REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on the first interim evaluation of the European Capitals of Culture Action 2020-2033
Date: 2025-10-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU action, European cultural event, capital city, cultural pluralism, cultural promotion, promotion of the European idea

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 2.10.2025  COM(2025) 587 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on the first interim evaluation of the European Capitals of Culture Action 2020-2033 {SWD(2025) 284 final}  
 
 
1.  Introduction 

Born  in  1985  upon  an  idea  of  former  Greek  Minister  of  Culture  Melina  Mercouri,  the 
European Capital of Culture (hereafter ECoC) is a flagship action of the European Union. 
The aim of the initiative is to promote and celebrate Europe's rich cultural diversity and shared 
heritage,  thereby  increasing  citizens’  sense  of  belonging  to  a  common  cultural  area,  and  to 
strengthen the contribution of culture to the long-term development of cities. Initially, cities 
were designated as  ‘European Cities of Culture’ by Member States acting on the basis of a 
Resolution of the Ministers Responsible for Cultural Affairs, which recognised the essential 
role cities play in the formation and spread of culture in Europe.  Following the adoption of 
Decision 1419/1999/EC (amended by Decision No 649/2005/EC in 2005), the ‘European Cities 
of  Culture’  became  ‘European  Capitals  of  Culture’  and  the  initiative  was  established  as  a 
Community action. A further decision was adopted in 2006 (1622/2006/EC), completing the 
rules for the selection and monitoring of the different European Capitals of Culture. The current 
legal  basis, Decision No 445/2014/EU of the European Parliament  and of the Council, was 
adopted in 2014 to cover the years 2020-2033.  

This is the first interim evaluation of the ECoC action for the period 2020-2033, as required by 
Article  16(2)  of  the  Decision.  It  assesses  the  performance  of  the  action  against  the  five 
evaluation criteria established in the Better Regulation Guidelines and Toolbox: Effectiveness, 
Efficiency, Relevance, Coherence and EU Added value as well as the longer-term impact of 
the intervention to better understand the potential legacy linked to hosting a European Capital 
of  Culture.  It  also  aims  at  identifying  good  practices  and  lessons  for  future  ECoCs  and 
European  cities  interested  in  further  developing  their  cultural  strategies  and  cultural  offer. 
Finally, the evaluation identifies potential improvements to the action to be considered for the 
successor initiative post-2033. 

Due to the impact of COVID-19 on the implementation of the action at the beginning of the 
2020-2033 period, the choice was made to  include a broader scope of different  ECoCs and 
titleholding cities selected and monitored under the provisions of the previous legal instrument. 
This was deemed necessary to get a better perspective on the longer-term impact of the action. 

Design of the action 
Under the current legal basis covering 2020 to 2033, two Member States are entitled to host 
the ECoC action each year, according to a chronological order set in the Decision. Furthermore, 
in  2022, 2024, 2028, 2030 and 2033, a city in  an EFTA/EEA country, candidate country or 
potential candidate (non-EU countries) may also hold the title. Member States manage their 
selection procedure at national level, under the responsibility of their relevant authority and 
with the assistance of the European Commission. The Commission is directly responsible for 
the organisation of the open competitions between cities in non-EU countries. 

Competitions  start  no  later  than  six  years  before  the  title  year,  when  the  Member  State 
concerned  (the  Commission  for  the  competition  between  cities  in  non-EU  Member  States) 
publishes a call for submission of applications. The call includes the six criteria as specified in 
the legal basis: ‘contribution to the long-term strategy’, ‘European dimension’, ‘cultural and 
artistic content’, ‘capacity to deliver’, ‘outreach’ and ‘management’.  

The selection is then organised in two phases: pre-selection no later than five years ahead of 
the title year (candidate cities are reduced to a short-list) followed by selection nine months 
later (one city is recommended for the title). A panel of experts examine the bids against the 

1/8 

 
 
objectives and criteria of the action. Based on the panel’s recommendation, the Member State 
concerned (the Commission for non-EU countries) formally designates the winning city.  

