WRITTEN QUESTION E-1579/03 by Ulla Sandbæk (EDD) to the Commission. Nickel in coinage.
Date: 2003-05-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European standard, allergy, consumer protection, economic offence, euro, nickel

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/111

Can the Commission confirm that the delay was caused mainly by the fact that after my question it
1.
took a further seven months for the abovementioned audit report by Financial Control to be passed on to
OLAF? If so, can the Commission explain why the transfer of documents took so long?

2. Was this an exception or is it quite usual for document transfers between the Commission and OLAF
to be similarly delayed?

3.
Does the Commission agree with me that, in accordance with the rules on internal investigations, the
audit report should have been forwarded to OLAF spontaneously in 1999, without any request being
made? What steps is the Commission taking to avoid this happening again in the future?

(1) OJ C 115 E, 16.5.2002, p. 21.

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2003)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) states
that the report had been originally sent to OLAF by the Financial Controller in February 2000. OLAF
received the report from the Financial Controller again in January 2002 in response to the requests made
in September 2001 and January 2002 by its new director, who had not been duly informed on his arrival
at OLAF that the report had been received for the first time in 2000. These facts are now the subject of an
internal inquiry.

The Commission would point out that delays in the transmission of documents to OLAF are not common
occurrences. It would recall that, under Article 7(1) of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1073/
1999 of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (1)
and of Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 of 25 May 1999 (1), institutions, bodies, offices and
agencies must forward to the Office without delay any information relating to possible cases of fraud or
corruption or any other illegal activity. Moreover, the Commission endeavours to encourage the most
rapid and efficient communication as possible between the Commission departments and OLAF and to
remedy any specific difficulties that might arise.

(1) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.

(2004/C 51 E/125)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1579/03

by Ulla Sandbæk (EDD) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject: Nickel in coinage

It is argued that coins contain nickel in order to guard against counterfeiting. Have steps been taken to
develop alternatives to nickel? Are there specific plans to phase out nickel in all euro coins and, if so,
within what timescale? Is it an objective to apply the nickel directive to euro coins in the future, thereby
ensuring a nickel-free coinage?

Have statistics been compiled of the number of allergy sufferers today, including children, thus providing a
general picture of the number of allergy sufferers affected?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2003)

In the Commission’s view, the normal use of euro coins does not represent a health risk for European
citizens. The Commission is not aware of any particular cases of patients suffering from nickel allergy
which can be traced back to the handling or use of EUR 1 and EUR 2 coins (the six other coins do not

C 51 E/112

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

contain any nickel at all). Neither is there scientific evidence of a recent increase in nickel allergies among
European citizens. It is not, therefore, envisaged either to phase out the use of limited quantities of nickel
in the euro coins or to develop alternatives to the use of nickel.

As regards the application of the EU-Nickel Directive (Parliament and Council Directive 94/27/EC of
30 June 1994 amending for the 12th time Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing
and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (1)),
it should be noted that this Directive
exclusively refers to objects that come into direct and prolonged contact with the human skin, such as
jewellery or wristwatch cases. Therefore, the limit stipulated by the Directive 94/27/EC should not be
applied to coins.

Certain specialised institutes are known to collect data on allergies, including those related to nickel, on a
systematic and scientific basis.

(1) OJ L 188, 22.7.1994.

(2004/C 51 E/126)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1581/03

by Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject: Review of the CAP (cid:1) impact assessment on agriculture in the outermost regions

The discussions on the mid-term review of the Common agricultural policy are of vital importance for
agriculture in the outermost regions.

However, this review has been launched without any prior impact assessment on agriculture in these
regions having been conducted.

This runs contrary to the undertakings given by the Commission which, in its report of 14 March 2000
on the implementation of Article 299(2) of the Treaty of Amsterdam (1), stated that when considering any
new Community legislation, it would ‘first look at whether there are any issues affecting the outermost
regions which require attention. In fact, in connection with each and every policy, consideration should be
given to the possible implications, whether direct or indirect, positive or negative, for these regions.’

Could the Commission inform Parliament why it has not yet done this?

(1) COM(200) 147 final.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 July 2003)

Although regional impact analyses can be carried out using the econometric impact-simulation models
available within both the Commission and academic centres, none of those models, to our knowledge, can
provide the type of analysis for the most remote regions requested by the Honourable Member. That
analysis cannot therefore be carried out.

Neither can the mathematical models using data from the Farm Accountancy Data Network provide an
exhaustive analysis of the impact of the proposed reform on those regions because the data required to
provide a representative sample is either not available or incomplete.

The impact analyses carried out by the Commission or, at its request, by research centres, show a globally
positive impact on the Union’s agriculture and farmers from the measures proposed by the Commission.