Habitats Directive
- lessons from case-law of
Court of Justice of European
Union since 1999
European Commission,
DG Environment
Overview
 Why are legal cases necessary?
 Commission enforcement policy
 Why is the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)








important?
Commission enforcement: nature in context
CJEU decisions in Commission actions, 1999-2012
CJEU rulings in preliminary references, 2000-2011
Lessons from case-law – interpretation
Lessons from case-law – Commission and Member States
Future challenges
Future policy
Future policy – questions for discussion
Why are legal cases necessary?
European Commission
 Duty as guardian of Treaties to address implementation gaps –
Article 17 of TEU
 Powers to act under Articles 258, 260 and 279 of TFEU
Member States
 Competent authorities need to take enforcement action – public
enforcement
 Decisions against decisions, acts and omissions – private
enforcement through access to justice
 Preliminary references to the Court of Justice for interpretation –
Article 267 of TFEU
Commission enforcement policy
 Partly defined in policy communications, see 2007 “A
Europe of Results”, COM(2007)502 and 2008
Communication on implementing environment law,
COM(2008)773
 Enforcement is within context that includes
compliance promotion, e.g. guidance documents,
LIFE funding, EU Pilot
 Enforcement related to citizen complaints/European
Parliament petitions – Directive 92/43/EEC frequently
cited
 Trend towards strategic use of enforcement powers
confirmed by 2008 Communication
Why is the Court of Justice of the
European Union important?
 Final arbiter in disputes between Commission
and Member States (80% of cases)
 Can order interim measures (rare, only one
case concerning Directive 92/43/EEC)
 Definitively interprets in references from
national courts (20% of cases)
Commission enforcement
DG ENV open cases per sector (445) on 31/12/2010
MISCELLANEOUS
1
0%
LIABILITY
1
0%
IMPACT
42
9%
CHEMICALS
46
10%
INFORMATION
9
AIR
2%
56
13%
WATER
136
31%
NATURE
89
20%
WASTE
65
15%
DG ENV open cases per sector (339) on 31/12/2011
MISCELLANEOUS
1
0%
WATER
80
25%
IMPACT
43
13%
LIABILITY
1
0%
CHEMICALS
26
8%
AIR
35
10%
NATURE
76
22%
WASTE
76
22%
INFORMATION
1
0%
CJEU decisions in Commission
actions, 1999-2012
Subject-matter, number of cases
Case reference, Member State
National legislation (17. 13 MS)
C-256/98, FR, 2000; C-324/01, BE, 2002; C75/01, LU, C-72/02, PT, C-143/02, IT, 2003; C407/03, FI, 2004; C-441/03, NL, C-6/04, UK,
C-131/05, UK, 2005; C-98/03, DE, 2006; C418/04, IE, C-183/05, IE, C-508/04, AT, 2007;
C-293/07, EL, 2008; C-241/08, FR, 2010; C538/09, BE, 2011; C-46/11, PL, 2012
National list (5, 5 MS), SAC designation
C-67/99, IE, C-71/99, DE, C-220/99, FR, 2001;
C-90/10, ES, 2011; C-340/10, CY, 2012
Site protection, projects (15, 8 MS)
C-374/98, FR, 2000; C-117/00, IE, 2002; C209/02, AT, 2004; C-209/04, AT, C-239/04, PT,
2006; C-418/04, IE, C-304/05, IT, C-388/05, IT,
C-179/06, IT, 2007; C-293/07, EL, 2008; C535/07, AT, C-491/08, IT, 2010; C-560/08, ES,
C-404/09, ES, 2011; C-340/10, CY, 2012
Strict protection of species (9, 7 MS)
C-103/00, EL, 2002; C-434/01, UK, 2003; C221/04, ES, 2006; C-518/04, EL, C-183/05, IE,
C-342/05, FI, 2007; C-308/08, ES, 2010; C383/09, FR, C-90/10, ES, 2011; C-340/10, CY,
2012
CJEU rulings in preliminary
references (1)
 2000: C-371/98, First Corporate Shipping, scientific




basis of Natura 2000 sites
2004: C-127/98, Waddenzee, duty of appropriate
assessment
2005: C-117/03, Dragaggi, duty of interim protection
2006: C-244/05, Bund Naturschutz, duty of interim
protection
2010: C-226/08, Stadt Papenburg, duty to prevent
deterioration
CJEU rulings in preliminary
references (2)
 2011: C-115/09, Trianel, access to justice rights for
Impact Assessment allow Directive 92/43/EEC issues
to be raised
 2011: C-240/09, Slovak Bears, rights of e-NGOs in
cases concerning Directive 92/43/EEC
 2011: C-2/10, Azienda Agro-Zootecnica Franchini
and Eolica d Altamura, prohibition on wind-turbines,
proportionality
 2012: C-182/10, Solvay and others, need for
appropriate assessment where projects adopted by
legislation, IROPI
Lessons from case-law –
interpretation
 Interpretations found in judgments as well as in





preliminary rulings
Interpretations tend to be rigorous and teleological,
importance of objective science-base
Interface with other directives, notably Birds,
79/409/EEC, e.g. on interim measures, and Impact
Assessment, 85/337/EEC;
Interface with access to justice, role of private
enforcement
Still room for future interpretation
Helpfulness of Commission guidance documents
Lessons from case-law –
Commission and Member States
 Court cases a last resort
 Positive role of EU Pilot?
 Commission success rate
– 80%
 National legislation
 Dominant category
 Not complaint-driven
 New Member States try to resolve sooner
 National list
 Very limited need for court action
 Positive influence of bio-geographic process?
 Site protection and species protection
 Strong link with complaints
 Access to justice an alternative?
 Advantages of national complaint-handling criteria?
Future Challenges
 Monitoring systems
 Designation of SACs, implementation of
Article 6(1)
 Site protection
 Public enforcement at national level
 Private enforcement at national level
Future Policy
2012 Implementation Communication,
COM(2012)95
o Implementation one of 3 priorities of Commissioner
o
o
o
o
o
o
Potočnik
Objective to complement rather than replace earlier
communications
Not an infringement communication
Focus on improving information systems and checks and
balances at national level
2 themes: Knowledge and responsiveness
Adopted 7 March 2012
Helps set scene for 7th Environmental Action Programme
Future policy – questions for
discussion
 What are the strengths and weaknesses of existing policy? Have we







right balance between enforcement and compliance promotion?
Knowledge:
How can we build on existing active dissemination of information about
Directive 92/43/EEC, such as Natura 2000 maps, Natura Barometer?
Responsiveness:
How to ensure establishment of best practice and best methodologies
for inspections and surveillance in the field of nature?
Can trans-network cooperation (inspectors, prosecutors, judges)
improve how the enforcement chain functions in relation to wildlife
crime?
How to ensure consistent, structured exchanges between complainants
and national authorities?
How to provide access to justice in nature cases in response to Slovak
Bears?