WRITTEN QUESTION P-1904/03 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Increase in Greek public debt.
Date: 2003-06-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, budget policy, public borrowing, public debt, ratio

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/157

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2003)

Interreg projects are carried by a wider partnership and are jointly programmed and implemented by the
various partners. These factors add more value to Interreg projects but can make them more laborious to
implement because of the division of tasks and responsibilities involved.

Interreg projects also have to comply with the provisions applicable to the Structural Funds. The projects
are particularly affected by the general effort to simplify, clarify and manage the structural policies more
flexibly, as recently covered in a Commission communication (1).

A technical secretariat has been set up for each Interreg programme to facilitate access to funding and
make it easier for potential beneficiaries to participate. One of the roles of the secretariat is to help those
sponsoring projects to draw up their presentations and proposals.

The Commission is currently going into the possibility of drafting a legal instrument on cross-frontier
cooperation to facilitate the planning and implementation of Interreg projects, as referred to in the second
progress report on cohesion. It published an invitation to tender (2) for a study on decentralised cross-
frontier cooperation and developing legal instruments for Community cooperation. The bids have been
evaluated and a contract is due to be signed soon. The first effects of the study should be seen in the third
report on economic and social cohesion due to be adopted by the Commission in December 2003.

(1) Communication C(2003) 1255 of 25 April 2003 from the Commission on the simplification, clarification,

coordination and flexible management of the structural policies in 2000-2006.

(2) OJ S 22, 31.1.2003.

(2004/C 51 E/174)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1904/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 June 2003)

Subject: Increase in Greek public debt

According to official figures the Greek public debt rose by EUR 7,3 billion to EUR 173,1 billion in the first
quarter of 2003, already exceeding the ceiling figure of EUR 171,05 billion for the end of 2003.

Can the Commission explain the reasons for this sharp increase in the Greek Government’s debt? Was it
caused by state guarantees to various organisations (which organisations and how much) or by fresh loans?
What measures are being envisaged by the Commission in cooperation with the Greek Government?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 2003)

The Commission is closely monitoring the developments in the Greek Government finances as the debt
ratio of Greece is among the highest in the Union. In fact, the Commission has repeatedly stressed the
need for more decisive policy actions aiming at a rapid reduction in the government debt, given the strong
real output growth enjoyed by the Greek economy for several years. In the 2003 State Budget and the
2002 Stability programme the central government debt is projected to be equal to EUR 171,05 billion,
whereas the general government consolidated gross debt is estimated to be EUR 150,4 billion, representing
100,2 % of the gross domestic product (GDP). According to the Commission Spring forecasts, the Greek
general government debt ratio is projected to stand at 101 % of GDP at the end of 2003.

C 51 E/158

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

Concerning the state guarantees to various organisations, it should be noted that they are not counted in
the general government debt unless they are called.

In order to assess the government indebtedness, what is relevant is the level of the general government
consolidated gross debt at the end of the year and the evolution of the debt to GDP ratio. As the general
government debt ratio is influenced by several factors (like the primary balance, the rate of growth of
nominal GDP and other autonomous factors including financial operations and privatisation proceeds), the
results from the implementation of the budget as well as the level of borrowing of the State in the first
quarter of the year do not give a reliable indication on the government debt ratio at the end of the year.

As quarterly government accounts are not yet available, checking the reasons of the observed increase is
not possible. However, the observed increase in the central government borrowing in the first quarter of
2003 does not necessarily indicate unexpected overruns in the level of the general government debt to
GDP ratio at the end of the year. In fact, as it might be the specific case, it may reflect a front-loaded
borrowing strategy based on certain market conditions and therefore a normalisation of the borrowing
profile in the course of the year should not be excluded.

(2004/C 51 E/175)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1911/03

by Johannes Blokland (EDD)
and Rijk van Dam (EDD) to the Commission

(12 June 2003)

Subject: Possible effects on competition policy of the Court of Justice’s judgments in cases C-469/00 and

C-108/01

On 20 May 2003 the Court delivered its judgments in cases C-469/00 and C-108/01, both of which
concerned the application and implementation of provisions on protected designations of origin (PDO) for
foodstuffs, namely ‘Grana Padano’ cheese and ‘Prosciutto di Parma’ ham.

Is the Commission aware of the substance of these judgments?

Does the Commission share the view that the product dossiers on which the Court’s judgments were based
authorise such extensive protection measures that there are justifiable fears that they will not contribute to
the effective operation of the internal market?

Is the Commission prepared to evaluate the potential effects on the internal market of provisions in PDO
product dossiers and to review such provisions and dossiers if they have disproportionately negative effects
on the internal market?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

The Commission is aware of the two judgments that the Court of Justice handed down on 20 May 2003
in cases C-108/01 and C-469/00, respectively concerning the protected designations of origin ‘Prosciutto
di Parma’ and ‘Grana Padano’.

Justice’s analysis that

The Commission agrees with the Court of
the measures contained in the
specifications requiring certain operations such as grating, slicing and packaging of the products to be
undertaken in the geographical area of production, are measures whose effect is equivalent to a quantity
restriction (which is banned by the principle of the free movement of goods) but they benefit from one of
the derogations provided for in the EC Treaty in that they are justified on the grounds of protecting
industrial and commercial property,
in this case, designations of origin. The measures in question are
balanced and needed to protect the respective PDOs.