Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - Consultation on options for developing the European schools system
Date: 2004-07-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European school, educational administration, enlargement of the Union

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 20.7.2004 
COM(2004) 519 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

CONSULTATION ON OPTIONS FOR DEVELOPING THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS 
SYSTEM 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
  
  
1. 

EUROPEAN SCHOOLS 50 YEARS ON 

Introduction 

For  the  last  50  years,  the  European  Schools  have  provided  a  high-quality,  multi-cultural, 
multi-lingual  education  service  to  the  children  of  the  staff  of  the  EU  institutions.  The 
availability  of  the  Schools  has  made  it  easier  for  the  Institutions  to  recruit  experienced, 
highly qualified staff. The recognised and often praised European Baccalaureate enables and 
allows access to university education across Europe. 

The  aim  of  this  consultation  is  to  take  stock  of  the  development  of  the  ES  and,  at  this 
important stage of the expansion of and change in the European Union and to open a debate, 
seeking  to  establish  a  consensual  approach  to  their  future  evolution  and  possibilities  for 
change, rather than make any concrete proposals 

The  starting  point  for  any  reflection  about  the  future  of  the  Schools  must  be  that  their 
educational success be neither diminished nor jeopardised. The Commission is committed to 
the ES system and to maximising the gains to be made by building on the firm foundations 
already established. 

The  undoubted  success  of  the  Schools  does  not,  however,  obviate  the  need  for  evaluation 
and review. The perceptive Bösch report on the future of the Schools, adopted by the EP in 
December  2002,  and  subsequent  working  document,  provided  a  useful  and  timely 
assessment of the strengths and shortcomings of the ES system. Together with recent reports 
from  the  Board  of  Governors  and  the  Court  of  Auditors,  they  put  a  compelling  case  for  a 
qualitative  review  of  the  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  the  system.  These  drivers  for 
change, combined with the new impetus provided by the last wave of enlargement, imply a 
reassessment of the Schools - in limited terms - those of the effectiveness of their complex 
governance  and  organisational  structures  and  of  the  value  for  money  of  the  current 
configuration of service provision. 

It falls to the Commission, as prime user of the Schools through the children of its staff, to 
take  a  proactive  role  and  to  seek  through  wide  consultation  to  establish  an  approach  to 
change, based as far as possible on consensus. 

1.1. 

The historical context 

Established  50  years  ago  to  educate  together  the  children  of  the  Staff  of  the  European 
Community,  the  European  Schools  form  an  essentially  public-funded  system  outside  the 
national  educational  systems  and  governed  by  an  international  treaty,  the  “Convention 
defining  the  Statute  of  the  European  Schools”.  The  European  Communities,  as  a 
“Contracting party to the Convention” are represented by the Commission on the Board of 
Governors  (BoG)  mostly  comprised  of  Member-States  representatives.  In  practice,  the  EU 
budget  funds  the  considerable  majority  (almost  60%)  of  school  costs,  though  this  is 
presented in the Community budget as a balance subsidy. (For Facts and Figures on the ES 
see Annex 1) 

1.2. 

Growth, enlargement and decentralisation  

Growth  of  the  Institutions  and  successive  enlargements  of  the  Union  have  led  to  a 
considerable  expansion  of  the  ES  system,  from  one  School  in  one  location  to  14  ES  in  10 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
locations  by  the  end  of  this  decade1.  This  has  in  turn  created  additional  linguistic 
requirements (the original four languages have expanded to eleven, with an additional three 
from new MS about to be added). More languages may be introduced in future if the criteria 
established  by  the  BoG  in  2000  for  the  opening  of  language  sections  are  fulfilled.2The 
growth  of  EU  work  locations  resulting  from  decentralisation  of  EU  activities  to  a  growing 
number of EU/Community bodies across the Union also poses a challenge. Limited ad-hoc 
educational solutions have already been developed in some locations. 

