The Habitats Directive
| Author | European Commission |
| Pages | 30-46 |
Page 30
Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7)6
According to the case-law of the Court:
Under the third paragraph of Article 249 EC, a directive is binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but leaves to the national authorities the choice of form and methods for implementing the Directive in question in domestic law. However, in accordance with settled case-law, while the transposition of a directive into domestic law does not necessarily require that the content of the Directive be incorporated formally and verbatim in express, specific legislation and, depending on its content, a general legal context may be adequate for the purpose, that is on condition that that context does indeed guarantee the full application of the Directive in a sufficiently clear and precise manner. In that regard, it is important in each individual case to determine the nature of the provision, laid down in a directive, to which the action for infringement relates, in order to gauge the extent of the obligation to transpose imposed on the Member States.
The argument that the most appropriate way of implementing the Habitats Directive is to confer specific powers on nature conservation bodies and to impose on them the general duty to exercise their functions so as to secure compliance with the requirements of that Directive cannot be upheld. First, it is to be remembered that the existence of national rules may render transposition by specific legislative or regulatory measures superfluous only if those rules actually ensure the full application of the Directive in question by the national authorities. Second, it is apparent from the 4th7 and 11th8 recitals in the preamble to the Habitats Directive that threatened habitats and species form part of the European Community's natural heritage and that the threats to them are often of a transboundary nature, so that the adoption of conservation measures is a common responsibility of all Member States. Consequently, faithful transposition becomes particularly important in an instance such as the present one, where management of the common heritage is entrusted to the Member States in their respective territories. It follows that, in the context of the Habitats Directive, which lays down complex and technical rules in the field of environmental law, the Member States are under a particular duty to ensure that their legislation intended to transpose that Directive is clear and precise, including with regard to the fundamental surveillance and monitoring obligations, such as those imposed on national authorities by Articles 11, 12(4) and 14(2). However, it is apparent on examination of the national legislation that it is so general that it does not give effect to the Habitats Directive with sufficient precision and clarity to satisfy fully the demands of legal certainty and that it also does not establish a precise legal framework in the area concerned, such as to ensure the full and complete application of the Directive and allow harmonised and effective implementation of the rules which it lays down. The general duties laid down by the national legislation cannot ensure that the provisions of the Habitats Directive referred to in the Commission's application are transposed satisfactorily and are not capable of filling any gaps in the specific provisions intended to achieve such transposition. Consequently,Page 31 there remains no need to consider the Member State's arguments based on the general duties contained in that legislation when analysing the specific complaints relied upon by the Commission.
(C-6/04, Commission v. United Kingdom)
1. On the basis of the criteria set out in Annex III (Stage 1) and relevant scientific information, each Member State shall propose a list of sites indicating which natural habitat types in Annex I and which species in Annex II are native to its territory the sites host. For animal species ranging over wide areas these sites shall correspond to the places within the natural range of such species which present the physical or biological factors essential to their life and reproduction. For aquatic species which range over wide areas, such sites will be proposed only where there is a clearly identifiable area representing the physical and biological factors essential to their life and reproduction. Where appropriate, Member States shall propose adaptation of the list in the light of the results of the surveillance referred to in Article 11.
The list shall be transmitted to the Commission, within three years of the notification of this Directive, together with information on each site. That information shall include a map of the site, its name, location, extent and the data resulting from application of the criteria specified in Annex III (Stage 1) provided in a format established by the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 21.
2. On the basis of the criteria set out in Annex III (Stage 2) and in the framework both of each of the biogeographical regions referred to in Article 1 (c) (iii) and of the whole of the territory referred to in Article 2 (1), the Commission shall establish, in agreement with each Member State, a draft list of sites of Community importance drawn from the Member States' lists identifying those which host one or more priority natural habitat types or priority species.
Member States whose sites hosting one or more priority natural habitat types and priority species represent more than 5 % of their national territory may, in agreement with the Commission, request that the criteria listed in Annex III (Stage 2) be applied more flexibly in selecting all the sites of Community importance in their territory.
The list of sites selected as sites of Community importance, identifying those which host one or more priority natural habitat types or priority species, shall be adopted by the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 21.
3. The list referred to in paragraph 2 shall be established within six years of the notification of this Directive.
4. Once a site of Community importance has been adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in paragraph 2, the Member State concerned shall designate that site as a special area of conservation as soon as possible and within six years at most, establishing priorities in the light of the importance of the sites for the maintenance or restoration, at a favourable conservation status, of a natural habitat type in Annex I or a species in Annex II and for the coherence of Natura 2000, and in the light of the threats of degradation or destruction to which those sites are exposed.
5. As soon as a site is placed on the list referred to in the third subparagraph of paragraph 2 it shall be subject to Article 6 (2), (3) and (4).
According to the case-law of the Court:
The Commission:
With regard to the obligation to transmit the site list referred to in Article 4(1), first subparagraph, each Member State's contribution to the setting up of a coherent European ecological network depends on the representation on its territory of the natural habitat types and species' habitats listed in Annexes I and II to the Directive respectively. It is clear from a combined reading of Article 4(1) of and AnnexPage 32 III to the Directive that Member States enjoy a certain margin of discretion when selecting sites for inclusion in the list. The exercise of that discretion is, however, subject to compliance with the following three conditions:
- only criteria of a scientific nature may guide the choice of the sites to be proposed;
- the sites proposed must provide a geographical cover which is homogeneous and representative of the entire territory of each Member State, with a view to ensuring the coherence and balance of the resulting network. The list to be submitted by each Member State must therefore reflect the ecological variety (and, in the case of species, the genetic variety) of the natural habitats and species present within its territory;
- the list must be complete, that is to say, each Member State must propose a number of sites which will ensure sufficient representation of all the natural habitat types listed in Annex I and all the species' habitats listed in Annex II to the Directive which exist on its territory.
