Case T-150/05

Markku Sahlstedt and Others

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Council Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Commission Decision 2005/101/EC – List of sites of Community importance for the Boreal biogeographical region – Action for annulment – Inadmissible)

Summary of the Order

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

Direct concern to the applicant, as a condition of the admissibility of an action for annulment under the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, requires that the impugned Community measure must directly affect the applicant’s legal situation and leave no discretion to the addressees entrusted with the task of implementing it, such implementation being purely automatic and resulting from Community rules without the application of other intermediate rules. This means that, where a Community measure is addressed to a Member State by an institution, if the action to be taken by the Member State to implement that measure is automatic or a foregone conclusion, it is of direct concern to any person affected by that action. If, on the other hand, the measure leaves it to the Member State whether or not to act, or does not require it to act in a definite way, it is the Member State’s action or inaction which directly concerns the person affected, and not the measure itself.

In that regard, Decision 2005/101 adopting, pursuant to Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats, the list of sites of Community importance for the Boreal biogeographical region, which designates areas of Finland as sites of Community importance, affects neither the rights or obligations of the land owners nor the exercise of those rights since it imposes no obligation whatsoever on economic operators or private persons and contains no provision as regards the system of protection of sites of Community importance, such as conservation measures or authorisation procedures.

Likewise, the obligations arising from Directive 92/43, and particularly from Articles 4 and 6 thereof, which bind the Member States once sites of Community importance have been designated by the contested decision, are not directly applicable to those operators since they necessitate a measure on the part of the Member State concerned, in order to specify how it intends to implement them.

(see paras 52-54, 59)

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber)

22 June 2006 ( )

(Council Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora − Commission Decision 2005/101/EC − List of sites of Community importance for the Boreal biogeographical region − Action for annulment − Inadmissibility)

In Case T‑150/05,

Markku Sahlstedt, residing in Karkkila (Finland),

Juha Kankkunen, residing in Laukaa (Finland),

Mikko Tanner, residing in Vihti (Finland),

Toini Tanner, residing in Helsinki (Finland),

Liisa Tanner, residing in Helsinki,

Eeva Jokinen, residing in Helsinki,

Aili Oksanen, residing in Helsinki,

Olli Tanner, residing in Lohja (Finland),

Leena Tanner, residing in Helsinki,

Aila Puttonen, residing in Ristiina (Finland),

Risto Tanner, residing in Espoo (Finland),

Tom Järvinen, residing in Espoo,

Runo K. Kurko, residing in Espoo,

Maa- ja metsätaloustuottajain keskusliitto MTK ry, established in Helsinki,

MTK:n säätiö, established in Helsinki,

represented by K. Marttinen, lawyer,

applicants,

v

Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. van Beek and M. Huttunen, acting as Agents,

defendant,

supported by

Republic of Finland, represented by A. Guimaraes-Purokoski and J. Himmanen, acting as Agents,

intervener,

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision 2005/101/EC of 13 January 2005 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Boreal biogeographical region (OJ 2005 L 40, p. 1),

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (First Chamber),

composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President, I. Labucka and V. Trstenjak, Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

makes the following

Order

Legal and factual background

1 On 21 May 1992, the Council adopted Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7; ‘the habitats directive’).

2 The aim of the habitats directive is, according to Article 2(1) thereof, to contribute towards ensuring biodiversity through the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora in the territory of the Member States to which the EC Treaty applies.

3 Article 2(2) of the habitats directive provides that the measures taken for its implementation are to be designed to maintain or restore, at favourable conservation status, natural habitats and species of wild fauna and flora of Community interest.

4 According to the sixth recital in the preamble to the habitats directive, it is necessary, in order to ensure the restoration or maintenance of natural habitats and species of Community interest at a favourable conservation status, to designate special areas of conservation in order to create a coherent European ecological network in accordance with a specified timetable.

5 By virtue of Article 3(1) of the habitats directive, such network, under the title ‘Natura 2000’, is to include special areas of conservation as well as special protection areas classified by the Member States pursuant to Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1).

