COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Economic governance review Report on the application of Regulations (EU) n° 1173/2011, 1174/2011, 1175/2011, 1176/2011, 1177/2011, 472/2013 and 473/2013 
Date: 2014-11-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, balance of payments assistance, budget deficit, budgetary equilibrium, economic convergence, economic disparity, economic reform, economic statistics, macroeconomics, participating country (euro area), stability pact













EUR-Lex - 52014DC0905 - EN











|



52014DC0905

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Economic governance review Report on the application of Regulations (EU) n° 1173/2011, 1174/2011, 1175/2011, 1176/2011, 1177/2011, 472/2013 and 473/2013 /* COM/2014/0905 final */









COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK, THE EUROPEAN
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
Economic governance review
Report on the application of Regulations (EU) n° 1173/2011, 1174/2011,
1175/2011, 1176/2011, 1177/2011, 472/2013 and 473/2013[1]


1.      INTRODUCTION

As
a response to weaknesses in its economic governance system revealed by the
economic and financial crisis, the EU has taken a wide range of measures to strengthen
economic governance and to achieve sustained convergence, economic growth and
jobs. Central to these efforts have been the legislative packages known as the six-pack
and two-pack. The seven Regulations of these packages are the subject of this
review[2];
on one of them, Regulation 472/2013, a
first review was published already in February 2014.[3] The
legislation aims at a closer coordination of economic policies through a
strengthening of budgetary surveillance under the Stability and Growth Pact,
the introduction of a new procedure in the area of macroeconomic imbalances, the
establishment of a framework for dealing with countries experiencing
difficulties with financial stability, and the codification in legislation of
integrated economic and budgetary surveillance in the form of the European
Semester. 
The
key question under consideration in this review is to what extent the new rules
introduced by the six-pack and two-pack have been effective in achieving their objectives
and to what extent they have contributed to progress in ensuring closer
coordination of economic policies and sustained convergence of economic
performances of the Member States, while at the same time ensuring a high level
of transparency, credibility and democratic accountability. 
The
ability to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of the regulations is limited
by the short experience of their operation, with the six-pack entering into
force in end-2011 and the two-pack only in mid-2013. Not only is this time
period short, but it has also been characterised by a severe economic crisis.
This leaves the rules untested in normal economic times.

2.      EFFECTIVENESS
OF THE REGULATIONS 

The
following sub-sections deal with the effectiveness of each of the Regulations
in achieving its objectives on a topical basis for the different elements of
the new economic governance legislation.

2.1.  Fiscal
surveillance 

Objectives
The
financial and economic crisis and the resulting increases in deficits and debt
level in the EU required a profound reform of the Stability and Growth Pact[4], both
in its preventive and the corrective arm.[5]
Overall, the two main objectives of the six-pack and two-pack reforms in the
area of fiscal surveillance were (1) a strengthened and deepened budgetary
surveillance by making it more continuous and integrated, also via an intensified
sanctions mechanism; and (2) an additional surveillance for euro area Member
States to ensure the correction of excessive deficits and an appropriate
integration of EU policy recommendations in the national budgetary preparation.
In
particular, the preventive arm
was reinforced and made more binding. The six-pack
established the concept of a significant deviation from the medium-term
objective, or from the adjustment path towards it. Insufficient correction of
such a deviation can eventually lead to financial sanctions for a euro area
country. The requirements for the adjustment path were designed to take into
account sustainability risks and the overall economic context. The expenditure
benchmark was introduced to provide clearer and
more operational guidance to Member States. The
increased involvement and enforcement in the preventive arm reflect the
importance of prudent fiscal policies during good economic times. 
The
corrective arm
was upgraded by operationalising the Treaty's debt criterion. The sanctions
imposed on euro area countries non-compliant with recommendations under the
Excessive Deficit Procedure were intensified. New provisions on annual nominal
and structural deficit targets for the duration of the Excessive Deficit
Procedure were introduced. Overall, the Stability and Growth Pact was made more
flexible via the possibility to adapt the pace of fiscal consolidation both in
the preventive and corrective arm in justified cases.
Recognising the
extent and potential consequences of spillovers among euro area Member States'
economic and budgetary situations, the Two Pack introduced additional
surveillance and monitoring procedures for euro area Member States. A
system of graduated monitoring by the Council and the Commission was
established in order to secure a timely and durable correction of excessive
deficits and to allow an early detection of the risks that a Member State does
not comply with the Pact rules. This includes the analysis of euro area Member
States' draft budgetary plans each autumn and the possibility for the
Commission to provide autonomous recommendations to Member States with
excessive deficits. It also contains the requirement for the latter countries to
present Economic Partnership Programmes describing the fiscal-structural
reforms that are implemented to ensure an effective and lasting correction of those
deficits. 
As
a complement to the above, the Two Pack also built on the Six Pack's Directive
on budgetary frameworks and introduced further elements strengthening the
fiscal frameworks of the euro area Member States: stronger emphasis on
medium-term planning, better synchronised and more transparent budgeting
processes, procedures to foster the use of unbiased macroeconomic forecasts for
budget planning, as well as independent monitoring of compliance with fiscal
rules at national level.
Assessment
Overall,
the reformed framework has proven effective in strengthening budgetary
surveillance and thus in guiding Member States in their efforts to consolidate
public finances in difficult economic conditions. While the rules have only
been in operation for a rather short period of time and their specific
contribution is difficult to distinguish from other factors driving various policy
actions, the first experience suggests that the reformed EU fiscal rules indeed
have played a role. Overall, there has been progress in addressing fiscal consolidation,
with the EU-28 average fiscal deficit falling from 4.5% of GDP in 2011 to a
forecast of around 3% of GDP in 2014. 
The
performance under the reformed preventive arm can so far be considered
as encouraging. Most concerned Member States have attained, or made appropriate
progress towards their medium-term objectives (see Annex 1.2). A significant
deviation has not been detected so far. However, it is when economic conditions
improve that it will be possible to gain an even better understanding of the
effectiveness of the preventive arm, particularly regarding the expenditure
benchmark. 
Under
the corrective arm, the sustainable correction of excessive deficits has
been impressive since the six-pack entered into force in December 2011. At that
time, 23 out of 27 Member States were subject to an Excessive Deficit Procedure
(see Annex 1.3). By end-August 2014, this number fell to 11 out of 28. The
experience with the debt benchmark is very limited, not least as the new
rules included a transition period for the debt benchmark to fully enter into
force. Nevertheless, the operationalisation of the debt criterion has increased
the awareness of the relevance of debt for fiscal stability and has offered
additional incentives to bring debt on a sustainable path. The intermediate nominal
and structural deficit targets under the Excessive Deficit Procedure have enabled
more precise and transparent policy advice and monitoring. It mitigated the
adverse incentives to back-load structural adjustment and allowed taking into
account the uncertainty on the macroeconomic scenario underlying the
recommendation. The possibility to adapt existing recommendations has been used
for well justified reasons, and has proved particularly valuable in adapting
the consolidation trajectories in the fast changing environment of the past ten
years.  
As
no sanctions have been imposed on countries non-compliant with the reformed
Stability and Growth Pact rules, it is not possible to fully assess whether the
objective of a more effective enforcement of budgetary surveillance in the euro
area was indeed achieved. It can however be said that the additional budgetary
surveillance elements for euro area Member States introduced by the two-pack
seem to have broadly fulfilled their objective to increase at least the
pressure to correct excessive deficits. The possibility for the Commission to issue
autonomous recommendations has been a significant addition to the
monitoring of the Member States with excessive deficits, as it will allow for
earlier guidance for countries with excessive deficits. This implies better
detection of risks and allows the Member State to take them into account and to
adopt precautionary measures. The Economic Partnership Programmes will increase
the awareness of policy-makers of the link and importance of structural reforms
for fiscal sustainability. This requires focusing Economic Partnership
Programmes on identifying specifically those existing and potentially necessary
measures that address the sustainability of the deficit correction.
In
autumn 2013, a first transparent, comparable and independent assessment of Draft
Budgetary Plans of all euro area Member States took place before the budgets were
adopted by the national Parliaments.[6]
This exercise marks an important shift in the approach to fiscal surveillance
from ex-post assessment to ex-ante guidance. It thus helps to fulfil the
objective of an appropriate integration of EU policy recommendation in the
national budgetary preparation. 
In
addition, the Two Pack's drive to strengthen the fiscal frameworks of euro area
Member States has already produced tangible improvements. The scope and quality
of annual budgeting and medium-term fiscal planning have been upgraded. These
processes are now generally based on independently produced or endorsed
macroeconomic forecasts. National budgeting processes in the euro area are
being aligned with the common milestones set out in the Two Pack. A host of
bodies entrusted under national law to independently monitor the respect of
national fiscal rules have been established or reinforced across the euro area.
Since most of these bodies have only been incorporated recently, their
independence, credibility and effectiveness will have to be confirmed by
practice over the coming years.
The
rules have allowed a balance to be found between sustainability and cyclical
stabilisation requirements, inter alia, by the modulation of the fiscal
effort according to economic conditions and sustainability risks in the
preventive arm and the extension of deadlines for correcting excessive deficits
in the corrective arm. A general escape clause exists in both the
preventive and corrective arm to deal with exceptional situations constituting threats
to the economies of the euro area or the EU as a whole. 

