EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Brussels, 22.6.2022
COM(2022) 295 final
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL
on the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 on the professional cross-border transport of euro cash by road between euro-area Member States pursuant to article 26 of this Regulation
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL
on the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 on the professional cross-border transport of euro cash by road between euro-area Member States pursuant to article 26 of this Regulation
1.Introduction
Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 on the professional cross-border transport of euro cash by road between euro-area Member States 1 entered into force on 30 November 2012. Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011 requires the Commission to submit a report on its implementation to the European Parliament and the Council by 1 December 2016 and every five years thereafter. The report must, in particular, examine the possibility of establishing common training requirements for the carrying of arms by security staff of cash-in-transit ('CIT') companies and of amending Article 24 of that Regulation in the light of Directive 96/71/EC 2 , take due account of technological progress in the area of IBNS 3 , consider the potential added value of granting Union CIT licences on a group basis and assess whether Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011 should be revised accordingly 4 .
A first review was done in 2016 5 . For this review, based on questionnaires, the Commission consulted the stakeholders in the sector including the social partners as well as Members States 6 . The report is based on the replies to the questionnaires.
2.General background
2.1.Context
2.1.1.Set of common rules applying to cross-border transport of euro cash
The introduction of the euro has increased the need for cross-border transport of cash by road in euro area Member States. Within the euro area, banks, the retail sector and other professional cash handlers should be able to contract with CIT companies that offer the best price and/or service and to take advantage of the cash services of the nearest national central bank branch or CIT cash centre, even if it is located in another Member State. Furthermore, Members States whose currency is the euro ('participating Member States') have arranged or may want to arrange for euro banknotes and coins to be produced abroad. Retailers and banks located in border areas may wish to obtain their supplies from the cash centre nearest to them, which is not necessarily in the same Member State. The very principle of a single currency implies the freedom to move cash between participating Member States.
A full harmonisation of CIT transport in participating Member States was not considered feasible, nor was a system considered appropriate where authorisation in one Member State would be valid in all Member States ('mutual recognition'). Therefore, Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011 lays down a set of common rules valid in all Member States, without prejudice to national rules for certain aspects explicitly indicated in the Regulation. It does not involve full harmonisation as the common rules apply only to cross-border transport.
2.1.2.Application to transport by road of participating Member States and of Member States that prepare to adopt the euro
Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011 applies to transport of euro cash by road, given that it is the most common (if not the only) transport arrangement for euro cash in border regions and the only one for which a need for a set of common rules on cross-border CIT was identified. Transport by air and sea is not covered 7 . Therefore, Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011 applies de facto only to cross-border transport between participating Member States which have a land border with another participating Member State 8 . In a cross-border transport, the cross-border dimension could arise from one or more of three elements: the Member State of origin of the CIT company, the host Member State (other than the Member State of origin) in which a CIT company provides the transport service, and/or the Member State of transit which the vehicle crosses in order to reach the host Member State or to return to the Member State of origin.
The rules on cross-border transport of euro cash laid down by Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011 only apply in relation to participitating Member States 9 .
In the run-up to the euro changeover in a Member State, euro cash may need to be transported from participating Member States to the Member State preparing for the changeover. Therefore, pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 55/2013 10 , Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011 applies also to Member States preparing to adopt the euro.
2.2.Core elements of Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011
2.2.1.Cross-border CIT licence
Given the potential threats to the security of security staff of CIT companies and the general public associated with the activity of transporting cash, the cross-border transport of euro cash is subject to holding a specific cross-border CIT-licence 11 . National authorities must grant the licence for a period of five years subject to the conditions CIT companies must meet in line with Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011, such as defined requirements for CIT security staff or general CIT vehicle requirements and other prerequisites 12 .
The CIT licences are registered in the Internal Market Information System (IMI) to allow public authorities to access the licences easily 13 .
CIT staff carrying out cross-border CIT transport under Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011 are entitled to the minimum rates of pay applying in host Member States under the conditions mentioned in Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011 14 .
2.2.2.Cross-border transport of euro cash
The cross-border CIT licence grants, within the limits set by Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011, the right to transport euro banknotes and coins cross-border by road, to be carried out during daylight and only if both the majority of the pick-up or delivery is in the host Member State and the value of euro cash is at least 80% of the total cash value transported in the vehicle 15 . It should be noted that some specific transport arrangements are explictly exempted from the scope of the Regulation notwithstanding the fact that they fall within the definition of cross-border transport of euro cash by road, such as point-to-point transports to and from national central banks or cash production sites 16 .
