It actually happened after the big hearing: the EPP rapporteur withdrew his opposition to the draft, thus enabling the file to progress. The Council already adopted its common position last December while this did not happen in the European Parliament - normally the Parliament is more ahead than the Council where the diverging interest of Member States are not easy to be reconciled.
Piero Cipollone, member of the Governing Board of the European Central Bank was the guest of the EP Commitee of Economic and Monetary Affairs. After a general denial of the Patriots - which was actually countered by Mr. Cipollone that the offline version of the digital euro will actually enhance the liberty of citizens in effecting payments - other parliamentary groups asked more relevant questions.
Of course the ECB board member could not name the two countries where banks may have difficulties to provide sufficient funds for the digital euro, but emphasised that the findings were based on the extreme conditions of a stress test, i.e. the risk is not substantial. In fact the common system could handle these problems if there were a unified financial market in Europe.
The cash stock kept by companies on bank accounts is significantly higher than that of private individuals, and as the digital euro will be only available for individuals at the start, there is a huge security cushion in banks. Also, the run on "traditional" bank accounts in case of a crisis is a much higher risk than the cash kept as offline digital euro (similar to banknotes and coins in our wallets).
The socialists enquired about the costs - in particular to citizens. For banks, it will be around 3% of their costs for digital solutions. Beneficiaries fo payments will, on the other hand, save the amounts paid to third country (mainly US) payment service providers (like card companies). Distribution of costs is also question of a bargain between banks and clients - this has to be settled.
Offline payments will technically only be possible between parties physically present. The "know your client" rule will be applicable also to offline euro clients and transactions and stock kept on line will be limited to fight money laudering.
The pilot is foreseen to start next year, the 3rd quarter 2027 the development has to be started, thus the regulation has to be known by then.
The rapporteur insisted that first the offline solution should only be introduced but announced after the hearing that he agrees to introduce both the offline and online solution concurrently. Next meeting was announced for the 3rd June.
Update:
On Wednesday, 3 June 2026, from 15:30 to 16:30, the ECON Committee held an exchange of views with Piero Cipollone, Member of the ECB Executive Board, on the latest developments in the digital euro project.
Following a progress report published in October 2025 on the preparation phase of the digital euro project, the ECB further worked on a pilot project envisaged to start in the second half of 2027. This pilot is part of the technical and operational preparations, involving the industry, in order to be ready for a potential first issuance of the digital euro in 2029. On 24 April, the ECB also signed agreements with European standard setters to facilitate digital euro payments. The decision on whether to issue a digital euro will only be taken once the enabling regulation has been adopted, and preparatory work will continue in alignment with the ongoing legislative process.
A lot happened since Schrems-II , among others the European Data Protection Board published a FAQ document , a guidance on essential guarantees for surveillance measures and submitted another guidance , on measures that supplement transfer tools. Transfer tools are either safeguards which ensure that data subjects enjoy adequate protection of their privacy at the place and in the organisation to where their data are transferred or derogations which enable transfer essentially without adequate protection. I used the term adequate protection and previously the view was that the protection ensured need not be identical with that in the EU. The Schrems II judgment, however, speaks about equivalent protection and this is stronger. In case the derogations (according to article 49 GDPR) are used, the EDPB is of the view that the last sentence of Article 44 GDPR (All provisions in this Chapter shall be applied in order to ensure that the level of protection of natural...
Comments
Post a Comment