WRITTEN QUESTION P-1464/98 by Nel van Dijk (V) to the Commission (7 May 1998)

Subject: Inclusion by Netherlands Central Planning Office of reduced EU budget contribution by the Netherlands in calculation of estimated costs of implementing parties' election manifestoes

Is the Commission aware of the report 'Keuzes in kaart - economische effecten van vijf verkiezingsprogramma's' (Reviewing the options - economic impact of five election manifestoes) by the Netherlands Central Planning Office, particularly the section 'Reduction of contributions to the EU budget' in Annex 6?

If no agreement were to be reached within the Council concerning the new Financial Perspective - for example on account of a veto by the Netherlands - would an extension of the current Financial Perspective be 'conditional on unanimity', as the Central Planning Office claims?

Does the view expressed by the Central Planning Office accord with the decision-making procedure described in Paragraph 25 of the Interinstitutional Agreement (IIA) of 29 October 1993 on the Financial Perspective? Is it true that 'as far as the Council is concerned, the IIA lays down that it may reject an extension by a qualified majority. However, the Member States have agreed that in practice there should be a qualified majority in favour of an extension ...' ((Note on the report on the approval of the Decision of 31 October 1994 concerning the system of the EC's own resources, Lower House of Parliament of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, 1995-1996, 24127, No 5, p. 15. ))?

If the current Financial Perspective were to be extended, would it permit a higher level of expenditure in 2002 than the proposal for the new Financial Perspective for 2000-2006 recently presented by the Commission?

Can the Commission provide an estimate of the Netherlands' contribution to the EU budget in 2002 on the basis of the assumptions that the current Financial Perspective will be extended, the existing Decision on Own Resources will still be in force, and the financial limits will be exploited to the maximum?

If the Financial Perspective were to be denounced, would the 'maximum rate of increase procedure' pursuant to Article 203(9) of the EC Treaty be applicable?

How many times and when have the European Parliament and the Council already made use of the the provision in Article 203(9), fifth paragraph, permitting a rise in the 'maximum rate of increase'?

Can a single Member State veto such a rise?

In the light of the answers to the above questions, how accurate is the statement in the Introduction to the Central Planning Office's report that 'for reductions in contributions to the EU budget, an upper limit has been used which corresponds to what the Netherlands can, if necessary, secure by blocking decision-making on the new Financial Perspective for the EU'?

Is there any room for improvement in the description of European decision-making given in the Central Planning Office's report?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (5 June 1998)

The Commission is aware of the existence of the report referred to by the Honourable Member.

Paragraph 25 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 29 October 1993 on budgetary discipline and improvement of the budgetary procedure ((OJ C 331, 7.12.1993. )) reads as follows:

'If no new agreement is concluded, and unless this Agreement is expressly denounced by one of the parties acting by the majority referred to in the fifth subparagraph of Article 203 (9) of the Treaty, the ceilings for the last year covered by the existing financial perspective will be adjusted in accordance with paragraph 9 of this Agreement by applying to these amounts the average increase observed over the preceding period in compliance with the own resources ceiling'.

When the Agreement was concluded, the Council made a statement to the effect that it understood that the duration of the financial perspective annexed to the AII was limited to the period 1993 - 1999 and that it would take due account of the possibility referred to in paragraph 25. It would decide by the majority provided for in Article 203 of the EC Treaty whether the validity of the financial perspective should be extended for another year in compliance with the own resources ceiling. If the required majority could not be mustered, it would therefore deduce that the conditions required by this paragraph to denounce the Agreement had been met.

Should Article 25 of the Agreement be applied, the ceilings on expenditure would be higher than those proposed by the Commission (by around 5% in the overall ceiling on commitment appropriations by 2002). On the assumption that these ceilings were fully utilised, the Member States' contributions to the Community budget would rise by much the same rate.

In the absence of an interinstitutional agreement and a financial perspective, the procedure of the maximum rate of increase for non-compulsory expenditure laid down in Article 203(9) of the EC Treaty becomes applicable. The same Article sets out the rules governing the majority required for this procedure.

Since 1988, pursuant to the interinstitutional agreements 'the two arms of the budgetary authority agree to accept for the financial years (covered by the financial perspective) the maximum rates of increase for non-compulsory expenditure deriving from the budgets established within the ceilings set by the financial perspective'. Before that date, disagreements over the implementation of the provisions relating to the maximum rates of increase several times (1980, 1982, 1986, 1987) prevented the budget procedure from running its normal course as well as the adoption of the budget within the deadlines set.

With regard to the other points of the question put by the Honourable Member, it is not for the Commission to pass judgment on the way a Member State (or one of its bodies) intends to broach the discussion on the proposals presented.