Activites

• #2427
• 2002/05/23 Council Meeting
• #2261
• 2000/05/16 Council Meeting
• 1999/07/01 Final act published in Official Journal
  • Decision 1999/1419
  • OJ L 166 01.07.1999, p. 0001
• 1999/05/25 Final act signed
• 1999/05/25 End of procedure in Parliament
• #2175
• 1999/05/10 Council Meeting
• 1999/03/11 Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading
  • T4-0173/1999 summary

    The Parliament adopted a recommendation concerning the decision on the common position (EC) 47/99 on a Community action for the 'European Capital of Culture' drafted by Mr. Philippe MONFILS (ELDR, Belgium). MEPs voted to endorse the compromise reached with the Council over proposed arrangements to be adopted in selecting European cultural capitals over the 2005 to 2019 period, following achievement of a compromise between Council and Parliament which is embodied in the amendments that were adopted. The principle of rotation by country was accepted and several towns from the same country will be able to present their candidature on the basis of a programme of cultural events. Finally, a selection panel of independent experts will draw up a report, Parliament will deliver its opinion and the Commission will make a recommendation with Council making a final decision.�

• 1999/03/09 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament
• 1999/03/08 Vote in committee, 2nd reading
  • A4-0106/1999
• #2160
• 1999/02/08 Council Meeting
• 1999/01/13 Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading
  • T4-0007/1999 summary

    Under codecision procedure, second reading, the European Parliament approved the proposal of Philippe Monfils (B, ELDR) for a declaration of intended rejection of common position (EC) No 47/98 established by the Council with a view to adopting a European Parliament and Council Decision establishing a Community action for the "European Capital of Culture" event for the years 2005 to 2019. The vote did not affect existing choices up to 2004.

• 1999/01/12 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament
• 1998/12/14 Vote in committee, 2nd reading
  • A4-0509/1998
• 1998/09/17 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 2nd reading
• 1998/07/24 Council position published
  • 09268/1/1998 summary

    The Council?s common position radically changes the approach taken by the Commission in its initial proposal. The text adopted by the Council is the result of a unanimously reached compromise which is a long way removed from the Community procedure for the designation of the European cities of culture. More precisely, the common position confines itself to a pre-defined list of countries based on the rotation of the Council presidency, from which the Council will select the ?European Capital of Culture? to be elected. Consequently, this list significantly alters the Commission proposal in that it eliminates the jury of independent high personalities called upon to judge the cultural content of the dossier presented by the candidate city. In addition, the common position considerably weakens the role of the European Parliament in that selection of the city remains entirely down to the Council. Notably, this common position also changes the reference period for the selection of the European city as the new selection system does not cover the years 2001 to 2004, for which the current status quo is maintained (intergovernmental selection). As regards the European Parliament?s amendments, virtually none of the proposals made by the Assembly has been adopted by the Council, except by very indirect means (e.g. ?cities may choose to open their programme to participation by their region? instead of ?the project may involve several European cities, of which one would remain in charge of operations?). More specifically, the common position is structured as follows: 1) Member States propose the candidacy of a ?European Capital of Culture? (and not ?City?), in turn and in the order set out in the Annex from 2005 to 2019 (these candidacies are presented 4 years before the final selection to the Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Committee of the Regions); 2) the Council officially selects each capital for the year set out in the Annex (N.B. the chronological order of proposed countries may be amended by common agreement, hence Holland and Greece have already exchanged their positions on the list); 3) the action is open to European third countries who can propose the candidacy of one of their own cities. The Council will decide unanimously on the admissibility of such a candidacy (in other words, the Council foresees the participation of two cities per year: one in a Member State and one in a third European country); 4) the selected capitals propose a year-long programme (or possibly shorter) of cultural events involving cultural actors from other European countries. They can also involve their regions in the proposed programme; 5) the capitals must ensure that their programme has a cultural value (an Annex specifies the programming and evaluation criteria to be taken into account by the candidate cities in their programme proposals) and outline the programme to the European Parliament, the Council and the Committee of the Regions six months before the beginning of the event. In this respect, the Commission will set up an advisory committee made up of personalities known in cultural circles and appointed by the Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Committee of the Regions. This committee may help the Council in choosing between candidate cities.�

• #2100
• 1998/05/28 Council Meeting
• 1998/05/27 Modified legislative proposal published
  • COM(1998)0350 summary

    In its amended proposal the Commission has incorporated 8 of the 14 amendments adopted by Parliament on first reading, relating essentially to the organization of the 'European City of Culture' event and the selection of applications. The Commission incorporated the amendments relating to: - the members of the selection panel responsible for designating the European City of Culture: the selection panel shall meet each year; it shall be composed of seven leading independent figures from the cultural sector; membership of the selection panel shall be incompatible with the exercise of any public elective office; - responsibility for the cultural project: where a project involves several cities the proposing city shall lead the project throughout; - selection criteria: it must be specified how the project will support and develop creative work, ensure the widest possible participation of large sections of the population and continue the impact of the action beyond the year of the festivities, encourage wide dissemination of the various events by means of an appropriate Internet site and measures to promote mutual understanding and optimise the historic heritage of the city concerned. However, the Commission was unable to adopt certain amendments which were regarded as essential by the European Parliament concerning the following: - codecision procedure for designating cities, since the Commission considered that it was too cumbersome and undermined the smooth functioning of the programme; - the participation of certain third countries: the initiative must be open to eastern European third countries as provided for in the Association Agreements with these countries and not restricted to the 15 Member States of the European Union as Parliament wishes; - at the ending of the European Cultural Month: unlike Parliament, the Commission is not in favour of maintaining this initiative because of its limited duration and hence its lack of impact - and because of the opening of the 'city' initiative to EEA and CEEC third countries; - the total finance for the initiative: the Commission disagrees with Parliament's proposal for an annual budget of ECU 2 m for the project which is for funding for this initiative to be included in the 'culture' framework programme (COD98169).�

