WRITTEN QUESTION E-1709/01 by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Council. Mount Kailas.
Date: 2001-06-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: China, Spain, freedom of religious beliefs, mountain

C 40 E/82

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.2.2002

of credit card transactions, while the rates of commission charged vary considerably from one Member
State to another.

Can the Commission provide information on the different rates of commission charged by the banks in the
Member States, and on any specific plans it may have for EU-wide harmonisation in this field?

Does the Commission intend to adopt, or has it already adopted, any special measures to alleviate the
losses which will arise from the large-scale use of credit cards following the transition to the euro, for
those retailers whose profit margin is non-elastic and who are therefore unable to pass on to the consumer
the costs arising from credit card transactions (e.g. petrol pump operators and service stations)?

Can the Commission supply information on the compatibility with Community law of the rates of
commission established by credit card companies and banks for each transaction and of the circumstance
that these companies are in practice forcing retailers to bear the costs of credit card transactions?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2001)

If a retailer wishes to accept payment by credit card, he has to enter into a contract with an acquiring
bank. This contract specifies the rates to be charged to the retailer for the service (retail transaction fee).

its costs (transaction
In determining the retail transaction fee,
processing costs, interchange fees, payment terminal maintenance costs, etc.) and its profit margin in the
local competitive context. The actual retail transaction fees can therefore vary considerably from one
Member State to the next.

the acquiring bank takes account of

The fact that acquiring banks charge a retail transaction fee for a service does not conflict with Community
rules. The Commission does not intend to intervene in that competitive commercial process to regulate the
amount charged to retailers for the service, nor is it the Commission(cid:146)s aim to harmonise the situation
within the Community.

Nonetheless, the Commission feels that the introduction of the euro should also lead to a single payment
area and therefore, on 25 July 2001, proposed a draft regulation laying down a principle of non-
discrimination in charges for payments in euros. The implications of this, as far as the Honourable
Member(cid:146)s question is concerned, are that the retailer must pay the same fee for all transactions, whether
domestic or cross-border.

(2002/C 40 E/084)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1709/01

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Council

(15 June 2001)

Subject: Mount Kailas

A number of press agencies and specialist magazines have recently reported that the Chinese authorities
have given permission for a Spanish expedition, led by Mr Jesœs Mart(cid:237)nez Novos, to climb Mount Kailas in
Tibet. This mountain, which is over 6 000 metres high and which the Tibetans also call Gang Rinpoche, is
a sacred place for three religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, and Tibetan Buddhism). The Dalai Lama has
responded by condemning the Chinese decision and declaring the attitude of the Chinese authorities and
the members of the Spanish expedition to be an affront to the feelings of those who practise the three
religions concerned.

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/83

What steps has the Council been taking or will it take to persuade the Chinese authorities to desist from
their policy of provocation and respect religious freedom? Furthermore, does not the Council consider it
embarrassing to say the least that Union nationals should be aiding and abetting the brutally repressive
policy which the Beijing regime is inflicting on the Tibetan people and the adherents of the above three
religions? What will it do to make the climbers abandon their plan?

Reply

(8 October 2001)

The Council has neither been informed of nor has it discussed the expedition referred to by the
Honourable Member.

(2002/C 40 E/085)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1710/01

by Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Cohesion policy and outermost regions

(14 June 2001)

The economic and social cohesion policy debate is now well under way. Enlargement, a prospect looming
very close on the horizon, will radically alter cohesion policy, inevitably entailing consequences for the
Union(cid:146)s most vulnerable regions, not least the outermost regions.

In practical terms, a Europe of 27 will be 30 % larger than at present but only 5 % richer, producing a new
equation that will result in far-reaching changes in the next programming period. There is consequently
reason to fear that, owing to the poverty of some areas, the difficulties of others will be artificially lost to
sight. The new methods of calculation will therefore have to be geared to the socio-economic realities in
the Union.

In its document on European unity, solidarity among peoples, and territorial diversity the Commission
stated that it had begun to consider how the needs of the outermost regions might be covered in future
cohesion policy.

1.

Has the Commission moved further forward in its thinking on this point?

Does not Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam, imply that all the

2.
outermost regions should remain within the scope of Objective 1 for the future programming period?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 September 2001)

As the Honourable Member notes, when the Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion was
published the Commission launched a wide-ranging consultation process on the future of the regional and
structural policy of the Union embracing the authorities of the Member States, local authorities and the
representatives of civil society to enable it to draw up guidelines for its future proposals between now and
2004. The first cohesion forum was organised in Brussels on 21 and 22 May.

With regard to preserving the eligibility of all the outermost regions for Objective 1 during the next
programming period, the conclusions of the second report recognise that (cid:145)on the latest data available
(1998), the application of a threshold of 75 % GDP per head in a Union of 27 Member States would
reduce the population in the present EU 15 eligible for Objective 1 assistance by more than half.(cid:146) The
second report then presents four options: application of the present threshold of 75 %; application of the
current threshold of 75 % with temporary support for the (cid:145)outgoing regions(cid:146) at levels which would increase
the closer their GDP was to the 75 % threshold; the setting of a threshold higher than 75 % so as to reduce
or even eliminate the automatic effect of excluding EU 15 regions; the fixing of two thresholds of
eligibility, one for the EU 15 regions and one for the candidate countries.