Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2007:386
Date: 2007-06-28
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Environment
Concepts: General;Environment
Procedure: Action for failure to fulfil obligations - successful;Action for failure to fulfil obligations - inadmissible
Origin: Spain

summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based does not meet the requirements of Article 38(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure. The summary required under this provision must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to rule on the application. It is therefore necessary for the basic legal and factual particulars on which a case is based to be indicated coherently and intelligibly in the application itself. (64) In relation to SPAs within IBAs in the abovementioned autonomous communities, it is unclear, on account of this contradiction in the application, whether the Commission is actually raising the complaint. Therefore, neither an appropriate defence nor an assessment by the Court is possible. 96. Therefore, the application is inadmissible in this regard. This deficiency concerns the SPAs in the Autonomous Communities of Castilla-La Mancha, Catalonia, Valencia and Galicia which were classified at the time the action was brought and which were notified to the Commission. 97. Therefore, the complaint that certain areas of an insufficient size were classified as SPAs needs to be further examined only in relation to Andalusia, the Balearics and the Canaries. D – The individual autonomous communities 98. Finally, both parties make further submissions regarding the individual communities. These submissions must be examined in connection with the relevant region. 1. Andalusia 99. On the basis of a comparison between the IBA 98 and the classifications in Andalusia, the Commission submits that upon the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion 37 of 60 IBAs were not covered at all by SPAs, that the 22 areas classified as SPAs only partially matched 23 IBAs, and that various species were covered to only an inadequate degree, in particular the Spanish imperial eagle (Aquila adalberti), the black stork (Ciconia nigra), the red-knobbed coot (Fulica cristata), the marbled teal (Marmaronetta angustirostris), the lesser kestrel, the purple gallinule (Porphyrio porphyrio), Audouin’s Gull (Larus audouinii), the little bustard (Tetrax tetrax), the great bustard (Otis tarda), Montagu’s harrier (Circus pygargus) and Bonelli’s eagle (Hieraaetus fasciatus). The classified area of around one million hectares is equivalent to only around one third of the areas covered by the IBAs. 100. Spain does not contest this complaint. Therefore, it must be deemed to have been accepted. Consequently, the form of order sought in respect of Andalusia should be granted in full. 2. The Balearics 101. Forty areas covering 121 015 hectares in the Balearics had been classified as SPAs at the material time. However, the 20 IBAs covering 131 243 hectares were only 54% covered. In particular, the Commission complained that the red kite (Milvus milvus) was covered to only an inadequate degree. 102. Spain objects that the areas identified in the IBA 98 are of no use on account of the 1:2 500 000 scale and are, moreover, obsolete, but recognises that the red kite must be covered better in SPAs and to this end has classified new areas as SPAs as part of a species conservation plan and drawn new boundaries around existing SPAs in such a way that 70% of the species is covered. 103. Therefore, in principle, Spain has accepted the Commission’s complaints also in respect of the Balearics. It is not possible to assess whether or not the new findings of the competent authorities actually undermine the evidential value of the IBA 98, since these findings have not been presented to the Court. 104. Consequently, the form of order sought in respect of the Balearics should be granted in full. 3. The Canaries 105. Twenty-eight areas covering 211 598 hectares in the Canaries had been classified at the material time – and, it must be answered, are so classified at present. They cover around 59.5% of the 65 IBAs and extend to 133 443 hectares. Twenty-three IBAs are not covered at all, and some of the remaining IBAs are only partially covered. The Commission highlights in particular the inadequate coverage of the following species: the Houbara (Chlamydotis undulata), the Egyptian vulture (Neophron percnopterus), the Fuerteventura chat (Saxicola dacotiae), the cream-coloured courser (Cursorius cursor) and the Bulwer’s petrel (Bulweria bulwerii). 