# C_2005143EN.01004201.xml

| 11.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/42

---

Action brought on 18 April 2005 by Markku Sahlstedt, Juha Kankkunen, Mikko Tanner, Toini Tanner, Liisa Tanner, Eeva Jokinen, Aili Oksanen, Olli Tanner, Leena Tanner, Aila Puttonen, Risto Tanner, Tom Järvinen, Runo K. Kurko, Maa- ja metsätaloustuottajain keskusliitto MTK ry and MTK:n säätiö against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-150/05)

(2005/C 143/78)

Language of the case: Finnish

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 April 2005 by Markku Sahlstedt, Juha Kankkunen, Mikko Tanner, Toini Tanner, Liisa Tanner, Eeva Jokinen, Aili Oksanen, Olli Tanner, Leena Tanner, Aila Puttonen, Risto Tanner, Tom Järvinen, Runo K. Kurko, Maa- ja metsätaloustuottajain keskusliitto MTK ry and MTK:n säätiö, represented by Kari Marttinen, lawyer.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision (1) in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision (1) in its entirety;

1

| — | in the alternative, if it does not regard that as possible, annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns all the sites in the Republic of Finland included in the decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, if it does not regard that as possible, annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns all the sites in the Republic of Finland included in the decision;

| — | in the further alternative, if it does not regard that as possible either, annul the decision as regards the sites specified in part 6.2.2.7; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative, if it does not regard that as possible either, annul the decision as regards the sites specified in part 6.2.2.7;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs in full with statutory interest. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs in full with statutory interest.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the applicants, the decision is contrary to Community law, in particular Article 4 of the Nature Directive and Annex III referred to there. The argument that the decision is contrary to Community law rests on three principal pleas in law:

| (a) | Under Article 3 of the nature directive, the Natura 2000 network is a coherent European network of protected sites. The coherence of the network is ensured and the objective of a favourable level of protection attained by the fact that Article 4 of and Annex III to the directive, concerning the choice of sites, are binding on both the Member States and the Commission. Sites may not be chosen without complying with those provisions and not by preliminary decisions or partial decisions. The sites are to be chosen by uniform criteria for all Member States; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Under Article 3 of the nature directive, the Natura 2000 network is a coherent European network of protected sites. The coherence of the network is ensured and the objective of a favourable level of protection attained by the fact that Article 4 of and Annex III to the directive, concerning the choice of sites, are binding on both the Member States and the Commission. Sites may not be chosen without complying with those provisions and not by preliminary decisions or partial decisions. The sites are to be chosen by uniform criteria for all Member States;

| (b) | Stages 1 (the Member State stage) and 2 (the Commission stage) of Annex III form a whole which consists of measures having legal effect. The procedure in stage 2 and the decision on sites of Community importance are not in accordance with the directive if the proposal in stage 1 does not fulfil the requirements of the directive; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Stages 1 (the Member State stage) and 2 (the Commission stage) of Annex III form a whole which consists of measures having legal effect. The procedure in stage 2 and the decision on sites of Community importance are not in accordance with the directive if the proposal in stage 1 does not fulfil the requirements of the directive;

| (c) | The Commission must in connection with stage 2, together with the Member States, coordinate the proposals of the Member States and make changes to the boundaries concerning each biogeographical region, as a consequence of a more extensive examination than the Member State's as regards the favourable level of protection. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

The Commission must in connection with stage 2, together with the Member States, coordinate the proposals of the Member States and make changes to the boundaries concerning each biogeographical region, as a consequence of a more extensive examination than the Member State's as regards the favourable level of protection.

Finland's stage 1 proposal of sites, from which the sites of Community importance were chosen by the Commission decision in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 4(2) of the directive, is contrary to the nature directive's mandatory selection criteria for the choice of sites.

The Commission is obliged to ensure that the sites included in the Member State's proposal satisfy the biogeographical requirements required for the inclusion of sites in the decision to be made after stage 2. The Commission thus may not, without a proper examination of the biogeographical data, approve a proposed site for entry in the list of sites of Community importance.

---

(1)  Commission Decision 2005/101/EC of 13 January 2005 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Boreal biogeographical region, OJ L 40, 11.2.2005, p. 1.

1

---