WRITTEN QUESTION E-2474/03 by Ingo Friedrich (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Free internal market.
Date: 2003-07-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: art trade, cultural object, export monitoring, free movement of goods, heritage protection, import restriction, national currency, third country

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/251

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2003)

The Commission has not at this stage received a formal application from the Greek authorities to confirm
the level of assistance of the Structural Funds to the project mentioned by the Honourable Member.

As the Honourable Member has noted, the Commission decided on 30 April 2003 that the public
procurement procedure leading up to the award of the Concession contract for the Thessaloniki metro had
not violated Community rules on public procurement. This decision was however without prejudice to
other aspects of Community law, such as the rules on State aid.

Subsequently, on 4 June 2003,
the Greek Authorities notified to the Commission, according to
Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty on State aids, the financial arrangements relating to the concession contract
for the Thessaloniki Metro.

The Commission is currently examining these arrangements on the basis of
the
Community on State aids, and a Commission decision with regard to Community funding for the project
will be dependent on the outcome of this examination.

the legislation of

(2004/C 51 E/273)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2474/03

by Ingo Friedrich (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2003)

Subject: Free internal market

Coin collectors and dealers in Greece and Italy, France and Spain are treated like gunrunners. The free
internal market has not yet reached this segment. Acting at national level, individual Member States are
seeking US approval for import restrictions.

Is the Commission aware of this situation? What action is the Internal Market Directorate-General taking
to guarantee the free movement of goods in relation to antique coins? When will this be achieved? Can
individual Member States agree import restrictions with third countries? Does Council Regulation (EEC)
No 3911/92 (1) of 9 December 1992 on the export of cultural goods apply in this area?

(1) OJ L 395, 31.12.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 2003)

The Commission has taken note of the situation mentioned by the Honourable Member.

As the guardian of the Treaties, the Commission ensures that the rules are adhered to, including, therefore,
Articles 28 and 29 which establish the principle of the free movement of goods.

Works of art in general, including antique coins, are goods which fall within the scope of Articles 28 and
29 of the EC Treaty.

However, in the absence of harmonising rules, the Treaty allows the Member States to retain the right to
protect their artistic, historical or archaeological heritage. This is the reason why Article 30 provides for an
exception to the free movement of goods based on the protection of national treasures, and thus
recognises that Member States have the right to impose limits or bans on cultural goods leaving the
national territory when the Member State has decided that these objects form part of its protected cultural
heritage.

C 51 E/252

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

In the absence of harmonisation, the Member States may then invoke Article 30 of the EC Treaty and have
some leeway in deciding which works of art or cultural objects are included under the concept of ‘national
treasure’. It should be pointed out that the Court of Justice has never had occasion to define this concept.

The adoption of Council Directive 93/7/EEC of 15 March 1993 on the return of cultural objects
unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State did not change this situation (1). One of the
provisions of this Directive is that a Member State may initiate proceedings, before the competent court in
another Member State, with the aim of securing the return of cultural objects which have been unlawfully
removed from its territory after 1993.

The Directive only refers to objects which were classified, before or after their unlawful removal from the
territory of a Member State, among its national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological
value under national legislation, and which fall into one of the categories of cultural objects listed in the
Annex to this Directive. This list includes ‘collections of historical, palaeontological, ethnographic or
numismatic interest’ with a value of over EUR 50 000.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco) Convention of 1970, which
has been ratified by (8 or 9) Member States, only relates to the illicit import, export and transfer of
ownership of cultural property, with illicit trade in cultural objects remaining outside its scope.
In
accordance with the provisions of this Convention, the State Parties undertake to prohibit, or take the
necessary measures to prevent, the import of cultural property which has been stolen from museums,
religious institutions or public monuments, or when the cultural patrimony of a State Party is in jeopardy
from the pillage of archaeological or ethnological materials.

Council Regulation (EEC) No 3911/92 of 9 December 1992 on the export of cultural goods (2), is not
applicable in this context. Its aim, in the context of the internal market, is to ensure the protection of the
Member States’ cultural goods, by making the export of cultural goods outside the customs territory of the
Community subject to the presentation of an export licence issued by a competent authority of the
Member State, without prejudice to the measures prohibiting the export of national treasures which the
Member States may take under Article 30 of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 74, 27.3.1993. The Annex to this Directive was amended by Directive 96/100/EC of 17 February 1997

(OJ L 60, 1.3.1997) and by Directive 2001/38/EC of 5 June 2001 (OJ L 187, 10.7.2001).

(2) OJ L 395, 31.12.1992.

(2004/C 51 E/274)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2488/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(25 July 2003)

Subject: Problems caused by scooters

In accordance with Article 1(2) of Directive 2002/24/EC (1) of 18 March 2002 relating to the type-
approval of two or three-wheel motor vehicles scooters must have a maximum continuous rated power of
no more than 4 kW. Netherlands law had previously restricted the maximum continuous rated power of
such vehicles to 1,5 kW. Following the entry into force of the directive, Italian scooters with a rated power
of 4 kW can be imported without problem.

In many towns and cities in the Netherlands, including Rotterdam, the problems caused by young people
riding scooters have reached intolerable levels. Many residents regard scooters as one of the top three
nuisances in their neighbourhood. The nuisance stems from noise pollution caused by squealing tyres,
souped up engines and specially fitted hi-fi equipment and scooter races which go on until late at night.
Residents also complain about inconsiderate riding (excessive speed, riding on cycle paths and pavements).
In its efforts to resolve these problems, the Netherlands police is having to deal with the consequences of
harmonisation in the European internal market and, in particular, the directive referred to above.

Does the Commission take the view that rules on road safety are a matter for the Member States?