# C_2021452EN.01000502.xml

| 8.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 452/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 452/5

---

Action brought on 15 July 2021 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-432/21)

(2021/C 452/05)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes, G. Gattinara and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations:






  — | under Article 6(1) and (2), Article 12(1)(a) to (d), Article 13(1)(a) and Article 16(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, (1) as well as Article 4(1), Article 5(a), (b) and (d) and Article 9(1) of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds, (2) since it has introduced into the national system provisions according to which forest management based on good practice does not infringe any provisions relating to the conservation of nature under the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive;
  and |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

declare that the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations:

—

under Article 6(1) and (2), Article 12(1)(a) to (d), Article 13(1)(a) and Article 16(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, (1) as well as Article 4(1), Article 5(a), (b) and (d) and Article 9(1) of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds, (2) since it has introduced into the national system provisions according to which forest management based on good practice does not infringe any provisions relating to the conservation of nature under the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive;

and

| — | under Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, read in conjunction with the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, Article 216(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as Article 6(1)(b) and Article 9(2) of the Aarhus Convention of 25 June 1998 in respect of access to information concerning the environment, since it has ruled out the possibility of environmental organisations challenging forest management plans before a court; |
| --- | --- |

—

under Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, read in conjunction with the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, Article 216(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as Article 6(1)(b) and Article 9(2) of the Aarhus Convention of 25 June 1998 in respect of access to information concerning the environment, since it has ruled out the possibility of environmental organisations challenging forest management plans before a court;

| — | order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the Commission, Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from the provisions of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (‘the Habitats Directive’), European Parliament and Council Directive 2009/147/EC (‘the Birds Directive’), and the Aarhus Convention.

In its first plea in law, the Commission submits that the introduction, in 2016, of the provision Article 14b(3) to the ustawa o lasach (Law on Forests) of 1991, according to which forest management based on good practice requirements does not infringe any provisions concerning the conservation of nature, amounts to incorrect transposition of those directives, since that provision disregards the obligation to establish rigorous systems for the protection of animal species and the obligation to conserve wild birds laid down therein. That new wording of the provision Article 14b(3) of the Law on Forests introduces a significant derogation from the provisions of those directives and creates no more than a legal illusion of compatibility with the obligations to protect species of wildlife laid down in Articles 12 and 13 of the Habitats Directive and Articles 5 and 9 of the Birds Directive. Furthermore, Article 6(1) of the Habitats Directive and Article 4(1) of the Birds Directive require the adoption of conservation measures for specific areas. The application of Article 14b(3) of the Law on Forests means that it is no longer necessary to adopt and implement conservation measures in Poland in relation to those specific areas.

In its second plea in law, the Commission submits that there is no guaranteed possibility for environmental organisations to challenge the decisions of the Minister for the Environment whereby forest management plans are approved, which is incompatible with the provisions of the Aarhus Convention. Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, read in conjunction with Article 9(2) of the Aarhus Convention, requires that decisions concerning plans and projects within the meaning of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive be capable of being challenged by environmental organisations before a court.

---

(1)  OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.

(2)  OJ 2010 L 20, p. 7.

---