2.2.3.Applicable transport arrangements
Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011 provides for five types of transport arrangements for euro banknotes and two for euro coins, defining the conditions of each, such as vehicle armouring, the use of Intelligent Banknotes Neutralisation Systems (IBNS) or the presence of CIT security staff 17 . The participating Member States decide which of those transport arrangements to apply in their territory 18 .
2.2.4.Role of Intelligent Banknotes Neutralisation Systems (IBNS) and removal of neutralised banknotes
Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011 seeks to facilitate the use of IBNS, as the use of IBNS is expected to improve CIT security for CIT security staff and the public 19 . CIT companies operating under Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011 must remove neutralised banknotes from circulation, to ensure that such notes are no longer used for payment operations 20 .
2.2.5.Host country rules applying to transport: national police force, public security rules and carrying of firearms
CIT aspects not covered by the common rules of Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011 are governed by national law, subject to the general rules of the Treaty (such as the principle of non-discrimination) and must be respected in the host country by the CIT company carrying out the cross-border transport. Such national rules concern the role of the police force (such as prior notification, escorting or distant remote tracking) 21 , security rules on cash delivery or pick-up at locations 22 and rules on firearms 23 .
2.3.Notification and information duties
Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011 provides for a range of information duties for CIT licence holders, participating Member States and the Commission.
Licence holders must inform the participating Member State of the intended start of cross-border transport. Participating Member States must inform each other of cross-border business notified by the CIT companies acting under Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011 24 . The Commission publishes on the Europa website 25 all information on IBNS homologated by participating Member States 26 , the national rules on the role of police forces and on security of locations where the cash is delivered to or picked up, the national CIT training requirements 27 , the credentials of the national granting authority and the host administration to which the start of cross-border transport has to be notified 28 . Finally, the Commission publishes the applicable transport arrangements as chosen by the participating Member States in the Official Journal of the European Union 29 .
2.4.Compliance checks, penalties and emergency security measures
In order to guarantee a high level of security in cross-border CIT transport, participating Member States can carry out compliance checks on CIT companies acting in their territory under Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011 30 . Penalties can be applied in case of non-compliance further to the conditions laid down in Article 22 of Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011. Finally, temporary security measures can be decided by the competent authorities in the event of an urgent problem significantly affecting the security of CIT operations 31 .
3.Implementation of Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011 and of the recommendations of the 2016 report
3.1.Application for and granting of cross-border CIT licences
3.1.1.Application for and granting of cross-border CIT licences
In line with the findings of the 2016 report, the administrative procedure for licence granting seems to work smoothly. On the whole, CIT companies did not report specific issues 32 with regard to the provision of documents and evidence needed for application. Furthermore, Member State authorities did not encounter particular problems with issuing the cross-border CIT licenses. All licence applications by responding CIT companies resulted in granted licenses 33 and there have been no noteworthy incidents with registration in the IMI.
The vast majority of participating Member State authorities and a majorityof licence holders consider the five-year duration of the cross-border CIT licence appropriate, and do not see a need for extension of its validity.One Member State and 4 of the 11 CIT companies responding to the survey consider that a ten-year duration would be more appropriate for the validity of the CIT license 34 .
In general, most responding stakeholders do not see added value in granting CIT licences on a group basis. As outlined by Member States in the consultation, such a possibility would imply giving licences for companies acting in different Member States without knowing if regulations in those Member States are complied with. Another difficult aspect to manage in the context of group licences mentioned in the consultation is related to sanctions for infringement: if the licence would be withdrawn for one of the companies in the group, how would that influence the licences of the other companies in the group?However, as one responding Member State suggests, a simplified procedure among companies of the same group could be more suitable under certain conditions. While acknowledging that different national legislation would make group licenses difficult to implement, 4 of the 11 responding CITs consider that these group licenses would make things easier for them. Overall, the Commission understands that such licences would result in a lack of oversight on and control in CIT companies and would complicate checking measures in place. Therefore, the Commission does not consider granting of CIT licences on a group basis a viable option in the near future.
3.1.2.CIT licences in numbers and figures
Eight Member States (out of the 14 participating Member States) have isssued CIT licences to date. Eleven licences were issued within one year of the entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011. To date 35 , 22 cross-border CIT licences have been granted and are currently active: France (3), Germany (6), Italy (3), the Netherlands (1), Austria (2), Spain (1), Slovakia (4) and Slovenia (2) 36 . Germany has granted the largest proportion of licences (27%), followed by Slovakia (18%), together accounting for nearly half of all licences 37 . Interestingly, there are no licences from Belgium and Luxembourg, although both Member States belong to an area with six geographically concentrated borders, within a radius of less than 250 km, having a high population density, a large concentration of businesses, and they are surrounded by one small and two large neighbouring participating Member States 38 .