6 Under Article 1(l) of the habitats directive, ‘special area of conservation’ means ‘a site of Community importance designated by the Member States through a statutory, administrative and/or contractual act where the necessary conservation measures are applied for the maintenance or restoration, at a favourable conservation status, of the natural habitats and/or the populations of the species for which the site is designated’.

7 Article 4 of the habitats directive lays down a three-stage procedure for the designation of special areas of conservation. Under Article 4(1), each Member State is to propose a list of sites indicating which natural habitat types in Annex I and which species in Annex II that are native to its territory the sites host. Within three years of the notification of the habitats directive, that list is to be transmitted to the Commission, together with information on each site.

8 Under Article 4(2) of the habitats directive, the Commission is to establish, from those lists and on the basis of the criteria set out in Annex III to the directive and in agreement with each Member State, a draft list of sites of Community importance. The list of sites of Community importance is to be adopted by the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 21 of the habitats directive. In accordance with Article 4(3), that list is to be established within six years of the notification of the habitats directive.

9 Article 4(4) of the habitats directive provides that, once a site of Community importance has been adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 4(2), the Member State concerned is to 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.

10 Article 4(5) of the habitats directive states that, as soon as a site is placed on the list of sites of Community importance established by the Commission, it is to be subject to Article 6(2) to (4) of the habitats directive.

11 Under the terms of 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. It shall inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted.

Where the site concerned hosts a priority natural habitat type and/or a priority species, the only considerations which may be raised are those relating to human health or public safety, to beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment or, further to an opinion from the Commission, to other imperative reasons of overriding public interest.’

12 Commission Decision 2005/101/EC of 13 January 2005 adopting, pursuant to the habitats directive, the list of sites of Community importance for the Boreal biogeographical region (OJ 2005 L 40, p. 1; ‘the contested decision’) was adopted on the basis of the third subparagraph of Article 4(2) of that directive. Among the sites of Community importance included in the list are the following sites:

− FI 0100040 Nuuksio;

– FI 0100050 Haaviston alueet;

– FI 0200011 Varesharju;

– FI 0900013 Hietasyrjänkangas-Sirkkaharju.

13 The applicant Maa- ja metsätaloustuottajain keskusliitto MTK ry (‘MTK ry’) is an association (central organisation) of farmers and foresters, and represents 163 000 economic operators in farming and forestry who belong to it. The applicant MTK:n säätiö (MTK Foundation) owns lands in site FI 0200011. The other applicants are private landowners; the contested decision included their lands in certain sites of Community importance for the Boreal biogeographical region (FI 0100050, FI 0900013 and FI 0100040).

Procedure

14 The applicants brought this action by application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 18 April 2005.

15 By document lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 5 July 2005, the Commission raised an objection of inadmissibility under Article 114(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance. The applicants lodged their observations on that objection on 13 October 2005.

16 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 18 July 2005, the Republic of Finland (‘the intervener’) sought leave to intervene in these proceedings in support of the Commission. By order of 27 September 2005, the President of the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance granted leave to intervene. The intervener lodged its statement, confined to admissibility, on 8 November 2005. The applicants lodged their observations thereon on 13 January 2006.

Forms of order sought by the parties

17 In its objection of inadmissibility, the Commission contends that the Court should:

– dismiss the action as inadmissible;

– order the applicants to pay the costs.

18 In its statement in intervention, the intervener submits that the Court should dismiss the action as inadmissible.

19 In their observations on the objection of inadmissibility, the applicants contend that the Court should:

– primarily:

– reject the objection of inadmissibility;

– annul the contested decision;

– in the alternative:

– annul the contested decision in so far as it classifies sites of Community importance in Finland;

– annul the contested decision, in the further alternative, in so far as it classifies as sites of Community importance the sites listed in Annex 1 under the references FI 0100040 Nuuksio, FI 0100050 Haaviston alueet, FI 0200011 Varesharju and FI 0900013 Hietasyrjänkangas Sirkkaharju;

– as a measure of inquiry, order the Commission to produce the Republic of Finland’s proposals relating to the classification of sites of Community importance, all the scientific data referred to in recital 5 in the preamble to the contested decision, as well as a list of the participants at the biogeographic seminars referred to in recital 10 in that preamble and a list of the members of the Habitats Committee referred to in recital 13 in that preamble;

– in addition:

– reject the Commission’s application for costs;

– order the Commission to pay the costs, with statutory interest thereon.

