WRITTEN QUESTION E-0946/03 by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission. EU contribution to building the Málaga Picasso Museum.
Date: 2003-03-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Spain, museum

C 65 E/58

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

In order to cope with potential contradictions that may arise from decisions made successively by different
Member States, Article 25 of Schengen Convention provides for consultation procedures between Member
States. These procedures are used when a Member State considers issuing, or has already issued a residence
permit to a third country national on whom an Article 96 alert exists in the SIS. These consultation
procedures are also used when it emerges that a Member State envisages to issue an Article 96 alert for the
purposes of refusing entry on a third country national holding a valid residence permit issued by another
Member State.

The outcome of the consultation foreseen by Article 25 of the Schengen Convention may be:

(cid:1) either the withdrawal of alert from SIS with the possibility for individual Member State to keep that

person on their national list of alert;

(cid:1) or the withdrawal of the residence permit with the confirmation of the alert in the SIS.

If Member States issued an alert on Mr Krekar based on Article 96 of the Schengen Convention, similar
consultations could take place and open the two options mentioned above.

Finally, as regards possible action by the Commission to ensure that Norway keeps a watchful eye on the
activities of Mr Krekar and his organisation, the Commission informs the Honourable Members that this
matter falls entirely within the competencies of the Norwegian authorities. The Commission may neither
issue alerts nor have knowledge of the alerts that have been issued; the SIS is run by the Member States
and national alerts are under the responsibility of Member States’ authorities. Nevertheless,
in the
hypothesis that no alert based on Article 96 has been issued on Mr Krekar, an alert for the purpose of
‘discreet surveillance and specific checks’ based on Article 99 of the Schengen Convention could be issued
by other Member States.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 350/2003 of 25 February 2003 amending for the 13th time Council Regulation
(EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities
associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC)
No 467/2001, OJ L 51, 26.2.2003.

(2) Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985, signed on 19 June 1990, OJ L 239,

22.9.2000.

(2004/C 65 E/059)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0946/03

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: EU contribution to building the Málaga Picasso Museum

(26 March 2003)

The Málaga authorities are hoping to emulate the Guggenheim Museum’s contribution to Bilbao’s
modernisation and economic revitalisation, with the future Picasso Museum acting as a flagship for
development and modernisation.

The fact that Málaga is hoping to repeat Bilbao’s Guggenheim success means that all administrative levels
should be making the maximum possible contribution to ensure that the new museum becomes a genuine
flagship for Málaga as a modern city with more to offer than just sunshine and beaches.

What contribution is the Commission making to the building of the Málaga Picasso Museum, and how
does it assess this project in terms of its contribution to the cultural wealth of the EU as a whole?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2003)

The Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that it did not
contribute to the building of the Malaga Picasso Museum.