdrawing FL 100 five times is FL 25?

4. Does it agree that this state of affairs is not conducive to ensuring the safety of members of the public, given that they withdraw larger amounts abroad in order to cut costs?

5. Is it prepared, in view of the uniformity of the charges made by the banks, to investigate whether the banks have formed a cartel or are abusing a monopoly?

6. If so, what action will it take to remedy this situation?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-4028/98 and E-0130/99 given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(9 April 1999)

1. The facility for a bank customer in one Member State to withdraw money from cash dispensers, or to carry out other electronic transactions, in another Member State is a service for which banks are at liberty to charge, subject to competition. The Commission is aware that banks in the Netherlands (and elsewhere) have altered their method of charging for such services. The alteration in methods of charging for cross-border transactions is a direct consequence of the obligation to apply the fixed conversion rates for conversions and exchanges between the national currency units of Member States participating in economic and monetary union (EMU). The Honourable Member is invited to refer to the Commission's reply to Written Question E-3962/98 by Mrs Larive(1) which deals in full with the same subject.

2. As is the case for transactions carried out abroad, the facility for a bank customer to use a payment card in domestic retail outlets or withdraw money from cash dispensers in his own Member State is a service for which banks are at liberty to charge, subject to competition.

3. and 4. There are many factors influencing the decisions of bank customers concerning the amounts of cash they withdraw from cash dispensers, including the risks of holding large amounts of cash. The charges levied by banks for cash withdrawal services are a matter for commercial decision on their part, subject to competition. It would not seem appropriate to require that all banks apply a particular method of charging (e.g. a percentage rather than a fixed fee).

5. The Commission will further investigate which tariffs the banks in the Netherlands charge for cash withdrawals abroad and for payments with national debit cards at domestic points of sale. If these tariffs are indeed identical, the Commission is prepared to investigate if the banks infringe Community competition law.

6. In so far it can be established that any uniform tariffs are the result of an agreement or concerted practice between the banks and in so far as trade between Member States is affected in an appreciable way, action pursuant to Article 85 of the Treaty would be possible. Article 86 of the Treaty can only be applied if the banks in question hold a dominant position on the relevant market and there is abuse of this dominant position.

The Commission's reply to Written Question E-3962/98 by Mrs Larive also provides further information on the steps it is taking to examine the level of charges applied by banks for cross-border transactions and exchanging banknotes of participating Member States. It states the Commission's intention to issue a communication in the spring of 1999 covering the policy relating to payment systems in EMU. This will set out a detailed framework which is aimed at achieving the goal of a single payments area.

Finally the Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's answers to Written Questions E-3825/98 from Mr Caudron(2) and P-52/99 from Mr Tamino(3).

(1) OJ C 320, 6.11.1999.

(2) OJ C 348, 3.12.1999, p. 3.

(3) OJ C 325, 12.11.1999.