106. Spain recognises that further areas must be classified as SPAs and certain SPAs must be extended. However, the competent authorities will not approve all IBAs in their entirety on a scientific basis. In support of this submission, the Spanish Government submitted with its defence a detailed study of the Canaries’ IBAs not yet fully covered, which sets out the ornithological considerations on the basis of which IBAs should or should not be classified as SPAs. (65) The Commission has not challenged this study. Therefore, the content thereof must be deemed to have been accepted and constitutes, in comparison with the IBA 98, more up-to-date and precise evidence of the failures to classify which exist. Consequently, the complaint relating to the inadequacy of areas classified as SPAs should be retained only in so far as areas must be classified as SPAs or SPAs must be extended in accordance with the Canaries study. 107. Subject to that qualification, the form of order sought in respect of the Canaries should therefore also be granted. 4. Castilla-La Mancha 108. In the case of Castilla-La Mancha too, the Commission compares the areas classified as SPAs with the data in the IBA 98. Ten of 39 IBAs covering 261 000 hectares are not covered at all, whilst the rest are covered only 32.3% overall. The lesser kestrel and little bustard in particular are not yet covered adequately. 109. As already stated, the complaint regarding the boundaries of SPAs within IBAs is inadmissible. (66) On the other hand, as regards the 10 IBAs not covered at all by SPAs, Spain has since acknowledged in three cases that classification is necessary and has probably since also carried out such classification. (67) It is not possible to assess whether the boundaries which differ from the IBA 98 are based on ornithological grounds in each case as Spain has provided no details in this regard. Seven IBAs, however, remain at issue. 110. Spain rejects the idea of classifying areas as SPAs in respect of five of these IBAs, since only small sections are located in the territory of Castilla-La Mancha. It claims that these sections have no independent ornithological value and therefore do not need to be classified as SPAs. 111. However, that submission cannot be accepted. The fact that an area most suitable for the conservation of particular species extends over the territory of various regions does not justify excluding certain sections thereof. If those sections form an integral part of the area as a whole, they must also be classified as SPAs, since otherwise measures adversely affecting the area as a whole could be taken in an uncontrolled manner. Furthermore, the Commission submits, without being challenged, that species listed in Annex I breed in at least two of the abovementioned sections, that is to say, the globally threatened imperial eagle, the black stork, Bonelli’s eagle, the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), the Eurasian griffon (Gyps fulvus), the Griffon vulture and the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus). 112. In relation to the IBA No 185, ‘San Clemente-Villarrobledo’, Spain objects that its area of 103 000 hectares makes it too large. The covered populations of lesser kestrel, great bustard, pin-tailed sandgrouse (Pterocles alchata) and little bustard are comparatively small. 113. This submission cannot be accepted, because the area was included in the IBA 98 not only because it was one of the top five areas, but also because it supported significant populations of species which are threatened globally and in Europe. Therefore, the objections could possibly justify different boundaries but not the complete failure to classify the area as an SPA. 114. During the course of the proceedings before the Court, Spain accordingly classified an area as an SPA of the same name which covers at least 10 677.81 hectares and in doing so basically acknowledged that IBA No 185 also had to be classified. It is not possible to assess whether or not the demarcation of the boundaries is correct in ornithological terms, since Spain has put forward no grounds in support of it. 115. Finally, Spain refuses to classify IBA No 199 ‘Torrijos’ covering 28 600 hectares, on the ground that the population of 150 to 200 great bustards is insubstantial in comparison with the overall population of the autonomous community of around 3 000. However, in this respect the European importance of this presence of a globally threatened species must be emphasised. It exceeds by far the threshold for a significant population, namely 50 birds, which has already been increased for Spain. In addition, the IBA 98 also lists a significant presence of the equally globally threatened little bustard, namely 1 200 birds, whilst the threshold value is 200 birds. The classification of this area would therefore appear to be necessary. 116. In so far as the Commission complains of the deficiencies, in the light of the IBA 98, regarding the conservation of the lesser kestrel and the little bustard, it is clear from the foregoing that further areas must be classified as SPAs in respect of both species. 117. Precisely in view of the threat to the little bustard, Spain likewise cannot successfully rely on the difficulties which result from the bird’s great mobility, its minimal attachment to particular locations, its different habitat requirements during different seasons and the lack of precise population estimates. Spain must deal with these difficulties by means of further research and the classification of sufficiently large areas with correspondingly flexible management, since otherwise there must be a concern that this species will become extinct. 