WRITTEN QUESTION E-1962/99 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission. Efficiency of award and monitoring mechanisms for the funding of projects.
Date: 1999-11-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, cultural event, economic support, extreme left, management, political parties, transparency in decision-making

C 330 E/4

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.11.2000

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2000)

According to information from the Italian authorities, this project was submitted by the (cid:145)Soprintendenza
per i beni Ambientali, Architettonici, Artistici e Storici della Puglia(cid:146) (Department for the environmental,
architectural, artistic and historic assets of Apulia), not by the municipality of Andria (Bari). The project,
entitled (cid:145)Castles route(cid:146), includes an exhibition area, a restaurant, a ticket office and a bookshop, and the
placing of direction signs. The programme does not, however, include the provision of a car park.

The project has been part-financed by the Structural Funds under the Objective 1 programme, specifically
measure 5a of sub-programme I
the tourism multiregional
operational programme. Community part-financing from the European Regional Development Fund
amounted to ITL 899 million, 50 % of the total cost.

tourism(cid:146), which forms part of

(cid:145)Cultural

From the information supplied, there is nothing which leads the Commission to call into question the
financing of the project by the Structural Funds.

(2000/C 330 E/004)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1962/99

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(5 November 1999)

Subject: Efficiency of award and monitoring mechanisms for the funding of projects

In December 1998 one of the organisers of a (cid:145)conference(cid:146) entitled (cid:145)Zur Sache Sch(cid:228)tzchen (cid:129) Die 68er und
ihr Einflu(cid:223) auf die Solidarit(cid:228)ts- und Dritte-Welt-Bewegung(cid:146) ((cid:145)All is revealed: the 1968 generation and their
impact on the solidarity and Third World movement(cid:146)) was the Vereinigte Sozialistische Partei (VSP: United
Socialist Party), known to the Hamburg Office for the Protection of the Constitution as an (cid:145)extreme left-
wing organisation(cid:146). This event, with a huge presence of left-wing extremists, received funding from the
Commission amounting to the equivalent of ATS 35 000.

Is it normal practice for events attended by political extremists to receive funding from the

1.
Commission?

Has funding been given to any other events involving the VSP or other left-wing or right-wing

2.
extremist groups?

3. What is the nature of existing award and monitoring mechanisms in respect of examining what
groups receive funding?

Does the Commission feel that the existing award and monitoring mechanisms are sufficiently

4.
efficient to prevent misuse of EU funding?

5.

6.

If so, how does the Commission explain the example described above?

If not, what progress has been made with reform of such mechanisms?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2000)

The Commission could not determine whether Union financing had been granted on the basis
1. and 2.
of the information contained in the written question. It has contacted the Honourable Member requesting
further information and will then be able to reply to the question.

With regard to the Commission(cid:146)s normal practice for funding events in the general interest, the criteria it
applies are set out below.

21.11.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 330 E/5

In July 1998 the Commission approved a (cid:145)Vademecum on grant management(cid:146) applicable from
3.
1 January 1999. Chapter 4 deals with the (cid:145)Criteria for accepting applications and awarding grants(cid:146). Among
the award criteria that selection committees and authorising officers are enjoined to take into account
is 4.5.8:

Proposed operations which, directly or indirectly, conflict with the policies of the Union or may be
linked with an unsuitable image must be rejected. For example, all grants for projects that may be
contrary to the interests of public health (alcohol, tobacco, drugs), respect for human rights, people(cid:146)s
security, freedom of expression, etc, are prohibited.

At present, commitments of appropriations by authorising officers are subject to an ex-ante visa by
financial control. Thus, applications for grants are vetted, successively, by the budget line manager, the
selection committee, the authorising officers and financial control.

To answer this question, the Commission has contacted the Honourable Member to obtain the

5.
information referred to in paragraph 1 above.

The new Financial Regulation could include a title covering the award of subsidies, which
4. and 6.
would define the concept, in particular with respect to contracts, and the conditions of award. For the
purposes of openness, the new title would lay down the rules for the award of subsidies (legal basis,
programme, ex-ante publication and ex-post information, need for a written contract).

In addition to checks on recipients of subsidies by the Court of Auditors, it will organise checks by the
institution which granted the subsidy (the authorising department will be required to monitor the use
made of it, make sure the recipient maintained the conditions of eligibility, assess whether the results are
in conformity with the objectives, and carry out an overall assessment of results).

These rules are intended to ensure proper and transparent use of Community funds in compliance with
procedures.

(2000/C 330 E/005)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2065/99

by Umberto Bossi (TDI) to the Commission

(12 November 1999)

Subject: Proposal to amend the directive on honey intended for human consumption

For several years now, the Commission has been discussing new Community and extra-Community rules
governing the marketing of honey, but has failed to make any meaningful progress on the matter despite
the fact that the current legislation contains various shortcomings as regards the product(cid:146)s commercial
description. The basic provisions of the latest proposal to amend the directive on honey are extremely
unsatisfactory in that they do not promote quality, do not lay down minimum requirements to be met in
order for a product to be given the name (cid:145)honey(cid:146), do not protect consumers against possible adulteration,
do not lay down stringent rules governing honey derived from genetically modified substances and do not
promote Community honeys and typical local honeys. What is more, the proposal does not even consider
honey to be a characteristically agricultural product.

Given the above, would the Commission state:

1. whether, given the fact that honey clearly is of agricultural origin, it does not feel it appropriate to

make the Directorate-General for Agriculture responsible for this sector;

2. whether it would not agree that honey should be regulated by means of a separate COM laying down

clear rules governing its production;

3. whether it would not agree that minimum quality standards should be laid down and that only

products which comply with those standards should be entitled to bear the name (cid:145)honey(cid:146);