Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
Date: 1999-11-25
19 In this connection, it is settled case-law that the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in that State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (see, in particular, Case C-60/96 Commission v France [1997] ECR I-3827, paragraph 15, and Case C-166/97 Commission v France [1999] ECR I-1719, paragraph 18).
22 With regard to the other measures which, according to the French Government, are intended to provide the SPAs with a sufficient protection regime, it must be borne in mind that, according to the Court's case-law, Article 4(1) and (2) of the Birds Directive requires the Member States to provide SPAs with a legal protection regime that is capable, in particular, of ensuring both the survival and reproduction of the bird species listed in Annex I to the Directive and the breeding, moulting and wintering of migratory species not listed in Annex I which are, nevertheless, regular visitors (see, to this effect, Case C-355/90 Commission v Spain [1993] ECR I-4221, paragraphs 28 to 32, and Case C-166/97 Commission v France, cited above, paragraph 21).
35 It should first be pointed out in this regard that the first sentence of Article 4(4) of the Birds Directive, in both its original version and as amended by the Habitats Directive, requires Member States to take appropriate steps to avoid, inter alia, deterioration of habitats in the SPAs classified pursuant to Article 4(1).
36 It is settled case-law that, in proceedings under Article 169 of the Treaty for failure to fulfil an obligation, it is incumbent on the Commission to prove that the obligation has not been fulfilled and to place before the Court the information necessary to enable it to determine whether that is so (see, inter alia, Case 96/81 Commission v Netherlands [1982] ECR 1791, paragraph 6, and Case C-166/97 Commission v France, cited above, paragraph 40).
41 Second, it must be pointed out that, according to the Court's case-law, the first sentence of Article 4(4) of the Birds Directive requires Member States to take appropriate steps to avoid, inter alia, deterioration of habitats in the areas which are most suitable for the conservation of wild birds, even where the areas in question have not been classified as SPAs, provided that they should have been so classified (see, to this effect, Case C-355/90 Commission v Spain, cited above, paragraph 22, and Case C-166/97 Commission v France, cited above, paragraph 38).
42 It follows, with regard to those areas which have not been classified as SPAs, that any infringement of the first sentence of Article 4(4) of the Birds Directive presupposes that the areas in question are among the most suitable territories in number and size for the conservation of protected species, within the meaning of the fourth subparagraph of Article 4(1) (see Case C-166/97 Commission v France, cited above, paragraph 39), and that these areas have suffered deterioration.
55 In those circumstances, it is evident, as the French Government submits, that the strip of land earmarked for construction of the motorway was mistakenly referred to as forming part of the Marais Poitevin intérieur SPA at the time when that SPA was notified to the Commission and that the declaration by the Minister for the Environment in his letter of 19 April 1994 to the Prefect of the Pays de Loire Region, to the effect that `the land acquired for the motorway ... must ... be regarded as being excluded from the SPA', did not involve a reduction in the surface area of the SPA classified but simply the rectification of an error in the particulars forwarded to the Commission.