COMMON POSITION (EC) No 47/98 adopted by the Council on 24 July 1998 with a view to the adoption of Decision No .../98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of ... establishing a Community action for the 'European Capital of Culture' event for the years 2005 to 2019
Date: 1998-07-24
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU action, European Movement, artistic creation, cultural event, cultural heritage, cultural policy

14.9.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

C 285/5

COMMON  POSITION  (EC)  No  47/98

adopted  by  the  Council  on  24  July  1998

with  a  view  to  the  adoption  of  Decision  No  . . ./98/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the
Council of . . . establishing a Community action for the ‘European Capital of Culture’ event for
the  years  2005  to  2019

(98/C 285/02)

THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  AND  THE  COUNCIL
OF  THE  EUROPEAN  UNION,

Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the  European
Community,  and  in  particular  Article  128  thereof,

Having  regard  to  the  proposal  from  the  Commission (1),

Having  regard  to  the  opinion  of  the  Committee  of  the
Regions (2),

Acting  in  accordance  with  the  procedure  laid  down  in
Article  189b  of  the  Treaty (3),

(1) Whereas,  throughout  its  history,  Europe  has  been
the  site  of  exceptionally  prolific  and  varied  artistic
activity; whereas urban life has played a major role
in  the  growth  and  influence  of  the  European
cultures;

(2) Whereas Article 128 of the Treaty grants powers to
the  Community  in  the  cultural  field;  whereas  all
Community  activity  designed  to  promote  cultural
activities  should  therefore  be  undertaken  on  this
legal  basis,  in  accordance  with  the  objectives  and
means  assigned  to  the  Community  by  the  Treaty;

(3) Whereas,  on  13 

June  1985, 

the  Ministers
responsible  for  Cultural  Affairs  meeting  within  the
Council,  adopted  a  resolution  concerning  the
annual  event  ‘European  City  of  Culture’ (4),  the
main aim of which was to open up to the European
public  particular  aspects  of  the  culture  of  the  city,
region  or  country  concerned,  an  event  for  which
the  Community  has  provided  financial  support;

(1) OJ  C  362,  28.11.1997,  p.  12.
(2) OJ  C  180,  11.6.1998,  p.  70.
(3) Opinion  of  the  European  Parliament  of  30  April  1998  (OJ
C  152,  18.5.1998,  p.  58),  Council  Common  Position  of
24 July 1998 and Decision of the European Parliament of . . .
(not  yet  published  in  the  Official  Journal).

(4) OJ  C  153,  22.6.1985,  p.  2.

(4) Whereas  a  study  which  has  been  carried  out  into
the  results  achieved  by  European  Cities  of  Culture
shows that the event has a positive impact in terms
of media resonance, the development of culture and
tourism  and  the  recognition  by  inhabitants  of  the
importance  of  their  city  having  been  chosen;

lasting  beyond 

(5) Whereas  the  positive  impact  has  nonetheless  not
always  produced 
the
results 
duration  of  the  project  itself  and  whereas,  while
recognising  their  competence  to  decide  about  the
content  of  their  project,  the  attention  of  public
decision-makers  in  the  cities  chosen  should  be
drawn  to  the  need  to  integrate  the  cultural  project
into  a  dynamic  medium-term  process;

(6) Whereas  this 

important  both  for
strengthening  local  and  regional  identity  and  for
fostering  European  integration;

initiative 

is 

(7) Whereas,  in  the  discussions  leading  up  to  its
opinion  of  7  April  1995 (5)  on  the  Kaleidoscope
by  Decision  No
programme 
719/96/EC (6),  the  European  Parliament  asked  the
Commission  to  present  a  specific  programme  on
the  European  City  of  Culture  after  the  year  2000
on  the  basis  of  Article  128  of  the  Treaty;

established 

(8) Whereas the importance and impact of the ‘City of
Culture’  event  calls  for  the  creation  of  a  rotational
system  of  designation  which  will  ensure  that  each
Member  State  will  have  one  of  its  cities  chosen  at
regular  intervals;  whereas  a  predictable,  consistent
and  transparent  rotational  system  is  best  achieved
through  a  single  decision  whereby  the  order  in
is
which  Member  States  will  hold  the  event 
decided;

(9) Whereas  it  is  appropriate  for  the  Council  to
designate  the  Capitals  of  Culture  in  view  of  the

(5) OJ  C  109,  1.5.1995,  p.  281.
(6) Decision  No  719/96/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of
the  Council  of  29  March  1996  establishing  a  programme  to
support  artistic  and  cultural  activities  having  a  European
dimension  (Kaleidoscope)  (OJ  L  99,  20.4.1996,  p.  20).