• 1998/04/30 Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
  • T4-0240/1998 summary

    In adopting the report by Mr Philippe MONFILS (ELDR, B), the European Parliament approved the proposal to establish a Community initiative for the European City of Culture event, but with numerous amendments. These concerned four main aspects of the proposal: 1) selection of the City of Culture: the Selection Panel which delivers an opinion on the candidacies of the cities should meet annually. It should comprise seven personalities from the cultural sector, and membership of the Selection Panel should be incompatible with the exercise of any public elective office. On the basis of the Selection Panel's opinion, the city should be selected by means of the codecision procedure, involving the Council and Parliament. The cities themselves, rather than Member States, should put themselves forward as candidates. Parliament wishes the city to be selected from among cities in the Union, i.e. it should be located in one of the current 15 Member States. However, other European cities or regions (in the EEA, Eastern Europe, Cyprus or any other third country in Europe which has concluded a cooperation agreement) may be associated with the project, with the proviso that the city selected (within the Union) must lead the project throughout, and remains responsible for compliance with the rules governing the granting of subsidies; 2) selection criteria: social impact should be taken into account by mobilizing as many of the population as possible in support of the initiative. Maximum promotion and dissemination are to be sought for all events using all possible modes of communication (including the Internet). The extension of the action beyond the actual year in which the events take place will also be an important criterion. The project must promote dialogue in order to optimize the opening up to, and understanding of, others. Other aims include optimizing the historic heritage and urban design of the city selected and supporting creative work as part of the proposed cultural project; 3) funding: subject to the decisions of the budgetary authority and compliance with the Financial Perspective, a maximum reference amount of ECU 2 m is projected as the annual direct contribution by the European Union; 4) European Cultural Month: whereas the City of Culture initiative is of a strictly European Union nature (in the sense that the City must be located within the Union), Parliament upholds the idea of a European Cultural Month project, which would be open to participation by the countries of the European Economic Area, the associated countries of Central and Eastern Europe, Cyprus and European third countries which have concluded cooperation agreements with the Community containing a cultural clause.�

• 1998/04/29 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament summary

    Commissioner Oreja stated that the Member States must play an important role in the presentation of projects, in a way that, thanks to their support, the financial feasibility of the initiatives will be ensured. This is the reason why he rejected amendment 8. As for amendments 9 (last part) and 10, the Commissioner cannot accept them because co-decision is an instrument provided by the Treaty as a means to adopt measures that aim at cultural promotion and a general scope; this is not the case for designation procedure of a town as cultural capital, which must be quick and simplified. On these 2 points, the rapporteur replied, on the one hand, that the fact of allowing towns to directly submit their documents to the Commission should be used to underline the Community aspect of the procedure by avoiding the diminishing of the role of the European Capital of Culture; as for the assumed length of the co-decision, the procedure in question shows that the Parliament is in a position to give its opinion as a co-decider in less than three months; and he concluded by calling on the Executive to reinfore, instead of destroying, the cultural symbols of the Union.�

• 1998/02/26 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • A4-0083/1998
• #2048
• 1997/11/24 Council Meeting
  • 2048
• 1997/11/17 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
• 1997/10/30 Legislative proposal published
  • COM(1997)0549 summary

    OBJECTIVE: Community- level nomination of the 'European City of Culture', the purpose of which is to highlight the cultural wealth and diversity of the cities of Europe whilst emphasizing their shared cultural heritage. SUBSTANCE: in accordance with the wishes of the European Parliament, which, in its opinion of 7 April 1995 on the KALEIDOSCOPE programme (COD94188), had called the presentation of a specific programme on the European City of Culture after the year 2000, the Commission has tabled a proposal to incorporate this event into the Community framework (Article 128 of the Treaty). Hitherto, decisions on the European City of Culture have been taken at intergovernmental level in the context of the EU Culture Council. The Commission therefore proposes that: - each year from 2002, a city be chosen to carry out a cultural project on a specific European theme (possibly in association with other European cities), - the 'European Cultural Month' event be discontinued, - from 2000 to 2005, a 'European City of Culture' event be organized at Community level as part of, and financed by, the future single 'Culture' programme, - these proposals be adopted under the codecision procedure and the European City of Culture be designated by the Council, after consulting Parliament, by a qualified majority, - in order to ensure proper preparation of the programme for the event, the Council should designate, as an exception during the transition period, the European City of Culture for 2001 (the cities for 2000 having already been selected). The proposal lays down details regarding the procedure for choosing the European City of Culture (formation of a selection panel, applications) and stipulates that the initiative is open to the associated countries of Central and Eastern Europe, Cyprus, EEA countries and all European countries which have concluded a cooperation agreement containing a cultural clause. �

• #2022
• 1997/06/30 Council Meeting
  • 2022

Documents

• Debate in Council: 2022
• Legislative proposal published: COM(1997)0549
• Debate in Council: 2048
• Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading: A4-0083/1998
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T4-0240/1998
• Modified legislative proposal published: COM(1998)0350
• Council position published: 09268/1/1998
• Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading: A4-0509/1998
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading: T4-0007/1999
• Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading: A4-0106/1999
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading: T4-0173/1999
• : Decision 1999/1419
• : OJ L 166 01.07.1999, p. 0001

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)