2.2 Macroeconomic
imbalance procedure 

Objectives
In
the Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure[7]
the surveillance of economic policies of the Member States was broadened beyond
budgetary issues, including to external imbalances, competitiveness, asset
prices, and internal and external debt. The objectives of the two regulations
which introduced the Macroeconomic imbalances procedure were to establish an
effective framework for (1) the detection of macroeconomic imbalances, (2) the
prevention and correction of excessive macroeconomic imbalances and (3) the
effective enforcement of the correction of excessive macroeconomic imbalances
in the euro area.
To
achieve these objectives, the following main tools were introduced: 
The
Alert Mechanism Report is an initial screening device to identify the
Member States for which a detailed scrutiny (an in-depth review) is necessary
before concluding whether imbalances or excessive imbalances exist. The report
also contributes to identifying the imbalance issues of common interest for
which discussion and coordination among the Member States is necessary via a
scoreboard of indicators and a series of auxiliary variables (including a set
of social indicators). The in depth reviews identify policy challenges
and policy options with the aim of preparing policy recommendations, and
contributing to dialogue with the EU institutions and with the relevant Member
States. When preparing the in depth reviews, the Commission bases its analysis
on a rich set of analytical material. Based on the assessment and conclusions
from these in depth reviews further steps under the macroeconomic imbalances
procedure may follow, depending on the gravity of the situation and risks. In
the preventive arm of the macroeconomic imbalances procedure, should an
imbalance be identified, policy recommendations can be adopted, as part of the
country-specific recommendations which the Commission puts forward at the end
of the European Semester. An excessive imbalance procedure (the
corrective arm of the MIP) may be launched for the Member States experiencing
excessive imbalances. Under the corrective arm, the Member States concerned are
requested to prepare corrective action plans, the implementation of which is
regularly monitored. Financial sanctions may be imposed on the euro area Member
States if their corrective action plans are not appropriate given the challenges
and if implementation is found wanting. 
In
2013, the Commission strengthened the social dimension of the EMU by developing
a key employment and social indicators scoreboard and extending the number of
extra indicators underpinning the annual Alert Mechanism Report, such as the
participation rate, the long-term unemployment rate, the youth unemployment
rate and the at risk of poverty or social exclusion rate. Employment and social indicators are being introduced into
the macroeconomic imbalances procedure to gain better understanding of
the labour market and social developments and risks. The Commission will also make sure that European social
partners are better associated to the European Semester process.
Assessment
While
the aim of the Alert Mechanism Report and its scoreboard is not to
attempt a mechanistic identification of imbalances, the scoreboard has shown
itself to be a useful tool to provide a first assessment of risks and of the
correction of imbalances. Moreover, the scoreboard has been useful as an
instrument of communication and accountability when justifying why a detailed
scrutiny of macroeconomic risks is, or is not, necessary for a given Member
State. The scoreboard is not a static tool and a number of changes have been
implemented by the Commission over the last three years in cooperation with the
Parliament and the Council. Although there is merit in keeping the design of
the scoreboard relatively stable, regular assessments of the scoreboard
variables continue to be necessary in order to take into account not only
developments in the economy and related risks, but also statistical progress. 
The
in-depth reviews have proven to be a core part of the Macroeconomic Imbalances
Procedure. They have covered the most important imbalances in each economy and
the way they may affect growth, jobs and financial stability in the
medium-term. During the first three annual rounds, the Commission has published
42 in-depth reviews (2012: 12 Member States, 2013: 14 Member States, 2014: 17
Member States), for a total of 18 Member States.[8]
This reflects the fact that the first rounds of the Macroeconomic Imbalances Procedure
took place in a context of crisis and recovery, with several Member States
being identified as experiencing imbalances (and a few excessive imbalances)
that require detailed and frequent analysis. The increase in the number of (i)
Member States that were scrutinised in in-depth reviews, (ii) imbalances
identified by the Commission and (iii) excessive imbalances does not mean that the
macroeconomic risks in the EU have increased. They reveal a procedure that
progressively comes of age, widens its scope of interest, and endeavours to
identify potentially harmful developments before they have an impact on the
economies. As regards the question
whether the procedure has been effective in identifying the relevant policy
issues, contributed to deliver appropriate policy recommendations, and to their
monitoring and had an impact on the policy debates in each Member State and in
the EU as a whole, it needs to be pointed out that the Macroeconomic Imbalances
Procedure, together with other elements of economic governance, has contributed
to a shared understanding among Member States of their specific and common
policy challenges and the policy response. However, there is a need to improve
the implementation of the relevant policy recommendations, and find the tools that
improve the incentives for Member States to adopt and implement the necessary
policies.
The
Excessive Imbalance Procedure has not yet been implemented so far. In
2013 and 2014, the Commission has identified excessive imbalances on five
occasions, but did not submit a proposal for their formal establishment by the
Council so the procedure was not triggered. In both years, the Commission was
of the view that the policies outlined by the relevant governments (Spain and
Slovenia in 2013, and Italy, Croatia and Slovenia in 2014) in their national
reform programmes and stability (or convergence) programmes were appropriate to
the respective challenges identified in the in-depth reviews. However the
Commission has, in each of these cases, used the inherent flexibility in the Macroeconomic
Imbalances Procedure framework to put in motion a specific and close
monitoring of policy implementation, contributing to peer pressure,
real-time assessment of action and promoting reform action in the Member States[9].

