WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3989/97 by Georges BERTHU to the Council. Euro bank notes - distinctive national symbols
Date: 1998-01-15
Institutions: BERTHU, European Parliament
Subjects: European Central Bank, European Monetary Institute, European Monetary System, euro, issuing of currency, monetary crisis, paper money, single monetary policy

16. 6. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 187/107

(98/C 187/162)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3988/97

by Georges Berthu (I-EDN) to the Council

(15 January 1998)

Subject: Euro bank notes › distinctive national symbols

On 3 December 1996 the EMI Council decided that the future euro bank notes were not to bear any distinctive
national symbols.

Can the Council explain the substantive reasons why this solution was adopted for bank notes and the apparently
opposite reasons which led it to impose the opposite solution for coins?

(98/C 187/163)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3989/97

by Georges Berthu (I-EDN) to the Council

(15 January 1998)

Subject: Euro bank notes › distinctive national symbols

On 3 December 1996 the EMI Council decided that the future euro bank notes should not bear any distinctive
national symbols.

This  position,  which  is  supposed  to  have  been  adopted  in  accordance  with  Article  109f(3)  of  the  Treaty,  is
presented sometimes as definitive and sometimes as provisional. According to the latter hypothesis, it is argued
that according to Article 105a(1), the European Central Bank (ECB) has the exclusive right to authorize the issue
of bank notes within the Community. The ECB would therefore, when it has been set up, need to confirm the EMI
decision.

However,  this  interpretation  of  Article  105a(1)  is  deemed  by  many  to  be  too  extensive  since  it  amounts  to
including  in  (cid:145)the  issue  of  bank  notes(cid:146),  which  relates  to  monetary  policy,  the  question  of  distinctive  national
symbols, which is a profoundly different matter. Does not the Council agree that such an interpretation would be
too  extensive?  Furthermore,  would  it  not  amount  to  having  a  serious  matter  of  principle  decided  by  a
non-democratic body, viz. the ECB?

(98/C 187/164)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3990/97

by Georges Berthu (I-EDN) to the Council

(15 January 1998)

Subject: Euro bank notes › distinctive national symbols

On 3 December 1996 the EMI Council decided that the future euro bank notes should not bear any distinctive
national symbols. If it is true that this matter falls well outside the task of (cid:145)technical preparation of ECU bank
notes(cid:146) (Article 109f(3)), and if it is also true that it is quite distinct from the monetary concept of (cid:145)the issue of
bank notes(cid:146) (Article 105a(1)), does the Council not agree that it would be appropriate to find another legal basis
for it? Might it not be argued that this decision falls under Article 109l(4), which provides that (cid:145)the Council
shall ... also take the other measures necessary for the rapid introduction of the ECU (Euro) as the single currency
of (the) Member States(cid:146)?

Indeed,  would  this  not  be  the  only  interpretation  which  would  make  it  possible  to  preserve  Member  States(cid:146)
control over an eminently political decision?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-3986/97, E-3987/97, E-3988/97, E-3989/97 and E-3990/97

(19 March 1998)

It ensues from the allocation of powers provided for under the Treaty that the European Central Bank alone is
empowered  to  authorize  the  issue  of  banknotes  in  euro,  also  as  regards  aspects  relating  to  their  presentation
(Article 105(a) of the Treaty and Article 16 of the Protocol to the Statute of the European System of Central
Banks and of the European Central Bank).