CELEX: 62008CN0226
Language: en
Date: 2008-05-26 00:00:00
Title: Case C-226/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Oldenburg (Germany) lodged on 26 May 2008 — Stadt Papenburg v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

15.8.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 209/24
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Oldenburg (Germany) lodged on 26 May 2008 — Stadt Papenburg v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-226/08)
   (2008/C 209/36)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Oldenburg
   Parties to the main proceedings
   
      Applicant: Stadt Papenburg
   
      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   Questions referred
   
               1.
            
            
               Does the first subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1) allow a Member State to refuse to agree to the Commission's draft list of sites of Community importance, in relation to one or more sites, on grounds other than nature conservation grounds?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Do those grounds include the interests of municipalities and associations of municipalities, in particular their plans, planning intentions and other interests with regard to the further development of their area?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               If Questions 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative: Do the third recital in the preamble to Directive 92/43/EEC, Article 2(3) of the directive or other provisions of Community law even require that such grounds be taken into account by the Member States and the Commission when giving agreement and establishing the list of sites of Community importance?
            
         
               4.
            
            
               If Question 3 is answered in the affirmative: Would it be possible — under Community law — for a municipality which is affected by the inclusion of a particular site in the list to claim in legal proceedings after final adoption of the list that the list infringes Community law, because its interests were not, or not sufficiently, taken into account?
            
         
               5.
            
            
               Must ongoing maintenance works in the navigable channels of estuaries, which were definitively authorised under national law before the expiry of the time-limit for transposition of Directive 92/43/EEC, undergo an assessment of their implications pursuant to Article 6(3) or (4) of the directive where they are continued after inclusion of the site in the list of sites of Community importance?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.