You are on page 1of 2

2. 10.

98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 304/87

The area is included on Valencian Community’s Inventory of Wetlands, and in order for the plan to be approved,
the General Building Plan would have to be amended and at least a quarter of the sites would have to be
reclassified as low-density building land.

Ecological groups and the opposition parties are totally opposed to this project’s going ahead, but the party in
government is inclined to support it, and the scheme may become a reality.

Given that these salt-marshes are a natural area of major cultural, scientific and recreational value,
1. Can the Commission intervene in order to preserve them in their current state?
2. Can the Commission reconsider the questions I raised in my previous written question on this subject?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 1998)

This site has not been designated as a special protection area (SPA) for birds under Directive 79/409/EEC on the
conservation of wild birds (1), nor has it been scientifically classified as an important area for bird conservation.

This site has not been proposed by Spain for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network, pursuant to Directive
92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2). Nor is the Commission aware
that it contains a priority species or type of natural habitat which, on the basis of relevant and reliable scientific
information, would make it essential to the maintenance of this type of priority habitat or to the survival of this
priority species. This site thus appears to be of greater natural interest to Spain than to the Community.
Consequently, the Commission has no particular reason to intervene in place of the Spanish authorities.

The Commission’s position has not changed since it answered the Honourable Member’s written question No
E-4039/97 (3). In January 1998, Spain sent the Commission the list of sites proposed for inclusion in the Natura
2000 network for the Mediterranean biogeographical region. The Aguamarga wetland is not included in that list.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(3) OJ C 196, 22.6.1998, p. 66.

(98/C 304/131) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0366/98

by Stefano De Luca (ELDR) to the Commission
(24 February 1998)

Subject: Community aid for the restoration of the Petruzzelli Theatre

On 27 October 1991, the Petruzzelli Theatre in Bari, which was built between 1898 and 1903 and is the only
privately owned theatre in Europe, was severely damaged by a terrible fire.

In 1996 another famous Italian theatre, ‘La Fenice’ in Venice, was completely destroyed.

However, while extensive Community assistance was provided for the rebuilding of ‘La Fenice’, the Petruzzelli
has received only ECU 80 000 for the partial restoration of its foyer.

1. Does the Commission consider that this curious discrepancy is a result of the fact that, unlike other
European theatres, the Petruzzelli Theatre is privately owned?

2. Does the Commission not consider that, in view of the historical and artistic value of the Petruzzelli Theatre
in Bari, Community funds should be provided to enable the restoration work to be completed, since the theatre’s
owners, the Messeni Nemegna family, do not have the finance needed themselves?
C 304/88 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 2. 10. 98

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(8 April 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question E-4189/97 by
Mr Viceconte and by Mr Parodi (1).

(1) OJ C 196, 22.6.1998, p. 96.

(98/C 304/132) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0371/98

by Nuala Ahern (V) to the Commission
(24 February 1998)

Subject: Radioactive waste and Article 18 of Directive 92/3/Euratom

Will the Commission indicate the respective dates on which Member States submitted data on the shipments of
radioactive wastes to the Commission as required under Article 18 of Directive 92/3/Euratom (1) on shipments of
radioactive waste between Member States? When does the Commission expect to publish its second bi-annual
report on nuclear waste shipments?

(1) OJ L 35, 12.2.1992, p. 24.

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 1998)

The Commission published in 1995 (1) its first report on the application in the Member States of Directive
92/3/Euratom on the supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste between Member States and into
and out of the Community.

The second report, covering the period 1994-1995 is presently being prepared. The Commission expects that the
preparation of the report will be completed in a meeting of the advisory committee established by Article 19 of
the Directive in June 1998.

The dates at which the Member States communicated to the Commission the information referred to in Article 18
of the Directive covering the period 1994-1995 are:

Belgium 15 March 1996

Denmark 1 April 1996
Germany 23 January 1996
Spain 23 June 1997
France 30 October 1996
Ireland 19 August 1996
Italy 27 November 1996
Luxembourg 12 November 1996
Netherlands 25 November 1996
Austria 3 October 1996
Portugal 31 October 1996
Finland 31 October 1996
Sweden 30 October 1996
United Kingdom 29 October 1996

(1) COM(95) 192 final.