Case C-179/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Environmental impact assessment)
Date: 2007-12-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental impact, environmental law, impact study, protected area, town-planning scheme

8.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/11

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 October
the European Communities v
2007 — Commission of

Parties to the main proceedings

Italian Republic

(Case C-179/06) (1)

Applicant: Matthias Kruck

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild
fauna and flora — Environmental impact assessment)

Defendant: Landkreis Potsdam-Mittelmark

(2007/C 297/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Re:

Parties

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

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Braguglia and G.
Fiengo, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement
of Articles 6(3) and 7 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) — Failure to carry out an
assessment of the impact of a series of industrial construction
operations on special protection area IT 9120007 Murgia Alta.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;

2) Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the

costs.

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht
— Interpretation of Article 9(2) to (4) of Commission Regu-
lation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down
detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and
control system for certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992
L 391, p. 36), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1648/95 of 6 July 1995 amending Regulation (EEC)
No 3887/92 laying down detailed rules for applying the inte-
grated administration and control system for certain Com-
munity aid schemes (OJ 1995 L 156, p. 27), and Article 7(6),
second and fourth sentences, of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 1765/92 of 30 June 1992 establishing a support system for
producers of certain arable crops (OJ 1992 L 181, p. 12), as
amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2989/95 of
19 December 1995 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92
establishing a support system for producers of certain arable
crops (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 5) — Determination of maximum
area giving rise to compensatory payments for set-aside on the
basis of
the area actually determined rather than the area
applied for in the application for compensatory payment.

(1) OJ C 143, 17.6.2006.

Operative part of the judgment

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 October
a preliminary ruling from the
2007 (reference
Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Matthias Kruck
v Landkreis Potsdam-Mittelmark

for

(Case C-192/06) (1)

(Agricultural
structures — Community aid schemes —
Article 7(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 — Article 9(2)
of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 — Set-aside of land —
Reduction of compensatory payments)

On a proper construction of Article 9 of Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules
for applying the integrated administration and control system for
certain Community aid schemes, as amended by Commission Regu-
lation (EC) No 1648/95 of 6 July 1995,
is to be interpreted as
meaning that the maximum area to be considered for compensatory
payments for set-aside in accordance with the second and fourth
sentences of Article 7(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 of
30 June 1992 establishing a support system for producers of certain
arable crops, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2989/95 of
19 December 1995, should be calculated on the basis of the area
applied for provided that that area is actually under arable crops and
does not
contain land excluded from compensatory payments by
Article 9 of Regulation No 1765/92, as amended by Regulation
No 2989/95.

(2007/C 297/16)

Language of the case: German

(1) OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht