WRITTEN QUESTION P-1335/01 by Luckas Vander Taelen (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Environmental impact of the 2004 Olympic Games infrastructure on Schinias.
Date: 2001-04-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, environmental impact, environmental protection, national park, sports facilities

13.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 318 E/237

The Commission respects the responsibility of the Member States for adopting measures, where necessary,
in order to make it easier for sportsmen and sportswomen to reconcile their studies and their sporting
careers. Under the principle of subsidiarity, the Commission could not taken any initiatives to adopt
legislation in this area. However,
it encourages the Member States to introduce the most favourable
mechanisms for taking account of the specific needs of top sportsmen and sportswomen in the national
school and university systems.

(1) The Report from the Commission to the European Council with a view to safeguarding current sports structures
and maintaining the social function of sport within the Community framework (cid:129) The Helsinki Report on Sport (cid:129)
COM(1999) 644 final.

(2001/C 318 E/259)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1335/01

by Luckas Vander Taelen (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 April 2001)

Subject: Environmental impact of the 2004 Olympic Games infrastructure on Schinias

Answering to my Written Question E-2394/00 (1) of 26 September 2000, the Commission said that it had
the measures taken to ensure the
already requested information from the Greek authorities about
protection of the natural sites threatened by the infrastructure development for the 2004 Olympic Games.

In view of the very recent decision by the Greek Couuncil of State to annul part of the Presidential Decree
which grants national park status to the Schinias area, because of the unlimited building developments
permitted in the middle of the site, does the Commission now agree with the Greek courts that stronger
action is needed to protect the valuable habitats, in particular by relocating the proposed Rowing and
Canoeing Centre to one of the two viable alternative sites which were originally proposed by the Greek
Government itself in an earlier tender document?

Would not the selection of the Schinias area for the Rowing and Canoeing Centre actually conflict with the
inclusion of this area in the scientific reference list of areas qualifying for classification as special protection
areas under the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) (2), and would it not also constitute an extremely important
negative precedent opening the door for large construction projects in other Greek national parks and
protected areas?

What measures has the Commission taken to prevent the indoor Table Tennis Stadium in the Veikou Park
from damaging that protected forest area and the Olympic Village from threatening the Parnitha National
Park?

(1) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001, p. 29.
(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2001)

As mentioned in the answer to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s Written Question E-2394/00, the Schinias
marshes have not been proposed by Greece under either the Birds (Council Directive 79/409/EEC of
2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds) or the Habitats (Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May
1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1)) directives for inclusion in the
Natura 2000 network. However, given that the site has been included in relevant scientific reference lists,
the Commission has sent a letter to the Greek authorities in the context of the formal complaint lodged in
2000, asking for specific information on this planned Olympic project. The Commission seeks to ensure
the compatibility of the planned development with the conservation value of the site.

information brought to Commission(cid:146)s
Further to the reply of Greece and in the light of additional
attention,
the situation.
Information gathered is currently under evaluation in order for the Commission to decide on the follow-
up to be given to this matter.

in March 2001 an on-the-spot appraisal of

the Commission carried out

C 318 E/238

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.11.2001

The recent decision of the Greek Council of State mentioned by the Honourable Member does not concern
the area to be affected by the planned project of the Olympic canoeing and rowing center.

As regards the Table Tennis Stadium in the Veikou Park, on 15 February 2001, the Commission requested
the Greek Authorities to provide information. Greece has not yet replied.

With reference to the Olympic village near the National Park of Parnitha, the Commission has decided to
close a formal complaint lodged in 2000 related to the modification of the town planning map, as there is
no Community competence in this matter.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2001/C 318 E/260)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1346/01

by Jonas Sj(cid:246)stedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 May 2001)

Subject: Cost of the Dehaene Group in 1999

In October 1999, the three wise men (cid:129) Dehaene, Simon and von Weizs(cid:228)cker (cid:129) submitted a report to the
Commission on the institutional implications of enlargement ahead of the intergovernmental conference.

In September 1999, the three wise man had been asked by the President of the Commission completely
independently to identify institutional problems and to set out arguments as to why those issues should be
dealt with by the intergovernmental conference.

Did the Commission bear the costs of the three wise men(cid:146)s work and how much were those costs?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-2595/99 by
Mr Hannan (1)

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000.

(2001/C 318 E/261)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1375/01

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(26 April 2001)

Subject: Age discrimination in the field of research and development

One of the main themes from the Stockholm Council was the challenge posed by an ageing population.
It was stated that there is a need to work to increase the rate of employment especially among older
people.

framework
In addition, section 2.2 on Human Resources and mobility of
programme 2002-2006 recognises the need of (cid:145)making the most of the potential offered by all sectors of
the population(cid:146) within the field of science and technology.

the Sixth multiannual

In the light of these aims, can the Commission ensure that there will be no upper age limits for training
programmes in the Sixth framework programme, as there were with the Fifth framework programme?