The Court:
Although it follows from the rules governing the procedure for identifying sites eligible for designation as SACs, set out in Article 4(1), that Member States have a margin of discretion when making their site proposals, the fact none the less remains, as the Commission has noted, that they must do so in compliance with the criteria laid down by the Directive.
(C-67/99, Commission v. Ireland; C-71/99, Commission v. Germany; C-220/99, Commission v. France)
The obligation to forward the list of sites mentioned in the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) was not conditional on adoption of the format. The format is not the first text to have defined the information allowing Member States to select the relevant sites. Once the Directive had been notified, the Member States were aware of all the selection criteria to be taken into consideration. Article 4(1) requires each Member State to propose, on the basis of the criteria set out in Annex III (Stage 1) to the Directive and relevant scientific information, a list of sites indicating which types of natural habitat under Annex I and which native species under Annex II they host. It follows from Annex III (Stage 1) that the relevant criteria are the degree of representativity of the natural habitat type on the site, the area of the site covered by the natural habitat type and its degree of conservation, the size and density of the population of the species present on the site, their degree of isolation, the degree of conservation of their habitats and, finally, the comparative value of the sites. Although it follows from the rules governing the procedure for identifying sites eligible for designation as SACs, set out in Article 4(1), that Member States have a margin of discretion when making their site proposals, the fact none the less remains, as the Commission has noted, that they must do so in compliance with the criteria laid down by the Directive. In order to produce a draft list of sites of Community importance, capable of leading to the creation of a coherent European ecological network of SACs, the Commission must have available an exhaustive list of the sites which, at national level, have an ecological interest which is relevant from the point of view of the Directive's objective of conserving natural habitats and wild fauna and flora. To that end, that list is drawn up on the basis of the criteria laid down in Annex III (Stage 1). Only in that way, moreover, is it possible to realise the objective, set out in the first subparagraph of Article 3(1), of maintaining or restoring the natural habitat types and the species' habitats concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range, which may lie across one or more frontiers inside the Community.
(C-71/99, Commission v. Germany; C-220/99, Commission v. France)
On a proper construction of Article 4(1) of the Habitats Directive, a Member State may not take account of economic, social and cultural requirements or regional and local characteristics, asPage 33 mentioned in Article 2(3)9, when selecting and defining the boundaries of the sites to be proposed to the Commission as eligible for identification as sites of Community importance. The first subparagraph of Article 3(1) provides for the setting up of a coherent European ecological network of SACs to be known as Natura 2000, composed of sites hosting the natural habitat types listed in Annex I and habitats of the species listed in Annex II, to enable them to be maintained or, where appropriate, restored at a favourable conservation status in their natural range. Article 4 sets out the procedure for classifying natural sites as SACs, divided into several stages with corresponding legal effects, which is intended in particular to enable the Natura 2000 network to be realised, as provided for by Article 3(2). It follows from Article 1(e)10 and (i)11, read in conjunction with Article 2(1)12, that the favourable conservation status of a natural habitat or a species must be assessed in relation to the entire European territory of the Member States to which the Treaty applies. Having regard to the fact that, when a Member State draws up the national list of sites, it is not in a position to have precise detailed knowledge of the situation of habitats in the other Member States, it cannot of its own accord, whether because of economic, social or cultural requirements or because of regional or local characteristics, delete sites which at national level have an ecological interest relevant from the point of view of the objective of conservation without jeopardising the realisation of that objective at Community level. In particular, if the Member States could take account of economic, social and cultural requirements and regional and local characteristics when selecting and defining the boundaries of the sites to be included in the list which, pursuant to Article 4(1), they must draw up and transmit to the Commission, the Commission could not be sure of having available an exhaustive list of sites eligible as SACs, with the risk that the objective of bringing them together into a coherent European ecological network might not be achieved.
(C-371/98, United Kingdom - "First Corporate Shipping"; C-67/99, Commission v. Ireland)
On a proper construction of Article 4(5), the protective measur es prescribed in Article 6(2), (3) and (4) are required only as regards sites which, in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 4(2), are on the list of sites selected as sites of Community importance adopted by the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 21.
This does not mean that the Member States are not to protect sites as soon as they propose them, under Article 4(1), as sites eligible for identification as sites of Community importance on the national list transmitted to the Commission. If those sites are not appropriately protected from that moment, achievement of the objectives seeking the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora, as set out in particular in the sixth recital in the preamble to the Directive and Article 3(1) thereof, could well be jeopardised. Such a situation would be particularly serious as priority natural habitat types or priority species would be affected, for which, because of the threats to them, early implementation of conservation measures would be appropriate, as recommended in the fifth recital in the preamble to the Directive. The national lists of sites eligible for identification as sites of Community importance must contain sites which, at national level, have an ecological interest that is relevant from the point of view of the Directive's objective of conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora. It isPage 34 apparent, therefore, that in the case of sites eligible for identification as sites of Community importance which are included in the national lists transmitted to the Commission and, in particular, sites hosting priority natural habitat types or priority species, the Member States are, by virtue of he Directive, required to take protective measures that are appropriate, from the point of view of the Directive's conservation objective, for the purpose of safeguarding the relevant ecological interest which those sites have at national level.
(C-117/03, Italy - "Dragaggi")
2. Member States shall take appropriate steps to avoid, in the special areas of conservation, the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of this Directive.
According to the case-law of the Court:
Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive obliges the Member States to avoid the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species. It is clear that, in implementing Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive, it may be necessary to adopt both measures intended to avoid external man-caused impairment and disturbance and measures to prevent natural developments that may cause the conservation status of species and habitats in SACs to deteriorate.
