WRITTEN QUESTION E-3532/02 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission. Unusual characteristics of deficits.
Date: 2002-12-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, Portugal, budget deficit, budgetary control, competence of the institution, national budget, public accounting, public administration

C 192 E/120

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

14.8.2003

Article 191 as amended at Nice now offers a solid and uncontestable legal base for community legislation
on European political parties and their financing.

The new proposal will replace the transitional proposal made in 2001 and never adopted by Council. It will
lay down rules on the obligations of recipients of community funding in terms of respect for democracy
and fundamental freedoms, minimum representativity and financial transparency and accountability.

(2003/C 192 E/117)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3531/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Total value of past spending under the 2002 Portuguese budget

All that the Commission’s reply to my question E-3042/02 (1) does is to add some factual data which helps
one to grasp the scale of the issue. In fact, with the amending budget assigning 1,6 % of GDP to correcting
‘past situations’, how is one to understand that this amount is now estimated at 3 % and adds spending not
balanced in 2002?

This is the question I put. Could I please have it answered?

(1) OJ C 155 E, 3.7.2003, p. 78.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2003)

The written question of the Honourable Member explicitly refers to the answer given by the Commission
to his previous written question E-3042/02. In its task of budgetary surveillance, official documents
(e.g. budget reports), and the information transmitted regularly on the basis of the relevant legislation
(e.g. the semi-annual deficit and debt notification (1)) play a predominant role as sources of information. In
written question E-3042/02, the Honourable Member refers to some ‘press reports’, according to which
expenditure arrears to be regularised in 2002 would amount to 3 % of gross domestic production (GDP).
This value differs from the official estimate in the 2002 rectifying budget report, which puts the amount of
expenditure arrears to be regularised in 2002 at 1,6 % of GDP (2). The Commission is not aware of any
other official projection for the amount of expenditure arrears to be regularised in 2002.

Moreover, according to the European system of national and regional accounts in the Community (ESA
95), expenditure is recorded on an accrual basis and not on a cash basis. This means that the amount of
expenditure arrears to be regularised in 2002 has no impact on the general government deficit for that
year, as this spending is registered in the years the respective liabilities were incurred, and not when the
actual payments are made. The only impact would be on the debt level for 2002.

(1) Council regulation (EC) No 3605/93 of 22 November 1993 on the application of the Protocol on the excessive

deificit procedure annexed to the Treaty establishing the Community (cid:1) OJ L 332, 31.12.1993.
‘Relatório da Proposta de Alteração à Lei do Orçamento para 2002’.

(2)

(2003/C 192 E/118)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3532/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Unusual characteristics of deficits

According to its answer to Written Question E-3043/02 (1) the Commission only exercises budgetary
control in the public sector as a whole and not in any of its specific components or sectors, which is
obvious and was implicit in the question. However, apart from not answering the question, which referred

14.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192 E/121

explicitly to the impact of this sectoral deficit on the overall public deficit, the Commission uses new
concepts which raise new doubts.

Can the Commission therefore clarify what it means by the ‘indication of unusual characteristics likely to
compromise compliance with overall budgetary objectives’?

Can it also clarify what the threshold is for considering extra-budgetary expenditure ‘unusual’?

The Commission also claims that the above-mentioned deficit apparently results from the system of public
accounts and not from the national accounting system based on the 1995 ESA, but it does not explain
what the value of the deficit is, calculated according to the national accounting system to which it refers.

It is advisable to bear in mind that it is the supervisory body, and not the questioner, who is responsible
for carrying out any accounting conversion it considers necessary.

(1) OJ C 155 E, 3.7.2003, p. 78.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2003)

In his written question, the Honourable Member explicitly refers to the Commission’s answer to his
previous written question E-3043/02.

In the written answer to question E-3043/02, the Commission stated 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.’ The Honourable Member asks the Commission to clarify
the meaning of ‘uncommon features’. As the Honourable Member knows, the structure of the general
government varies considerably between Member States (e.g. some Members have a federal structure,
others autonomous regions with considerable powers, etc.). Therefore, it is impossible to provide a general
definition of the expression ‘uncommon features’. However, in the context of budgetary surveillance, the
Commission has to pay particular attention to any development at the level of a constituent unit or sector
of the general government that could ultimately endanger compliance with the budgetary target set for the
general government as a whole, or render it altogether more complicated.

(2003/C 192 E/119)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3533/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Ignorance regarding the Portuguese budget

According to its answer to Written Question E-3044/02 (1) the Commission does not know about the
budget deficit in the public administration sector forecast in the Portuguese budget for 2003. How can the
Commission explain its extraordinary ignorance on the subject?

(1) OJ C 155 E, 3.7.2003, p. 78.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2003)

An official source for the Portuguese state budget is the government’s budget report (1). Therein, the
general government deficit target for 2003, on a national accounts basis, is set at 2,4 % of the gross
domestic product (GDP) (2).