Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 42kWORD 9k
14 November 2019
Question for written answer
to the Commission
Rule 138
Ruža Tomašić
 Subject: Restoration of the yacht ‘Galeb’

The EU institutions have repeatedly condemned communist totalitarian regimes across Europe (most recently through Parliament’s resolution on the 80th anniversary of the start of the Second World War and the importance of European remembrance for the future of Europe).


This resolution also condemned the Communist totalitarian regime of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, headed by one of the most vicious criminals in history, the Communist dictator Josip Broz Tito. One of the legacies of this totalitarian regime is ‘Galeb’, part of the Yugoslav Navy and the residential yacht of the criminal Tito, which is now owned by the City of Rijeka.


With the intention of remodelling ‘Galeb’ into a museum that would serve as a nostalgic memorial to that totalitarian regime, the City of Rijeka requested EU funds – which were approved – for its restoration. The official website of the City of Rijeka (rijeka2020.eu) states that ‘the yacht will speak about the unusually influential international role played by the state of yesteryear’. This demonstrates a clear intention to glorify the totalitarian communist regime of Yugoslavia.


In this connection, could the Commission say why EU funding was approved for the restoration of a yacht that will be used to glorify a criminal regime and its dictator, which the European Union institutions have repeatedly condemned?

Last updated: 3 December 2019Legal notice