Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2007:578
Date: 2007-10-04
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Environment
Concepts: General;Environment
Procedure: Action for failure to fulfil obligations - unfounded
Origin: Italy

Summary of the Judgment 1. Environment – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Directive 92/43 (Council Directive 92/43, Art. 6(3)) 2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Proof of failure – Burden of proof on Commission (Art. 226 EC) 1. Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora provides that the obligation to carry out an appropriate assessment of the impact of a plan or project on a protected site is conditional on the plan or project in question being likely to have a significant effect on that site. For that protection mechanism to come into operation, it is necessary for there to be a probability or a risk that a plan or project will have significant effects on the site concerned. The significant nature of the effect on a site of a plan or project must be linked to the site’s conservation objectives. Consequently, where a plan or project has an effect on that site but is not likely to undermine its conservation objectives, that plan or project cannot be considered likely to have a significant effect on the site. That risk must be assessed in the light, inter alia, of the characteristics and specific environmental conditions of the site concerned by that plan or project. (see paras 33-35) 2. In an action against a Member State for failure to fulfil obligations, it is for the Commission to establish the existence of the failure alleged. It is the Commission which must provide the Court with the information necessary for it to determine whether the infringement is made out, and the Commission may not rely on any presumption for that purpose. Moreover, the burden of proof borne by the Commission in such an action must be determined according to the types of obligations which directives impose on the Member States and therefore in the results which must be achieved by them. Thus, in an action for failure to fulfil obligations which relates to the obligations laid down in Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the Commission cannot simply allege the mere existence of framework agreements for industrial construction projects within a special protection area, but must also provide sufficiently specific evidence to show that they are more than at the stage of preliminary administrative reflection and carry a degree of precision in the planning in question which calls for an environmental assessment of their effects. The Commission must also prove that, in the light of the characteristics and the specific environmental conditions of the site affected by a plan or project, that plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on that site, in the light of the conservation objectives fixed for the site. (see paras 37-39, 41)