WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2596/97 by David HALLAM to the Council. Economic and Monetary Union
C 102/66 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 3. 4. 98 Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (1 October 1997) According to the third paragraph of Article 175 of the EC Treaty, any natural or legal person may complain to the Court of Justice that an institution of the Community › such as the Commission › has failed to address to that person any act other than a recommendation or an opinion. The complainant can bring an action in respect of the Commission’s failure to reach a decision on the complaint. However, according to the second paragraph of Article 175, the action is admissible only if the institution concerned has first been called upon to act and has not defined its position within two months of being so called upon. The action may then be brought before the Court of Justice within a further period of two months. The Court of Justice itself is not required to pass judgment within a given period. However, under Article 186 of the EC Treaty, it may prescribe any necessary interim measures in any cases before it. Another possibility for which the EC Treaty makes provision is that set out in Article 177. Under this Article, a court or tribunal in one of the Member States to which a question on the interpretation of the Treaty is submitted and which considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment can refer the matter to the Court of Justice for a ruling. However, it is the national court or tribunal which decides whether the question is to be submitted to the Court of Justice; parties in the proceedings at national level cannot oblige it to refer the matter to the Court. It is not possible to say, on the basis of the facts supplied in the Honourable Member’s question, whether this possibility could be relevant to the present proceedings. (98/C 102/97) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2596/97 by David Hallam (PSE) to the Council (1 September 1997) Subject: Economic and Monetary Union 1. What are the predicted costs to national mints (a) of licensing technology for Nordic Gold? (b) of converting production to a non-traditional material? (c) of reduced or lost exports to non-EU countries? 2. Why, among the many nickel-free or low-nickel alloys available, was only a trade-marked product › Nordic Gold › selected? (98/C 102/98) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2650/97 by Roberto Mezzaroma (UPE) to the Council (1 September 1997) Subject: Single currency coins On 9 June 1997 ECOFIN, the Council of Finance Ministers, of Finance approved the draft regulation on the denominations and technical specifications of euro coins; this proposal for a regulation, which was also endorsed by the recent Amsterdam Summit, would completely preclude the use of stainless steel. Stainless steel offers the following advantages: 1. economic: a saving of over ECU 300 million would be made, taking into account only the three intermediate-denomination coins (0. 1, 0. 2 and 0. 5 euro), 2. technical: the material lends itself to coin production, maintains appearance and shape, and is suitable for vending machines, 3. health: the stainless steels used in the coins produced by the Mints of the principal Member States present no risk to public health;