2.3 Euro area countries
experiencing difficulties with financial stability[10]

Objectives
The
main objective of the second two-pack regulation is to strengthen monitoring
and surveillance for Member States threatened with, or experiencing, serious
difficulties regarding their financial stability. It aims to establish
transparent, efficient, streamlined, and predictable surveillance processes for
the Member States under enhanced surveillance, macroeconomic adjustment
programme and post-programme surveillance. For euro area Member States under an
adjustment programme the implementation of otherwise overlapping procedures
under preventive instruments, including the European Semester, the Macroeconomic
Imbalances Procedure and the other two pack regulation, are suspended. This
reflects inter alia the role of the Macroeconomic Imbalances Procedure as a
preventive procedure, not a crisis-management instrument.[11]
Assessment
Euro
area Member States in receipt of financial assistance linked to a macroeconomic
adjustment programme at the date of entry into force of the Regulation in May 2013
were Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Cyprus. Cyprus and Greece, where programmes
are still ongoing, have made a partial return to the markets earlier than
expected. Spain had requested financial assistance only for the
recapitalisation of financial institutions, and was not subject to a
macroeconomic adjustment programme. In the meantime, Ireland and Portugal have
successfully completed the macroeconomic adjustment programme and have entered
the post-programme surveillance phase. Spain is also subject to post-programme
surveillance since the expiry of its financial sector programme in January
2014. All three countries have regained sovereign market access at sustainable
interest rates. Overall, considerable achievements have been made in reducing
fiscal deficits in current and former programme countries, and overall public
debt is stabilising.
Based
on the experience with these countries, the integrated set of rules indeed increases
the transparency, predictability, practicality and efficiency of country
surveillance and monitoring of Member States that are experiencing or is threatened
with serious financial difficulties. However, since the Regulation entered into
force only after all current and completed programmes had started, the effectiveness
assessment is necessarily incomplete. In particular, many provisions of the regulation
are relevant for the period in which programmes are developed and negotiated.
In the existing programmes, these periods took place before the regulation
entered into force. The effectiveness of the regulation cannot therefore be
evaluated as regards these earlier phases. In addition, it is not possible to
assess the effectiveness of the regulation with regard to enhanced
surveillance, as no euro area Member State has yet been placed under enhanced surveillance.
The ability to assess the effectiveness of post-programme surveillance is also
limited by the fact that Ireland, Spain and Portugal have been under
post-programme surveillance for less than a year. Effectiveness can thus be thoroughly
evaluated only as regards existing macroeconomic adjustment programmes. Given
the above mentioned economic developments, the existing macroeconomic
adjustment programmes have achieved the objectives of the regulation to rapidly
re-establish a sound and sustainable economic and financial situation and to restore
financial market access. Should the other provisions be implemented in the
future, the Regulation foresees inter alia improvements in the information of
the European Parliament and a set of requirements aiming at better taking into
account the social impact of programmes and better protecting fundamental
policies, such as health care and education.

3.      ECONOMIC
CONVERGENCE, THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE GOALS OF THE UNION'S STRATEGY FOR GROWTH
AND JOBS AND CLOSER COORDINATION OF ECONOMIC POLICIES 

The
impact of the revised economic governance system on sustained convergence is
difficult to assess given that the time period since the introduction of the
new legislation is far too short to draw meaningful conclusions. The experience
with the macroeconomic imbalances procedure is a good example in this context.
While many 'flow' imbalances, like the current account deficits, have been
addressed, this is not yet the case of 'stock' imbalances, like the external
liabilities. Therefore, although there has been a reduction in the macroeconomic
risks for many countries, a meaningful assessment whether the policy
recommendations derived from the procedure have indeed contributed to improve
growth, jobs and financial stability would require a much longer time frame
than the experience of the macroeconomic imbalances procedure so far. In
particular the true test will be whether the instrument can prevent a build-up
of imbalances and risks during economic 'good times'.
Nonetheless,
by ensuring closer coordination of policies, the new governance system should help
foster growth convergence and the achievement of the goals of the Europe 2020
strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.[12]
And, by preventing the build-up of large macroeconomic imbalances the new
governance system should mitigate the forces which are currently the main cause
of the large cyclical divergences between Member States. The six-pack and
two-pack Regulations have significantly strengthened the EU's governance
framework in different policy areas. The European Semester combines these
different tools in an overarching framework for integrated multilateral
economic and budgetary surveillance, and the streamlining and strengthening of
the 2015 European Semester as set out in the Commission's 2015 Annual Growth
Survey will further improve its functioning. [13]
The
relationships between the various instruments of economic surveillance are
complex and limit the transparency of policy making, which in turn poses
challenges for its implementation, for communication with stakeholders and the
general public and consequently for ownership, democratic legitimacy and
accountability. A proper involvement of national Parliaments remains crucial in
ensuring the legitimacy of Member States' action. At EU level, the European
Parliament has a key role to play, notably through "economic dialogues",
which have ensured that institutional actors have been regularly held to
account on the main issues related to economic governance. 

