WRITTEN QUESTION E-3419/01 by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE)and Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Cultural heritage of occupied Cyprus.
Date: 2001-12-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Cyprus, Türkiye, cultural heritage, fishery product, illicit trade, international agreement, national law, work of art

4.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 160 E/109

Citrus producers’ income could fall if their contributions to ELGA were to exceed the compensation paid
to them. Furthermore, if citrus producer organisations fail to meet their obligations under the regulations,
the organisation and its members may be refused some aid. Weaknesses in the Member States’ checks
could, however, result in undue payments to beneficiaries.

Citrus producers’ income is made up of:

% sales on the market for fresh produce, and

% sales to the processing industry.

Citrus producers’ income is therefore the product of sales on both markets and must be compared to the
cost of production. At Community level, only 20 % to 30 % of their production is sold for processing;
production sold on the market for fresh produce therefore makes up their main source of income.

The fall in processing aid in recent marketing years has been due to the overrun in the Community
thresholds. The Commission has therefore discharged its responsibilities. Acting on a proposal from the
Commission, the Council adopted Council Regulation (EC) No 2699/2000 of 4 December 2000 (amending
Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 on the common organisation of
in fruit and vegetables,
Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 on the common organisation of the market in processed fruit and vegetables
and Regulation (EC) No 2202/96 introducing a Community aid scheme for producers of certain citrus
fruits (1)), which has resulted in an increase in the processing thresholds. In the case of oranges, the
increase is 26,2 %.

the market

In addition, the Community threshold has been subdivided among the Member States so that producers in
individual Member States are responsible for any overruns.

As a direct consequence of the increase in the thresholds, no penalty relating to processing aid for oranges
was levied in respect of the 2001/02 marketing year.

(1) OJ L 311, 12.12.2000.

(2002/C 160 E/142)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3419/01

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE)
and Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 December 2001)

Subject: Cultural heritage of occupied Cyprus

The Greek and Cypriot press report that priceless artwork is in danger of falling back into the hands of a
gang of smugglers who removed it from occupied Cyprus and attempted to sell it abroad. The work in
question is part of the renowned frescos from the Monastery of Antiphonitis in the Pentadaktylos region of
Cyprus occupied by the Turkish army, which were seized in October 1997 following concerted action by
the German and Cypriot police in Munich.

The frescos were found in fragments hidden in the walls and under the floors of two houses owned by the
notorious Turkish trafficker in antiquities, Aydin Dikmen, who was arrested by Interpol at the time but is
now strangely a free man despite owing tax to the German State. The work in question is in fact still with
the Munich police and it has not been possible to return it to the Republic of Cyprus, though sources in
Germany report that there is a serious risk that it will be given back to the Turkish dealer.

There are two reasons for this unlikely scenario. One is that the former West Germany did not sign the
1970 Unesco Treaty which provides for the return of stolen works of art to their country of origin, despite
the fact that the former East Germany did sign and % according to the German Treaty of Reunification %
the former West Germany is obliged to comply with the treaties signed by East Germany. Secondly,

C 160 E/110

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.7.2002

German law provides that where 10 years have elapsed (and in other circumstances 20 years) since the
theft, the stolen object may be returned to the dealer and not to its country of origin. There is therefore an
inherent risk in this situation of rewarding the trafficker and punishing the Republic of Cyprus.

Is the Commission aware of this matter? Does it intend to raise the matter with the Turkish authorities
whose army has occupied the northern part of Cyprus for 27 years? In what way will it intercede with the
German authorities? What possibilities does the Commission have of intervening to ensure that the stolen
goods are returned immediately to the authorities of the Republic of Cyprus?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2002)

The matter referred to by the Honourable Members concerns a claim by the Republic of Cyprus against
the person who is in possession of the disputed objects. It is not for the Commission to become involved
in legal proceedings in the Member States which are not related to the implementation of Community law.

In addition,
provisions could well be clarified with the competent German authorities.

it appears that the Honourable Members’

information about the relevant German legal

At all events, Germany is not obliged to comply with the treaties signed by the former German
Democratic Republic (GDR). According to Art. 12 of the German Treaty of Unification of 31 August
1990, Germany is to negotiate with the Contracting Partners of the former GDR as to whether treaties
should continue to apply or cease to exist.

§ 937 para. 1 of the Civil Code (‘Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch’) provides that a person who possesses an object
for a period of 10 years without interruption will be automatically transferred ownership. However,
according to para. 2 of this provision, the transfer of ownership is excluded if the possessor did not
acquire possession in good faith or has subsequently found out that ownership is with somebody else.

(2002/C 160 E/143)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3439/01

by Frank Vanhecke (NI) to the Commission

(21 December 2001)

Subject: Cost of renovating the Berlaymont Building

Renovation work on the Berlaymont Building is almost complete. The cost of that work prompts a large
number of financial questions.

Can the Commission indicate the initial estimate of the cost of the renovations and the actual final cost?

How can the discrepancy between the two amounts be accounted for?

What did it cost to move the Commission out of the Berlaymont Building before renovations began, and
what amount has been earmarked for its move back?

Where will the money required to pay for the renovation of the Berlaymont Building come from?

Is it true that the Belgian Government will also be covering part of the cost? If so, how much will it pay?