Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 99kWORD 24k
29 September 2015
E-013206-15
Question for written answer E-013206-15
to the Commission
Rule 130
Carlos Zorrinho (S&D) , Ana Gomes (S&D) , Ricardo Serrão Santos (S&D) , Liliana Rodrigues (S&D) , Elisa Ferreira (S&D) , Pedro Silva Pereira (S&D) , Maria João Rodrigues (S&D)

 Subject:  European Commission interference in the Portuguese election campaign
 Answer in writing 

What prompted the European Commission to comment at this point on the impact of the Novo Banco case on the Portuguese budget deficit, and in so doing aligning itself with the Portuguese Government’s position?

Who asked Commissioner Dombrovskis to intervene? This intervention constitutes a clear case of the European Commission interfering in the debate of an ongoing election campaign, coming as it did just 10 days before the Portuguese parliamentary elections. How can the Commission play down what was a very real failure on the part of the Portuguese State to assume its responsibilities when it failed to sell off Novo Banco?

How, too, can the Commission disregard the objective fact that 80% of the permitted margin for the 2015 deficit had already been consumed in the first half of the year?

How is it possible that the Commission ignored this fact in its 2015 assessment and overlooked the obvious threat posed to the Portuguese budgetary adjustment process?

Original language of question: PT 
Legal notice - Privacy policy