CELEX: C2006/261/24
Language: en
Date: 2006-10-28 00:00:00
Title: Case C-362/06P: Appeal brought on 4 September 2006 by Markku Sahlstedt, Juha Kankkunen, Mikko Tanner, Toini Tanner, Liisa Tanner, Eeva Jokinen, Aili Oksanen, Olli Tanner, Leena Tanner, Aila Puttonen, Risto Tanner, Tom Järvinen, Runo K. Kurko, Maa- ja metsätaloustuottajain keskusliitto MTK ry and MTK:n säätiö against the judgment delivered on 22 June 2006 in Case T-150/05 Markku Sahlstedt and Others v Commission of the European Communities

28.10.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 261/13
            
         Appeal brought on 4 September 2006 by Markku Sahlstedt, Juha Kankkunen, Mikko Tanner, Toini Tanner, Liisa Tanner, Eeva Jokinen, Aili Oksanen, Olli Tanner, Leena Tanner, Aila Puttonen, Risto Tanner, Tom Järvinen, Runo K. Kurko, Maa- ja metsätaloustuottajain keskusliitto MTK ry and MTK:n säätiö against the judgment delivered on 22 June 2006 in Case T-150/05 Markku Sahlstedt and Others v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-362/06P)
   (2006/C 261/24)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Parties
   
      Appellants: Markku Sahlstedt, Juha Kankkunen, Mikko Tanner, Toini Tanner, Liisa Tanner, Eeva Jokinen, Aili Oksanen, Olli Tanner, Leena Tanner, Aila Puttonen, Risto Tanner, Tom Järvinen, Runo K. Kurko, Maa- ja metsätaloustuottajain keskusliitto MTK ry, MTK:n säätiö (represented by K. Marttinen, asianajaja)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, Republic of Finland
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to:
   
               —
            
            
               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 June 2006 in Case T-150/05 dismissing the appellants' application as inadmissible;
            
         
               —
            
            
               declare the application in Case T-150/05 admissible;
            
         
               —
            
            
               give judgment in the case and grant the principal and alternative forms of order sought by the parties who were applicants before the Court of First Instance and thus allow the application in Case T-150/05 in full;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and in the proceedings now before the Court of Justice.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Court of First Instance considered that the contested Commission Decision 2005/101/EC (1) was not of direct concern to the applicants within the meaning of Article 230 EC. The decision dismissing the application as inadmissible is wrong in law and should be set aside on the following grounds:
   
               1.
            
            
               
                  Direct effects on legal position
               
               The Court misinterpreted Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2) by considering that the Commission's Decision had no direct legal effects on the applicants. The appellants consider, however, that the decision directly affects their legal position because it
               
                           (i)
                        
                        
                           definitively determines a site's conservation area status;
                        
                     
                           (ii)
                        
                        
                           prohibits landowners from allowing their property to deteriorate;
                        
                     
                           (iii)
                        
                        
                           lays down a requirement that plans or projects be assessed.
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               
                  Automatic direct effects
               
               The Court misinterpreted Article 6 by taking the view that for the Commission's decision to have legal effects measures of the Member State are required, and these are discretionary. In the appellants' view, parts of the Commission's decision have legal effects, however, for instance the prohibition on allowing property to deteriorate and the requirement that plans and projects be assessed, which take effect automatically without implementing measures on the part of the Member State.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               
                  Lack of effective legal remedies
               
               In European Community law the principle of audi alteram partem applies in administrative and judicial proceedings. Under that principle the parties must in practice have a right of appeal or other effective legal remedy against decisions. If the right to bring an action is denied to them, the appellants at no stage in these proceedings have a possibility of challenging the authorities' decision by which their land was included in the Natura 2000 network and restrictions were imposed in the form of the prohibition on allowing land to deteriorate and the requirement to submit to an assessment. It was a decision by which the Natura 2000 status of the sites was definitively decided.
            
         
      (1)  OJ 2005 L 40, p. 1.
   
      (2)  OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.