WRITTEN QUESTION E-3655/03 by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Counterfeiting of euro notes and coins.
Date: 2003-12-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Economic and Monetary Union, economic offence, euro, industrial counterfeiting, paper money

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/77

The section of the guide concerning the provisions of Article 7 of Directive 79/409/CEE is already avail-
able in three languages on the following website: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/sustain-
able_hunting.htm)

the judgement

in this case has been delivered,

the Commission is proceeding with the
Now that
finalisation of the guide. This will entail completion of the technical and legal revisions of the text and its
translation, initially into French and German. The Commission intends to make the guide available early in
2004 to the Parliament’s Environment Committee, the Intergroup on ‘Fieldsports, Fishing & Conservation’
and individual Members of Parliament who have requested the document.

The objective of the guide is to assist Member States and other relevant interests in the implementation of
the hunting provisions of the Directive. The guide will reflect all the relevant judgements of the Court of
Justice on this subject, including the latest judgement in relation to the provisions of Article 9(1)(c) of the
Directive.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2004/C 84 E/0082)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3655/03

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Counterfeiting of euro notes and coins

Information is now coming to light that forged euro notes are being detected with great frequency in
Eurozone countries. In Greece, in fact, even counterfeit EUR 2 coins have been detected, while the same
source alleges that there is a factory producing forged euro notes in Bulgaria and another producing
counterfeit coins in Turkey. Eurobarometer’s report No 58 sets out the results of a survey demonstrating
that a large number of Eurozone citizens still feel psychologically attached to their former national
currencies, while the euro is also seen as responsible for prices being rounded up. The European Central
Bank has announced that it has formed, in partnership with the major banknote issuing authorities, the
Central Bank Counterfeit Deterrence Group (CBCDG).

Does the Commission consider that the general preparation for the euro’s introduction was adequate, and
that measures to prevent forgery were taken early enough?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 2004)

The fact that the euro was introduced with so little difficulty shows that the preparation was indeed
adequate, not only by the Commission but by all the players. In the words of the Communication (1) from
the Commission to the European Council ‘Review of the introduction of euro notes and coins’: ‘This major
success is due to the quality and extremely thorough nature of the preparations made by the participating
Member States, the European institutions (the European Central Bank and the European Commission), the
national central banks, financial institutions, sales outlets, the police and cash-transport firms and to the
active and enthusiastic participation of the public, without which this operation and the rapid distribution
of euros would not have been possible’ (2).

The public perception of the euro’s introduction is taken seriously by the Commission which will, in 2004,
intensify its communication on the euro and economic and monetary union. Part of the effort will be
designed to dispel the erroneous perception that the euro has lead to price rises and part will concentrate
on good news such as the reduction of costs for cross-border payments.

A substantial number of measures, aimed at increasing the level of the protection of the euro banknotes
and coins against counterfeiting, have been taken by the Commission, the European Central Bank (ECB)
and Europol as well as the Member States.

C 84 E/78

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

These include:

(cid:1) Setting-up the legal framework and mechanisms for enhanced collaboration between all authorities
competent for the fight against counterfeiting (law enforcement, central banks including those of
acceding and third countries, Finance Ministries, etc.) at the level of Member States and European
Institutions-bodies;

(cid:1) Reinforcement of the penal measures against counterfeiting;

(cid:1) Intense training for all those concerned, general and specialised, at national, Union and international
level, for 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.

Overall, the measures taken at European and at national level to prevent and repress euro counterfeiting
have raised the level of protection and have increased security for the citizen.

These measures were taken prior to the introduction of the euro banknotes and coins. In particular, the
Europol mandate was extended to the counterfeiting of money in 1999; increased penal protection was
decided in May 2000 (3) in terms of setting minimum sanctions and extending the scope of punishable
acts; and Council Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 (4), which lays down measures for the protection of the
euro against counterfeiting, was adopted in June 2001.

(1) COM(2002) 124 final.
(2) Europaper No 44 (cid:1) April 2002.
(3) Council Framework Decision of 29 May 2000, OJ L 140, 14.6.2000.
(4) Council Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 of 28 June 2001 laying down measures necessary for the protection of the
euro against counterfeiting, OJ L 181, 4.7.2001. Extended to those Member States that have not adopted the euro
as their single currency in Council Regulation (EC) No 1339/2001 of 28 June 2001, OJ L 181, 4.7.2001.

(2004/C 84 E/0083)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3668/03

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE)
and María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco (PSE) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Impact of the enlargement of the port of Altea on flora and fauna

Various universities, ecological organisations and citizens’ groups, along with the two authors of this
question, have been alerting the Commission to the major consequences which the work on enlarging the
Campomanes Port in Altea will have, particularly on the posidonia beds and the dolphin population. The
Commission itself, which has directly approached the Spanish authorities in order to assess the case,
knows that the autonomous government intends to transplant the 40 hectares of posidonia threatened by
the building work. However, this option has been discounted as ‘not viable’ by most experts, given the
difficulties involved in replanting posidonia, and the fact that the dolphin community currently inhabiting
the area of the posidonia beds, is highly dependent on them.

The Commission’s answer to Written Question P-1450/03 (1) of 23 May 2003 stated that it was continuing
to study the case, and would shortly take a decision.

Could the Commission please specify what conclusions were reached in its investigation into the
environmental impact of the work on extending the port of Altea?

What decisions has it taken on this issue to date?

Do the Commission’s experts agree with the opinions emanating from the area’s universities on the ‘non-
viability’ of the autonomous government’s solution, namely transplanting the posidonia beds?

(1) OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 716.