According to the survey responses, 4 of the 11 responding CIT companies are using their licenses daily or several times per month. 2 CITs did not provide a response to this question, and 5 said that they did not use their licence. Several CIT licences holders report that they have not yet used their licences yet, as the business opportunities they expected to gain with the licence did not materialise (they had no demand for cross-border cash transport services).
3.1.3.Notification of and information on cross-border CIT activity and requirements
Three responding Member States (out of 13 respondents) confirm that, after having granted a CIT cross-border licence to a CIT company, they have been notified about the start of its cross-border activity. At the same time, 4 responding Member States say they have been notified through information from another euro area Member State about a CIT company from that Member State preparing to carry out a CIT cross-border activity in their country. Considering the constributions of the Member States to the 2021 consultation, it can be concluded that Member States find it difficult to acquire a clear overview on cross border CIT actually carried out on their territory.
The Commission has published all relevant cross-border CIT information as required by Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011 39 .
In its 2016 report, the Commission recommended that participating Member States should put appropriate procedures in place to get a better overview on cross-border CIT transport taking place on their territory. This would increase the quality of data needed for a continued discussion on the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011 and on options for possible legislative amendments. However, the 2021 consultation shows that Member States did not follow this recommendation.
3.2.Use of IBNS when transporting euro banknotes and technical progress of IBNS technology
Almost half of the CIT companies responding to the questionnaire report that they use IBNS in cross-border CIT transport, when it is obligatory 40 in the host, transit or home country. Belgium is the only participating Member States in which vehicles equipped with IBNS must be used to transport banknotes.
Several responding stakeholders consider that that the homologation or certification of IBNS systems should be further streamlined, i.e. through a uniform IBNS certification valid for the entire euro area.
While other technologies are also used by CIT companies 41 , staining devices are the most common IBNS technologies used 42 and are expected to remain the preferred technology in the market in the coming years 43 .
3.3.CIT staff remuneration at the minimum rate of pay of host Member State at least
CIT licence holders did not report any problems with the application of remuneration rules of Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011. Pursuant to Article 24 of the Regulation, cross-border CIT security staff are subject to the relevant minimum rates of pay, including overtime rates, of the host Member State. Given that the relevant provisions of Directive 96/71/EC 44 , to which Article 24 of Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011 refers, have been changed between the entry into force of this Regulation and this review, the Commission notes that the rights of the CIT staff falling under this Article have been strengthened. The reference made to Directive 96/71/EC is a dynamic one, which means that the changes made to it by Directive (EU) 2018/957 are applicable to the text of Article 24 and thus guarantee all the relevant rights to CIT staff falling under the scope of this Article.
As a consequence, CIT security staff carrying out cross-border transport now have the right to “remuneration”, which includes “all the constituent elements of remuneration rendered mandatory” by law or universally or otherwise applicable collective agreements in the host Member State.
3.4.Compliance with the law of the Member State of origin, transit and host Member State
3.4.1.Rules on role of the police force and security rules on cash delivery or pick-up
The Commission has not been made aware of any noteworthy incidents or problems related to the obligation to abide by host Member State rules on the role of the police force (such as prior notification, escorting or distant remote tracking) or security rules on cash delivery or pick-up at location. Thus, the Commission sees no need to suggest changes in that regard.
3.4.2.Carrying of firearms
The national rules on the carrying of firearms of the host Member State apply during cross-border CIT transport. Those rules vary widely, with some Member States allowing the carrying of firearms, while others either require or prohibit it, or permit a mixture of options according to each distinct transport arrangement. Two of the four responding CITs which use their licences said that this diversity limits certain cross-border CIT opportunities. One CIT (which is perfoming activities in Italy and in Vatican) said that it did not have issues because the rules are the same in both states. Another CIT said that – in principle – it did not encounter difficulties to abide by the rules applying in the neighbouring countries.
Responding Member States confirmed that, given the existing differences in national legislation with regard to the carrying of firearms, there is no added value to common training requirements.
