WRITTEN QUESTION P-1010/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(4 April 2002)

Subject: Maladministration of the town twinning programme

I have been receiving repeated complaints about operational failings and maladministration in the Commission's running of the town twinning programme.

Some of the symptoms of maladministration and despotism can be seen directly in the Commission's call for proposals DG EAC No 63/01(1), which prohibits applications submitted by electronic means and appeals against administrative decisions (point 5). The parties involved have drawn attention to other problems such as the inability to supply information on the telephone, the inordinate time taken to answer queries, late payments, mailing delays, and the fact that applications are declared void for unimportant reasons that could easily be dealt with.

When will the Commission assess the performance of the departments concerned and, at all events, rectify the infringements of Article 41 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, in particular paragraph 3 thereof?

(1) OJ C 283, 9.10.2001, p. 8.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2002)

The Commission attaches the utmost importance to town twinning and continues to maintain and improve its support for it.

This is precisely the reason why the Commission, within the newly established Directorate general Education and Culture decided to launch, in mid-2000, an internal audit into the administration of the towntwinning grant scheme. This audit showed the need for a thorough reform of the town-twinning grant scheme and the vital importance of developing a clear, predictable and efficient system. This new system should better serve the beneficiaries while continuing to ensure the strict respect of the rules for the award of grants.

After consulting the national and regional representatives of the town-twinning movement and with their agreement, a system of call for proposals was introduced in November 2000, for the year 2001. It represented a major change in the running of the town twinning scheme and, as could be expected, entailed the need for a period of adaptation for the beneficiaries.

Conceived as a transitional arrangement, the new system was evaluated by the Commission in close cooperation with the representatives of the towntwinning movement and the European Parliament Culture Committee. The results of the review were confirmed during a meeting with town twinning organisations and interested Members of the Parliament on 17 September 2001. Based on the results of the review a revised system of call for proposals was introduced for 2002. It aims at simplification, clarity, transparency and user-friendliness while still meeting the stringent Commission requirements for sound financial management. The experience during the first quarter of the year 2002 is encouraging; the rate of applications refused for formal reasons is significantly lower than in 2001. The beneficiaries have expressed overall satisfaction. The Commission will continue to have a close dialogue with the interested parties in town-twinning area in order to eliminate as soon as possible the backlog resulting from the previous management system and review and adapt the new scheme on an annual basis.

During the transitional period the Commission has paid particular attention to the communication aspect of the programme management. The correspondance system with the applicants (letters, e-mails, telephone) has been developed and all official texts, forms, supporting documents and contact points have been made available on a new and improved Internet site(1).

The call for proposals No 63/01(2) and the administrative procedures of the town twinning grant scheme correspond to the principles laid down by the Commission's vade-mecum for grant management and by its code of conduct for officials in their relation with the public, and respect the provisions of the article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(1) http://europa.eu.intcomm/dgs/education_culture/towntwin/index_en.html.

(2) OJ C 283, 9.10.2001.