C-166/97, Commission v. France - Seine Estuary
Author | European Commission |
Pages | 72-74 |
Page 72
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 March 1999. - Commission of the European Communities v French Republic. - Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Conservation of wild birds - Special protection areas. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61997J0166:EN:HTML
The Seine estuary is one of the most important wetlands of the French coast from an ornithological point of view and is a site particularly favoured by a very large number of the species listed in Annex I to the Birds Directive and also by migratory species. It submits that the creation by the French Republic in 1990 of an SPA of 2 750 hectares does not fulfil that country's obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of the Birds Directive. On account ofPage 73 its scientifically proven ornithological interest, an area of 21 900 hectares in the Seine estuary was recognised in 1994 by the French authorities as an important area for bird conservation (zone important pour la conservation des oiseaux or `ZICO'). Furthermore, the European ornithological inventory `Important Bird Areas in Europe', published in 1989, includes an area of 7 800 hectares in the estuary.
The French Government admits that, when the time allowed to it for compliance with the reasoned opinion expired, the area of 2 750 hectares classified as an SPA in the Seine estuary was insufficient. However, it states that the extension of the SPA which took place in November 1997 had been delayed in order for the local population principally affected to be consulted and their support obtained.
In this connection, it is sufficient to observe that, according to the settled case-law of the Court, a Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down in a directive. Moreover, it is common ground that the Seine estuary is a particularly important ecosystem as a migration staging post, wintering area and breeding ground for a large number of the bird species referred to in Article 4(1) and (2) of the Birds Directive. It must therefore be held that France failed to classify, within the period laid down, a sufficiently large area of the Seine estuary as an SPA within the meaning of Article 4(1) and (2) of the Birds Directive.
The protection regime for that SPA, was defined by an agreement from 11 April 1985 by the Ministry of the Environment with the Autonomous Ports of Le Havre and Rouen (hereinafter `the Agreement'). The Commission maintains that France failed to establish for the Seine estuary a legal regime which would satisfactorily preserve the integrity of the SPA created in 1990, because the protection regime which the Agreement provides for that SPA fails, in the Commission's submission, to meet the conservation requirements defined in Article 4(1) and (2) of the Birds Directive. Moreover, no other measure designed to provide the SPA with an adequate legal protection regime has been adopted.
The French Government argues that the Agreement did, in fact, provide effective protection of the SPA which, in any event, is State-owned land. Furthermore, an area of 7 800 hectares including the SPA has since 1973 had the status of a maritime game reserve, as a result of which all forms of hunting are prohibited there. In addition, the Brotonne Nature Reserve in the Seine estuary has, since 1974, enjoyed the status of a regional nature reserve. Lastly, the implementation of various measures of the management of the SPA has ensured compliance with the obligations laid down by Article 4(1) and (2) of the Birds Directive. The SPA thus enjoys the benefit of a diversified and effective protection regime.
In this connection, it must be observed that 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. It is common ground, however, that the Agreement, which was entered into for a term of ten years and was not renewed, expired on 11 April 1995. Consequently, it was no longer in force on 3 September 1995, the date on which the two months' period laid down in the reasoned opinion expired. There is, therefore, no need to consider whether the protection regime which the Agreement provides for the SPA satisfies the conservation requirements defined in Article 4(1) and (2) of the Birds Directive. As regards the other measures which, according to the French Government, are intended to provide the SPA with an adequate protection regime, it must be borne in mind that, according to the case-law of the Court, 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. In this connection, it must be pointed out that, after the Commission had, in the reasoned opinion, charged the French Republic with having failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 4(1) and (2) of the Birds Directive in that it had done no more than provide the SPA created in 1990 with the protection regime under the Agreement, the French Government replied by letter of 19 October 1995 that the Agreement was merely a transitional measure and that it was therefore intended, as a first step, to adopt a decree creating a nature reserve which would swiftly ensure lasting protection for the most vulnerable areas of the estuary, and subsequently to adopt other measures designed to provide an effective safeguard for the natural heritage of the estuary, in order to comply with the requirements set out in Article 4(1) and (2) of the Birds Directive. It is not disputed that the Brotonne Nature Reserve mentioned above does not include the SPA created in 1990 but only those parts of the Seine estuary classified as an SPA in November 1997. It follows that, on the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, the only status enjoyed by the SPA created in 1990 was that of State-owned land and of a maritime game reserve. For want of any specific substantive measures, except in relation to hunting, such a regime is incapable of providing adequate protection for the purposes of Article 4(1) and (2) of the Birds Directive. Consequently, the Commission was justified inPage 74 charging the French Republic with having failed to adopt measures providing the SPA with an adequate legal protection regime for the purposes of Article 4(1) and (2) of the Birds Directive.