Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

Parliamentary questions
6 September 2011
Question for written answer
to the Commission
Rule 117
Laurence J.A.J. Stassen (NI)

 Subject: EIB loans to Saab

In recent weeks there has been a stream of bad news concerning Swedish Automobile (Saab). For months no cars have been produced as a result of considerable arrears in payment. Each month the car manufacturer issues new shares in order to pay the wages but nevertheless Saab was unable to pay the August salaries on time. In the meantime, the creditors have already been in contact with Saab and its half-yearly figures have been postponed. Despite a EUR 400 million loan from the European Investment Bank, Saab is now considering asking for payments to be deferred.(1)

I have previously asked questions (16 February 2010, E‑0551/10 20 April 2011, 003923/2011) concerning the questionable basis of the decision to grant Saab a EUR 400 million loan.

1. Can the Commission indicate how much money Saab has now received from the EIB for its so-called research and development programme? If not, why not?

2. Can the Commission indicate how much money the EIB will get back from its loan to Saab if the company were to go bankrupt? If not, why not?

3. In its answer to my question of 20 April 2011 the Commission stated that the EIB loan contributes to the strengthening of Saab's financial position and promotes sound banking. What is the Commission's assessment of Saab's policy on these issues and to what extent have the objectives of the EIB loan been achieved?

4. In its answer to my question whether it was not essential that EIB loans should be granted to fundamentally sound companies, the Commission stated that loans were provided under the European Clean Transport Facility (ECTF). Does the Commission not agree with me that it is unacceptable that when considering an application for the granting of an EIB loan, the company's underlying stability is apparently of secondary importance as long as the company merely claims that the money lent will be invested in so-called ‘green’ and ‘clean’ transport projects? If not, why not?


Original language of question: NLOJ C 146 E, 24/05/2012
Last updated: 12 September 2011Legal notice