WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3987/97 by Georges BERTHU to the Council. Euro bank notes - distinctive national symbols
Date: 1998-01-15
Institutions: BERTHU, European Parliament
Subjects: European Monetary Institute, European Monetary System, euro, monetary crisis, paper money, parliamentary scrutiny, single monetary policy, supervisory power

C 187/106

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16. 6. 98

In  Germany  propolis  preparations  are  subject  to  the  law  on  pharmaceuticals  as  regards  their  manufacture,
marketing and sale. For this reason they can be sold only by pharmacists.

Can  the  Commission  say  in  which  European  Union  countries  propolis  can  be  bought  directly  from

1.
bee-keepers?

2.

Are the different approaches consistent with the rules of the single market?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 1998)

The  Commission  has  no  information  concerning  the  regulation  of  the  sale  of  propolis  by  bee-keepers  in  the
different Member States.

The supply of medicinal products within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on
the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary
medicinal  products (1)  to  the  public  continues  to  be  a  matter  for  the  Member  States  and  there  exists  no
Community  legislation  in  this  field.  This  gives  Member  States  the  possibility  to  maintain  provisions  in
accordance with Articles 30-36 of the EC Treaty that restrict the supply of medicinal products to the public to
pharmacies and to interdict any other form of supply to the public on their territory.

(1)  OJ 22, 9.2.1965.

(98/C 187/160)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3986/97

by Georges Berthu (I-EDN) to the Council

(15 January 1998)

Subject: Euro bank notes › distinctive national symbols

At its meeting on 3 December 1996 the Council of the European Monetary Institute (EMI) decided that both sides
of Euro bank notes were to be identical in all countries and were to be devoid of any distinctive national symbols.
This position amounts to settling, in a roundabout way, a crucial question: if the bank notes are indistinguishable
from one country to another, it will be virtually impossible to (cid:145)uncouple(cid:146) a country in the event of a serious crisis
threatening the survival of the system. In certain borderline cases, therefore, the risks of complete collapse would
be increased.

Does the Council not agree that in adopting this political position › which is frequently presented as a definitive
decision in European documents › the EMI Council has exceeded the terms of Article 109f(3) of the Treaty
which only gives it the power to supervise the (cid:145)technical preparation(cid:146) of the future bank notes?

(98/C 187/161)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3987/97

by Georges Berthu (I-EDN) to the Council

(15 January 1998)

Subject: Euro bank notes › distinctive national symbols

The position adopted by the EMI Council on 3 December 1996 prohibiting distinctive national symbols on the
future European bank notes does not appear to have been the subject of a proper democratic debate. The Dublin
European Council (13 and 14 December 1996) seems merely to have been (cid:145)informed(cid:146) of it, but there is no sign in
its conclusions of explicit approval or even of a mere mention of this specific point.

Although this total lack of democratic supervision is, and though it may seem, provided for by the Treaty itself,
unlike the arrangements made for the future coins, does the Council not agree that on such an important point the
Member States should be involved in the decision in some way? Is it conceivable that there should be a complete
lack of parliamentary supervision at any level?