C 285/6

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

14.9.98

great symbolic importance in the Member States of
such  a  designation;

(10) Whereas  any  Community  initiative  to  promote  the
‘European  City  of  Culture’  must  satisfy  predefined
objectives and use the resources provided for by the
Treaty;

(11) Whereas  the  Community  has  in  the  past  made  a
contribution  to  the  ‘European  City  of  Culture’  and
the  ‘European  Cultural  Month’  events  under  the
Kaleidoscope Programme, which is due to expire in
1998;

(12) Whereas  on  22  September  1997  the  Council
adopted  a  Decision  regarding  to  the  future  of
European  cultural  action (1)  in  which  it  called  on
the Commission, in accordance with Article 152 of
for  a  single
the  Treaty, 
programme  for  culture  by  May  1998,  into  which
an  Action  ‘European  Capital  of  Culture’  will  be
incorporated,  including  funding  arrangements;

table  proposals 

to 

Parliament 

(13) Whereas  the  Commission  has  submitted  to  the
European 
a
Communication  on  the  first  European  Community
framework  programme 
in  support  of  culture,
including  a  proposal  for  a  decision  establishing  a
single  financing  and  programming  instrument  for
cultural cooperation,

the  Council 

and 

chronological  order  set  out  in  Annex  I,  the  Council,
acting  on  a  recommendation  from  the  Commission,  shall
officially  designate  each  city  as  a  European  Capital  of
Culture  for  the  year  for  which  it  has  been  nominated.

Article  3

European  third  countries  may  participate  in  this  action.
Any  such  country  may  nominate  one  city  as  a  European
Capital  of  Culture  and  should  notify  its  nomination  to
the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  Commission
and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions.  The  Council,
acting  unanimously  on  a  recommendation  from  the
Commission,  shall  officially  designate  one  of  these
nominated  cities  as  a  European  Capital  of  Culture  for
each  year,  bearing  in  mind  the  desirability  of  four  years’
preparation  time.

Article  4

Each  designated  city  should  organise  a  programme  of
cultural  events  highlighting  the  city’s  own  culture  and
cultural  heritage  as  well  as  its  place  in  the  common
cultural  heritage,  and  involving  people  concerned  with
cultural  activities  from  other  European  countries  with  a
view  to  establishing  lasting  cooperation.  In  principle  this
programme  should  last  one  year  but  as  an  exception
designated  cities  may  opt  for  a  shorter  period  of  time.
Cities  may  choose  to  involve  their  surrounding  region  in
their  programme.  A  linkage  between  the  programmes  of
the  designated  cities  of  the  same  year  should  be  made.

HAVE  DECIDED  AS  FOLLOWS:

Article  1

Article  5

A  Community  action  entitled  ‘European  Capital  of
Culture’  shall  be  established.  Its  objective  shall  be  to
highlight  the  richness  and  diversity  of  European  cultures
and the features they share, as well as to promote greater
mutual  acquaintance  between  European  citizens.

Article  2

Each  Member  State  may  nominate  a  city  as  European
Capital  of  Culture,  in  turn,  as  set  out  in  Annex  I.  Any
such  nomination  shall  be  notified  to  the  European
Parliament,  the  Council,  the  Commission  and  the
Committee of the Regions no later than four years before
the  event  in  question  is  due  to  begin.

Without  prejudice  to  possible  alteration,  by  mutual
agreement  between  the  Member  States  concerned,  of  the

(1) OJ  C  305,  7.10.1997,  p.  1.

In  order  to  maintain  the  cultural  value  of  the  action:

— the  list  indicating  planning  and  evaluation  criteria  set
out  in  Annex  II  should  be  taken  into  account  to  the
greatest  possible  extent  by  cities  in  planning  their
programme,

— designated  cities  should  outline  their  programme,  at
least  six  months  before  the  event  is  due  to  begin,
to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council  and  the
Committee  of  the  Regions,

— the  criteria  referred  to  in  the  first  indent  should  also
be  taken  into  account  by  the  Commission  in  its
evaluation  of  each  city’s  programme.

The Commission shall set up a Guidance Panel consisting
of personalities well known in cultural circles. Two of the
members  of  this  panel  shall  be  appointed  by  the
European  Parliament,  two  by  the  Council,  two  by  the
Commission  and  one  by  the  Committee  of  the  Regions.
The  Guidance  Panel  shall  give  advice  to  the  Commission

14.9.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

C 285/7

on the implementation of this decision. If so requested by
the  Member  States  or  third  countries  concerned,  the
Guidance Panel may offer them advice on their choice of
city  to  nominate.

