WRITTEN QUESTION E-3361/02 by Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR) to the Commission. Insurance.
Date: 2002-11-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, European integration, cultural event, cultural relations, insurance premium, museum, property insurance, work of art

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?

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/295

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2003)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that exchanging works of art can contribute to
European integration.

The Commission knows that the insurance schemes available in the Member States vary considerably (cid:1)
this being a direct result of the differences between national policies.

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that the present situation is not ideal from the point
of view of the free movement of goods and ideas in Europe.

As part of the efforts to implement the single market, the Commission is therefore willing to launch a
discussion on the measures required to promote the coordination and exchange of good practice as
regards insurance schemes which cover works of art.

As far as the purely cultural aspect of the problem is concerned, the Commission wishes to draw the
Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that, owing to the small size of the budget for the ‘Culture
2000’ programme (the sole Community instrument for promoting cooperation in the cultural sphere),
there is no prospect of any financial support being provided by the Community for this purpose.

(2004/C 88 E/0302)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3496/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(2 December 2002)

Subject: State aid for small-scale coastal shipping on the Azores

On 26 November 2002, at around one o’clock in the afternoon, the ‘Rival’, a small cargo ship about
100 years old, was wrecked in the channel between the towns of Horta and Madalena in the autonomous
region of the Azores, causing the death of the captain, Manuel Fernando Costa.

Seamen working for the small shipping company Cristiano Lda, which owned the vessel, had already told
me of their wish to modernise their two vessels and obtain a licence for passenger transport.

However, the regional authorities have informed me that the current regional development programme
financed under the Structural Funds (cid:1) the main financial mechanism available on the Azores for providing
public aid for economic modernisation (cid:1) did not make any provision for supporting local maritime
transport firms since the corresponding proposal submitted by the regional authorities in the Azores was
not approved in time by the European authorities responsible for supervising competition.

Does the Commission consider it appropriate to subject possible state aid for tiny maritime transport firms
on the Azores to the same type of examination as support for large European maritime transport
companies?

Does the Commission take account of the fact that the small maritime shipping firms still operating on the
Azores play an extremely important and irreplaceable role for people living on the smallest islands, and
does it take account of maritime safety conditions in the autonomous region of the Azores and the need to
improve safety levels in local transport?

Does the Commission take due account of Article 299(2) in its state aid procedures in the field of maritime
transport?