OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL
KOKOTT
delivered on 16 April 2026 (1)
Joined Cases C‑27/25 and C‑356/25
SU and Wild Ireland Defence CLG
v
An Coimisiún Pleanála, formerly known as An Bord Pleanála, and Others
Other party:
Knocknamona Windfarm Limited
(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (Ireland))
and
Paddy Massey
v
An Coimisiún Pleanála, formerly known as An Bord Pleanála, and Others
Other party:
Curns Energy Limited
(Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland))
( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Directive 2009/147/EC – Conservation of wild birds – Special areas of conservation – Appropriate assessment of the implications of plans or projects likely to have a significant effect on a special area of conservation in view of its conservation objectives – Screening for appropriate assessment – Failure to set site-specific conservation objectives )
I.      Introduction
1.        The first sentence of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive (2) requires the Member States to carry out ex ante assessments to determine whether plans or projects are likely to have a significant effect on Natura
2000 sites. The focus of those assessments is the compatibility of those plans or projects
with conservation objectives for those sites. However, is an assessment of that kind even possible if the Member States have failed to define specific conservation objectives for the site in question? And are such site-specific conservation objectives a prerequisite for a screening exercise carried out in order to determine whether a full appropriate assessment is necessary? These questions form the subject matter of both cases under consideration.
2.        The conservation objectives may also, if need be, be identified by other means than making site-specific determinations for the purposes of these assessments. This does not, however, necessarily imply a reduction in protection; rather, the scope of protection may even be broader before specific conservation objectives, comprising a consideration of various objectives and other interests, are set. Appropriate assessments on that basis are provided for, at least
as a transitional step, by the Habitats Directive.
3.        The question whether conservation objectives must nevertheless be set
in order for an
appropriate assessment or screening to be carried out
is not merely procedural in nature. It is doubtful whether authorities in the Member States may agree to a plan or project at all if they cannot carry out the screening or (where necessary) the assessment in the absence of conservation objectives. According to the second sentence of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, the consent of these authorities is conditional upon such an assessment. Given the level of uncertainty surrounding the extent to which site-specific conservation objectives have been set by the Member States and, as the case may be, when any such objectives were set, a large number of projects in the EU might be affected by this issue.
II.    Legal framework
A.      The Birds Directive
4.        The Birds Directive currently in force (3) is a codified version of an earlier Directive adopted in 1979, (4) which was the first piece of nature conservation legislation adopted by the then European Economic Community. The two versions appear, however, to be identical for the purposes of the present proceedings.
5.        Article 4 of the Birds Directive provides for the designation of special protection areas (SPAs) for birds:
‘1.      The species mentioned in Annex I shall be the subject of special conservation measures concerning their habitat in order to ensure their survival and reproduction in their area of distribution.
In this connection, account shall be taken of:
(a)      species in danger of extinction;
(b)      species vulnerable to specific changes in their habitat;
(c)      species considered rare because of small populations or restricted local distribution;
(d)      other species requiring particular attention for reasons of the specific nature of their habitat.
Trends and variations in population levels shall be taken into account as a background for evaluations.
Member States shall classify in particular the most suitable territories in number and size as special protection areas for the conservation of these species in the geographical sea and land area where this Directive applies.
2.      Member States shall take similar measures for regularly occurring migratory species not listed in Annex I, bearing in mind their need for protection in the geographical sea and land area where this Directive applies, as regards their breeding, moulting and wintering areas and staging posts along their migration routes. To this end, Member States shall pay particular attention to the protection of wetlands and particularly to wetlands of international importance.
3.      …
4.      In respect of the protection areas referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, Member States shall take appropriate steps to avoid pollution or deterioration of habitats or any disturbances affecting the birds, in so far as these would be significant having regard to the objectives of this Article. Outside these protection areas, Member States shall also strive to avoid pollution or deterioration of habitats.’
B.      The Habitats Directive
6.        The 1992 Habitats Directive extends the scope of nature conservation under EU law to other species of fauna and flora and to certain habitat types, and partially incorporates the earlier Birds Directive.
7.        Conservation objectives are referred to in the eighth and tenth recitals of the Habitats Directive:
‘Whereas it is appropriate, in each area designated, to implement the necessary measures having regard to the conservation objectives pursued;
…
Whereas an appropriate assessment must be made of any plan or programme likely to have a significant effect on the conservation objectives of a site which has been designated or is designated in future’.
8.        Article 3(1) of the Habitats Directive describes the network of European special areas of conservation:
‘A coherent European ecological network of special areas of conservation shall be set up under the title Natura
2000. This network, composed of sites hosting the natural habitat types listed in Annex I and habitats of the species listed in Annex II, shall enable the natural habitat types and the species’ habitats concerned to be maintained or, where appropriate, restored at a favourable conservation status in their natural range.
The Natura
2000 network shall include the special protection areas classified by the Member States pursuant to [the Birds Directive].’
9.        The designation of areas of conservation under the Habitats Directive requires first that suitable sites be identified by the Member States on the basis of scientific criteria and proposed to the European Commission (Article 4(1)), and secondly that the Commission declare them to be sites of Community importance (Article 4(2)).
10.      Article 4(4) of the Habitats Directive regulates the designation of sites of Community importance as special areas of conservation:
‘Once a site of Community importance has been adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in paragraph 2, the Member State concerned shall designate that site as a special area of conservation as soon as possible and within six years at most, establishing priorities in the light of the importance of the sites for the maintenance or restoration, at a favourable conservation status, of a natural habitat type in Annex I or a species in Annex II and for the coherence of Natura
2000, and in the light of the threats of degradation or destruction to which those sites are exposed.’
11.      Even before this has been done, however, certain protective arrangements apply to sites of Community importance pursuant to Article 4(5) of the Habitats Directive:
‘As soon as a site is placed on the list referred to in … [the third subparagraph of Article 4(2)], it shall be subject to Article 6(2), (3) and (4).’
12.      The protective arrangements for these special areas of conservation are laid down in Article 6 of the Habitats Directive:
‘1.      For special areas of conservation, Member States shall establish the necessary conservation measures involving, if need be, appropriate management plans specifically designed for the sites or integrated into other development plans, and appropriate statutory, administrative or contractual measures which correspond to the ecological requirements of the natural habitat types in Annex I and the species in Annex II present on the sites.
2.      Member States shall take appropriate steps to avoid, in the special areas of conservation, the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of this Directive.
3.      Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public.
