WRITTEN QUESTION E-4071/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission. The Growth and Stability Pact again.
Date: 2004-01-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Ecofin, Economic and Monetary Union, European Union membership, France, Germany, President of the Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, application of EU law, image, public statement, stability pact

C 84 E/520

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

(2004/C 84 E/0596)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4071/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject: The Growth and Stability Pact again

After the public outcry caused by the Ecofin Council’s deplorable decision concerning the repeated
violation of the Growth and Stability Pact by France and Germany, the echoes of which were heard in the
European Parliament’s debate, there is still great curiosity and some puzzlement about the Commission’s
real thoughts on the matter.

On the one hand, there has been frequent mention of the statements made by the President, Romano
Prodi, who said the GSP was ‘stupid’ during an interview he gave to ‘Le Monde’, and of the polemic
aroused by these statements.

On the other hand, we do not know whether or not the Commission will take the matter to the Court.
First of all, soon after Ecofin’s decision and with reference to the views of President Prodi and
Commissioner Solbes, there were reports that the Commission, taking forceful and firm action, would do
so. Later on it was reported that there was strong pressure against this, particularly from Germany and
Austria, and since then there has been no news.

Can the Commission therefore say:

(cid:1) whether the feelings openly expressed to a French newspaper regarding the ‘stupidity’ of the GSP in
any way contributed to this serious lack of respect on the part of France and Germany, the countries
of the ‘Franco-German axis’;

(cid:1) whether or not it intends to refer their disregard and Ecofin’s controversial decision to the Court,
whether the Commission has been under any pressure not to do so and, if so, from which Member
States the pressure came;

(cid:1) whether it does not consider that decisions such as that taken by Ecofin open the way for future
infringements of the rules of the GSP, and that if they do and nothing is done about it, whether such
infringements will be ‘legitimised’;

(cid:1) whether it does not also consider that this kind of attitude points not to a ‘two-speed’ Europe but
rather a ‘two-level’ Europe (cid:1) a Europe of big and small countries, and that incidents such as this place
the European Union in a critical situation of total disorder?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

On 13 January 2004, the Commission adopted a three-pronged strategy to clarify and improve economic
policy coordination and surveillance following the 25 November 2003 Ecofin Council conclusions (1).

As a first strand of this strategy, the Commission will continue the conduct of economic and budgetary
surveillance for all Member States in the framework of the EC Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact
(SGP). It will continue to monitor developments for Member States in excessive deficit and base its
recommendations on sound economic analysis and the principle of equal treatment.

As a second strand, the Commission, based on the experience of the five first years of the Economic and
Monetary Union (EMU), will make new proposals for the strengthening of economic governance in the
future. Improvements in the implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact will form part of this
initiative.

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/521

Finally, consistent with its role as the guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will seek to establish legal
clarity and predictability regarding EMU related provisions of
the EC Treaty. The Council adopted
non-binding conclusions instead of taking a decision required by the law and the Commission has,
therefore, decided to submit the Council conclusions to the scrutiny of the European Court of Justice.

(1) Press release IP/04/35.

(2004/C 84 E/0597)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4076/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject: Widespread desiccation of pine trees in Greece

In many regions of Greece, and particularly in Attica, the widespread desiccation of pine trees has been
observed. According to published information, this phenomenon is probably due, primarily or indirectly,
to Marchalina Hellenica, a honey-producing insect which infests pines. This insect produces honeydew
which constitutes the basis for the production of pine honey.

Owing to the importance of this insect for beekeeping, this insect has been spread over the last few years
by inoculating a large number of pines. This action has been funded to the tune of some two million euros
under the Second CSF through the Ministry of Agriculture.

Given the fact that the desiccation of pines hosting the insect Marchalina Hellenica appears to be quite
widespread and poses a threat to pine forests in many regions of Greece, will the Commission say:

1. Do any scientific data exist concerning the consequences of the spread of this insect through the
inoculation of pines? Is the inoculation of pines with Marchalina Hellenica practised in other European
countries for the production of pine honey?

2. Will

it

fund research to fully investigate the phenomenon of the desiccation of pines so that
appropriate measures and steps can be taken to control and combat this phenomenon which threatens
to destroy large areas of pine forest in Greece and to establish scientifically whether or not the insect
Marchalina Hellenica is responsible for it?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2004)

1.
On 15 October 2003, the Greek Ministry of Agriculture invited experts to a workshop in order to
discuss the recent outbreak of pine tree desiccation particularly affecting the region of Attica. They
concluded that there is no direct cause/effect relationship between the presence of Marchalina hellenica
and desiccation of trees of the genus Pinus but that the desiccation is a secondary damage brought about
by i.a. climatic factors. To the Commission’s knowledge, the deliberate spreading of M. hellenica in pine
forests is only practised in Greece and Turkey.

2.
The workshop on 15 October 2003 concluded that further research into the desiccation problem
and the behaviour of M. hellenica in pine forests is necessary. As the problem does not have an EU-wide
dimension, the Commission has no plans to fund further research into it.