4.      CONCLUSION

The
economic governance system has gone through profound changes in the aftermath
of the financial and economic crisis. The various pieces of governance legislation
have been at the core of this evolution and have significantly bolstered the
existing governance setup. Overall, deficits have declined with many countries
having exited the Excessive Deficit Procedure and imbalances are being
corrected. However, growth is still fragile with economic challenges still
being large. 
Due
to the limited timespan since its entry into force, experience with the application
of this new economic governance system has been limited and a number of
specific instruments remain untested. Furthermore, the system has so far been
applied in (the aftermath of) a severe financial and economic crisis, which
limits the possibilities to judge the effectiveness of the system under more
benign economic circumstances. Indeed, the
efficiency of the system to a large extent relies in the proper working of the
preventive part of it, which is precisely what remains to be proven in better economic
times.
This
review has revealed some strengths as well as possible areas for improvement, concerning
transparency and complexity of policy making, and their impact on growth,
imbalances and convergence. The Commission plans to discuss these with the
European Parliament and the Council in the coming months. 
 
ANNEX 1: FISCAL SURVEILLANCE

1.1
Changes to the preventive and corrective arms of the SGP from the 2011 reforms
(in italics) within the existing requirements
 
 Objective || Specification || Adjustment path || Enforcement specification 
 Preventive arm 
 Requirement of a close to balance or in surplus position || Country specific MTO in structural terms: - Provide a safety margin with respect to the 3% deficit limit - Ensure rapid progress towards sustainability - Allow room for budgetary manoeuvre   For euro area and ERMII MS: limits of -1% of GDP   Expenditure benchmark: expenditure net of discretionary measures should grow ≤ medium-term potential GDP || 0.5% GDP as a benchmark: - More in good times - Less in bad times >0.5% if debt above 60% or if pronounced sustainability risks   Temporary deviation from the adjustment path allowed if: - Implementation of major structural reforms with a verifiable impact on the long-term sustainability of public finances – emphasis on pension reform - Unusual event outside the control of the MS concerned with a major impact on its financial position - Severe economic downturn for the euro area or the EU as a whole provided this does not endanger medium term fiscal sustainability || Procedure for correcting significant deviation (0.5% in one year or cumulatively over 2 years from the MTO or the adjustment path it)   For euro area: financial sanctions  in case of repeated non-compliance (interest-bearing deposit of 0.2% of GDP) 
 Corrective arm 
 Correct gross policy errors || Sets limits: -          Deficit of 3% of GDP -          Debt of 60% of GDP or sufficiently diminishing Definition of sufficiently diminishing = respect of debt reduction benchmark Debt reduction benchmark = reduction of 5% per year on average over 3 years of the gap to 60% taking the cycle into account or respect in the next two years. (Transition period for MS in EDP at entry into force (Dec 2011) for three years after the correction of the excessive deficit.) || Minimum annual improvement of at least 0.5% of GDP as a benchmark in structural terms Possible extension of deadline: -          If effective action has been taken and unexpected adverse economic events with major unfavourable consequences for government finances -          In case of severe economic downturn in the euro area or in the Union as a whole provided that this does not endanger fiscal sustainability in the medium-term ||         For the euro area: Early and gradual sanction system to be activated at each stage of the EDP procedure   

1.2
The structural balance and MTO for countries in the preventive arm
 

1.3
The number of EU Member States under the EDP
 

1.4 Structural
effort recommended by the Council in the EDP recommendations (percentage points
of GDP)
 
   ||   || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || 2012 || 2013 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 
 IE || 27/04/2009 ||   || 1.5 || 1.5 || 1.5 || 1.5 ||   ||   ||   
 02/12/2009 ||   || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 ||   ||   
 07/12/2010 ||   ||   || 1.91 || 1.91 || 1.91 || 1.91 || 1.91 ||   
 FR || 27/04/2009 ||   || 1 || 1 || 1 ||   ||   ||   ||   
 02/12/2009 ||   || 1.12 || 1.12 || 1.12 || 1.12 ||   ||   ||   
 21/06/2013 ||   ||   ||   ||   || 1.3 || 0.8 || 0.8 ||   
 ES || 27/04/2009 ||   || 1.25 || 1.25 || 1.25 ||   ||   ||   ||   
 02/12/2009 ||   || 1.6 || 1.6 || 1.6 || 1.6 ||   ||   ||   
 10/07/2012 ||   ||   ||   || 2.7 || 2.5 || 1.9 ||   ||   
 21/06/2013 ||   ||   ||   ||   || 1.1 || 0.8 || 0.8 || 1.2 
 MT || 16/02/2010 ||   ||   || 0.75 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 21/06/2013 ||   ||   ||   ||   || 0.7 || 0.7 ||   ||   
 BE || 02/12/2009 ||   || 0.75 || 0.75 || 0.75 ||   ||   ||   ||   
 21/06/2013 ||   ||   ||   ||   || 1 ||   ||   ||   
 DE || 02/12/2009 ||   || 0.5 || 0.5 || 0.5 || 0.5 ||   ||   ||   
 IT || 02/12/2009 ||   || 0.5 || 0.5 || 0.5 ||   ||   ||   ||   
 NL || 02/12/2009 ||   ||   || 0.75 || 0.75 || 0.75 ||   ||   ||   
 21/06/2013 ||   ||   ||   ||   || 0.6 || 0.7 ||   ||   
 AT || 02/12/2009 ||   ||   || 0.75 || 0.75 || 0.75 ||   ||   ||   
 PT || 02/12/2009 ||   || 1.25 || 1.25 || 1.25 || 1.25 ||   ||   ||   
 09/10/2012 ||   ||   ||   || 2.3 || 1.6 || 1.3 ||   ||   
 21/06/2013 ||   ||   ||   ||   || 0.6 || 1.4 || 0.5 ||   
 SI || 02/12/2009 ||   || 0.75 || 0.75 || 0.75 || 0.75 ||   ||   ||   
 21/06/2013 ||   ||   ||   ||   || 0.7 || 0.5 || 0.5 ||   
 SK || 02/12/2009 ||   || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 ||   ||   ||   
 UK || 08/07/2008 || 0.5 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 24/03/2009 ||   || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 ||   ||   ||   
 02/12/2009 ||   || 1.75 || 1.75 || 1.75 || 1.75 || 1.75 ||   ||   
 LV || 07/07/2009 ||   || 2.75 || 2.75 || 2.75 ||   ||   ||   ||   
 PL || 07/07/2009 ||   || 1.25 || 1.25 || 1.25 ||   ||   ||   ||   
 21/06/2013 ||   ||   ||   ||   || 0.8 || 1.3 ||   ||   
 02/12/2013 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 1 || 1.2 ||   
 LT || 07/07/2009 || 1.5 || 1.5 || 1.5 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 16/02/2010 ||   || 2.25 || 2.25 || 2.25 ||   ||   ||   ||   
 RO || 07/07/2009 ||   || 1.5 || 1.5 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 16/02/2010 ||   || 1.75 || 1.75 || 1.75 ||   ||   ||   ||   
 CZ || 02/12/2009 ||   || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 ||   ||   ||   
 BG || 13/07/2010 ||   ||   || 0.75 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 DK || 13/07/2010 ||   ||   || 0.5 || 0.5 || 0.5 ||   ||   ||   
 Annual average effort. Shaded cells indicated annual targets. Does not contain Greece and Cyprus (fiscal effort was expressed in changes in primary balance (for Greece) or nominal value of measures (for Cyprus) Notes: 1 Recommendation expressed in cumulative terms over the entire EDP period. 2 "Above 1% of GDP" 

