CELEX: 62008CA0226
Language: en
Date: 2010-01-14 00:00:00
Title: Case C-226/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 January 2010 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Oldenburg — Germany) — Stadt Papenburg v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Decision of the Member State concerned to give its agreement to the draft list of sites of Community importance drawn up by the Commission — Interests and points of view which must be taken into account)

13.3.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 63/5
            
         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 January 2010 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Oldenburg — Germany) — Stadt Papenburg v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-226/08) (1)
   
   (Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Decision of the Member State concerned to give its agreement to the draft list of sites of Community importance drawn up by the Commission - Interests and points of view which must be taken into account)
   2010/C 63/07
   Language of the case: German
   
      Referring court
   
   Verwaltungsgericht Oldenburg
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Stadt Papenburg
   
      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   
      Re:
   
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Oldenburg — Interpretation of Article 2(3), the first subparagraph of Article 4(2), and Article 6(3) and (4) 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) — Economic interests of a municipality, linked to the operation of a river port and protected by the Constitution, which may suffer lasting effects as a result of the possible designation of the site concerned as a site of Community importance — Interests and points of view which must be taken into consideration by the Member State concerned when deciding to give its agreement to the draft list of sites of Community importance established by the Commission.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               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, as amended by Council Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006, must be interpreted as not allowing a Member State to refuse to agree on grounds other than environmental protection to the inclusion of one or more sites in the draft list of sites of Community importance drawn up by the European Commission;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Article 6(3) and (4) of Directive 92/43, as amended by Directive 2006/105, must be interpreted as meaning that ongoing maintenance works in respect of the navigable channels of estuaries, which are not connected with or necessary to the management of the site and which were already authorised under national law before the expiry of the time-limit for transposing Directive 92/43, as amended by Directive 2006/105, must, to the extent that they constitute a project and are likely to have a significant effect on the site concerned, undergo an assessment of their implications for that site pursuant to those provisions where they are continued after inclusion of the site in the list of sites of Community importance pursuant to the third subparagraph of Article 4(2) of that directive.
               If, having regard in particular to the regularity or nature of those works or the conditions under which they are carried out, they can be regarded as constituting a single operation, in particular where they are designed to maintain the navigable channel at a certain depth by means of regular dredging necessary for that purpose, the maintenance works can be considered to be one and the same project for the purposes of Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43, as amended by Directive 2006/105.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.