Once designated, the city is submitted to a monitoring process until the title year. As part of 
this process, the Commission convenes three meetings between the city and the panel to review 
progress  and  give  guidance.  Based  on  a  recommendation  by  the  panel  at  the  end  of  the 
monitoring process, the Commission decides whether to pay or not the Melina Mercouri Prize 
to the city at the start of the title year. The Prize is funded by the Creative Europe programme. 

The Expert panel in  charge of the selection and monitoring procedures consists of up to 12 
members: ten are nominated on a rolling basis by the EU institutions and bodies for mandates 
of three years (three by the European Parliament, three by the Council of the EU, three by the 
Commission and one by the European Committee of the Regions) and up to two members are 
nominated by the Member State concerned. 

The pre-selection of the European experts is made by the Commission through an open call for 
expression of interest. The criteria to select the experts are listed in Article 6 of the legal basis.  

The action is managed in the Commission through the Creative Europe unit of the Directorate-
General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture (DG EAC).  

Compared to its predecessor, the ECoC action governed by Decision No 445/2014/EU brought 
the following changes:  

-  Removal  of  the  need  for  confirmation  of  selected  cities  at  EU  level,  with  ECoC 

titleholders designated directly by the Member State concerned;  

-  Opening to candidate countries, potential candidates and EFTA/EEA countries; 
-  More specific and robust selection criteria , with a stronger emphasis on the long-term 

impact of the action and the European dimension; 
- 
Inclusion of considerations regarding the panel members’ profiles in the legal basis; 
-  Organisation of three monitoring meetings instead of two, with a first one three years 

ahead of the title year and the last one a couple of months before the title year; 

-  Change of the responsibility for ex post evaluation from the European Commission to 

the designated city; 

-  Postponement of the payment of the Melina Mercouri Prize from two months before 

the start of the title year to the beginning of the year. 

2.  State of Development of the Action  

Since 1985, the title has been awarded to 82 different cities in all EU Member States (including 
the UK until the entry into force of the Withdrawal Agreement in 2020) and was granted to 
cities  in  5  non-EU  countries:  Iceland  (2000), Türkiye  (2010),  Norway  (2000,  2008,  2024), 
Serbia (2022) and North Macedonia (2028). 22 cities have been selected under the current legal 
basis,  13  of  them  hosted/are  hosting  the  action  at  the  time  of  the  drafting  of  this 
Communication, while 9 have been selected and are preparing their title year. 

Decision No 445/2014/EU was amended in 2017 to integrate European Free Trade Association 
countries that are parties to the Agreement on the European Economic Area. It was amended 
again  in  2020  due  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  It  offered  both  2020  ECoCs  (Rijeka  and 
Galway) the possibility to extend their ECoC year until 30 April 2021. Furthermore, the ECoC 
year in Timișoara and Elefsina was postponed from 2021 to 2023 while the title year in Novi 
Sad was postponed from 2021 to 2022.  

2/8 

 
 
The  granting  of  EU  candidate  status  to  Ukraine  and  Georgia  in  2022  and  2023  made  both 
countries eligible for the competition open to cities in non-EU countries as both countries also 
participate in the Creative Europe Programme. 

3.  Evaluation Findings: Successes and Challenges 

Effectiveness 

The ECoC action was found to have stimulated an increased number of cultural activities and 
a widened cultural offer in host cities, both in terms of genre and location. Looking at the local 
evaluations by the ECoC between 2013 and 2022, a typical ECoC year consists of around 
1,000 to 1,200 separate cultural activities. It also had a considerable effect on investments in 
cultural  activities  and  infrastructure  across  host  cities,  with  cultural  budgets  of  host  city 
administrations often around 5 times larger as a consequence of hosting their ECoC. Official 
attendance  figures  of  the  2013-2022  ECoC  show  that  around  38.5  million  people 
participated in ECoC-supported cultural activity over this period  as an audience member, 
a curator or a project beneficiary. This dynamism, alongside with the possibility for the public 
to attend many events  for free, helped in widening the type of beneficiaries who consumed 
culture  and  encouraged  people  who  were  not  active  on  the  cultural  front  to  attend  cultural 
activities. For example, several ECoC have included school pupils, people from disadvantaged 
backgrounds (such as migrants and the unemployed) as well as people living in the peripheral 
neighbourhoods of a city. 

