TheCommissionhasthereforealreadyfollowedupontheCouncil’srequest,mentionedinDeclaration34
annexed to Austria’s Adhesion Act, and presented legislation in the relevant areas. Moreover theCommissionhaspresentedinDecember2001aproposalforaprolongationoftheecopointssystem(
4)
which is nowthe subject ofthe conciliation procedure. Finally the Commissionhasthe intention topresentshortlyanewsectoralproposalforaDirectiveonchargingfortheuseofroadinfrastructuremodifyingtheEurovignette-Directive.
(1) COM(98)444final.
(2) OJC59,26.2.1997.
(3) Directive1999/62ECoftheParliamentandtheCouncilof17June1999onthechargingofheavygoodvehicles
fortheuseofcertaininfrastructures,OJL187,20.7.1999replacingCouncilDirective93/89/EECof25October1993,OJL279,12.11.1993.
(
4) OJC103E,30.4.2002.
(2004/C58E/142) WRITTENQUESTIONE-2046/03
byAnneJensen(ELDR)totheCommission
(19June2003)
Subject:Germanroadtax
TheGermanGovernmenthastakenadecisiontointroducearoadtax(HGVtoll).Theintroductionofa
unilateralGermanroadtaxwillplacehauliersfromanumberofEuropeancountriesinaconsiderablyworsepositionthantheirEuropeancolleagues.TransitthroughGermany,forexample,isessentialforhaulagefromDenmarkandSwedentotherestofEurope.WiththeintroductionofaunilateralGermanroadtax,therefore,DanishandSwedishhaulierswillbecompetitivelyworseoff.
DoestheCommissionconsiderthatthisunilateralGermanroadtaxisconsistentwithEUcompetition
rules? Will the Commissionseek a commonEuropean solutionrather than accept unilateral nationaltaxation?
AnswergivenbyMrsdePalacioonbehalfoftheCommission
(18July2003)
GermanyhasnotifiedtotheCommissionitsintentiontointroduceanewroadtollsystemforheavygoods
vehiclesonGermanmotorways.TheCommissionhaswrittentotheGermanauthoritiesinordertoassessthecompatibilityofthesystemwithCommunitylaw,andinparticularwithDirective1999/62/EC(
1)as
regardsboththeleveloftollsandtheotherrelevantaspectsofthesystem.Theissueiscurrentlyunderexamination.
InanycasetheCommissionwillmakesurethatCommunitylawisdulyrespectedintheapplicationofall
issuesrelatedtothenewroadtollsysteminGermany.
(1) Directive 1999/62/ECoftheParliamentandoftheCouncilof17June1999onthechargingofheavygoods
vehiclesfortheuseofcertaininfrastructures,OJL187,20.7.1999.
(2004/C58E/143) WRITTENQUESTIONE-2057/03
byBarthoPronk(PPE-DE)totheCommission
(20June2003)
Subject:Oneandtwoeurocentcoins
A scientific article which was recently published in the Netherlands(1) used Cramer’s algorithm to
demonstratethatasetofeurocoinswhichdidnotincludeoneandtwocentcoinswasmuchmoreefficientforcashpaymenttransactionsthanthecurrentsetofeurocoins.Accordingtothearticle,anefficientsystemforcashpaymenttransactionsisintheinterestsofconsumers,shops,banks,industryandtheCentralBanks.C58E/126 EN6.3.2004 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
1. DoestheCommissionagreewiththeconclusiondrawninthatarticlethatasetofeurocoinswhich
didnotincludeoneandtwocentcoinswouldbemuchmoreefficientforcashpaymenttransactionsthanthecurrentsetofcoins?Ifnot,whatargumentscanitusetodefenditsposition,preferablybymeansofaneconometricmodelaswell?
2. InitsanswertoWrittenQuestionE-2574/02(
2),theCommissionstatesthat‘theroleoftheoneand
twocentcoinswillessentiallybedeterminedbythebehaviouroftheEuropeancitizens’.HowdoestheCommissionmeasurethatbehaviour?Haveanyfindingsbeenpublished,inFinlandorinothercountriesintheeurozone?Whenassessmentsarebeingmade,isaccounttakenofscientificconclusionssuchasthosedrawninthearticlereferredtoabove?
(1) EconomischeStatistischeBerichten,30May2003,No4404,p.248.
(2) OJC161E,10.7.2003,p.27.
AnswergivenbyMrSolbesMiraonbehalfoftheCommission
(25July2003)
ThedenominationsoftheeurocoinswerelaiddownbyMemberStatesinCouncilRegulation(EC)No975/
98of3May1998ondenominationsandtechnicalspecificationsofeurocoinsintendedforcirculation(1)
andnecessarilyrepresentacompromisebetweenthemixofdenominationsusedpreviously.
ThearticlethattheHonourableMemberreferstoarguesonthebasisofthe‘least-effort-principle’meaning
thatasetofdenominationsisthemoreefficientthelessbanknotesandcoinshavetobeusedforacashpayment.Thestudytakesboththeoriginalpaymentandthechangerenderedintoaccount.
Theauthorsofthearticlethemselvesrightlyraisethequestionwhethertheadvantageofabolishingthe1
and2-centcoinsoutweighstheriskofpriceincreasesthroughtheroundingofprices.Alternatively,iftheamounttobepaidwereroundedtothenearest5cents,asisthecaseinFinland,theefficiencygainofthepaymentoperationhastobecomparedwiththeneedtocarryoutanadditionalroundingoperationbeforethepaymentissettled.
While articles such as the one mentioned above provide useful insights, the results are inevitably
conditionedbythedefinitionsandunderlyingassumptionsbeingusedandnotablythewayinwhich‘efficiency’isbeingmeasured.Inaddition,accountshouldbetakenofbehaviouralelements.Forexampleshopkeeperscoulddecideontheirowninitiativetoadjusttheirpricestothenearest5centinordertoavoidpaymentsincludingeurocents,ifboththeircustomersandthemselvesbelievetogainfromthis.
Ascoinissuanceisademand-drivenprocess,theevolutionofthe1and2-centcoinsincirculationgives
anindicationofthepopulation’sneedforthesecoins.Theyearonyeargrowthrateofthe1and2-centcoinsamountedto42%and32%respectivelyinMay2003,whiletheaveragegrowthrateacrossallcoindenominations comes to 23,5%. The relative significance of the 1 and 2- cent coins is, therefore,apparentlyincreasing.
(1) OJL139,11.5.1998.
(2004/C58E/144) WRITTENQUESTIONE-2062/03
byMihailPapayannakis(GUE/NGL)totheCommission
(20June2003)
Subject:LeakageofclophenattheMinistryofEconomicAffairs
FurthertomyWrittenQuestionQE-2025/03(1),Ishouldliketoinformyouthataletter,dated13August
1996,senttotheDirector-GeneraloftheMinistryofEconomicAffairsbythecompanychargedwiththemaintenanceoftransformersstatedthat‘aleakageofoilwasfoundinbothtransformersfromvariouspoints,anditislikelythattheseleakageswillincreaseatsomepoint’.6.3.2004EN C58E/127 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion