WRITTEN QUESTION E-1458/03 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. History of Euratom Loan Facility.
Date: 2003-04-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, EU financing, EU programme, Euratom loan, exchange of information, interest, nuclear power station, operating cost, third country

C 58 E/68

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

(2004/C 58 E/085)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1458/03

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 April 2003)

Subject: History of Euratom Loan Facility

1. Will the Commission list all past Euratom loans, with details of:

(cid:1) type and name of nuclear facility,

(cid:1) country of facility,

(cid:1) amount of loan,

(cid:1) purpose of loan, e.g. safety improvement of operating facility; completion; new construction,

(cid:1) the names of the utilities or companies that have received Euratom loans?

2.

3.

Have loans been used for the construction of nuclear waste facilities? If not, why not?

Have any loans been sought and/or granted for activities at reprocessing facilities?

4. What is the budget for the development of each Euratom Loans? Details requested on the different
TACIS or PHARE grants for project preparation for the following projects, giving amounts and the use of
objectives for each sub-project:

(cid:1) Mochovce,

(cid:1) Kozloduy 5 and 6,

(cid:1) Khmelnitsky 2 and Rovno 4,

(cid:1) Cernavoda 2,

(cid:1) Kalinin 3.

5. Will the Commission list the staff working on the development of Euratom loans and the annual
budget of their unit, including salaries and overheads?

6. What are the financial advantages for utilities in obtaining a Euratom loan compared to funding from
a private bank? For example in the case of Kozloduy 5 and 6, what was the interest rate and period of
grace fixed at for the project compared to what might have been achieved without the Euratom Loan?

7.

Details on the financial arrangements are requested, namely:

(cid:1) What are the interest rates used for the loans?

(cid:1) What period of grace is used in the loans?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2003)

1.
A table that provides information on all Euratom loans granted from 1977 until 1987 is sent direct
to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat. Since then, the only loans disbursed are for the
Kozloduy 5 & 6 Safety Upgrade Project in Bulgaria described in more detail in our response to Written
Question E-1456/03 by the Honourable Member (1).

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/69

Yes. There was one loan (in France) that was granted in 1987 for a project involving the construction
2.
of two buildings at a nuclear facility. The complex was destined for the provisional storage of waste fuel
from the facility. Elsewhere, other projects financed by Euratom had waste storage features as part of the
overall design and construction, for example the construction of electrical power plants in France and Italy
included waste storage facilities specifically defined.

Yes, there was one loan granted (in the United Kingdom) for a reprocessing plant. This was a project

3.
for a plant to reprocess uranium oxide fuel elements and included some ancillary buildings.

4.
Financing has been from various sources and is currently obtained from TACIS or PHARE funds.
For the costs identified as being directly linked to the Euratom procedures, the Commission refers to the
table, which is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat. These costs relate to
the studies carried out as part of the Euratom procedure, the work done by the European Investment Bank
(EIB) in the preparation of its opinion and by the Commission in preparing the loan documentation. It is
to be noted that the Commission sometimes relied on studies commissioned and financed by the European
Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD).

5.
Unit L-3 of the Economics and Financial Affairs Directorate General is currently responsible for the
coordination of Euratom lending, which has concentrated on certain non-member states since 1994.
In addition, other departments are involved for their specific competence in the field (in particular,
Environment, Energy, Nuclear Safety, Enlargement, External Relations, EuropeAid). In Unit L-3 currently
four officials are assigned mainly to this instrument. It is estimated that (in 2002) the average cost (over all
categories) of an official was EUR 108 000.

It should be noted that the Commission effort related to loans in Member States (1977-1987) was
significantly less as the analysis of each application was less complex and the workload was shared with
the EIB.

6.
The main advantage is that Euratom, because of its rating in the markets, can raise finance at the best
available conditions in these markets. However, these are not subsidies. The Commission lends the funds at
the conditions it achieves in the market with the addition of a small administration fee.

The repayment profile of a loan depends on what the borrower wishes to achieve. Typically, the grace
periods agreed for the Euratom funding would allow for the completion of the project and an income
stream coming into existence.

The financial conditions are fixed for each disbursement. For Kozloduy, the total loan is scheduled to be
disbursed in several tranches (about two per year) over the length of the project with capital repayment
typically planned to start about two years after the end of project. Conditions can be determined as the
tranches are drawn down. To date, the interest rate payable on the loan has been a few basis points above
the Inter-Bank Lending Rate (or fixed rate equivalent). The first tranche was drawn in 2001 and the first
capital repayment is planned for 2007.

The conditions that a borrower may achieve for funding from other sources will vary according to the
standing of that borrower and the opportunities in the market. The Commission is not in a position to
compare with what might have been available in this case.

7.
The profile of each loan is negotiated with the Borrower within the framework of the existing
Decision and dependent on the availability of the funds in the market. A loan may be disbursed in several
tranches and each tranche would have its own profile.

The interest rate applied to each tranche mirrors the interest rate on the corresponding borrowing
contracted on the market. Euratom adds some basis points to cover its administration costs.

Normally the Commission would examine the project schedule with the borrower and arrange that
disbursements be planned in line with the (major) milestones and financing requirements, for example to
cover down payments on contracts. The disbursement schedule would be integrated into the overall
financing plan.

C 58 E/70

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

linked to the length of the project
A grace period is agreed with the Borrower for each tranche,
implementation period and the income stream coming on-line, for example, planned commissioning
date + about two years.

(1) See page 66.

(2004/C 58 E/086)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1474/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 April 2003)

Subject: Language policy at the European Schools and in European education

In view of the forthcoming enlargement of the EU to a total of 25 participating countries, is there any
proposal, plan or intention to abolish or reduce teaching of the less widespread languages of the Union
(Greek, Portuguese, Finnish, Swedish, etc)
the European Schools, which are
maintained by the Community budget? Has the idea been mooted of creating a ‘European school-leaving
certificate’ for secondary education in the Member States, parallel to the certificate awarded at present?
Is there any intention of establishing a ‘European curriculum’
in Belgian state schools (initially) and
subsequently extending it to the state schools of the other Member States of the Union?

in the curriculum of

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2003)

1.
As the Honourable Member may be aware, management of the European Schools is not the
responsibility of the Commission, but rather of the Board of Governors established under the European
Schools statute. This includes representatives of each Member State: the Commission has just 1 vote
among 16. None the less, the Commission can inform the Parliament that, from the very beginning, the
European Schools have taught pupils their native language if it is an official European Union language.
Further, language sections have been established whenever there are sufficient pupils speaking a particular
language to justify this. This principle has been respected following the last three enlargements and will be
respected on entry of the ten new Member States. All official
languages of the European Union will
therefore be taught (provided pupils of category 1 or 2 are enrolled) and there is no intention of abolishing
or reducing teaching of the less widespread languages. Indeed, it is proposed that new language sections be
established in Polish, Czech and Hungarian immediately.

2.
Following Parliament’s Resolution of 17 December 2002 the Board of Governors of the European
Schools has set up a working party to investigate the possibility of offering the European Baccalaureate in
schools that are not part of the European School system.

This group will also be looking at possibilities for co-operation between the European Schools and
national educational establishments.

The introduction of a European certificate alongside the national certificate would require a decision by
each participating Member State.

The content and organisation of education in the Union is the responsibility of the Member States.
3.
The Board of Governors has no authority to launch a European curriculum in State schools. Any decision
to do so would be a matter for the Member States. The Commission for its part has not taken any action
in relation to the creation of a European school-leaving certificate for secondary education or a European
curriculum and has no plans to do so.