WRITTEN QUESTION E-0259/02 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. Seignorage revenue forecast in 2002.
Date: 2002-02-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, European Central Bank, central bank, currency adjustment, euro area, interest, participating country (euro area)

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28 E/19

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2002)

1. and 3.
The Commission studied the various existing denominations in close cooperation with the
Mint Directors Working Group. A balance had to be struck between a large number of coins, which might
have caused problems with recognition, and a small number of different coins, which would have made
giving change difficult. The average number of different denominations in the European Union was
7.17 (1). After discussion, the Mint Directors proposed a series of eight coins: 1, 2, 5, 10, 20 and 50 cents,
and 1 and 2 euros. The possibility of producing a 5-euro coin was discussed but rejected in favour of a
note of that amount. The reason for issuing six coins in cents is to facilitate conversion operations by
enabling new euro prices to be as close as possible to the old prices in national currency. The formal
decision on the denominations was taken on 3 May 1998, with the adoption of Council Regulation (EC)
No 975/98 on denominations and technical specifications of euro coins intended for circulation (2).

The value of the euro was fixed in accordance with Article 123(4) of the EC Treaty, which makes no

2.
reference whatsoever to the small denominations of coins.

Finnish Law No 890/2000 on rounding prices in euros was adopted on 27 October 2000 and thus
4.
postdates the decisions on the production plans. The Commission examined the compatibility of this Law
with Council Regulation (EC) No 974/98 of 3 May 1998 on the introduction of the euro (2), Council
Regulation (EC) No 975/98 and the consumer protection directives.
the Finnish
provisions as a whole were compatible with Community law, since the 1-cent and 2-cent coins remained
legal tender in Finland. Generally speaking, the Commission takes the view that a participating State may
decide not to issue certain denominations of euro coins but may not refuse to recognise them as legal
tender.

It concluded that

The only restriction on accepting euro coins laid down in Community legislation is contained
5. and 6.
in Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 974/98:
‘no party shall be obliged to accept more than
50 coins in any single payment’. Any other limitations would have to be based on explicit national
provisions, the possibility for which is provided for in recital 19 to the Regulation. The Commission has
no intention of proposing any amendments to these provisions.

(1) There were 5 in Belgium, 7 in Denmark, 9 in France, 8 in Germany, 7 in Greece and Ireland, 9 in Italy, 5 in

Luxembourg, 6 in the Netherlands, 7 in Portugal, 9 in Spain and 7 in the United Kingdom.

(2) OJ L 139, 11.5.1998.

(2003/C 28 E/021)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0259/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 February 2002)

Subject: Seignorage revenue forecast in 2002

1. Will the Commission estimate the seignorage revenue accruing to each Member State’s central bank
either on the basis of a forecast for 2002 (taking into account the new key for sharing seignorage revenue
of the European Central Bank) or on the basis of applying the new key to the actual seignorage revenue in
2001 assuming that all EU countries were members of the euro area,
including Britain, Sweden and
Denmark?

2. Will it express this as a proportion of GDP in each case?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2002)

1.
The European System of Central Banks (hereafter: Eurosystem) has responsibility for the calculation
of monetary income and its allocation among the Member States. It is up to the central banks of the
Eurosystem to apply the coefficients of the adjustment scheme the Governing Council has agreed upon on

C 28 E/20

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2003

6 December 2001. Estimates would depend on interest rate assumptions, which the Commission has
decided not to publish on a regular basis as the European Central Bank (ECB) has full responsibility for
setting interest rates in the euro area. Estimates would also depend on the forecast of the development of
the monetary base in the euro area in the year 2002, which appears to be difficult to provide given
extraordinary circumstances (e.g. euro cash changeover, dual currency period). Future shifts in the patterns
of cash holdings and possible non-surrender of notes and coins in the original national currencies will also
have an impact on the balance sheets of central banks (notes) and governments (coins). At present the
scale of such impacts and the timing of their recognition in balance sheets are not clear.

The Commission respects the position of the Member States that have not adopted the euro so far and
regards it as inappropriate to investigate or publish hypothetical scenarios what might have happened or
what would have happened if these Member States would have made other decisions.

For the aforementioned reasons the Commission is not in a position to provide estimates of monetary
income accruing to each Member State based on the adjustment scheme agreed upon in December 2001
for the current euro area Member States.

2.

The aforementioned position applies to expressions in other terms as well.

(2003/C 28 E/022)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0271/02

by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 January 2002)

Subject: Preparation for the European Council meeting in Barcelona

The 2000 Lisbon European Council asked ‘the Commission, the Council and the Member States, each in
accordance with their respective powers, to set out by 2001 a strategy for further coordinated action to
simplify the regulatory environment, including the performance of public administration, at both national
and Community level.’ Could the Commission give some specific examples of how this goal has been met
in the UK, France and Germany?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2002)

The Honourable Member wishes to have examples of measures taken by Germany, France and the United
Kingdom in response to the request made by the Lisbon European Council on 23 and 24 March 2000 that
the Commission, the Council and the Member States draw up a coordinated strategy to simplify the
regulatory environment.

The Commission can provide the following information at this time:

(cid:1) under this coordinated strategy, the Member States do indeed take much of the responsibility, since

90 % of the legislation is national,

(cid:1) in the Community legislative process, Member States’ responsibility is exercised especially in the
negotiations within the Council, and then more directly in the transposition and implementation of
the Community legislation,