3.5.Transport arrangements set by the host Member State
As the participating Member States may choose which transport arrangement for euro banknotes applies to its territory for cross-border CIT, a very heterogeneous cross-border playing field has emerged 45 . This results in some situations in which the respective applicable transport arrangements of the Member State of origin and host Member State match poorly, making cross-border CIT transports subject to major investment on the provider side or unprofitable given their occasional character. As an example, IBNS equipment is mandatory for CIT transports in Belgium whereas in Germany it is not. CIT companies operating in Austria transport euro banknotes in unarmoured CIT vehicles of ordinary appearance equipped with IBNS but when transporting to Germany they need a fully-armoured CIT vehicle with three CIT security staff.
Three responding Member States consider that the last review’s suggestion to possibly consider the introduction of the Member State of origin principle for transport arrangements could be beneficial and could lead to enhancing the potential of cross-border CIT transport: the demand for the cross border CIT licence and the number of cross-border CIT transports would increase in practice.
3.6.Compliance checks, possible sanctions and special measures by participating Member States
No problems were brought to the Commission's notice with regard to compliance tests and random inspections, it being understood that some participating Member States lack information on cross-border CIT transports actually taking place in their territory. Furthermore, the Commission was not informed of any emergency security measures or of any application of sanctions. The Commission therefore considers the relevant rules in Regulation(EU) No 1214/2011 appropriate.
3.7.Information campaign contributing to the efficiency of Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011 and possibly increasing the number of CIT licences
The 2016 report recommended that an information campaign targeting the cash demand side (banks, supermarkets, retailers) and CIT companies to make more use of matching transport arrangements should be carried out to contribute to the efficiency of Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011 and to possibly increase the number of CIT licences. None of the responding Member States has yet followed this recommendation.
3.8.Environmental impact of the CIT operations
In their responses to the 2021 consultation, CIT companies commented that they have not undertaken any recent, specific ‘greening’ measures in order to make their CIT transports more ecologically friendly, as such measures would be unlikely to result in increased cross-border operations. Several companies added that they use the latest vehicle models in their operations, and that these models are more environmental friendly.
4.Conclusions
4.1.Points of review specifically indicated in Article 26
With regard to the points of specific examination stipulated in Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011, the conclusions of the report are as follows:
1) there is currently no need for common training requirements for the carrying of arms by CIT staff given the diversity of national rules for the carrying of firearms,
2) the relevant provisions of Directive 96/71/EC to which Article 24 refers have been changed between the entry into force of this Regulation and this review in a way that strengthens the rights of posted workers. 46 . Article 24 on remuneration does not need to be amended as the reference made to Directive 96/71/EC is a dynamic one and thus all the relevant rights deriving from the amending Directive (EU) 2018/957 are equally applicable to the CIT staff concerned.
3) a system that allows for licence granting on a group basis is not needed, and 4) there is no major technological change in the area of IBNS which would imply a revision of Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011. The Commission has therefore not needed to make use of its empowerment to adopt delegated acts 47 on IBNS to date, nor have there been any indications of a need for delegated acts on other security features such as vehicle armouring and bulletproof vests.
4.2.Optimisation of professional cross-border transport of euro cash by road
Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011 entered into force on 29 November 2012. It is necessary that participating Member States put procedures in place to get a better overview on cross-border CIT transport actually taking place in their territory. However, the fact that only 22 licences are currently 48 active in just 8 of the 14 participating Member States seems to indicate that Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011 is not implemented to its full potential, especially because in one geographically concentrated border area characterised by both a high population density and a high concentration of businesses (Benelux and neighbouring countries) very little cross-border transport seems to take place. A better implementation of the Regulation resulting in more cross-border CIT licences and a larger choice of companies carrying out cross-border CIT transports would also accommodate a potential need for contingency planning. Options for an improved implementation of the CIT Regulation are a simplified definition of cross-border transport and the application of a 'Member State of origin principle' to transport arrangements.
4.2.1.Better definition of cross-border transport by road
The current definition of cross-border transport (Article 1(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011 49 ) may be at the origin of the limited number of licence holders as it excludes potential cross-border CIT transports.
As part of the definition, a majority rule must be respected according to which the majority of euro cash deliveries/pick-ups made by a CIT vehicle during the same day is carried out on the territory of the host Member State to qualify for cross-border CIT transport under Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011. This hinders smaller CIT companies, which mainly carry out CIT transports in their Member State of origin, from entering the cross-border CIT market given that 'occasional' (minority) CIT transports in the host Member State do not qualify for the cross-border licence. This prevents them from testing the foreign market and making new customers.
The same consideration goes for the restriction set by Article 1(b) pursuant to which, to qualify for the licence, non-euro cash transported in the CIT vehicle must not exceed 20% of the total value of cash transported in the same CIT vehicle.