(C-6/04, Commission v. United Kingdom)
Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive, in conjunction with Article 7 thereof, requires Member States to take appropriate steps to avoid, in SPAs, the deterioration of habitats and significant disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated. Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive provides that the competent national authorities are to authorise a plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon only after having ascertained, by means of an appropriate assessment of the implications of that plan or project for the site, that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site. That provision thus establishes a procedure intended to ensure, by means of a preliminary examination, that a plan or project which is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site concerned but likely to have a significant effect on it is authorised only to the extent that it will not adversely affect the integrity of that site. The fact that a plan or project has been authorised according to the procedure laid down in Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive renders superfluous, as regards the action to be taken on the protected site under the plan or project, a concomitant application of the rule of general protection laid down in Article 6(2). Authorisation of a plan or project granted in accordance with Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive necessarily assumes that it is considered not likely adversely to affect the integrity of the site concerned and, consequently, not likely to give rise to deterioration or significant disturbances within the meaning of Article 6(2). Nevertheless, it cannot be precluded that such a plan or project subsequently proves likely to give rise to such deterioration or disturbance, even where the competent national authorities cannot be held responsible for any error. Under those conditions, application of Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive makes it possible to satisfy the essential objective of the preservation and protection of the quality of the environment, including the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as stated in the first recital in the preamble13 to that Directive.
Page 35
(C-127/02- "Waddenvereniging and Vogelbeschermingsvereniging")
See also:
Article 7
Managing Natura 2000 sites: The provisions of Article 6 of the 'Habitats' Directive 92/43/EEC http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/nature_conservation/eu_nature_legislation/specific_articles/art6/pdf/art6_en.pdf
Assessment of Plans and Projects Significantly Affecting Natura 2000 sites http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/nature_conservation/eu_nature_legislation/specific_articles/art6/pdf/natura_2000_assess_en.pdf
3. Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public.
4. If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, the Member State shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. It shall inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted.
Where the site concerned hosts a priority natural habitat type and/or a priority species, the only considerations which may be raised are those relating to human health or public safety, to beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment or, further to an opinion from the Commission, to other imperative reasons of overriding public interest.
According to the case-law of the Court:
Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive establishes a procedure intended to ensure, by means of a preliminary examination, that a plan or project which is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site concerned but likely to have a significant effect on it is authorised only to the extent that it will not adversely affect the integrity of that site, while Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive establishes an obligation of general protection consisting in avoiding deterioration and disturbances which could have significant effects in the light of the Directive's objectives, and cannot be applicable concomitantly with Article 6(3).
The 10th recital in the preamble to the Habitats Directive states that an appropriate assessment must be made of any plan or programme likely to have a significant effect on the conservation objectives of a site which has been designated or is designated in future. That recital finds expression in Article 6(3), which provides inter alia that a plan or project likely to have a significant effect on the site concerned cannot be authorised without a prior assessment of its effects. The Habitats Directive does not define the ter ms plan and project. By contrast, Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment14, the sixth recital in the preamble to which states that development consent for projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment should be granted only after prior assessment of the likelyPage 36 significant environmental effects of these projects has been carried out, defines project as follows in Article 1(2): - the execution of construction works or of other installations or schemes, - other interventions in the natural surroundings and landscape including those involving the extraction of mineral resources. Such a definition of project is relevant to defining the concept of plan or project as provided for in the Habitats Directive, which, seeks, as does Directive 85/337, to prevent activities which are likely to damage the environment from being authorised without prior assessment of their impact on the environment.
The fact that the activity has been carried on periodically for several years on the site concerned and that a licence has to be obtained for it every year, each new issuance of which requires an assessment both of the possibility of carrying on that activity and of the site where it may be carried on, does not in itself constitute an obstacle to considering it, at the time of each application, as a distinct plan or project within the meaning of the Habitats Directive.
(C-127/02 - "Waddenvereniging and Vogelbeschermingsvereniging")
The Directive does not distinguish between measures taken outside or inside a protected site. Therefore the definition of 'project' in national legislation which refers to acts carried out outside a protected site cannot be narrower than that which concerns projects carried out within a protected site.
(C-98/03, Commission v. Germany)
The first sentence of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive must be interpreted as meaning that any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site is to be subject to an appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives if it cannot be excluded, on the basis of objective information, that it will have a significant effect on that site, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects. The requirement for an appropriate assessment of the implications of a plan or project is thus conditional on its being likely to have a significant effect on the site. Therefore, the triggering of the environmental protection mechanism provided for in Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive does not presume - as is, moreover, clear from the guidelines for interpreting that Article drawn up by the Commission, entitled "Managing Natura 2000 Sites: The provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)" - that the plan or project considered definitely has significant effects on the site concerned but follows from the mere probability that such an effect attaches to that plan or project. As regards Article 2(1) of Directive 85/337, the text of which, essentially similar to Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, provides that Member States shall adopt all measures necessary to ensure that, before consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment ... are made subject to an assessment with regard to their effects, the Court has held that these are projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment. It follows that the first sentence of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive subordinates the requirement for an appropriate assessment of the implications of a plan or project to the condition that there be a probability or a risk that the latter will have significant effects on the site concerned. In the light, in particular, of the precautionary principle, which is one of the foundations of the high level of protection pursued by Community policy on the environment, in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 174(2) EC15, and by reference to which the Habitats Directive must be interpreted, such a risk exists if it cannot be excluded on the basis of objective information that the plan or project will have significant effects on the site concerned. Such an interpretation of the condition to which the assessment of the implications of a plan or project for a specific site is subject, which implies that in case of doubt as to the absence of significant effects such an assessment must be carried out, makes it possible to ensure effectively that plans or projects which adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned are not authorised, and thereby contributes to achieving, in accordancePage 37 with the third recital in the preamble16 to the Habitats Directive and Article 2(1)9 thereof, its main aim, namely, ensuring biodiversity through the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.
