WRITTEN QUESTION E-0774/03 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Destruction of the Schinias Marshes.
Date: 2003-03-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Central Greece, EU control, Olympic games, application of EU law, complaint to the Commission, environmental protection, humid zone, protected area, sports facilities

C 268 E/132

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

7.11.2003

What steps does the Commission intend to take in order to guarantee that Directive 92/43/EEC is
complied with as regards both the extension of the Port of Altea and the problems at Serra Gelada?

(1) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 158.
(2) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 159.
(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Joint answer
to Written Questions P-0769/03 and E-0775/03
given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2003)

The matters described by the Honourable Member in Written Question E-0769/03 are the subject of a
complaint being investigated by the Commission. The Spanish authorities have been asked for their
comments on the application of Community legislation in this particular case, but no response has yet
been received.

Once it receives the response, the Commission will take any necessary action to ensure that the Spanish
authorities observe Community law in the case in hand and in particular Directive 85/337/EEC (1), as
amended by Directive 97/11/EC (2), and Directive 92/43/EEC (3).

Regarding the follow-up to Written Questions E-1486/02 and E-1487/02 mentioned by the Honourable
Member in Written Question E-0775/03, the Commission would point out that, having examined the
Spanish authorities’ comments on the sand extraction and beach regeneration projects along the
Mediterranean coast,
it decided that they had applied the abovementioned Directives incorrectly and
therefore took appropriate action. In another context, the bio-geographical seminar for the Mediterranean
region held in Brussels in January 2003 recorded a general reservation in respect of all marine habitat
types. Accordingly, the appropriateness of the Member States’ proposal in relation to habitat type 1120
‘Posidonia beds’ will need to be examined in the light of the findings of an ad hoc working group of
national experts, Commission representatives and other partners, set up recently to look in detail at
subjects connected with the application of the Habitats and Birds Directives to the marine environment.

(1) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private

projects on the environment, OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2) Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of

certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(3) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora,

OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2003/C 268 E/132)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0774/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 March 2003)

Subject: Destruction of the Schinias Marshes

With regard to the construction of a rowing centre on the Schinias Marsh on the Attica peninsula, the
Commission confirmed in answer to Written Questions E-0769/01 (1) and E-1073/01 (2) that it had written
to the Greek government ‘drawing attention to the value of the site for nature conservation and requesting
information concerning any intended proposal of the site for the Natura 2000 network by virtue of
Council Directive 92/43/EEC (3) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna

7.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268 E/133

and flora’ and had subsequently carried-out ‘an on the spot appraisal of the situation’. The Commission has
elsewhere indicated that Council Directive 85/337/EEC (4) of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects
of certain public and private projects on the environment as modified by Council Directive 97/11/EC (5) of
3 March 1997 is relevant.

What exactly are the Greek government’s obligations in this regard and does the Commission believe that
Greece has complied with those obligations? Finally, are the obligations of
the Greek government
regarding development of the Schinias Marsh essentially the same as those of the German government a
propos the development of the Aachen industrial park, which has effectively been stalled because of
concerns over the welfare of the Aachen hamster?

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 117.
(2) OJ C 340 E, 4.12.2001, p. 163.
(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
(4) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
(5) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2003)

In dealing with the complaint on the construction of the Olympic rowing and canoeing centre at Schinias-
Marathon in Greece, the Commission’s aim was to ensure for the site an adequate protection status and to
ensure that the development of facilities for the Olympic Games should furthermore be undertaken in a
sustained manner which will contribute to the protection and restoration of the site’s wildlife value.

In August 2002, the Greek authorities proposed the area of Schinias-Marathon as a Site of Community
Importance, submitting to the Commission a supporting file providing the relevant technical information
required for the proposed inclusion of the site in the Natura 2000 network under the Directive 92/43/
EEC (1). The site has also been designated as a National Park and a Joint Ministerial Decision for its
Administration and its Management was adopted. In addition, the establishment and operation of the
Management Body of the National Park is underway, since the Greek State Council assesses the relevant
national legislation (Presidential Decree). It appears that this legal framework is sufficient to ensure the
conservation objectives of the site.

Moreover, regarding the design of the project, the implementation of the restoration programme for the
wetland, the time frame for all the proposed works and the examination of the recently submitted
information all show that the overall proposal can be considered as satisfactory and compatible with the
nature conservation value of the site. In particular, the design of the project was improved so that habitat
loss is minimised and the ecological quality of the area is increased through the implementation of the
restoration project. Furthermore, specific measures were adopted in order to ensure the hydrological
equilibrium of the site and an adequate management.

The issue of a possible designation of the site as a Special Protection Area for birds according to the
Directive 79/409/EEC (2) will be dealt with under the existing horizontal infringement procedure against
Greece. This infringement procedure is related to the insufficient and inadequate classification by the Greek
authorities of Special Protection Areas for the conservation of wild birds.

With respect to the Aachen industrial park the Commission assumes that the Honourable Member refers
In this case, the Commission in 2001
to the development of the commercial zone Aachen-Heerlen.
addressed a Letter of Formal Notice to the German Government for failure to comply with Articles 12 and
16 of Directive 92/43/EEC. The obligations resulting from the provisions in question are different from the
obligations relevant for the Schinias case in that they have the protection of species as their objective and
not the protection of sites.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora,

OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.