1.5 Commission opinions of 15
November 2013 on draft budgetary plans

 Country || Overall compliance of Draft Budgetary Plan with SGP || Overall compliance with the fiscal-structural reforms in 2013 CSRs 
 Overall conclusion based on the Commission 2013 Autumn Forecast || Compliance with the Excessive Deficit Procedure in 2013/2014 || Compliance with the Preventive Arm requirements in 2014 || Overall conclusion on progress towards fiscal-structural reforms ||   Progress on individual reforms in response to the structural part of the fiscal CSR since June 2013 
 BE || Broadly compliant || Durable correction of the excessive deficit in 2013 || Some deviation from the adjustment path towards the MTO || Limited progress || Limited action: Explicit coordination arrangements between federal and sub-federal levels 
 DE || Compliant || n.r. || MTO overachieved || No progress || No action on the structural parts of the fiscal CSR 
 EE || Compliant || n.r. || At MTO || Some progress || Progress: Budget-balance rule Limited action: Multi-annual expenditure rules and ceilings 
 ES || Risk of non-compliance || Fiscal effort delivered in 2013, at risk in 2014 || n.r. || Some progress* || Progress: Independent fiscal institution; public sector arrears; indexation schemes; pension system; public administration reform; health care spending. Limited action: Comprehensive expenditure review; review of tax system 
 FR || Compliant with no margin || Fiscal effort delivered both in 2013/2014 || n.r. || Limited progress* || Progress: Pension system Limited action: Spending review; tax system; decentralisation 
 IT || Risk of non-compliance || n.r. || Compliance with the debt benchmark in 2013, at risk in 2014 || Limited progress || Limited action: Public expenditure; tax policy 
 LU || Risk of non-compliance || n.r. || Significant deviation  from MTO || Some progress || Progress: Medium-term budgetary framework 
 MT || Risk of non-compliance || Headline target met in 2013, fiscal effort at risk in both 2013/2014 || n.r. || Limited progress* || Progress: Fiscal framework; efficiency of public administration (adoption and implementation risks remain); healthcare (information is inconclusive) Limited action: Pension system 
 NL || Compliant with no margin || Fiscal effort delivered both in 2013/2014 || n.r. || Some progress* || Progress: Fiscal framework; housing market (implementation of past reforms) Limited action: Pension system; tax credits and allowances 
 AT || Broadly compliant || Durable correction of the excessive deficit in 2013 || Some deviation  from adjustment path towards the MTO || Some progress || Progress: Pension system; labour market Limited action: Linking pension benefits to changes in life expectancy; harmonisation of pension ages 
 SI || Compliant with no margin || Fiscal effort delivered both in 2013/2014 || n.r. || Limited progress* || Progress: Tax system; fiscal framework; long-term care Limited action: Pension system 
 SK || Broadly compliant || Durable correction at risk in 2014 – Fiscal effort delivered || Some deviation  from adjustment path towards the MTO || Limited progress || Progress: Tax system (collection) Limited action: Pension system; tax policy; health care; budgetary rules 
 FI || Risk of non-compliance || n.r. || Significant deviation  from adjustment path towards the MTO, breach of the 60% threshold in 2014 || Some progress || Progress: Public sector efficiency; finances of the municipal sector; pension reform 

ANNEX
2: MACROECONOMIC IMBALANCES PROCEDURE
2.1
overview of results of MIP application
 