Pursuant to the first sentence of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, where a plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a site is likely to undermine the site's conservation objectives, it must be considered likely to have a significant effect on that site. The assessment of that risk must be made in the light inter alia of the characteristics and specific environmental conditions of the site concerned by such a plan or project. As is clear from the first sentence of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive in conjunction with the 10th recital in its preamble (see above), the significant nature of the effect on a site of a plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site is linked to the site's conservation objectives. So, where such a plan or project has an effect on that site but is not likely to undermine its conservation objectives, it cannot be considered likely to have a significant effect on the site concerned. Conversely, where such a plan or project is likely to undermine the conservation objectives of the site concerned, it must necessarily be considered likely to have a significant effect on the site. In assessing the potential effects of a plan or project, their significance must be established in the light, inter alia, of the characteristics and specific environmental conditions of the site concerned by that plan or project.
Under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, an appropriate assessment of the implications for the site concerned of the plan or project implies that, prior to its approval, all the aspects of the plan or project which can, by themselves or in combination with other plans or projects, affect the site's conservation objectives must be identified in the light of the best scientific knowledge in the field.
(C-127/02 - "Waddenvereniging and Vogelbeschermingsvereniging")
The condition, to which the assessment of the implications of a plan or a project on a particular site is subject, which requires such an assessment to be carried out where there are doubts as to the existence of significant effects, does not permit that assessment to be avoided in respect of certain categories of projects, on the basis of criteria which do not adequately ensure that those projects will not have a significant effect on the protected sites:
"Projects consisting of acts affecting nature and the countryside other than changes of form or use of surface areas or changes to the level of the water table connected to the surface soil stratum" - the fact that that national legislation requires verification, that serious environmental damage which may be prevented by current technology is in fact prevented, and that damage which cannot be prevented by current technology is reduced to the minimum, cannot be sufficient to ensure compliance with the duty laid down in Article 6(3). The duty of verification laid down by the national legislation is not, in any event, capable of ensuring that a project relating to such an installation does not adversely affect the integrity of the protected site. In particular, the duty to verify whether serious environmental damage, which cannot be prevented by current technology, is reduced to the minimum, does not ensure that such a project will not give rise to such damage.
"Projects relating to installations or to use of water, on account of the fact that they are not subject to authorisation" - the fact that it concerns the use of small quantities of water does not in itself preclude the possibility that some of those uses are likely to have a significant effect on a protected site. Even assuming that such uses of water are not likely to have a significant effect on the status of a body of water, it does not follow that they are not likely to have a significant effect on neighbouring protected sites.
System when the authorisation of "installations causing emissions" is refused only where they appear likely to affect a protected site situated in the area of impact particularly of those installations, installations whose emissions affect a protected site situated outside such an area may be authorised without taking account of the effects of those emissions on such a site. That the system, so far as itPage 38 covers emissions within an area of impact, as defined in technical circulars in accordance with general criteria on installations, do not appear to be capable of ensuring compliance with Article 6(3) and (4). In the absence of established scientific criteria which would a priori rule out emissions affecting a protected site situated outside the area of impact of the installation concerned having a significant effect on that site, the system put in place by national law in the field in question is not, in any event, capable of ensuring that the projects or plans relating to installations causing emissions which affect protected sites situated outside their area of impact do not adversely affect the integrity of those sites, within the meaning of Article 6(3).
(C-98/03, Commission v. Germany)
"Water abstraction plans and projects" - no legal provision expressly required water abstraction plans and projects to be subject to such an assessment. The system essentially provides that all water abstraction plans and projects which fall within the conditions laid down in Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive are deemed in advance to be potentially damaging for the site concerned, does not appear to be capable of ensuring compliance with the requirements of that provision. While this kind of advance assessment of potential risks can be based on concrete facts with regard to the site, which is not the case with regard to the projects themselves, contrary to the requirements of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. In merely defining potentially damaging operations for each site concerned, the risk is run that certain projects which on the basis of their specific characteristics are likely to have an effect on the site are not covered.
"Land use plans" - national legislation does not clearly require land use plans to be subject to appropriate assessment of their implications for SACs in accordance with Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive. Although land use plans do not as such authorise development and planning permission must be obtained for development projects in the normal manner, they have great influence on development decisions. Therefore land use plans must also be subject to appropriate assessment of their implications for the site concerned.
(C-6/04, Commission v. United Kingdom)
With regard to the concept of appropriate assessment within the meaning of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, it must be pointed out that the provision does not define any particular method for carrying out such an assessment. None the less, according to the wording of that provision, an appropriate assessment of the implications for the site concerned of the plan or project must precede its approval and take into account the cumulative effects which result from the combination of that plan or project with other plans or projects in view of the site's conservation objectives. Such an assessment therefore implies that all the aspects of the plan or project which can, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, affect those objectives must be identified in the light of the best scientific knowledge in the field. Those objectives may, as is clear from Articles 3 and 4 of the Habitats Directive, in particular Article 4(4), be established on the basis, inter alia, of the importance of the sites for the maintenance or restoration at a favourable conservation status of a natural habitat type in Annex I to that Directive or a species in Annex II thereto and for the coherence of Natura 2000, and of the threats of degradation or destruction to which they are exposed.
With regard to the conditions under which an activity may be authorised, it lies with the competent national authorities, in the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications of a plan or project for the site concerned, to approve the plan or project only after having made sure that it will not adversely affect the integrity of that site. It is therefore apparent that a plan or project may be granted authorisation only on the condition that the competent national authorities are convinced that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned. So, where doubt remains as to the absence of adverse effects on the integrity of the site linked to the plan or project being considered, the competent authority will have to refuse authorisation. The authorisation criterion laid down in the second sentence of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive integrates the precautionary principle and makes it possible effectively to prevent adverse effects on the integrity of protected sites as the resultPage 39 of the plans or projects being considered. A less stringent authorisation criterion than that in question could not as effectively ensure the fulfilment of the objective of site protection intended under that provision.
