WRITTEN QUESTION P-0207/02 by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission. Design criteria employed for Euro notes.
Date: 2002-01-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Canary Islands, European Monetary Institute, European identity, euro, paper money

26.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 229 E/63

found in the Annex to these Directives (e.g. Annex II to Directive 90/394/EEC). In particular, it is stated in
this Annex that ‘health monitoring of workers must be carried out in accordance with the principles and
practices of occupational medicine; …’.

None of these Directives on health and safety at work specifically state that health monitoring of workers
must be carried out by a doctor specialising in occupational medicine. Some of the Directives merely
stipulate that this health monitoring must be carried out in accordance with the principles and practices of
occupational medicine, which does not necessarily mean that
the person concerned must be an
occupational medicine specialist.

The Directives concerned thus leave it up to the Member States to decide what qualifications are required
at national level in order to carry out the task of health monitoring of workers.

The Directives on health and safety at work require that the Member States ensure ‘relevant health
surveillance’ in accordance with national laws and/or practice. There is no indication that monitoring by
persons other than doctors specialising in occupational medicine would not be ‘relevant’.

In addition, Recommendation No 831 adopted by the Commission on 20 July 1962 should be mentioned,
in which the Commission encouraged the Member States to harmonise their legislation and their teaching
of occupational medicine (9). In this connection, the Commission would draw the Honourable Member’s
attention to the fact
that recommendations are not binding. The Member States adhere to them
voluntarily.

Detailed analysis of the relevant
Community law.

Italian legal provisions has thus not revealed any infringement of

(1) Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the

safety and health of workers at work, OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.

(2) Council Directive 89/654/EEC of 30 November 1989 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for
the workplace (first individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), OJ L 393,
30.12.1989.

(3) Council Directive 89/655/EEC of 30 November 1989 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for
the use of work equipment by workers at work (second individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of
Directive 89/391/EEC), OJ L 393, 30.12.1989.

(4) Council Directive 89/656/EEC of 30 November 1989 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for
the use by workers of personal protective equipment at the workplace (third individual Directive within the
meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), OJ L 393, 30.12.1989.

(5) Council Directive 90/269/EEC of 29 May 1990 on the minimum health and safety requirements for the manual
handling of loads where there is a risk particularly of back injury to workers (fourth individual Directive within the
meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), OJ L 156, 21.6.1990.

(6) Council Directive 90/270/EEC of 29 May 1990 on the minimum safety and health requirements for work with
display screen equipment (fifth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC),
OJ L 156, 21.6.1990.

(7) Council Directive 90/394/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to
carcinogens at work (sixth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC),
OJ L 196, 26.7.1990.

(8) Council Directive 90/679/EEC of 26 November 1990 on the protection of workers from risks related to exposure
to biological agents at work (seventh individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/
EEC), OJ L 374, 31.12.1990.

(9) OJ B 80, 31.8.1962.

(2002/C 229 E/070)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0207/02

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 January 2002)

Subject: Design criteria employed for Euro notes

With specific reference to the outermost regions, what criteria did the European monetary authority
employ when designing the map of the European Union featured on the Euro notes? Why are certain
islands, e.g. La Gomera and El Hierro, which form part of the Canaries, missing?

C 229 E/64

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.9.2002

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2002)

The decision on the design of the euro banknotes, including using a specific map of Europe has been taken
by the European Monetary Institute, the predecessor of the European Central Bank. The Commission was
not involved in this process.

(2002/C 229 E/071)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0229/02

by Bruno Gollnisch (NI) to the Council

(7 February 2002)

Subject: Persistence of foreign-exchange fees within the euro zone

It is now two years since the official introduction of the euro in the form of cheques and postal orders,
and one month since the introduction of euro notes and coins throughout the Union. All foreign-exchange
charges between banks within the euro zone should have disappeared, but this is simply not so.

Cheques issued in one country of the euro zone and cashed in another are still subject to the same bank
charges; withdrawal of cash or visa card payments in a country other than that of issue are charged for;
even international transfers between accounts are still subject to significant bank charges, which used to be
justified in the past in terms of exchange transactions which no longer take place. These abuses are an
affront to the principle of freedom of movement of capital and services provided for in the Treaty of
Rome, and to the single financial market, whose establishment was so trumpeted by the Treaty of
Maastricht.

They completely nullify the main advantage claimed by the backers of the single currency, namely the
disappearance of exchange transaction charges.

Is the Council going to put an end to these manifest affronts to the freedom of movement of capital
services and to the principle of a single financial market?

Does the fact that bank charges remain as high as ever, despite the fact that they are no longer subject to
exchange rate fluctuations, not constitute an abuse?

Does the fact that this abuse is standard practice not point to illegal understandings between various of the
major players within the European banking system?

Reply

(25 June 2002)

The Council shares the Honourable Member’s concern to defend the interests of the European consumer.

It is that concern that led the Council to reach political agreement on 26 November 2001 on a Regulation
on cross-border payments in euro; a Commission proposal had been submitted to it in August 2001 after
a study had shown that the average cost of cross-border transfers had hardly changed for several years.

That text was also supported by the European Parliament, with which the Council had in any case co-
operated fully, which led to the adoption of Regulation No 2560/2001 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 19 December 2001on cross-border payments in euro (1).

The Regulation provides, in the case of electronic payment transactions (withdrawals of cash and payments
by means of a card), that from 1 July 2002 the charges levied by a financial institution for cross-border
transactions must be aligned on the charges it levies for similar transactions within the Member State in
which the card is issued. The date was chosen in the light of the time necessary to adapt the system and
the extra work involved for financial institutions in the transition to the euro on 1 January 2002.