WRITTEN QUESTION P-0212/02 by Bruno Gollnisch (NI) to the Commission. Persistence of exchange rates within the euro Union.
Date: 2002-01-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: bank charges, euro, euro area, exchange transaction, free movement of capital, frontier region, intra-EU payment, monetary relations

C 161 E/2

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

(2003/C 161 E/002)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3681/01

by Mary Banotti (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 January 2002)

Subject: Bank charges for cheques in euros

Given that we now have a common currency for 12 Member States, what measures does the Commission
intend to take to prevent excessive clearance charges by banks for cheques used within the Eurozone
which emanate from Eurozone Member States?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 of 19 December 2001 on cross-border payments
in euros lays down the principle of equal charges for strictly domestic payments in euros and for cross-
border payments in euros. The principle applies to card payments and withdrawals from automated teller
machines as from 1 July 2002 and to transfers as from 1 July 2003.

The Commission had initially proposed that this provision should apply also to cross-border payments by
cheque. Parliament and the Council decided not to take up its proposal.

The two main arguments put forward were:

(cid:1) cheques, as a domestic means of payment, are in the process of disappearing in several Member States;

(cid:1) cheques are not suited to being an automatic cross-border means of payment.

The explanation is given in recital 8 to the Regulation, which reads:

At present, it is not advisable to apply the principle of uniform charges for paper cheques as by nature
they cannot be processed as efficiently as the other means of payment,
in particular electronic
payments. However, the principle of transparent charges should also apply to cheques.

The principle of aligning charges laid down in Article 3 does not, therefore, apply to cheques. However,
Article 4, which concerns the information to be provided to customers on the cost of using different
means of payment, has been applicable since 1 January 2002. A specific measure for cheques is to be
found in the second subparagraph of Article 4(1):

Member States may stipulate that a statement warning consumers of the charges relating to the cross-
border use of cheques must appear on cheque books.

Accordingly, under Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001, banks that agree to the cross-border use of cheques (1)
must inform their customers of the charges for such operations.

(1) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001.

(2003/C 161 E/003)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0212/02

by Bruno Gollnisch (NI) to the Commission

(30 January 2002)

Subject: Persistence of exchange rates within the euro Union

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 exchange rate
charges between banks within the euro zone should have disappeared, but the fact is this is simply not so.

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/3

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 rate operations 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 rate charges.

Is the Commission 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?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2002)

The Commission’s interest in the cost of cross-border transactions goes back more than ten years. Its aim
is to create a single payments area within which there will be no difference between a domestic payment
and a cross-border payment. It was with this in mind that in July 2001 the Commission presented a
proposal for a regulation that stipulated among other things that charges for cross-border payments in
euros should be identical to charges levied on euro transactions within the country of origin.

Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 on cross-border payments in euros (1) was adopted
on 19 December 2001 and some of its provisions entered into force on 31 December 2001. Where
denominated in euros, charges for cash withdrawals at automated teller machines and for using payment
cards must be identical in the case of domestic and cross-border transactions as of 1 July 2002. Until that
date, banks and credit card companies may retain a different price structure for cross-border payments in
euros.

The same principle of equality of charges between a strictly domestic payment and a cross-border payment
in euros will apply to transfers as from 1 July 2003.

However, this principle will not apply to cheques (see here the Commission’s reply to Written Question
E-3681/01 by Mrs Banotti (2)).

(1) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001.
(2) See page 2.

(2003/C 161 E/004)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0623/02

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 March 2002)

Subject: Mistakes and delays in projects despite being covered by a framework fixed in advance

Projects which, for various reasons, are not operative or are judged not to be viable are commonplace in
incomplete planning and failings in checks carried out by
Greece. Lack of data, mistakes in studies,