Some kind of international, multi-lingual international education should always be available 
to the children of EU staff in all locations where there are EU institutions or bodies, but the 
question of the provision of education in the mother tongue of each pupil in a EU with over 
20 official languages, and, indeed, in locations with few pupils needs careful consideration 
and consultation. Particular issues arise in relation to the small ES. 

2. 

DEVELOPING  THE  EUROPEAN  SCHOOLS  SYSTEM:  OPTIONS  AND 
CONSTRAINTS 

In  order  to  safeguard  the  continued  provision  of  a  high  quality  European  education  and  to 
meet the new challenges and demands outlined above, a review of the system should include 
changes ranging from those that are achievable in the short to medium-term and those that 
might require wide-ranging changes, including a redrawing of the existing Convention. 

It  is  the  view  of  the  Commission  that  with  sufficient  goodwill,  it  would  be  possible  and 
feasible to undertake a number of changes under the current regime and within the range of 
the areas about which it could be said that consensus might be reached relatively rapidly. 

Given the role of the ES as education-provider to the staff of the Community Institutions and 
bodies, there would be considerable long-term benefits in associating the Institutions much 
more closely with the administration and financing of the Schools themselves (perhaps even 
by means of a Commission Office). The responsibility for the curriculum, school inspections 
and the organisation of the European Baccalaureate (currently the responsibility of the BoG 
and  the  Board  of  Inspectors)  should  remain  principally  the  responsibility  of  the  Member-
States. 

Accordingly,  the  next  sections  focus  on  an  examination  of  the  governance,  administrative 
and  budgetary  aspects  of  the  ES’  system;  thereafter,  a  number  of  educational  questions, 
falling  more  within  the  areas  of  the  curriculum  and  quality  of  service  delivery  within  the 
Schools, are considered. 

2.1. 

Governance – options for the shorter and longer term. 

At  present,  the  Board  of  Governors  is  required  to  deal  with  all  educational,  financial  and 
administrative  matters  in  relation  to  the  ES.  Many  stakeholders  feel  that  the  operational 
difficulties  currently  faced  and  acknowledged  by  the  Board  will  be  exacerbated  by  the 
significant  increase  in  members,  languages  and  meetings  that  enlargement  brings.  The 
increase in the workload of the Board in response to the evolving nature and complexity of 
the  organisational  changes  of  the  ES’  system  would  seem  to  indicate  that  a  review  of  its 
work  is  now  needed.  Even  before  enlargement,  the  Board’s  strength  lay  in  its  capacity  for 
strategic overview. With infrequent meetings and a broad, largely remote membership, it is 

1 Lux II is opening in 2004, and Bxl IV by 2008. 
2 “Criteria for the setting up, closure or maintenance of European Schools”, Doc 2000-D-7510, adopted at the 

BoG meeting of 24-25/10/2000 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
not well suited to taking operational decisions. This will hardly be alleviated by the arrival of 
the 10 new Member State representatives. 

Over the last 50 years, school management and governance practice in a number of Member 
States  has  developed  significantly.  The  full  participation  by  elected  representatives  of 
parents,  teaching  staff  -  and  where  possible,  the  community  served  by  a  school  -  in  the 
governance of schools, has become the norm. 

In line with such developments, it is proposed that the Administrative Boards (AB) of 
each School should be empowered to play a significantly enhanced operational role in 
the management and governance of the Schools. The existing Convention provision by 
virtue of which the Boards “shall perform such other administrative duties as may be 
entrusted to it by the Board” seems at present to be under-used, and could be the basis 
for undertaking many additional tasks at the individual school level. 

In  the  longer  term,  the  Convention  could  be  revised  so  as  to  give  individual  schools 
further  autonomy,  with  Administrative  Boards  which  include  representatives  of  the 
BoG (or its successor body) the Institutions, parents, teachers and pupils. 

