WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2596/97 by David HALLAM to the Council. Economic and Monetary Union
Date: 1997-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, HALLAM
Subjects: Economic and Monetary Union, euro, industrial manufacturing, national currency, production cost, public health, steel, technical specification

C 102/66

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

3. 4. 98

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(1 October 1997)

According to the third paragraph of Article 175 of the EC Treaty, any natural or legal person may complain to the
Court of Justice that an institution of the Community › such as the Commission › has failed to address to that
person any act other than a recommendation or an opinion. The complainant can bring an action in respect of the
Commission’s  failure  to  reach  a  decision  on  the  complaint.  However,  according  to  the  second  paragraph  of
Article 175, the action is admissible only if the institution concerned has first been called upon to act and has not
defined its position within two months of being so called upon. The action may then be brought before the Court
of Justice within a further period of two months. The Court of Justice itself is not required to pass judgment
within a given period. However, under Article 186 of the EC Treaty, it may prescribe any necessary interim
measures in any cases before it.

Another possibility for which the EC Treaty makes provision is that set out in Article 177. Under this Article, a
court or tribunal in one of the Member States to which a question on the interpretation of the Treaty is submitted
and which considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment can refer the matter
to  the  Court  of  Justice  for  a  ruling.  However,  it  is  the  national  court  or  tribunal  which  decides  whether  the
question is to be submitted to the Court of Justice; parties in the proceedings at national level cannot oblige it to
refer  the  matter  to  the  Court.  It  is  not  possible  to  say,  on  the  basis  of  the  facts  supplied  in  the  Honourable
Member’s question, whether this possibility could be relevant to the present proceedings.

(98/C 102/97)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2596/97

by David Hallam (PSE) to the Council

(1 September 1997)

Subject: Economic and Monetary Union

1. What are the predicted costs to national mints

(a)  of licensing technology for Nordic Gold?

(b)  of converting production to a non-traditional material?

(c)  of reduced or lost exports to non-EU countries?

2. Why,  among  the  many  nickel-free  or  low-nickel  alloys  available,  was  only  a  trade-marked  product  ›
Nordic Gold › selected?

(98/C 102/98)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2650/97

by Roberto Mezzaroma (UPE) to the Council

(1 September 1997)

Subject: Single currency coins

On 9 June 1997 ECOFIN, the Council of Finance Ministers, of Finance approved the draft regulation on the
denominations and technical specifications of euro coins; this proposal for a regulation, which was also endorsed
by the recent Amsterdam Summit, would completely preclude the use of stainless steel.

Stainless steel offers the following advantages:

1.  economic:  a  saving  of  over  ECU  300  million  would  be  made,  taking  into  account  only  the  three

intermediate-denomination coins (0.1, 0.2 and 0.5 euro),

2. 

technical: the material lends itself to coin production, maintains appearance and shape, and is suitable for
vending machines,

3.  health: the stainless steels used in the coins produced by the Mints of the principal Member States present no

risk to public health;