Where a national court is called on to ascertain the lawfulness of an authorisation for a plan or project within the meaning of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, it can determine whether the limits on the discretion of the competent national authorities set by that provision have been complied with, even though it has not been transposed into the legal order of the Member State concerned despite the expiry of the time-limit laid down for that purpose. The obligation of a Member State to take all the measures necessary to achieve the result prescribed by a directive is a binding obligation imposed by the third paragraph of Article 249 EC and by the Directive itself. That duty to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, is binding on all the authorities of Member States including, for matters within their jurisdiction, the courts.
With regard to the right of an individual to rely on a directive and of the national court to take it into consideration, it would be incompatible with the binding effect attributed to a directive by Article 249 EC to exclude, in principle, the possibility that the obligation which it imposes may be relied on by those concerned. In particular, where the Community authorities have, by Directive, imposed on Member States the obligation to pursue a particular course of conduct, the effectiveness of such an act would be weakened if individuals were prevented from relying on it before their national courts, and if the latter were prevented from taking it into consideration as an element of Community law in order to rule whether the national legislature, in exercising the choice open to it as to the form and methods for implementation, has kept within the limits of its discretion set by the Directive. That also applies to ascertaining whether, failing transposition into national law of the relevant provision of the Directive concerned, the national authority which has adopted the contested measure has kept within the limits of its discretion set by that provision.
More particularly, regarding the limits of discretion set by Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, it follows from that provision that the competent national authorities, taking account of the conclusions of the appropriate assessment of a plan or project for the site concerned in the light of the site's conservation objectives, are to authorise such an activity only if they have made certain that it will not adversely affect the integrity of that site, that being the case if there remains no reasonable scientific doubt as to the absence of such effects. Such a condition would therefore not be observed were the national authorities to authorise that activity in the face of uncertainty as to the absence of adverse effects for the site concerned. It follows that Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive may be taken into account by the national court in determining whether a national authority which has granted an authorisation relating to a plan or project has kept within the limits of the discretion set by the provision in question.
(C-127/02- "Waddenvereniging and Vogelbeschermingsvereniging")
According to the Court's settled case-law, the principle that projects likely to have significant effects on the environment must be subjected to an environmental assessment does not apply where the application for authorisation for a project was formally lodged before the expiry of the time-limit for transposition of a directive (see, with respect to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), Case C-431/92 Commission v Germany [1995] ECR I-2189, paragraphs 29 and 32, and Case C-81/96 Gedeputeerde Staten van Noord-Holland [1998] ECR I-3923, paragraph 23).
The Court has held that that formal criterion is the only one which accords with the principle of legal certainty and preserves a directive's effectiveness. The reason for that is that a directive such as the Habitats Directive is primarily designed to cover large-scale projects which will most often require a long time to complete. It would therefore not be appropriate for the relevant procedures, which are already complex at national level and which were formally initiated prior to the date of the expiry of the period for transposing the directive, to be made more cumbersome and time-consuming by the specific requirements imposed by the directive and for situations already established to be affected by it (see, by analogy, Gedeputeerde Staten van Noord-Holland, paragraphs 23 and 24).
Page 40
Both Directive 85/337 and the Habitats Directive pertain to the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. In both cases, the assessment procedure takes place before the project is finally decided upon. The results of that assessment must be taken into consideration when the decision on the project is made, and the decision may be amended depending on the results. The various phases of examination of a project are so closely connected that they represent a complex operation. The fact that the content of some requirements differs does not affect this assessment. It follows that this complaint must be considered as at the date on which the project was formally presented, namely the date referred to in paragraph 54 of this judgment.
Next, it should be borne in mind that, in accordance with the provisions of acts of accession, the rights and obligations resulting from Community law are, save where otherwise provided, immediately applicable in the new Member States (see, to that effect, Case C-179/00 Weidacher [2002] ECR I-501, paragraph 18).It follows from the Act of Accession that the obligations under the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive entered into force with respect to the Republic of Austria on 1 January 1995 and that no derogation or transitional period was granted to it.
Accordingly, the procedure for authorisation of the project for the construction of the S 18 carriageway was formally initiated prior to the date of accession of the Republic of Austria to the European Union. It follows that, in the present case, in accordance with the case-law referred to in paragraph 56 of this judgment, the obligations under the Habitats Directive did not bind the Republic of Austria and that the project for the construction of the S 18 carriageway was not subject to the requirements laid down in that directive.
(C-209/04 Commission v Austria)
See also:
Managing Natura 2000 sites: The provisions of Article 6 of the 'Habitats' Directive 92/43/EEC http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/nature_conservation/eu_nature_legislation/specific_articles/art6/pdf/art6_en.pdf
Assessment of Plans and Projects Significantly Affecting Natura 2000 sites http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/nature_conservation/eu_nature_legislation/specific_articles/art6/pdf/natura_2000_assess_en.pdf
Obligations arising under Article 6 (2), (3) and (4) of this Directive shall replace any obligations arising under the first sentence of Article 4 (4) of Directive 79/409/EEC in respect of areas classified pursuant to Article 4 (1) or similarly recognized under Article 4 (2) thereof, as from the date of implementation of this Directive or the date of classification or recognition by a Member State under Directive 79/409/EEC, where the latter date is later.
According to the case-law of the Court:
The text of Article 7 of the Habitats Directive expressly states that Article 6(2) to (4) of that Directive apply, in substitution for the first sentence of Article 4(4) of the Birds Directive, to the areas classified under Article 4(1) or (2) of the latter Directive. It follows that, on a literal interpretation of that passage of Article 7 of the Habitats Directive, only areas classified as special protection areas fall under the influence of Article 6(2) to (4) of that Directive.
