WRITTEN QUESTION No. 130/99 by Leonie van BLADEL Cost of introducing the euro
Date: 1999-02-02
Institutions: European Parliament, VAN BLADEL
Subjects: EU control, Netherlands, bank, bank charges, cheque, dominant position, electronic money, monetary union, payment, restrictive trade practice

C 370/16

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.12.1999

In view of the fact that all the banks charge the same rate, is the Commission prepared to examine

5.
whether the banks have established a monopoly or have abused a monopoly position?

6.

If so, what action will the Commission take?

(1999/C 370/020)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0130/99

by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Commission

(2 February 1999)

Subject: Cost of introducing the euro

Is the Commission aware that, following the introduction of the euro, banks are charging their

1.
customers FL 5 per transaction when they withdraw money at cashpoints abroad?

Is it also aware that banks are charging their customers FL 0,50 per transaction when they withdraw

2.
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?

Does it agree that this state of affairs is not conducive to ensuring the safety of members of the

4.
public, given that they withdraw larger amounts abroad in order to cut costs?

Is it prepared, in view of the uniformity of the charges made by the banks, to investigate whether the

5.
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.

There are many factors influencing the decisions of bank customers concerning the amounts
3. and 4.
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 banks infringe Community
competition law.

the Commission is prepared to investigate if