Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2013:420
Date: 2013-06-20
Language of the case: Italian
Subject matter: Environment
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 3 April 2014 1. Environment — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Directive 92/43 — Sites of Community importance — Declassification of a site in the list of relevant sites — Application by the owner of land included in that site — Duty of the competent national authorities to propose declassification of the site to the Commission — Conditions (Council Directive 92/43, Arts 4, 6(2) to (4), 9 and 11) 2. Environment — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Directive 92/43 — Sites of Community importance — Power to propose the adaptation of the list of sites concerned — National legislation attributing that power solely to regional or local authorities — Lawfulness — Condition (Art. 288, third para., TFEU; Council Directive 92/43, Arts 4(1), 9 and 11) 3. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — General or hypothetical questions — Abstract or purely hypothetical question as regards the subject-matter of the dispute — Inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU) 1. Articles 4(1), 9 and 11 of Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as meaning that the competent authorities of the Member States are required to propose to the Commission the declassification of a site on the list of sites of Community importance, where those authorities have received a request from the owner of land included in that site, alleging an environmental degradation of the site, provided that that request is based on the fact that, despite compliance with the provisions of Article 6(2) to (4) of that directive, that site can definitively no longer contribute to the conservation of natural habitats and of the wild fauna and flora or the setting up of the Natura 2000 network. Thus, when a site on the list of Sites of Community Interest is definitively no longer capable of contributing to the achievement of the objectives of Directive 92/43 and, accordingly, it is no longer warranted for the site to remain subject to the provisions of that directive, the Member State concerned is required to propose to the Commission that the site be declassified. That obligation is all the greater when that site includes land belonging to an owner whose exercise of his right to property is restricted as a result of that listing, when continuing to restrict the use of that site might be an infringement of the right to property. However, not all degradation of a site on the list of Sites of Community Importance justifies its declassification. The competent national authorities are required to propose the declassification of a site only where, despite compliance with the obligations laid down in Directive 92/43, that site has become irretrievably unsuitable to meet the objectives of that directive. (see paras 28, 29, 31, 35, 36, operative part 1) 2. Articles 4(1), 9 and 11 of Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which a power is conferred on the regional and local authorities alone to propose the adaptation of the list of the sites of Community importance, but not on the State, even to act in lieu of the regional or local authorities in the event that they fail to act, provided that that allocation of power does not prevent the proper application of the provisions of that directive. In the absence of any stipulation in Directive 92/43 as regards the methods for the allocation in domestic law of the power to propose the adaptation of the list of Sites of Community Interest, EU law, more particularly the third paragraph of Article 288 TFEU, requires only that the transposition into domestic law of that directive, including the designation of competent national authorities tasked with meeting the obligations under that directive, actually ensure the full application of its provisions in a sufficiently clear and precise manner. (see paras 39-41, 44, operative part 2) 3. See the text of the decision. (see paras 45-48)