The fact that the protection regime under the first sentence of Article 4(4) of the Birds Directive applies to areas that have not been classified as special protection areas but should have been so classified does not in itself imply that the protection regime referred to in Article 6(2) to (4) of the Habitats Directive replaces the first regime referred to in relation to those areas.
(C-374/98, Commission v. France -"Basses Corbires")
Page 41
Since Article 7 of the Habitats Directive on habitats provides that the obligations which arise, among others, under Article 6(2) of that Directive are to replace those arising under the first sentence of Article 4(4) on birds in respect of SPAs, the legal status of protection of those areas must also guarantee the avoidance therein of the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as significant disturbance of the species for which those areas have been designated.
(C-415/01, Commission v. Belgium)
As far as land classified as an SPA is concerned, Article 7 of the Habitats Directive provides that the obligations arising under the first sentence of Article 4(4) of the Birds Directive are replaced, inter alia, by the obligations arising under Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive as from the date of implementation of the Habitats Directive or the date of classification under the Birds Directive, where the latter date is later. Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive, like 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 SPAs classified pursuant to Article 4(1).
(C-117/00, Commission v. Ireland - "Owenduff-Nephin Beg Complex")
It can be seen from Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, read in conjunction with Article 7, that any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a SPA classified under Article 4 of the Birds Directive but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, is to be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the SPA in view of the SPA's conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the SPA, the competent national authorities are to agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the SPA concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public.
(C-209/02, Commission v. Austria - "Wrschacher Moos")
See also:
Managing Natura 2000 sites: The provisions of Article 6 of the 'Habitats' Directive 92/43/EEC http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/nature_conservation/eu_nature_legislation/specific_articles/art6/pdf/art6_en.pdf
Assessment of Plans and Projects Significantly Affecting Natura 2000 sites http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/nature_conservation/eu_nature_legislation/specific_articles/art6/pdf/natura_2000_assess_en.pdf
Member States shall undertake surveillance of the conservation status of the natural habitats and species referred to in Article 2 with particular regard to priority natural habitat types and priority species.
1. If, in the light of the surveillance provided for in Article 11, Member States deem it necessary, they shall take measures to ensure that the taking in the wild of specimens of species of wild fauna and flora listed in Annex V as well as their exploitation is compatible with their being maintained at a favourable conservation status.
2. Where such measures are deemed necessary, they shall include continuation of the surveillance provided for in Article 11. Such measures may also include in particular:
- regulations regarding access to certain property,
- temporary or local prohibition of the taking of specimens in the wild and exploitation of certain populations,
Page 42
- regulation of the periods and/or methods of taking specimens,
- application, when specimens are taken, of hunting and fishing rules which take account of the conservation of such populations,
- establishment of a system of licences for taking specimens or of quotas,
- regulation of the purchase, sale, offering for sale, keeping for sale or transport for sale of specimens,
- breeding in captivity of animal species as well as artificial propagation of plant species, under strictly controlled conditions, with a view to reducing the taking of specimens of the wild,
- assessment of the effect of the measures adopted.
According to the case-law of the Court:
The surveillance obligation is fundamental to the effectiveness of the Habitats Directive and it must be transposed in a detailed, clear and precise manner. At the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, no provision of domestic law imposed an obligation on the national authorities requiring the surveillance of natural habitats and species. The argument that the list of surveillance activities carried out proves that surveillance is undertaken effectively cannot be upheld. The fact, should it be established, that a practice is in conformity with the requirements of a directive which concern protection cannot constitute a reason for not transposing that Directive into the domestic law of the Member State concerned. Accordingly, inasmuch as it is common ground that domestic law does not contain any statutory duty requiring the national authorities to undertake surveillance of the conservation status of natural habitats and species, that domestic law involves an element of legal uncertainty. Hence, it is not guaranteed that surveillance of their conservation status is undertaken systematically and on a permanent basis.
(C-6/04, Commission v. United Kingdom)
1. Member States shall take the requisite measures to establish a system of strict protection for the animal species listed in Annex IV
(a) in their natural range, prohibiting:
(a) all forms of deliberate capture or killing of specimens of these species in the wild;
(b) deliberate disturbance of these species, particularly during the period of breeding, rearing, hibernation and migration;
(c) deliberate destruction or taking of eggs from the wild;
(d) deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places.
2. For these species, Member States shall prohibit the keeping, transport and sale or exchange, and offering for sale or exchange, of specimens taken from the wild, except for those taken legally before this Directive is implemented.
3. The prohibition referred to in paragraph 1 (a) and (b) and paragraph 2 shall apply to all stages of life of the animals to which this Article applies.
4. Member States shall establish a system to monitor the incidental capture and killing of the animal species listed in Annex IV (a). In the light of the information gathered, Member States shall take further research or conservation measures as required to ensure that incidental capture and killing does not have a significant negative impact on the species concerned.
According to the case-law of the Court:
Article 12(1)(b) and (d) require that the requisite measures be taken to establish a system of strict protection for the animal species listed in Annex IV(a) of that Directive in their natural habitats, prohibiting the deliberate disturbance of those species, particularly during the period of breeding,Page 43 rearing, hibernation and migration, and the deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places. The provisions in force establishing the marine park of Zakinthos did not ensure, to the extent necessary, the effective protection of the sea and land areas. In particular, given the pressure and the erosion caused to the breeding beaches by the construction of access routes to those beaches and given the noise resulting from human activity, it was recommended the prohibition not only of the opening of new access routes to those beaches, but also of the creation of infrastructure such as kiosks, tents or parking facilities. This legal framework was not capable of ensuring strict protection for the sea turtle Caretta caretta against any deliberate disturbance during the breeding period and against any deterioration or destruction of its breeding sites. The fact that it does not appear that the number of nests of that species has decreased over the last 15 years does not, of itself, call this finding into question.
