WRITTEN QUESTION E-2339/99 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. The Greek Shipping Register.
Date: 1999-12-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, application of EU law, roadworthiness tests, vessel

3.10.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 280 E/29

As provided in the Third Motor Insurance Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of
the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor
vehicles (1) Article 2: (cid:145)all compulsory insurance policies against civil liability arising from the use of vehicles
must cover, on the basis of a single premium,
Insurance
undertakings are not therefore allowed to exclude any Community territory from their coverage. However,
legislation, a number of
according to the principle of
insurance undertakings agree in their policies that the contract shall expire after the insured person has
stayed for a certain period of time in another Member State. They consider that a change of residence of
the insured may require a re-evaluation of the risk involved. It is clear that in this context the insurance
undertaking should reimburse the policyholders the excess of premium paid as a consequence of the
anticipated termination of the contract.

freedom of contracts established in national

the entire territory of

the Community(cid:146).

The termination of the insurance contract when the insured person changes his or her residence to
another Member State seems justified since the car must be registered in the new Member State of
residence and the risk is considered to be located in the country of registration according to the insurance
directives. The insurance coverage should not present special problems in this case. The insurance may be
covered by the same insurance undertaking or another one authorised to operate on free provision of
services from their home Member State or by any undertaking established in the new Member State of
residence.

The fiscal legislation, which establishes the obligation to register cars in the Member State of residence,
provides for constraining deadlines for registration in order to ensure the payment of motor taxes. It is
desirable that insurance contracts take account of such deadlines. However it is not reasonable to expect
the insurance policies to become a permanent safeguard permitting policyholders indefinitely to delay the
registration of their cars beyond the established deadlines.

A different situation is when the insured has not really changed his or her residence to another Member
State but is only abroad on a temporary basis for professional or private reasons. In this case the
anticipated termination of the insurance contract may be troublesome for the insured who may have
difficulties to find an alternative insurance contract for a temporary stay abroad. The insurance policies
should not leave European citizens uncovered in such situations.

The Commission, which is setting up a working group on the modernisation of the motor insurance
directives with the participation of the Member States, will
look at the situation mentioned by the
Honourable Member and will consider any possible action.

(1) OJ L 129, 19.5.1990.

(2000/C 280 E/028)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2339/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: The Greek Shipping Register

Having been assessed by the relevant European Union committee, the Greek Shipping Register was
recognised as the organisation responsible for ship inspection and survey for a three-year period in Greece
alone, since it fulfilled the solely qualitative criteria of Directive 94/57/EC (1) on common rules and
standards for ship inspection and survey organisations.

Can the Commission indicate the results of the assessment of the Greek Shipping Register? Does it
consider the results of the quality assessment to be satisfactory? In what way does it fall short of the
quantitative criteria? Is it aware of any complaints against the Greek Shipping Register? What are its
general observations?

(1) OJ L 319, 12.12.1994, p. 20.

C 280 E/30

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.10.2000

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2000)

The assessment of the Hellenic Register of Shipping (HRS) was carried out from 17 to 20 March 1997 in
order to verify whether the Greek classification society met the criteria laid down in the Annex to Council
Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey
organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations. The assessment proved that HRS
did not fulfil the so-called quantitative criteria (1 000 ocean-going vessels over 100 gross tonnage (GT) in
its class and 100 exclusive surveyors). As far as the qualitative criteria are concerned, it was assessed that
the Greek organisation met them with the exception of some non-conformities which the Commission
requested HRS to remedy. HRS implemented all the recommendations put forward by the Commission
immediately after the assessment. Therefore the Commission was satisfied that HRS met the qualitative
criteria.

At the time of the inspection, HRS had only 941 ocean-going vessels over 100 GT in its class and
60 exclusive surveyors. Following a different calculation method suggested by HRS, the number of
exclusive surveyors would be 86, still not meeting the figure of 100 required by the Directive.

In March 1997 a complaint alleging HRS did not meet some of the criteria of the Directive was lodged
with the Commission. The non-conformities alleged in the complaint coincided to a large extent with the
non-conformities noted during the Commission(cid:146)s assessment. As mentioned above, all the non-conformi-
ties were remedied by HRS immediately after the assessment and therefore the Commission decided to
close the complaint.

On 22 April 1998 HRS was recognised pursuant to Article 4 (3) of the Directive for a period of three
years during which HRS can only work on behalf of the Greek administration. At present HRS is (cid:129) and
will continue to be (cid:129) monitored by the committee set up under the Directive with a view to taking the
final decision on its full recognition.

the classification societies recognised at Community level are continuously monitored by the

All
committee to ensure that they maintain high quality standards.

(2000/C 280 E/029)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2350/99

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Grant funding

What is the total cost of auditing all EU grant funding (Structural Funds and direct funding projects),
including:

(cid:129) internal audit costs, and

(cid:129) costs incurred by outside contractors employed to audit EU funds?

I understand that, where funds have been obtained fraudulently or have been known to be misused, the
European Commission reclaims them.

What percentage of total grant funding does the European Commission identify as misapplied and require
to be reimbursed?

Is there a timeframe within which fund recipients must reimburse misused and/or wrongly allocated
money?

What is the average percentage never recovered and/or written off?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2000)

The accounting for the Commission(cid:146)s administrative expenditure is organised by the nature of the
expenditure and not by fund, policy objective, or type of administrative cost. Thus, the total cost of
auditing all Community grant funding is not known precisely. The audit of expenditure by the managing