The  ECoC  also  contributed  to  strengthening  the  cultural  and  creative  sectors  in  host  cities. 
While part of this impact came from dedicated capacity-building projects, it was largely driven 
by  the  creation  of  formal  and  informal  cultural  ecosystems.  The  ECoC  encouraged  local 
stakeholders  to  collaborate  in  designing  and  delivering  cultural  programmes.  This 
collaboration, along with the experience of managing large numbers of cultural projects, helped 
develop local talent and build long-term sector capacity. 

The evaluation underlines how the ECoC successfully tackles its strategic objective to raise the 
international profile of the host cities through the delivery of a strong cultural programme. This 
is especially illustrated by an increased number of foreign visitors in host cities, by extended 
international  media  coverage  before  and  during  the  year  and  enhanced  international 
collaboration. Overall, analysis from those ECoCs which collected relevant data shows that an 
ECoC year can increase visitors numbers in a host city by around 30-40% (25-35% of 
which come from abroad). 

Efficiency 

The evaluation found that, by design, ECoC is a cost-effective action able to leverage public 
and  private  funding  at  relatively  low  cost  for  the  Union  (around  EUR  3-5  million  per 
year). Analysis  of  the  EcoCs  budgets  between  2013  and  2022  shows  that  the  action  has 
collectively stimulated around EUR 900 million in funding towards the cultural agenda 
across  the EU, taking into  consideration all the funding spent  from  EU, national,  regional, 
local and private sources. 

The Melina Mercouri prize (EUR 1.5 M) represents only a fraction of the entire ECoC budget 
of title cities, ranging between 2% and 7% of the overall ECoC budget. A significant portion 
comes from public sources, with national, local, and regional funding collectively providing 
71%  of  the  budget.  However,  it  should  be  noted  that  there  is  often  a  discrepancy  between 

3/8 

 
 
 
planned and actual budgets, with most cities facing shortfalls due to various factors, such as 
reduced  financial  commitments  from  national  governments  and  unforeseen  circumstances. 
Only a few cities delivered their programmes with their original budget projections. 

The evaluation also outlined challenges affecting the efficiency of the action and the lessons 
candidate or title-holding cities could  learn from their ECoC experience. For instance, time 
constraints between the pre-selection and final selection stages represent an issue for candidate 
cities,  which  sometimes  cannot  fully  improve  their  application  between  the  two  rounds  of 
selection. At a later stage, they can encounter difficulties to capitalise on the work done and 
competencies acquired during the bidding process. Moreover, they can have difficulties relying 
on sufficient learning and communication between past, current and future ECoC cities.  

Efficiency of the selection and monitoring procedures 
Under the current legal basis, the selection process encompasses the following steps:  

-  Call for submission of applications: at least 6 years before the title year. 
-  Application submission deadline: minimum 10 months after the publication of the call 

for submission of applications. 

-  Pre-selection meeting and report: 5 years before the title year. 
-  Revised  application  submission  deadline  and  selection  meeting  and  report:  about  9 

months after the pre-selection meeting. 

-  City designation: 4 years before the title year. 

Following the selection, three monitoring meetings take place, three years, 18 months and two 
months before the year of the title. While stakeholders consulted consider the current selection 
and monitoring processes overall as working well, they also identified areas for improvement: 
-  Application  timeline:  While  at  the  governmental  level  the  timeline  for  the  selection 
process  is  considered  overall  sufficient,  cities  find  meeting  the  current  deadlines 
challenging.  In  particular,  the  nine-month  period  between  pre-selection  and  final 
selection.  This  short  timeframe  adds  pressure  on  cities,  particularly  smaller  or  less-
experienced ones, in terms of building international relations and securing commitments 
from local stakeholders.  

-  Monitoring  meetings:  Some  stakeholders  advocated  for  a  shift  from  a  monitoring 
process  toward  a  more  advisory  role,  with  panel  experts  working  closely  with  cities, 
offering real-time solutions and mentorship. This would be in line with the challenges 
in relation to the lack of the required skills and capacity-building in ECoCs.  

Overall, while four years after selection could be enough for cities to implement the event, this 
timeframe  might  be  challenging  if  a  city  has  not  already  reached  a  certain  level  of  cultural 
maturity.  While  this  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  less  prepared  cities  should  not  be 
considered for the title, their bid book should be realistically examined and judged in light of 
the city’s actual cultural capacity, and if selected, sufficient guidance, monitoring and capacity-
building opportunities should be provided.  

Stakeholders  also  noted  that  time  can  be  wasted  due  to  misunderstandings  around  two  key 
ECoC dimensions: the European dimension and legacy. While participants in the evaluation 
said  they  eventually  understood  both  terms,  some  felt  that  clearer  guidance  on  what  the 
European dimension looks like in practice would save time during the bid or planning stages. 

The onboarding and handover of panel experts present another area of improvement, with new 
members often lacking the appropriate tools for a seamless transition, leading to knowledge 

4/8 

 
 
 
 
loss  and  uneven  involvement.  The  ECoC  action  could  benefit  from  developing  structured 
onboarding processes and emphasising an advisory role for panel experts to overcome these 
challenges. On a more general note, it was perceived that a more centralised communication 
strategy at the EU level would increase the visibility of the initiative as a whole but also of 
titleholding cities, giving themprecious support. 

Coherence 
The ECoC action showcases strong internal and external coherence. The processes for host-
city  selection  and  management  align  well  with  ECoC  objectives  and  the  bidding  process 
mandates that cities embed their ECoC project into a broader cultural strategy, while involving 
various stakeholders and different governance levels. National stakeholders are especially vital, 
often  viewing  ECoC  as  a  matter  of  national  importance.  However,  challenges  may  arise  in 
balancing  local  priorities  with  European  objectives,  particularly  regarding  the  European 
dimension.  

The ECoC aligns with other EU programmes, especially with the EU flagship programme for 
the  cultural  and  creative  Sectors  (CCS),  Creative  Europe.  Both  share  core  objectives  like 
enhancing cultural diversity and fostering cross-border collaborations. Similarly, both support 
EU CCS’ competitiveness, enhance cultural participation, and promote European identity. The 
ECoC action shares features with EU priorities in the fields of greening and social inclusion. 
There  is  room  for  improvement  in  aligning  with  environmental  priorities  and  EU  external 
policies.  While  title-holding  cities  or  their  region  or  Member  State  may  benefit  from  EU 
funding,  including  cohesion  policy  funding  in  the  field  of  culture,  proactive  coordination 
between  ECoC  actions  and  other  sources  of  EU  funding  remains  limited.  Regarding  the 
relationship with national initiatives, the evaluation noted synergies, as well as some limited 
overlaps. 

EU Added Value 

The  ECOC  action  demonstrates  a  clear  and  significant  EU  added  value  by  fostering 
international  collaboration  among  cultural  players  in  hosting  cities  and  their  peers  in 
other countries, by enhancing the visibility of European cities, and by promoting a shared 
European cultural identity. Through the support of the ECoC, cities—particularly smaller 
and less internationally recognised ones—have successfully accessed global cultural networks, 
hosted ambitious and diverse cultural programmes, and attracted audiences and media attention 
that would have been otherwise unreachable.  

