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 CommissionDuty as guardian of Treaties to address implementation gaps – Article 17 of TEUPowers to act under Articles 258, 260 and 279 of TFEU

Member StatesCompetent authorities need to take enforcement action – public enforcementDecisions against decisions, acts and omissions – private enforcement through access to justicePreliminary 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 enforcementDG ENV open cases per sector (445) on 31/12/2010

AIR56

13%

WASTE65

15%

NATURE89

20%

CHEMICALS46

10%

IMPACT429%

INFORMATION9

2%

LIABILITY1

0%MISCELLANEOUS1

0%

WATER13631%

DG ENV open cases per sector (339) on 31/12/2011

CHEMICALS268%

AIR35

10%

WASTE76

22%

NATURE76

22%

MISCELLANEOUS1

0%

LIABILITY1

0%

IMPACT43

13%

INFORMATION1

0%

WATER80

25%

CJEU decisions in Commission actions, 1999-2012Subject-matter, number of cases Case reference, Member State

National legislation (17. 13 MS) C-256/98, FR, 2000; C-324/01, BE, 2002; C-75/01, LU, C-72/02, PT, C-143/02, IT, 2003; C-407/03, FI, 2004; C-441/03, NL, C-6/04, UK, C-131/05, UK, 2005; C-98/03, DE, 2006; C-418/04, IE, C-183/05, IE, C-508/04, AT, 2007; C-293/07, EL, 2008; C-241/08, FR, 2010; C-538/09, 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; C-209/02, 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; C-535/07, 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; C-221/04, ES, 2006; C-518/04, EL, C-183/05, IE, C-342/05, FI, 2007; C-308/08, ES, 2010; C-383/09, 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 Potočnik

o Objective to complement rather than replace earlier communications

o Not an infringement communicationo Focus on improving information systems and checks and

balances at national levelo 2 themes: Knowledge and responsivenesso Adopted 7 March 2012o 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?