Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Court of Justice and Protected Areas in the European Union

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Environmental Law Before the Courts

  • 189 Accesses

Abstract

The Court of Justice of the European Union has played a major role in ensuring that the legislation designed to protect habitat important for biodiversity is given priority and that Member States do in fact resist the pressures to allow protected sites to be used for other purposes. Cases have made it clear that States have to take their conservation commitments seriously and are subject to external oversight. The Court has insisted that a precautionary approach is adopted in applying this area of law and that the procedures for analysing the risks and potential acceptability of any proposed project are not by-passed. Cases have also considered the status of sites during the extended designation procedures but shown weaknesses in terms of rapid intervention. The Court has thus been important in ensuring that the legislation offers not just an empty promise but a valuable tool for protecting nature across the European Union.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    CBD-COP 5 (2000), Decision V/6.

  2. 2.

    Dudley (2008), 2.

  3. 3.

    CBD-COP (2022), Final Text, Target 3.

  4. 4.

    Dudley (2008), vii and 11.

  5. 5.

    See generally García-Ureta (2020), Jackson (2018), Born et al. (2014).

  6. 6.

    Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2010), arts 258–260, 267 (consolidated version available at [2012] OJ C 326/47).

  7. 7.

    Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the protection of wild birds, amended and restated as Directive 2009/147/EC; Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

  8. 8.

    Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (note 6); see Hedemann-Robinson (2015), Part 1.

  9. 9.

    Habitats Directive (note 7), art 6(2).

  10. 10.

    For brevity, the rest of this chapter refers just to “projects”.

  11. 11.

    This assessment may be part of a formal Environmental Impact Assessment, as regulated in detail by further EU measures (Directive 2011/92/EU as amended by 2014/52/EU), but will be required even when those rules do not apply.

  12. 12.

    See for example European Commission (2012); other areas have now taken over as those generating most activity.

  13. 13.

    C-57/89 Commission v Germany [1991] ECR I-883.

  14. 14.

    See the discussion of the Cascina Tre Pini case in Sect. 6 below.

  15. 15.

    Convention on Biological Diversity, signed at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992.

  16. 16.

    C-371/98 R v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport & Regions, ex parte First Corporate Shipping Ltd [2000] ECR I-9235.

  17. 17.

    Habitats Directive (note 7), art 2(3).

  18. 18.

    See the discussion in Sect. 6 below the Dragaggi case.

  19. 19.

    On designation generally, see Shoukens and Woldendorp (2014).

  20. 20.

    Case 26/62 NV Algemene Transport-en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen [1963] ECR 1, [3].

  21. 21.

    C-355/90 Commission v Spain [1993] ECR I-4221.

  22. 22.

    Birds Directive (note 7), art 4(2).

  23. 23.

    The inventory of Important Bird Areas in Europe (1989), and now its successors, have repeatedly been recognised as a very important guide on this point, creating a presumption that the listed sites should be designated unless good reasons otherwise are provided.

  24. 24.

    C-96/98, Commission v France [1999] ECR I-8531.

  25. 25.

    C-127/02 Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee and Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van Vogels v Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij [2004] ECR I-7405.

  26. 26.

    Ibid at [26].

  27. 27.

    Habitats Directive (note 7), art 6(3).

  28. 28.

    Now in art.191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (note 6).

  29. 29.

    On further developments in the use of the precautionary approach see Lees (2017).

  30. 30.

    Ibid.

  31. 31.

    C-258/11, Sweetman v An Bord Pleanála ECLI:EU:C:2013:220.

  32. 32.

    Habitats Directive (note 7), art. 6(3).

  33. 33.

    Ibid., art 6(2).

  34. 34.

    An important terminological note is that in EU phrasing “mitigation” is limited to steps taken to reduce the actual impact of a development on the site itself, with any offsetting or compensatory measures trying to balance harm with enhancements elsewhere (such as under the US Wetland Mitigation Scheme) referred to as “compensation”.

  35. 35.

    C-323/17, People Over Wind v Coillte Teoranta, ECLI:EU:C:2018:244

  36. 36.

    Habitats Directive (note 7), art. 6(4).

  37. 37.

    C-239/04, Commission v Portugal [2006] ECR I-10,183.

  38. 38.

    McGillivray (2012).

  39. 39.

    A less positive assessment is offered by Wandesforde-Smith and Watts (2014).

  40. 40.

    Habitats Directive (note 7) arts 3–4.

  41. 41.

    C-117/03 Società Italiana Dragaggi SpA v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Regione Autonoma del Friuli-Venezia Giulia [2005] ECR I-167.

  42. 42.

    Habitats Directive (note 7), art 4(2).

  43. 43.

    C-244/05 Bund Naturschutz in Bayern eV and Others v Freistaat Bayern [2006] ECR I-8445.

