# C_2005143EN.01003601.xml

| 11.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/36

---

Action brought on 17 February 2005 by Hinrich Bavendam and others against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-80/05)

(2005/C 143/69)

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 17 February 2005 by Hinrich Bavendam, Bremen (Germany), Günther Früchtnicht, Bremen (Germany), Hinrich Geerken, Bremen (Germany), Hans-Jürgen Weyhausen-Brinkmann, Bremen (Germany), Curt-Hildebrand v. Einsiedel, Leipzig (Germany), Christina Gräfin von Schall-Riaucour, Ahlen-Vorhelm (Germany), Franz-Albrecht Metternich-Sandor, Prinz von Ratibor and Corvey, Höxter (Germany), Christoph Prinz zu Schleswig-Holstein, Thumby (Germany) and the town of Schloß Holte-Stukenbrock (Germany), represented by T. Giesen, lawyer.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission's Decision of 7 December 2004 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1), the list of sites of Community importance for:






  1. | the Continental biogeographical region |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission's Decision of 7 December 2004 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1), the list of sites of Community importance for:

1

1.

the Continental biogeographical region

| 2. | the Atlantic biogeographical region |
| --- | --- |

2.

the Atlantic biogeographical region

(notified under documents numbers C(2004) 4031 and C(2004) 4032) insofar as it concerns the property or territorial sovereignty of the applicants;

| — | 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 either proprietors of entire sites or of large parts of sites declared by the contested decision to be sites of Community importance, which, the applicants submit, restricts their property rights.

The applicants submit that the selection criteria used for adding to the list of sites of Community importance were not met since the habitat types and species decisive to the selection are either not to be found at all or are not sufficiently representative.

The applicants contend further that:

| — | essential procedural requirements under Article 6(2), (3) and (4) or under Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC were infringed, |
| --- | --- |

—

essential procedural requirements under Article 6(2), (3) and (4) or under Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC were infringed,

| — | the Treaty was infringed as the selection decision which formed the basis of the listing at national level was already erroneous, |
| --- | --- |

—

the Treaty was infringed as the selection decision which formed the basis of the listing at national level was already erroneous,

| — | the Commission abused its discretion in adding all of the sites put forward by the Federal Republic of Germany to the list without exception. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission abused its discretion in adding all of the sites put forward by the Federal Republic of Germany to the list without exception.

---

(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

---