WRITTEN QUESTION E-0229/02 by Bruno Gollnisch (NI) to the Council. Persistence of foreign-exchange fees within the euro zone.
Date: 2002-02-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: bank charges, deposit money, electronic money, euro area, exchange transaction, free movement of capital, intra-EU payment

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.

26.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 229 E/65

The same principle of equal charges for cross-border credit transfers and those effected within a Member
State will apply from 1 July 2003, that date being chosen so that the infrastructure necessary can be set
up.

Both electronic transactions and credit transfers are governed by the principle of the transparency of
charges levied, even where a currency other than the euro is involved in a cross-border payment
transaction in euro.

The Council did not consider it appropriate at present to apply the principle of equal charges to 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 also applies to cheques.

It should also be recalled that because of the disappearance of the Eurocheque on 1 January 2002 the
cheque is essentially used for payments made within a Member State and in certain Member States no
longer exists.

The Regulation also provides that not later than 1 July 2004 the Commission shall submit to the European
Parliament and to the Council a report on the application of this Regulation and in particular on the
advisability of
improving consumer services by strengthening the conditions of competition in the
provision of cross-border payment services. That report will be accompanied, where appropriate, by
proposals for the amendment of the Regulation.

The Honourable Member is reminded that the Commission is responsible for the application of the rules of
competition, including unlawful agreements.

(1) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 13.

(2002/C 229 E/072)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0240/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Korean shipbuilding subsidies and the W.T.O.

When it became apparent to the Commission that the Korean government was maintaining its sizeable
share of the world shipbuilding market through subsidies that contravened World Trade Organisation
(W.T.O.) rules why did the Commission not lodge a complaint as soon as possible with the W.T.O. rather
than waiting months before suggesting that the response should be to permit shipbuilders in certain
Member States to engage in similar behaviour? Does the Commission not believe that the appropriate
response to a violation of W.T.O. rules should be to proceed according to the accepted procedures, and
does the Commission not accept that its current proposals in this area would violate both our W.T.O.
obligations and the European Union’s own internal competition requirements?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2002)

In its report under the Trade Barriers Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 3286/94 of 22 December
1994 laying down Community procedures in the field of the common commercial policy in order to
ensure the exercise of
in particular those
established under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation (1)), on Korean shipbuilding practice the
Commission found that Korean shipyards increased their market share in most segments of the world
shipbuilding market from 1997 to November 2000, causing considerable injury to Community shipyards
in certain segments. The Commission also found that certain Korean yards had received subsidies that

the Community’s rights under international

trade rules,