Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Environment – Conservation of wild birds – Directive 79/409 – Classification of special protection areas

(Council Directive 79/409, Art. 4(1) and (2))

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Application initiating proceedings – Heads of claim – Formal requirements

(Art. 226 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 38(1)(c))

Summary

1. Article 4 of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds lays down a regime which is specifically targeted and reinforced both for the species listed in Annex I and for the migratory species, an approach justified by the fact that they are, respectively, the most endangered species and the species constituting a common heritage of the European Community. Furthermore, it is clear from the ninth recital in the preamble to that directive that the preservation, maintenance or restoration of a sufficient diversity and area of habitats is essential to the conservation of all species of birds. The Member States are therefore required to adopt the measures necessary for the conservation of those species. For that purpose, the updating of scientific data is necessary to determine the situation of the most endangered species and the species constituting the common heritage of the Community in order to classify the most suitable areas as special protection areas (SPAs).

In assessing a failure to fulfil obligations under that directive, it is therefore necessary to use the most up-to-date scientific data available at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion. In that regard, the national lists, including the ornithological inventory published in 1998 (IBA 98) and drawn up by the Sociedad Espanola de Ornitología (Spanish Ornithological Society), revised the first pan-European study carried out in the Inventory of Important Bird Areas in the European Community published in 1989 (IBA 89) and provided more exact and up-to-date scientific data.

In the absence of any contrary scientific evidence produced by a Member State tending particularly to show that the obligations flowing from Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 79/409 could be satisfied by classifying as SPAs sites other than those appearing in that inventory and covering a smaller total area, the IBA 98, which provides an up-to-date list of the areas of importance for the conservation of birds in the Member State concerned, constitutes a basis of reference for assessing whether a Member State has classified areas of a sufficient number and size as SPAs to protect all the bird species listed in Annex I to Directive 79/409 and the migratory species not listed in that annex.

(see paras 23-27)

2. The Commission must, in the heads of claim in an application made under Article 226 EC, indicate the specific complaints on which the Court is asked to rule. Those heads of claim must be set out unambiguously so that the Court does not rule ultra petita or indeed fail to rule on a complaint. Contradictions in the heads of claim put forward by the Commission in support of an action for failure to fulfil obligations do not satisfy the requirements of Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 38(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure.

(see paras 47-48)