The European Institutions, which are de facto major stakeholders are taking an increasingly 
active  interest  in  the  Schools  on  the  grounds  that  they  have  a  valid  interest  both  as  main 
service  receivers  and  principal  paymasters.  However,  the  system  of  governance  under  the 
current Convention largely excludes their participation, where the Commission is limited to 
one  vote  on  the  Board  of  Governors  alongside  17  (or  in  some  cases  19)  other  voting 
members. This legacy of a “democratic deficit” on the Board should not continue unchanged. 

Even though real development in this respect can only be achieved with changing the 
Convention,  an  improved  intermediate  situation  may  be  possible  if  the  other 
Institutions  and  the  Board  were  to  use  the  special  provisions  of  Article  28  of  the 
Convention to reach an agreement to give a seat on the Board - and a vote each - to the 
EP,  the  Economic  and  Social  Committee,  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  the  Court  of 
Justice and the Court of Auditors. 

Two of the above proposals are achievable without change to the legal basis of the Schools 
and within a relatively short time-frame. An option which might provide a longer-term basis 
for  effective  and  stable  governance  for  the  system  could  be  the  Establishment  of  a 
Commission  Office  or  EU  Agency  which  would  administer  the  financial  and  operational 
aspects  of  all  the  Schools  with  the  representative  structures  and  input  available  to  such 
communitarised,  executive  bodies.  Any  future  proposal  would  need  to  conform  to  general 
guidelines for setting up such bodies. 

As is the case when other Commission Offices or EU Agencies have been proposed, this 
would require a full feasibility study which would identify the potential benefits which, 
within the specific parameters of an educational and teaching context, would preserve 
the  best  traditions,  quality  and  experience-base  of  the  current  governance  delivery 
mechanism while leading to more flexibility and efficiency. The financing mechanisms 
would also need to be reviewed, including ways to compensate in the EU budget for the 
direct contribution currently received from the Member States. 

If  there  were  a  consensus  that  such  an  approach  were  viable,  the  Commission  would  be 
required to undertake the fullest consultation and to take into proper account the consequent 
impact of direct recruitment on the existing Staff, and to foresee long transition periods (eg 
to  contract  agent  status)  to  ensure  continuity  of  current  arrangements  for  existing  school 
Staff. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
2.2. 

Administrative improvements 

In line with developments in educational systems across the Member-States and in order to 
keep pace with best practice in administration it is proposed that the ES’ system could, in the 
short-term,  benefit  from  the  application  of  best  practice  and  recent  innovations  in  the 
administrative field, including the drawing up a Code of Good Administrative Conduct, an 
initiative to reinforce and extend existing transparency provisions, including a right of appeal 
vis à vis decisions taken by the Board or by individual schools. In addition, the remit of the 
recently established Complaints Board should be clarified and extended to cover all matters 
of  legitimate  complaint  by  those  affected  by  the  decisions  of  each  School,  including  on 
individual educational matters. 

2.3. 

Greater autonomy in administration and staffing decisions 

In  terms  of  budgeting  and  financing,  staff  management,  school  development  strategy, 
services  to  be  offered  and  margin  of  operation  for  own  initiatives,  individual  schools  are 
currently  operating  with  significant  constraints  and  a  great  deal  of  uncertainty.  They  are 
obliged to operate on a year-to-year basis, responding to immediate needs and management 
issues, without being able to develop longer-term strategies at the level of each school and 
together with their particular stakeholders. 

School Directors should have more financial and administrative autonomy for their school as 
well as the possibility to recruit and manage all their teaching staff. The degree of autonomy, 
financial and educational, that could be given to each School requires examination, not only 
in  the  context  of  the  constraints  placed  by  the  current  Convention  but  also  looking  to  a 
system beyond the Convention. 

Teachers  at  the  Schools  are  currently  selected  for  secondment  by  the  education 
authorities of the Member States. It seems possible and appropriate in the short-term 
to give consideration to how the final say on the appointment of teachers might be given 
to the Schools themselves , which are better able to judge the specific skills required to 
teach successfully in a multi-lingual environment. 

