WRITTEN QUESTION E-3400/02 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Downturn in Greek economic indicators and growth prospects.
Date: 2002-11-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, budget deficit, gross domestic product, public debt, ratio, stability pact, stability programme, statistical method

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/57

(2003/C 242 E/057)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3400/02

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 2002)

Subject: Downturn in Greek economic indicators and growth prospects

The fact that the GDP growth rate for Greece (4 % for 2001), presented as indicative of sound economic
performance compared with the European average, is in fact being achieved through EU budget-based
redistribution, since, according to the Commission’s information, the figure for 2001 is in fact 3,5 %, lends
credence to concerns regarding prospects for sustained economic growth in Greece following expiry of the
third CSF (2006) and the reduction or halting of large injections of Community funding. Furthermore, this
is accompanied by an increase in the balance of payments current account deficit (Bank of Greece statistics
for January (cid:1) August 2002), resulting from a 13 % drop in trade figures and a substantial decline in
transfers, that is to say remittances from emigrants, and in net revenue from the EU.

Whereas the fact that Greek products are being squeezed out of foreign markets is leading to a loss in
production figures and an increase in unemployment:

1. What does the Commission estimate will be the level of public debt following the revised Eurostat

figures for the years 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003?

2. What will be the impact of these revised figures on the public deficit for the years 2000-2002 and

what are the Commission’s estimates for the year 2003?

3. What state guarantees have been provided in the form of loans for public-sector undertakings (public
funds and local

enterprises and bodies, Olympic Airways, Greek railways), and through social
authorities and what percentage of the public deficit does this constitute?

4. What measures does the Commission recommend to rationalise the Greek economy (public debt
rescheduling, reduction of public deficit) while continuing to implement the programme of public
investment at the same rate?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 2002)

The methodological changes to data reporting agreed between the Greek authorities and the
1.
Commission in the course of 2002 implied that the government debt ratio stood at 106,2 % of the gross
domestic product (GDP) in 2000 and 107 % of GDP in 2001. On this revised basis, the Commission
Autumn 2002 forecasts estimate the government debt ratio to GDP at 105,8 % in 2002 and project a
further reduction to 102 % of GDP in 2003 based on the elements included in the draft State Budget for
2003 and on the assumption of unchanged policies.

2.
The recent methodological revision of reported data revealed a general government deficit of 1,8 % of
GDP in 2000 and 1,2 % of GDP in 2001. The Commission Autumn 2002 forecasts estimate the general
government deficit at 1,3 % of GDP in 2002 and project a deficit of 1,1 % of GDP in 2003.

According to information provided by the 2002 State Budget document,

the stock of State
3.
guarantees was equal
to
EUR 1 080 million in 2001 (or 0,8 % of GDP). According to information provided by the Greek
government in the second reporting under the excessive deficit procedure (November 2002), debt taken
over by the government due to guarantees falling due for payment in 2001 amounted to EUR 494 million
in 2001 (or 0,4 % of GDP) and are estimated at EUR 330 million in 2002 (or 0,2 % of GDP).

to 6,1 % of GDP in 2001 while new State guarantees were equal

The budgetary position of Member States is assessed by the Commission on the basis of the stability/
4.
convergence programmes and their updates prepared by the Member States under the requirements of the
Stability and Growth Pact. Following the submission of the 2001 updated stability programme of Greece,
the Council, on a recommendation by the Commission,
issued an opinion on 12 February 2002.
According to this ‘the Council strongly encourages the Greek authorities to set promptly a clear binding
norm for current primary expenditure as it was recommended in its opinion on the 2000 stability

C 242 E/58

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

programme’; in addition, ‘the Council considers it is appropriate to keep high primary surpluses above 6 %
of GDP and to pursue, if necessary, further budgetary adjustment effort, taking into account the high level
of debt’. Furthermore, ‘taking into consideration the still very high level of the government debt ratio, as
well as the perspective of increasing budgetary costs stemming from the ageing population, the Council
urges the Greek government to take advantage of the current favourable macroeconomic situation to
reduce the government debt as fast as possible’. The 2002 update of the Greek stability programme, 2002-
2006, was submitted on 2 December 2002. The Commission will issue a recommendation for a Council
opinion in early 2003, assessing the compliance of the budgetary position and its prospects with the
requirements of the Stability and Growth Pact.

(2003/C 242 E/058)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3413/02

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(29 November 2002)

Subject: Government aid for professional clubs

Many European professional sports clubs manage to survive only thanks to local authority assistance. With
municipalities providing subsidies, standing surety for bank loans, funding the building of stadiums etc.

What view does the Commission take of this?

Is public funding for professional clubs covered by European rules regarding competition and government
aid?

If so, what does this mean for the local authorities and professional clubs?

Are professional clubs required to inform the Commission of government aid and do they all do so?

In the Commission’s view, what type of government aid falls under Community rules? For example, can
subsidies for youth teams be made subject to the same rules as subsidies for professional clubs?

Can the Commission ask professional clubs to reimburse government aid?

Is government aid to Belgian professional clubs in accordance with European legislation? If not, in which
cases are infringements occurring?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2003)

According to constant jurisprudence by the Court of Justice, professional sports clubs have to be regarded
as undertakings, as they perform an economic activity (1). Therefore, any type of public support to these
undertakings falls in principle under the state aid rules provided that all other criteria of Article 87(1) of
the EC Treaty are also fulfilled. For example, aid granted to professional sports clubs, which does not have
an effect on trade between Member States, does not fall under the aforementioned article.

If, however, all the criteria of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty are fulfilled, the same rules apply as if aid is
granted to any other kind of undertaking. This implies an obligation to the Member State to notify aid to
the Commission. The aid may only be granted to the undertaking upon approval of the Commission.
In case the aid is incompatible, the Commission may order the Member State to recover the aid from the
beneficiary, if it has been illegally paid out in breach of the above mentioned prohibition.