Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 February 2003 in Case C-75/01: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — Wild fauna and flora)
Date: 2003-04-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Luxembourg, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, protected area, protection of animal life, protection of plant life

5.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 83/3

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 13 February 2003

(Sixth Chamber)

of 6 February 2003

in Case C-75/01: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

in Case C-92/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Monomeles Dioikitiko Protodikeio Irakleiou):
Georgios Stylianakis v Elliniko Dimosio (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil
its obligations —
Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats —
Wild fauna and flora)

(2003/C 83/04)

(Article 8a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article
18 EC) — European citizenship — Article 59 of the Treaty
(now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) — Freedom to
provide services — Community air transport — Airport tax
— Discrimination — Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92)

(Language of the case: French)

(2003/C 83/05)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

(Language of the case: Greek)

In Case C-75/01: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: B. Wainwright and J. Adda) against Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg (Agent: J. Faltz) — application for a declaration
that, by failing to take all the necessary measures to implement
fully and correctly Articles 1, 4(5), 5(4), 6, 7, 12(1)(b) and (c),
12(2), 12(4), 13(1)(b) and 13(2), 14, 15, 16(1), 22(b) and (c),
and 23(2) of 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) in conjunction with annexes I, II,
IV, V and VI of that directive, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive and under
the third paragraph of Article 249 EC — the Court of Justice
(Sixth Chamber), composed of J.-P. Puissochet, President of the
Chamber, and C. Gulmann (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris.
F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 February
2003, in which it:

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-92/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Monomeles Diikitiko Protodikio Irakliou (Greece) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Georgios Stylianakis and Elliniko Dimosio, on
the interpretation of Articles 8a and 59 of the EC Treaty (now,
after amendment, Articles 18 and 49 EC) and Article 3(1) of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on
access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air
routes (OJ 1992 L 240, p. 8), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), President of the
Chamber, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha
Rodrigues,
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 February 2003, in which
it has ruled:

1. Declared that, by failing to take all the necessary measures to
implement fully and correctly Articles 1, 4(5), 5(4), 6, 7,
12(1)(b) and (c), 12(2), 12(4), 13(1)(b), 14, 15, 16(1),
22(b), and 23(2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May
1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna
and flora in conjunction with annexes I, II, IV, V and VI of
that directive, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to
fulfil its obligations under the directive;

2. Ordered Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July
1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air
routes precludes a measure adopted by a Member State, such as that
at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes on, for the most
part, flights to other Member States higher airport tax than that
applicable to domestic flights within that Member State unless it is
shown that those taxes compensate airport services necessary for the
processing of passengers and that the cost of those services provided
to passengers flying to other Member States is proportionately higher
those services necessary for the processing of
than the cost of
passengers on domestic flights.

( 1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.

(1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.