   || Conclusions of the AMRs || Conclusion after IDRs || Comments 
 Imbalances || of which excessive imbalances 
 In the view of the Commission || Recommended by the Commission to be established by the Council || Formally established by the Council 
 2012 || IDRs to be prepared for 12 Member States: BE, BG, DK, ES, FR, IT, CY, HU, SI, SE, FI, UK. No IDR necessary (so no imbalance) for 11 Member States: CZ, DE, EE, LV, LT, LU, MT, NL, PL, AT, SK. Programme countries (4): EL, IE, PT, RO.  || All Member States (12) for which an IDR was prepared. || None. || None. || None. || The cases of Cyprus and Spain were close calls (the Commission characterised the imbalances in these countries as very serious). Since both countries requested financial assistance (although of different natures) shortly afterwards, one may argue, with the benefit of hindsight, that an excessive imbalance should have been identified. The Commission characterised the imbalances in France, Italy, Hungary and Slovenia as serious. 
 2013 || IDRs to be prepared for 14 Member States: BE, BG, DK, ES, FR, IT, HU, CY, MT (new), NL (new), SI, SE, FI, UK. No IDR necessary (so no imbalance) for 9 Member States:  CZ, DE, EE, LV, LT, LU, PL, AT, SK. Programme countries (5): EL, IE, PT, RO, and shortly after publication of AMR: CY. ES was not considered a programme country given the sectorial nature of its adjustment programme and financial assistance. || All Member States (13) for which an IDR was prepared || ES, SI. || None. || None. || No IDR was effectively prepared for Cyprus, as an agreement on financial assistance was reached between the publication of the AMR and of the IDRs. The Commission characterised the imbalances in France, Italy and Hungary as requiring decisive policy actions. Notwithstanding identification of excessive imbalances in Slovenia and Spain in 2013 the corrective arm in the sense of the MIP was not used, given the quality of the policy reaction outlined in their NRPs and stability programmes. Instead, the Commission put in motion a specific, but informal, monitoring for these two Member States and kept open the possibility of triggering the corrective arm at a later stage. 
 2014 || IDRs to be prepared for 17 Member States: BE, BG, DE (new), DK, IE (new, after successful completion of adjustment programme and re-integration in standard procedures), ES, FR, HR (new, after accession), IT, LU  (new), HU, MT, NL  SI, SE, FI, UK. No IDR necessary (so no imbalance): for 7 Member States: CZ, EE, LV, LT, PL, AT, SK. Programme countries (4): EL, CY, PT, RO   || All Member States for which an IDR was prepared, except DK, MT and LU, for which no imbalance was found (14). || IT, HR, SI. || None || None || The Commission characterised the imbalances in Ireland, Spain, France, Italy and Hungary as requiring decisive policy actions. This was the first time for a number of steps: -- 'de-escalations' in the procedure with Spain shifting from excessive imbalance to imbalance. -- no imbalances were identified on the basis of an IDR in three cases: (DK, LU, MT). -- an IDR was for the first time prepared fundamentally because of a very large current account surplus (for Germany) --an ex-programme country (Ireland) was reintegrated into the MIP. As in 2013, the corrective arm was not triggered as the Commission considered the measures presented in the NRPs and Stability and Convergence Programmes sufficiently ambitious. Instead, the Commission announced a specific monitoring of policy implementation for Italy, Croatia and Slovenia (excessive imbalances), but also for Ireland and Spain (relying on post programme surveillance) and France. 

