WRITTEN QUESTION P-2805/01 by Franz Turchi (UEN) to the Commission. Projects funded under the Culture 2000 Programme.
Date: 2001-10-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, EU programme, Italy, aid system, association, cultural policy, use of aid

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/163

(cid:1) the use of genetically modified organisms (GMO)

in agri-food production, besides representing
possible risk for consumer health, would favour a few big non-European multinationals at the expense
of the European small and medium-sized companies operating in the sector,

the Commission is asked:

(cid:1) What strategies does it intend to adopt in order to safeguard European agriculture?

(cid:1) Does it not accept that comprehensive action should be taken to protect and promote the traditional
agri-food production of the various regions of Europe, a guarantee of authenticity as well as an
expression of the cultural wealth of those regions?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 2001)

Safeguarding and promoting the European model for agriculture were among the main aims of the reform
of the common agricultural policy adopted in 1999 under Agenda 2000. Features of this European model,
which are accordingly reflected in the objectives of the reform, are: a competitive agricultural sector; a fair
standard of living for the farming community; production methods that are safe, capable of supplying
quality products and environmentally friendly; a diversified farming sector that preserves the wealth of
traditions and the variety of landscapes in the countryside and constitutes a source of jobs in rural areas. In
a word, the model seeks to foster agriculture that is sustainable and multifunctional from the social,
economic and environmental viewpoints. Promoting such a model is a strategic objective, not only under
Agenda 2000 and with a view to enlargement but also in negotiations within the World Trade
Organisation.

The quality and diversity of the Union’s agricultural and food output are among the mainstays of the
model. Precisely because of this diversity, food quality cannot be properly and comprehensively defined at
Community level. The Commission does, however, have a role to play in improving information for the
consumer and it has made various proposals in this area.

In particular, as the Commission stated in its answer to Ms Sbarbati’s Written Question P-2555/01, to
which the Honourable Member should refer, the Community plans to implement a comprehensive and
coherent policy providing information on and promoting agricultural products, including foodstuffs, on
the internal and third-country markets.

(2002/C 115 E/170)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2805/01

by Franz Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

(2 October 2001)

Subject: Projects funded under the Culture 2000 Programme

The objectives of the Culture 2000 Programme include the funding of ‘street theatre’ companies and
shows.

The people arrested by the Italian police during the G8 Summit in Genoa included some belonging to
groups which, in the disguise of itinerant actors, were actively involved in the violent clashes.

Certain Italian newspapers have specifically reported that Community funding has gone to Black Bloc
groups in the form of subsidies for street artists.

Is the Commission aware of funds being allocated to would-be artistic companies which have then turned
out to be violent groups? What kind of check is kept not only on the financial regularity but also on the
final
‘product’ of funded projects? More specifically, have funds been allocated to the ‘No Border No
Nation’ and ‘Orange’ companies?

C 115 E/164

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2001)

Under the Culture 2000 programme, the Commission may finance projects involving at least three cultural
organisations from at least three participating States.

The ‘No Border No Nation’ street-theatre company, which was detained when arrests were made by the
Italian police during the summit of the eight most industrialised nations (G8) in Genoa (20-22 July 2001),
and the ‘Orange’ company have never participated- either as principal organisers or co-organisers (cid:1) in any
project subsidised by the Culture 2000 programme.

As far as checks on the projects selected are concerned, the Commission would emphasise that, within
their sphere of competence and on the basis of information provided by the national authorities,
its
departments are and will remain very careful never to grant funding to non-democratic organisations.

With regard to the more specific question of financial control (ex ante and ex post) when granting
subsidies, the Commission would draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that it adheres
strictly to the Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977 applicable to the general budget of the European
Communities (1).

(1) OJ L 356, 31.12.1977.

(2002/C 115 E/171)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2808/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 October 2001)

Subject: 46,05 % structural exceeding of deadlines for replies to non-priority written questions

Between September 1999 and the beginning of September 2001, the Commission replied to one hundred
non-priority written questions tabled by myself. The quickest such reply took 18 days, the slowest a full
125 days. On average, the official waiting period was just over 61 days, i.e. nearly nine weeks. This means
that the time limit was exceeded by ((61,34 / 42) − 100 %) = 46,05 %. This period is calculated from the
officially recorded date of receipt. On average, the date of recording of receipt was 18,75 days after I had
sent the questions to the appropriate department of Parliament by e-mail and fax. When it comes to
answering non-priority written questions, the Commission seems to be taking a leaf out of the Council’s
book, which shows its disdain for contact with the European Parliament by not infrequently making its
Members wait six months for a reply. I should be happy to supply copies of the tables which I have
compiled; my e-mail address is emeijer@europarl.eu.int. In the tables I recorded how long it took to answer
questions, by individual question and by member of
the Commission: of 18 Commissioners, only
Mr Fischler, Mr Monti and the President, Mr Prodi, replied within the time limit, on average.

Assuming that my questions take much the same length of time to process as those tabled by other
Members of the EP, I should like to put the following questions about the procedure in general:

1.

2.

Is the Commission aware that, according to Rule 44(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the European
Parliament, non-priority written questions are to be answered within six weeks? Does the Commission
consider itself to be bound by this time limit?

In its reply to my Written Question E-2806/00 (1), the Commission stated in connection with other
delays that it constantly analyses its own performance and seeks to improve it: does this also apply to
speeding up its replies to non-priority written questions?

3. Can such methods as benchmarking, best practices and peer pressure, which are increasingly
advocated in the European Union, also be applied to the Commission itself with reference to
answering written questions from Parliament?