4.      If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, the Member State shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura
2000 is protected. …’
13.      Under Article 7 of the Habitats Directive, protective arrangements under the Birds Directive were superseded by certain provisions of the Habitats Directive:
‘Obligations arising under Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of this Directive shall replace any obligations arising under the first sentence of Article 4(4) of [the Birds Directive] in respect of [SPAs] classified pursuant to Article 4(1) or similarly recognised under Article 4(2) thereof, as from the date of implementation of this Directive or the date of classification or recognition by a Member State under [the Birds Directive], where the latter date is later.’
III. Facts of the case
A.      Knocknamona case
14.      On 28 September 2022, An Coimisiún Pleanála (formerly known as An Board Pleanála, the higher planning authority, Ireland), granted planning permission to Knocknamona Windfarm Limited (‘Knocknamona’) for amendments to a previously permitted wind farm in County Waterford, Ireland, permitting an increase in the uppermost tip height of the turbines (to an maximum of 155
m) and a taller meteorological mast (99
m).
15.      When considering the application for development consent, the planning authority carried out an appropriate assessment of the implications of the proposed development for five protected sites identified under the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive, including the Blackwater Callows SPA, situated in Cork and Waterford. This SPA, which is protected under the Birds Directive, is 13
km from the wind farm site at its nearest point and 13.5
km from the nearest turbine. It is not disputed that,
at the time of the planning authority’s decision, there were no site-specific conservation objectives for the Blackwater Callows SPA.
16.      The planning authority relied upon its inspector’s report in making the decision. That report recorded that the conservation objectives for the Blackwater Callows SPA were a ‘generic conservation objectives document’; the qualifying interest of the site, that is to say, the species and habitats on account of which the site is protected, are the whooper swan (Cygnus cygnus), the widgeon (Mareca penelope or Anas penelope), the teal (Anas crecca) and the black-tailed godwit (Limosa limosa) as well as certain wetlands and the waterbirds that use them.
17.      The planning authority’s inspector concluded that, in respect of the qualifying interests other than the whooper swan, adverse effects on the integrity of the site could be excluded on the basis that the habitats within the wind farm sites were unsuitable for any of these species. In respect of the whooper swan, the inspector concluded that the relevant surveys did not indicate the presence of the whooper swan within or close to the site, and therefore concluded that the additional height and rotor diameter proposed would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA vis-à-vis those species. No party disagrees with that finding of fact. The higher planning authority therefore decided that the proposed developments would not adversely affect the integrity of the Blackwater Callows SPA.
18.      SU and Wild Ireland Defence issued judicial review proceedings challenging the decision, arguing inter alia that, absent conservation objectives for the Blackwater Callows SPA, the planning authority had no jurisdiction to carry out an appropriate assessment of the proposed developments.
19.      The High Court (Ireland) decided that in certain circumstances – indeed in most circumstances – conservation objectives will be necessary in order to carry out a valid appropriate assessment, but in the particular facts of this case, it was possible to have a valid appropriate assessment without such objectives. This was because the scientific evidence showed that the qualifying interest – in this case the occurrence of the whooper swan – would not be affected by the purposed development irrespective of the setting of conservation objectives. According to the High Court, the planning authority had concluded as a matter of reasonable scientific certainty that the project ‘will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned’ because the off-site effect in question would require the physical presence of the whooper swan on the Knocknamona Windfarm site, and that presence has been discounted. That finding relates to the risk of the birds colliding with the turbines. (5)
20.      SU and Wild Ireland Defence lodged an appeal against that decision before the Court of Appeal (Ireland).
B.      The Curns case
21.      On 8 January 2021, Curns Energy Limited (‘Curns’) submitted an application to the higher planning authority for development consent for a new wind farm. The project is located 9.9
km from the Blackwater Callows SPA. The application documentation included an environmental impact assessment report, an appropriate assessment screening report and a ‘Natura impact statement’, which is a scientific opinion provided for under Irish law outlining the impacts of a project on Natura
2000 sites.
22.      By order dated 8 November 2023, the higher planning authority granted planning permission for the development at issue. On 11 January 2024, Mr Paddy Massey brought an action against the planning permission.
23.      However, site-specific conservation objectives and measures for the Blackwater Callows SPA were put in place only on 24 March 2024. It was acknowledged during the court proceedings that this had not happened in a timely fashion.
24.      On 11 April 2025, the High Court found that it could exclude any reasonable possibility that any failure to consider conservation objectives and/or measures in the case would give rise to effects on a Natura
2000 site. Hence, it refused an order quashing the development consent, irrespective of the outcome of the present reference for a preliminary ruling. However, it asked the Court of Justice to address the question referred to it for a preliminary ruling so that it could decide whether to make a declaratory judgment in the applicant’s favour to the effect that site-specific conservation objectives are a prerequisite for a screening for appropriate assessment.
IV.    Reference for a preliminary ruling
25.      The Court of Appeal referred the following question to the Court of Justice in the Knocknamona case:
Are valid conservation objectives for [an SPA] a pre-requisite to the competent authority’s jurisdiction to carry out a valid appropriate assessment under Article 6(3) of [the Habitats Directive] when considering an application for a grant of development consent?
26.      In a decision dated 20 March 2025, Knocknamona (C‑27/25, EU:C:2025:203), the President of the Court rejected the Court of Appeal’s request that the case be determined pursuant to the expedited procedure. He ruled that the case be given priority over others, however.
27.      Written observations were submitted by SU and Wild Ireland Defence CLG, the higher planning authority, Knocknamona Windfarms Limited, Ireland and the Commission.
28.      Following on from that
reference for a preliminary ruling, the High Court additionally referred the following question to the Court of Justice in the Curns case:
Does Article 6(3) of [the Habitats Directive] as applied to [the Birds Directive] by Article 7 of the former Directive have the effect that a determination by a competent authority of a Member State as to whether or not a plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of [an SPA] is likely to have a significant effect on any such site, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, must be carried out by reference to conservation objectives and/or measures established for any site concerned and/or in particular for any site which is proposed to be screened out of consideration as one unlikely to be significantly so affected?
29.      The High Court also stated that Mr Paddy Massey had asked for the Court of Justice to be informed that he did not wish his name to be anonymised in publications relating to the case.
30.      Written observations were submitted by Mr Paddy Massey, Ireland and the Commission.
31.      On 22 October 2025, the President of the Court joined the two cases and also ordered that the Curns case be given priority over others. The oral hearing of 25 March 2026 was attended by SU and Wild Ireland Defence CLG and
Mr Paddy Massey, together, the upper planning authority, Knocknamona, Curns, Ireland and the Commission.
V.      Legal assessment
32.      The purpose of the reference for a preliminary ruling in the Knocknamona case is to clarify whether an appropriate assessment under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive can be carried out if the competent authorities have failed to put in place site-specific conservation objectives for the relevant area of conservation. The Curns case raises the preliminary question whether site-specific conservation objectives may even be a prerequisite for a screening to determine whether an appropriate assessment is at all necessary.
