WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2961/97 by Marjo MATIKAINEN-KALLSTRÖM to the Commission. Reducing bureaucracy involved in the EU's research policy and regional policy
Date: 1997-09-17
Institutions: European Parliament, MATIKAINEN-KALLSTROEM
Subjects: EU financing, EU regional policy, administrative formalities, administrative transparency, aid system, eligible region, research and development, structural policy

C 134/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30. 4. 98

Answer

(22 December 1997)

The Council regrets the incidents referred to by the Honourable Member and would stress that it attaches the
greatest  importance  to  respect  for  human  rights  and  democracy  in  Turkey  and  has  no  hesitation  about
condemning any abuses in this area in its contacts with the Turkish authorities.

In the case of the peace envoy, the President of the Council brought up the matter of the treatment of this convoy,
on 1 September 1997 in Ankara. The Turkish Government justified such treatment, including the refusal to allow
the convoy access to Ankara, on grounds of public order. There is no doubt that the Turkish authorities have
handled this whole affair badly. They are aware of the legitimate consternation which their action has prompted
in the European Union.

(98/C 134/52)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2961/97

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallstro¤m (PPE) to the Commission

(17 September 1997)

Subject: Reducing bureaucracy involved in the EU(cid:146)s research policy and regional policy

The  European  Union  seeks  to  reduce  disparities  in  the  development  of  its  regions  by  means  of  regional  and
structural  policy.  However,  in  many  cases  regions  fail  to  receive  EU  aid,  especially  because  of  the  EU(cid:146)s
excessive bureaucracy and complicated application procedures rather, for example, than because projects are of
poor quality. A similar situation exists with regard to the Community(cid:146)s research programmes: the application
procedure is very troublesome.

What practical measures will the Commission adopt to take account of the need to reduce EU bureaucracy, for
example in the forthcoming reform of the Structural Funds for regional policy, to ensure that aid is allocated
more effectively at regional level?

How  does  the  Commission  ensure  that  those  whose  applications  are  eliminated  receive  feedback  on  their
applications, so that they can learn from their experiences?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(27 October 1997)

As far as the future reorganisation of the Structural Funds is concerned, the Commission has already stated, in its
communication  (cid:145)Agenda  2000(cid:146) (1),  that  it  wishes  to  simplify  the  arrangements  for  their  implementation,
principally by clarifying the responsibilities of the Member States, the regions and the Commission. It will set out
the operational arrangements to apply to the Structural Funds during the next programming period when it adopts
its proposals for new regulations early in 1998.

With regard to geographical eligibility, the Commission will explain, as it does now when it is asked, the reasons
why it does not accept the regions proposed by the Member States. In the case of specific projects, it is up to the
authorities of the Member States to provide the information required in line with existing national systems.

As far as the research and technological development (RTD) programmes of the Community are concerned, the
procedures for obtaining support are fundamentally different, as they involve direct funding decisions by the
Commission itself, following the opinion of programme committees of Member State representatives. Over the
years,  the  Commission  has  steadily  improved  the  transparency  of  its  procedures  and  the  time  taken  to  reach
decisions  on  funding.  Every  proposer,  whether  successful  or  not,  receives  written  confirmation  of  the
Commission’s  evaluation  decision.  This  notification,  which  is  sent  out  immediately  after  the  decision,  gives
briefly the reasons for the decision and the possibility to seek further explanations from the Commission.

(1)  COM(97) 2000 final.