According to the replies to the consultations carried out in the context of the current report, a better definition of cross-border transport by road could lead to an increase of the sector’s activity.
4.2.2.Application of transport arrangements
Another proposal to better use the potential of cross-border CIT transport could be to apply the Member State of origin principle for transport arrangements.. A CIT company licenced in its participating Member State of origin would then be in a position to use its CIT vehicle for cross-border CIT transports to the host country following one of the transport arrangements provided for in Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011. Such an approach would spare CIT companies unnecessary financial investments (such as upgrading to IBNS or diversifying its CIT vehicle fleet) they would currently have to make in order to satisfy host Member State transport arrangements that mismatch with transport arrangements in the Member State of origin.
However, as the results of the consultation for this report show, domestic regulations reflect risk patterns within each countries which could be difficult to harmonise. Furthermore, should the Member State of origin principle be applied, there could be a risk that a number of companies would try to operate in higly regulated Member States from low regulated Member States, thus distorting competition 50 .
4.2.3.Broadening the scope of the CIT license
The consultation for this report gathered stakeholders’ views on the possibility to broaden the scope of the CIT license to cover also other types of professional cross-border CIT in the euro area which are not falling under the current CIT Regulations. All stakeholders which replied to this question agree that there is no need for such a broadening of the scope.
5.Recommendations on the way forward
The results of the present review are very similar to the ones of the 2016 report, therefore the recommendations of this report are also in line with the ones of the 2016 review of the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011:
·Participating Member States should increase their efforts to put appropriate procedures in place to get a better overview on cross-border CIT transport taking place on their territory. This would increase the quality of data needed for a continued discussion on the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011 and on suggestions under consideration for possible legislative amendments.
·An information campaign targeting the cash demand side (banks, supermarkets, retailers) and CIT companies to make more use of matching transport arrangements should be carried out to contribute to the efficiency of Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011 and to possibly increase the number of CIT licences.
·Participating Member States should seek to apply a wider range of applicable transport arrangements provided for by Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011 on their territory to enhance the potential of cross-border CIT transport under the Regulation in its present form for the benefit of euro cash users.
·The Commission will commission an external study in order to assess the current economic situation on the cross-border CIT market, review the rules in place in Member States and assess the level of disparities between them. The study should also evaluate the economic costs and benefits of following options for enhancing cross-border CIT activity by legislative improvements of Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011:
·Appropriate definition of cross-border transport focusing on the cross-border aspect and common rules applying in the host Member State and Member State of transit:
a. A review of the rule that cross-border transportation of euro cash by road is only covered by the CIT licence if the majority of cash deliveries or pick-ups are carried out in the host Member State.
b. A reexamination of the condition that non-euro cash transported in the CIT vehicle must not be more than 20% in relation to the total value of cash transported in the same CIT vehicle.
c. A review of the remuneration and application of terms and conditions of employment of CIT security staff carrying out cross-border transport (Article 24) in light of the amendments of Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 96/71/EC by Directive (EU) 2018/957.
·Without prejudice to the national firearms rules applying to the participating Member States, application of the Member State of origin principle to the transport arrangements provided for in Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011, including appropriate harmonisation requirements.
·Should the Commission conclude, in light of its assessment of the conclusions of this external study and in line with the principles of better regulation, that an overall revision of Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011 is needed, this revision should also include the necessary amendments to article 24 in light of the amendments made to Directive 96/71/EC by Directive (EU) 2018/957, in order to guarantee legal clarity and certainty.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Brussels, 22.6.2022
COM(2022) 295 final
ANNEXES
to the
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL
on the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 on the professional cross-border transport of euro cash by road between euro-area Member States pursuant to article 26 of this Regulation
ANNEX I
Questionnaire addressed to euro-area Member States
on the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011
1) Have you encountered any difficulties in checking the criteria that CIT companies have to fulfil in order to be granted a CIT cross-border licence? Did those difficulties lead to any licence refusals?
2) After having granted a CIT cross-border licence to a CIT company, have you ever been notified about the start of its cross-border activity?
3) Have you ever been notified through information from another euro-area Member State about a CIT company from that MS preparing to carry out a CIT cross-border activity in your country?
4) Do you think five years is an appropriate period of validity (as it stands today) for the CIT cross-border licences? If not, what would the appropriate period be?
5) Do you think CIT cross-border licences should be granted on a group basis (several companies belonging to the same holding being granted 1 licence as a group)? Why?
6) Do you think common training requirements on carrying weapons (see general rules on weapons in Article 6 of the Regulation) would be needed to make cross-border CIT more efficient? Why?
