WRITTEN QUESTION E-0893/04 by Werner Langen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Costs of cross-border transfer payments.
Date: 2004-03-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: application of EU law, bank charges, consumer protection, credit transfer, free movement of capital, law of banking

C 84 E/904

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

With regard to the second and third parts of the question, the Commission would like to draw the
Honourable Member’s attention to its answer to Written Questions P-376/04 by Mrs Luciana Sbarbati (1)
(in particular paragraphs 2 and 3) and P-0528/03 by Mrs Bastos (2) (in particular paragraph 2).

The Commission is aware of the phenomenon of business relocations in the European Union. This
problem is related mainly to concerns about de-industrialisation, regarding which the Commission gave a
preliminary response to the request of the 2003 European Council in its communication ‘Some Key Issues
in Europe’s Competitiveness (cid:1) Towards an Integrated Approach’ (3). In fact, several Community policies
help to create a favourable climate for businesses in Europe.

While continuing this work, the Commission also intends to carry out further analysis of the concept of
de-industrialisation and to make specific proposals for action in its forthcoming communication on
industrial policy.

(1) See page 204.
(2) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003.
(3) COM(2003) 704 final.

(2004/C 84 E/0999)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0893/04

by Werner Langen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject: Costs of cross-border transfer payments

At the beginning of July 2003, Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 (1) of the European Parliament and of the
Council on cross-border payments in euro entered into force, under which cross-border transfers within
the euro zone must be treated in the same way as transfers within a Member State.

In a specific case where a transfer was made from the Stadtsparkasse Köln to the Crédit Lyonnais, the
receiving bank imposed a charge for the transfer even though the IBA number and BI code were stated.

As this is a violation of Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001:

1.

are banks (cid:1) particularly receiving banks (cid:1) permitted to impose transfer charges of their own despite
the new regulation?

2.

if not, can the amount be reclaimed?

3. what action can the Commission take to deal with such cases?

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

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2004)

According to Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2001
on cross-border payments in euro, the charges levied by an institution in respect of cross-border electronic
payment transactions in euro shall be the same as the charges levied by the same institution in respect of
corresponding domestic payments in euro. This rule applies to electronic payment transactions (payments
by card and withdrawals at cash dispensers) in euro up to EUR 12 500 from 1 July 2002 and to credit
transfers from 1 July 2003.

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/905

This rule means that charges taken to the originator shall be the same as for a national payment. The same
applies to charges taken to the beneficiary. In most countries, as a general rule, charges are not applied to
the beneficiary. However, it may happen that, for specific operations (non standard payments like, for
example, credit transfers where the originator has indicated that the beneficiary should take all the charges)
the beneficiary is charged for a cross-border transfer. The charge may not be higher, however, than the
corresponding national payment. The Commission issued an interpretative note on practical aspects of
implementation of Article 3 of Regulation 2560/2001 and in particular the notion of ‘corresponding
payments’
the
Regulation.

to eliminate any ambiguity in this respect and ensure a correct

implementation of

The information given by the Honourable Member in his written question on the specific transfer made
from the Stadtsparkasse Köln to the Crédit Lyonnais does not allow the Commission to conduct a more
detailed analysis. Further information would be needed in this regard.

As regards the enforcement of the Regulation, national authorities should guarantee that it is applied
adequately and consistently. Article 7 of the Regulation indicates that the compliance shall be guaranteed
by effective, proportionate and deterrent sanctions. This does not prevent citizens from trying to get
redress also from their bank directly.

(2004/C 84 E/1000)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0895/04

by Jan Andersson (PSE) to the Commission

(19 March 2004)

Subject: Dispute concerning port dues in Helsingborg

The Helsingborg port company and SweFerry AB have been in dispute over port dues since 1997.
The issue was referred to the Commission in the same year. In 2002, I asked the Commission when it
would state its position. Now, in the spring of 2004, the Commission has still not stated its position.
When does it intend to do so?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2004)

The Honourable Member refers to complaints by two ferry-operators alleging an abuse of a dominant
position by the Port of Helsingborg concerning excessive and discriminatory pricing. Since the previous
written question E-3064/01 (1) by the Honourable Member on this matter, the Commission has progressed
noticeably in its examination of these very complex cases.

In February 2003, the Commission informed the complainants in writing of its preliminary position, in
respect of which the complainants have submitted their comments. The Port of Helsingborg has also
presented its views on the Commission’s preliminary position and on the comments of the complainants.
In addition, the Commission has requested and obtained further data from the parties as well as from third
parties. On the basis of all this information, the Commission is now preparing the final decision which is
expected to be adopted before the end of 2004.

(1) OJ C 147 E, 20.6.2002.