Because neither the Commission or the Council is bound by the 3% and 60% indicators. The indicators are one way of starting the procedure. Any deficit can be found to be excessive. See section 3 of Article 126, authorizing the Commission to start the procedure in case of risk of excessive deficit.

Sidenote1: this political assessment of the NL gov about the corrective arm is probably correct, but in the Dutch plan it is grounded on a legal view which is clearly incorrect, namely that the Council can only take action if debt is higher than 60%. This is incorrect.

The Dutch plan also says that if the Comm+Council reject the Dutch numbers, they won't submit new ones. The Comm indeed rejects the Dutch net expenditure path, recommending to the Council to set a different path.

In april, the new SGP rules took effect. Most importantly, the 'preventive arm' has been replaced. MS submit a four year plan for their budgets, at the heart of which stands the net expenditure path. Diverging from this path leads to a start of the 'corrective arm'.

The Dutch are flouting the new budgetary rules?
A thread on yesterday's announcement of the Commission on the Dutch medium-term structural plan (the new rules of the Stability and Growth Pact)

Is dat zo? Blijkt dat uit de Rijkswet Goedkeuring en bekendmaking verdragen? Art 14 heeft het over het voornemen tot opzegging, dus betwijfel of regering zonder goedkeuring een art 50 veu briefje mag sturen. Maar misschien zie ik iets over het hoofd.

Persuasive analysis by Maciej Bernatt on @verfassungsblog.de about market power and public power.