Taken  together  with  the  other  proposals  for  governance  (supra),  and  for  budgetary  reform 
(infra),  a  longer-term  vision  for  the  ES  could  be  envisaged  which  would  give  the  Schools 
decisive control over longer-term planning of staff levels. This would need to be linked to a 
reform  of  the  system  of  financing,  away  from  an  open-ended  commitment  from  the  EU 
budget to a fixed amount of funding, linked to educational services offered to children of EU 
staff and the establishment plans of the Schools. 

3. 

THE FINANCING OF THE ES 

By  definition,  the  European  School  model  is  based  on  teaching  provided  in  a  range  of 
languages by expatriate teachers. In the smaller language sections at least, class sizes will be 
smaller  than  in  many  national-level  school  systems  and  thus  the  Schools  will  appear  to  be 
more  expensive  than  conventional  state  schools.  The  Commission  accepts  this  and  will 
defend  the  ES  system,  but  implicit  in  this  acceptance  is  the  need  to  ensure  effective 
budgetary planning and control and demonstrable value for money. 

3.1. 

The budgetary paradox 

At present, there is a basic paradox in the budgetary arrangements, namely that a balancing 
contribution from the EU budget is provided within the annual budgetary procedure without 
any  corresponding  influence  by  the  budgetary  authority  on  the  costs  of  the  Es.  It  is, 
moreover,  widely  considered  that  the  system  of  reliance  on  effectively  open-ended  EU 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
funding  to  balance  the  ES  budget  has  not  provided  adequate  incentives  for  better  resource 
management, increases in income, and cost savings which could be made without reducing 
the quality of service provided. 

At  the  same  time,  the  budget  is  also  a  contentious  issue  for  some  of  the  Member  States, 
which currently provide approximately 22 % of the budget revenue directly by means of the 
secondment  of  teaching  staff  as  foreseen  by  the  Convention.  Due  to  vehicular  linguistic 
requirements  however,  certain  MS  bear  a  disproportionate  share  of  the  cost  and  are 
signalling  that  they  are  not  prepared  to  fund  any  further  increases.  They  have  suggested 
either a more equitable share-out of the costs or the abolition of the direct contribution from 
MS.  Within  the  current  budgetary  climate  many  MS  would  equally  like  to  see  better 
budgetary control and financial management overall in the Schools system. 

From the above, it is clear that a modification of the system of financing of the Schools is 
needed which could respond at least in part to, and be consistent with, these constraints and 
concerns and the overall framework of financial perspectives for 2005-2013. 

In the short-term and in order to be able better to integrate the Community’s financial 
contribution  to  the  Schools  in  the  EU’s  budgetary  procedure,  the  Commission  will 
follow  the  procedure  of  announcing  the  maximum  margin  for  its  funding  for  a 
particular  year  well  in  advance,  and  will  expect  the  ES  budget  presented  to  take  this 
fully  into  account  and  be  adjusted  accordingly.  (This  new  approach  was  already 
implemented in the draft budget proposal for the 2005 budget adopted by the Board in 
April  2004).  Projected  budget  allocation  each  year  has  to  be  linked  to  inter  alia  ,  the 
size and needs of schools, proof of efforts for cost savings and better cost-effectiveness. 
Cost  and  resource  comparisons  need  to  be  made  between  European  schools  of  equal 
size. 

3.2. 

Access and terms for children of non-EU staff 

At present, the children at the ES fall into three “categories”; the first of which is Category I, 
which is constituted by the children of staff in the service of Community institutions, of the 
permanent representations of Member-States and of a number of other community agencies 
and  bodies  as  well  as  children  of  ES  staff.  Category  II  comprises  children  covered  by 
individual  agreements  with  third  parties  (companies  or  public  bodies)  and  paying  full  cost 
fees. All other pupils fall into Category III. 

