WRITTEN QUESTION P-0821/02 by Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR) to the Commission. Payments by airlines for security officers on flights since 11 September.
Date: 2002-03-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: State aid, air safety, air transport, civil aviation, competence of the Member States, price increase, public safety, service occupation, terrorism

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28 E/53

(2003/C 28 E/057)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0792/02

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(20 March 2002)

Subject: The euro

When exchanging money into euros from other currencies, EU citizens are often attracted to organisations
which advertise ‘commission-free’ transactions, however a poor exchange rate means that people can be
misled and charged more than they should be.

How does the European Commission intend to warn EU citizens from outside the euro-zone, such as the
UK, about poor exchange rates and potentially misleading claims when exchanging other EU currencies
into the euro (cid:1) particularly in holiday resorts in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2002)

There is no specific Community legislation on the conversion of non-euro zone banknotes.

However, it is important that consumers are clearly informed of the cost of transactions so that they can
compare and choose. Several Member States have drawn up rules enabling consumers to be aware of the
amount of commission prior to the transaction, for instance by displaying the relevant rates. At this stage,
the Commission does not see any need for approximation of
the rules governing information for
consumers in this field, but it would refer the Honourable Member to the provisions transposing Council
Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions of the Member States concerning misleading advertising into national law (1). This
text, which is designed to eliminate or prohibit misleading advertising (defined as ‘any advertising which in
any way, including its presentation, deceives or is likely to deceive the persons to whom it is addressed or
whom it reaches and which, by reason of its deceptive nature, is likely to affect their economic behaviour
or which, for those reasons, injures or is likely to injure a competitor’) could well apply in the particular
instance referred to by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ L 250, 19.9.1984.

(2003/C 28 E/058)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0821/02

by Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 March 2002)

Subject: Payments by airlines for security officers on flights since 11 September

Since 11 September various airlines in the EU have employed on-board security officers in order to make
flying safer for passengers. Airlines have also been required to adopt extra security measures on the
ground.
In some countries airlines have had to meet the extra costs themselves, which means that
ultimately these have to be passed on to their customers. However, in France and Germany for example
the State has been reimbursing such expenditure.

Is protecting the security of the public the task of the national authorities, and ought they therefore to pay
for extra security measures on board aircraft?

If so, how will the Commission draw the attention of the Member States to their public responsibility? If
not, why not?

C 28 E/54

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2003

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2002)

Since the terrorist activities of 11 September 2001 additional security measures have been applied in the
aviation sector. These, undoubtedly, have resulted in extra costs.

However, it is outside of the remit of the Commission to instruct Member States to meet the costs in full
or in part through funding from the state.

Nonetheless, the Commission has looked sympathetically to requests from the aviation sector for flexibility
in interpretation of Community rules governing state aids with regard to additional costs post-
September 11. This was reflected in the Communication from the Commission to the Parliament and the
Council dated 10 October 2001 on the repercussions of the terrorist attacks in the United States on the air
transport industry (1).

The Honourable Member should also be aware that the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) at
its special high-level, ministerial conference on aviation security held on 19 and 20 February 2002 in
Montreal adopted a recommendation that ICAO would ‘elaborate on its policy and guidance material on
cost recovery of security services, notably to include development of policy and guidance material on cost
recovery, through charges, of security measures with regard to air navigation services’.

The Commission intends to review the issue further on the basis of the outcome after the Second Reading
of the legislative process for a Regulation of the Parliament and the Council on establishing common rules
in the field of civil aviation security.

(1) COM(2001) 574 final.

(2003/C 28 E/059)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0851/02

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(27 March 2002)

Subject: Euro: quantities of nickel and tributyl tin (TBT) used in the production of coins and banknotes,

and their effects on human health

Given that the 1 and 2 euro coins contain nickel and that tributyl tin (TBT) is used as a colour stabiliser in
the production of banknotes, can the Commission say whether:

(cid:1) the quantity of nickel used in the 1 and 2 euro coins could constitute a health hazard? Did the

Commission carry out research or seek scientific advice before the coins were minted?

(cid:1) TBT has been used in the production of banknotes, and if so, of what denomination? Could the
quantities used constitute a health hazard? Did the Commission carry out research or seek scientific
advice before the banknotes were put into production?

(cid:1) the 1 and 2 euro coins could have been produced using a less toxic material than nickel, and a less

toxic colour stabiliser than TBT could have been used for the banknotes?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(28 May 2002)

Before the production of the euro coins the Commission did undertake scientific research on the issue, and
no conclusive scientific evidence was found against the use of nickel.

The nickel used in 1-euro and 2-euro coins is essentially contained inside the alloy, thus skin contact with
nickel is limited.