All the requisite specific measur es were not taken to prevent the deliberate disturbance of the sea turtle Caretta caretta during its breeding period and the deterioration or destruction of its breeding sites. Usage of mopeds on the sand beach, the presence of pedalos and small boats in the sea and the presence of illegal buildings on the beach was reported by Commission officials on the breeding beaches of the sea turtle Caretta caretta on the island of Zakinthos. Moreover, the acts were not isolated occurrences. These activities constitute the deliberate disturbance of the species in question during its breeding period for the purposes of Article 12(1)(b).
(C-103/00, Commission v. Greece - "Caretta caretta on Zakinthos")
A strict protection system, within the meaning of Article 12(1)(b) and (d) of the Directive, supposes the adoption of coherent and coordinated measures, of a preventive nature, as stated by the Advocate General Lger in his conclusions in the aforementioned case Commission v. Greece (paragraphs 43 and 44).
(C-518/04, Commission v. Greece)
The acts referred to in Article 12(1)(d) include non-deliberate acts. By not limiting the prohibition laid down in Article 12(1)(d) to deliberate acts, which it has done in respect of acts referred to in Article 12(1)(a) to (c), the Community legislature has demonstrated its intention to give breeding grounds or resting places increased protection against acts causing their deterioration or destruction. Given the importance of the objectives of protecting biodiversity which the Directive aims to achieve, it is by no means disproportionate that the prohibition laid down in Article 12(1)(d) is not limited to deliberate acts.
(C-98/03, Commission v. Germany, C-6/04, Commission v. United Kingdom)
For the condition as to 'deliberate' action in Article 12(1)(a) of the directive to be met, it must be proven that the author of the act intended the capture or killing of a specimen belonging to a protected animal species or, at the very least, accepted the possibility of such capture or killing.
(C-221/04, Commission v. Spain)
Member State's implementing measures contain no provision requiring the establishment of a monitoring system such as that required in Article 12(4), in respect of the incidental capture and killing of certain animal species. In the absence of further information the Commission is unable to establish whether such monitoring is in fact carried out. Accordingly, the complaint alleging that Article 12(4) of the Habitats Directive has been transposed incorrectly must be held to be well founded.
(C-6/04, Commission v. United Kingdom)
Page 44
See also:
Habitats Directive: Article 12 - Strict Protection of Animal species (in preparation) http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/nature_conservation/species_protection/specific_articles/art12/index_en.htm
1. Member States shall take the requisite measures to establish a system of strict protection for the plant species listed in Annex IV (b), prohibiting:
(a) the deliberate picking, collecting, cutting, uprooting or destruction of such plants in their natural range in the wild;
(b) the keeping, transport and sale or exchange and offering for sale or exchange of specimens of such species taken in the wild, except for those taken legally before this Directive is implemented.
2. The prohibitions referred to in paragraph 1 (a) and (b) shall apply to all stages of the biological cycle of the plants to which this Article applies.
The national measures intended to transpose the prohibition on the keeping, transport, sale or exchange of specimens of animal and plant species fail to comply with the temporal limitation laid down in Articles 12(2) and 13(1) when the derogations in force in its domestic law are broader than those envisaged by the Habitats Directive.
(C-6/04, Commission v. United Kingdom)
In respect of the capture or killing of species of wild fauna listed in Annex V (a) and in cases where, in accordance with Article 16, derogations are applied to the taking, capture or killing of species listed in Annex IV (a), Member States shall prohibit the use of all indiscriminate means capable of causing local disappearance of, or serious disturbance to, populations of such species, and in particular:
(a) use of the means of capture and killing listed in Annex VI (a);
(b) any form of capture and killing from the modes of transport referred to in Annex VI (b).
According to the case-law of the Court:
Article 15, as is apparent from its very wording, imposes a general obligation designed to prohibit the use of all indiscriminate means of capture or killing of the species of wild fauna concerned. National legislation which establishes lists of indiscriminate means of capture and killing of the protected species that is currently recorded in that Member State and the lists are kept under review in order to be updated if necessary but contains no general prohibition on the use of all indiscriminate means capable of causing local disappearance of, or serious disturbance to, populations of the relevant species of wild fauna does not therefore preclude the emergence of as yet unknown means of indiscriminate capture and killing. The possibility of updating a list of prohibited methods is less effective than a general prohibition. Delay in updating the aforementioned lists would necessarily lead to lacunae in protection which are specifically intended to be prevented by means of the general prohibition in Article 15 of the Habitats Directive. This interpretation is all the more justified because domestic law contains no statutory duty to review the lists. In those circumstances, it is not in any way guaranteed that all indiscriminate means capable of causing local disappearance of, or serious disturbance to, populations of the protected species are prohibited.
Prohibiting only two methods of killing seals and allowing licences to be granted on conditions which go beyond the derogations provided for by the Habitats Directive, the national legislation does not comply with Article 15.
(C-6/04, Commission v. United Kingdom)
Page 45
-
Provided that there is no satisfactory alternative and the derogation is not detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range, Member States may derogate from the provisions of Articles 12, 13, 14 and 15 (a) and (b):
(a) in the interest of protecting wild fauna and flora and conserving natural habitats;
(b) to prevent serious damage, in particular to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water and other types of property;
(c) in the interests of public health and public safety, or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment;
(d) for the purpose of research and education, of repopulating and reintroducing these species and for the breeding operations necessary for these purposes, including the artificial propagation of plants;
(e) to allow, under strictly supervised conditions, on a selective basis and to a limited extent, the taking or keeping of certain specimens of the species listed in Annex IV in limited numbers specified by the competent national author ities.
