Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 92002E000212

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0212/02 by Bruno Gollnisch (NI) to the Commission. Persistence of exchange rates within the euro Union.

OJ C 161E, 10.7.2003, pp. 2–3 (ES, DA, DE, EL, EN, FR, IT, NL, PT, FI, SV)

European Parliament's website

92002E0212

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0212/02 by Bruno Gollnisch (NI) to the Commission. Persistence of exchange rates within the euro Union.

Official Journal 161 E , 10/07/2003 P. 0002 - 0003


WRITTEN QUESTION P-0212/02

by Bruno Gollnisch (NI) to the Commission

(30 January 2002)

Subject: Persistence of exchange rates within the euro Union

It is now two years since the official introduction of the euro in the form of cheques and postal orders, and one month since the introduction of euro notes and coins throughout the Union. All exchange rate charges between banks within the euro zone should have disappeared, but the fact is this is simply not so.

Cheques issued in one country of the euro zone and cashed in another are still subject to the same bank charges; withdrawal of cash or visa card payments in a country other than that of issue are charged for; even international transfers between accounts are still subject to significant bank charges, which used to be justified in the past in terms of exchange rate operations which no longer take place. These abuses are an affront to the principle of freedom of movement of capital and services provided for in the Treaty of Rome, and to the single financial market, whose establishment was so trumpeted by the Treaty of Maastricht.

They completely nullify the main advantage claimed by the backers of the single currency, namely the disappearance of exchange rate charges.

Is the Commission going to put an end to these manifest affronts to the freedom of movement of capital services and to the principle of a single financial market?

Does the fact that bank charges remain as high as ever, despite the fact that they are no longer subject to exchange rate fluctuations, not constitute an abuse?

Does the fact that this abuse is standard practice not point to illegal understandings between various of the major players within the European banking system?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2002)

The Commission's interest in the cost of cross-border transactions goes back more than ten years. Its aim is to create a single payments area within which there will be no difference between a domestic payment and a cross-border payment. It was with this in mind that in July 2001 the Commission presented a proposal for a regulation that stipulated among other things that charges for cross-border payments in euros should be identical to charges levied on euro transactions within the country of origin.

Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 on cross-border payments in euros(1) was adopted on 19 December 2001 and some of its provisions entered into force on 31 December 2001. Where denominated in euros, charges for cash withdrawals at automated teller machines and for using payment cards must be identical in the case of domestic and cross-border transactions as of 1 July 2002. Until that date, banks and credit card companies may retain a different price structure for cross-border payments in euros.

The same principle of equality of charges between a strictly domestic payment and a cross-border payment in euros will apply to transfers as from 1 July 2003.

However, this principle will not apply to cheques (see here the Commission's reply to Written Question E-3681/01 by Mrs Banotti(2)).

(1) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001.

(2) See page 2.

Top