Commission may also make any proposals for revision of
this  Decision  which  it  judges  necessary  for  the  smooth
operation  of  this  action.

Article  6

Done  at  . . .

Each  year  the  Commission  shall  produce  a  report
evaluating  the  results  of  the  previous  year’s  event,
including an analysis by the organisers of the latter. This
report shall be presented to the European Parliament, the
Council  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions.  The

For  the  European  Parliament

For  the  Council

The  President

The  President

ANNEX  I

ORDER  OF  ENTITLEMENT  TO  NOMINATE  A
EUROPEAN  CAPITAL  OF  CULTURE

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Ireland

Netherlands

Luxembourg

United  Kingdom

Austria

Germany

Finland

Portugal

France

Sweden

Belgium

Spain

Denmark

Greece

Italy

C 285/8

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

14.9.98

ANNEX  II

LIST  INDICATING  PLANNING  AND  EVALUATION  CRITERIA

Possible  elements  of  designated  cities’  programmes:

— promotion  of  shared  artistic  movements  and  styles  in  the  development  of  which  the  city  has  played  a

particular role,

— organisation  of  artistic  events  (music,  dance,  theatre,  visual  arts,  cinema,  etc.)  and  improvement  of  the

promotion  and  management  of  the  arts,

— promotion  of  European  public  awareness  of  the  figures  and  events  which  have  marked  the  history  and

culture  of  the  city,

— organisation of specific activities designed to encourage artistic innovation and to generate new forms of

cultural  action  and  dialogue,

— organisation  of  measures  to  increase  access  to  and  awareness  of  fixed  and  movable  artistic  assets  and

artistic  productions  specific  to  the  city,

— organisation  of  specific  cultural  projects  designed  to  bring  young  people  to  the  arts,

— organisation  of  specific  cultural  projects  designed  to  increase  social  cohesion,

— taking  the  planned  activities  to  a  wider  public,  particularly  through  the  use  of  multimedia  and

audiovisual  means  and  a  multilingual  approach,

— contribution  to  the  development  of  economic  activity,  particularly  in  terms  of  employment  and

tourism,

— need  to  develop  high-quality  and  innovative  cultural  tourism  with  due  allowance  being  made  for  the
importance  in  this  connection  of  managing  the  cultural  heritage  on  a  sustainable  basis  and  reconciling
the  wishes  of  visitors  with  those  of  the  local  population,

— organisation  of  projects  designed  to  encourage  the  development  of  links  between  the  architectural

heritage  and  strategies  for  new  urban  development,

— joint  organisation  of  initiatives  designed  to  promote  dialogue  between  the  cultures  of  Europe  and  the

cultures  of  other  parts  of  the  world.

14.9.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

C 285/9

STATEMENT  OF  THE  COUNCIL’S  REASONS

I.

INTRODUCTION

1. On  31  October  1997,  the  Commission  submitted  to  the  Council  a  proposal  for  a
Decision  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  for  the  establishment  of  a
Community  action  in  favour  of  the  ‘European  City  of  Culture’.

2. The  Committee  of  the  Regions  delivered  its  opinion  on  13  March  1998.

3. The  European  Parliament  delivered  its  opinion  on  29  April  1998.

4. On  28  May  1998,  the  Commission  submitted  an  amended  proposal.

5. On  24  July  1998,  the  Council  adopted  its  common  position  in  accordance  with

Article  189b  of  the  EC  Treaty.

II. AIM  OF  THE  PROPOSAL

The  proposal  is  for  the  implementation  at  Community  level  of  an  action  in  support  of  a
major  annual  event,  the  ‘European  City  of  Culture’,  the  aim  of  which  is  to  showcase  the
richness  and  cultural  diversity  of  Europe’s  cities,  while  highlighting  their  shared  cultural
heritage  and  the  vitality  of  artistic  creation.

1. General  remarks

In  its  common  position,  the  Council,  while  endorsing  the  aim  of  the  Commission
proposal,  has  made  a  number  of  what  it  considers  to  be  felicitous  changes.

2. Specific  remarks

2.1. Amendments  by  the  Council  to  the  Commission  proposal

2.1.1. Reference  period  of  the  Decision  and  the  system  for  designating  cities

The  Council  first  of  all  had  to  deal  with  the  question  of  the  choice  of  the
European  City  of  Culture  for  2001,  a  year  for  which  seven  cities  had  been
nominated (1),  while  other  nominations  had  been  submitted  for  the  years  2002,
2003  and  2004 (2).

