WRITTEN QUESTION P-1679/03 by Lissy Gröner (PSE) to the Commission. Use of funds by the Bavarian Prime Minister's Office to support events in Europe Week 2003.
Date: 2003-05-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Bavaria, European Movement, European cultural event, display, financial regulation, support policy

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/87

(2004/C 58 E/103)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1679/03

by Lissy Gröner (PSE) to the Commission

(15 May 2003)

Subject: Use of funds by the Bavarian Prime Minister’s Office to support events in Europe Week 2003

I heard from the Bavarian Prime Minister’s Office last week that no Commission funds will be available in
Bavaria this year to support Europe Week events.

The Bavarian Prime Minister’s Office was notified by the Commission, in a letter sent in January 2003, that
the previous procedure for granting subsidies to Europe Week events was to be changed. Further details
were not yet known at that stage. A number of institutions subsequently made applications.

On 16 April 2003 the Commission sent the Bavarian Prime Minister’s Office a draft agreement which the
shortage of time remaining made impossible to implement in Bavaria. According to the Bavarian Prime
Minister’s Office the Commission was not prepared to limit the text to the guidelines which were yet to be
implemented, and to simplify it.

Owing to this state of affairs no Commission funds could be made available this year for Europe Week
events. This has resulted in considerable annoyance among applicants.

Did the events depicted by the Bavarian Prime Minister’s Office actually take place as described?

Is the failure represented by the tardy agreement attributable to the Commission or to the Bavarian Prime
Minister’s Office?

Did delays occur only in Bavaria, or also in other German Länder?

Were there problems with disbursing funds in other Member States, too?

On 6 May I received three posters for 9 May from Pplus Service, on behalf of
the Commission’s
Representation in Munich. At such short notice this delivery was pointless for Europe Week, and I regard
it as action for the sake of it.

What were the costs of printing and dispatching these posters?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2003)

The origin of the problem raised by the Honourable Member lies in the amendments to regulations
(the Financial Regulation (1), which entered into force on 1 January 2003, and the detailed implementing
rules (2) were adopted in December 2002) with which the Commission must comply. The new Financial
Regulation contains strict provisions on grant award procedures (see, in particular, Articles 109 to 113).

in 2003,

Thus,
the Commission offered to negotiate and conclude Europe Week agreements with
interested Länder on an individual basis. Ten Länder showed an interest and nine agreements were
concluded.

In the specific case referred to by the Honourable Member, an additional problem had to be dealt with in a
very short period of time. The Bavarian Prime Minister’s Office wished to include in the agreement only
projects organised by third parties, and no projects of its own. To this end, the Land intended to conclude
contracts with the project organisers, something which, according to the Prime Minister’s Office, was not
possible given the deadline of 9 May 2003. Therefore, the Prime Minister’s Office asked whether the
relevant parts of the agreement could be amended. On account of the (strict) provisions of the new
Financial Regulation and its implementing rules,
in particular concerning the award of grants, these
amendments could not be made for lack of time.

C 58 E/88

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

they nevertheless
The other nine Länder were in the same situation as regards project organisers;
concluded agreements in accordance with the above-mentioned financial rules. This shows that one cannot
speak of general delays and that, from the Commission’s point of view, the procedures applied in 2003 (cid:1)
although difficult (cid:1) have proved effective.

The situation in the other Member States is somewhat different. Where grants were planned, delays
occurred while legal commitments were brought into line with the new Financial Regulation. In this
context, it has to be kept in mind that ‘Europe Week’ is a special event for the German Länder.

The Commission regrets that the posters for 9 May were late in reaching the Honourable Member.
400 000 posters were printed at a cost of EUR 26 860 in response to requests from distributors
throughout Europe.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the

general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 248, 16.9.2002.

(2) Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the
implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the
general budget of the European Communities.

(2004/C 58 E/104)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1722/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 May 2003)

Subject: Obstacles to North-South rail travel as a result of the territory of the former Yugoslavia being split

between three of the eight European Interrail zones

Is the Commission aware that passes issued by UIC-CIT,

1.
the international European railways
organisation, for unlimited travel within one or more European countries, known as Interrail, Scanrail,
Euro Domino and Eurail, were initially intended only for tourism, in particular for young people under the
age of 26, but have now become attractive as alternative tickets for destinations in countries for which
normal rail tickets are no longer available in the passenger’s country of residence?

Is the Commission also aware that the current division of Europe into eight Interrail zones has
2.
resulted in the former Yugoslavia being split between three different zones, namely Slovenia in zone G
together with Italy, Greece and Turkey, Croatia in zone D with Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary,
and Serbia-Montenegro with Macedonia in zone H together with Romania and Bulgaria?

3. What is the Commission’s view of the fact that although this arrangement is good for travel between
Poland and Croatia it is highly damaging to the previously frequent North-South rail travel via the former
Yugoslavia, as passengers are obliged to buy more expensive or less easily obtainable tickets:

(a) On the route between Austrian and Greece passengers have two travel through four zones. On this
fairly short journey, the highest Interrail tariff, covering all eight zones, is automatically applied.

(b) An alternative is the advance purchase of a series of Euro Domino tickets, valid for several days, for all
the countries en route for which separate rail tickets are no longer sold elsewhere in order to obtain a
valid ticket for entry to Greece.

(c) The cheapest but most inconvenient solution is to break the journey to buy tickets at Belgrade station,
or possibly at Zagreb or Ljubljana. This involves paying cash in currencies other than the euro.