WRITTEN QUESTION E-2062/03 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Leakage of clophen at the Ministry of Economic Affairs.
Date: 2003-06-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, environmental law, infringement procedure (EU), ministry, national implementing measure, toxic substance, waste disposal, waste management

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’.

C 58 E/128

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

This issue acquires increased importance in the light of the study by the University of Crete which shows
clearly that pollution levels in the building in question, especially in the basement, have reached very high
levels.

Given that in Greece the necessary haematological examinations may only take place in a special research
centre and only after referral, is the Commission examining the possibility of setting up and sending a
special scientific team to examine pollution levels in the rooms of the building (atmosphere and objects)
and the effect on officials? Does the Commission intend to accelerate the procedures so that Greece
complies immediately with Directive 78/319/EEC (2) on toxic and dangerous waste and Directive 96/59/
EC (3)?

(1) OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 182.
(2) OJ L 84, 31.3.1978, p. 43.
(3) OJ L 243, 24.9.1996, p. 31.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2003)

Within the framework of environmental
law, the Commission has no general competence to conduct
inspections. The Commission can only make use of the inspection procedure in specific infringement cases
which relate to compliance with judgements of the European Court of Justice. Consequently, a special
scientific team will not be sent.

Regarding compliance with Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September 1996 on the disposal of
polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT) (1), the Court recently declared that
Greece had failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(1) and 11 of the Directive (2). The infringement
concerns the failure to draw up summaries of inventories of equipment with PCB volumes of more than
five cubic decimeter (dm3), plans for the decontamination and/or disposal of inventoried equipment and
the PCBs contained therein, and outlines for the collection and subsequent disposal of equipment which is
not subject to inventory.

Council Directive 78/319/EEC of 20 March 1978, on toxic and dangerous waste (3), was repealed by
Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (4). Concerning the implemen-
tation of Directive 91/689/EEC, the Court declared that, by failing to send to the Commission all the
information required under Article 8(3), Greece had not fulfilled its obligations under the Directive (5).

If Greece does not take the necessary measures to comply with the Court’s judgements, the Commission
will not hesitate to open infringement procedures under Article 228 of the EC Treaty.

In addition, it must be stressed that Greece has been referred to the Court of Justice (case C-163/03) over
its failure to put in place an adequate plan for the management of hazardous waste in the region of
Thriassio Pedio (prefecture of Attiki). The referral also relates to its failure to avoid the pollution of
groundwater by hazardous waste.

(1) OJ L 243, 24.9.1996.
(2) ECJ judgement of 5 June 2003, case C-83/02, not yet published.
(3) OJ L 84, 31.3.1978.
(4) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991.
(5) ECJ judgement of 13 June 2002, case C-33/01, European Court reports 2002, p. 5 447.

(2004/C 58 E/145)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2074/03

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(24 June 2003)

Subject: Trafficking in human beings and EU policy

Is the Commission aware of Anti-Slavery International’s campaign which urges governments to put the
protection of the trafficked person at the centre of counter trafficking policies, for which over 11 000
people have pledged their support?