Acht landen overtreden vogelbeschermings- en habitatrichtlijn (en)

The European Commission is taking legal action against eight Member States in order to protect and conserve biodiversity in Europe. The Member States in question are Luxembourg, Belgium, Italy, Austria, Spain, Ireland, Greece and the United Kingdom. These Member States have, in different ways, not ensured sufficient protection of wild birds, habitats and species protected under the EU's Habitats and Wild Birds Directives. Belgium, Luxembourg and Italy are requested to comply with earlier Court rulings. Failure to do so could result in substantial fines being imposed on these Member States. Spain, Ireland, Austria and Greece are to be referred to the Court of Justice for a number of breaches of the two Directives.

Commenting on the decisions, Environment Commissioner, Margot Wallström, said: "Member States have committed themselves to halting the loss of bio-diversity in the EU by 2010⁽¹⁾. If this objective is to be achieved, they must reinforce their national legislation and upgrade their nature conservation practices. The biggest threat to biodiversity is mankind. Through our activities we contribute to the loss of habitats and species. Our major nature protection Directives are there to stop this trend. But only if they are fully and correctly implemented by all Member States."

Belgium

On 27 February 2003, the Court of Justice ruled that Belgium had not respected the requirements of the Wild Birds Directive with regard to special protection areas (SPAs) for wild birds in Flanders (Case C-415/01). More specifically, there was a lack of legislation defining the boundaries of SPAs and creating the necessary binding legal protection regime governing SPAs. As Belgium has still not informed the Commission of how it proposes to comply with the Court ruling, the Commission has sent it a first written warning to comply. Failure to do so could result in fines being imposed on Belgium.

Luxembourg

On 13 February 2003, the Court of Justice ruled that the legislation to implement the Habitats Directive in Luxembourg was inadequate in several important respects (case C-75/01). More specifically, Luxembourg's legislation does not adequately reflect the definitions set out in the Directive. It also does not have enough rules to ensure the conservation of habitats or the protection of species, as set out in the Directive.

As these shortcomings have still not been corrected, the Commission has sent Luxembourg a final written warning to comply with the Court ruling. Failure to do so may result in substantial fines being imposed on Luxembourg.

United Kingdom

The Commission has sent the United Kingdom a final written warning because its legislation to implement the Habitats and Birds Directive is not strict enough concerning trading in wild birds and species. The Directives ban the trade in protected birds and species, but the UK's legislation only covers those protected species whose natural range includes Great Britain. In addition, certain game birds are not at all covered by the provision on the prohibition on trade. The UK authorities promised the adoption of new legislation, but the Commission has not yet received this.

Spain

The Commission has decided to refer Spain to the Court of Justice because Spain allows the use of non-selective trapping methods, such as snares, to control foxes. This practise is banned under the Habitats Directive. The Commission is concerned that these methods also trap certain strictly protected species under the Habitats Directive, such as the Iberian Lynx.

Italy

On 20 March 2003, the European Court of Justice ruled that by failing to classify a large number of territories as Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for the protection of bird species protected under the Birds Directive and of other migratory species which regularly visit its territory, Italy had failed to fulfil its obligations under the Wild Birds Directive. While Italy has made important progress in site designation and providing site information, the overall network remains seriously deficient. The Lombardia and Sardegna regions are the most deficient areas: 25 Important Bird Areas in Lombardia and a further 16 in Sardegna are totally uncovered. As these shortcomings have yet to be corrected, the Commission has sent Italy a letter of first written warning to comply with the Court ruling. Failure to comply may result in substantial fines being imposed on Italy.

The Commission also sent Italy a final written warning following the investigation of a complaint concerning a project for developing a skiing resort in Moso in Passiria, ;Province of Bolzano. The area is classified as a site of major importance under the Habitats Directive and an SPA under the Birds Directive. The project in question has been judged to have a potentially negative affect on the site. The Commission already sent Italy a first written warning for breaches of the Habitats and Birds Directive but has still not received any response from the Italian authorities.

The Commission sent Italy another final written warning following its investigation of a complaint concerning the abstraction of water from Lake Trasimeno, in Umbria, ;for agricultural and drinking use. Lake Trasimeno is an SPA, but provisions for the conservation of natural habitats also apply. As a result of draining water, the water level of the lake has decreased, which in turn has led to the deterioration of habitats and to the threatening of species that live in and around the lake. The Italian authorities took some measures, including a plan for the Trasimeno Lake, which aims to restore and protect the ecosystem of the lake and of the banks.

The measures have slowed down the decrease in water level, but the Italian authorities have given no information about a timetable for further corrective measures nor about the financing of other measures to improve the critical situation.

Ireland

The Commission has decided to refer Ireland to the European Court of Justice for failing to designate a sufficient number of Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for wild birds and for failing to adequately protect sites that have or require SPA status. In terms of the percentage of national territory covered, Ireland currently has the second smallest network of SPAs in the EU. ;Whereas the Irish network covers an area equivalent to 3% of its national territory the EU average is 8%. Several threatened and vulnerable bird species, such as the Corncrake, Chough and the Hen Harrier, are poorly covered by site protection measures in Ireland.

