Case C-131/05: Action brought on 21 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Date: 2005-05-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, United Kingdom, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, protected species, protection of animal life, protection of plant life

C 132/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.5.2005

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

1. find that

the United Kingdom has failed its obligations
under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt all the laws, regula-
tions and administrative provisions necessary to comply
with Directive 2000/34/EC (1) of 22 June 2000 amending
Directive 93/104/EC (2) concerning certain aspects of the
organisation of working time to cover sectors and activities
excluded from that directive and/or by failing to inform the
Commission thereof;

2. condemn the United Kingdom to bear the costs of the

procedure.

13(1), both read in conjunction with Article 2(1) of Council
Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats
and of wild fauna and flora, (2) the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obliga-
tions under these Directives;

2. order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 1 August 2003.

The Commission maintains that:

(1) OJ L 195, 01.08.2000, p. 41.
(2) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18.

Action brought on 21 March 2005 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-131/05)

(2005/C 132/27)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 21 March 2005 by the Commission
of the European Communities, represented by Mr Michel Van
Beek, acting as Agent, assisted by Mr Frédéric Louis, avocat,
and Mr Antonio Capobianco, avvocato, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, in failing to comply with its obligations under
Article 6(1) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conser-
vation of wild birds (1) and under Article 12(2) and Article

— by limiting the prohibition contained in Article 6(1) of
Directive 79/409/EEC, the Wild Birds Directive, regarding
the sale, transport for sale, keeping for sale and the offering
for sale of wild birds to species resident in, or visitors to,
Great Britain, the United Kingdom has infringed the afore-
mentioned article as the prohibition is clearly intended to
cover all species of naturally occurring birds in the wild
state in the European territory of the Member Staes to
which the Treaty applies;

— by limiting the prohibition contained in Article 12(2) of
Directive 92/43/EEC, the Habitats Directive, regarding the
keeping, transport and sale or exchange, and offering for
sale or exchange of the animal species listed in Annex IV(a)
of the Directive to animal species whose natural range
includes Great Britain, the United Kingdom has infringed
the aforementioned article as, as a consequence of that
limitation, the list of protected animal species covered by
the UK legislation is shorter than the list in Annex IV of the
directive;

— by limiting the prohibition on the trade in plant species
contained in Article 13(1) of
the Habitats Directive to
species ‘whose natural range includes any area in Great
Britain as listed in Schedule 4 [of the 1994 Regulations]’
the United Kingdom has infringed the aforementioned
Article as, as a consequence of that limitation, the list of
protected plant species in Schedule 4 is shorter than the list
of protected species in Annex IV(b) of the Habitats Direc-
tive.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.04.1979, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.07.1992, p. 7.