WRITTEN QUESTION E-2149/01 by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Time-wasting bureaucracy at the Commission.
Date: 2001-07-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, European Commission, administrative formalities, culture, education, project evaluation

C 134 E/14

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2002

It should also be noted that this product requires authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the
Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (2),
before it can be used as or in food. Use of the maize kernels themselves from the Aventis T25 maize line
has not been authorised under the above mentioned Regulation. Under this Regulation, only products
derived from Aventis T25, such as flour, starch or oil may be placed on the market,
following a
notification made to the Commission in January 1998 under Article 5 of the Regulation.

This notification was based on an assessment carried out by the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and
Processes of the United Kingdom, which established that the products concerned were substantially
equivalent to products derived from conventional maize varieties and that there would be no risk for
human health and the environment.

The Commission does not plan to withdraw authorisation of the foodstuffs derived of the sweet corn line
Aventis T25 under Regulation (EC) No 258/97.

(1) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990.
(2) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.

(2002/C 134 E/015)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2149/01

by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Time-wasting bureaucracy at the Commission

(18 July 2001)

The European Union’s popularity with the public depends on whether the EU can make a practical positive
difference to people’s lives. Many of the small cultural and educational projects which the EU supports
provide a positive experience of the European Union, and it is therefore incredibly annoying if work on
such projects ends up producing exactly the opposite effect.

Unfortunately, many people applying for funding for small projects become very disappointed and
frustrated as a result of their encounters with the EU system. This is because of the long delays they
experience in having their applications dealt with. Such delays are especially serious for small projects
which do not have big financial backing, as the applicants cannot afford to wait as long as 5-6 months for
an answer. Many small projects unfortunately do not get off the ground if it takes so long, and EU funding
therefore goes mainly to those already in a financially strong position.

The delays in question are probably due to a very bureaucratic approvals procedure within the
Commission. Many Directorates-General are involved in taking the decisions, and sometimes small projects
involving as little as EUR 10 000 have to be approved by the whole college of Commissioners.

Does the Commission have any plans to change the procedure so as to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy and
reduce the time needed to process applications?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2001)

The Commission is fully aware of the need to reduce the period of time needed to inform applicants for
grants of the result of their applications.

This period is necessary, however, because the Commission has to examine a very large number of
applications submitted in response to its calls for proposals. Consequently, in the case of programmes
which directly concern the public,
like those in the field of education and culture mentioned in the
question, the number of grant applications to be vetted vastly exceeds the number of grants available.
(Thousands of grants are awarded each year. For a given budget heading, the ratio of the number of grants
awarded to the number of applications examined can be 1:6, or even more.)

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/15

The evaluation and selection procedure is itself in stages and they cannot be easily condensed as they cover
the physical processing of the applications received (encoding, acknowledgement of receipt, etc.); the
evaluation of
the applications by the various Commission departments and where appropriate, by
independent external experts; interdepartmental consultation within the Commission; the consultation of a
committee that might need to be convened for legal reasons; allowing, where necessary, for the period
within which the Parliament can exercise its right of inspection; formal adoption of the list of projects
selected by the Commission. Only at this stage can the Commission inform the applicants whether their
applications have been approved.

These stages are far from being simple bureaucratic hurdles since they guarantee that the fundamental
principles of the grant award procedure are observed A transparency, equal treatment of applicants and
sound financial management.

The Commission is nevertheless seeking to shorten the time required for processing applications. To this
end, the Commission wishes to keep to an absolute minimum the number of directorates-general to be
consulted on the projects for selection.

The last stage in the procedure, which is the formal adoption of the list of projects selected by the
Commission, has in the past most often resulted in the College adopting a decision by written procedure
or empowering a Commissioner to adopt the decision. A change to the Commission’s rules of procedure
has produced a new decision-making procedure for the Commission whereby the power to adopt a
decision is delegated to the Directors-General. Work is under way to ensure that decisions relating to
financing the field of education and culture can be taken in this way. This change will help to reduce the
period needed for processing applications from the time they are submitted to the time when the
Commission can notify applicants of the results.

(2002/C 134 E/016)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2156/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 July 2001)

Subject: Redirection of European oil subsidies towards sustainable energy sources

In its answer to question H-0527/01 (1) the Commission confines itself to summarising the existing
programmes for renewable energy sources. For example, between 1994 and 1999, 10 % of the total energy
budget A amounting to EUR 300 million A was spent on energy from renewable sources. Between 1998
and 2002 the Commission wishes to allocate some EUR 477 million through the Fifth Action Programme
and Altener to alternative sources of energy.

The Commission does not give any definitive answer on the redirection of oil subsidies. Between 1975 and
1998 the Commission granted no less than EUR 747,72 million in subsidies to European oil, gas and coal
producers. This special treatment for petroleum contrasts sharply with the ambitious Kyoto objectives on
CO2 emissions. A great effort therefore needs to be made to redress the balance in favour of alternative
energy sources.

Accordingly I should like a clear reply from the Commission to the following questions:

A Will the Commission be redirecting its support for the petroleum industry to the development and

promotion of alternative energy sources?

A If not, why is the Commission refusing to redirect its support for the petroleum industry towards the
in the light of the ambitious Kyoto

development and promotion of alternative energy sources,
objectives and the many years of preferential treatment given to the petroleum industry?

(1) Written answer of 3 July 2001.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 2001)

Within the Fifth Research and Technological Development
in the
distribution of funds for the promotion of new energy technology, priority has been given to renewable

(RTD) Framework Programme,