WRITTEN QUESTION E-0529/01 by Alejandro Agag Longo (PPE-DE) to the Commission. The economic situation.
Date: 2001-02-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Union, United States, economic consequence, economic forecasting, economic model, gross domestic product

18.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 261 E/137

(2001/C 261 E/147)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0525/01

by JosØ Garc(cid:237)a-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 February 2001)

Subject: Stability pact in Spain

In 1997, a year before the final choice of the countries which would comprise the EMU, Spain met not
one of the parameters established at Maastricht:

(cid:129) the inflation rate had been fixed as 3,6 % in 1996, well above the average of the best-performing

countries,

(cid:129) the public deficit, which in 1995 had reached its maximum of 7,3 % of GDP, fell to 4,6 % in 1996, a

figure much higher than the 3 % maximum demanded in Maastricht.

Under these conditions, the Spanish Government decided to freeze the salaries of its officials, a decision
which has recently been contested by a ruling handed down by the High Court.

How does the Commission estimate the amount by which public spending and, therefore, the deficit
(assuming constant fiscal pressure) would have risen had the salaries of civil servants been raised to keep
pace with the CPI?

Would the Commission have recommended that Spain join a first wave of EMU, if the salaries of public
workers had been increased in accordance with CPI forecasts?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2001)

The Commission cannot estimate how public expenditure and the government deficit in Spain would have
developed in recent years if public servants(cid:146) wages had increased in line with Consumer Price Index (CPI)
inflation. In such an event, the government could have varied other budgetary items of both revenue and
expenditure. There is thus little value in answering a hypothetical question regarding Spain(cid:146)s participation
in the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU).

(2001/C 261 E/148)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0529/01

by Alejandro Agag Longo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 February 2001)

Subject: The economic situation

On 18 January 2001, Commissioner Solbes stated that (cid:145)a two percentage point fall of GDP in the USA
means a 0,15 % reduction in the Community(cid:146)s GDP(cid:146).

What econometric model underpins this claim?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2001)

The figures mentioned in the question refer only to the direct trade impact on the Community economy of
a slowing in the United States economy. The United States is the most important export market for the
Community. On 1999 figures, exports to the United States represent some 24,1 % of extra-Community
exports. However, as the Community is a relatively closed area, the same amount of exports is worth only
2,3 % of Community gross domestic product (GDP).

C 261 E/138

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.9.2001

Assuming a standard GDP elasticity of United States imports from the Community, a 2 percentage point
drop in United States growth, will reduce Community export growth to the United States by 6 to 8
percentage points, shaving about 0,15 percentage point of Community GDP growth. This is an estimate of
the direct impact (second-round effects are not taken into account).

(2001/C 261 E/149)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0530/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(22 February 2001)

Subject: Property rights and enlargement

As is widely known, the (cid:145)Real Socialist(cid:146) regimes in the Central and Eastern European countries abolished
private property, which was confiscated. With the gradual return to democracy, the governments of some
of those countries have decided to recognise that the rightful owners (or their descendants) of property
that was confiscated still have a right to that property (cid:129) with particular reference to houses and land. Such
persons are thus able to regain possession of the property confiscated from them, although the procedures
for doing so are complicated. In some cases, however (cid:129) as has happened in Romania (cid:129) former owners
are being offered not the land that was in their possession at the time of confiscation, but a replacement.
This has given rise to dissatisfaction and tensions, due not so much to any comparison between the
financial value of what was lost and what has been returned in its place, but to sentimental reasons, since
the confiscated property is intimately bound up with family memories and traditions.

Can the Commission state whether, during the negotiations with the applicant countries:

1.

2.

3.

4.

it is checking whether property rights have been restored?

it is able to establish whether confiscated property has actually been returned to the rightful owners or
their descendants?

it has set up a service which may be contacted by citizens of the countries concerned who wish to
appeal against decisions by the public authorities to offer them property other than that which was
confiscated?

it is willing to apply all possible pressure with a view to ensuring that property rights are fully
respected, particularly those of families whose property was confiscated?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2001)

The confiscation to which the Honourable Member refers took place before the entry into force of the
Treaty of Rome. Article 295 (former Article 222) of the EC Treaty states that the Treaty should in no way
prejudice the system of property ownership in the Member States. The matter therefore falls within the
jurisdiction of the candidate countries themselves and not the European institutions. Consequently, the
system of ownership is not being discussed in the accession negotiations, nor is the Commission carrying
out any investigations. Any complaint from citizens of the candidate countries must be made to those
countries(cid:146) authorities or to the European Court of Human Rights.

The Commission did, however, touch on the problem in its 1997 opinions on the applications from the
associated Central and Eastern European countries. Where necessary, it has referred to the problem in the
reports on the progress made by the candidate countries towards accession, which it presents every year to
Parliament and the Council, and in particular in the 1999 and 2000 reports on Romania.