WRITTEN QUESTION E-3044/02 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission. Extra-budgetary expenditure in the Portuguese budget for 2003.
Date: 2002-10-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Portugal, budget deficit, gross domestic product, public administration, report, stability pact

C 155 E/78

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.7.2003

authorities (cid:1) and not the Commission (cid:1) are responsible for ensuring conformity with national law. The
question of the incorrect application of the decree-law is a separate matter from its conformity or lack of it
with Community law which is the subject of the infringement procedure.

(1) OJ L 364, 12.12.1992.

(2003/C 155 E/088)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3042/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(24 October 2002)

Subject: Regularisation of past situations in Portugal

According to press reports, it is estimated that in Portugal in 2002 an amount in public expenditure
corresponding to 3 % of GDP has been excluded from the budget, on the grounds that this is expenditure
intended to regularise past situations and does not concern the 2002 budget year.

Can the Commission confirm whether this is the case? Can it confirm whether this practice is consistent
with the accumulation of deferred payments by a number of state organs over 2002?

(2003/C 155 E/089)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3043/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(24 October 2002)

Subject: Definition of extra-budgetary public sector deficit

On 10 October 2002, the newspaper ‘Público’ reported that the deficit of the Portuguese Ministry of
Education was EUR 312 million in 2002, and that the Minister of Education had stated:

We shall be spending more than the amount which appeared in the supplementary budget. Despite a
number of measures taken to combat the deficit, it has continued to increase at a considerable rate.

The Ministry of Education is not the only one to have spoken of an extra-budgetary deficit, but it is the
first where that notion has been validated by the Minister himself.

Can the Commission explain how it takes account of this kind of ‘sectoral deficit’ in its definition of the
deficit of the public administrative sector, and, at all events, supply a reasoned answer based on the
existing national accountancy standards?

(2003/C 155 E/090)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3044/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(24 October 2002)

Subject: Extra-budgetary expenditure in the Portuguese budget for 2003

The newspaper ‘Diário Económico’ reported on 15 October 2002 that the budget deficit forecast for the
public administrative sector in the Portuguese budget for 2003 is 3 % of GDP, and not 2,4 % (the figure
stated in the budget report and hitherto always cited).

The same newspaper stated that the Secretary of State for the Budget has confirmed the above, justifying
his position on the grounds that this additional expenditure of EUR 754 million, which is not mentioned
in the official budget report, corresponds to spending which will only take place if the state receives
extraordinary revenues which are not provided for in the budget.

3.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155 E/79

Can the Commission state whether this method is in line with any guidelines which it has issued to the
Portuguese authorities?

Can it state whether it has received similar explanations from the Portuguese authorities?

Can the Commission explain on what basis this ‘notional deficit’ is taken into account in the definition of
the deficit forecast for the public administrative sector, and, at all events, supply a reasoned answer based
on the existing national accountancy standards?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-3042/02, E-3043/02 and E-3044/02
given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 2002)

On a national accounts basis and according to the European System of National and Regional Accounts
(ESA 95), expenditure is recorded on an accrual basis and not on a cash basis, which means that
expenditure shall be registered in the years when the commitment was made and not when the actual
payment took place. In the economic report of the Portuguese rectifying budget for 2002, it is mentioned
that the regularisation of expenditure arrears in 2002 (cid:1) on account of commitments made and recorded
as expenditure in previous years (cid:1) amounts to EUR 2,1 billion, which represents 1,6 % of the estimated
gross domestic product (GDP) for 2002.

Concerning the extra-budgetary deficit in the Ministry of Education, it should be highlighted that the focus
of the Commission budgetary surveillance is the general government sector as a whole and not any of its
constituent units or sectors in particular, unless the latter display uncommon features that might risk
compliance of the general government sector with overall budgetary targets. Moreover, the deficit referred
to by the Honourable Member seems to be on a public accounts basis and not according to the ESA 95
national accounts rules.

According to the economic report accompanying the Portuguese 2003 budget, the general government
deficit target on a national accounts basis for 2003 is 2,4 % of GDP. National accounts budgetary figures
are those relevant for budgetary surveillance, in particular, the implementation of the Stability and Growth
Pact. The Commission is not aware of any other official projection for the Portuguese government deficit
in 2003.

(2003/C 155 E/091)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3047/02

by Benedetto Della Vedova (NI) to the Commission

(18 October 2002)

Subject: Compatibility of the Italian special wages guarantee fund (CIGS) with Article 87 of the EC Treaty

On 6 June 2002, the author of the present question tabled question P-1680/02, on the compatibility of
the Italian special wages guarantee fund (CIGS) with Community law on state aids for companies and
employment (1). The Commission’s answer, dated 5 July 2002, stated:

(cid:1) that the CIG (‘Cassa integrazione guadagni’) fulfils the function in Italy of providing a minimum degree
of protection for employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, while also in practice
having functions that go beyond that objective; and

(cid:1) that where such measures in support of employees ‘benefit enterprises selectively, whether through
discretionary granting, or by applying only to certain sectors, only in certain geographical regions or
only to firms of a certain size, state aid may be involved’; and that in such cases, ‘the compatibility of
any such aid would need to be assessed against paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 87 of the EC Treaty’.