WRITTEN QUESTION E-3459/01 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE)and Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission. The application of the Growth and Stability Pact.
Date: 2002-01-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: budget policy, economic policy, privatisation, stability pact

C 172 E/64

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

In these circumstances Commissioners Monti and Solbes have taken steps to remedy abuse in this sector,
which affects a number of countries, but above all Spain, where commission averages 3,5 %, the highest
level among the EU Member States.

What steps will the Commission consider taking to put an end to the wrongful practices of banks issuing
credit cards?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2002)

The Commission is currently dealing with a complaint introduced under the European competition rules
by EuroCommerce, a European confederation of
the existence of
interchange fees in various payment card systems. Interchange fees are wholesale payments between the
two banks involved in the processing of a payment card transaction, which have repercussions on the fees
charged by banks to retailers for card acceptance. The complaint concerns interchange fees for both cross-
border payments and domestic payments within Member States.

retailers’ organisations, against

The Commission is considering in the first instance interchange fees for cross-border card payments, as
these clearly have an appreciable effect on trade between Member States. In the absence of an appreciable
effect on inter-state trade, national competition authorities are competent to examine alleged restrictions of
competition under national competition law. Moreover, the Commission also had, before the introduction
of
their international
interchange fees.

the complaint, notifications from international payment card organisations of

The first such case is the notification from Visa International of its ‘intra-regional’ interchange fee, which
applies to cross-border Visa card payments within the Visa European zone. On this interchange fee the
Commission addressed a Statement of Objections to Visa International
in October 2000. However,
following proposals by Visa for reforms to its method for setting the level of its intra-regional interchange
fee, the Commission published a Notice in the Official Journal on 11 August 2001 (1),
indicating its
provisional intention to adopt a favourable position concerning the revised intra-regional interchange fee
of Visa.
In parallel, the complainant EuroCommerce was informed of the Commission’s provisional
intention to reject its complaint as concerns the intra-regional interchange fee of Visa, and was given the
opportunity to reply. A number of comments in reply to the Official Journal Notice, and a submission
from the complainant, were received. The Commission is considering these carefully, following which it
will proceed to a final decision on the intra-regional interchange fee of Visa International.

Subsequently, the Commission will consider other cross-border interchange fees of other international card
payment organisations, then it will consider the complaint against domestic interchange fees, including
that in Spain. However, for domestic card payments the Commission will first have to determine,
in
consultation with the national competition authorities as appropriate, whether such domestic fees affect
trade between Member States.

(1) OJ C 226, 11.8.2001.

(2002/C 172 E/068)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3459/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE)
and Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 January 2002)

Subject: The application of the Growth and Stability Pact

In Paragraph 1 of
‘The EU Economy 1999 Review’
(A5-0041/2000) the Parliament ‘Calls upon the Council, in setting the broad Economic Guidelines, to

the Report on the Commission document

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/65

formulate policies,
consistent with stable prices and a balanced budget over the whole economic cycle’.

including microeconomic policies, designed to achieve full employment which are

Does the Commission believe that it is these objectives which underlie the Growth and Stability pact and
which Member States does the Commission believe are furthest from achieving them?

Can the Commission explain the rationale behind the rule which prevents receipts from privatisations
being deducted from budgetary deficits given not only the boost to economic activity and efficiency that
such privatisations can generate but also the fact that the sale of public assets result in real and not illusory
benefits to national exchequers and appear to be consistent with the economic objectives outlined above?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2002)

The primary aim of the Stability and Growth Pact is to safeguard sound public finances as a means to
ensure strong sustainable growth conducive to employment creation. In this way, national budgetary
policies will support a stability-oriented monetary policy and ensure that Member States can deal with
normal cyclical fluctuations without incurring excessive deficits.

Under this framework, budgetary positions in the euro area has continued to be consolidated in recent
years. In 1997, the reference year for the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) qualification among the
first wave, the average budget deficit in the euro area was 2,6 % of gross domestic product (GDP) while in
2000 it had been reduced to 0,8 % of GDP. The majority of Member States have now achieved underlying
budgetary positions that are ‘close to balance or in surplus’, in line with the requirements of the Stability
and Growth Pact. However, in a few Member States (Germany, France, Italy and Portugal), budget positions
still show deficits. This implies that further consolidation efforts will be necessary in the medium-term, as
is also planned in the respective stability programmes.

On the issue of the neutrality of privatisation receipts to the government net lending in the European
System of National and Regional Accounts in the Community (ESA), the efficiency and rationale of
privatisations is in no way questioned by this recording. It should be recognised that in an economic
accounting system like ESA, differently to the practice in cash based public accounts, a distinction is made
between financial and non-financial
transactions as well as financial and non-financial assets. The
privatisation of a public corporation, that is, the sale of a financial asset (the shares in the corporation)
against cash (also a financial asset) constitutes a typical financial transaction that neither has any impact on
government net wealth nor implies any distribution of income between economic sectors. However, of
course, when the economic efficiency gains materialise these will, amongst other things, show in the
growth of tax bases and government revenues. Furthermore, it should be noted that privatisation receipts
do contribute to reduce Maastricht gross debt.

(2002/C 172 E/069)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3464/01

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(4 January 2002)

Subject: Takeover of MAA Assicurazioni (Italy) B infringement of the principle of competition

The events before and during the takeover of all the insurance business of MAA Assicurazioni by SAI B
Società Assicuratrice Industriale Spa B for a token price of Lit 1 000, showed a number of anomalies.