Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2000:446
Date: 2000-09-14
Language of the case: French
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Environment
Procedure: Action for failure to fulfil obligations - successful
Origin: France

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Environment — Conservation of wild birds — Directive 79/409 — Member States' 
obligation to prohibit bunting during certain periods when birds are particularly 
vulnerable — Limitation of periods when prohibited — Limitation ensuring protec­
tion of only the majority of the birds of a given species — Not permissible 
(Council Directive 79/409, Art. 7(4)) 
2. Environment — Conservation of wild birds — Directive 79/409 — Laying down of 
closing dates for hunting migratory birds and waterfowl — Closing dates staggered 
according to species of bird — Conditions under which permissible 
(Council Directive 79/409) 
I - 10941 
SUMMARY — CASE C-38/99 
3. Environment — Conservation of wild birds — Directive 79/409 — Transposition 
without legislative action — Limits — Management of the common heritage — 
Need for faithful transposition by the Member States 
(Council Directive 79/409) 
1. Article 7(4) of Directive 79/409 on the 
conservation of wild birds seeks in 
particular to impose a prohibition of 
hunting of all species of wild birds 
during the rearing periods and the 
various stages of reproduction and 
dependency and, in the case of migrat­
ory species, during their return to their 
rearing grounds. Moreover that article 
is designed to secure a complete system 
of protection in the periods during 
which the survival of wild birds is 
particularly under threat. Accordingly, 
protection against hunting activities 
cannot be confined to the majority of 
the birds of a given species, as deter­
mined by average reproductive cycles 
and migratory movements. 
(see para. 23) 
2. The national authorities are not 
empowered by Directive 79/409 on 
the conservation of wild birds to lay 
down closing dates for hunting which 
vary according to species of migratory 
birds or waterfowl unless the Member 
State concerned can adduce evidence, 
based on scientific and technical data 
relevant to each individual case, that 
staggering the closing dates for hunting 
does not impede the complete protec­
tion of species of bird liable to be 
affected by such staggering. 
(see para. 43) 
3. The transposition of a directive into 
domestic law does not necessarily 
require the provisions of the directive 
to be enacted in precisely the same 
words in a specific, express provision 
of national law and a general legal 
context may be sufficient if it actually 
ensures the full application of the 
directive in a sufficiently clear and 
precise manner. However, faithful 
transposition becomes particularly 
important in the case of Directive 
79/409 on the conservation of wild 
birds where management of the com­
mon heritage is entrusted to the Mem­
ber States in their respective territories. 
(see para. 53) 
I - 10942