IE v Magistrat der Stadt Wien.
Date: 2020-07-02
20


In order to comply with that provision, the Member States are required not only to adopt a comprehensive legislative framework but also to implement concrete and specific protection measures. Similarly, the system of strict protection presupposes the adoption of coherent and coordinated measures of a preventive nature. Such a system of strict protection must therefore make it possible to prevent effectively the deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places of the animal species listed in Annex IV(a) to the Habitats Directive (see, to that effect, judgments of 9 June 2011, Commission v France, C‑383/09, EU:C:2011:369, paragraphs 19 to 21, and of 10 October 2019, Luonnonsuojeluyhdistys Tapiola, C‑674/17, EU:C:2019:851, paragraph 27).
23


According to settled case-law, in interpreting a provision of EU law, it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (judgment of 21 November 2019, Procureur-Generaal bij de Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, C‑678/18, EU:C:2019:998, paragraph 31 and the case-law cited).
27


Nevertheless, the Court has held that the acts referred to in Article 12(1)(d) of the Habitats Directive are not only intentional acts, but also include non-deliberate acts (see, to that effect, judgment of 20 October 2005, Commission v United Kingdom, C‑6/04, EU:C:2005:626, paragraphs 77 to 79). By not limiting the prohibition laid down in Article 12(1)(d) of the directive to deliberate acts, which it has done in respect of the acts referred to in Article 12(1)(a) to (c), the EU legislature has demonstrated its intention to give breeding sites or resting places increased protection against acts causing their deterioration or destruction (judgment of 10 January 2006, Commission v Germany, C‑98/03, EU:C:2006:3, paragraph 55).
32


As regards, third, the objective pursued by the Habitats Directive, it should be recalled that, as pointed out in paragraphs 18 to 20 above, the directive seeks to provide strict protection for animal species, in particular by means of the prohibitions laid down in Article 12(1) of the directive (see, to that effect, judgments of 10 May 2007, Commission v Austria, C‑508/04, EU:C:2007:274, paragraphs 109 to 112, and of 15 March 2012, Commission v Poland, C‑46/11, not published, EU:C:2012:146, paragraph 29).
39


In that regard, it should be recalled that, in accordance with settled case-law, in the context of the cooperation between the Court and the national courts provided for in Article 267 TFEU, it is solely for the national court before which a dispute has been brought, and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court. Consequently, where the questions submitted concern the interpretation of EU law, the Court is in principle bound to give a ruling (see, inter alia, judgment of 5 March 2015, Banco Privado Português and Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português, C‑667/13, EU:C:2015:151, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited).
40


It follows that questions on the interpretation of EU law referred by a national court in the legislative and factual context which that court is responsible for defining, and the accuracy of which is not a matter for the Court to determine, enjoy a presumption of relevance. The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred for a preliminary ruling by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of EU law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (judgment of 26 July 2017, Persidera, C‑112/16, EU:C:2017:597, paragraph 24 and the case-law cited).