WRITTEN QUESTION E-0199/02 by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission. Management of business accounts in Austria.
Date: 2002-02-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, bank, bank charges, bank deposit, consumer protection, equal treatment, free movement of capital, law of banking

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/29

Currency

Latvian lat

UK £

Polish zloty

Japanese yen

Norwegian krone

Maltese lira

Australian $

Czech koruna

Swiss franc

New Zealand $

Hungarian forint

Swedish krona

Cyprus £

Slovak koruna

Bulgarian lev

Danish krone

Source: ECB, Eurostat

Exchange rate

− 16,57 %

− 14,43 %

− 14,15 %

− 13,76 %

− 10,20 %

− 9,89 %

− 9,53 %

− 8,96 %

− 8,28 %

− 4,56 %

− 2,51 %

− 1,78 %

− 1,25 %

− 0,49 %

− 0,49 %

− 0,18 %

(2002/C 301 E/028)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0199/02

by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(5 February 2002)

Subject: Management of business accounts in Austria

A question has been put to me concerning the general terms and conditions applied by Austrian banks. At
the Wiener Volksbank, German business customers must have separate resident and non-resident accounts.
However, it is not possible to carry out direct transactions from resident accounts, instead credit must be
entered every month into another account before it can be used for payment or other transactions. For the
transfer of credit, the account holder incurs substantial charges as well as high transfer fees.

Is such discrimination against residents and non-residents lawful and is the foreign exchange law in Austria
and the treatment of clients, particularly in view of the common currency and the ensuing elimination of
the exchange-rate mechanisms, in line with European law?

If not, what action does the Commission plan to take?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2002)

The free movement of capital as provided for in Article 56 of the EC Treaty is one of the cornerstones of
the Single Market. However, Article 58 of the EC Treaty explicitly sets out the Member States’ right to
maintain or introduce certain measures for reasons of taxation (different treatment of residents and non-
residents) as well as for statistical and administrative reasons. However, such measures may not be
discriminatory.

C 301 E/30

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

Austria imposes certain reporting requirements on their banks and financial institutions in order to obtain
statistical information for establishing the balance of payments: according to the regulations issued by the
Austrian National Bank, banks have to distinguish between resident- and non-resident accounts. Certain
transactions from and/or to a non-resident account as well as cross-border transactions in general have to
be notified to the authorities.

However, in order to allow for cheaper retail payments within Austria, banks are authorised to arrange for
a specific Euro account for non-residents (‘Euro-Sonderkonten für Devisenausländer; Exporterlös-Sammel-
konten’). Transfers from and to such accounts can be made under the same conditions as domestic
transfers from and to resident accounts. The transfers to be credited to that account can however not
exceed a sum of EUR 12 500 and have to be transferred at least once a month to a non-resident account or
to an account abroad.

There is also a tax-issue to be considered in this context: residents in Austria are subject to Austrian
income tax on the interest from their bank accounts. Non-residents, on the contrary, are normally not
subject to Austrian income tax on such income, but in their country of residence.

Hence, operating a non-resident account calls for additional administrative procedures for the credit
institutions under present Austrian legislation. If a bank therefore decides to levy additional charges in
order to cover the cost of the necessary manual handling, this decision is a commercial decision and not
an illegal discrimination. The business policy of charging for the operation of non-resident accounts does
not constitute an infringement against existing Community-legislation.

Nonetheless, the Commission considers since a long time that the above-mentioned reporting requirements
have to be simplified if not abolished altogether within the Internal Market as a matter of principle. The
Parliament actively supports the Commission’s initiatives in this respect. A first token of success is the
agreement among Member States to require reporting only for transfers of more than EUR 12 500 from
1 January 2002 onwards. This will certainly decrease the cost for the cross-border credit transfers as well
as for transfers from and to non-resident accounts of lower value.

Moreover, the recently adopted Regulation on cross-border payments in euro (1) should further contribute
to alleviate the existing problems in connection with non-resident accounts. This Regulation aims at a
reduction of charges for cross-border payments of up to EUR 12 500, so that by 1 July 2002 (concerning
electronic payment transactions) and respectively by 1 July 2003 (concerning cross-border credit transfers)
charges have to be aligned to those for corresponding payments at national level.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 19.12.2001, OJ L 344, 28.12.2001.

(2002/C 301 E/029)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0235/02

by Karin Junker (PSE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Future of European Documentation Centres

The network of European Documentation Centres (EDC) has been in existence for 30 years. There are now
more than 500 centres both within and outside the EU. The centres have concluded an agreement with the
Commission on the provision of documentation and training. In its communication on a new framework
for cooperation on activities concerning the information and communication policy (1), the Commission
underlines the importance of the EDC by stating, inter alia, that ‘the EDC are key information points’.

Despite the importance which the Commission rightly attaches to these centres, the post of head of unit
responsible in the Directorate-General for Press and Communication has been vacant since April 2001.
Complaints are also being made that, more and more frequently, even those documents listed in the
monthly register of the Publications Office as being available free of charge are treated as not available for
distribution to EDCs.