WRITTEN QUESTION E-3231/03 by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission. Allocation of subsidies under the fifth and sixth framework programmes.
Date: 2003-10-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, EU programme, administrative formalities, administrative procedure, administrative transparency, project evaluation, research programme

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/241

Is the British standard mark legally acceptable in France?

Could the Commission give details of the legislation within the EU that concerns this?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2003)

There is currently no Community legislation harmonising the standards for the fireproofing of fabrics.
Accordingly, Member States are free to adopt their own standards. However, the free movement of fabrics
between Member States is nevertheless assured to a considerable extent by the principle of mutual
recognition, derived from the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice, in particular on the basis of
Articles 28 and following of the EC Treaty.

This principle obliges a Member State to permit
lawfully
manufactured or sold in another Member State unless it can show that the product does not afford a
degree of protection of a legitimate public interest equivalent to that guaranteed by its own legislative or
administrative requirements.

the placing on its market of a product

Therefore, if the French authorities decide not to permit the placing on the market in France of products
complying with the British standard,
it is for them to justify such refusal by demonstrating that the
products do not afford sufficient protection of the consumer.

A lack of appropriate justifications may entail the breach of the EC Treaty as interpreted by the Court of
Justice.

(2004/C 78 E/0244)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3231/03

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(31 October 2003)

Subject: Allocation of subsidies under the fifth and sixth framework programmes

The projects funded with help from the fifth and sixth framework programmes are generally held in high
esteem. They are often innovative and the mere requirement that the partners/bodies working together
must come from several different countries generates positive synergy which can help to create
Community value.

Unfortunately, reports of problems have also come to my attention, problems which, in some cases, are so
serious as to undermine the positive impact of programmes and projects. In many cases, these problems
lead to disillusionment and a reluctance to submit fresh proposals.

Above all, the complaints concern the administration of the programmes:

(cid:1) The administrative arrangements are complex, anything but transparent and require the investment of

an unreasonable amount of time, money and effort.

(cid:1) In the case of smaller bodies, the administrative burden has become an insurmountable obstacle and
the percentage of funding granted to cover overheads is too low. Unfortunately, this also applies to
many bodies from the applicant countries.

(cid:1) In some cases, additional information is requested at the very last moment before a time-limit runs

out. This results in enormous delays in processing applications and making payments.

(cid:1) Proposals for projects seem to be assessed in an arbitrary manner. High quality in terms of substance
and presentation does not necessarily lead to approval, whereas low quality does not always result in
rejection.

Naturally enough, I realise that meticulous procedures are needed in order to prevent fraud and the misuse
of Community funds.

C 78 E/242

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Nevertheless, I should like to put the following questions:

1. Does the Commission acknowledge the problems outlined above?

2. Have its relevant departments set up procedures for dealing with reports of problems?

3. What measures have the relevant Commission departments taken with a view to improving and/or

simplifying administrative procedures?

4. What measures does the Commission plan to take?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

The Commission acknowledges that certain organisations face some problems relating to issues identified
in this written question. However, it should be noted that great efforts have been made to improve the
transparency and availability of the information available to potential proposers, including information of
networks of national contact points and training and information sessions that should help to relieve the
administrative tasks relating to applications for research funding. Specifically with respect
to the
percentage of funding granted to cover overheads there should be no problem for any organisation to
charge its real overheads related to any project. There are only some particular instruments where the
overhead rates are limited and this is because of the nature of those instruments and the fact that they
reimburse 100 % of eligible costs.

As mentioned, every effort is made to ensure that all information is available well in advance and that no
last-minute requests for additional information are required. During negotiation of projects it is possible
that further information is required because of something that is discovered in the initial stages of the
negotiation. But in most cases the time limits are sufficient to allow the potential contractors to provide
such information within the delays.

The Commission cannot agree with the statement that proposals are assessed in an arbitrary manner. On
the contrary, the evaluation of research proposals is based on the principle of ‘peer review’ generally
accepted and applied in scientific institutions worldwide and the procedures and criteria used are made
widely available. The Commission uses the help of independent experts, to evaluate proposals against the
various criteria set out in the legal texts governing the framework programme. In particular, scientific and
technological excellence is a sine qua non for a proposal to be accepted under the Sixth Framework
Programme (FP6). The high quality of the evaluation process, the experts used, as well as the selected
proposals have all been confirmed by the observations and reports of independent observers who attend
the evaluations, national contact points and fellow evaluators. Poor quality proposals are not funded;
however it is the case that not all high quality projects submitted can be funded, due to budget limitations.

Each report of a problem is dealt with seriously and attentively and investigated to determine whether it is
well founded or based on misunderstandings of the basic principles. Where there are real problems, efforts
are made to correct them. A number of measures have been taken, particularly with the FP6, in order to
ensure that research consortia take more responsibility for the management of their own projects and are
more engaged in the scientific and research aspects rather than being obliged to follow primarily
administrative aspects. This has been reflected in the Rules for Participation and the model contract for
FP6.

It is not estimated that any general measures need to be taken at this time, except for the constant general
aim of improving the quality of information available to potential contractors.

In addition,
it should be noted that a specific interservice Task Force has been established since the
beginning of FP6 in order to monitor the implementation of the FP6 instruments, in particular the new
ones (Integrated Projects and Networks of Excellence).
In parallel, a number of interservice Working
Groups continuously monitor FP6 progress in different domains (evaluation, guidelines for proposers or
evaluators, etc.) and accordingly react by resolving any identified issue and updating the corresponding
documentation.