33.      Following some comments on the admissibility of the Curns case (see
(A) below), I will therefore begin by making a number of preliminary remarks on those two stages of assessment (see
(B) below). I will then expound on the obligation to set site-specific conservation objectives for Natura
2000 sites (see
(C) below). Only then will it be possible to investigate the consequences of a lack of site-specific conservation objectives as regards the appropriate assessment (see
(D) below) and the screening for appropriate assessment (see
(E) below). Finally, in the event that the Court disagrees with my view, I will also propose a temporal limitation on the effect of its decision (see
(F) below).
A.      Admissibility of the Curns case
34.      The Commission contends that the reference for a preliminary ruling in the Curns case is inadmissible, because the High Court has already decided on the merits. The answer is therefore no longer relevant to the judgment to be given.
35.      According to Ireland’s submissions, the decision on the merits has not yet become res judicata because an application for permission to lodge an appeal is still pending before the Supreme Court (Ireland); nevertheless, this does not alter the fact that the High Court is not currently (or is no longer) depending on a reply in order to decide the matter.
36.      The High Court has however stated that it still needs to make a determination as to whether site-specific conservation objectives are a prerequisite for an appropriate assessment screening, which goes to the question whether the action was originally well-founded. If a finding to that effect were to be made, this would have implications, if only in terms of the party ordered to pay the (often significant) costs of proceedings before the Irish courts.
37.      The reference for a preliminary ruling is therefore admissible.
B.      Functioning of the appropriate assessment and the screening
38.      Article 6 of the Habitats Directive imposes upon the Member States a number of specific obligations and procedures. According to Article 2(2) of that
directive, these are designed to maintain or restore, at favourable conservation status, natural habitats and species of wild fauna and flora of Community interest in order to attain the Directive’s more general objective, which is to ensure a high level of environmental protection as regards the sites protected pursuant to it. (6)
39.      The appropriate assessment under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive is particularly important in the case of an approval procedure because under the second sentence of that provision, the competent national authorities must agree to a plan or project
only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of a Natura 2000 site
in the light of the conclusions of the assessment. According to settled case-law, they are to issue such an agreement only if there is no reasonable scientific doubt as to the absence of such effects on the site. (7)
40.      An assessment may not have lacunae and must contain complete, precise and definitive findings capable of removing all reasonable scientific doubt as to the effects of the plans or projects proposed on the area of conservation in question. (8)
41.      So, when should an appropriate assessment be carried out?
42.      According to the first sentence of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, any plan or project likely to have a significant effect on a Natura
2000 site, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects,
must be subject to an appropriate assessment.
43.      The requirement for an assessment is therefore conditional on there being a probability or a risk that a plan or project will have a significant effect on the site concerned. When interpreting the Habitats Directive in this connection, particular consideration is to be given to the precautionary principle, which is one of the foundations of the high level of protection pursued by EU policy on the environment, in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 191(2) TFEU. The Court concludes from this that such a probability or risk exists if it cannot be excluded on the basis of objective information that the plan or project in question will have a significant effect on the site concerned. (9) This implies that, in case of doubt as to the absence of significant effects, such an assessment must be carried out. (10)
44.      I have previously expounded on the fact that any such doubts must also be reasonable from a scientific point of view in the case of screenings; (11) otherwise, the risk is that appropriate assessments would always be needed, since it would always be possible to raise unreasonable or unscientific doubts, and all but impossible to dispel them in a meaningful manner. The Court has endorsed that position. (12)
45.      The benchmark for both the screening and the full assessment is therefore the exclusion of reasonable scientific doubt regarding the absence of significant effects on Natura
2000 sites.
46.      The two stages of assessment differ in terms of their depth, however. The point at which the line between them is drawn typically depends on the circumstances of the individual case and the relevant state of scientific and technical knowledge. In the context of the screening, if information that is already available independently of a project shows clearly that the project cannot have an adverse effect on any Natura
2000 site, there is no need for a full appropriate assessment. Conversely, if it is apparent at the first stage that a new scientific study is needed and/or experience from other areas needs to be applied, the appropriate assessment should be carried out, (13) which will then also involve public participation. (14)
47.      The point of reference for both assessments is the conservation objectives for the site concerned.
48.      In the case of the full appropriate assessment, this follows in particular from the first sentence of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, the German version of which provides expressly for an appropriate assessment of the compatibility of the plan or project with the conservation objectives set for the site. Yet the German version alone
expresses
in such clear terms
the point
that the assessment
must relate to the compatibility of the plans or projects with the conservation objectives, while the other original language versions merely require that the assessment take place in view of the conservation objectives. Even in the other languages, however, the tenth recital makes it clear that an assessment must be made of any plan or programme likely to have a significant effect on the conservation objectives of a site which has been designated. (15)
49.      This is consistent with the function of the conservation objectives. They define the habitats or species present at the site that are to be protected under Article 6(3) as well as the development potentials for habitats and species (16) that are to receive the same protection. Effects on habitats, species or development potentials which are not covered by the conservation objectives have no significance when it comes to applying that provision, however, and thus have no significance in terms of the appropriate assessment. (17)
50.      According to settled case-law, even when
assessing the need for a full assessment, it must be determined whether the plan or project in question
may undermine the site’s conservation objectives. (18)
51.      In the reference for a preliminary ruling in the Curns case, the High Court, however, takes the view that it would be unworkable to consider the conservation objectives of all sites being screened; the vast majority of sites can be screened out due to distance and the lack of a plausible pathway from the relevant plan or project to the site in question, and there is no textual link in the Habitats Directive between the screening and conservation objectives. In the High Court’s view, a screening does not therefore depend on site-specific conservation objectives having been set.
52.      This stance is prima facie persuasive. The Natura
2000 network comprises over 27 000
sites, (19) with a correspondingly large number of conservation objectives. It is inconceivable that each individual site and all of the conservation objectives put in place for them could be checked in detail to determine whether a specific plan or a certain project might have a significant effect on them. In practice, almost all sites are screened out without their conservation objectives being considered in detail because it seems impossible that the plan or project might have any effect on them. In most cases, that assumption is probably made on the basis of the distance between the project and the screened-out sites.
53.      However, that approach is at the very least based on implicit assumptions about the conservation objectives of the screened-out sites and the project’s potential effects.
54.      An effect can however only be exerted if there is an object on which it can be exerted; if there is no such object, no effect can be identified or excluded. The object of the effects of plans or projects (20) to be assessed as part of the screening is however put into concrete form by the conservation objectives.
