WRITTEN QUESTION E-2808/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. 46,05 % structural exceeding of deadlines for replies to non-priority written questions.
Date: 2001-10-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Parliament, operation of the Institutions, written question

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 , 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?

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/165

4. Can the Commission record and indicate how much time, on average, it took, per Commissioner, to
reply between 20 July 1999 and 1 October 2001? Does the Commission agree that a clearer
understanding of how long it actually takes to answer questions is likely to generate healthy peer
pressure among Directorates-General and within Commissioners’ offices which will speed up replies?

5.

In addition to the hard-copy versions, can Members of the European Parliament also receive replies to
written questions from the Commission directly by e-mail, so that replies are never lost amongst the
mountains of written mail and to make it possible, for example, for replies to be forwarded to
interested parties and suppliers of information, or posted on political parties’ web sites, at the earliest
possible stage? If not, why not?

Source: own review of the response to questions tabled by myself.

(1) OJ C 163 E, 6.6.2001, p. 10.

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 2001)

The Commission would firstly like to reiterate that it attaches the utmost importance to the fact that
Members of the European Parliament can exercise to the full their right under the third paragraph 3 of
Article 197 (former Article 140),
information and thereby enhance
to ask the Commission for
Parliamentary political control of the Commission.

The Commission’s aim is to answer questions put to it by the Members of the Parliament within the
deadlines desired by Parliament.

It regrets that it was unable to meet the deadlines in the cases referred to by the Honourable Member.
However, it can assure him that it is continually trying to simplify and step up computerisation of current
procedures and practices with a view to shortening deadlines for answers. In the short-term these changes
may perhaps extend deadlines but should in the future lead to an improvement in the situation.

The time needed to draft an answer and have it approved by the full Commission and thus the provision
of an answer by the Commission to a parliamentary question depends on many factors, among which
number the immediate availability of data or the need for in-depth research before the Commission can
adopt a position and give the information requested. Statistics prepared by directorates-general or by
Commissioners’ offices on the average deadlines for processing draft answers do not adequately reflect
these factors.

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that as from now, in parallel with the dispatch by
post of an answer to a question put by an Honourable Member, the answer is transmitted the same day by
e-mail to the unit of Parliament concerned.

(2002/C 115 E/172)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2813/01

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(10 October 2001)

Subject: Shipwreck in the Sicilian Channel

The Commission’s answer to this Member’s Written Question P-2079/01 (1) dealing exclusively with the
request for the recovery of the bodies of 238 illegal Indian, Pakistani and Tamil immigrants who were
shipwrecked in the waters off the coast of Sicily during Christmas 1996, is totally unsatisfactory, as it does
not explain why the request cannot be met.