No C 197/44 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 23. 8. 76 
Opinion  on the  proposal  for  a Council  Regulation  setting  up a European  Export  Bank 
The text  referred  to the  Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  of  the 
European  Communities  No  C 76 of 1 April  1976,  page  2. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 25 March  1976,  the  Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the  Economic 
and Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  198  of the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the  above  matter  at its 
139th  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 25 and  26 May  1976. 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community  and,  in particular, 
Article  198  thereof, 
Having  regard  to the  request  for an opinion  made  by 
the Council  of the  European  Communities  on  25 
March  1976, 
Having  regard  to  the  decision  taken  by  the 
Bureau  of the  Economic  and  Social  Committee  on 30 
March  1976,  instructing  the  Section  for  External 
Relations  to draw  up an opinion  on the matter, 
Having  regard  to  the  report  submitted  by  the 
Rapporteur,  Mr  Henniker-Heaton, 
Having  regard  to the opinion  adopted  by the  Section 
for External  Relations  at its meeting  on  11  May 
1976, 
Having  regard  to  the  discussions  at  its  139th 
plenary  session  held  on  25  and  26  May  1976 
(meeting  of 26 May  1976), 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION: 
by a majority,  there  being  2 votes  against  and 
3 abstentions: I. Introduction 
1.1. In  July  1975,  the  Commission  sent  to the 
Council  a communication  regarding  the  advisability 
of establishing  a European  Export  Bank  (EEB). 
Objectives  and  methods  were  explained.  The 
Commission  argued  that  additional  facilities  were 
urgently  needed  by  exporters.  The  EEB  would 
concentrate  firstly  on  financing  and  insuring 
multilateral  Community  contracts  for  the  export  of 
large  capital  projects  and  capital  goods  (and  related 
services)  to countries  outside  the  Community. 
1.2. From  July  to the  autumn,  the  Commission 
held  consultations  with  insurers  in the  public  and 
private  sectors  specializing  in export  credit  and  with 
bankers  and  industrialists  in the Community. 
1.3. The  Commission  argued  that  the  bank  should 
be set  up  in parallel  with  existing  national  credit 
insurance  institutions,  without  prior  need  to 
coordinate  their  operations  more  closely  or to make 
major  changes  in  relevant  national  laws  and 
regulations.  Once  set  up,  the  bank  could  contribute 
to the  harmonization  of  Community  practice  in 
other  areas  of export  credit.  In any  case,  the  new 
institution  would  not  be replacing  commercial  banks 
or other  banks  supporting  exports,  the  aim  being 
rather  that  it should  provide  complementary  support. 
1.4. The  EEB  would  place  European  firms  on an 
equal  footing  with  their  main  competitors  elsewhere 
in bidding  for  major  multinational  contracts,  with 
23. 8. 76 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 197/45 
credit  and  insurance  being  denominated  in a single 
currency,  where  appropriate. 
2. The  Commission's  formal  proposal 
2.1. In  February  1976,  the Commission  laid  before 
the Council  a proposal  to set up a European  Export 
Bank. 
3. Result  of the  consultations 
3.1. In  its proposal,  the  Commission  summarizes 
the results  of the  consultations  held  last  autumn. 
There  was  general  agreement  on the  inadequacy  of 
existing  arrangements  to meet  the  expected  growth 
of multinational  contracts.  There  were  some 
differences  of opinion,  however,  as to whether  an 
EEB  should  be set  up at this  stage;  some  groups 
supported  this  idea,  while  others  thought  that  a 
higher  degree  of harmonization  of existing  national 
credit  insurance  systems  should  be the first  priority. 
3.2. After  having  considered  the  arguments  for 
and against,  the  Commission  decided  that  an EEB 
would  still  be the  best  way  of solving  the  problems 
posed  by multilateral  contracts. 5. Organization  of the  EEB 
5.1. The  bank  would  have: 
— a Board  of Directors  consisting  of 10  regular 
members  and  10  alternates  appointed  by  the 
Member  States  and  the  Commission.  The  Board, 
acting  on  proposals  from  the  Management 
Committee,  would  take  decisions  concerning  the 
bank's  operations;  it would  also  be responsible 
for approving  rules  of procedure,  the  annual 
report  of the  Management  Committee  and  the 
annual  accounts.  The  Commission  representative 
could  veto  decisions  in  the  interest  of  the 
Community,  but  the  Board  would  be entitled1,  by 
an absolute  majority  if its members  so decided, 
to refer  the issue  to the  Council.  The  veto  would 
stand  if the  Council  had  not  decided  otherwise 
within  a fortnight, 
— a management  committee  consisting  of a chairman 
and four  other  members  appointed  by the  Board 
of Directors  for  a term  of  six  years;  the 
committee's  task  would  be  to  prepare  the 
decisions  of the  Board  and  ensure  that  they  were 
implemented. 