Law

20 Under Article 114 of the Rules of Procedure, if a party applies to the Court of First Instance for a decision on admissibility without going into the substance of the case, the remainder of the proceedings on the objection of inadmissibility is to be oral, unless the Court decides otherwise. In the present case, the Court considers itself to be sufficiently informed by the documents in the Court file and decides that there is no need to open the oral proceedings.

Arguments of the parties

21 The Commission, first of all, raises the question whether, having regard to the various stages provided for in the habitats directive for the purposes of achieving its objectives, the contested decision is an act or decision which may be the subject of an action for annulment under Article 230 EC (Case 60/81 IBM v Commission [1981] ECR 2639, paragraph 10). The contested decision is but an intermediate stage in the implementation of the objectives of the habitats directive. Any legal consequences affecting the applicants can arise only from measures adopted by the Member States.

22 The Commission notes that the Member States were obliged to adopt relevant protection measures well before the Commission adopted the contested decision. As is clear from the judgment in Case C‑117/03 Dragaggi and Others [2005] ECR I‑167, paragraphs 26, 27 and 29, the habitats directive requires the Member States to apply protection measures to the sites as soon as they propose them as being eligible for identification as sites of Community importance on the national list transmitted to the Commission.

23 It points out that, under the Luonnonsuojelulaki (1096/1996) (Law on Nature Conservation; ‘the LSL’), the lands mentioned in the annex to the contested decision were already subject to protection measures well before the adoption of the contested decision. The Republic of Finland submitted its proposal for the designation of sites of Community importance between January 2003 and August 2004, even though some of those sites had already been approved for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network several years earlier, as a result of the LSL, dating from 20 December 1996.

24 The Commission submits that it follows from the foregoing that the contested decision has not affected the applicants’ legal interests by altering their legal position. Therefore, they are not entitled – lacking a legal interest in bringing proceedings – to institute an action for annulment against that decision under the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC.

25 The Commission submits, next, that the applicants are not directly and individually concerned.

26 As regards the applicants being directly concerned, the Commission states that the applicants seem to start from the premiss that the simple fact of being owners of sites listed in the annex to the contested decision automatically confers a right of action upon them.

27 The Commission observes, in that regard, that, according to settled case-law, for the applicants to be directly concerned, the decision must produce effects not only on their factual situation but also on their legal situation (Joined Cases T‑172/98 and T‑175/98 to T‑177/98 Salamander and Others v Parliament and Council [2000] ECR II‑2487, paragraph 62). The applicants cannot, therefore, rely on the fact, for example, that the contested decision could affect the economic value of the lands they own.

28 The Commission submits that the provisions of the habitats directive require the Member States to adopt measures clearly distinct from the contested decision, in connection with which measures they enjoy a broad discretionary power. The implementation of the contested decision is not, therefore, purely automatic. It is only once the Member State has implemented the abovementioned rules under the discretion they allow it that one can examine whether the applicants’ situation could have been affected. The contested decision does not determine the type of measures possibly to be applied in due course to each site, nor the type of effects that those measures could have on the landowners’ situation.

29 As regards being individually concerned, the Commission argues that the applicants do not make clear the reason for which they submit that the contested decision concerns them individually. As the Commission understands the arguments supporting the right of action put forward in the application, MTK ry relies on the interests of its members. The other applicants rely on the fact that they own part of the lands listed in Annex 1 to the contested decision.

30 The Commission argues that, with the exception of two applicants, the real property rights are not clearly particularised. As regards MTK ry, it appears that it is not the owner of any land, but that the foundation it owns is the owner of some land in certain sites listed in the annex to the contested decision.