2.2
Nature of Imbalances and Excessive Imbalances identified in the 2012-2014
rounds
 
   || Year || Nature of imbalances 
 BE || 2012 || Imbalance: Macroeconomic developments in the areas of external competitiveness of goods and indebtedness, especially concerning the high level of public debt, deserve further attention so as to reduce the risk of adverse effects on the functioning of the economy. 
   || 2013 || Imbalance: Macroeconomic developments in the areas of external competitiveness of goods, and indebtedness, especially concerning the implications of the high level of public debt for the real economy, continue to deserve attention. 
   || 2014 || Imbalance: Developments with regard to the external competitiveness of goods continue to deserve attention as a persistent deterioration would threaten macroeconomic stability. 
 BG || 2012 || Imbalance: the level of external indebtedness as well as certain macroeconomic developments related to corporate sector deleveraging and the adjustment process through labour markets deserve attention so as to reduce the risk of adverse effects on the functioning of the economy. 
   || 2013 || Imbalance: the impact of deleveraging in the corporate sector as well as the continuous adjustment of external positions, competitiveness and labour markets deserve continued attention. 
   || 2014 || Imbalance: the protracted adjustment of the labour market warrants policy actions, while the correction of the external position and corporate deleveraging are progressing well. 
 DK || 2012 || Imbalance: certain macroeconomic developments, notably underlying the external competitiveness and the potential risks related to household indebtedness, deserve attention so as to reduce the risk of adverse effects on the functioning of the economy. 
   || 2013 || Imbalance: the continuing adjustment in the housing market and the high level of indebtedness in the household and private sector as well as drivers of external competitiveness, deserve continued attention. 
   || 2014 || No longer an imbalance in the sense of MIP: The adjustment on the housing market and the implications of a high private sector debt for the real economy and the stability of the financial sector seem contained. However, these developments, as well as drivers of external competitiveness deserve continued monitoring. 
 DE || 2014 || Imbalance: the current account has persistently recorded a very high surplus, which reflects strong competitiveness while a large amount of savings were invested abroad. It is also a sign that domestic growth has remained subdued and economic resources may not have been allocated efficiently. Although the current account surpluses do not raise risks similar to large deficits, the size and persistence of the current account surplus in Germany deserve close attention. The need for action so as to reduce the risk of adverse effects on the functioning of the domestic economy and of the euro area is particularly important given the size of the German economy. 
 IE || 2014 || Imbalances requiring specific monitoring and decisive policy action: financial sector developments, private and public sector indebtedness, and, linked to that, the high gross and net external liabilities and the situation of the labour market mean that risks are still present. 
 ES || 2012 || Very serious imbalance: macroeconomic developments, notably related to the significant level of private sector debt, the large negative external position and the financial sector, which were influenced by housing market developments, require close monitoring and urgent economic policy attention in order to avert any adverse effects on the functioning of the economy and of economic and monetary union. 
   || 2013 || Excessive imbalance: very high domestic and external debt levels continue to pose risks for growth and financial stability. The decisive policy action at the EU level and by Spain has resulted in a visible adjustment of flows, reduction in financing costs and a reduction of immediate risks. 
   || 2014 || Imbalances requiring specific monitoring and decisive policy action: In several dimensions, the adjustment of the imbalances identified last year as excessive has clearly advanced and the return to positive growth has reduced risks. Yet, the magnitude and inter-related nature of the imbalances, in particular high domestic and external debt levels, mean that risks are still present. The Commission will continue a specific monitoring of the policies recommended by the Council to Spain in the context of the European Semester, and will regularly report to the Council and the Euro Group. This monitoring will rely on post-programme surveillance. 
 FR || 2012 || Serious imbalance: certain macroeconomic developments in the areas of export performance and competitiveness deserve attention so as to reduce the risk of adverse effects on the functioning of the economy. 
   || 2013 || Imbalances requiring specific monitoring and decisive policy action: the deterioration in the trade balance and competitiveness levels, driven both by cost and non-cost factors, against a background of a deteriorating external position and high public debt deserves continued attention. The need for action so as to reduce the risk of adverse effects on the functioning of the French economy and of the Economic and Monetary Union, is particularly important notably given the size of the French economy. 
   || 2014 || Imbalances requiring specific monitoring and decisive policy action: the deterioration in the trade balance and in competitiveness as well as the implications of the high level of public sector indebtedness deserve continuous policy attention. The need for decisive action so as to reduce the risk of adverse effects on the functioning of the French economy and of the euro area is particularly important given the size of the French economy and potential spillovers onto the functioning of the euro area. Given the need for policy action already called in the 2013 IDR, the Commission will put in motion a specific monitoring of the policies recommended by the Council to France in the context of the European Semester, and will regularly report to the Council and the Euro Group. 
 HR || 2014 || Excessive imbalance: policy action is required in view of the vulnerabilities arising from sizeable external liabilities, declining export performance, highly leveraged firms and fast-increasing general government debt, all within a context of low growth and poor adjustment capacity. 
 IT || 2012 || Serious imbalance: macroeconomic developments in the area of export performance deserve attention as Italy has been losing external competitiveness since euro adoption. Given the high level of public debt, enhancing the growth potential should be a key priority so as to reduce the risk of adverse effects on the functioning of the economy. 
   || 2013 || Imbalances requiring specific monitoring and decisive policy action: export performance and the underlying loss of competitiveness as well as high public indebtedness in an environment of subdued growth deserve continued attention in a broad reform agenda in order to reduce the risk of adverse effects on the functioning of the Italian economy and of the Economic and Monetary Union, notably given the size of the Italian economy. 
   || 2014 || Excessive imbalance: the implications of the very high level of public debt and weak external competitiveness, both ultimately rooted in the protracted sluggish productivity growth, deserve urgent policy attention. The need for decisive action so as to reduce the risk of adverse effects on the functioning of the Italian economy and of the euro area, is particularly important given the size of the Italian economy. 
 CY || 2012 || Very serious imbalance: macroeconomic developments as reflected in the current account, public finances and the financial sector require close monitoring and urgent economic policy attention in order to avert any adverse effects on the functioning of the economy and of EMU 
 HU || 2012 || Serious imbalance: certain macroeconomic developments such as the highly negative size of the net international investment position and public debt deserve very close attention so as to reduce the important risks of adverse effects on the functioning of the economy. 
   || 2013 || Imbalances requiring specific monitoring and decisive policy action: the on-going adjustment of the highly negative net international investment position, largely driven by private sector deleveraging in a context of high public debt and a weak business environment continue to deserve very close attention so as to reduce the important risks of adverse effects on the functioning of the economy. 
   || 2014 || Imbalances requiring specific monitoring and decisive policy action he ongoing adjustment of the highly negative net international position, the high level of public and private debt in the context of a fragile financial sector and deteriorating export performance continue to deserve very close attention so as to reduce the important risks of adverse effects on the functioning of the economy. 
 LU || 2014 || Not an imbalance in the sense of MIP:  Challenges [that] stem from a growth model based on an efficient financial sector, which has weathered the crisis well. Still, losses in the manufacturing competitiveness, the evolution of the housing market and the high level of indebtedness of the private sector deserve continued monitoring. 
 MT || 2013 || Imbalances:  the long-term sustainability of the public finances warrants attention while the very large financial sector, and in particular, the strong link between the domestically-oriented banks and the property market poses challenges for financial stability and deserves continued monitoring. 
   || 2014 || No longer an imbalance in the sense of MIP: Although indebtedness remains high, risks to the sustainability of private and public sector debt and the stability of the financial sector appear contained, even if they deserve continued monitoring. 
 NL || 2013 || Imbalances:  macroeconomic developments regarding private sector debt and deleveraging pressures, also coupled with remaining inefficiencies in the housing market deserve attention. Although the large current account surplus does not raise risks similar to large deficits, the Commission will also continue monitoring the developments of the current account in the Netherlands. 
   || 2014 || Imbalances:  macroeconomic developments regarding private sector debt and ongoing deleveraging, coupled with remaining inefficiencies in the housing market, deserve attention. Although the large current account surplus does not raise risks similar to large deficits, and is partly linked to the need for deleveraging, the Commission will follow the developments of the current account in the Netherlands in the context of the European Semester. 
 SI || 2012 || Serious imbalance: macroeconomic developments related to corporate sector deleveraging and banking stability and unfavourable but less pressing development in external competitiveness deserve to be closely monitored, so as to reduce the important risks of adverse effects on the functioning of the economy. 
   || 2013 || Excessive imbalance: Until now, the levels of private and public debt are below the alert thresholds of the scoreboard and also net external debt is relatively contained. However, in a context of accelerating negative economic trends, the risk to financial sector stability stemming from corporate indebtedness and deleveraging is substantial, including through interlinkages with the level of sovereign debt. These risks are compounded by limited adjustment capacity in labour and capital markets and by an economic structure dominated by state-ownership. Periods of policy uncertainty and legal obstacles to reforms have prevented Slovenia from addressing its imbalances adequately and enhancing its adjustment capacity, thus increasing its vulnerability at a time of heightened sovereign funding stress. 
   || 2014 || Excessive imbalance: Imbalances have been unwinding over the last year, thanks to macroeconomic adjustment and decisive policy action by Slovenia. Yet the magnitude of the necessary correction means that substantial risks are still present. The Commission will continue the specific monitoring of the policies recommended by the Council to Slovenia in the context of the European Semester, and will regularly report to the Council and the Euro Group. 
 FI || 2012 || Imbalance: macroeconomic developments relating to competitiveness deserve attention so as to reduce the risk of adverse effects on the functioning of the economy. 
   || 2013 || Imbalance: the substantial deterioration in the current account position and the weak export performance, driven by industrial restructuring, as well as cost and non-cost competitiveness factors, deserve continued attention. 
   || 2014 || Imbalance: the weak export performance during the last years, driven by industrial restructuring, cost and noncost competitiveness factors, deserve continued attention. 
 SE || 2012 || Imbalance: certain macroeconomic developments regarding private sector debt and the housing market deserve attention so as to reduce the risk of adverse effects on the functioning of the economy. 
   || 2013 || Imbalance: macroeconomic developments regarding private sector debt and deleveraging, coupled with remaining inefficiencies in the housing market deserve continued attention. Although the large current account surplus does not raise risks similar to large deficits in other countries, the Commission will continue to monitor developments of the current account in Sweden. 
   || 2014 || Imbalance: developments regarding household indebtedness, coupled with inefficiencies in the housing market, continue to warrant attention. Although the large current account surplus does not raise risks similar to large deficits, and is partly linked to the need for deleveraging, the Commission will follow the developments of the current account in Sweden in the context of the European Semester. 
 UK || 2012 || Imbalance: macroeconomic developments in the areas of household debt and the housing market deserve attention, as do unfavourable but less pressing developments in external competitiveness, so as to reduce the risk of adverse effects on the functioning of the economy. 
   || 2013 || Imbalance: macroeconomic developments in the areas of household debt, linked to the high levels of mortgage debt and the characteristics of the housing market, as well as unfavourable developments in external competitiveness, especially as regards goods exports and weak productivity growth, continue to deserve attention. 
   || 2014 || Imbalance: developments in the areas of household debt, linked to the high levels of mortgage debt and structural characteristics of the housing market, as well as unfavourable developments in export market shares, continue to warrant attention. 

