WRITTEN QUESTION P-4048/00 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. European money for nuclear power stations in the Ukraine.
Date: 2000-12-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Euratom loan, Ukraine, decommissioning of power stations, energy supply, nuclear power station, nuclear safety, patents licence, technical cooperation

6.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 163 E/237

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2001)

As pointed out by the Honourable Member, there are significant differences in rates of excise duty on fuel
among the Member States.

As early as 1987, the Commission presented a number of proposals concerning indirect taxation in order
to allow the abolition of tax frontiers as part of the completion of the single market. In the case of excise
duties, the Commission was aiming at full harmonisation of duties on mineral oils by introducing a single
excise duty for each product throughout the Community. The aim of this approach was to counter
(cid:145)distortion of competition(cid:146), as referred to in the Honourable Member(cid:146)s question. The proposal nevertheless
met with firm opposition from some Member States.

In 1989, the Commission made a new proposal offering the Member States greater flexibility, with
minimum rates, narrower rate bands and target rates per product. The Member States once more rejected
the proposal.

in 1992, the Member States decided unanimously to create a Community system for taxing
taxation for each mineral oil, according to its use

Finally,
mineral oils,
(fuel, industrial and commercial use, heating). The minimum rates have not been reviewed since 1992.

introducing a minimum rate of

Noting the risk of distortion of competition among the Member States but also among the various sources
of energy, in 1997 the Commission proposed a draft directive on the taxation of energy products (1). The
proposal is still with the Council. The unanimity rule which applies to taxation has made it impossible to
adopt. The Commission nevertheless considers that
for the proper
functioning of
the contribution it could make to attaining
environmental policy and transport objectives.

the single market and also because of

its adoption is still a priority,

The setting of a lower level of excise duties on mineral oils by a Member State does not in itself lead to
non-observance of Community rules on competition. State aid could be allowed if certain specific sectors
benefited only within a Member State from provisions derogating from the general arrangements.

(1) OJ C 139, 6.5.1997.

(2001/C 163 E/278)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4048/00

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: European money for nuclear power stations in the Ukraine

On 7 December the EBRD decided by a bare majority to give the Ukrainian government a loan
(of ca. € 240 million) for dismantling two nuclear power stations in Kmelnitzky and Rivne. The loan is
conditional on Euratom acting as cofinancier (with a loan of € 656 million).

There is a Memorandum of Understanding for this project dating from 1995, an explicit condition of
which is that the Ukraine should organise its energy supplies on the principle of (cid:145)least cost planning(cid:146).
Using nuclear power stations does not, in fact, respect this principle.

Since the government in Kiev has done almost nothing since 1995 in the way of structural changes
to energy supplies, it may be concluded that the Ukraine is merely waiting for the EBRD/Euratom loan to
dismantle the K2R4 reactors, while using the situation of the Chernobyl reactors as a means of blackmail.

C 163 E/238

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2001

There is considerable opposition on the part of regional and local authorities to the K2R4 project, but
much enthusiasm for small-scale energy projects (hydropower), combined heat and power and energy
savings.

Does the Commission agree that the proposed Euratom loan should not be granted because of the great
financial uncertainty, the technical risks and the non-compliance with the 1995 Memorandum of Under-
standing?

Does the Commission agree that help should be given to the Ukraine to develop and reconstruct energy
supplies on the basis of safe, sustainable energy sources and energy efficiency?

What action does the Commission intend to take to prevent European money from being spent on nuclear
projects outside the EU which are a source of controversy within the EU?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2001)

On 13 December 2000, the Commission has approved granting a Euratom loan to contribute to the
financing of Khmelnitsky unit 2 and Rovno unit 4 nuclear units in Ukraine. The decision has been taken
after thorough consideration of the nuclear safety, environmental, economic and financial aspects of the
project.

The Commission considers that this loan will be instrumental to ensure that these reactors are completed
to a safety level acceptable under Western-type licensing practices, will pave the way for improving the
safety level of other nuclear units in the country and will have a positive impact on the progress of
reforms in the power sector.

The Commission is part of the Task Force that brings together Ukrainian and international institutions in
an effort to provide for the modernisation of the power sector. In addition, the Commission is providing
technical assistance in support of projects of conventional energy and of energy efficiency.

(2001/C 163 E/279)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4108/00

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Follow-up questions on the requirement to produce proof of identity in the Netherlands

On 18 January 2000 I put questions to the Commission on the requirement to produce proof of identity
in the Netherlands. Commissioner Vitorino replied on 7 February that the Commission would contact the
Dutch authorities to obtain full details of the circumstances.

1.

Have these contacts with the Dutch authorities now taken place?

Can the Commission now provide substantial answers to my individual questions as a result of the

2.
said contacts?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2001)

The Commission recently received the reply of the Dutch authorities in relation to the question raised by
the Honourable Member informing the Commission that they are currently reviewing the legal texts to be
in line with Community provisions.

The Commission will remain in contact with the Dutch authorities and will not hesitate to initiate the
procedure provided for in Article 226 (ex-Article 169) EC Treaty, should this prove necessary.