118. The view that colonies of the lesser kestrel within urban areas cannot be classified as SPAs is also incorrect. If lesser kestrels rely on these habitats, their protection by classification of an area is required precisely at that place. That is the only way of ensuring that urban development, for example, does not drive out the lesser kestrel. Nor does the promotion of urban development make it possible not to classify areas since, as is known, it is not possible to cite economic and social reasons for failing to do so. If such considerations were to override the interest in protecting the lesser kestrel, they would have to be implemented under Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive, that is to say, where no alternative solutions exist and with the adoption of the required compensatory measures. 119. Consequently, Spain’s objections to the IBAs in Castilla-La Mancha which are still not covered at all by SPAs must be rejected in their entirety. The form of order sought by the Commission in this regard should be granted. 5. Catalonia 120. In relation to Catalonia too, the Commission compares the IBA 98 with the actual classifications and concludes that 10 of 21 IBAs are not covered at all and the remainder are only partially covered and therefore that some of the 62 species of bird listed in Annex I which breed in Catalonia are protected in SPAs to only an inadequate degree, namely the lesser grey shrike (Lanius minor), the capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus), the shag (Phalacrocorax aristotelis), the little bustard, the Calandra lark (Melanocorypha calandra), the Dupont’s lark (Chersophilus duponti), the European roller (Coracias garrulus), the short-toed lark (Calandrella brachydactyla) and the collared pratincole (Glareola pratincola). 121. As already stated, the complaint regarding the boundaries of SPAs within IBAs is inadmissible. (68) In respect of the remaining 10 IBAs which are not covered at all by SPAs, the IBA 98 does not list the lesser grey shrike, the capercaillie, the Dupont’s lark, or the collared pratincole. Therefore, it has not been established that the classification of areas is inadequate in respect of these species. 122. Furthermore, Spain disputes the admissibility of the action in relation to the listed species of bird on the ground that it is unclear in respect of which species further areas should have been classified as SPAs. The Commission names 62 species listed in Annex I, whilst 73 species must be protected under Catalan law. Moreover, the Commission did not always refer to the same species during the course of the pre-litigation procedure. 123. This objection must, however, be rejected. Firstly, Spain misunderstands the reference to species of birds. Although the Commission puts the number of species listed in Annex I in respect of Catalonia at 62, it provides evidence of classification shortcomings only in respect of the species specifically mentioned above. Those species at least implicitly formed the subject-matter of the pre-litigation proceedings, since the Commission always cited the IBA 98 and the species mentioned result from the differences between the IBA 98 and the SPAs in Catalonia. 124. Secondly, Spain submits that some of the IBAs have already been proposed as sites of Community importance in connection with the Habitats Directive. However, seen from a legal perspective, such proposals cannot substitute for deficiencies in the classification of areas as SPAs, since the classification of areas as SPAs is based on Article 4 of the Birds Directive, whereas proposals for sites are based on Article 4 of the Habitats Directive, that is to say, on different rules with different legal consequences. 125. In its rejoinder, Spain pleads that most of the habitats which have not yet been classified as SPAs are protected as part of the plan for sites of natural interest or as specially protected nature areas under regional law. Irrespective of whether or not such protection satisfies SPA protection requirements, it does not justify the failure to classify an area as an SPA. Article 4(1) and (2) of the Birds Directive requires classification so that the areas referred to in Article 4(3) can be incorporated into a European network. Within this network, the quality of the protection is safeguarded by European rules. Therefore, the Court has already ruled that it is not possible to avoid the obligation to designate areas as SPAs by adopting other measures. (69) Purely national protection categories would also constitute such other measures which cannot be a substitute for classification. (70) 126. Finally, in its rejoinder Spain takes a scientific approach to the IBA 98 for the first time in respect of Catalonia. It compares the IBA 98 data on the presence of species in IBAs with the data on the