# C_2005143EN.01003702.xml

| 11.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/37

---

Action brought on 9 March 2005 by Andreas Rodenbröker and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-117/05)

(2005/C 143/71)

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 9 March 2005 by Andreas Rodenbröker, Hövelhof (Germany), and Others, represented by H. Glatzel, lawyer.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Commission of 7 December 2004 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, (1) the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region as regards the listing of sites:






  — | DE 4117-301 ‘Sennebäche’ |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Commission of 7 December 2004 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, (1) the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region as regards the listing of sites:

1

—

DE 4117-301 ‘Sennebäche’

| — | DE 4118-301 ‘Senne mit Stapellager Senne’ |
| --- | --- |

—

DE 4118-301 ‘Senne mit Stapellager Senne’

| — | DE 4118-401 ‘Vogelschutzgebiet Senne mit Teutoburger Wald’ and |
| --- | --- |

—

DE 4118-401 ‘Vogelschutzgebiet Senne mit Teutoburger Wald’ and

| — | DE 4118-302 ‘Holter Wald’ |
| --- | --- |

—

DE 4118-302 ‘Holter Wald’

insofar as areas belonging to the applicants, areas leased (leasehold) by them or areas subject to their planning authority are affected;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants are proprietors of sites which, under the contested decision, have been included on the Community list of sites of Community importance on the basis of the presence of the habitat types and species deemed worthy of protection under the Flora-Fauna-Habitat Directive.

The applicants submit:

| — | that their property rights freely to exploit their land as they wish have been significantly restricted by the contested decision, and |
| --- | --- |

—

that their property rights freely to exploit their land as they wish have been significantly restricted by the contested decision, and

| — | that this intervention is unlawful as it infringes procedural requirements and involves misuse of power since the purported habitat types and animal species deemed worthy of protection are not to be found at all or, in any case, not to the required degree of representativity or population size as required under the criteria in Annex III to the Flora-Fauna-Habitat Directive. |
| --- | --- |

—

that this intervention is unlawful as it infringes procedural requirements and involves misuse of power since the purported habitat types and animal species deemed worthy of protection are not to be found at all or, in any case, not to the required degree of representativity or population size as required under the criteria in Annex III to the Flora-Fauna-Habitat Directive.

---

(1)  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).

1

---