5.2. The  bank's  activities  would  be  subject  to 
scrutiny  by an agreed  audit  and  by the  Audit  Board, 
provided  for in Article  206  of the  Treaty.  The  report 
and comments  of  the  Audit  Board  would  be 
submitted  to the  Council  and  European  Parliament 
not more  than  10  months  after  the  end  of the 
financial  year. 
4. Operation  and  financing  of the  EEB 
4.1. The  EEB  would  provide  credit  insurance  and 
help  to finance  exports  of large  capital  projects  and 
durable  goods,  either  directly  or indirectly  through 
existing  financial  institutions. 
4.2. The  bank  would  have  an initial  capital  of 100 
million  units  of account  to be provided  from  the 
Community  budget.  It  could  obtain  further 
resources,  by  borrowing  on  national  and 
international  financial  markets,  with  Community 
guarantees  up to a ceiling  to be fixed  annually  in the 
budget.  The  Commission  decided  on  this  mixed 
capital  structure  to ensure  that  the  bank  had  the 
maximum  degree  of flexibility,  as it is difficult  to 
predict  the volume  of future  transactions,  and  also  in 
order  to ensure  that  the  EEB's  commitments  can  be 
closely  monitored. 6. General  remarks 
6.1. The  Economic  and  Social  Committee  agrees 
with  the  setting  up  of a European  Export  Bank 
which  can  meet  the  real  needs  of  European 
exporters.  This  means  that  primarily  it is in favour 
of the  creation  of a European  common  commercial 
policy  instrument,  providing  credit  and  credit 
insurance  for  the  export  of  projects  and  sales 
overseas  by  European  exporters  in  multilateral 
operations  and  operating  in  a  manner 
complementary  to  existing  credit  institutions. 
However,  the Committee  feels  that  the main  problem 
exporters  are  presently  faced  with  is the  technical 
conditions  of credit  insurance  systems  rather  than,  in 
certain  cases,  the volume  of available  funds. 
6.2. The  Committee  feels,  however  that  projects 
offered  by a supplier  or by suppliers  from  a single 
EEC  country  should  not  be  excluded  from  the 
support  which  an EEB  might  offer.  Such  projects  — 
NoC  197/46 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 23. 8.76 
depending  on their  size  and  nature  — may  indeed  he 
an important  factor  regarding  employment  in that 
country  and,  thus  in the  Community.  In addition, 
such  projects  — where  there  is the  possibility  of 
generating  more  business  by  establishing  new 
commercial  interests  abroad  — deserve  Community 
support,  if for  some  reason,  national  facilities  are 
insufficient. 
6.3. In  addition,  the  Committee  feels  that 
provision  should  be made  in exceptional  cases  for 
multilateral  operations  embracing  also  firms  from 
outside  the  EEC,  provided  that  European  concerns 
have  a major  participation,  and  that  the  EEB  covers 
only  the European  firms'  share. 
6.4. The  question  has  been  put  by several  sources 
as to whether  it is necessary  to create  a new 
institution,  or  whether  the  European  Investment 
Bank  could  become  responsible  for  supporting  the 
exports  connected  with  large  multilateral  contracts. 
The Committee  understands  that  the  European 
Investment  Bank  has  not  been  concerned  with  export 
credit  and  export  credit  insurance  matters  and  that 
in order  to add  these  to its activities,  major  changes 
would  be needed  to its statutes.  Moreover,  the EIB  is 
not an  instrument  designed  to  carry  out  the 
Community's  common  commercial  policy.  For  these 
reasons,  the  Committee  acknowledges  the  need  for 
and supports  the creation  of a new  body. 
