# C_2004146EN.01000602.xml

| 29.5.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/6

---

Action brought on 13 April 2004 by K.M. Mayer, Tilly Forstbetriebe GesmbH, A. Volpini de Maestri and J. Volpini de Maestri against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-137/04)

(2004/C 146/09)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 13 April 2004 by K.M. Mayer, Eisentratten (Austria), Tilly Forstbetriebe GesmbH, Treibach (Austria), A. Volpini de Maestri, Spittal/Drau (Austria), and J. Volpini de Maestri, Seeboden (Austria), represented by M. Schaffgotsch, lawyer.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the entire contested decision of the Commission; or, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the entire contested decision of the Commission; or,

should that form of order not be granted, in the alternative,

| — | annul the contested decision in respect of all Austrian sites of Community importance (Code AT in Annex I to the contested decision); or, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in respect of all Austrian sites of Community importance (Code AT in Annex I to the contested decision); or,

should that form of order not be granted, in the alternative,

| — | (a) | annul the contested decision of the Commission insofar as it includes site AT 2102000 ‘Nockberge’ and |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

(a)

annul the contested decision of the Commission insofar as it includes site AT 2102000 ‘Nockberge’ and

| (b) | annul the contested decision of the Commission insofar as it includes site AT 2119000 ‘Gut Walterskirchen’; or, |
| --- | --- |

(b)

annul the contested decision of the Commission insofar as it includes site AT 2119000 ‘Gut Walterskirchen’; or,

should that form of order not be granted, in the alternative,

| — | annul the contested decision insofar as it includes sites declared in Annex I to be sites of Community importance for habitats and species which, in the standard data forms submitted by the Member States, were awarded a degree of representativity and a global assessment grade of B, C and D (or, in the alternative, C and D, or, in the further alternative, C), with regard to






  (a) | all sites listed in the contested decision (see Annex I), or |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision insofar as it includes sites declared in Annex I to be sites of Community importance for habitats and species which, in the standard data forms submitted by the Member States, were awarded a degree of representativity and a global assessment grade of B, C and D (or, in the alternative, C and D, or, in the further alternative, C), with regard to

(a)

all sites listed in the contested decision (see Annex I), or

| (b) | all Austrian sites (Code AT in Annex I), or |
| --- | --- |

(b)

all Austrian sites (Code AT in Annex I), or

| (c) | merely the sites AT 2102000 ‘Nockberge’ and AT 2119000 ‘Gut Walterskirchen’; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

merely the sites AT 2102000 ‘Nockberge’ and AT 2119000 ‘Gut Walterskirchen’;

| — | in any event, however, order the Commission to pay the costs to the authorised representative of the applicants. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, however, order the Commission to pay the costs to the authorised representative of the applicants.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicants' action challenges Commission Decision of 22 December 2003 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Alpine biogeographical region. (1) The applicants are farmers and foresters who operate agricultural and forestry businesses, including ancillary businesses, on their properties, which are located in areas declared in the contested decision to be ‘sites of Community importance’ (SCI). The applicants submit that, by the Decision, they have been made addressees of rules of Community law. The Decision interferes with the applicants' right to land ownership – which is to be protected in accordance with the constitutional tradition of Community law – automatically, without there having been any balancing of interests, without exception and without appropriate compensation (or even mere provision for compensation) and to an extent much greater that which may be necessary on account of any social obligation. This constitutes an infringement of the Treaty within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 230 EC, with the result that the contested decision must be annulled.

1

The applicants argue that the contested decision is also inconsistent with the very Directive on which it is based. (2) The criteria necessary for determining the required financing were not properly drawn up and the coherence of the conservation-area network required under the Directive is not guaranteed.

2

Moreover, the applicants claim that the Commission failed in the contested decision to make expressly the required statements specifying the species and habitats for which the sites now listed by it as ‘SCIs’ are actually of Community importance. Finally, the applicants submit that, in respect of the conservation areas affecting them, the content of the decision is based on erroneous technical information. The sites were thus wrongly declared SCIs in respect of particular species and habitats and the contested decision must be annulled for this reason also.

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 14, p. 21.

1

(2)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).

2

---