WRITTEN QUESTION E-3486/03 by Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Charges for bank transfers within the eurozone.
Date: 2003-11-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Spain, application of EU law, bank charges, consumer protection, credit transfer, financial legislation

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/563

The second part of the question of the Honourable Member is of utmost concern to the Commission in
connection with the effective enforcement of Article 81 of the EC Treaty. To that effect, the above case law
imposes conditions so as to avoid abuse of legal privilege by companies. Documents are only protected if
they are written communications solely for requesting the lawyer’s advice for the purposes of the rights of
defence.

(2004/C 78 E/0598)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3486/03

by Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject: Charges for bank transfers within the eurozone

Is the Commission aware that Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 (1) on cross-border payments in euro is still
not consistently applied in Spain? What steps does the Commission intend to take in this connection? How
can members of the public obtain refunds of any charges made?

The incident which gave rise to the question was a transfer of EUR 10 which a member of the public
made from his account with a local savings bank in Germany to a Spanish account which he had opened
with the Caja de Ahorros del Mediterráneo. Only EUR 3,99 were credited to his Spanish account, although
the money was transferred after 1 July 2003. Upon enquiry, the Spanish bank told him that a charge of
0,2 % is generally made on transfers from foreign banks, with a minimum charge of EUR 6,01, and that
the charges are made by the Bank of Spain directly. Staff at his Spanish bank were not aware of Regulation
(EC) No 2560/2001 on cross-border payments.

(1) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 13.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2004)

Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2001 establishes the
principle of equality of charges between national payments and cross-border payments in euro. This
principle applies to electronic payment transactions in euro since 1 July 2002 and to credit transfers since
1 July 2003, up to an amount of EUR 12 500. The Regulation specifies that the sending bank can request
from its customer the IBAN (International Bank Account Number) and BIC (Bank Identifier Code) of the
beneficiary, and may take additional charges when those are not provided.

In the case presented by the Honourable Member, a transfer of EUR 10 from Germany to Spain was
charged EUR 6,01 to the beneficiary. According to the principle of equality of charges, this charge is only
correct if it corresponds to the charge applied to a similar national transfer in Spain, and if IBAN and BIC
were provided by the sender upon request. The fact that the employee of the bank was not aware of the
Regulation and that the charge applied is said to be ‘generally made on transfers from foreign banks’,
seems to indicate that this bank does not apply the same charges to credit transfers in euro in the Union as
it does to national ones, as prescribed in the Regulation.

Should this be the case, the Spanish authorities should take appropriate measures in order to guarantee
adequate and consistent application of the Regulation. Article 7 of the Regulation indicates that the
compliance shall be guaranteed by effective, proportionate and deterrent sanctions. The Commission wrote
to all Member States in September 2003 asking them the name of the responsible national authority and
the measures they may take in this regard, and is in contact with the Banco de España in this respect,
concerning cases of possible misapplication of the Regulation.

C 78 E/564

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

As regards redress procedures for citizens having problems with banks in Spain, they must first contact
their bank, and if they are not satisfied with the reply they receive, they may complain to the Complaints
Department at the Banco de España (C/Alcalá No 50, 28014 Madrid), stating their reasons and supplying
the documents in their possession relating to the matter in dispute.

(2004/C 78 E/0599)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3490/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject: Regulating the market and olive growers’ incomes under the reform of the COM in olive oil

The Commission Communication on ‘accomplishing a sustainable agricultural model for Europe through
the reform of the CAP (cid:1) the tobacco, olive oil, cotton and sugar sectors’ (1) states that ‘adhesion to the
single farm payment’ (cid:1) instead of the existing production-linked payments (cid:1) ‘enables low input olive oil
producing regions to maintain their overall
level of income support’. Furthermore, the Commission
proposes that ‘the refunds relating both to export and to manufacture of certain preserved food should be
repealed’, and that other market policies ‘should be kept intact’.

The Commission:

1. How does it assess the impact of eliminating the previous reform’s intervention price in the olive oil
sector, given the pattern of prices paid to producers, and their impact on olive growers’ incomes?
Does it believe that the existing regulatory mechanisms, resting as they do on private storage
subsidies, are enough to achieve the objective of regulating the market during and between marketing
seasons?

2. What does it believe the impact of the current proposal will be on Portuguese olive growers’ incomes?

3. What is its reason for abolishing export refunds in the olive oil sector, specifically with regard to the
manufacture of certain preserved food, given that this subsidy has an effect on the promotion of the
use of olive oil? Does it not believe that reintroducing the abolished consumption aids would provide
a solution, not only in terms of promoting olive oil, but also of controlling its production?

(1) COM(2003) final.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

The intervention mechanism was abolished at the time of the 1998 reform. Since then, except for very
limited periods, market prices have been higher than the former intervention price. Olive growers have
therefore not suffered a loss of income, and it has been possible to avoid encouraging production based on
quantity rather than quality and oriented towards sales to intervention agencies. Such production could
have led to a general fall in the prices paid to growers and hence to a reduction in their income.

The principles of the latest reform involves regulating production according to market demand, as is
already largely the case in the olive-oil sector. It therefore does not appear necessary to change the current
situation, and the Commission proposes maintaining the private storage system simply as a safety net to
be activated in the event of a crisis.