WRITTEN QUESTION E-1789/01 by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Consumer protection.
Date: 2001-06-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: bank charges, credit transfer, financial transaction, intra-EU payment

4.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/59

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 August 2001)

The Presidency and the Commission have closely followed developments with respect to the charges
levelled against Dr Ibrahim and his associates. When he and some of his colleagues were initially arrested
and held without charge, appropriate channels were used to make clear the Union(cid:146)s concern at their
detention without charge and at
the highly charged and speculative press campaign which risked
compromising any chance of a fair trial.

When Dr Ibrahim and his colleagues were released and subsequently charged, inter alia, with misusing
Union funds allocated to an (cid:145)education for democracy(cid:146) project managed by Dr Ibrahim, the EC made a
clear and public statement to the effect that the project concerned had been subject to normal monitoring
and audit procedures; and these had given no cause for concern. In addition the Commission Delegation in
Cairo made clear that the use of Union funds for such projects was entirely proper, and was covered by
the Union-Egypt Framework Agreement on the implementation of Financial and Technical Co-operation.

During the present trial, the Union registered its concern that the defence should have proper access to
documentary evidence and that the proceedings should follow due legal process. Union observers have
attended the trial throughout and they, together with many others, were disturbed at the manner, the
timing, and the severity of the sentences on all the accused, and especially on Dr Ibrahim. The Commission
made a strong oral statement (23 May 2001) and the Union presidency issued a declaration (25 May
2001) to the effect that the Union was (cid:145)deeply disturbed by the harsh sentences handed down by the
Egyptian Supreme State Security Court(cid:146) (a text is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament(cid:146)s
Secretariat).

The Court was obliged to explain the reasons for its verdict within 30 days of sentence and has just done
so. The Commission is presently studying them. Those convicted have limited rights of appeal on
procedural grounds and are considering their position. It goes without saying that the next steps in this
affair will be closely studied in the hope and expectation that the situation will be resolved in the best
traditions of the Egyptian legal system.

(2002/C 81 E/069)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1789/01

by Jaime Valdivielso de CuØ (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 June 2001)

Subject: Consumer protection

The Commission has recently concluded a number of studies into the level of charges levied on small-scale
bank transfers between various countries within the European Union.

The findings speak for themselves: such transactions attract charges averaging 17 % and are 10 times more
expensive than domestic transfers.

What action is to be taken (cid:129) and on what timescale (cid:129) in order to remedy this state of affairs?

When are charges for transfers between the EMU countries to be brought into line with those for domestic
transfers?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2001)

The Honourable Member rightly points out that former, recent and ongoing studies show no substantial
decrease of banking charges for retail cross-border credit transfers.

C 81 E/60

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.4.2002

It is the Commission(cid:146)s political goal that fees of cross-border and domestic transfers should converge. This
has been repeated by the Commission on numerous occasions; e.g. in the Communication (cid:145)Retail Payments
in the Internal Market(cid:146) of January 2000, in the reply of the Commission responsible for Internal Market,
Taxation and Customs Union on the Peijs-Report
in the
Commission(cid:146)s Round Table Conference (cid:145)Establishing a Single Payment Area(cid:146) on 9 November 2000 as well
as in the Report on the Preparations for the Introduction of euro notes and coins of 3 April 2001.

in the Parliament on 26 October 2000,

It had always been the Commission(cid:146)s strong belief that the determination of charges and fees should be left
to competition and market forces and that European legislation should not aim at price regulation. The
Commission has therefore for more than a decade urged the banking industry to make the necessary
investments for efficient and automated (hence cheaper) cross-border payment systems. The Commission
acknowledges the banks(cid:146) efforts in order to provide cheaper cross-border payments to their customers,
especially in connection with implementing the International Bank Account Number (IBAN) and the Bank
Identifier Code (BIC).

However, given that all former (cid:129) non-legislative (cid:129) efforts to lower charges for cross-border payments
remained virtually ineffective, the Commission has adopted on 25 July 2001 a proposal for a regulation on
charges for cross-border payments (1). The proposed Regulation aims at a reduction of charges for cross-
border payments of up to € 50 000 in euro, so that by 1 January 2002 (concerning electronic payment
transactions), respectively by 1 January 2003 (concerning cross-border credit transfers and cross-border
cheques) charges would be aligned to those for corresponding payments at national level.

The Commission is aware that banks face various external costly obstacles and obligations, which are
presently (cid:129) at least partly (cid:129) responsible for the existing difference of charges. The proposed regulation
includes measures to remove these obstacles.

(1) COM(2001) 439 final.

(2002/C 81 E/070)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1795/01

by Michael Gahler (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 June 2001)

Subject: EU enlargement: fundamental impact on local and regional authorities in the acceding countries as

implementing and authorising bodies (cid:129) need for new administrative structures and capacities

The incomplete implementation of EU law is being confirmed in every acceding country in annual
progress reports by the EU Commission; the problems lie predominantly with local and regional structures.
At the same time however the assimilation capacity of national administrations appears to be posing a
growing problem. Attention has already been drawn to this by the EP, the CoR and national urban
networks. One response to the situation has for example been the Local and Regional Partnership
Programme (LRPP), an initiative that seeks to extend partnerships to include efforts to promote the
implementation of EU law locally at other than national level.

1. What difficulties are responsible, in the Commission(cid:146)s view, for the fact that in the acceding countries
regional and local measures are being implemented only in isolated instances, even although the 1999
Phare implementing provisions explicitly specify institution-building operations at regional level?

2.
Does the Commission share the view that its current initiatives and mechanisms (partnerships, the
new (cid:145)twinning light(cid:146), Interreg IIIc, ISPA and Sapard) are insufficient to make good existing deficiencies in
local and regional government capacities of the acceding countries? How is the Commission planning to
strengthen local-government capacity for implementing EU law in the those countries?

3.
Does the Commission recognise that the most approachable and least costly sources of experience in
local and regional government for the acceding countries are their counterparts in the EU? Why is the
Commission not actively supporting such partnerships by drawing on existing budget entries, as already
called for by the EP in the Brok report (cid:129) A5-0250/2000, paragraph 106?