Faced  with  this  difficult  situation,  the  Council  adopted  a  two-pronged  approach.
First,  by  means  of  an  intergovernmental  Decision  (of  the  representatives  of  the
governments  of  the  Member  States  meeting  within  the  Council),  it  designated  the
European  Cities  of  Culture  for  2001  to  2004 (3).

At  the  same  time,  non-Community  applicant  cities  were  invited  to  organise  a
European  Cultural  Month (4).  That  solved  the  thorny  problem  posed  by  the
nomination  of  13  cities  —  many  of  which  had  already  done  a  lot  of  work  in
preparation — for the years 2001 to 2004, by spreading 10 of those cities over the
four  years  in  question.

(1) Basle,  Genoa,  Lille,  Oporto,  Riga,  Rotterdam  and  Valencia.
(2) Bruges  and  Salamanca  (2002),  Graz,  Granada  and  St  Petersburg  (2003)  and  Barcelona  (2004).
(3) 2001:  Rotterdam  and  Oporto;  2002:  Bruges  and  Salamanca;  2003:  Graz;  2004:  Genoa  and  Lille.
(4) Riga  and  Basle  in  2001  and  St  Petersburg  in  2003.

C 285/10

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

14.9.98

Secondly, with the aim of avoiding the problems inherent in a system of selection
based on unanimity (problems which were already conspicuous in 1995 when the
European  Cities  of  Culture  for  2000  had  been  designated  and  which,  since  then,
had  been  at  the  root  of  the  failure  to  find  a  solution  for  2001),  the  Council
devised  a  selection  system  of  automatic  rotation  between  the  Member  States,
based on the Council Decision of 1 January 1995 (determining the order in which
the  office  of  President  of  the  Council  shall  be  held),  under  which,  for  the  period
2005  to  2019,  a  different  Member  State  may  nominate  one  city  for  each  year.

By so doing, the Council has both changed the reference period of the Decision as
proposed  by  the  Commission  —  which  envisaged  the  Community  initiative
beginning  in  2002  —  and  replaced  the  proposed  decision-taking  mechanism  by  a
neutral  rotation  system  which  is  designed  to  avoid  the  impasses  and  hold-ups
caused by the need for unanimity. With this system, the formal designation by the
Council  of  the  proposed  cities  will  be  decided,  on  a  recommendation  by  the
Commission,  by  a  simple  majority,  after  the  nominations  have  been  submitted  to
the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Committee of the
Regions,  no  later  than  four  years  before  the  event  is  due  to  begin.

The  chronological  order  may  be  changed  by  mutual  agreement  between  the
Member  States  concerned,  and  indeed  a  change  has  already  been  made  by
agreement  between  the  Netherlands  and  Greece.

2.1.2. Third  countries

There is provision for participation in the event by European third countries which
is not subject to the conditions laid down in Article 4 of the Commission proposal
(EEA  countries,  CCEEs,  Cyprus  and  European  third  countries  which  have
the
concluded  cooperation  agreements  containing  a  culture  clause  with 
Community).

European  third  countries  may  nominate  cities  for  the  event  and  must  notify  their
nomination  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  Commission  and  the
Committee  of 
the  Regions.  The  Council,  acting  unanimously  on  a
recommendation from the Commission, will officially designate one of these cities
for  each  year,  bearing  in  mind  the  desirability  of  four  years’  preparation  time.

2.1.3. Number  of  cities  designated  each  year

Under  the  provisions  outlined  above,  the  Council  has  provided  in  its  common
position  for  the  participation  of  two  cities  each  year  (one  from  a  Member  State,
the  other  from  a  European  third  country).

2.1.4. Title  of  the  event

In  line  with  current  practice  in  a  number  of  Member  States,  the  Council  has
changed  the  title  of  the  event  from  European  ‘City’  of  Culture  to  European
‘Capital’  of  Culture.

2.1.5. Length  of  the  event

In order to accommodate the wishes that certain cities might have, the Council has
made it possible to alter the length of the event, which should in principle last one
year  but  which,  as  an  exception,  may  be  shortened  if  the  designated  cities  so
wish.

2.1.6. Possibility  of  participation  by  the  region  in  which  the  designated  city  is

situated

The  Council  has  made  provision  for  designated  cities  to  choose  to  involve  their
surrounding  region  in  their  programmes.

