WRITTEN QUESTION P-0842/04 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission. Basis for economic growth.
Date: 2004-03-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: economic forecasting, economic growth, revision of financial perspectives

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/891

it was legitimate to equate this act with its consequences (cid:1) public
question to another drug addict,
endangerment with criminal intent (cid:1) and consequently to define it as murder aforethought. Mrs Ulyana
Belozerova, who is a drug user,
is one victim among hundreds of thousands of an undifferentiated
campaign against drugs in Russia, which results in people’s being incarcerated for years or even decades
and which involves large-scale repression of drug-users, while there is no consistent and effective policy on
drugs.

What information does the Commission have about this case and, in general, about the phenomenon of
wholesale repressive measures against drug users in Russia and the consequences of this repressive policy?
Does the Commission consider it legitimate to equate with murder aforethought an act consisting of giving
or even selling 0,5 grams of methadone? More generally, does the Commission agree that this case (cid:1) one
example among thousands (cid:1) is merely a symptom of the serious malfunctioning of the judicial system
and the rule of law as a whole in the Russian Federation?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2004)

The Commission cannot comment on the specific case in question, which is an internal Russian judicial
matter. In principle, a sentence on drug trafficking depends (cid:1) also in Russia (cid:1) on the quantity of drugs
dealt with, whether the convicted person has been a persistent offender or not, previous convictions of the
perpetrator, etc. It is, nonetheless, the view of the Commission that Russia should ensure the fair, non-
discriminatory and proportional application of the law, principles which constitute essential elements of
the EU/Russia partnership. This view has been underlined (cid:1) and will continue to be underlined (cid:1) by the
Commission in its political dialogue with Russia.

The Commission is aware of the need for Russia to improve the functioning and independence of its
judiciary and of ongoing Russian efforts to reform the judicial system. The Commission is closely following
and actively supporting these efforts via the Tacis programme of technical assistance.

In regard to Russia’s efforts to combat drug abuse, the view of the Commission is that an effective anti-
drugs strategy must follow a balanced approach between supply and demand reduction measures, as for
example outlined in the EU Action Plan on Drugs 2000-2004. Particular priority should be given to
preventive measures and the medical treatment of drug addicts in order to reintegrate them into society.
This policy is reflected in dialogue with third countries, including Russia.

(2004/C 84 E/0985)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0842/04

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject: Basis for economic growth

The Commission recently presented the first draft of the 2007-2013 financial perspective.

It bases its draft on the assumption of 4,5 % economic growth during that period.

1. What is the basis for the Commission’s assumption?

2.

How realistic is it?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2004)

1.
The 4 ½% nominal growth rate refers to the EU27 (existing and new Member States + Bulgaria and
Romania) and is composed of a 2 ½% volume increase and a 2 % inflation forecast. The inflation forecast is

C 84 E/892

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

consistent with the European General Bank’s (ECB) medium term stability target. Regarding the volume
increase, while the EU27 economy is likely to grow by 2,5 % in real terms over the period 2007-2011,
there is a sizeable growth differential between current and new Member States. From 2007 to 2011 EU15
real gross domestic product (GDP) growth is expected to be 2,2 %, AC10 (10 new Member States) real
GDP growth will be 4,1 %, with Bulgaria and Romania growing by 5,6 %.

These 2007-2011 calculations are based on actual data up until 2002 and the short term forecasts
(Autumn 2003) of Directorate-General Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN) until 2004. Thereafter,
growth rates of GDP are calculated using DG ECFIN’s production function methodology for calculating
medium term trends. This implies that for the period 2005-2011, growth is assumed to be at its trend
rate. In the framework used for these calculations, growth trends are calculated on the basis of projections
on the growth rate of technical progress or Total Factor Productivity (TFP), the investment to output ratio,
the employment rate and the growth rate of the population of working age.

2.
Of course, projections over such a long period of time are subject to both downside and upside risks.
For the current Member States there is the downside risk that TFP growth may actually not recover as
predicted in the central scenario. TFP growth is currently low as it has been on a declining trend since the
1970s. A continuing improvement in labour market conditions, as observed since the mid 1990s, could
also be questioned. For the new Member States, one can ask whether the high investment to GDP ratios
will be sustained until 2011 and whether the employment rate will recover at the speed which is assumed
in the central scenario.

Under more pessimistic assumptions the EU economy (27 Member States) would only grow by 2,2 % in
real terms (and 4,2 % in nominal terms) over 2007-2011. Growth would be 2,0 % in EU15, 3,6 % in AC10
and 5,0 % in Bulgaria and Romania.

There are also upside risks. If labour market reform efforts continue then the Lisbon employment targets
could be reached more closely in EU15. In a moderately optimistic scenario it is assumed that current
unemployment trends will continue for those countries on a declining trend and there will be a trend
reversal for countries with currently rising trends. In this case an employment rate of 68,5 % could be
reached in 2011 and growth in EU15 could be 0,1 % higher over the period 2007-2011 and reach 2,3 %
(AC10=4,1 and EU27=2,6). Since under these assumptions the Lisbon employment target would not have
been reached by individual countries a more optimistic scenario assumes that all countries currently below
70 % could reach that target, while countries currently above 70 % would remain there. In this case the
employment rate would be 71,1 % in 2011 and average growth in EU15 would rise to 2,7 % (1)
(AC10=4,1 % and EU27=2,9 %).

(1)

It must be mentioned that this scenario is very optimistic, not necessarily because of the employment rate but in
these simple calculations two partially offsetting effects are not taken into account. First, a higher percentage of the
additional employment could be part time and the skill level of the newly created employment would be lower.
Second employment would probably be created with a bias towards service sectors, thus the investment rate is
likely to drop temporarily.

(2004/C 84 E/0986)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0843/04

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject: Approval by the Friuli-Venezia Giulia region of the Ronchi south-Trieste high-speed rail link as

part of Corridor 5

On 9 February 2004 the Commission answered the Written Question of 5 December 2003 (Written
Question E-3873/03 (1)) asking whether the preliminary projects for the construction of a third motorway
link (Quarto d’Altino-Sistiana) and the high-speed rail link between Ronchi South and Trieste complied