Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  10 January 2006  in Case C-98/03: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — Wild fauna and flora — Assessment of the implications of certain projects on a protected site — Protection of species)
Date: 2006-02-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental impact, fishing regulations, pollution, protected species, protection of animals

C 48/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.2.2006

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 10 January 2006

(Second Chamber)

of 10 January 2006

in Case C-94/03: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Council of the European Union (1)

in Case C-98/03: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

(Action for annulment — Council Decision 2003/106/EC
concerning the approval of the Rotterdam Convention —
Prior Informed Consent Procedure — Hazardous chemicals
and pesticides in international trade — Choice of legal basis
— Articles 133 EC and 175 EC)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — Wild
fauna and flora — Assessment of the implications of certain
projects on a protected site — Protection of species)

(2006/C 48/03)

(Language of the case: English)

(2006/C 48/04)

(Language of the case: German)

and K. Michoel),

In Case C-94/03, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: G. zur Hausen, L. Ström van Lier and E. Righini) v
Council of the European Union (Agents: B. Hoff-Nielsen, M.
Sims-Robertson,
supported by French
Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues, F. Alabrune and E. Puisais),
Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: H.G. Sevenster, S. Terstal
and N.A.J. Bel), Republic of Austria (Agent: E. Riedl), Republic
of Finland (Agent: T. Pynnä), United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland (Agent: R. Caudwell, and A. Dashwood,
Barrister) European Parliament (Agents: C. Pennera, M. Moore,
and K. Bradley) — Action for annulment under Article 230 EC,
brought on 28 February 2003 — the Court (Second Chamber),
composed of C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of
the Chamber, J. Makarczyk, C. Gulmann, P. Kūris and J. Klučka,
J. Kokott, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal
Judges;
Administrator,
for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 10
January 2006, in which it:

1. Annuls Council Decision 2003/106/EC of 19 December 2002
concerning the approval, on behalf of the European Community,
of
Informed Consent
Procedure for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in inter-
national trade;

the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior

In Case C-98/03 Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: U. Wölker) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: M.
Lumma and C. Schulze-Bahr) — action under Article 226 EC
for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 28 February 2003
— the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmer-
mans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), R.
Silva de Lapuerta, P. Kūris and G. Arestis, Judges; A. Tizzano,
Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 January 2006, the operative
part of which is as follows:

1. By failing, in respect of certain projects carried out outside special
areas of conservation within the meaning of Article 4(1) of
Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conserva-
tion of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, to require
compulsory assessment of the impact on the site, in accordance
with Article 6(3) and (4) of that directive, whether or not such
projects are capable of significantly affecting a special area of
conservation;

— by authorising emissions in a special area of conservation,
irrespective of whether they are likely to have a significant
effect on that area;

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the

Council of the European Union to bear their own costs;

— by derogating from the scope of the provisions concerning the
protection of species in the case of certain non-deliberate effects
on protected animals;

3. Orders the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the
Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland, the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Parlia-
ment to bear their own costs.

— by failing to ensure compliance with the criteria for derogation
set out in Article 16 of Directive 92/43 in the case of certain
activities compatible with the conservation of the area;

(1) OJ C 101 of 26.04.2003.

— by retaining provisions on the application of pesticides which
do not take sufficient account of the protection of species;

— by failing to ensure that
adequate bans on catches,

legislation on fishing contains

25.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/3

the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 6(3) and Articles 12, 13 and 16 of Directive
92/43.

3. Orders the Commission of European Communities, the European
Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their
own costs;

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

4. Orders the French Republic,

the Republic of Finland and the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear
their own costs.

(1) OJ C 146 of 21.06.2003.

(1) OJ C 146 of 21.06.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 10 January 2006

in Case C-178/03: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v European Parliament and Council of the European
Union (1)

(Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 304/2003 of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January
2003 concerning the export and import of dangerous chemi-
cals — Choice of legal basis — Articles 133 EC and 175 EC)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 15 December 2005

in Case C-344/03: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Republic of Finland (1)

(Directive 79/409/EEC — Conservation of wild birds —
Spring hunting of certain aquatic birds)

(2006/C 48/05)

(Language of the case: English)

(2006/C 48/06)

(Language of the case: Finnish)

In Case C-178/03, action for annulment under Article 230 EC,
brought on 24 April 2003, Commission of
the European
Communities (Agent: G.zur Hausen, L. Strom van Lier and E.
Righini) v European Parliament (Agents: C. Pennera and M.
Moore and K. Bradley) and Council of the European Union
(Agents: B. Hoff-Nielsen and M. Sims-Robertson, and K.
Michoel),.supported by:French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues,
F. Alabrune and E. Puisais), Republic of Finland (Agent: T.
Pynnä,), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
(Agent: R. Caudwell, and A. Dashwood) — the Court (Second
Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the
Chamber, J. Makarczyk, C. Gulmann, P. Kūris and J. Klučka,
J. Kokott, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal
Judges;
Administrator,
for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 10
January 2006, in which it:

1. Annuls Regulation (EC) No 304/2003 of the European Parlia-
ment and of the Council of 28 January 2003 concerning the
export and import of dangerous chemicals;

2. Maintains the effects of that regulation until the adoption, within
a reasonable period, of a new regulation founded on appropriate
legal bases;

In Case C-344/03, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: G. Valero Jordana and P. Aalto) v Republic of Finland
(Agent: T. Pynnä) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to
fulfil obligations, brought on 1 August 2003 — the Court
(Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, Presi-
dent of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen,
G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advo-
cate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave
a judgment on 15 December 2005, in which it:

1. Declares that, since it has failed to establish that, in the context of
the spring hunting of aquatic birds in mainland Finland and the
province of Åland:

— the condition laid down in Article 9(1)(c) of Council Directive
79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild
birds, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of
accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland
and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Trea-
ties on which the European Union is founded, for the purpose
of a derogation, that there be no satisfactory solution other
than spring hunting, was fulfilled in respect of eider, golden-
eye, red-breasted merganser, goosander, velvet scoter and tufted
duck; and that