CELEX: C2006/326/149
Language: en
Date: 2006-12-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-322/06: Action brought on 21 November 2006 — Espinosa Labella and Others v Commission

30.12.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 326/72
            
         Action brought on 21 November 2006 — Espinosa Labella and Others v Commission
   (Case T-322/06)
   (2006/C 326/149)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties
   
      Applicants: Manuel Espinosa Labella and Others (Almería, Spain) (represented by: J. Rovira, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               declaration that the inclusion of SIC ES 166 0014 ‘Artos de El Ejido’ in the decision adopted by the Commission concerning the Mediterranean region is null and void, and an order ‘Artos de El Ejido’ to be removed from the list of ‘sites of Community importance’ contained in that decision;
            
         
               —
            
            
               alternatively, a declaration that the inclusion of the farms situated in the municipality of El Ejido north of Santa María del Águila in the SIC is null and void or, to the same effect, a declaration that the inclusion of the farms situated between the greenhouses to the north of Santa María del Águila in the SIC ‘Artos de El Ejido’ is null and void;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This action is brought against Commission Decision 2006/613/EC of 19 July 2006 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (1), in so far as it declares ES61 0014 ‘Artos de El Ejido’ a site of Community importance, either in its entirety or, alternatively, in so far as it includes in that list specific farms belonging to the applicants.
   In support of their claims the applicants submit:
   
               —
            
            
               that the defendant has not carried out a proper assessment of the Kingdom of Spain's proposal to include ‘Artos de El Ejido’ in the list of sites of Community importance in the Mediterranean biogeographical area, contrary to the provisions of Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EC. The applicants state, in that respect, that as soon as they became aware of that proposal, they complained on a number of occasions to the staff at the Commission Directorate General for the Environment, claiming:
            
         
               —
            
            
               extensive anthropisation of the land concerned making it unsuitable as an appropriate habitat for wild flora and fauna;
            
         
               —
            
            
               failure to define the SIC which it purports to designate or, in the alternative, failure to define the SIC appropriately by means of the boundaries of private properties and not the natural characteristics of the land;
            
         
               —
            
            
               lack of any scientific basis for the protection of designated species on farms situated in areas of industrial agriculture or intensive agriculture in greenhouses.
            
         As regards the SIC at issue, the affected area was not correctly selected as the national authorities have not provided the full scientific data required. However, although the Spanish authorities have failed to provide such data, the Commission was obliged to do so. In that regard, the applicants submit that the reasoning on which a decision is based, which designates an area as deserving protection, must be accompanied by a substantial amount of scientific evidence which must satisfy the criteria laid down in Annex III of the directive.
   
               —
            
            
               By accepting the fact that there was no public hearing in the proceedings to include ‘Artos de El Ejido’ in the list of SICs and by not replying to the applicants' letters, the defendant has infringed basic procedural rules thereby depriving the applicants of their rights.
            
         
      (1)  OJ L 259, of 21.09.2006, p. 1.