55.      Therefore, conservation objectives are not examined in detail for almost all existing Natura
2000 sites merely because it is inconceivable that the project could have any effect on their conservation objectives, for example due to distance from the sites. Even an assumption of this kind can be rebutted under certain circumstances, however – for example, if a river connects a project with Natura
2000 sites situated further away. (21)
56.      As a result, it is likewise only possible to assess whether a plan or project might have significant effects on a Natura
2000 site on the basis of the conservation objectives for the site.
C.      Setting of conservation objectives
57.      Although conservation objectives are thus the reference point for the appropriate assessment and the screening, it is only indirectly implied by the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive that the Member States must set specific conservation objectives for each Natura
2000 site.
58.      The German version of the first sentence of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive differs from the other original language versions in that it is the only version to refer to the setting of conservation objectives, thereby expressly requiring a decision to be taken on them. Conversely, the remaining original versions (22) merely refer to the conservation objectives for particular sites, without specifying how these objectives are to come into being.
59.      In the case of areas of conservation under the Habitats Directive, however, it follows from the function performed by the conservation objectives that such objectives need to be set, which is furthermore also demonstrated by other provisions of the Habitats Directive (see
(1) below). This result can be transferred to SPAs under the Birds Directive (see
(2) below) such as, for example, the Blackwater Callows SPA.
1.      Conservation objectives for areas of conservation under the Habitats Directive
60.      The setting of conservation objectives is required by Article 4(4) and Article 6(1) of the Habitats Directive in particular. (23)
61.      Article 4(4) of the Habitats Directive requires Member States to establish priorities when designating sites as special areas of conservation. At the same time, they must take into account the importance of the sites for the maintenance or restoration, at a favourable conservation status, of a natural habitat type in Annex I or a species in Annex II, and for the coherence of the Natura
2000 network, as well as the threats of degradation or destruction to which those sites are exposed. It follows that a scientific assessment of the relevant site, in particular the habitat types and species present there, must be carried out in the context of the Natura
2000 network of European protected sites.
62.      Establishing those priorities implies,
however, that those conservation objectives have been set in advance. (24) By establishing priorities, the competent authorities decide on the importance to be placed on the various conservation objectives for the relevant site, both in relation to each other and in the overall context of the Natura
2000 network. If conservation objectives were only to be set at a later date, there would be no way of guaranteeing that they were comprehensively taken into account by the priorities that had previously been established.
63.      In addition, Article 6(1) of the Habitats Directive provides that Member States are to establish the necessary conservation measures corresponding to the ecological requirements of the natural habitat types in Annex I and the species in Annex II present on the sites. (25)
64.      The identification of ecological requirements and the corresponding conservation measures also necessarily (26) presupposes that
the
conservation objectives have already been set. (27) These requirements are of a scientific nature and relate to specific natural habitats and species in the area of conservation as defined by the conservation objectives. The eighth recital of the Habitats Directive accordingly also establishes a link between the conservation measures under Article 6(1) and the conservation objectives.
2.      Conservation objectives for special protection areas (SPAs) under the Birds Directive
65.      The above considerations regarding the setting of conservation objectives for areas of conservation under the Habitats Directive are not directly transferable to SPAs under the Birds Directive. Although Article 6(2) to (4) of the Habitats Directive applies to SPAs pursuant to Article 7 of that Directive, and Article 6(3) presupposes the existence of conservation objectives, Article 4(4) and Article 6(1) do not apply to SPAs.
66.      Instead, Article 4(1) and (2) of the Birds Directive continues to apply to those areas. Although those protection obligations are worded in less precise terms, they are in practice aimed at ensuring protection in SPAs which is equivalent to that afforded by Article 4(4) and Article 6(1) of the Habitats Directive. (28) Equivalent protection, however,
includes the setting of conservation objectives.
67.      Provision for the establishment of priorities and the identification of ecological requirements was already implicitly made under Article 4(1) and (2) of the Birds Directive. According to the latter, measures are to be taken bearing in mind the need for protection of species. Those needs depend on the specific situation in the SPA concerned. (29)
68.      For those reasons, the Court has confirmed, in the judgment in Elliniki Ornithologiki Etaireia and Others, that the Member States must also set conservation objectives for SPAs covered by the Birds Directive. (30)
D.      Consequences for the appropriate assessment
69.      Does it however follow from the obligation to set conservation objectives that an appropriate assessment is not permitted if no such objectives have been set?
70.      It must be recognised that an appropriate assessment would indeed be out of the question if it were impossible to identify conservation objectives without setting them on a site-specific basis.
71.      As already noted, (31) the implications of the relevant plan or project for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives form the subject of the assessment under the first sentence of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive.
72.      As SU and Wild Ireland Defence highlight correctly, the Court recently found on those grounds that the conservation objectives for the relevant site are to act as a mandatory reference point for the appropriate assessment. (32) It also follows from the wider context of that finding that the Court was in fact referring to conservation objectives which must be specifically set by the competent authorities for the relevant sites. (33)
73.      It should not however be concluded on this basis that that
setting of objectives is a mandatory prerequisite for an appropriate assessment, since conservation objectives may also be identified by other means if need be (see
(1)). Appropriate assessments on that basis are also foreseen at least as a transitional step by the Habitat Directive, without thereby reducing site protection (see
(2)).
1.      Provisional identification of conservation objectives
74.      Surveyors for the project developers and regulatory authorities may infer the relevant conservation objectives for an assessment in particular from the information which was used as a basis for designating the relevant area of conservation (34) and which is set out in the relevant Standard Data Form (35) for the site, (36) and also (where applicable) with due regard to additional findings about other species and habitat types present there. (37)
75.      In order to assess whether a plan or project has an adverse effect on conservation objectives, it is typically sufficient to start from the assumption that all protected species and habitats present at the site are covered by the conservation objectives. In the case of sites under the Habitats Directive, these include the natural habitat types listed in Annex I
to that
directive, including the species typical of them (Article 1(e)), and the species listed in Annex II. In the case of SPAs, these include the bird species listed in Annex I to the Birds Directive and regularly occurring migratory species not listed in Annex I, as well as the habitats of those species. Only the presence of habitat types or species which are (correctly) deemed insignificant may be disregarded. (38)
76.      It may furthermore be necessary to expand the conservation objectives to cover certain development potentials if an improvement to the status of habitat types or species populations is required in order to restore their favourable conservation status.(39) According to Article 4(4) of the Habitats Directive, the Member States must establish priorities for areas of conservation inter alia in the light of their importance for the restoration, at a favourable conservation status, of a natural habitat type in Annex I or a species in Annex II.
77.      In certain circumstances, the Member States must also incorporate development objectives into the conservation objectives for SPAs under the Birds Directive, since under Article 3(1) of that
directive they are to preserve, maintain or re-establish a sufficient diversity and area of habitats for birds.
78.      It is therefore necessary to include development potentials if they are required in view of the conservation status of the relevant habitat types and species within Natura
2000 as a whole and the characteristics of the site, as well as the development potentials and corresponding conservation objectives of other Natura
2000 sites.
79.      The Commission moreover makes the persuasive argument that an appropriate assessment carried out before site-specific conservation objectives have been set may entail particular obligations in terms of investigations and evidence on applicants and regulatory authorities. Conservation objectives set on the basis of proven scientific findings are far more dependable than those identified only on a provisional basis in connection with an appropriate assessment. Additional investigations may therefore be necessary in order to meet the requirements for an assessment. As already noted, the assessment must be capable of removing all reasonable scientific doubt, on the basis of complete, precise and definitive findings with due regard for the best relevant scientific knowledge, that the project might have an adverse effect on the site concerned. (40) This implies that any doubts regarding the adequacy of the conservation objectives underpinning the assessment must also be dispelled.
80.      The Commission follows a similar approach in a more recent legislative proposal. According to that proposal, if site-specific conservation objectives have been set and taken into account, under certain circumstances, data as old as five years may be used for the purpose of an appropriate assessment. (41) This implies that an appropriate assessment is possible even if site-specific conservation objectives have not been set, and it is merely the case that more recent data ought then to be used. It also illustrates the Commission’s view that site-specific conservation objectives may make it easier to carry out an appropriate assessment.
81.      Accordingly, it is clear that an appropriate assessment can be carried out in practice on the basis of conservation objectives identified on a provisional basis if the competent authorities have not yet set any site-specific conservation objectives.
2.      Whether an appropriate assessment is permissible on the basis of provisional conservation objectives
82.      As correctly emphasised by Knocknamona, the upper planning authority and Ireland, the legislature assumed,
even implicitly, that conservation objectives would be provisionally identified in this fashion for sites identified under the Habitats Directive. Article 4(4) sets the Member States a deadline of six years to establish priorities and, accordingly, conservation objectives for protected sites once the Commission has included them on the EU list of sites of Community importance, that is to say, has designated them as Natura 2000 sites, pursuant to Article 4(2). (42) Even during that six-year period, however, the provisions of Article 4(5) mean that the sites are already subject to Article 6(3), and – as noted above (43) – conservation objectives are a mandatory reference point when applying that article.
83.      SU and Wild Ireland Defence take the position that the identification of provisional conservation objectives of this kind is only permitted during the transitional period explicitly granted by the Habitats Directive; the lack of any corresponding transitional period under the Birds Directive means that it would be wholly impossible to identify
such objectives on a provisional basis for the SPA at issue.
84.      A point in favour of that argument is that the immediate – or at least timely – setting of conservation objectives is necessary in order to guarantee optimum protection for the needs of the relevant area of conservation. The site protection priorities are not known until the conservation objectives have been set. There is consequently still a lack of certainty over how the resources available for site management purposes – which are inherently limited – should be apportioned between the various conservation objectives. What is more, conflicts between different conservation objectives may even stand in the way of protective measures until it can be ascertained which conservation objective has higher priority. (44)
85.      An absence of conservation objectives furthermore prevents effective cross-compliance checks pursuant to Article 93(2) of, and Annex II to, Regulation (No) 1306/2013, (45) that is to say, checks to ensure that farmers of agricultural land are complying with Article 6(1) and (2) of the Habitats Directive. Conservation objectives are necessary in order to determine the obligations incumbent upon those farmers. If those obligations cannot be ascertained, it is impossible to monitor compliance with them. (46) Since this means that a prerequisite for granting agricultural aid is not met, an absence of conservation objectives might prevent agricultural aid payments to the Member States. (47)
86.      As Curns argues, all of those aspects relate more to the management of protected sites than to assessments of the detrimental effects of projects on those sites.
87.      Most importantly, however, a transitional period is lacking for SPAs under the Birds Directive, because that directive does not contain any provisions expressly dealing with conservation objectives or the setting of such objectives. It is only in the light of the Habitats Directive (adopted at a later date) that it becomes apparent that Member States must also set conservation objectives for SPAs under the Birds Directive. It cannot however be supposed that the legislature, when adopting the Habitats Directive, intended to state, implicitly and without laying down a corresponding transitional period, that the requirements applicable to appropriate assessments of SPAs should be more stringent than those applicable to areas of conservation under the Habitats Directive.
88.      In reality, the Court has frequently ruled that Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive applies to SPAs without any evidence of site-specific conservation objectives having been set. (48)
89.      Moreover, the protective effect of the appropriate assessment of plans or projects is not normally reduced if conservation objectives identified on a provisional basis are used as a replacement for site-specific conservation objectives and priorities that do not exist. Contrary to the opinion of SU and Wild Ireland Defence, if all of the species and habitat types present at the site and the development potentials are given equal ranking, an assessment tends to result in more far-reaching protection of the site than if the importance of the various protected assets has been clarified by means of conservation objectives.
90.      For example, the Standard Data Form for the Blackwater Callows SPA lists a total of 10
bird species in Annex I, (49) whereas the conservation objectives (50) that have been set in the interim only include 5 of those species. If the remaining species were ultimately (and correctly) classified as insignificant when setting the conservation objectives, any effects on those species could not be used as grounds for opposing a project.
91.      If site-specific conservation objectives had not been set, that is, if such objectives had only been identified on a provisional basis, it is likely that this outcome would be much more difficult or even impossible to justify. The setting of site-specific conservation objectives and the associated establishment of priorities presupposes a careful scientific evaluation of the characteristics of the relevant site; (51) no such evaluation has been carried out in the case of conservation objectives identified on a merely provisional basis. This is why, failing any site-specific conservation objectives, all habitats, populations and development potentials are assumed to be equally significant and thus eligible for protection.
92.      As demonstrated by the aforementioned arguments submitted by the Commission, (52) site-specific conservation objectives may therefore facilitate the approval of projects in practice.
93.      I further point out that an appropriate assessment on the basis of provisionally identified conservation objectives can result in subsequent problems if it leads to the conclusion that the project might affect the site. In this case, the question arises whether approval can be granted on an exceptional basis for imperative reasons of overriding public interest under Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive. It is not however necessary for the Court to decide at this point in time on whether the weighing-up exercise required in this connection can be carried out in the absence of site-specific conservation objectives and the establishment of priorities. According to the referring court, there were no indications in the main proceedings that the approved wind farms might have affected any conceivable conservation objectives whatsoever.