Given the specific purpose of the ES in relation to Union staff, and cost and space pressures, 
a Working Group is examining the total and marginal cost/benefit of Category III pupils and 
the  extent  and  terms  of  access  for  these  pupils.  When  Category  III  pupils  are  admitted, 
detailed,  transparent  and  publicly  available  criteria  for  admissions  are  needed  in  all 
Schools, ie beyond the simple criterion of availability of a place in a particular language 
section. 

The same Working Group is also reviewing fee increases proposed for Category III pupils, 
because of the wide gap between fees and real cost. In the interest of pupils already in the 
Schools, a differentiated approach should be taken between existing and new pupils in this 
category. As regards exemptions from fees, these should be decided upon for reasons of 
financial  hardship  and  changed  circumstances,  on  a  case  by  case  basis,  with  clear, 
detailed and transparent criteria. 

3.3. 

Implementation of criteria for maintaining small Schools or language sections 

The EP’s Bösch Report raised the issue of whether the small ES in locations such as Mol, 
Karlsruhe,  Bergen  and  Culham  in  their  current  form  were  necessary  for  the  functioning  of 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
the European Institutions in these locations, and suggested that the educational added value 
of these schools be further assessed.. This is an important issue needing reflection with many 
elements to be taken into consideration, including the needs of the EU institutions and their 
staff.  The  BoG’s  own  criteria  adopted  in  2000  in  relation  to  the  opening,  maintaining  and 
closing of language sections and Schools3 provides a basis for reflection in this area. 

The ES system needs to be rigorous and fair in its application of the clear criteria it has 
adopted in relation to opening, maintaining and closing language sections and Schools. 
While decisions have already been taken by the BoG to apply these criteria and phase 
out  certain  small  language  sections  in  the  four  small  Schools,  the  wider  issue  of  the 
nature  and  organisation  of  these  schools,  as  well  as  ways  to  improve  their  cost 
effectiveness is under review. For this purpose, the Commission is funding an external 
evaluation  of  the  options  available  for  the  long  –term  future  of  the  above  mentioned 
Schools. 

4. 

EDUCATIONAL AND CURRICULUM ISSUES 

Under  the  EC  Treaty,  competence  for  educational  issues  is  essentially  a  matter  for  the 
Member-States. The Commission would not want to infringe on that, but observes that since 
ES  are  outside  national  educational  systems,  there  may  be  a  risk  that  developments  in 
educational  policy  and  practice  at  national  level  are  not  always  rapidly  applied.  European 
Schools are, however, important to the Commission in recruiting and retaining staff and in 
seeking  to  ensure  the  well-being  of  its  (largely  expatriate)  employees  and  their  children. 
Thus the Commission has a legitimate interest in ensuring that the Schools continue to offer, 
and be seen to offer, a broad, modern curriculum and examination system, in line with the 
best practice in the MS. Furthermore, ES must, as far as is reasonably possible, cater for the 
full range of needs of children of officials. 

Within  the  overall  context  of  a  highly  regarded  system,  the  following  are  areas  where  the 
Commission  has  become  aware  that  there  are  concerns  and/or  development  needs  which 
should be carefully considered. 

4.1. 

Education of children with special needs. 

The  education  of  children  with  special  needs,  be  they  learning  difficulties  or  physical 
disabilities,  also  deserves  greater  attention.  The  existing  provisions  of  the  Convention  are 
currently implemented by the Schools in a diverse manner and the programme for children 
with Special Educational Needs (SEN) and for Learning Support (LS) are important tools to 
be developed further. Both programmes require monitoring so to ensure a good distribution 
of  resources  among  language  sections  and  individual  pupils,  to  optimise  locally  provided 
services and to evaluate their impact. 

4.2. 

An alternative to – in parallel with - the Baccalaureate. 

