WRITTEN QUESTION E-0192/01 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission. Bureaux de change.
Date: 2001-02-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: advertising malpractice, bank charges, competence of the Member States, consumer information, consumer protection, euro, exchange transaction, financial institution

21.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 235 E/151

The main fora for co-operation between Member States and the Commission are two Council Working
Groups on Terrorism (one dealing with terrorism within the Union and the other with terrorism from an
international perspective) and Europol.

Member States exchange information on the internal and external threat that terrorist groups, such as the
PKK, pose to Member States and prepare decisions to improve co-operation. Periodically a (confidential)
document on the internal and external terrorist threat is produced.

In addition, Europol, whose mandate includes the fight against terrorism, supports Member States(cid:146) law
enforcement services through the exchange of information and the supply of strategic and operational
analysis.

The Union also plays an active role in the work carried out in the fight against terrorism by the United
Nations (UN), in the framework of which a dozen important Conventions are in force or in the process of
ratification.

Likewise, the group of eight most industrialized countries (G8) is an important framework for discussion
of counter-terrorism. Participation in the G8 by those Member States which are G8 Members and the
Commission is bolstered by extensive cooperation with the United States, India, Russia and the associated
countries.

A new threat in the area of terrorism is (cid:145)cyber-terrorism(cid:146), i.e. the use of computing resources to intimidate
or coerce others. The Council Working Group is in the process of improving co-operation between the
Member States through a new system for sharing information on terrorist web-sites.

(2001/C 235 E/176)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0192/01

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Bureaux de change

Does any EU legislation exist, or is any planned, to protect tourists from being cheated by exchange
bureaux which provide misleading information about currency values and charge excessive commission
fees, or is such a consumer protection measure considered purely a matter for national governments?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2001)

Community legislation on the euro lays down rules for the exchange of banknotes for Member States in
the euro area. Under the legislation, it is compulsory to use the official conversion rates; charges are thus
displayed separately (1). This legislation will become obsolete when national currencies cease to be legal
tender, at the latest 28 February 2002.

Exchange operations for notes of other currencies are not covered by any specific Community legislation.
But in certain cases it is possible to invoke general legislation on misleading advertising, namely, Council
Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 December 1984 relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions of the Member States concerning misleading advertising (2).

Consumers should be clearly informed of the cost of operations in order that they can compare and
consequently select the foreign exchange office charging the lowest commission. Some Member States have
introduced laws to that effect. The Commission does not feel that that there is any need for this type of
legislation to be harmonised.

C 235 E/152

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.8.2001

The Commission would draw attention to the fact that the use of cash dispensers is often a cheaper
alternative for obtaining local currency.

(1) See answer to Written Question P-0052/99 by Mr Tamino (OJ C 325, 12.11.1999).
(2) OJ L 250, 19.9.1984.

(2001/C 235 E/177)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0193/01

by Dominique Vlasto (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Second Chance Schools

The purpose of Second Chance schools is to integrate young people lacking qualifications in an education
and training programme with a view to gaining employment.

The first pilot establishment was set up in Marseilles in November 1997 and began teaching courses
in January 1998. It has since successfully taken on more than 300 students.

Unfortunately, the school has been unable to function properly due to a lack of coordination between the
European Commission and the French state services.

As it is, the disbursement of the European Social Funds that provides the bulk financing for state schools is
carried out by the regional representatives of the French State in accordance with the principle of
subsidiarity.

Apparently the current system does not provide the Second Chance school in Marseilles with the funding
it requires to function.

The establishments in question must meet specific criteria in order to receive funding, yet the special
nature of this type of school, as described in the Commission(cid:146)s White Paper (cid:145)Teaching and Learning
Towards a Learning Society(cid:146) is not taken into account.

Could the Commission outline the measures that it intends taking to rectify this situation?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2001)

The integration of young people into the labour market remains one of the political priorities of the
European Social Fund (ESF) during the new programming period 2000-2006.

However, the management of ESF-cofinanced programmes is based on strict compliance with the principle
of subsidiarity.

The ESF, despite its role as cofinancer, is therefore not involved in examining and selecting the projects to
be funded, as programme implementation is the responsibility of the Member State.

Consequently, regardless of the potential benefits of any specific project, the Commission is not in
a position to contact the programme managing authorities in order to try to influence their choices.

This means uncertainties regarding the procedures for taking account of the Second Chance School under
ESF programming for 2000-2006 cannot be put down to any lack of coordination between the
Commission and the French state services.

Any questions concerning this project should therefore be sent to the competent national authorities.