  44. 44.

    Ibid. [39].

  45. 45.

    C-301/12 Cascina Tre Pini Ss v Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare ECLI:EU:C:2014:214.

  46. 46.

    Reid (2019), 841; and see the Leybucht Dykes case (note 13).

  47. 47.

    Habitats Directive (note 7), art 9.

  48. 48.

    C-44/95 R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Royal Society for the Protection of Birds [1996] ECR 3805.

  49. 49.

    As in the Lappel Bank case itself, as discussed by the House of Lords at [1997] Env LR 431 at 440–441.

  50. 50.

    Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, art 279; see Hedemann-Robinson (2015), Part 1.

  51. 51.

    E.g. C-121/21R Czech Republic v Poland ECLI:EU:C:2021:752

  52. 52.

    This will come only after the initial proceedings in the national court, potentially at several levels, leading up to a reference to the Court of Justice, or after the completion of the various stages required before the Commission commences the formal infringement proceedings (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, art 258).

  53. 53.

    Examples include: C-76/08R Commission v Malta; C-573/08R Commission v Italy; C-441/17R Commission v Poland. See Hedemann-Robinson (2015), 122–146.

  54. 54.

    C-441/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:255; see Krämer (2018).

  55. 55.

    Ibid, [54]–[60].

  56. 56.

    Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (note 6), art 191(2); see Hedemann-Robinson (2015), Part 1.

  57. 57.

    Wandesforde-Smith and Watts (2014).

References

  • Born CH, An C, Schoukens H, Misonne D, Van Hoorick G (eds) (2014) The habitats directive in its EU environmental law context: European nature’s best hope? Routledge, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  • CBD-COP 15 (2022) Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, agreed at the 15th meeting of the conference of parties to the UN convention on biological diversity (CBD/COP/15/L25)

    Google Scholar 

  • CBD-COP 5 (2000) Fifth ordinary meeting of the conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity, 15–26 May 2000—Nairobi, Kenya (CBD-COP 5), Decision V/6

    Google Scholar 

  • Dudley N (ed) (2008) Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. IUCN, Gland

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2012) 30th annual report on monitoring the application of EU law 2012. https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2017-02/Commission_report_complete_2012%255BCOM%25282013%2529726%255D_en_0.pdf. Accessed 5 January 2023

  • European Commission (2023) Natura 2000. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/index_en.htm. Accessed 5 Jan 2023

  • García-Ureta A (2020) EU Biodiversity Law: Wild Birds and Habitats Directives. Europa Law, Groningen

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedemann-Robinson M (2015) Enforcement of European Union Environmental Law: legal issues and challenges, 2nd edn. Routledge, Abingdon

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Inventory of Important Bird Areas in Europe (1989) In: Grimmett R, Jones TA (eds) International Council for Bird Preservation, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson ALR (2018) Conserving Europe’s wildlife: law and policy of the Natura 2000 network of protected areas. Routledge, Abingdon

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Krämer L (2018) Relief in environmental matters court of justice of the EU. J Eur Environ Plan Law 15:259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lees E (2017) Concretising the precautionary principle in habitats protection – Grüne Lige Sachsen v Freistaat Sachsen and Orleans v Vlaams Gewest 19 ELR 126

    Google Scholar 

  • McGillivray D (2012) Compensating biodiversity loss - the EU Commission’s approach to compensation under article 6 of the Habitats Directive. J Environ Law 24:417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid CT (2019) Protection of sites. In: Lees E, Viñuales JE (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative environmental law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Shoukens H, Woldendorp HE (2014) Site selection and designation under the habitats and birds directives: a Sisyphean task? In: Born CH, An C, Schoukens H, Misonne D, Van Hoorick G (eds) The habitats directive in its EU environmental law context: European nature’s best hope? Routledge, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  • Wandesforde-Smith G, Watts NSJ (2014) Wildlife conservation and protected areas: politics, procedure, and the performance of failure under the EU birds and habitats directives. J Int Wildl Law Policy 17:62

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dundee Law School, University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland, UK

    Colin T. Reid

Authors
  1. Colin T. Reid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Colin T. Reid .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Italian Ministry of Culture, Rome, Italy

    Giovanni Antonelli

  2. Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

    Michael Gerrard

  3. Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA

    Sara Colangelo

  4. Consiglio die Stato, Rome, Italy

    Giancarlo Montedoro

  5. Tar Campania, Naples, Italy

    Maurizio Santise

  6. Constitutional Court of Belgium, Ghent, Belgium

    Luc Lavrysen

  7. Department of Political Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Maria Vittoria Ferroni

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Reid, C.T. (2023). The Court of Justice and Protected Areas in the European Union. In: Antonelli, G., et al. Environmental Law Before the Courts. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41527-2_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41527-2_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-41526-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-41527-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation