WRITTEN QUESTION E-3331/02 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Community Information Society Programme.
Date: 2002-11-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community support framework, Greece, commitment of expenditure, information society, operational programme

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/293

The projects are supposed to involve not only the project coordinator but also at least three co-organisers
from at least three other countries taking part in the Culture 2000 programme. The Commission gives
1 October 2002 as the closing date, so there were only 40 days between their first call for project
submissions and the closing date, of which 29 were working days. This time frame is surely too short to
plan for such an extensive project. Why did the Commission release information on the possibility of
submitting projects so late in the day?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 2002)

Having noticed the recent increased involvement of Member States in cultural projects in St Petersburg and
the interest of operators in them, the Commission decided (cid:1) as part of an experimental action aimed at
exploiting the opportunities under Action 3 of the Culture 2000 programme (cid:1) to put to the test the idea
of organising a multilateral cooperation project around an event of this kind (this was also advocated by
the Parliament in resolution 2000/2323 on cultural cooperation within the European Union).

After the necessary debates and procedures had been carried out, a special call for projects was launched in
August 2002 on the subject of the European presence in St Petersburg during the tercentenary celebrations
there in 2003. It was sent to the Member States taking part in the programme via their permanent
the projects by the permanent
representatives to the EU. The initial deadline for submission of
representations was 1 October 2002 but was this was put back to 15 October 2002 so that the Member
States would have as much time as possible and the initiative could also be finalised by the end of 2002.
The projects which were received are now being examined and the Parliament will of course be kept
informed of the results of the initiative.

(2004/C 88 E/0300)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3331/02

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 November 2002)

Subject: Community Information Society Programme

Can the Commission say what progress has been made in implementing the programme concerning the
‘Information Society’
the ministries responsible for
implementation are dragging their heels and are having difficulty issuing calls for tenders owing to a lack
of coordination? Is it possible that these delays will result in a loss of funding for the 3rd Community
Support Framework?

in the light of reports in the Greek press that

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2003)

The Operational Programme (OP)
‘Information Society’ was approved by the Commission Decision
C(2001)551, on 14 March 2001. A table summarising the progress of this OP since the first actions were
in July 2001, according to information (2) received from the Managing Authority of the
‘activated’ (1)
programme is sent direct
to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat. More recent
information suggests that the public spending of the programme so far is EUR 73,8 million, or 3,3 % of the
public spending foreseen by the programme.

It can be concluded from this information that the OP ‘Information Society’
is one of the slower
programmes to be implemented in Greece as far as expenditure figures are concerned. The main
explanation is that, with the partial exception of e-government actions, this programme consists of new
actions, which due to their technological nature require careful planning and thus take time to start.

C 88 E/294

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

In view of the limited success of previous attempts to promote the information society in Greece, a
considerable effort is being made by the authorities in charge of the programme to explain what kind of
projects would be funded and how these projects should be implemented. A significant part of the
programme is linked to the progress in the liberalisation of the telecommunications market. Although the
current communications services regulatory framework in Greece is in compliance with Community
legislation and the new EU regulatory framework in this area is expected to be adopted by the Greek
authorities in the first quarter of 2003, the full impact of the liberalisation is yet to be felt in the market.
This has caused an additional delay in the implementation of the programme.

The Commission is currently examining the situation with the Greek authorities and in particular whether
there is a risk to lose credits at the end of the year 2003 (‘n+2’ rule). At this moment in time, there does
not seem to be a risk for 2003.

(1) According to the Greek authorities, the chain of the implementation of a programme is defined as follows:
‘Activation’ of a measure: Invitation to the Final Beneficiary (-ies) (= the implementing body, see definition in Regul.
1260/99) of the measure to submit their project proposal to the Managing Authority for evaluation.

(2) See also web site (www.infosoc.gr).

(2004/C 88 E/0301)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3361/02

by Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 November 2002)

Subject: Insurance

Large museums in all the Member States regularly organise exchanges of their collections so that the
public in their respective countries can enjoy the great European artistic tradition. Unfortunately, such
exchanges are seriously hampered by insurance problems. When, for example, the Teylers Museum in
Haarlem and the British Museum wanted to hold a joint exhibition of the Michelangelo drawings in their
respective collections, the British Museum did not have to spend anything on insurance premiums,
whereas the Teylers Museum had to pay several million euro as a result of the Netherlands Finance
Ministry’s limited indemnity arrangements. European museums would be able to share Europe’s cultural
heritage with the public in their respective countries much more easily if a comprehensive indemnity
arrangement was in place in every Member State.

Does the Commission agree that exchanges of cultural treasures make a contribution to European

1.
integration?

Is the Commission aware that insurance arrangements vary from one Member State to another, and

2.
that some have none at all?

Does the Commission agree that the present situation is undesirable, not least from the point of view

3.
of free movement of goods and ideas in Europe?

4.

If so, is the Commission prepared to take steps to place this issue on the European agenda?

5.

If so, is the Commission willing to put in place interim provisions as a temporary solution?