31 In the Commission’s submission, the fact that applicants other than MTK ry own some of the lands within the scope of the contested decision does not affect those landowners to such an extent that one could consider the decision affects them individually. That decision does not confer any kind of right or obligation on the applicants, any more than it alters, in law, their situation as owners. The sites concerned are defined exclusively on the basis of biological criteria.

32 The Commission submits that it is clear that the definition of the sites on the basis of real property rights would singularly complicate the implementation of the objectives of the habitats directive.

33 It is not possible, on the basis of the contested decision or, at least, on the basis of the information which the Commission used in drawing it up, to identify the owners of the sites included in the list. The forms established by the Commission for the purposes of Article 4(2) of the habitats directive provide the opportunity of giving information on the conditions of land ownership, but the furnishing of such information is optional. That opportunity was hardly used, as a result of which the available information is rather general. It includes a list of owners, given that, for a single site proposed for inclusion, there could be a considerable number of owners.

34 In all cases, it is evident that the sites listed in the contested decision are of concern also to players other than the landowners, such as construction companies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) or citizens. One can therefore differentiate the applicants in a manner similar to the Member States, the addressees of the contested decision, only if that decision affects them by virtue of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated from other economic operators and, in particular, from other persons enjoying the same rights (Case T‑13/99 Pfizer Animal Health v Council [2002] ECR II‑3305, paragraph 105). In no case does the contested decision affect the applicants in such a way as to deprive them of the enjoyment of their property (Case C‑309/89 Codorníu v Council [1994] ECR I‑1853, paragraph 21). The restrictions possibly applicable to the use of land require, at a later stage, the adoption of relevant national decisions on a case-by-case basis.

35 Contrary to what the applicants seem to think, as the Commission submits, the contested decision does not however regulate the rights or obligations of landowners, but consists solely of a list of sites which can, if necessary, be made the subject of any protection measure judged relevant and adopted, on a case-by-case basis, under national decisions.

36 The intervener supports the Commission’s arguments and states that, as regards the sites listed in the annex to the contested decision, the applicants have various interests which they wish to defend. It is appropriate, however, to point out that the action’s admissibility must be examined exclusively in the light of the EC Treaty and relevant case-law of the Community Courts.

37 The applicants submit, first of all, that the contested decision confirms the Commission’s definitive position that the sites referred to in that decision must be regarded as sites of Community importance, and that the Member States will compulsorily have to designate those sites as special areas of conservation. The contested decision is not therefore preparatory in nature and can be challenged as a decision.

38 The applicants dispute the Commission’s argument that the contested decision has no notable effects on the applicants’ legal position. That decision establishes considerable obligations and restrictions directly on landowners whose lands are referred to in the contested decision.

39 As regards the Member States’ obligation to protect the sites before the approval of the list of sites of Community importance, the applicants submit that the Commission misinterpreted the judgment in Dragaggi and Others. In their submission, it is clear that the protection measures provided for in Article 6(2) to (4) of the habitats directive materialise exclusively with the adoption of the contested decision.

40 Concerning the significance of the measures of implementation on the part of the Republic of Finland, the applicants contend that the fact that the Member State has or has not implemented protection measures related to safeguarding the ecological value of the sites before the adoption of the contested decision is irrelevant. The applicants point out, relying on the provisions of the LSL, that the legal effects attached to the areas of protection covered by the habitats directive will become definitive in Finnish law as regards landowners only once the Commission has accepted the site on the list.

41 The applicants maintain, next, that they are directly and individually concerned by the contested decision.

42 As regards direct concern, the applicants observe that, under Article 4(4) of the habitats directive, the Member State is not free to determine whether or not it will designate a site of Community importance as a special area of conservation and that it follows that the application of that provision is automatic.

43 The applicants note that, under Article 4(5) of the habitats directive, the adoption of the contested decision has resulted in rendering the objectives of protection provided for in Article 6(2) to (4) of the habitats directive applicable with regard to the sites included in the decision. They point out that the assessment obligation and the prevention of deterioration provided for in Article 6(3) of the habitats directive generate considerable effects with regard to landowners of the sites both as regards their legal situation and factual circumstances.

