WRITTEN QUESTION E-2575/02 by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission. 'Head' side of euro coins.
Date: 2002-09-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: euro, money, participating country (euro area), technical specification

C 161 E/28

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

What, in the view of the Commission, is the future for coins of 1 and 2 euro cents?

Can a country (such as Finland) refuse to accept payment with coins of 1 or 2 euro cents?

If a country decides to abolish such euro cent coins, will the Commission oppose such a measure? Does
the Commission intend to take action against the rounding up of prices to 5 cents?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2002)

The introduction of the same denominations of coins in twelve Member States necessarily entails to a
certain extent the need to adapt to the new situation, as the number of denominations available has
changed in various Member States. Therefore, it is comprehensible that the use and the popularity of the
1 and 2 cent coins varies from Member State to Member State. The Commission has no intention to
propose a change of the current denominations. The role of the 1 and 2 cent coins will essentially be
determined by the behavior of the European citizens. Moreover,
it should be noted that the small
denominations have played an important role in the correct conversion of prices.

The denominations of the euro coins have been laid down by Council Regulation (EC) No 975/98 of
3 May 1998 on denominations and technical specifications of euro coins intended for circulation (1).
According to Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 974/98 of 3 May 1998 on the introduction of the
euro (1), all eight denominations have legal tender status throughout the euro area. Finland cannot refuse to
accept payments with 1 and 2 cent coins, as these have legal in tender in Finland as anywhere else in the
euro area. Finland has actually minted a certain quantity of 1 and 2 cent coins.

No Member State can abolish any of the euro coins, as this is a matter decided at Community level. The
Finnish law, which stipulates rounding up or rounding down to the nearest 5 cent refers to cash payments.
It does not concern the rounding of prices.

(1) OJ L 139, 11.5.1998.

(2003/C 161 E/029)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2575/02

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(16 September 2002)

Subject:

’Head’ side of euro coins

The ‘head’ side of euro coins, as is well-known, is different for each country that has introduced the euro.
That means that there are 96 different euro coins in circulation in the EU. Some people feel that this is too
much of a good thing. Furthermore, there will be a significant increase in the number of different coins in
2004 following the enlargement of the European Community. There is now mention of the introduction
of a common ‘head’ side for all countries.

Is the Commission considering introducing a single ‘head’ side for second generation euro coins for all
countries?

If so, when?

If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2002)

At the informal Ecofin Council in Verona in spring 1996, the governments decided that the euro coins
should have a common European side as well as a national side. This combines the advantage of a unified
approach (common side, same technical specifications, …), while allowing for the expression of national
diversity and tradition.

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/29

The Commission is not aware of a widespread discussion on the future of the national sides of the euro
coins. The citizens of Europe became familiar with the euro coins very quickly and the different national
sides did not appear to be a source of confusion, but rather a source of interest. The new European
currency is a great success and at the current stage there is no need to discuss possible future changes, as
this could indeed contribute to confusion among the public.

At the present stage, it is hard to predict the pace at which national sides will be added, as this will not
result from the accession process as such (2004), but rather from the subsequent entry of these countries
into the euro area.

(2003/C 161 E/030)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2619/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 September 2002)

Subject: The right of all political movements to organise and participate in parliamentary elections and the

resultant rights

1.
Does the Commission agree that it is part of the essence of parliamentary democracy within the EU
that every political movement, no matter how controversial others may consider its aims to be, has the
right to solicit support for its views, to participate in parliamentary elections at the various levels of
administration, to express its opinions on that basis in parliamentary debate and if possible to contribute
to the taking of majority decisions and the formation of majority coalitions?

Does the Commission furthermore agree that, on the basis of this principle, it is quite possible, when
2.
courts sentence criminal or violent individuals, to temporarily strip them of their right to stand for
election, and for courts to prohibit organisations if they are proved to have carried out acts of violence,
but that it is never possible to deny the right of organisation or the right to participate in elections at local,
regional, national and European level to adherents of a political point of view which a majority regard as
undesirable?

3.
Does the Commission agree that a situation must be avoided which could encourage the belief
among adherents of any political movement that they have no hope whatsoever of achieving their aims by
peaceful parliamentary means, and that on the contrary it is desirable that those who, deplorably, have
hitherto pursued their objectives by using violence should be better integrated into parliamentary
democracy, particularly in order to ensure that no one applauds terrorism?

4.
Judicial and parliamentary organs of the Spanish State have recently taken a decision which is not
confined to combating an organisation that uses violence but which prevents adherents of a particular
political viewpoint, irrespective of the name or legal personality assigned to it, from continuing to organise
as a party and to participate in elections. Does the Commission consider this decision compatible with the
democratic principles referred to in questions 1 and 2 above?

(2003/C 161 E/031)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2620/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 September 2002)

Subject: The precedent set by recent decisions by Spain for the functioning of parliamentary democracy in

the European Union

1. What precedent has Spain’s decision about the right to exist of Herri Batasuna (and hence Euskadiko
Herritarrok) set for the functioning of parliamentary democracy at all levels in the present and future
Member States of the EU? Will it now be easier for parliamentary majorities and governments to exclude
from participation minorities whom they detest?

2.
Does the Commission expect that political movements which have many supporters will be made to
disappear by declaring them illegal, or will the main effect of this effort to eradicate them ultimately be to
render parliamentary democracy incomplete and impair its credibility?