The  traditional  focus  of  the  Schools  on  the  highly  academic  European  Baccalaureate  (EB) 
has meant that the educational needs and talents of a significant minority of children of staff 
have  not  been  catered  for  adequately  or  in  a  way  to  be  expected  in  a  truly  comprehensive 
School. The option for the Schools to offer a leaving certificate other than the EB has to be 
seriously considered and a feasibility study would need to be undertaken. 

3 

“Criteria for the setting up, closure or maintenance of European Schools”, Doc 2000-D-7510, adopted 
at the BoG meeting of 24-25/10/2000 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The curriculum should be seen in the context of the overall preparation of students for their 
academic and professional lives, and in this respect, it might be appropriate to redirect some 
resources towards civic and practical skills needed to prepare all children for their future. 

4.3. 

Class sizes 

Although many classes in the ES are small, because of the diversity of languages and related 
parameters, the maximum class size is set at 32 which is larger than in many Member-States. 
In some cases, these classes also accommodate pupils for whom there is no mother tongue 
section and who therefore need extra support in order to work as effectively in a “foreign” 
language. Consideration should therefore be given to ways to reduce the maximum size. 

4.4. 

Maintaining the value of the Baccalaureate 

Notwithstanding the introduction of an alternative leaving certificate, the high intrinsic value 
of the EB must be maintained. The EB examination system needs to be reviewed to ensure a 
harmonised approach and high academic quality. Concerns about the absence of real quality 
evaluation of the ES’ education provisions and the way the inspection system operates have 
been expressed by parents and parents’ associations. 

Currently, the EB is run by the Secretary General’s Office in association with the Board of 
Inspectors  (BoI).  This  arrangement  was  originally  designed  to  handle  the  EB  for  a  limited 
number of pupils attending the ES, in a limited number of languages, and this system cannot 
in  future  cope  with  growing  numbers  in  a  multiplicity  of  locations,  with  new  languages 
added. 

A  practical  and  effective  solution  to  face  the  new  challenges  could  be  to  establish  a 
European  Schools’  Education  Council  which  would  act  as  an  examining  Board,  both 
for both the EB and an alternative leaving certificate. This Council could be composed 
of  MS  and  Institution  representatives  and  could  take  over  all  three  inter-linked 
educational  areas  of  the  Schools’  system  –  setting  of  curricula,  inspections  and  final 
examinations.  This  would  simplify  the  current  system,  replacing  the  BoI  and  a 
significant  part  of  the  work  of  the  BoG  (including  the  Teaching  Committees)  and  an 
important part of the work of the Secretary General’s office, by a more operationally 
independent system. At the same time, the establishment of this Council could provide 
an opportunity to review and update the curricula of the Schools. 

Such a change would of course only be possible in the context of radical revision of the 
Schools’  Convention.  The  Education  Council  would  remain  intergovernmental,  given 
Member-States’ competence for education, and would thus complement the proposal to 
transfer  the  operational  aspects  of  the  management  and  planning  of  the  Schools  to  a 
Commission Office or EU Agency model. 

4.5.  Wider availability of the European Baccalaureate 

Finally, the success of the European Baccalaureate has led to a broader interest for its wider 
availability  in  several  MS,  while,  at  the  same  time,  decentralisation  of  EU  activities  has 
created  a  need  for  European  schooling  to  be  provided  in  schools  other  than  the  traditional 
European Schools. 

The  option  of  offering  the  European  Baccalaureate  outside  the  current  ES  system  is 
being explored by Member-States and different models of delivery in cooperation with 
educational  establishments  and  potential  pilots  are  being  considered  by  the  BoG  and 
the Commission . 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
5. 

CONCLUSIONS 

This  Communication  outlines  the  issues  and  challenges  faced  by  the  ES  system  today  as 
identified  by  the  various  stakeholders.  It  proposes  certain  improvements  which  could  be 
decided  upon  and  implemented  by  the  Board  within  the  present  framework.  .The 
Commission  will  build  on  the  ideas  set  out  in  this  Communication  for  its  work  within  the 
BoG. 