6.5. Although  the  Committee  feels  that 
harmonization  of export  credit  terms  is necessary  for 
the sake  of  fair  competition  among  European 
exporters,  it feels  that  such  harmonization  is not 
making  progress  quickly  enough  to improve  the 
facilities  at present  available  in connection  with 
multilateral  projects  and  that  the  European  Export 
Bank  must  be able  to make  an active  contribution 
towards  accelerating  the process  of harmonization. 
6.6. The  Committee  has  no means  of estimating 
how much  European  business  has  been  lost  through 
the lack  of adequate  export  credit  facilities  for 
multinational  projects;  the  volume  lost  may  well 
have  been  considerable.  The  Committee  believes  that 
the Community  should  recognize,  like  other 
industrial  countries,  the  importance  of such  facilities 
to stimulate  exports. 
6.7. The  Committee  is of the  opinion  that  an EEB 
could  enhance  the  chances  of concerted  European 
offers  for large  projects  in international  competition 
by the  fact  that  offers  could  be  made  faster, especially  as far  as financial  and  credit  insurance 
conditions  were  concerned. 
But a European  Export  Bank  could  also  prove  useful 
if it enabled  exporters  of capital  goods  which  take 
part in multinational  projects  to make  bids  in a 
single  currency,  with  possible  cover  for  exporters 
against  the corresponding  exchange  risk. 
6.8. Furthermore,  the  Committee  believes  that  the 
financing  of large  projects  overseas  is of utmost 
importance.  In most  sectors  of industry,  financial 
conditions  are  very  closely  related  to the  level  of 
prices,  especially  where  long-term  credit  is involved. 
In any  case,  this  means  that  everything  which  can  be 
done  to  improve  financial  facilities  should  be 
stimulated  to  the  full  extent  justified  by  the 
proposition. 
6.9. The  Committee  also  recommends  that  the 
EEB  credit  insurance  should  cover  the  whole  period 
of the contract. 
6.10.  The  evolving  world  economy  imposes  a 
redistribution  of activities  among  the  industrial  and 
developing  countries.  Since  a redistribution  appears 
to be  unavoidable,  the  Community  and  national 
economies  should  prepare  for  it. The  Committee 
feels  that  the Community  will  have  to concentrate  in 
its exports  more  and  more  on large  technological 
projects  of value  to the  developing  countries,  on 
projects  aiming  at more  effective  exploitation  of the 
world's  raw  material  resources,  as  well  as  on 
projects  involving  investments  in relatively  labour-
intensive  industries  in the  developing  countries.  In 
the meantime,  a redistribution  of activities  is also 
taking  place  within  the Community.  This  means  that 
large  complex  projects  to be sold  to third  countries 
by European  exporters  will  involve  nationals  of more 
than  one  Member  State,  and  possibly  others  from 
non-Member  States.  In  the  present  situation  of 
competition  on international  markets,  this  calls  for a 
competitive  export  credit  system,  in which  the  EEB 
will have  an integrating  role. 
6.11.  The  Committee  is further  of the  opinion 
that there  should  be no contradiction  between  the 
aims  of the  EEB  and  other  instruments  used  by the 
Community  in its external  relations,  especially  its 
relations  with  developing  countries. 
6.12.  With  regard  to the  unemployment  problems 
facing  all industrial  countries  today,  no  suitable 
occasion  should  be lost  to stimulate  employment  and 
23. 8. 76 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 197/47 
export  opportunities.  If such  business  opportunities 
are to have  an impact  on the  balance  of payments  of 
the countries  involved,  the  Committee  feels  that  they 
deserve  support. 
6.13.  Whatever  centre  is chosen  for  the  bank,  it 
may  be necessary  to provide  local  representation  and 
to ensure  that  multilateral  concerns  have  easy  and 
prompt  access  to the  bank,  which  would  in some 
cases  be direct. 
7. Specific  questions 
Third  'whereas'  and  Article  2 
Since  the  Committee  thinks  that  exports  in the  case 
of large  projects  from  individual  Member  States 
should  not  automatically  be  deprived  of  EEB 
support,  and  since  it also  asks  the  Commission  to 
consider  to what  extent  contracts  involving  exporters 
of third  countries  (with  minority  participation)  can 
be financed  by the  EEB,  the  text  should  be modified 
accordingly. 