7) Some aspects of professional cross-border transportation of euro cash by road are excluded from the CIT licence, e.g. cross-border transportation in the event only a minority of the pick-ups or deliveries is carried out in the host country (see Article 1 (b) of the Regulation). For this type of cross-border transportation only the law of the host country would apply and CIT companies would need a national licence from this country.
a) Can you quantify how much professional cross-border transportation of euro cash not falling in the ambit of the CIT Regulation is carried out in your country?
b) Do you think that the CIT licence should be broadened to cover also (certain types) of professional cross-border CIT in the euro area which are not falling in the ambit of the current CIT Regulation? 1 Which ones? Why?
8) Have you put appropriate procedures in place to get a better overview on cross-border CIT transport taking place on your territory? Which procedures? If so, have these procedures led to an increase in the quality of data regarding cross-border CIT transport taking place on your territory?
9) Do you know how much professional cross-border transportation of euro cash falling within the ambit of the CIT Regulation is carried out in your country annually (number of companies operating in your country, number of transportation, destinations, etc. …)?
10) Have you carried out an information campaign targeting the cash demand side (banks, supermarkets, retailers) and CIT companies to make more use of cross-border CIT licences in general, and of matching transport arrangements in particular?
11) Further to the last review Member States were invited to apply a wider range of applicable transport arrangements provided for by Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011 on their territory to enhance the potential of cross-border CIT transport under the Regulation. Have you done so? If not, why?
12) The last review suggested to possibly consider the introduction of the Member State of origin principle for transport arrangements to better use the potential of cross-border CIT transport 2 . Do you think that, if such a principle were to be applied, the demand for the cross border CIT licence and the number of cross-border CIT transports would increase in practice?
13) Do you think that the homologation or certification of IBNS systems should be further streamlined, i.e. through a uniform IBNS certification valid for the entire euro area?
14) Are there any other observations you would like to make?
Questionnaire to companies with a licence for cross-border transportation of euro cash by road (companies registered in the Internal Market Information System)
on their experience and for suggestions
1) Why did you apply for a cross-border licence?(e.g. concrete business opportunities in the host country, favourable legal conditions applying in the host country, location / logistics etc.)?
2) Have you been able to easily provide the information and documents necessary for the competent authority to grant you the licence?
a) Are you using the cross border licence? How often?
b) To which euro-area Member States do you transport euro cash?
c) If you have not used the licence yet, what were the reasons (e.g. no cross-border market/demand, rules on the use of weapons in the host country, transport arrangements, language requirements, minimum wage, daytime requirement, any other)?
3) When carrying out cross border transportation, did you encounter any difficulties to abide by the rules applying in the neighbouring country (e.g. weapon licences, police rules …)?
4) Do you think five years is an appropriate period of validity for the cross border licence? If not, what would be the appropriate period?
5) If you are part of a holding operating in several Member States: do you think it would be easier that Union cross-border licences are granted on a group basis? Why?
6) Have you used an Intelligent Banknote Neutralization System (‘IBNS’, e.g. staining devices) while carrying out cross-border transportation of euro cash? Would you use it even if were not mandatory (in your home and host country)?
7) Some types of professional cross-border transportation of euro cash by road are excluded from the licence.
Example 1: euro cash transportation to or from the host country if the transportation represents only a minority of the pick-ups or deliveries during the work shift.
Example 2: euro cash pick-up or delivery in the host country if during the transportation more than 20% of cash other than euro banknotes and coins is transported in parallel.
In these cases only the law of the host country would apply. CIT companies would need a national licence from this country and must follow national rules related thereto.
a) Would you make more use of your cross-border CIT licence if the rule that the majority of cash deliveries or pick-ups are to be carried out in the host Member State were lifted?
b) Would you expect to make more use of your cross-border CIT licence if limitation that non-euro cash transported in the CIT vehicle must not be more than 20% in relation to the total value of cash transported in the same CIT vehicle would be dropped?
c) Would you expect to make more use of your cross-border CIT licence if the specifications and features of your CIT vehicle as accepted in your country of origin were automatically accepted in the host country for the cross-border CIT transportation? 3
d) Do you think that the licence as granted under the current Regulation should be broadened otherwise to cover also certain other types of professional cross-border transportation of euro cash in the euro area 4 ? Which activities? Why?
8) If you have undertaken any recent ‘greening’ measures in order to make your CIT transports more ecologically friendly (i.e. eco-friendly drives with zero-emission trucks, lighter vehicles equipped with IBNS technology, optimized packaging system based on returnable cash boxes): Have you experienced or would you expect that these measures enhance cross-border transportation opportunities? Why?
