Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 43kWORD 9k
11 November 2019
Question for written answer
to the Commission
Rule 138
Niels Fuglsang, Christel Schaldemose
 Answer in writing 
 Subject: Allocation of EU pre-accession assistance to the Turkish think-tank SETA

On 27 September 2019, the Turkish think-tank SETA issued a report entitled ‘European Islamophobia Report 2018’. The report, which cost EUR 126 952, was funded by the EU from pre-accession assistance.

Under Article 4(4) of Regulation (EU) No 231/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA II), assistance must support cooperation between beneficiaries and Member States:

‘In accordance with the specific objective set out in point (d) of Article 2(1), assistance shall support cross-border cooperation, both between the beneficiaries listed in Annex I and between them and Member States or countries under the European Neighbourhood Instrument (the ‘ENI’) established by Regulation (EU) No 232/2014, with a view to promoting good neighbourly relations, fostering Union integration and promoting socio-economic development. The thematic priorities for assistance for territorial cooperation are set out in Annex III.’

The German newspaper ‘Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung’ has shown that the think-tank SETA has close links with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. The cases in point cited include arrangements for moving personnel back and forth between SETA and Erdoğan’s office.

Does the Commission itself consider that the report, which specialists accuse of promoting an agenda involving a negative approach to the Member States, should have been funded from EU pre-accession assistance, given that one of the objectives of that funding is to promote good-neighbourly relations between countries?

Original language of question: DA
Last updated: 27 November 2019Legal notice