44 The applicants submit that neither the effects nor the moment at which they start to materialise depend on the use of the discretionary power by the national authorities. The latter have no discretion either as regards the possibility of carrying out an assessment or the content of that assessment or as regards the conditions for implementing any project, which are regulated exhaustively by Article 6(3) and (4) of the habitats directive.

45 The applicants conclude that the contested decision leaves the national authorities no discretion capable of preventing the landowners concerned from bringing proceedings under the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC. The applicants make clear that their situations are determined by the direct legal effects which flow from the contested decision with regard to the sites they own and which take the form of an assessment obligation and restrictions on exploitation.

46 As regards individual concern, the applicants observe that the contested decision concerns individually all the landowners who own land situated in the sites referred to in the list approved by the Commission or in sites, for example, directly adjacent to the sites concerned, where projects which are implemented are capable, by reason of their effects, of generating an assessment obligation under Article 6(3) of the habitats directive and with regard to which the prevention of deterioration will apply.

47 The applicants submit that the assessment obligation and prevention of deterioration contained in that provision are binding legal effects with a considerable impact on their rights. The Commission’s argument that the sites are designated only on the basis of biological criteria is irrelevant.

48 The applicants claim that the fact that the Commission has or does not have information concerning the landowners of the sites in the list is not relevant to the determination of the action’s admissibility. It is essential to ascertain whether, following the contested decision’s adoption, it is possible to differentiate the persons concerned by that decision. The ownership of land included in the sites of Community importance the list of which was adopted by the contested decision is what differentiates the applicants, as landowners, from construction companies, NGOs and the citizen.

49 As regards the applicant association, namely MTK ry, the applicants submit that its right of action is founded upon the interests of its members. The majority of its members are landowners whose lands are included in sites of Community importance. The contested decision has an identical impact on the majority of the association’s members and on the applicants who are private individuals.

Findings of the Court

50 The fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC provides that ‘[a]ny natural or legal person may institute proceedings against a decision addressed to that person or against a decision which, although in the form of a regulation or decision addressed to another person, is of direct and individual concern to the former’.

51 Since it is common ground that the contested decision is not addressed to the applicants, it is appropriate to examine whether that decision is of direct or individual concern to them.

52 As regards, in the first place, direct concern to the applicants who are natural persons, it must be recalled that for an individual to be directly concerned by a Community measure, in this case the contested decision, it must directly affect the legal situation of the individual and leave no discretion to the addressees of that measure, who are entrusted with the task of implementing it, such implementation being purely automatic and resulting from Community rules without the application of other intermediate rules (see Case C‑386/96 P Dreyfus v Commission [1998] ECR I‑2309, paragraph 43, and the case-law cited therein, and Salamanderand Others v Parliamentand Council, paragraph 52).

53 This means that, where a Community measure is addressed to a Member State by an institution, if the action to be taken by the Member State to implement that measure is automatic or is, in one way or another, a foregone conclusion, it is of direct concern to any person affected by that action. If, on the other hand, the measure leaves the Member State free to act or not to act, or does not require it to act in a certain way, it is the Member State’s action or inaction which is of direct concern to the person affected, and not the measure itself (see, to that effect, the order of the Court of First Instance in Case T-223/01 Japan Tobacco and JT International v Parliamentand Council [2002] ECR II-3259, paragraph 46).

54 The Court considers that it cannot be held that the contested decision – which designates, as sites of Community importance, areas of Finland in which the applicants own land – produces, by itself, effects on the applicants’ legal situation. The contested decision contains no provision as regards the system of protection of sites of Community importance, such as conservation measures or authorisation procedures to be followed. Thus, it affects neither the rights or obligations of the landowners nor the exercise of those rights. Contrary to the applicants’ argument, the inclusion of those sites in the list of sites of Community importance imposes no obligation whatsoever on economic operators or private persons.

55 Article 4(4) of the habitats directive states that once a site of Community importance has been adopted by the Commission, the Member State concerned is to designate that site as a ‘special area of conservation’ within six years at most. In that regard, Article 6(1) of the habitats directive states that the Member States are to establish the necessary conservation measures for special areas of conservation, the aim being to meet the ecological requirements of the natural habitat types and species present on the sites.