The initiative has not only led to a boost in international tourism and cross-border partnerships 
but also contributed to urban regeneration, civic engagement, and the strengthening of local 
cultural sectors. Some cities stand out as powerful examples of how the ECoC title can act as 
a catalyst for long-term development, cultural diplomacy, and the embodiment of EU values 
such as tolerance and peace. By enabling cooperation with artists and institutions from both 
EU  and  non-EU  countries,  the  action  supports  the  EU’s  cultural  diplomacy  goals  and 
strengthens the cultural fabric of Europe as a whole. 

Nonetheless,  the  evaluation  highlights  several  structural  limitations  that  hinder  the  full 
potential  of  the  ECoC  action.  Notably,  the  lack  of  a  formal  institutional  mechanism  for 
knowledge sharing and the absence of a centralised database of cultural operators restrict the 
sustainability  and  reach  of  the  networks  created  during  the  title  year.  Moreover,  while  the 
initiative  successfully  promotes  European  values,  inconsistent  political  support  and  limited 
post-title  engagement  can  threaten  the  impact  of  the  title  year.  The  evaluation  therefore 

5/8 

 
 
suggests that more structured EU-level support (in communication, data sharing, and legacy 
planning) would be essential to enhance the effectiveness and lasting influence of the ECoC 
action.  

Relevance 

The action continues to evolve alongside the socio-economic changes and cultural landscape 
of  Europe.  Even  as  one  of  the  EU’s  longest-running  cultural  actions,  the  initiative  remains 
aligned  with  cities'  long-term  development  goals,  particularly  in  embedding  culture  within 
urban  planning  and  policymaking.  The  requirement  for  bidding  cities  to  develop 
comprehensive  cultural  strategies  has  transformed  the  way  municipalities  view  and  utilise 
culture,  often  leading  to  the  creation  or  refinement  of  city-wide  cultural  policies.  These 
processes are not confined to successful titleholders alone; even cities that do not win the title 
benefit  from  strengthened  cultural  strategies  and  improved  planning  frameworks.  Several 
examples  illustrate  how  the  bidding  process  can  stimulate  the  development  of  regional 
strategies beyond the city level.  

The integration of the ECoC action into city policy frameworks often reinforces and extends 
pre-existing  measures,  providing  legitimacy  and  renewed  focus  on  cultural  development. 
Moreover, the bidding process instils confidence in both political leadership and the cultural 
sector,  often  leading  to  tangible  investments  in  culture-driven  urban  regeneration.  These 
outcomes are particularly significant in the face of shrinking municipal budgets for culture: 
The  cultural  capitals  serve  as  a  flagship  initiative  that  secures  local  political  buy-in  and 
provides  robust  evidence  of  the  socio-economic  value  of  cultural  investment.  Ex-post 
evaluations  consistently  demonstrate  the  leverage  effect,  generating  broader  economic  and 
cultural benefits in proportion to the initial investment, which cities use to justify continued 
and increased support for cultural initiatives. 

The  legacy  of  the  action  remains  at  the  heart  of  potential  questions  concerning  the  ECoCs 
relevance. While some cities have established legacy organisations, many others lack adequate 
long-term planning mechanisms. With many of the benefits of the title year only becoming 
visible years after its conclusion, the fast phasing-out of ECoC delivery bodies often results in 
missed  opportunities  to  maintain  momentum.  Weak  legacy  planning,  combined  with  data 
limitations and a lack of long-term evaluation frameworks, undermine the ability to capture the 
full impact of the initiative. Overall, the ECoC initiative has helped elevate the importance of 
cultural  policy  evaluation  across  Europe.  Focus  groups  highlighted  the  growing  interest  in 
assessing  the  impact  of  culture,  with  many  European  city  networks  creating  dedicated 
workstreams on cultural impact assessment. This suggests that the initiative plays a pivotal role 
in advancing the practice of cultural policy evaluation at the local level. 

Another  important  dimension  of  the  action’s  relevance  is  its  potential  to  support  regional 
development through collaboration between cities and their surrounding areas. Some examples 
show  how  the  initiative  can  successfully  decentralise  cultural  benefits  and  increase  access 
across multiple municipalities. However, structural challenges persist particularly in rural areas 
and  smaller  municipalities  which  can  lack  the  capacity  to  deliver  required  to  participate 
effectively.  

