WRITTEN QUESTION E-2392/00 by Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Bank charges.
Date: 2000-07-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: bank charges, credit transfer, frontier region, intra-EU trade

C 151 E/4

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

22.5.2001

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(5 October 2000)

On 7 June 2000 the Commission adopted the communication (cid:145)Towards a Community framework strategy
on gender equality (2001-2005)(cid:146) (1), the proposal for a Council Decision on a supporting programme, and
the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 76/207/
EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to
training and promotion, and working conditions (2). These texts had to be
employment, vocational
thoroughly checked by the Commission(cid:146)s lawyer-linguists in order to ensure the reliability and accuracy
of the different language versions. This entailed comparing the terms used in each translation with the
original language of the documents, and ensuring that the 11 language versions were consistent with each
other. As stated by the Honourable Member, this meant there was a delay in making available the final
versions of the documents in the 11 languages.

Whilst regretting this delay, the Commission would like to emphasise the fact that it kept Parliament
properly informed throughout the process of preparing the Communication and the proposal for a
Directive.

(1) COM(2000) 335 final.
(2) COM(2000) 334 final.

(2001/C 151 E/005)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2392/00

by Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 July 2000)

Subject: Bank charges

Despite the European Parliament and Council directive 97/5/EC (1) of 27 January 1997 on cross-border
credit transfers, a study carried out by the IECI and presented on 5 February shows that within the 11
EURO Member States, for payments abroad:

(cid:129) the costs of cross-border transfers are, firstly, far too high and out of all proportion to the costs
actually incurred by the banks; secondly, they vary quite considerably depending on the direction in
which they are made;

(cid:129) despite the ban (if there is no agreement) on charging the recipient, this is nevertheless what happens

in 35 % of cases in 10 of the 11 countries;

(cid:129) the specified time limit of 5 days is not respected in most countries.

What action does the Commission intend to take, in the interests of consumers, to prohibit this abuse
which is tolerated in individual Member States?

(1) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997, p. 25.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2000)

The European Interregional Institute for Consumer Affairs (EIICA) carried out for the Commission a study
to ascertain whether charges were imposed for conversion transactions between the euro and national
currencies. The findings were excellent in that no charges are made for such transactions. However, where
cross-border transfers are concerned,
it transpired that transaction costs are invariably high and that
Directive 97/5/EC is not being applied correctly as regards the breakdown of costs and the time the
transaction takes.

22.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 151 E/5

The Directive stipulates that, unless otherwise specified, all charges must be borne by the originator and
yet in 25 % of cases the beneficiary is charged. It also states that the transfer must take place within six
days. However, in just over 4 % of cases this deadline was not met. Consequently, on 22 June 2000 at a
meeting of Member States(cid:146) legal experts held to discuss application of the relevant Community directives,
the Commission pointed out that the Member States were responsible for applying Community directives
law. The Member States undertook to prepare
correctly once they had been transposed into national
detailed reports on how the rules on double charging and the deadline for completing transactions were
being implemented.

The Commission has no intention of setting the level of charges. As it explained in its communication of
31 January 2000 on retail payments in the internal market (1), the banks must improve the charging
structures for small-value cross-border transfers. Numerous studies are under way into such matters as the
international bank account number (IBAN) and the international payment instruction (IPI). The Commis-
sion hopes to see a substantial improvement in the situation by 1 January 2002.

(1) COM(2000) 36 final.

(2001/C 151 E/006)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2429/00

by Gorka Kn(cid:246)rr Borr(cid:224)s (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 July 2000)

Subject: EU enlargement and the regions

In the first paragraph of its reply to Written Question E-1178/00 (1) on the same subject, the Commission
refers back to its reply to a question by Mrs Evans (H-666/99) (2). As the Commission rightly points out,
Article 190 (2) of the EC Treaty states that (cid:145)(cid:133) each Member State must ensure appropriate representation
of the peoples of the States brought together in the Community(cid:146).

Does the Commission consider that (cid:145)appropriate(cid:146) representation is possible in view of the negotiations
currently under way aimed at reducing Spain(cid:146)s representation from 64 to 46 seats, bearing in mind the
single-constituency system used in Spain for elections to the European Parliament?

(1) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 139.
(2) Written reply of 16 November 1999.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2000)

The Commission points out that the issue of parliamentary representation was settled at Amsterdam
(Article 189 EC), where the maximum number of Members of Parliament was set at seven hundred.

In its Resolution of 13 April on the Intergovernmental Conference (Dimitrakopouloulos/Leinen Report),
Parliament establishes the criteria for distributing seats when enlargement takes place. The Commission can
only abide by Parliament(cid:146)s recommendations. It obviously cannot prejudge the positions that Member States
may take during the IGC.

In addition, the electoral system in each Member State is currently governed by national legislation.