9) Are there any other observations you would like to make?
Questionnaire addressed to ESTA
on the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011
1) Do you know how much professional cross-border transportation of euro cash falling within the ambit of the CIT Regulation is carried out by your members to or from the country were they are established (number of transportations, destinations, value transported, type of vehicle armouring, number of CIT staff on board etc. …)? How much is it compared to local/national CIT carried out by your companies? How would you explain the proportion between local/national and cross-border CIT?
2) What are the objective circumstances (if there are any) that justify in your view that professional transportation of euro cash by road is subject to both a CIT licence in the host country and national rules rather than subject to a European licence under the CIT-Regulation if less than half of the total value transported in a day shift (home and host country together) is transported in the host country?
3) What are the objective circumstances (if there are any) that justify in your view that professional transportation of euro cash by road in a host country is subject to both a CIT licence in the host country and national rules rather than subject to a European licence under the CIT-Regulation if more than 20 % of the total value of cash transported in the same CIT vehicle is non-euro cash?
4) The introduction of the Member State of origin principle for transport arrangements could possibly help to make better use the potential of cross-border CIT transportation 5 . Do you think that, if such a principle leading to more flexibility on the supply side were to be applied, the number of cross-border CIT licences and the number of cross-border CIT transports would increase in practice? Would more cross-border CIT create more benefits on the supply and demand side in terms of business opportunities and costs? Why?
5) Are there any other observations you would like to make on the CIT-Regulation?
Questionnaire addressed to ETUC
on the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011
1) Are the requirements for CIT security staff provided for in Article 5 (1) (c) on the minimum requirements for training on cross-border CIT appropriate? Please comment further as appropriate.
2) Has CIT security staff carrying out cross-border transportation in accordance with the CIT-Regulation experienced difficulties with being granted the relevant minimum rates of pay including overtime rates in the host Member State? How were problems encountered solved? Please comment further as appropriate.
3) Do you think five years is an appropriate period of validity (as it stands today) for the CIT cross-border licences? If not, what would the appropriate period be?
4) Do you think CIT cross-border licences should be granted on a group basis (several companies belonging to the same holding being granted 1 licence as a group)? Why?
5) Do you think common training requirements on carrying weapons (see general rules on weapons in Article 6 of the Regulation) would be needed to make cross-border CIT more efficient? Why?
6) Some aspects of professional cross-border transportation of euro cash by road are excluded from the CIT licence, e.g. cross-border transportation in the event only a minority of the pick-ups or deliveries is carried out in the host country (see Article 1 (b) of the Regulation). For this type of cross-border transportation only the law of the host country would apply and CIT companies would need a national licence from this country.
a) Can you quantify how much professional cross-border transportation of euro cash not falling in the ambit of the CIT Regulation is carried out by the CIT companies?
b) Do you think that the CIT licence should be broadened to cover also (certain types) of professional cross-border CIT in the euro area which are not falling in the ambit of the current CIT Regulation? 6 Which ones? Why?
7) Do you know how much professional cross-border transportation of euro cash falling within the ambit of the CIT Regulation is carried out to or from your country annually from CIT companies established in your country (number of companies operating in your country, number of transportation, destinations, etc. …)? How much is it compared to local/national CIT?
8) Further to the last review Member States were invited to apply a wider range of applicable transport arrangements provided for by Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011 on their territory to enhance the potential of cross-border CIT transport under the Regulation. Are you aware of any such arrangements applied by Member States, and of their effectiveness?
9) The last review suggested to possibly consider the introduction of the Member State of origin principle for transport arrangements to better use the potential of cross-border CIT transport 7 . Do you think that, if such a principle were to be applied, the demand for the cross border CIT licence and the number of cross-border CIT transports would increase in practice?
10) Do you think that the homologation or certification of IBNS systems should be further streamlined, i.e. through a uniform IBNS certification valid for the entire euro area?
11) Are there any other observations you would like to make?
Questionnaire addressed to EURICPA
on the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011
1) Have you experienced substantial obstacles in providing IBNS for cross-border CIT (e.g. because of national rules, special certification procedures etc.)? How were those obstacles solved?
2) Do you think that the homologation or certification of IBNS systems for cross-border CIT should be further streamlined, i.e. through a uniform IBNS certification valid for the entire euro area? Why? What would it mean in terms of business opportunities and costs?