relevant overall population in Catalonia provided by an atlas of breeding birds based on observations in the period from 1999 to 2002. However, these figures are comparable to only a limited degree, since the overall populations of the species in Catalonia as a whole will normally be greater than the populations in the IBAs. 127. Accordingly, the more recent data show only in the case of four species of relevance to IBAs still at issue in this case that the figures in the IBA 98 are higher than the subsequent observations, namely in respect of the Calcamar storm petrel (Hydrobates pelagicus), with 0 to 10 pairs instead of 5 to 15, the great bittern (Botaurus stellaris), with 1 to 5 pairs instead of 8 to 11, Montagu’s harrier, with 5 to 10 pairs instead of 15 to 20, and the black-bellied sandgrouse (Pterocles orientalis), with 5 to 10 pairs instead of 10 pairs. It does not therefore follow that the data basis for the IBA 98 was inadequate but at most that these species, which are already very rare in Catalonia, are on the verge of disappearing and therefore require special protection. 128. In addition, the overall populations of the species represented in the 10 IBAs still at issue in this case are higher than the IBA populations. In some cases, only a fraction of the overall population is covered in IBAs, for example in the case of the kingfisher (Alcedo atthis), of which 20 to 30 pairs are present in IBAs but have a population of 1 009 to 1 420 pairs, or in the case of the Thekla lark (Galerida theklae), of which there are 100 to 200 pairs within the IBAs compared with a population of 7 300 to 18 400 pairs. Therefore, this comparison does not show that there is no need to classify further areas, but rather indicates that areas beyond the IBA 98 must be classified. 129. Spain also presents a table showing the coverage of the species in the SPAs. Spain points out that the SPAs in Catalonia in certain cases cover larger sections of the population than the IBA 98. However, Spain also declares that in the case of 16 species it falls short of the coverage by the IBA 98. These species are also represented in 9 of the 10 IBAs still at issue. The final IBA (No 138, ‘Islas Medas’) would, furthermore, make it possible to protect at least two very rare species which have not been previously represented at all in Catalonia’s SPAs, namely the storm petrel and the shag. Therefore, this submission also cannot invalidate the Commission’s argument. 130. Accordingly, Spain has been unable to rebut the Commission’s complaints regarding the IBAs not yet covered at all by SPAs in Catalonia. The form of order sought by the Commission in this respect should be granted. 6. Galicia 131. In relation to Galicia, the Commission states that 3 of 11 IBAs have not been classified as SPAs and some of the others have been only partially classified. In total, only 10% of the areas included in IBAs are SPAs. Therefore, the great bittern, Montagu’s harrier, Bonelli’s eagle, the capercaillie, the little bustard, the honey buzzard (Pernis apivorus) and the Iberian subspecies of the partridge (Perdix perdix hispaniensis) are protected to only an inadequate degree. 132. As already stated, the complaint regarding the boundaries of SPAs within IBAs is inadmissible. (71) In respect of the three remaining IBAs which are not covered at all by SPAs, the IBA 98 does not list the great bittern, Bonelli’s eagle or the honey buzzard. Therefore, there is no evidence that the classification of areas is inadequate in respect of these species. 133. One of the three remaining IBAs has since been designated an SPA as regards 86% of the site and the two others are to be partially designated as SPAs on the basis of studies which have since been carried out. Therefore, Spain has accepted the remaining Commission criticism in principle and has not substantively disputed the boundaries of the IBAs. Therefore, the form of order sought in relation to the IBAs in Galicia which are still not covered at all by SPAs should be granted. 7. Valencia 134. In relation to Valencia, the Commission refers to 5 of 21 IBAs which are not covered at all by SPAs and states that some of the others are partially unclassified. Therefore, the great bittern, the Squacco heron (Ardeola ralloides), the marbled teal, the white-headed duck (Oxyura leucocephala), Audoin’s gull, Montagu’s harrier and Bonelli’s eagle are not protected adequately in SPAs. 135. As already stated, the complaint relating to the boundaries of SPAs within IBAs is inadmissible. (72) In respect of the remaining five IBAs, which are not covered at all by SPAs, the IBA 98 lists only Bonelli’s eagle. Therefore, there is no evidence that the classification of areas is inadequate in respect of the other species. 136. In respect of Valencia, Spain does not contradict the form of order sought but rather announces the classification of further areas. Therefore, the form of order sought in relation to the IBAs in Valencia which are still not covered at all by SPAs should be granted. E – Conclusion 137. In the Autonomous Communities of Andalusia, the Balearics, the Canaries, Castilla-La Mancha, Catalonia, Galicia and Valencia, Spain has failed to classify territories of a sufficient number as SPAs and to classify certain territories of a sufficient size in the Autonomous Communities of Andalusia, the Balearics and the Canaries. V – Costs 138. Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for by the successful party. In the present case, the Commission withdrew the action in relation to one autonomous community after Spain complied with the Commission’s requests. In this respect, as in respect of the three autonomous communities in relation to which the Commission is entirely successful, Spain should be ordered to pay the costs. 139. On the other hand, in respect of four other autonomous communities, a substantial part of the action must be dismissed. Therefore, the costs should be shared in that regard. 140. Accordingly, Spain should pay three quarters of its own costs and three quarters of the Commission’s costs and the Commission should pay one quarter of Spain’s costs and one quarter of its own costs. VI – Conclusion 141. I therefore propose that the Court should declare that: (1) the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds by failing: – to classify territories of a sufficient number as special protection areas for birds in the Autonomous Communities of Andalusia, the Balearics, the Canaries, Castilla-La Mancha, Catalonia, Galicia and Valencia, and – to classify certain territories of a sufficient size as special protection areas for birds in the Autonomous Communities of Andalusia, the Balearics and the Canaries, in order to provide protection for all the species of birds listed in Annex I to the directive and for the migratory species not mentioned in Annex I; (2) the remainder of the application is dismissed; (3) the Kingdom of Spain is to pay three quarters of its own costs and three quarters of the Commission’s costs. The Commission is to pay one quarter of its own costs and one quarter of the Kingdom of Spain’s costs. 1 – Original language: German. 2 – OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1. 3 – Case C-3/96 Commission v Netherlands [1998] ECR I-3031. 4 – Case C-202/01 Commission v France [2002] ECR I-11019. 5 – Case C-240/00 Commission v Finland [2003] ECR I-2187. 6 – Case C-378/01 Commission v Italy [2003] ECR I-2857. 7 – See my Opinion delivered today in Case C-334/04 Commission v Greece. 8 – See my Opinion delivered today in Case C-418/04 Commission v Ireland. 9 – Commission press release IP/05/45 of 14 January 2005. 10 – Carlota Viada (ed.), Áreas importantes para las aves en España, Madrid, 1998. 11 – OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7. 12 – Figures taken from the Commission’s Natura barometer, as at June 2006, ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/nature_conservation/useful_info/barometer/barometer.htm. 13 – For example, the Court similarly confined to Gibraltar the action brought against the United Kingdom as a whole in Case C-6/04 Commission v United Kingdom [2005] ECR I-9017, paragraph 79, and the fourth indent of paragraph 1 of the operative part. 14 – Commission v Netherlands (cited in footnote 3), paragraph 55 et seq.. 15 – Case C-355/90 Commission v Spain (Santoña Marshes) [1993] ECR I-4221, paragraph 26; Case C-44/95 Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (Lappel Bank) [1996] ECR I-3805, paragraph 26; and Commission v Netherlands (cited in footnote 3), paragraph 59 et seq. 16 – Case C-355/90 Commission v Spain (cited in footnote 15), paragraph 11. 17 – Case C‑173/01 Commission v Greece [2002] ECR I‑6129, paragraph 7; Case C‑114/02 Commission v France [2003] ECR I‑3783, paragraph 9; and Case C‑221/04 Commission v Spain (hunting with snares) [2006] ECR I-4515, paragraph 23. 18 – Case C‑202/01 Commission v France (cited in footnote 4), paragraph 19 et seq.; Commission v Finland (cited in footnote 5), paragraph 28 et seq.; and Case C-378/01 Commission v Italy (cited in footnote 6), paragraph 16. 19 – Case C-57/89 Commission v Germany (Leybucht) [1991] ECR I-883, paragraph 20. 20 – Case C‑202/01Commission v France (cited in footnote 4), paragraph 20. 21 – Commission v Finland (cited in footnote 5), paragraph 31. 22 – Case C-378/01 Commission v Italy (cited in footnote 6), paragraph 17. 23 – Case C-378/01 Commission v Italy (cited in footnote 6), paragraph 18. 24 – The cases against France and Italy have been at the stage of the reasoned opinion under Article 228 EC for over a year (Commission press releases IP/05/29 of 12 January 2005 regarding France and IP/05/56 of 18 January 2005 regarding Italy). However, the Commission is examining at present whether France has since fulfilled its obligations by classifying further areas (Commission press release IP/06/907 of 3 July 2006). 25 – See the Opinion of Advocate General Alber in Case C-202/01 Commission v France (cited in footnote 4), point 25. 26 – Convention of 2 February 1971, UNTS, Volume 996, p. 245. 