WRITTEN QUESTION P-0324/02 by Hans-Peter Martin (PSE) to the Council. Transparency as regards meetings, decisions and documents.
Date: 2002-02-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: access to EU information, dissemination of EU information, public conduct of debates, transparency in decision-making

C 205 E/116

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.8.2002

Connectivity for schools is handled differently in the various Member States but in many cases is provided
by the NREN.

The co-operation with the European Investment Bank (EIB) resulted in the signing of a Memorandum in
June 2001 This agreement between the Community and the EIB strengthens co-operation in order to boost
research and technological innovation in Europe by offering complementary, although independent, forms
of financial support to researchers. In addition EIB’s Innovation 2000 Initiative specifically targets the area
of
the 6th Framework
Programme on Research and Technological Development further opportunities are expected for the
provision and financing of research infrastructures.

information and communications technology networks.

In the context of

In conclusion, the Commission welcomes the fact that the target defined by the Council have been met
within the timeframe. Further efforts to sustain and improve Europe’s position will be done in the context
of the 6th Framework Programme, for which the topic of ‘GEANT and GRIDs’ has already received wide
support both in the Parliament and in the European Council.

(2002/C 205 E/127)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0324/02

by Hans-Peter Martin (PSE) to the Council

(5 February 2002)

Subject: Transparency as regards meetings, decisions and documents

Comprehensive transparency is increasingly becoming a central concern to the citizens of Europe, with
particular regard to the transparency of the EU institutions, where they seek access to as many documents
as possible and want as many meetings as possible to be open to the public.

Why, in the Council’s view, cannot all the Council’s activities, from meetings through to votes, be totally
transparent and open to the public?

Both the Swedish and the Belgian Council Presidencies again and again ascribed great importance to
increased transparency; however, in decisive transparency issues, there has, in practice, been little change.
What conclusions have been drawn from these experiences?

in which areas of its own activities can the Council

In the future,
imagine that a greater degree of
transparency as regards access to documents and meetings might be introduced, and how will the current
Spanish Presidency tackle this issue?

Reply

(21 May 2002)

The Council would draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that it has taken the necessary
steps to implement Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.

More specifically, it has adopted Decision No 2001/840/EC amending the Council’s Rules of Procedure,
which recasts some of the existing provisions on document access and lays down certain new provisions
arising from implementation of Regulation No 1049/2001.

The Council attaches particular importance to the proper application of these instruments, which represent
decisive progress in ensuring public access to the institution’s documents.

29.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 205 E/117

The Council would also draw attention to the existing instruments which cover publication of the results
of votes, minutes statements and agendas for certain types of meetings and the holding of open debates on
important legislative proposals.

The Council is convinced of the benefits of genuine transparency, providing that this can be squared with
the need to safeguard the efficiency and effectiveness of decision-taking.

It should be pointed out in this connection that greater Council transparency,
in particular when the
Council is acting in its legislative capacity, was one of the questions raised by the European Council in the
Laeken Declaration and due to be discussed by the Convention tasked with preparing the forthcoming
Intergovernmental Conference on the reform of the Treaties.

(2002/C 205 E/128)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0329/02

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Subject: Failings in management of 3rd CSF

According to reports in the Greek press, a letter was sent on 4 October 2001 from the Director-General of
the Commission’s Directorate-General
for Regional Policy to the Greek authorities, via the Greek
Permanent Representation in Brussels, informing the Greek Government of the outcome of an inquiry
carried out in Greece from 11 to 15 June 2001 concerning the 3rd Community Support Framework.

The Commission ascertained that the management authority responsible for the 3rd CSF B appointed by
the Greek Government B whose task is to allocate funding and monitor the progress of the contracts and
works, does not in fact function. The Commission also noted a lack of minimum requirements to ensure a
structured, transparent and objective system of evaluating proposals. Only general ‘criteria’ were applied,
creating a risk of adopting proposals which are not the best and vague in terms of cost, quality and the
timetable for completion of the works.

The Commission discovered that there are no documented instructions or lists for checking the works. Nor
is there any detailed and comprehensive contractual agreement between the authority granting the
financial aid and the applicant with the result that, even in the case of projects which are under way, legal
disagreements may arise which have unfortunate implications for the future of the project and its further
funding. There were also failings because the computer system designed to monitor the performance of the
contracts was inoperative. The Commission’s document notes in conclusion that there is no system of
specifications and checks which could guarantee the smooth progress and quality of the projects.

What action will the Commission now take to remedy the shortcomings revealed by its inspectors, and
when?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(8 April 2002)

The document that appeared in the Greek press, dated 4 October 2001, was the transmission to the
permanent representation of Greece to the European Union of the main findings, conclusions and
recommendations of an audit mission of the Commission that had been carried out between 11 and
15 June 2001 in Greece, in the framework of a series of preventive audits in the Member States for the
programming period 2000-2006.

The aim of the preventive audit missions is to contribute in a constructive way to the improvement of
management and control systems. The audit mission that was carried out between 11 and 15 June 2001 in
Greece, as well as other missions that followed, are part of an ongoing process to raise standards.