Case C‑399/14

Grüne Liga Sachsen eV and Others

v

Freistaat Sachsen

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 92/43/EEC — Article 6(2) to (4) — Site included in the list of sites of Community importance after a project was authorised but before it began to be carried out — Review of the project after the site was included in that list — Rules governing that review — Consequences of the completion of the project for the choice of alternatives’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 14 January 2016

Environment — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Directive 92/43 — Special areas of conservation — Obligations of the Member States — Assessment of a project’s implications for a site — Carrying out of a new assessment in order to remedy errors found in the first assessment — Finding of a risk of deterioration of natural habitats or of significant disturbance of species — Review of alternative solutions — Consequences of the completion of the project for the choice of alternatives

Environment — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Directive 92/43 — Special areas of conservation — Sites, included in national lists, eligible for identification as sites of Community importance — Protective measures — Authorisation for a plan or project on a protected site — Subsequent inclusion of the site in the list of sites of Community importance — Carrying out of a new environmental impact assessment — Elements to be taken into consideration

Environment — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Directive 92/43 — Special areas of conservation — Sites, included in national lists, eligible for identification as sites of Community importance — Protective measures — Authorisation for a plan or project on a protected site — Subsequent inclusion of the site in the list of sites of Community importance — Obligations of the Member States — Carrying out of a new environmental impact assessment — To be determined by the national court

Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as meaning that a plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a site, and authorised, following a study that did not meet the requirements of Article 6(3) of that directive, before the site in question was included in the list of sites of Community importance must be the subject of a subsequent review, by the competent authorities, of its implications for that site if that review constitutes the only appropriate step for avoiding that the implementation of the plan or project referred to results in deterioration or disturbance that could be significant in view of the objectives of that directive. It is for the referring court to verify whether those conditions are met. Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43 establishes a general obligation of protection consisting of taking appropriate protective measures so as to avoid deterioration as well as disturbance which could have significant effects in the light of the directive’s objectives. That obligation is ongoing in nature. Where a probability or risk of such deterioration or disturbance might appear because a subsequent review of the implications or a plan or project for the site concerned on the basis of the best scientific knowledge was not carried out — in the form of an appropriate step within the meaning of that Article 6(2) — the general obligation of protection entails an obligation to carry out that review. (see paras 37, 44-46, operative part 1)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 49, 50)

Article 6(2) of the Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as meaning that if a subsequent review of the implications for the site concerned of a plan or project which began to be put in hand after that site was included in the list of sites of Community importance proves necessary, that review must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of Article 6(3) of that directive. Such a review must take into account all factors existing at the date of that inclusion and all implications arising or likely to arise following the partial or total implementation of the plan or project on the site in question after that date as well. Where Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43 lays down an obligation to carry out a subsequent review of the implications for the site concerned of a plan or project, such a review must enable the competent authority to guarantee that the implementation of the plan or project referred to will not cause deterioration or disturbance which could be significant in relation to the objectives of that directive. Therefore, should a subsequent review, on the basis of that Article 6(2), prove, in the present case, to be an appropriate step within the meaning of that provision, that review must define what risks of deterioration or disturbance likely to be significant within the meaning of that provision are entailed by the implementation of the plan or project, and that review must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of Article 6(3) of that directive. Moreover, a review meeting the requirements of Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 is necessary in every case where, by analogy with Article 6(4) of that directive, a project incompatible with the conservation objectives of the site concerned must be implemented for imperative reasons of overriding public interest. (see paras 53, 54, 56, 62, operative part 2)