Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2005:770
Date: 2005-12-15
Language of the case: Finnish
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Environment
Concepts: Environment
Procedure: Action for failure to fulfil obligations - successful;Action for failure to fulfil obligations - unfounded
Origin: Finland

Summary of the Judgment 1. Environment – Conservation of wild birds – Directive 79/409 – Dates of opening and closing of the hunting season – Exceptions – Conditions – No other satisfactory solution – Condition not satisfied when exception coincides, without need, with periods of particular protection provided for by the Directive (Council Directive 79/409, Art. 7(4) and 9(1)(c)) 2. Environment – Conservation of wild birds – Directive 79/409 – Dates of opening and closing of the hunting season – Exceptions – Conditions – No other satisfactory solution – Condition not satisfied when hunting during sensitive period of other species present in the geographical areas in question is authorised (Council Directive 79/409, Art. 7(4)) 1. Article 9(1)(c) of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, permits authorisation by way of derogation, in compliance with the conditions set out in that provision, of the hunting of the species listed in Annex II thereto during the periods of particular protection referred to in Article 7(4). The conditions which must be met for such hunting to be authorised include the absence of any other satisfactory solution. That condition cannot be considered to have been satisfied when the hunting season under a derogation coincides, without need, with periods in which the Directive aims to provide particular protection. There would be no such need, in particular, if the sole purpose of the derogation authorising hunting were to extend the hunting seasons for certain species of birds in territories which they already frequent during the hunting seasons fixed in accordance with Article 7 of the Directive. (see paras 31-33) 2. A measure consisting in authorising the hunting during the periods of particular protection referred to in Article 7(4) of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, or during other periods of the year, of other species present in the geographical areas in question, cannot be regarded as another satisfactory solution within the meaning of Article 9(1)(c) of that directive, which provides for the possibility for the Member States to make derogations from the prohibition on hunting the protected species during those periods of particular protection, subject to the specific condition that there are no other satisfactory solutions. Such a solution would risk rendering that provision nugatory, at least partially, because it would allow in certain territories for prohibitions on hunting certain species of birds, even though hunting in small numbers might, in theory, not jeopardise the maintenance of their populations at a satisfactory level and, therefore, constitute judicious use of those species. Moreover, unless all bird species are considered to be equivalent for the purposes of hunting, that solution would, in any event, be a source of legal uncertainty, because the basis on which it may be considered that the hunting of a given species can replace the hunting of another species is not clear from the applicable legislation. (see para. 44)