94.      If a Member State has not yet set any site-specific conservation objectives for a Natura 2000 site affected by a plan or project, the appropriate assessment under the first sentence of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive must consequently be based on the assumption that the conservation objectives for a protected site under this Directive cover all of the habitat types in Annex I present there, including the species typical of them, and all of the species in Annex II present there, and that the conservation objectives for an SPA cover all bird species listed in Annex I to the Birds Directive and present there and all regularly occurring migratory bird species not listed in that
Annex I but present there. It may furthermore be necessary to include, among the conservation objectives thus identified, development potentials for the site which, in view of the conservation status of the relevant habitat types and species within Natura
2000 as a whole, the characteristics of the site and the development potentials and corresponding conservation objectives of the other Natura
2000 sites, are necessary in order to make possible the restoration of habitats and populations. Only the presence of habitat types and species deemed insignificant may be disregarded.
E.      Consequences for screenings
95.      The above considerations regarding the importance of site-specific conservation objectives for the appropriate assessment under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive apply mutatis mutandis to the screening to determine whether such an assessment is at all necessary.
96.      As stated above, the conservation objectives are the reference point for that assessment. (53) However the screening also does not presuppose that the Member States have set site-specific conservation objectives in advance. Instead, it is sufficient for those objectives to be identified on a provisional basis by reference to the characteristics of the site.
97.      Just as with the full appropriate assessments, the legislature implicitly assumed that that option was possible for sites under the Habitats Directive during the transitional period under Article 4(4). Thus in the case of SPAs under the Birds Directive – which does not use the term ‘conservation objectives’ or contain an explicit obligation to set such objectives or set a time limit for doing so – that option must, a fortiori,  exist.
98.      The protective effect of the appropriate assessment system is unlikely to be reduced as a result, even in the case of screenings. On the contrary, a lack of site-specific conservation objectives will typically make it harder to exclude a significant effect on a Natura
2000 site, particularly at the screening stage.
99.      First, there may be habitats, species or development potentials present at the site to which little importance would be ascribed in site-specific conservation objectives. This could not typically be taken into account when using provisional conservation objectives, however. (54) Potential detrimental effects on those habitats, species or development potentials must therefore be considered at the screening stage, resulting in a full assessment.
100. Secondly, failing any express setting of site-specific conservation objectives, doubts may arise regarding the scope of the conservation objectives to be assumed on a provisional basis, in particular owing to gaps in knowledge regarding the habitats, species and development potentials that are present at the site and that might be adversely affected by the project. If those doubts cannot be readily dispelled, a full assessment is necessary if only to gain certainty about the assumed conservation objectives.
101. The same therefore applies to a screening as to a full appropriate assessment: if a Member State has not yet set any site-specific conservation objectives for a Natura 2000 site affected by a plan or project, the screening to determine whether an assessment under the first sentence of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive is necessary must consequently be based on the assumption that the conservation objectives for a protected site under that
directive cover all of the habitat types in Annex I present there, including the species typical of them, and all of the species in Annex II present there, and that the conservation objectives for an SPA cover all bird species listed in Annex I of the Birds Directive and present there and all regularly occurring migratory bird species not listed in this Annex I but present there. It may furthermore be necessary to include among the conservation objectives development potentials for the site thus identified which, in view of the conservation status of the relevant habitat types and species within Natura
2000 as a whole, the characteristics of the site and the development potentials and corresponding conservation objectives of the other Natura
2000 sites, are necessary in order to make possible the restoration of habitats and populations. Only the presence of habitat types and species deemed insignificant may be disregarded. (55)
F.      Temporal limitation
102. In the event that the Court disagrees with my view and considers that a prerequisite for an appropriate assessment and screening
is the setting of
site-specific conservation objectives, it should at least impose a temporal limitation on the effect of its decision.
103. Although the interpretation which, in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on it by Article 267 TFEU, the Court gives to a rule of EU law clarifies and defines the meaning and scope of that rule as it must be or ought to have been understood and applied from the date of its entry into force, (56) it is only quite exceptionally that the Court may, in application of the general principle of legal certainty inherent in the EU legal order, be moved to restrict the opportunity, open to any person concerned, of relying on a provision which it has interpreted with a view to calling into question legal relationships established in good faith. Two essential criteria must be fulfilled before such a limitation can be imposed, namely that those concerned should have acted in good faith and that there should be a risk of serious difficulties. (57)
104. Those requirements would be satisfied if the Court were to decide that an appropriate assessment or screening to determine whether that assessment is necessary are only possible for SPAs under the Birds Directive once the Member States have set site-specific conservation objectives.
105. There are grounds for concern that the Member States have not yet set site-specific conservation objectives for many SPAs, since they have only had to contend with an obligation to set such conservation objectives since the judgment of 12 September 2024, Elliniki Ornithologiki Etaireia and Others (C‑66/23, EU:C:2024:733). As regards SPAs, that obligation is not set out expressly in either the Birds Directive or the Habitats Directive. By contrast with the Habitats Directive, which provides for specific time limits for the setting of conservation objectives, the term ‘conservation objectives’ does not even appear in the Birds Directive.
106. Should the Court not acknowledge the good faith of the Member States in relation to SPAs, the burden should not fall upon the project developers, which, relying on the applicable domestic rules, did not foresee that they would be unable to obtain lawful approval because of there being no site-specific conservation objectives. The Commission also states in its guidance that an appropriate assessment without site-specific conservation objectives remains possible, although it carries an increased risk of infringement of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. (58)
107. At the same time, there is a risk of serious difficulties. As things currently stand, it is impossible to predict how many Natura 2000 sites are affected by this problem, and in particular how many appropriate assessments or screenings that have actually been carried out might be contestable on the grounds of this defect. Significant delays might consequently occur with the implementation of plans or projects initiated in good faith, (59) even though there would be no justification for those delays on the basis of adverse effects on Natura
2000 sites.
108. The higher planning authority expanded on this point during the oral hearing, using the example of Dublin: as the Commission expressed concerns relating to the quality of the specific conservation objectives – that have, in the meantime, been set – for five SPAs
in the Dublin Bay, the risk arises that no project which might lead to waste water discharge into the bay could be approved in the city. It would be immaterial with regard to that risk whether the waste water would be treated in water treatment plants so that any adverse effects on the SPAs could be ruled out.
