BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) >> Commission v Italy (Environment and consumers) [2003] EUECJ C-143/02 (20 March 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2003/C14302.html Cite as: ECLI:EU:C:2003:178, EU:C:2003:178, [2003] EUECJ C-143/02, [2003] EUECJ C-143/2 |
||
[New search] [Help]
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber)
20 March 2003 (1)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats - Wild fauna and flora)
In Case C-143/02,
Commission of the European Communities, represented by G. Valero Jordana and R. Amorosi, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
applicant,
v
Italian Republic, represented by U. Leanza, acting as Agent, and M. Fiorilli, avvocato dello Stato, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
defendant,
APPLICATION for a declaration that, in adopting legislation transposing Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), which:
- excludes from the scope of the rules on the assessment of the implications for the environment projects other than those listed in the Italian legislation implementing directives on environmental impact assessment that are likely to have a significant effect on sites of Community importance,
- fails to impose upon the competent authorities of the Member State any obligation to take appropriate steps in respect of special protection areas to avoid the deterioration of natural habitats and of the habitats of species or disturbance of the species for which the areas were designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of Directive 92/43,
- fails to provide that the conservation measures referred to in Article 6(2) of that directive apply to the sites referred to in Article 5(1) of that directive,
the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5, 6 and 7 of that directive,
THE COURT (Third Chamber),
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur) and F. Macken, Judges,
Advocate General: P. Léger,
Registrar: R. Grass,
having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 9 January 2003,
gives the following
- excludes from the scope of the rules on the assessment of the implications for the environment projects other than those listed in the Italian legislation implementing directives on environmental impact assessment that are likely to have a significant effect on sites of Community importance,
- fails to impose upon the competent authorities of the Member State any obligation to take appropriate steps in respect of special protection areas to avoid the deterioration of natural habitats and of the habitats of species or disturbance of the species for which the areas were designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of the habitats directive,
- fails to provide that the conservation measures referred to in Article 6(2) of that directive apply to the sites referred to in Article 5(1) of that directive,
the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5, 6 and 7 of that directive.
The law
'1. In exceptional cases where the Commission finds that a national list as referred to in Article 4(1) fails to mention a site hosting a priority natural habitat type or priority species which, on the basis of relevant and reliable scientific information, it considers to be essential for the maintenance of that priority natural habitat type or for the survival of that priority species, a bilateral consultation procedure shall be initiated between that Member State and the Commission for the purpose of comparing the scientific data used by each.
2. If, on expiry of a consultation period not exceeding six months, the dispute remains unresolved, the Commission shall forward to the Council a proposal relating to the selection of the site as a site of Community importance.
3. The Council, acting unanimously, shall take a decision within three months of the date of referral.
4. During the consultation period and pending a Council decision, the site concerned shall be subject to Article 6(2).'
'2. Member States shall take appropriate steps to avoid, in the special areas of conservation, the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well asdisturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of this Directive.
3. Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public.
4. If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, the Member State shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. It shall inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted.
Where the site concerned hosts a priority natural habitat type and/or a priority species, the only considerations which may be raised are those relating to human health or public safety, to beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment or, further to an opinion from the Commission, to other imperative reasons of overriding public interest.'
'Obligations arising under Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of this Directive shall replace any obligations arising under the first sentence of Article 4(4) of Directive 79/409/EEC in respect of areas classified pursuant to Article 4(1) or similarly recognised under Article 4(2) thereof, as from the date of implementation of this Directive or the date of classification or recognition by a Member State under Directive 79/409/EEC, where the latter date is later.'
Pre-litigation procedure
The action
- excludes from the scope of the rules on the assessment of the implications for the environment projects other than those listed in the Italian legislation implementing directives on environmental impact assessment that are likely to have a significant effect on sites of Community importance,
- fails to impose upon the competent authorities of the Member State any obligation to take appropriate steps in respect of special protection areas to avoid the deterioration of natural habitats and of the habitats of species or disturbance of the species for which the areas were designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of the habitats directive,
- fails to provide that the conservation measures referred to in Article 6(2) of that directive apply to the sites referred to in Article 5(1) of that directive,
the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5, 6 and 7 of that directive.
Costs
15. Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party's pleadings. Since the Commission has applied for costs to be awarded against the Italian Republic and the latter has been unsuccessful, the Italian Republic must be ordered to pay the costs.
On those grounds,
THE COURT (Third Chamber)
hereby:
1. Declares that, in adopting a measure transposing Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, which:
- excludes from the scope of the rules on the assessment of the implications for the environment projects other than those listed in the Italian legislation implementing directives on environmental impact assessment that are likely to have a significant effect on sites of Community importance,
- fails to impose upon the competent authorities of the Member State any obligation to take appropriate steps in respect of special protection areas to avoid the deterioration of natural habitats and of the habitats of species or disturbance of the species for which the areas were designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of Directive 92/43,
- fails to provide that the conservation measures referred to in Article 6(2) of that directive apply to the sites referred to in Article 5(1) of that directive,
the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5, 6 and 7 of that directive;
2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
|
Puissochet
|
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 20 March 2003.
R. Grass J.-P. Puissochet
Registrar President of the Third Chamber
1: Language of the case: Italian.
