WRITTEN QUESTION E-2057/03 by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission. One and two eurocent coins.
Date: 2003-06-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Economic and Monetary Union, euro, monetary policy, money, payment

C 58 E/126

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

The Commission has therefore already followed up on the Council’s request, mentioned in Declaration 34
annexed to Austria’s Adhesion Act, and presented legislation in the relevant areas. Moreover the
Commission has presented in December 2001 a proposal for a prolongation of the ecopoints system (4)
which is now the subject of the conciliation procedure. Finally the Commission has the intention to
present shortly a new sectoral proposal for a Directive on charging for the use of road infrastructure
modifying the Eurovignette-Directive.

(1) COM(98) 444 final.
(2) OJ C 59, 26.2.1997.
(3) Directive 1999/62 EC of the Parliament and the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy good vehicles
for the use of certain infrastructures, OJ L 187, 20.7.1999 replacing Council Directive 93/89/EEC of 25 October
1993, OJ L 279, 12.11.1993.

(4) OJ C 103 E, 30.4.2002.

(2004/C 58 E/142)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2046/03

by Anne Jensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 June 2003)

Subject: German road tax

The German Government has taken a decision to introduce a road tax (HGV toll). The introduction of a
unilateral German road tax will place hauliers from a number of European countries in a considerably
worse position than their European colleagues. Transit through Germany, for example, is essential for
haulage from Denmark and Sweden to the rest of Europe. With the introduction of a unilateral German
road tax, therefore, Danish and Swedish hauliers will be competitively worse off.

Does the Commission consider that this unilateral German road tax is consistent with EU competition
rules? Will the Commission seek a common European solution rather than accept unilateral national
taxation?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2003)

Germany has notified to the Commission its intention to introduce a new road toll system for heavy goods
vehicles on German motorways. The Commission has written to the German authorities in order to assess
the compatibility of the system with Community law, and in particular with Directive 1999/62/EC (1) as
regards both the level of tolls and the other relevant aspects of the system. The issue is currently under
examination.

In any case the Commission will make sure that Community law is duly respected in the application of all
issues related to the new road toll system in Germany.

(1) Directive 1999/62/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods

vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures, OJ L 187, 20.7.1999.

(2004/C 58 E/143)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2057/03

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 June 2003)

Subject: One and two eurocent coins

A scientific article which was recently published in the Netherlands (1) used Cramer’s algorithm to
demonstrate that a set of euro coins which did not include one and two cent coins was much more
efficient for cash payment transactions than the current set of euro coins. According to the article, an
efficient system for cash payment transactions is in the interests of consumers, shops, banks, industry and
the Central Banks.

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/127

Does the Commission agree with the conclusion drawn in that article that a set of euro coins which
1.
did not include one and two cent coins would be much more efficient for cash payment transactions than
the current set of coins? If not, what arguments can it use to defend its position, preferably by means of an
econometric model as well?

In its answer to Written Question E-2574/02 (2), the Commission states that ‘the role of the one and
2.
two cent coins will essentially be determined by the behaviour of the European citizens’. How does the
Commission measure that behaviour? Have any findings been published, in Finland or in other countries in
the eurozone? When assessments are being made, is account taken of scientific conclusions such as those
drawn in the article referred to above?

(1) Economische Statistische Berichten, 30 May 2003, No 4404, p. 248.
(2) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 27.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2003)

The denominations of the euro coins were laid down by Member States in Council Regulation (EC) No 975/
98 of 3 May 1998 on denominations and technical specifications of euro coins intended for circulation (1)
and necessarily represent a compromise between the mix of denominations used previously.

The article that the Honourable Member refers to argues on the basis of the ‘least-effort-principle’ meaning
that a set of denominations is the more efficient the less banknotes and coins have to be used for a cash
payment. The study takes both the original payment and the change rendered into account.

The authors of the article themselves rightly raise the question whether the advantage of abolishing the 1
and 2-cent coins outweighs the risk of price increases through the rounding of prices. Alternatively, if the
amount to be paid were rounded to the nearest 5 cents, as is the case in Finland, the efficiency gain of the
payment operation has to be compared with the need to carry out an additional rounding operation before
the payment is settled.

While articles such as the one mentioned above provide useful
the results are inevitably
conditioned by the definitions and underlying assumptions being used and notably the way in which
‘efficiency’ is being measured. In addition, account should be taken of behavioural elements. For example
shopkeepers could decide on their own initiative to adjust their prices to the nearest 5 cent in order to
avoid payments including euro cents, if both their customers and themselves believe to gain from this.

insights,

As coin issuance is a demand-driven process, the evolution of the 1 and 2-cent coins in circulation gives
an indication of the population’s need for these coins. The year on year growth rate of the 1 and 2-cent
coins amounted to 42 % and 32 % respectively in May 2003, while the average growth rate across all coin
denominations comes to 23,5 %. The relative significance of the 1 and 2- cent coins is, therefore,
apparently increasing.

(1) OJ L 139, 11.5.1998.

(2004/C 58 E/144)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2062/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Leakage of clophen at the Ministry of Economic Affairs

(20 June 2003)

Further to my Written Question QE-2025/03 (1), I should like to inform you that a letter, dated 13 August
1996, sent to the Director-General of the Ministry of Economic Affairs by the company charged with the
maintenance of transformers stated that ‘a leakage of oil was found in both transformers from various
points, and it is likely that these leakages will increase at some point’.