109. A corresponding decision by the Court should therefore only apply to plans and projects agreed to after the judgment in the present proceedings is delivered. The Court could even consider restricting the application of such a decision to approval procedures which are only initiated after the judgment is delivered, since it is possible that time-consuming appropriate assessments on the basis of conservation objectives that have been identified on a provisional basis might already have been carried out in the absence of site-specific conservation objectives as part of ongoing approval procedures. (60)
VI.    Conclusion
110. I therefore suggest that Court reply to the requests for a preliminary ruling in the Knocknamona and Curns cases as follows:
If a Member State has not yet set any site-specific conservation objectives for a Natura 2000 site affected by a plan or project, the appropriate assessment under the first sentence of Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, and also the screening to determine whether that assessment is necessary, must be based on the assumption that the conservation objectives for an area of conservation under this Directive cover all of the habitat types in Annex I present there, including the species typical of them, and all of the species in Annex II present there, and that the conservation objectives for a special protection area under Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds cover all bird species listed in Annex I to that directive and present there and all regularly occurring migratory species not listed in that annex but present there. It may furthermore be necessary to include among the conservation objectives development potentials for the site thus identified, which, in view of the conservation status of the relevant habitat types and species within Natura
2000 as a whole, the characteristics of the site and the development potentials and corresponding conservation objectives of the other Natura
2000 sites, are necessary in order to make possible the restoration of habitats and populations. Only the presence of habitat types and species deemed insignificant may be disregarded.
1      Original language: German.
2      The matter at issue in the main proceedings is governed by Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992
L
206, p. 7), as amended by Council Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013 (OJ 2013
L
158, p. 193).
3      Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 2010
L
20, p. 7), as amended by Regulation (EU) 2019/1010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 (OJ 2019 L 170, p. 115).
4      Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1).
5      As the Commission notes, it is unclear from the reference for a preliminary ruling whether the assessment also covered the deterioration of protected habitats as a result of the disruption caused by the turbines; for a discussion of the need to examine that aspect, see judgment of 14 January 2016, Commission v Bulgaria (Kaliakra) (C‑141/14, EU:C:2016:8, paragraph 59), and my Opinion in that case (C‑141/14, EU:C:2015:528, points 94 to 99).
6      Judgments of
29 July 2019, Inter-Environnement Wallonie and Bond Beter Leefmilieu Vlaanderen (C‑411/17, EU:C:2019:622, paragraph 116), and of
17 April 2018, Commission v Poland (Białowieża Forest) (C‑441/17, EU:C:2018:255, paragraph 106).
7      Judgments of 15 June 2023, Eco Advocacy (C‑721/21, EU:C:2023:477, paragraph 38); of 29 July 2019, Inter-Environnement Wallonie and Bond Beter Leefmilieu Vlaanderen (C‑411/17, EU:C:2019:622, 120); and of 7 September 2004, Waddenvereniging and Vogelbeschermingsvereniging (C‑127/02, EU:C:2004:482, paragraph 59).
8      Judgments of
15 June 2023, Eco Advocacy (C‑721/21, EU:C:2023:477, paragraph 39); of 7 November 2018, Coöperatie Mobilisation for the Environment and Others (C‑293/17 and C‑294/17, EU:C:2018:882, paragraph 98); of 17 April 2018, Commission v Poland (Białowieża Forest) (C‑441/17, EU:C:2018:255, paragraph 139); and of
24 November 2011, Commission v Spain (C‑404/09, EU:C:2011:768, paragraph 100).
9      Judgments of 12 April 2018, People Over Wind and Sweetman (C‑323/17, EU:C:2018:244, paragraph 34); of 13 December 2007, Commission v Ireland (C‑418/04, EU:C:2007:780, paragraph 226); and of 7 September 2004, Waddenvereniging and Vogelbeschermingsvereniging (C‑127/02, EU:C:2004:482, paragraphs 43 and 44).
10      Judgments of 7 November 2018, Coöperatie Mobilisation for the Environment and Others (C‑293/17 and C‑294/17, EU:C:2018:882, paragraph 114); of 13 December 2007, Commission v Ireland (C‑418/04, EU:C:2007:780, paragraph 254); and of 7 September 2004, Waddenvereniging and Vogelbeschermingsvereniging (C‑127/02, EU:C:2004:482, paragraph 44).
11      Opinion in Eco Advocacy (C‑721/21, EU:C:2023:39, points 91 to 93).
12      Judgments of 6 March 2025, Waltham Abbey Residents Association (C‑41/24, EU:C:2025:140, paragraph 48), and of 15 June 2023, Eco Advocacy (C‑721/21, EU:C:2023:477, paragraph 42).
13      By way of illustration, see my Opinion in Eco Advocacy (C‑721/21, EU:C:2023:39, point 105).
14      Judgment of 8 November 2016, Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK (C‑243/15, EU:C:2016:838, paragraph 49).
15      Judgment of 7 September 2004, Waddenvereniging and Vogelbeschermingsvereniging (C‑127/02, EU:C:2004:482, paragraph 46).
16      For further details regarding development potentials, see points
75 to 77 below.
17      See judgments of 4 October 2007, Commission v Italy (C‑179/06, EU:C:2007:578, paragraph 35), and of 7 September 2004, Waddenvereniging and Vogelbeschermingsvereniging (C‑127/02, EU:C:2004:482, paragraph 47).
18      Judgments of 17 April 2018, Commission v Poland (Białowieża Forest) (C‑441/17, EU:C:2018:255, paragraph 112); of 11 April 2013, Sweetman and Others (C‑258/11, EU:C:2013:220, paragraph 30); and of 7 September 2004, Waddenvereniging and Vogelbeschermingsvereniging (C‑127/02, EU:C:2004:482, paragraph 48).
19      European Environment Agency, Natura
2000 sites designated under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives (published on 5 November 2025), https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/indicators/natura-2000-sites-designated-under.
20      See point 49 immediately above.
21      See, for example, judgment of 26 April 2017, Commission v Germany (C‑142/16, EU:C:2017:301, paragraphs 29 to 33).
22      The original language versions include the English, Danish, French, Greek, Italian, Dutch, Portuguese and Spanish versions. The other language versions were not the subject of the legislative procedure resulting in the adoption of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive.
23      Judgments of 21 September 2023, Commission v Germany (Protection of special areas of conservation) (C‑116/22, EU:C:2023:687, paragraphs 105 and 106); of 29 June 2023, Commission v Ireland (Protection of special areas of conservation) (C‑444/21, EU:C:2023:524, paragraphs 64 and 65); and of 17 December 2020, Commission v Greece (Protection of special areas of conservation) (C‑849/19, EU:C:2020:1047, paragraphs 46 to 53).
24      Judgments of 21 September 2023, Commission v Germany (Protection of special areas of conservation) (C‑116/22, EU:C:2023:687, paragraph 105); of 29 June 2023, Commission v Ireland (Protection of special areas of conservation) (C‑444/21, EU:C:2023:524, paragraph 64); and
of 17 December 2020, Commission v Greece (Protection of special areas of conservation) (C‑849/19, EU:C:2020:1047, paragraph 46).