27 – See Case C-157/89 Commission v Italy (hunting periods) [1991] ECR I-57, paragraph 15, and Case C-60/05 WWF Italia and Others [2006] ECR I-5083, paragraph 27. 28 – Case C-355/90 Commission v Spain (cited in footnote 15), paragraph 11. 29 – Case C-209/04 Commission v Austria (Lauteracher Ried) [2006] ECR I-2755, paragraph 44. 30 – Paragraph 38 of the reply. 31 – Paragraph 183 of the application. See, in that respect, point 94 et seq. below. 32 – Commission v Netherlands (cited in footnote 3), paragraphs 68 to 70, and Case C‑378/01 Commission v Italy (cited in footnote 6), paragraph 18. 33 – See Commission v Netherlands (cited in footnote 3), paragraph 66, and Case C‑378/01 Commission v Italy (cited in footnote 6), paragraph 18, both concerning the IBA 89, and the Opinion of Advocate General Léger in Commission v Finland (cited in footnote 5), point 42. 34 – The beginnings of a scientifically substantiated argument can be seen only in respect of the Autonomous Communities of Catalonia and the Canaries. See, in this respect, points 106 and 126 et seq. below. 35 – Cited in footnote 3. 36 – Heath, M.F. and Evans, M.I., Important Bird Areas in Europe. Priority sites for conservation. Volume 2: Southern Europe, BirdLife Conservation Series No 8, Volume II, Cambridge, 2000, p. 515 et seq. 37 – See the list on p. 14 of the IBA 98. 38 – Case C-79/03 Commission v Spain [2004] ECR I-11619, paragraph 19. 39 – See point 70 et seq. below. 40 – IBA 2000, cited in footnote 36. 41 – According to the Commission’s Natura barometer, as at June 2006 (cited in footnote 12), the proportion is 23% of the land area in Slovenia and 25.2% of the land area in Slovakia. 42 – Although the financing rules contained in Article 8 of the Habitats Directive do not cover SPAs under the Birds Directive, the sixth environment action programme refers to ‘establishing the Natura 2000 network and implementing the necessary technical and financial instruments and measures required for its full implementation and for the protection, outside the Natura 2000 areas, of species protected under the Habitats and Birds Directives’ as a priority action (seventh indent of Article 6(2)(a) of Decision No 1600/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2002 laying down the sixth Community environment action programme (OJ 2002 L 242, p. 1)). 43 – IBA 98, p. 363 et seq. 44 – IBA 98, p. 39. 45 – IBA 98, p. 43, Figure 5. 46 – IBA 98, p. 364 et seq. 47 – The criteria underlying the IBA 89 are set out in the IBA 2000, Volume 2, p. 776 et seq., and compared with the criteria used in relation to the new inventories. See also the IBA 98, p. 368. 48 – This criterion is equivalent to criterion No 5 in the IBA 89. 49 – This criterion is equivalent to criterion No 1 in the IBA 89. 50 – This criterion has no equivalent in the IBA 89. 51 – Criteria C.4 and C.5 develop criterion No 9 in the IBA 89. The latter covers the staging areas of over 20 000 waterbirds and/or over 5 000 raptors. 52 – Criterion C.6 was not referred to specifically in the list of criteria for the IBA 89 but was referred to specifically in the explanatory notes thereto. See Annex 7, p. 2, to the application in Case C‑3/96 Commission v Netherlands and Annex 16 to the application in Case C‑378/01 Commission v Italy. Accordingly, this criterion was developed and applied in connection with the Corine biotope project. 53 – IBA 2000, p. 13 54 – Commission v Netherlands (cited in footnote 3), paragraph 69, and Case C-378/01 Commission v Italy (cited in footnote 6), paragraph 18. 55 – See the references cited in footnote 33. 56 – IBA 2000, p. 13. 57 – IBA 2000, Volume 2, p. 18. Thus, it is clear from p. 778 that in respect of Belgium, Greece and Ireland a higher level than that of the IBA 89 was selected and the number of regions was thereby reduced. 58 – The Spanish Government is wrong in this regard. According to the IBA 2000, Volume 2, p. 778, the second level of NUTS is also used in France, which has 22 regions. 59 – See the references cited in footnote 15. 60 – For example, in Germany so-called ‘principal units of natural area’ are used as subdivisions of the German parts of the biogeographical regions to identify proposed areas in connection with the Habitats Directive. 61 – Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (cited in footnote 15), paragraph 26, and Case C‑191/05 Commission v Portugal (Moura, Mourão, Barrancos) [2006] ECR I‑6853, paragraph 10. 62 – Paragraph 183 of the application. 63 – Paragraph 33 of the reply. 64 – Case C-178/00 Italy v Commission [2003] ECR I-303, paragraph 6. See also my Opinion in Case C-221/04 Commission v Spain (cited in footnote 17), point 25. 65 – Annex II to the defence. 66 – See point 94 et seq. above. 67 – The IBAs involved are IBA No 78 ‘Puebla de Beleña’, IBA No 183 ‘Hoces del Río Mundo y del Río Segura’, and IBA No 189 ‘Parameras de Embid-Molina’. 68 – See point 94 et seq. above. 69 – See point 21 above. 70 – Commission v Austria (cited in footnote 29), paragraph 48. 71 – See point 94 et seq. above. 72 – See point 94 et seq. above.