WRITTEN QUESTION E-2450/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Rapid wear and tear of euro notes as result of savings in paper and coating.
Date: 2002-08-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, paper money, product quality

C 222 E/6

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

Point 7 of the section ‘Eligible Projects’ contains a clause stating that no applications will be considered in
the case of investment in installations that harness solar power for heat or electricity when this investment
is a consequence of obligations laid down in laws or regulations emanating from national or European
public administrations.

However, this clause might be discriminatory in cases where, for example, a local council wants to
implement its own local Agenda 21 and issues an order to encourage the setting-up of solar power
facilities. In this scenario, the two decisions issued by the Ministry of Science and Technology would
discriminate against potential promoters of clean energy facilities, who would not be eligible for aid. It
would therefore seem that there is a contradiction between something that the European Union is
promoting and has approved and what is being applied in a Member State, in this case Spain.

It should be borne in mind that:

(cid:1) both the decisions of the Spanish Ministry draw on the guidelines set out in the Renewable Energy

White Paper;

(cid:1) in its Sixth Framework Programme,

the European Union firmly emphasised the promotion of

alternative energies as a means of achieving sustainable development;

(cid:1) the European Union currently has a solid support framework for promoting energies of this type

(Altener, SAVE, the Intelligent Energy for Europe programme, etc.);

(cid:1) the Member States of the European Union have shown their willingness to meet the commitments set

out in the Kyoto Protocol, starting with their ratification of the Protocol en bloc.

Does the Commission not feel that the clause contained in the two Spanish decisions on solar energy is in
clear conflict with the above points, which currently define European policy in the field of renewable
energies?

In what way does the Commission consider that the above-mentioned exclusion clause might hinder the
granting of Community aid in the context of ‘laws or regulations emanating from European adminis-
trations’?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2002)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for drawing its attention to the recently published
decisions of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology laying down the rules governing the granting
of support aid for solar photovoltaic and thermal energy.

The Commission is currently not in a position to take a formal opinion whether the recent Spanish
legislation leads to discrimination relevant to European law on the basis of the information cited by the
Honourable Member. The Commission will contact the Spanish authorities for a clarification of this issue.

(2003/C 222 E/006)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2450/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 August 2002)

Subject: Rapid wear and tear of euro notes as result of savings in paper and coating

1.
Can the Commission confirm that the present euro notes become creased and torn remarkably
quickly and that because of wear and tear it is more difficult to detect whether the tattered notes are
forgeries and that, as a result, the notes have to be replaced sooner and more often than those of the
former currencies of the Member States?

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/7

Can the Commission also confirm that this rapid wear and tear is caused not only by the fact that
2.
the paper used is thinner and of poorer quality but also because there is no coating to prevent wear and
tear?

3. Why is it no longer possible to obtain the same quality of banknotes as was previously possible for
Deutschmarks or Dutch guilders? Which Member States are standing in the way of better quality?

4. What savings has the European Central Bank made by using lower grade paper and no coating and
how do these savings compare with the higher costs involved in withdrawing and replacing banknotes?

5. Who ultimately incurs the additional costs referred to in paragraph 4?

6.
Does the Commission intend to ask the European Central bank to change over in the near future to
the production of banknotes of a quality that is not inferior to the best banknotes in circulation in the
Member States of the EU up until the end 2001?

Source: Rotterdams Dagblad, 13 August 2002

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2002)

According to Article 106 of the EC Treaty, the European Central Bank (ECB) has the sole responsability for
banknotes. The answer to the questions has therefore been prepared in close relation with ECB services.

The Eurosystem is aware of the existence of some anecdotal complaints about the quality of EUR 5
1.
banknotes in circulation. These are currently being assessed. The current situation at only nine months
after the introduction of the euro banknotes is that overall replacement rates are rather low as many new
or hardly used banknotes are in circulation. There are no indications that the lifetime of the euro
banknotes would be shorter than that of the legacy currencies. However, the life times of the banknote
denominations can only be accurately determined after a full life cycle of the banknotes, which is estimated
to be on average three years.

2.
The quality of the banknote paper is similar to the one used to produce the national legacy currency
banknotes. So far, there are no indications of rapid wear and tear. Some countries may have issued certain
denominations with a better resistance against soiling and wear, e.g. by varnishing the printed banknotes.
However, when doing such comparisons, the entire specifications of the banknotes need to be compared
as many parameters (including the integration of certain security features) may influence the banknotes’
durability.

3.
The banknote paper and processes involved in the production of the euro banknotes are very similar
to those involved in the production of the former Deutsche Mark banknotes. There is a slight difference in
paper weight that cannot justify any difference in behaviour in circulation. The former Dutch Guilders
were varnished on both sides, which may result in a better resistance in circulation. However, as indicated
earlier, a comparative assessment can only be made over the whole lifecycle and considering all of the
features included in both currencies.

As already indicated in the answer to question 1, the national central banks of the Eurosystem have
4.
not experienced high unfit rates when processing euro banknotes. It should be noted that varnishing the
banknotes makes them more resistant to soiling, but has no effect on the banknotes’ structural resistance
to wear and tear.

If it would turn out that there were higher replacement rates of the euro banknotes because of their
5.
quality,
the following would apply: The estimated replacement rates are taken into account when
determining the volume of banknotes to be printed. The national central bank (NCB) printing quotas are
allocated in accordance with a key and the NCBs are responsible for the production of their quota, which
includes the placing of the print orders and meeting the costs of the freshly printed banknotes.

6.
Banknote research and development work within the Eurosystem continues with the aim of
maintaining the integrity of the euro banknotes. Based on the substantiated information known today,
there are no indications for the need to issue upgraded euro banknotes.