WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1011/97 by André LAIGNEL to the Commission. Commission call for proposals No 96/C 284/10, 'innovative schemes for women in agriculture and in rural areas'
Date: 1997-03-12
Institutions: European Parliament, LAIGNEL
Subjects: competition (EU), farmer, foreign language, rural habitat, tendering, woman farmer













EUR-Lex - 91997E1011 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E1011

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1011/97 by André LAIGNEL to the Commission. Commission call for proposals No 96/C 284/10, 'innovative schemes for women in agriculture and in rural areas'  


Official Journal C 319 , 18/10/1997 P. 0216 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-1011/97 by André Laignel (PSE) to the Commission (12 March 1997)Subject: Commission call for proposals No 96/C 284/10, 'innovative schemes for women in agriculture and in rural areas'I have been contacted in my capacity as a Member of the European Parliament responsible for agricultural and rural matters by a bidder from my region regarding the Commission call for proposals No 96/C 284/10 concerning innovative schemes for women in agriculture and in rural areas ((OJ C 284, 27.9.1996, p. 21. )).The general information document accompanying the application form for Community tenders points out that bidders must submit document 3, which is a summary of the proposal. This appears perfectly reasonable, but there is a problem in that the document also states that, in the event that the application is in French, it is essential to attach an English translation to the French summary, and that this is a condition of admissibility. It appears excessive that this requirement, and the requirement that applications submitted in languages other than French and English must include a summary drawn up in one of those two languages, should be a condition for applications to be selected, and it appears likely to give rise to discrimination when the documents are considered by the competent Commission services. This requirement also poses an obstacle for bidders in farming and rural sectors, where operations are often conducted on a small scale and lack staff who are able to use English. Does the Commission consider it justified to maintain these iniquitous conditions, which represent a means of reducing the number of bidders?Can the Commission also provide information on the procedures used for selecting projects, the composition of selection committees and the external experts called upon for assistance?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (4 April 1997)Following the call for proposals in question particulars of the standard presentation format to be used were sent to all persons wishing to apply in the Community language of their choice.Bidders were asked to present, in conformity with that format, their proposal in the Community language of their choice, a summary of it in the Community language of their choice and a translation of the summary into English or French. Failure to send the summary in French or English is not in itself a reason for rejection of the proposal.This procedure has to be seen in the context of the considerable burden of work involved in classification and examination of several hundred proposals. Standardization and prior translation of the summary is enabling the Commission to examine each proposal in proper and consistent fashion and was in no way a means of reducing the number of bidders.In fact the number of proposals received, in particular from applicants in rural areas and less favoured zones, indicates that the procedure followed does not appear in any way to have disadvantaged potential bidders.As indicated in point 6 of the call for proposals, in selecting the successful bidders the Commission is being assisted by independent experts recruited on the basis of their experience and professional references. Each proposal is assessed by a group of experts of balanced nationalities, with due regard for that of the bidder.