WRITTEN QUESTION E-0792/02 by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission. The euro.
Date: 2002-03-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: bank charges, competence of the Member States, consumer information, consumer protection, display, euro, exchange rate, exchange transaction

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?