# C_2005106EN.01004101.xml

| 30.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/41

---

Action brought on 21 February 2005 by the Compagnie d'entreprises C.F.E. against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-100/05)

(2005/C 106/82)

Language of the Case: French

An action was brought on 21 February 2005 against the Commission of the European Communities by the Compagnie d'entreprises C.F.E., whose registered office is in Brussels, represented by Bernard Louveaux and Joël van Ypersele, avocats.

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

| — | annul Commission Decision of 7 December 2004 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region (2004/813/EC) published in the Official Journal of the European Communities of 29 December 2004, in its entirety or at least to the extent to which it classified as a site of Community importance the applicant's property situate at Avenue de la Foresterie, Watermael-Boitsfort (Belgium) and registered in the land register under section F No 66/Y/2 and 66/S/2; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision of 7 December 2004 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region (2004/813/EC) published in the Official Journal of the European Communities of 29 December 2004, in its entirety or at least to the extent to which it classified as a site of Community importance the applicant's property situate at Avenue de la Foresterie, Watermael-Boitsfort (Belgium) and registered in the land register under section F No 66/Y/2 and 66/S/2;

Official Journal of the European Communities

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas and main arguments

The applicant in the present case is the owner of a major share of building land situate in the region of Brussels-Capital. That land has been classified by the contested decision as a site of Community importance.

In support of its claims the applicant pleads:

| — | Infringement of Article 4(1) and (2) of Annex III to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, inasmuch as the Commission took the decision at issue even though no draft list of sites of Community importance had been duly proposed by Belgium; the author of the proposal in that regard, the Brussels Institute for the management of the environment is manifestly not competent to formulate such proposal. Consequently, the contested decision is vitiated by lack of competence. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 4(1) and (2) of Annex III to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, inasmuch as the Commission took the decision at issue even though no draft list of sites of Community importance had been duly proposed by Belgium; the author of the proposal in that regard, the Brussels Institute for the management of the environment is manifestly not competent to formulate such proposal. Consequently, the contested decision is vitiated by lack of competence.

| — | Infringement of Articles 4(2) and (3), 20 and 21 of Directive 92/43 aforesaid, Articles 5(2) and 7(1) of Council Decision 999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission, Article 8 of the rules of procedure of the ‘habitats’ committee, Article 9 of the standard rules of procedure adopted in Decision 2001/C 38/03 under Article 7(1) aforesaid, as well as the general principles of sound administration and audi alteram partem. In that regard the applicant asserts that the opinion of the habitats committee was not sought in accordance with the ordinary procedure applicable in that regard but under the procedure for a written procedure, even though there was no apparent need for recourse to that procedure, recourse thereto did not form the subject-matter of a reasoned opinion and the habitats committee was not enabled to express its views on all the technical aspects of the file. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 4(2) and (3), 20 and 21 of Directive 92/43 aforesaid, Articles 5(2) and 7(1) of Council Decision 999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission, Article 8 of the rules of procedure of the ‘habitats’ committee, Article 9 of the standard rules of procedure adopted in Decision 2001/C 38/03 under Article 7(1) aforesaid, as well as the general principles of sound administration and audi alteram partem. In that regard the applicant asserts that the opinion of the habitats committee was not sought in accordance with the ordinary procedure applicable in that regard but under the procedure for a written procedure, even though there was no apparent need for recourse to that procedure, recourse thereto did not form the subject-matter of a reasoned opinion and the habitats committee was not enabled to express its views on all the technical aspects of the file.

audi alteram partem

| — | The Commission adopted its decision on the basis of a proposal for a list of sites founded on factual information which was inaccurate and/or irrelevant in light of the criteria laid down in Annex III to Directive 92/43/EEC. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission adopted its decision on the basis of a proposal for a list of sites founded on factual information which was inaccurate and/or irrelevant in light of the criteria laid down in Annex III to Directive 92/43/EEC.

---