CELEX: 62014CA0399
Language: en
Date: 2016-01-14 00:00:00
Title: Case C-399/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Grüne Liga Sachsen eV and Others v Freistaat Sachsen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 92/43/EEC — Article 6(2) to (4) — Site included in the list of sites of Community importance after a project was authorised but before it began to be carried out — Review of the project after the site was included in that list — Rules governing that review — Consequences of the completion of the project for the choice of alternatives)

14.3.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 98/10
            
         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Grüne Liga Sachsen eV and Others v Freistaat Sachsen
   (Case C-399/14) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 92/43/EEC - Article 6(2) to (4) - Site included in the list of sites of Community importance after a project was authorised but before it began to be carried out - Review of the project after the site was included in that list - Rules governing that review - Consequences of the completion of the project for the choice of alternatives))
   (2016/C 098/12)
   Language of the case: German
   
      Referring court
   
   Bundesverwaltungsgericht
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Grüne Liga Sachsen eV and Others
   
      Defendant: Freistaat Sachsen
   
      Interveners: Landeshauptstadt Dresden, Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Article 6(2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as meaning that a plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a site, and authorised, following a study that did not meet the requirements of Article 6(3) of that directive, before the site in question was included in the list of SCIs must be the subject of a subsequent review, by the competent authorities, of its implications for that site if that review constitutes the only appropriate step for avoiding that the implementation of the plan or project referred to results in deterioration or disturbance that could be significant in view of the objectives of that directive. It is for the referring court to verify whether those conditions are met.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive must be interpreted as meaning that if, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, a subsequent review of the implications for the site concerned of a plan or project which began to be put in hand after that site was included in the list of SCIs proves necessary, that review must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of Article 6(3) of that directive. Such a review must take into account all factors existing at the date of that inclusion and all implications arising or likely to arise following the partial or total implementation of the plan or project on the site in question after that date as well.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               The Habitats Directive must be interpreted as meaning that, where a new assessment of the implications for a site carried out in order to rectify errors identified in relation to the prior assessment conducted before the inclusion of that site in the list of SCIs or in relation to the subsequent review under Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive, even though the plan or project has already been implemented, the requirements of a check made in the context of such a review may be amended on account of the fact that the planning decision approving that plan or project was immediately enforceable, that an application for interim measures had been dismissed and that that dismissal decision was no longer open to appeal. Moreover, that review must take into account the risks of deterioration or disturbance that could be significant, within the meaning of Article 6(2) of that directive, which may have arisen because the plan or project has been carried out.
               Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive must be interpreted as meaning that the requirements of the check made in the context of the review of alternative solutions may not be amended on account of the fact that the plan or project has already been implemented.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.