WRITTEN QUESTION E-3533/02 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission. Ignorance regarding the Portuguese budget.
Date: 2002-12-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, Portugal, budget deficit, budget estimate, budget policy, budgetary control, competence of the institution, national budget, public administration

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).

C 192 E/122

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

14.8.2003

In its Autumn 2002 economic forecasts, the Commission projected a general government deficit of 2,9 %
of GDP for 2003. The economic forecasts for each Member State are presented with a text
that
summarises both the assumptions made and the results obtained. The paragraph for Portugal referring to
the deficit forecast for 2003 (3) reads as follows: The [general government deficit] forecast for 2003 is
based on the draft budget for that year.

Among the most significant measures included in the budget are:

(i) personal income tax brackets are indexed below inflation;

(ii) half-year minimum payments on account of final corporate taxes are raised substantially;

(iii) the average inflation rate in the EU will be used as the benchmark in all future wage negotiations in

the public sector;

(iv) a vast programme of privatisation is planned to bring in EUR 1 500 million in revenue, of which 40 %

is to be used to repay public debt;

(v) government transfers will continue to grow above nominal GDP, partly due to the decision to

progressively raise the minimum pension towards the minimum wage.

The resulting forecast is a deficit slightly below 3 % of GDP, which however is above the budgetary target
of 2,4 %. The difference mainly reflects: lower growth than assumed in the budget forecast (1 ¼ as against
1 ¾ %); and the carry-over effect from the deficit slippage estimated for 2002.

(1) The budget report can be downloaded in www.dgep.pt.
(2) Table II, p. 39.
(3) Autumn 2002, Economic Forecasts, European Economy No 5/2002.

(2003/C 192 E/120)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3549/02

by Benedetto Della Vedova (NI) to the Commission

(4 December 2002)

Subject: Compatibility of Law 69 of 3 February 1963 with the free movement of workers within the

European Community guaranteed by the EC Treaty

On 25 July 2002 the Lombardy Association of Journalists wrote to the President of the Milan Court
requesting the annulment of the decision registering Mr Claude Marie Jenacolas, a French citizen, as editor-
in-chief of the Italian magazines ‘Gente Casa’ and ‘Spazio Casa’ published by Hachette-Rusconi.

The Lombardy Association of Journalists claimed that Claude Jenacolas could not carry out the functions
of editor-in-chief because, although he had been a journalist for decades, he was not entered on the
professional register of
journalists: Article 46 of Law 69 of 3 February 1963 (law establishing the
Association of Journalists) provides that the editor and deputy editor of a daily newspaper, periodical or
press agency (…) must be entered on the register of professional
journalists (a judgment by the
Constitutional Court has since ruled that those entered on the register of publicists (cid:1) designed to cover
those who work as journalists on a non-exclusive, but regular and paid basis (cid:1) may also carry out such
functions).

The Lombardy Association of Journalists seems to want to resolve this issue with a solution which is
anything but transparent, proposing that Mr Claude Marie Jenacolas should register with the association of
publicists; however, (cid:1) as pointed out above (cid:1) this register is in fact intended to cover those who work as
journalists on a non-exclusive, but regular and paid basis, and consequently does not cover the case of
Mr Jenacolas who is working exclusively and permanently as a journalist. In this context, it should also be
noted that the decision of the Council of the Lombardy Association of Journalists of 11 November 2002