25      See also judgments of 17 December 2020, Commission v Greece (Protection of special areas of conservation) (C‑849/19, EU:C:2020:1047, paragraph 59), and of 17 April 2018, Commission v Poland (Białowieża Forest) (C‑441/17, EU:C:2018:255, paragraph 213).
26      Judgments of 29 June 2023, Commission v Ireland (Protection of special areas of conservation) (C‑444/21, EU:C:2023:524, paragraph 157), and of 17 December 2020, Commission v Greece (Protection of special areas of conservation) (C‑849/19, EU:C:2020:1047, paragraph 52).
27      Judgments of 29 June 2023, Commission v Ireland (Protection of special areas of conservation) (C‑444/21, EU:C:2023:524, paragraph 155); of 17 December 2020, Commission v Greece (Protection of special areas of conservation) (C‑849/19, EU:C:2020:1047, paragraphs 49 and 50); and of 17 April 2018, Commission v Poland (Białowieża Forest) (C‑441/17, EU:C:2018:255, paragraph 207).
28      See, to that effect, judgment of 17 April 2018, Commission v Poland (Białowieża Forest) (C‑441/17, EU:C:2018:255, paragraphs 207 to 209 as well as 213 and 221).
29      See, to that effect, judgment of 14 October 2010, Commission v Austria (Hanság and Niedere Tauern) (C‑535/07, EU:C:2010:602, paragraphs 62 to 66).
30      Judgment of 12 September 2024 (C‑66/23, EU:C:2024:733, paragraph 46).
31      See points 48 and
49 above.
32      Judgment of 12 September 2024, Elliniki Ornithologiki Etaireia and Others (C‑66/23, EU:C:2024:733, paragraph 42).
33      Judgment of 12 September 2024, Elliniki Ornithologiki Etaireia and Others (C‑66/23, EU:C:2024:733, paragraphs 45 and 46
in particular).
34      See judgments of 7 November 2018, Holohan and Others (C‑461/17, EU:C:2018:883, paragraphs 35 and 37), and of 7 September 2004, Waddenvereniging and Vogelbeschermingsvereniging (C‑127/02, EU:C:2004:482, paragraph 54), as well as my Opinion in CFE and Terre wallonne (C‑43/18 and C‑321/18, EU:C:2019:56, point 76) and in Elliniki Ornithologiki Etaireia and Others (C‑66/23, EU:C:2024:150, point 45) as well as the Opinion of Advocate General Ćapeta in Commission v Germany (Protection of special areas of conservation) (C‑116/22, EU:C:2023:317, point 31).
35      Commission Implementing Decision 2011/484/EU of 11 July 2011 concerning a site information format for Natura
2000 sites (notified under document C(2011) 4892) (OJ 2011
L
198, p. 39).
36      See my Opinion in Commission v Italy (Santa Caterina) (C‑304/05, EU:C:2007:228, point 33).
37      See judgment of 12 September 2024, Elliniki Ornithologiki Etaireia and Others (C‑66/23, EU:C:2024:733, paragraphs 47 to 49).
38      Judgment of 12 September 2024, Elliniki Ornithologiki Etaireia and Others (C‑66/23, EU:C:2024:733, in particular paragraph 48), as well as my Opinion in Commission v Italy (Santa Caterina) (C‑304/05, EU:C:2007:228, point 34).
39      See my Opinion in Vereniging Hoekschewaards Landschap (C‑281/16, EU:C:2017:476, points 52 to 63).
40      See the references in footnote 8.
41      Second sentence of Article 4(5) of the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on speeding-up environmental assessments (COM(2025)
984 final, pp. 28 and 29).
42      Judgments of 21 September 2023, Commission v Germany (Protection of special areas of conservation) (C‑116/22, EU:C:2023:687, paragraph 106); of 29 June 2023, Commission v Ireland (Protection of special areas of conservation) (C‑444/21, EU:C:2023:524, paragraph 65); and of 17 December 2020, Commission v Greece (Protection of special areas of conservation) (C‑849/19, EU:C:2020:1047, paragraph 53).
43      See point 72 above.
44      Judgment of 4 March 2010, Commission v France (C‑241/08, EU:C:2010:114, paragraph 53), and, by way of illustration, my Opinion in Latvijas valsts meži (C‑434/22, EU:C:2023:595, point 41) concerning fire protection measures in Natura
2000 areas.
45      Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy
and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013
L
347, p. 549).
46      See judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2024, Spain v Commission (T‑508/22, EU:T:2024:855, paragraphs 78 to 80).
47      See judgment of 17 December 2020, France v Commission (C‑404/19 P, EU:C:2020:1041, paragraph 51, with further references).
48      See, for example, judgments of 24 November 2011, Commission v Spain (Alto Sil) (C‑404/09, EU:C:2011:768, paragraphs 101 and 102);
of 20 September 2007, Commission v Italy (Santa Caterina) (C‑304/05, EU:C:2007:532, paragraphs 16, 17 and 95); and of 29 January 2004, Commission v Austria (Wörschacher Moos) (C‑209/02, EU:C:2004:61, paragraph 22 et seq.).
49      https://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/?sitecode=IE0004094&views=Sites_View.
50      https://www.npws.ie/sites/default/files/protected-sites/conservation_objectives/CO004094_0.pdf.
51      By way of illustration, see my Opinion in Elliniki Ornithologiki Etaireia and Others (C‑66/23, EU:C:2024:150, points 56 to 64).
52      See points 79 and 80 above.
53      See points 50 to
56 above.
54      See point 91 above.
55      See point 94 above.
56      Judgments of 23 April 2020, Herst (C‑401/18, EU:C:2020:295, paragraph 54), and of 6 March 2007, Meilicke and Others (C‑292/04, EU:C:2007:132, paragraph 34).
57      Judgments of 23 April 2020, Herst (C‑401/18, EU:C:2020:295, paragraph 56), and of 6 March 2007, Meilicke and Others (C‑292/04, EU:C:2007:132, paragraph 35).
58      See Guidelines for the assessment of plans and projects in relation to Natura 2000 sites (September 2021, p. 7).
59      See judgment of 28 April 2016, Borealis Polyolefine and Others (C‑191/14, C‑192/14, C‑295/14, C‑389/14 and C‑391/14 to C‑393/14, EU:C:2016:311, paragraph 105).
60      See judgments of 18 June 1998, Gedeputeerde Staten van Noord-Holland (C‑81/96, EU:C:1998:305, paragraphs 23 and 24) on the general environmental impact assessment, and of 23 March 2006, Commission v Austria (Lauteracher Ried) (C‑209/04, EU:C:2006:195, paragraphs 56 and 57) on the environmental impact study under the Habitats Directive.