WRITTEN QUESTION E-1554/00 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission. Comparison between the market value of products in the same monetary area.
Date: 2000-05-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU statistics, purchasing power parity, regional statistics

C 53 E/162

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.2.2001

What steps will the Commission take to prevent such practices?

What mechanisms exist to compensate consumers?

When can we expect to see a (cid:145)single payment and exchange area(cid:146) in the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2000)

The Honourable Member(cid:146)s question is based on an agency despatch released on 5 April 2000. The
Commission cannot confirm the information contained in the question.

In February 1999, the Commission conducted a number of inquiries at banks to check whether any
pricing agreements had been reached when the euro was introduced. The Member of the Commission
responsible for competition announced to a Parliamentary Committee in February 2000 that signs of an
agreement had been discovered and that proceedings would be initiated. At this stage in the procedure, it
is simply not possible to give any information on the Member States or bodies concerned.

In its communication on retail payments in the internal market (1), the Commission gave its ideas on the
gradual introduction of the single payments area, the objective being to make cross-border payments as
quick, cheap and secure as domestic payments. A considerable amount of work needs to be carried out on
the infrastructure to automate these payments and this will take time, but the Commission does expect
steady progress to be made, resulting in substantial improvements by 1 January 2002.

(1) COM(2000) 36 final (http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/fr/finances/payment/2k-108.htm).

(2001/C 53 E/211)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1554/00

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(18 May 2000)

Subject: Comparison between the market value of products in the same monetary area

In its reply to Written Question E-0273/00 (1),
the Commission sets out detailed and interesting
considerations on comparisons between the market value of products within the same monetary area.
Leaving aside the major differences between an economic and monetary union and the use of a common
monetary standard (whether it be gold, silver, gold-standard pounds, gold-standard dollars or dollars), the
examples given by the Commission (a comparison between Argentina and the US and Belgium and
Luxembourg) are of interest in seeking to understand the issue.

Nevertheless, I would draw the Commission(cid:146)s attention to a number of other examples which are closer to
hand and indeed more significant. If we compare prices for equivalent accommodation in different parts of
Brussels in accordance with existing methods for recording statistical data, differences in market value of a
factor of 200, 300 or even 400 percentage points will quickly become apparent. Carrying out the same
exercise on a selection of every-day consumer goods (in particular fruit and vegetables, clothing and shoes)
in various parts of Brussels will also reveal extremely significant differences in market values.

In fact, if anyone were to devote themselves to comparing market values in the various parts of Brussels by
means of the methods and statistical techniques used by Eurostat to calculate PPPs for the various
countries, I am fully convinced that they would find variations which are just as or even more significant
than those found by Eurostat when comparing the various countries of the European Union.

Supposing an analysis of this kind concluded that the difference in market values between the richest and
least rich areas of Brussels stood at around 50 %, would the Commission consider the Brussels authorities
to be justified if they were to adjust the distribution of funds between the various areas of the city by the
same indicator?

20.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 53 E/163

In other words, does the Commission believe that, in those circumstances, the Brussels authorities would
have any legal, scientific or methodological basis for allocating to the residents of the poorest area only
half of the appropriations allocated to residents of the richest area?

Does the Commission not believe that the absurd hypothetical situation described above in the case of
Brussels is identical to what the Commission is actually doing at European level?

(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 114.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2000)

The Commission agrees that the price for the same good, in particular a non-traded good, may vary
considerably between national, regional or local markets due to transaction costs which prevent arbitrage.
In theory, it might thus be desirable to calculate purchasing power of money (PPPs) for territorial units that
are smaller than Member States. In practice, however, price surveys which are needed to calculate PPPs are
rather expensive and these costs would multiply if calculated at regional or local level.

However, the Commission will carefully investigate the options to achieve regional PPPs at reasonable cost
in order to be able to make use of accurate regional PPPs before 2006, when the new list of eligible
regions will be decided, possibly on the basis of criteria similar to those laid down in Article 3.1 of Council
Regulation (EC) No 1260/99 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1).

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 53 E/212)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1556/00

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 May 2000)

Subject: Data on road safety in Greece

The Easter holiday exodus in Greece once again resulted in some 50 dead and 450 injured in various types
of road accident. This is by no means a first-time occurrence; whenever people take to the roads in large
numbers in Greece, such as at weekends and the main public holidays, the death toll is always high.

Provisional figures would indicate that Greece is one of the few Member States of the Union (cid:129) if not the
one and only (cid:129) in which the number of people killed and injured in car accidents is not only not falling,
despite all the efforts of recent years, but is steadily rising. Will the Commission, therefore, say whether it
has any comparative data concerning road safety and its development in the various Member States? To
what does it attribute the steadily rising trend in Greece?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 2000)

The Commission is sending what figures it has directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament(cid:146)s
Secretariat. They confirm that, while the trend in the Community is one of improvement, Greece(cid:146)s road
safety record is worsening.

The Commission does not possess detailed analyses of the situation in each Member State.