3) Which intelligent banknote neutralization technology (ink, glue, other) would you expect to dominate the market in the next 10 years? Why? What would be its role for cross-border CIT in the future?
4) Are there any other observations you would like to make on the CIT-Regulation and on the role of IBNS?
Questionnaire addressed to Eurocommerce
on the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011
1. Can you quantify how much professional transportation of euro cash by road your members request to cash-in-tranist (CIT) companies from an euro area country other than that one where your member is operating (Example: A German CIT company provides euro cash services to a supermarket in the Netherlands. The supermarket is your member. The CIT company operates cross-border in the host country which is the client’s home country)? How much is this compared to transportation of euro cash your members request from locally or nationally operating CIT companies?
2. Have your members experienced major obstacles in receiving such transportation services cross-border compared to the situation where the transportation was carried by a CIT company established in the client’s home country? Which ones? How were they solved?
3. For which reasons do your members request a CIT company established in a neighbouring euro-area Member State rather than a CIT company established in the client’s country to transport euro cash to or from the member’s location (e.g. shorter distances, better logistics, transport conditions, price advantage, service quality etc.)?
4. What would have to change in your members’ view in order to increase their demand for more cross-border rather than national transporation of euro cash to or from the members’ location?
5. Are there any other observations you would like to make on the professional transportation of euro cash by road from a client’s point of view?
ANNEX II
February 2022
According to the Regulation the following type of cross-border CIT is covered: professional transport of euro cash by road, either for remuneration on behalf of third parties or carried out within a cash-in-transit (hereinafter ‘CIT’) company, between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. by a CIT vehicle by road of euro banknotes or coins from a participating Member State, for supplying euro banknotes or coins to, or collecting them from, one or more locations in one or more other participating Member States, and in the Member State of origin – without prejudice to the transport of a maximum of 20 % of non-euro cash in relation to the total value of cash transported in the same CIT vehicle – where the majority of euro cash deliveries/pick-ups made by a CIT vehicle during the same day is carried out on the territory of the host Member State, or, in the case of point-to-point transport, where the transport takes place between two different participating Member States.
In this case, a CIT company licenced in its participating Member State of origin would be in a position to use its CIT vehicle for cross-border CIT transports to the host country following one of the transport arrangements provided for in Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011, without prejudice to the national firearms rules applying to the participating Member States.
For example, if your country of origin allows for the transport of banknotes in an unarmoured CIT vehicle of ordinary appearance equipped with IBNS, you could perform a cross-border cash transport to another host country using this transport arrangement, regardless of whether this transport arrangement is applicable in that country. However, this would be without prejudice to the national firearms rules applying to the participating Member States.
The current Regulation covers the follow transportation : professional transport of euro cash by road, either for remuneration on behalf of third parties or carried out within a cash-in-transit (hereinafter ‘CIT’) company, between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. by a CIT vehicle by road of euro banknotes or coins from a participating Member State, for supplying euro banknotes or coins to, or collecting them from, one or more locations in one or more other participating Member States, and in the Member State of origin – without prejudice to the transport of a maximum of 20 % of non-euro cash in relation to the total value of cash transported in the same CIT vehicle – where the majority of euro cash deliveries/pick-ups made by a CIT vehicle during the same day is carried out on the territory of the host Member State, or, in the case of point-to-point transport, where the transport takes place between two different participating Member States.
In this case, a CIT company licenced in its participating Member State of origin would be in a position to use its CIT vehicle for cross-border CIT transports to the host country following one of the transport arrangements provided for in Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011, without prejudice to the national firearms rules applying to the participating Member States.
According to the Regulation the following type of cross-border CIT is covered: professional transport of euro cash by road, either for remuneration on behalf of third parties or carried out within a cash-in-transit (hereinafter ‘CIT’) company, between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. by a CIT vehicle by road of euro banknotes or coins from a participating Member State, for supplying euro banknotes or coins to, or collecting them from, one or more locations in one or more other participating Member States, and in the Member State of origin – without prejudice to the transport of a maximum of 20 % of non-euro cash in relation to the total value of cash transported in the same CIT vehicle – where the majority of euro cash deliveries/pick-ups made by a CIT vehicle during the same day is carried out on the territory of the host Member State, or, in the case of point-to-point transport, where the transport takes place between two different participating Member States.
In this case, a CIT company licenced in its participating Member State of origin would be in a position to use its CIT vehicle for cross-border CIT transports to the host country following one of the transport arrangements provided for in Regulation (EU) No 1214/2011, without prejudice to the national firearms rules applying to the participating Member States.