56 Article 4(5) of the habitats directive states also that, as soon as a site is placed on the list of sites of Community importance, it is to be subject to the provisions of Article 6(2) to (4).

57 Thus, Article 6(2) of the habitats directive provides that the Member States are to 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 that directive.

58 Likewise, Article 6(3) of the habitats directive provides that any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon is to undergo an appropriate assessment of its implications for the site on the basis of the site’s conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of those implications for the site, the competent national authorities are to agree to the plan or project only after ascertaining that it would not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned. In that regard, Article 6(4) of the habitats directive provides that, if such a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, the Member State is to take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network.

59 On perusal of those obligations, which bind the Member States concerned once sites of Community importance have been designated by the contested decision, it must be held that none of those obligations applies directly to the applicants. All those obligations necessitate a measure on the part of the Member State concerned, in order to specify how it intends to implement the obligation in question, whether it relates to necessary conservation measures (Article 6(1) of the habitats directive), steps appropriate to avoid deterioration of the site (Article 6(2) of the habitats directive), or the agreement to be given by the competent national authorities to a project likely to have a significant effect on it (Article 6(3) and (4) of the habitats directive).

60 It follows therefore from the habitats directive, on the basis of which the contested decision was adopted, that it is binding on the Member State as to the result to be achieved, whilst the choice of the conservation measures to be undertaken and the authorisation procedures to be followed is left to the competent national authorities. That conclusion cannot be undermined by the fact that the discretion thus conferred on the Member States must be exercised in accordance with the aims of the habitats directive.

61 As regards, secondly, the direct concern of the applicant association, the Court observes that MTK ry claims that it represents the interests of its members and that the contested decision has an identical impact on the majority of the association’s members and on the other applicants who are natural persons. In those circumstances, the Court considers that any effect on the legal situation of the applicant association’s members cannot be different from the effect alleged by the individual applicants in the present case. It follows that, since, as the Court has held, the individual applicants in the present case cannot be regarded as being directly concerned by the contested decision, neither can the applicant association’s members. Nor has the applicant association demonstrated that it has an interest of its own in pursuing the action, such as a negotiating position affected by the contested decision (see, to that effect, Joined Cases 67/85, 68/85 and 70/85 Van der Kooy and Others v Commission [1988] ECR 219, paragraph 20 et seq., and Case C‑313/90 CIRFS v Commission [1993] ECR I‑1125, paragraph 30).

62 It follows from all the foregoing that the applicants are not directly concerned by the contested decision, within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC and, therefore, that the claims for annulment of the contested decision must be dismissed as inadmissible, without the necessity of broaching the question whether the applicants are individually concerned by the contested decision.

63 However, whilst they cannot apply for the annulment of the contested decision, the applicants may still challenge the measures adopted in implementation of Article 6 of the habitats directive which affect them and, in that context, they retain the possibility of relying on its illegality before the national courts, adjudicating in accordance with Article 234 EC (Case C-70/97 P Kruidvat v Commission [1998] ECR I-7183, paragraphs 48 and 49, and the order of the Court of First Instance in Case T-45/00 Conseil national des professions de l’automobile and Others v Commission [2000] ECR II-2927, paragraph 26).

64 As a result, the claim that the Court should order measures of inquiry (see paragraph 19 above) must also be dismissed. In the light of all the foregoing, the measures applied for would be of no use in the resolution of the dispute. Therefore, the action must be dismissed in its entirety.

Costs

65 Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the applicants have been unsuccessful, and the Commission has applied for costs, the applicants must be ordered to pay the Commission’s costs.

66 Under the first subparagraph of Article 87(4) of the Rules of Procedure, Member States which intervene must bear their own costs. In the present case, the Republic of Finland must therefore be ordered to bear its own costs.

On those grounds,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber)

hereby orders:

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

3. The Republic of Finland shall bear its own costs.

Luxembourg, 22 June 2006.

E. Coulon R. García-Valdecasas