14.9.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

C 285/11

2.1.7. Guidance  Panel

The  Council’s  common  position  provides  for  the  Commission  to  set  up  a
Guidance Panel consisting of personalities well known in cultural circles, to advise
the  Commission  on  the  implementation  of  the  Decision.  If  so  requested  by  the
Member  States  or  third  countries  concerned,  the  Guidance  Panel  may  offer  them
advice on the choice of the city they nominate. Two members of the panel would
be  appointed  by  the  European  Parliament,  two  by  the  Council,  two  by  the
Commission  and  one  by  the  Committee  of  the  Regions.

2.2. European  Parliament  amendments

2.2.1. European  Parliament  amendments  adopted  by  the  Commission

The  Commission  accepted,  in  full,  in  part  or  in  a  recast  version,  eight  of  the  14
European  Parliament  amendments.  Those  amendments  are  1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  9  (in
part)  and  11.

2.2.2. European  Parliament  amendments  adopted  by  the  Council

The  Council  accepted  in  full,  in  part  or  in  their  essence,  four  of  the  amendments
proposed  by  the  Parliament  and  incorporated  by  the  Commission.  Those
amendments  are  1,  2,  3  and  6.

2.2.3. European  Parliament  amendments  not  adopted  by  the  Council

Amendment  4

Impact  of  the  event:  importance  for  medium-sized  cities

The  Council  felt  that  a  specific  reference  to  the  importance  of  the  event  for
medium-sized cities might be unclear, as the concept of ‘medium-sized city’ seemed
neither  easy  nor  straightforward  to  define.

Amendments  5,  11  (second  part)  and  12  (first  part)

Eligibility  criteria  for  projects

The  Council  did  not  adopt  amendments  5  and  11  (second  part),  as  it  considered
that the list of planning and evaluation criteria in Annex II to its common position
fully  covered  the  Parliament’s  requirements  as  set  out  in  its  amendments.

Nor  did  the  Council  adopt  amendment  12  (first  part),  as  it  considered  that  while
the  solution  for  European  third  countries  provided  by  Article  3  of  its  common
position  did  not  call  into  question  the  Community’s  existing  commitments  in
respect  of  those  countries,  it  offered  them  greater  opportunities  for  participation.

Amendments  7  and  14

Funding  of  the  event

The  Council  considered  that  any  reference  to  funding  of  the  event  would  seem
premature,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  it  is  intended  to  form  an  integral  part  of  the
European  Community  framework  programme  in  support  of  culture  recently
submitted  by  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council.

Amendments  8,  11  (first  part)  and  12  (second  part)

Submission  of  cities’  applications

The  Council  considers  that  the  support  of  the  competent  States  is  a  sine  qua  non
for the success of the event, and wanted to avoid applications which, while having
very  little  hope  of  success,  would  cost  the  applicant  cities  a  great  deal  and  end  in
disappointment.

C 285/12

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

14.9.98

Amendments  9  and  10

Selection  procedure

As  explained  in  paragraph  2.1.1,  the  Council  opted  for  a  mechanism  based  on
automatic  rotation  in  order  to  avoid  the  difficulties  inherent  in  unanimous
selection.  However,  in  its  common  position  it  has  provided  for  the  creation  of  a
Guidance  Panel,  composed  of  seven  members  (two  appointed  by  the  European
Parliament,  two  by  the  Council,  two  by  the  Commission  and  one  by  the
Committee  of  the  Regions),  to  advise  on  the  implementation  of  the  Decision  and
the  Member  States  and  countries  concerned  on  the  choice  of  the  city  they
nominate.

The  Council  could  not  therefore  adopt  European  Parliament  amendments  9  and
10  concerning  the  work  of  the  panel  provided  for  in  the  Commission  proposal,
nor  the  arrangements  for  the  selection  of  the  city  (unanimity  plus  Article  189b
procedure for the year in question), as the panel and annual selection, as envisaged
in  the  proposal,  no  longer  feature  in  the  common  position.

Amendment  13

European  Cultural  Month

The  Council  did  not  adopt  this  amendment.  It  considered  that  after  the
intergovernmental stage of the event, during which a number of cities in European
third  countries  were  allocated  a  ‘European  Cultural  Month’  under  the  Decision
establishing  a  Community  action  for  the  event,  the  initiative  should  be  the  same
for  all  participants.

In  Article  4  of  its  common  position,  the  Council  did  nevertheless  provide  for
designated  cities  to  opt  for  a  programme  of  less  than  one  year’s  duration,  as  an
exception.  This  should  provide  for  a  degree  of  flexibility  in  organising  the  event.