It  also  opens  a  debate  on  possible  longer-term  more  radical  change  to  the  system  of 
governance  of  the  ES  beyond  the  scope  of  the  current  international  Convention.  The 
Commission  will  organise  a  wide  consultation  with  and  between  stakeholders  over  the 
coming months before making any significant proposals on the future development of the ES 
system. 

It goes without saying that any change to the Schools’ system, and in particular any major 
change, cannot and must not interrupt or jeopardise the education of the children in the ES. 
The  Commission  considers,  therefore,  that  any  major  change  must  be  preceded  and 
accompanied  by  adequate  planning,  an  appropriate  passage  of  time  and  transitional 
arrangements, so that the primary purpose of providing successful and reliable education for 
our children is sustained.  

All  European  Institutions,  Member  States,  Commission  services,  staff  unions,  parents 
associations,  and  stakeholders  in  general  will  be  consulted,  and  their  opinions  taken 
into account, before any major changes are proposed. This consultation will take place 
during the next academic year. 

In  addition,  all  interested  parties  are  welcome  to  write  in  with  their  views  and 
suggestions to ADMIN-COMMUNICATION-EUROPEAN-SCHOOLS@cec.eu.int 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
FACTS AND FIGURES ON THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS 2003 / 2004* 

School 

N° of 
Language 
Sections 

Total 
pupils 

Pupils who 
are EU 
Staff 
children  

EU Staff 
children as 
% of total 

Cat. III 
pupils 

ALICANTE - E 

BERGEN - NL 

BXL I - B 

BXL II - B 

BXL III - B 

CULHAM - UK 

FRANKFURT - D 

KARLSRUHE 
(****) 

-D 

4 

5 

6 

8 

6 

5 

4 

5 

884 

696 

202 

66 

2 308 

1 560 

2 808 

2 280 

2 669 

2 072 

884 

679 

14 

215 

22.9 

9.5 

67.6 

81.2 

77.6 

1.6 

31.7 

1 098 

83 

7.6 

LUXEMBOURG 

11 

3 802 

2 680 

647 

1 457 

85 

19 

1 335 

466 

70.5 

13.1 

1.3 

35 

641 

578 

610 

280 

475 

729 

408 

858 

760 

506 

372 

614 

Cat. III 
pupils  
% of 
total 

2004 
Budget 
€ million 
running  
costs 

Estimated 
Cat. III 
fees as % 
of budget 
2004 

72.5 

9.92 

14.1 

83 

11.48 

26.4 

26.21 

10 

17.8 

82.4 

60 

27.07 

24.25 

12.28 

8.80 

12 

7.2 

3.3 

6.5 

16.6 

11.3 

EU funding 
2004 
€ million 

EU funding 
as % 
of budget 

6.65 

6.62 

67.04 

57.67 

18.12 

69.13 

17.90 

66.12 

16.62 

68.56 

6.62 

4.99 

53.91 

56.70 

78.1 

11.75 

24.9 

4.14 

35.23 

20 

78.2 

25.5 

46 

37.28 

10.99 

18.57 

7.3 

12 

5.4 

15.79 

10.8 

23.36 

62.66 

6.45 

1.11 

7.80 

58.69 

5.98 

49.40 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

7.99 

- 

6.54 (***)  

81.85 

10 
EN 

MOL - B 

MUNICH (****) -D 

VARESE - IT 

SECRETARY 
GENERAL’S 
OFFICE - B 

5 

5 

5 

- 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TOTAL 

69 

19 267 

9 742 

50.56 

6 831 

35.45 

222.38 

8.95 

126.99 

57.10 

(*) 2 more Schools to be opened in Bxl and Lux in 2004-2008 (**) The cost of Secretary General’s Office has been equally distributed amongst the 12 Schools (***) including 0.6 in reserve 
(****) There are special external sources of income for these Schools, lowering the EU contribution. Source : Rapports de rentrée 2003 & School budgets for 2004 

EN 

11 
EN