WRITTEN QUESTION E-2580/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Expectations of an increase in the production of counterfeit euro bank notes in thinly-populated countries where the euro is important as a parallel currency.
Date: 2003-08-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: economic offence, euro, euro area, industrial counterfeiting, paper money

C 78 E/408

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 October 2003)

With regard to the methodology for measuring the impact on Portugal of the agricultural price and market
policy, which therefore does not consider rural development policy (second pillar), as used in the second
cohesion report,
it should be noted that this method takes into account welfare effects not only on
agricultural producers and food processors, but also on consumers and taxpayers. In that sense, it differs
from calculations based on net budget position but gives a more complete picture of the position of
Portugal, with regard to the cost or gain to the Portuguese economy from the agricultural market policy
(first pillar).

For the calculation of those figures, the Commission has focussed his efforts on compiling the data
requested by the Honourable Member for the period 2000 to 2002, in order to monitor the changes as
from the time of the implementation of the Agenda 2000.

Using the same method as for the period 1989 to 1998, the Commission can report that the annual net
effect in that period, at current prices, is given as follows:

Net effect for Portugal

2000

− 227,1

2001

+ 4

(million euros)

2002

− 108,7

In terms of budget transfer, calculated on the basis of the gain or loss from the European Agriculture
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (cid:1) Guarantee budget relative to the percentage contribution to the
total Union budget, the net position of Portugal, which has been positive since 1994, has had the
following recent evolution:

2000

2001

2002

(million euros)

Net budget transfer
for Portugal

+ 74,7

+ 221,6

+ 115,8

(2004/C 78 E/0430)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2580/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 August 2003)

Subject: Expectations of an increase in the production of counterfeit euro bank notes in thinly-populated

countries where the euro is important as a parallel currency

1.
Can the Commission confirm that, to date, the production of counterfeit money in the euro zone has
been concentrated in thinly-populated areas in France and Spain and that this has resulted in losses of
EUR 16 million for consumers and business?

2.
Do new technologies where, for example, computer printers replace offset presses increase the
potential for producing counterfeit bank notes which are difficult to distinguish from genuine ones, despite
the use of watermarks, holograms and metal strips?

3. What is current ratio of counterfeit euros to the other widely used currency, the US dollar? Is the
counterfeiting of euros moving towards the dollar level?

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/409

Does the Commission share Europol’s expectation that the combination of the enlargement of EU
4.
territory and easily crossed frontiers, together with the increasingly important role of the euro as a parallel
currency in countries with low incomes and high unemployment, increases the likelihood of a sharp
increase in the near future of the production of counterfeit euros in thinly-populated areas and the
transport thereof to densely-populated areas?

5.
How will the Commission duly protect consumers and business in the future from the risk that they
may unwittingly come into the possession of counterfeit bank notes which, on discovery, will not have the
face value ascribed to them when they were accepted?

Source: The 18 July 2003 edition of ‘Rotterdams Dagblad’, a Dutch newspaper

Supplementary answer
given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(28 October 2003)

There are no indications that the production of counterfeit money is concentrated in thinly populated
areas in any of the Member States. According to information from the European Central Bank (ECB) the
number of counterfeit euro banknotes withdrawn from circulation was 167 118 in 2002 and 230 534 in
the first half of 2003. In face value, this represents about EUR 8,5 million in 2002 and EUR 11,5 million
in the first half of 2003.

In comparison to the EUR 8 billion genuine banknotes currently in circulation, the above number of
counterfeit banknotes is very small.

The number of counterfeit euro coins detected in circulation amount to 2 339 pieces in 2002 and 7 875 in
the first half of 2003 for a corresponding amount of EUR 3 355 and EUR 13 036,50 respectively. Overall,
with more than EUR 45 billion coins in circulation the number of counterfeit euro coins is very small.

Modern technology, like computer printers, provides the possibility for persons with no or little knowledge
in printing to produce counterfeit banknotes. The quality of these more recent types of counterfeits is
generally low. Thus it is generally easier to detect counterfeits produced with these new technologies than
those that are printed on offset presses.

The level of euro counterfeiting is by far lower than the counterfeiting of United States dollars.

There is no indication currently that the level of counterfeit euros is moving towards the counterfeit
United States dollar level.

The Commission is not aware of any specific indication for the likelihood of a sharp increase. However,
the larger the financial area where a currency is used the higher the risk of counterfeiting that currency.
It
is also known that counterfeiters from countries outside the Union are targeting the euro. The
competent authorities in the Member States and at European level (Europol, ECB, Commission) are taking
all appropriate measures,
to prevent euro
counterfeiting.

in collaboration with the authorities of

third countries,

These include:

(cid:1) enhanced collaboration between all authorities competent in the fight against counterfeiting (law

enforcement, central banks, Finance Ministries, etc.);

(cid:1) intense training, general and specialised, at national, Union and international level, of which the main
vehicle is the specific programme Pericles for exchange, assistance and training, managed by the
Commission;

(cid:1) continuous monitoring of the implementation of relevant legislation by the Member States; reporting

and proposals, where appropriate;

(cid:1) specialised information campaigns, mainly carried out by the ECB.

C 78 E/410

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

With regard to citizens, the increase in police cooperation, with the contribution of Europol, has raised the
guarantees offered to the public. It is also important that the public should be familiar with the security
features of the genuine euro banknotes. In this respect, the ‘look (cid:1) feel (cid:1) tilt’ method of checking the euro
banknotes’ authenticity, described in the information material of the ECB, has proved to be an effective
means of detecting counterfeits.

(2004/C 78 E/0431)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2601/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(20 August 2003)

Subject: Refurbishment of the historic town centre of Rieti

Rieti, one of the main towns in the province of Lazio, has a rich heritage in the form of historically and
artistically significant buildings and the town council is now endeavouring to implement a refurbishment
and restoration plan with a view to preserving that heritage.

The aim is to highlight the importance of the town as an historic monument, but also to restore it to its
role as a cohesive, properly functioning community by means of a wide range of measures, including street
repairs, improved street lighting, better road access to the historic town centre, restoration of the medieval
walls, replacement of the signs identifying buildings in the medieval town centre, etc.

The town council therefore needs to secure very substantial funding for this town-planning and restoration
work, drawing on all the available sources, including, in particular, EU grants.

Given that the second Urban programme, which is designed to provide funding for this type of work, has
already been completed, can the Commission state:

1. whether a third Urban programme is scheduled for 2004 or thereafter or whether fresh calls for

proposals are to be issued?

2. whether there are other programmes which could provide Rieti with the funding it needs to carry out

the work outlined above?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

As regards the Community initiative programme Urban II, the choice of towns to receive assistance in Italy
was proposed by the Italian Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport in accordance with the procedure
published in Italian Official Gazette No 168 of 20 July 2000. No provision is made for further funding for
other towns up to the end of 2006.

As regards other sources of possible funding, the town of Rieti is partly eligible under Objective 2, as set
out in the Commission Decision of 27 July 2000 (1).

Measure III.2 in the single programming document (SPD) for the Lazio Region, which governs European
Regional Development Fund assistance in this respect, allows funding for measures to promote the
development of areas, in particular historic centres, of significance in terms of tourism, culture or the
environment.

However,
it is for the managing authority responsible for the SPD (in this case the Regione Lazio (cid:1)
Economy and Finance Department) to examine whether particular measures may receive Community
funding.

In addition to the funding possibilities provided under the Structural Funds on the basis of the above, the
Commission may support initiatives in the cultural sector under and in accordance with the selection
criteria for the ‘Culture 2000’ programme, which is the single financing and programming instrument for
cultural cooperation in the European Union.