2.3
Criteria applied in the MIP implementation procedure

In
the implementation of the procedure, the Commission has considered the
following criteria. First, an imbalance is closely linked to the concept
of sustainability. If a trend or situation is unsustainable there
are ultimately risks of abrupt corrections. Such trends can be losses in
competitiveness that could endanger a high level of economic activity and
employment, or developments in credit and in assets prices that constitute
bubbles which are not promptly corrected by markets, given errors in
expectations. But sustainability is not only about those structural weaknesses
that accumulate over long periods; it may also concern weaknesses in the
financial sector that emerge at specific occasions (as a result of external
shocks or internal developments, or issues in the domestic regulation of the
financial sector), which can quickly endanger the financial stability and
propagate to the whole economy. Abrupt and damaging corrections could take
place when a country loses access to financial markets or when its financing
capacity is deteriorating. Second, imbalances may feature gravely
distorted allocations of resources. This may happen, for example, when
internal or cross-border financial flows lead to the excessive expansion of one
sector. This can by itself become unsustainable as has been shown for example
in the large expansions of the construction sector or overblown government
sectors. This
characteristic complements a sustainability assessment by encompassing under
the concept of imbalances situations that may be financially sustainable as
such, yet have high social and economic costs. A case in point is that of
persistently large current account surpluses. While
such surpluses do not raise external sustainability concerns for the country
concerned, [14]
they may however be symptomatic of a skewed allocation of resources to the
tradeables sector, a lack of demand and insufficient investment weighing on
capital formation and locking medium-term growth potential. Third,
imbalances in the sense of the MIP generate damaging spill-overs to
partners.[15]
Generally speaking spillovers do not represent an imbalance per se, they
act as aggravating factors of other imbalances, such as large current account
deficits or surpluses. In practice, the Commission has endeavoured to assess
macroeconomic risk (weighing both the likelihood of unfavourable developments
and their impact on growth, jobs, and financial stability on each country and
the EU and the euro area as a whole), given specific situation and dynamics,
and considering the policies that are implemented.
[1] Regulation
(EU) no 1173/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November
2011 on the effective enforcement of budgetary surveillance in the euro area;
Regulation 1174/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16
November 2011 on enforcement measures to correct excessive macroeconomic
imbalances in the euro area; Regulation (EU) no 1175/2011 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 amending Council Regulation
(EC) No 1466/97 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions
and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies; Regulation
1176/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 on
the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances; Regulation (EU) no
1177/2011 of 8 November 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 on speeding up
and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure; Regulation
472/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on
the strengthening of economic and budgetary surveillance of Member States in
the euro area experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect
to their financial stability; Regulation (EU) no 473/2013 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on common provisions for monitoring
and assessing draft budgetary plans and ensuring the correction of excessive
deficit of the Member States in the euro area.  Although part of the six-pack,
Directive 2011/85/EU of the Council of 8 November 2011 on the requirements for
budgetary frameworks of the Member States is not part of this review exercise.
It follows a separate timeline with review deadline by 14 December 2018.
[2] The various
regulations provide for a review by 14 December 2014. 
[3] COM(2014)
61 final of 6 February 2014.
[4] The Stability and
Growth Pact was initially set up in 1997 to enable the coordination of fiscal
policies among Member States to avoid that unsustainable fiscal policies
undermine the common monetary policy geared towards price stability. The Pact
consists of two arms. The preventive arm aims to ensure the underlying strength
of Member States' public finances to create macroeconomic stability and fiscal
space to address economic shocks that may arise. The core requirement is that
Member States reach and maintain a Medium Term Objective, a country-specific
budgetary reference value defined in structural terms (that is, cyclically
adjusted and net of one-off and temporary measures). The aim of the corrective
arm, the excessive deficit procedure, is to correct gross budgetary policy
errors. It is anchored in thresholds for deficit and debt of respectively 3%
and 60% of GDP.
[5] Annex 1.1 summarises
the changes in the Stability and Growth Pact introduced by the six-pack/two-pack.
[6] Annex 1.5 gives an
overview of the conclusions of the exercise.
[7] Regulation 1174/2011 and Regulation 1176/2011.
[8] See Annex 2 for
detail.
[9] The Commission
published two reports on the specific monitoring of policy implementation in
Spain and Slovenia in autumn and winter 2013-4.
[10] A formal review was
already undertaken earlier this year. See COM(2014) 61 final.
[11] At the end of the
programme, a Member State becomes subject to the MIP procedures and the
analysis in the in-depth review determines whether it should be in the
preventive or corrective arm of the MIP. On the basis of the experience so far,
the interaction between the MIP and the adjustment programmes has been very
smooth. However, the annual cycle of the MIP may imply a relatively long delay
between the enhanced surveillance under an expiring programme and the
monitoring under the excessive imbalance procedure (in case lingering excessive
imbalances outlived the programme), partly outweighed by post-programme
surveillance.  

[12] For
more extensive analysis of progress on the Europe 2020 strategy, see European
Commission, Taking stock of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable
and inclusive growth, COM(2014)130.

[13] For
more information see Annual Growth Survey 2015, COM(2014)906 .
[14] See COM(2013)790.
[15] See Quarterly
Report on the Euro Area, 2013 (2) and (3)