Article  1 Article  4 
The Committee  feels  that  the  initial  amount  of 
capital  of the EEB  might  be too  small. 
Article  9 
As far  as the  voting  procedure  is concerned,  the 
Committee  is of the  opinion  that  provision  should  be 
made  for  the  case  of a tied  vote  in the  Board  of 
Directors. 
In addition,  the  Committee  asks  whether  it is not 
preferable  for  the  period  within  which  the  Council 
has to decide,  to be changed  from  a fortnight  to 
one month. 
Article  10 
This  must  be read  as follows: 
'shall,  on  proposals  from  the  Management 
Committee,  decide  upon  the  bank's  borrowings 
and finance  and  credit  insurance  operations'. 
The Committee  proposes  a change  in the  second 
sentence  of the last  paragraph  as follows: 
'The  bank  should  operate  with  sufficient  surplus 
to avoid  a loss  taking  one  year  with  another.' 
Article  3 (i v ) 
The Committee  proposes  that  exchange  risks  be 
included  among  the  items  mentioned  in  this 
paragraph. Article  14,  paragraph  4 
The Committee  asks  why  no provision  is made  for 
possible  profits  (see  remarks  on Article  1 above). 
Done  at Brussels,  26 May  1976. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Henri  CANONGE 
ANNEX 
to the opinion  of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
The following  amendment  was  rejected  in the course  of the discussion: 
Paragraph  6.4 
Take  out  the  last  sentence  of the  second  paragraph  and  replace  by the  following  sentence: 
'Nevertheless,  the  Committee  feels  that  the  Commission  should  once  more  give 
consideration  to the  possibility  of the  EIB  undertaking  the  tasks  proposed  for  the  EEB 
as an addition  to its existing  responsibilities? 
No C 197/48 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 23. 8. 76 
Reasons 
We think  a greater  multiplicity  of bodies  handing  out  money  should  be  avoided  in the 
interest  of economy  and  administration.  We  must  refute  that  the  EEC  administration 
is an  ever-expanding  bureaucracy.  Therefore  we  favour  this  reasonable  and  sensible 
extension  of rhe  work  of that  competent  and  well-managed  Bank.  If it becomes  too  great 
or difficult  an extension,  then  it could  later  be separated.  But  once  started  separate,  it will 
never  be joined  to it. 
Voting 
For: 18,  against:  59,  abstentions:  2. 
Opinion  on the  development  of the  social  situation  in the  Community  in 1975 
The text  referred  to the  Committee  has  not  been  published  in the  Official  Journal  of 
the European  Communities. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 19 March  1976,  the  Commission  referred  the  abovementioned  proposal  to the 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  198  of the  Treaty 
establishing  the European  Economic  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the  above  matter  at its 
139th  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 25 and  26 May  1976. 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to  Article  198  of  the  Treaty 
establishing  the European  Economic  Community, 
Having  regard  to the  request  for  an opinion  made 
by the  Commission  of the  European  Communities 
on 19 March  1976, 
Having  regard  to  the  decision  taken  by  the 
Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  2 April  1976 
instructing  the  Section  for  Social  Questions  to draw 
up an opinion  on the matter, 
Having  regard  to the  opinion  issued  by the  Section 
for Social  Questions  at its 104th  meeting,  held  on 13 
May  1976,  and  the  oral  report  made  by  the 
Rapporteur,  Mr  Noddings, Having  regard  to the discussions  at its 139th  plenary 
session  held  on 25 and  26 May  1976  (meeting  of 25 
May  1976), 
Whereas  in 1975  the Member  States  of the  European 
Communities  as  a whole  were  faced  with  an 
economic  crisis  involving  higher  unemployment  and 
a considerable  rate  of inflation,  which,  although 
lower  than  in 1974,  is still  disquieting; 
Whereas  such  a situation  poses  serious  social 
problems,  not  only  as regards  employment  but  also 
in connection  with  the  reduction  of  social 
inequalities  and  the  financing  of social  protection 
systems; 
Whereas  it would  be useful  not  only  to study  these 
different  questions  but  also  to analyse  Community 
action  in  the  social  field  and  make  various 
suggestions,