Austria

The Commission has decided to refer Austria to the European Court of Justice in relation to a road project in the Special Protection Area (SPA) called 'Lauteracher Ried" (Vorarlberg). After investigation of a complaint, the Commission found that the Austrian authorities had not correctly determined the limits of this SPA. The Commission concluded that two sites known as 'Soren' and 'Gleggen,' which are important for Corncrake and other meadow-breeding birds, were wrongly excluded from the SPA, and that the Austrian authorities had not applied correctly relevant EU nature conservation legislation when they authorised the road project. The Austrian response to the final written warning of the Commission was not satisfactory and therefore a referral to the Court was decided.

Greece

The Commission has decided to refer Greece to the European Court of Justice for failing to properly protect the lagoon of Messolonghi-Aitolikon, Prefecture of Aitoloakarnania, a wetland that is internationally recognised as an important habitat for wild birds. The appropriate legal framework for ensuring the effective protection of the lagoon is still not in place.

The Commission has also sent Greece a final written warning for failing to properly protect another internationally recognised wetland, Lake Koronia, Prefecture of Thessaloniki. The lake is mostly affected by heavy water abstraction for irrigation purposes. It is also affected by discharges of nutrients, heavy metals and other pollutants from industries in the surrounding area. The Commission considers that Greece has not established an appropriate legal protection framework and has not taken adequate measures to avoid the degradation of the lake. Greece has an obligation to do this under the Wild Birds, the Habitats Directive and the Dangerous Substances in Water Directive⁽²⁾.

Greece has also received a final written warning for failing to protect adequately a rare species of snake, the Vipera schweizeri. Above all, Greece failed to establish an effective system of strict protection of the Vipera schweizeri on the island of Milos. Such measures would have protected the species during its breeding period and prevented any activity that might threaten or destroy its breeding sites.

Background:

Wild Birds Directive

The Wild Birds Directive⁽³⁾ is the EU's oldest piece of nature conservation legislation. It creates a comprehensive scheme of protection for the EU's wild bird species. There are a number of separate but related components to this scheme. One relates to habitat conservation and includes a requirement to designate SPAs for migratory and other vulnerable wild bird species. A second consists of a series of bans imposed on activities that directly threaten birds (such as the deliberate destruction of nests and the taking of eggs) and associated activities such as trading in live or dead birds. A third component establishes rules that limit the number of species that can be hunted and the periods during which they can be hunted (hunting seasons should not include periods of greatest vulnerability such as return from migration, reproduction and the raising of chicks). Rules also define certain permitted methods of hunting (for example, non-selective hunting methods). For the second and third components, derogations can be granted provided that strict requirements are met and provided that no other satisfactory solution is possible.

Habitats Directive

The Habitats Directive⁽⁴⁾ provides a comprehensive protection scheme for a range of animals and plants, as well as for a selection of habitat types. It provided for the creation, by June 1998, of a network of protected sites known as Natura 2000, which embrace SPAs designated under the Wild Birds Directive and sites proposed by Member States under the Habitats Directive. The sites proposed by Member States must be based on scientific criteria and scientific information. All sites in the network must respect the safeguards set out. These include the prior assessment of potentially damaging plans and projects, the requirement that these plans and projects be approved only if they represent an overriding interest and only if is no alternative solution exists, and measures for providing compensatory habitats in the event of damage. Once fully in place, this network should ensure that the best examples of EU natural habitats and areas hosting rare and endangered plant and animal species, are properly conserved and protected. The Habitats Directive is the EU's flagship contribution to safeguarding global bio-diversity. In addition to providing for the creation of Natura 2000, the Habitats Directive provides for a ban on the downgrading of breeding and resting places for certain animal species. Derogations can be granted, but only under strict conditions.

Legal Process

Article 226 of the Treaty gives the Commission powers to take legal action against a Member State that is not respecting its obligations. If the Commission considers that there may be an infringement of EU law that warrants the opening of an infringement procedure, it addresses a "Letter of Formal Notice" (first written warning) to the Member State concerned, requesting it to submit its observations by a specified date, usually two months.

In the light of the reply or absence of a reply from the Member State concerned, the Commission may decide to address a "Reasoned Opinion" (final written warning) to the Member State. This clearly and definitively sets out the reasons why it considers there to have been an infringement of EU law and calls upon the Member State to comply within a specified period, usually two months.

If the Member State fails to comply with the Reasoned Opinion, the Commission may decide to bring the case before the Court of Justice.

Article 228 of the Treaty gives the Commission power to act against a Member State that does not comply with a previous judgement of the European Court of Justice. The article also allows the Commission to ask the Court to impose a financial penalty on the Member State concerned.

For current statistics on infringements in general see:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/droit_com/index_en.htm#infractions ;

^{(1) Decision of the European Council in Göteburg in June 2001 to halt biodiversity decline within the EU by 2010}

^{(2) Council Directive 76/464/EEC on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community}

^{(3) Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds}

^{(4) Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna}