Case C-494/07: Action brought on 12 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
Date: 2007-11-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Greece, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental protection, national implementing measure, protected area, protected species, wildlife

C 8/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.1.2008

Action brought on 12 November 2007 — Commission of
the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

their scope of application, so that the above articles of the direc-
tive have not been correctly transposed.

(Case C-494/07)

(2008/C 8/17)

Language of the case: Greek

The Commission therefore considers that the Hellenic Republic
has not correctly implemented Articles 6(4), 12 and 13 of the
Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild
fauna and flora.

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Patakia and D. Recchia)

(1) OJ L 206 of 22.7.1992.

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to

— declare, that, by failing to take the measures necessary to
implement correctly its obligations under Articles 6(4), 12
and 13 (in conjunction with Annex IV) of Council Directive
92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of
natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the Hellenic
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provi-
sions;

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main argument

The Commission has examined the compatibility of
the
measures taken by the Hellenic Republic to transpose Directive
92/43/EEC.

Its review showed that certain provisions of the directive have
not been fully implemented and/or have not been transposed
correctly.

In particular, the Commission considers that the use of the
phrase ‘reasons of essential public interest’ in the Greek legisla-
tion instead of
the phrase ‘imperative reasons of overriding
public interest’ referred to in Article 6(4) of the directive, is an
incorrect transposition of the provision in question, because it
widens the possibility of use of the derogation provided for and
is not compatible with the need to interpret it narrowly.

The Commission also considers that the addition, in the Greek
legislation, of the words ‘of particular economic significance’ to
the phrase ‘imperative reasons of overriding public interest’
contained in Article 6(4) of the directive, bringing into opera-
tion the exception provided for in that provision, constitutes an
incorrect transposition of Article 6(4) of the directive, because it
adds further possibilities of derogation.

Lastly, the Commission ascertained that, as the Greek authorities
acknowledge, the provisions of the Greek legislation transposing
Articles 12 and 13 do not refer to the Annex which specifies

Action brought on 20 November 2007 — Commission of
the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-507/07)

(2008/C 8/18)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: H. Kraemer, Agent)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the
Court should:

— declare that, by failing to communicate the Community
design courts to the Commission, the French Republic has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 80(2) of Council
Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Com-
munity designs (1);

— order French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The French Republic has not fulfilled the obligation laid down
in Article 80(2) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, under which
each Member State is to communicate to the Commission not
later than 6 March 2005 a list of Community design courts,
indicating their names and their territorial jurisdiction.

(1) OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1.