In  parallel,  the  action  has  adapted  to  remain  relevant  to  EU  policy  priorities,  including 
expanding eligibility to non-EU countries, embedding a stronger focus on long-term impact, 
and  promoting  the  European  dimension.  However,  ongoing  debates  around  the  role  and 
visibility of the European dimension, and the underrepresentation of environmental and digital 

6/8 

 
 
priorities  in  formal  selection  criteria,  indicate  areas  for  further  refinement  to  maintain  the 
initiative’s relevance in a rapidly changing policy context. 

4.  Conclusions and Lessons Learned 

The evaluation shows that ECoC is a successful flagship action of the EU with a strong cost-
effectiveness with a very limited impact on the EU budget. Moreover, the action can have a 
transformative  effect  on  the  different  candidates  and  selected  cities  as  it  requires  long-term 
planning and the inclusion of  culture in local  city policy to  be considered  for the title. The 
action also has a strong coherence with other actions of the EU, in particular Creative Europe, 
and  allows  for  the  dissemination  of  EU  values  and  of  European  cultural  professionals  and 
artists and their works in the EU and beyond.  

The first interim evaluation of the European Capitals of Culture 2020-2033 highlighted both 
successes and challenges, offering key lessons for its future. The findings will guide the ECoC 
into its next phase after 2033, ensuring its continued success and relevance. 

A  stronger  focus  on  the  ‘European  dimension’  in  the  competition:  The  ‘European 
dimension’ is a key element of the ECoC action and selection criteria. However, it appears that, 
based on feedback, it is often not fully understood by the different stakeholders. The European 
Commission could explore ways to develop the understanding of this dimension.  

Long-term knowledge: Due to the absence of a formal ECoC network, there is risk of losing 
knowledge between newly appointed and past cities. The Commission could research how to 
foster knowledge-sharing in the ECoC community for the action to reach its full potential, in 
particular in relation to its European dimension. 

Communication:  The  European  Commission  communicates  actively  about  the  official 
designation of the European Capitals of Culture with multiple channels, including press release, 
websites,  and  social  media.  However,  there  are  currently  no  concentrated  EU-level 
communication  actions  by  the  European  Commission  and  other  EU-wide  institutions  to 
promote the ECoC cities. This limits the Action’s visibility, impact, and public awareness. The 
ECoC would benefit from EU communication efforts to support and complement the work of 
the title-holding cities, in coordination with and with input from the Member States. Appointing 
ECoC ambassadors at political level could help the initiative. 

Data:  The  set  of  indicators  provided  by  the  European  Commission  to  the  organisations  in 
charge of setting up the different ECoC competitions should be revised based on the results 
and data gaps identified during the evaluation process.   

Expert panel: It is important to ensure that the expert panel has the skills and resources to 
carry  out  its  tasks  effectively.  The  Commission  could  strengthen  cooperation  with  other 
institutions to ensure the panel is diverse in both representation and expertise. In addition, a 
structured onboarding process for new members would help ensure they are well-prepared and 
support a smooth transition and handover from outgoing members. 

Long-term planning: The evaluation has shown that the long-term impact of the action is not 
experienced  to  its  full  potential  in  some  cities.  The  Commission  could  explore  the 
reinforcement of the ‘contribution to the long-term strategy’ criterion and strengthen evaluation 
criteria and indicators to foster longer-term impacts in the different candidate cities. 

In  conclusion,  the  evaluation  provides  crucial  insights  into  the  programme’s  progress  and 
potential.  After  40  years,  the  action  remains  relevant  and  well  sought-after  by  cities  and 

7/8 

 
 
territories to develop themselves through culture. However, it is important to update the action 
to ensure its continued relevance in the future, in particular by taking into account emerging 
trends which appeared in the recent years, such as an increased number of smaller cities as title-
bearers. 

8/8