-
Member States shall forward to the Commission every two years a report in accordance with the format established by the Committee on the der ogations applied under paragraph 1. The Commission shall give its opinion on these derogations within a maximum time limit of 12 months following receipt of the r eport and shall give an account to the Committee.
-
The reports shall specify:
(a) the species which are subject to the derogations and the reason for the derogation, including the nature of the risk, with, if appropriate, a reference to alternatives rejected and scientific data used;
(b) the means, devices or methods authorized for the capture or killing of animal species and the reasons for their use;
(c) the circumstances of when and where such derogations are granted;
(d) the authority empowered to declare and check that the required conditions obtain and to decide what means, devices or methods may be used, within what limits and by what agencies, and which persons are to carry out the task;
(e) the supervisory measures used and the results obtained.
According to the case-law of the Court:
It is clear from the 4th5 and 11th3 recitals in the preamble to the Directive that the threatened habitats and species form part of the European Community's natural heritage and that the threats to them are often of a transboundary nature, so that the adoption of conservation measures is a common responsibility of all Member States. Accordingly, faithful transposition becomes particularly important in an instance such as the present one, where management of the common heritage is entrusted to the Member States in their respective territories. It follows that, in the context of the Directive, which lays down complex and technical rules in the field of environmental law, the Member States are under a particular duty to ensure that their legislation intended to transpose that Directive is clear and precise.
Accordingly, even assuming that the two derogations must be the subject of administrative decisions, on the issuing of which the competent authorities do in fact comply with the conditions to which Article 16 subjects the authorisation of derogations, the fact remains that national legislation does not provide a legal framework consistent with the derogatory regime established by Article 16. The provision of national law does not submit the grant of the two derogations in question to all of the conditions laid down in Article 16. The national legislation provides as the sole condition for authorisation for those derogations that animals, including their nesting or incubation sites, habitat or resting places and plant species which are particularly protected must not be subject to deliberate harm.
Member States are, in the context of the Directive, under a particular duty to ensure that their legislation intended to transpose that Directive is clear and precise. Ar ticles 12, 13 and 16 form aPage 46 coherent body of provisions. Articles 12 and 13 require Member States to establish a system of strict protection for animal and plant species.
National legislation prohibits the use of pesticides if it is foreseeable that they will produce effects harmful to human or animal health or the water table, or has other seriously harmful effects, in particular, on the balance of nature, the latter also covering plant and animal species within a provision of national legislation. National legislation, by listing the situations in which the use of pesticides is prohibited, does not express in a clear, specific and strict manner the measures laid down in Articles 12 and 13 which prohibit protected species from being adversely affected. It does not appear that the prohibition on using pesticides, where it is foreseeable that it will produce seriously harmful effects on the balance of nature, is as clear, precise and strict as the prohibition on the deterioration of breeding sites or resting places of protected animals laid down in Article 12(1)(d) or the prohibition of the deliberate destruction in the wild of protected plants laid down in Article 13(1)(a).
Species coregonus oxyrhynchus, unio crassus and acipenser sturio, which feature in Annex IV(a) to the Directive, are found in Germany. Those species must therefore be subject, in accordance with Article 12(1)(a), to a system of strict protection prohibiting all forms of deliberate capture or killing of members of those species in the wild. The legislative framework, in which regional provisions which infringe Community law coexist with a Federal law which complies with it, does not ensure effectively, and in a clear and precise manner, in respect of the three animal species, the strict protection required by Article 12(1)(a), with respect to the prohibition of all forms of deliberate capture and killing of specimens of those species in the wild.
(C-98/03, Commission v. Germany)
Article 16 of the Habitats Directive defines in a precise manner the circumstances in which Member States may derogate from Articles 12, 13, 14 and 15(a) and (b) thereof, so that Article 16 must be interpreted restrictively. Furthermore, Articles 12, 13 and 16 of the Habitats Directive form a coherent body of provisions intended to protect the populations of the species concerned, so that any derogation incompatible with the Directive would infringe both the prohibitions set out in Articles 12 and 13 and the rule that derogations may be granted in accordance with Article 16.
The derogation which authorises acts which lead to the killing of protected species and to the deterioration or destruction of their breeding and resting places, where those acts are as such lawful. Therefore such a derogation, founded on the legality of the act, is contrary both to the spirit and purpose of the Habitats Directive and to the wording of Article 16 thereof.
(C-6/04, Commission v. United Kingdom)
----------------------------------------------------------------
[6] http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31992L0043:EN:HTML
[7] Whereas, in the European territory of the Member States, natural habitats are continuing to deteriorate and an increasing number of wild species are seriously threatened; whereas given that the threatened habitats and species form part of the Community's natural heritage and the threats to them are often of a transboundary nature, it is necessary to take measures at Community level in order to conserve them;
[8] Whereas it is recognized that the adoption of measures intended to promote the conservation of priority natural habitats and priority species of Community interest is a common responsibility of all Member States; whereas this may, however, impose an excessive financial burden on certain Member States given, on the one hand, the uneven distribution of such habitats and species throughout the Community and, on the other hand, the fact that the "polluter pays" principle can have only limited application in the special case of nature conservation;
[9] Measures taken pursuant to this Directive shall take account of economic, social and cultural requirements and regional and local characteristics.
[10] conservation status of a natural habitat means the sum of the influences acting on a natural habitat and its typical species that may affect its long-term natural distribution, structure and functions as well as the long-term survival of its typical species within the territory referred to in Article 2. The conservative status of a natural habitat will be taken as "favourable" when: - its natural range and areas it covers within that range are stable or increasing, and - the specific structure and functions which are necessary for its long-term maintenance exist and are likely to continue to exist for the foreseeable future, and - the conservation status of its typical species is favourable as defined in (i);
[11] conservation status of a species means the sum of the influences acting on the species concerned that may affect the long-term distribution and abundance of its populations within the territory referred to in Article 2; The conservation status will be taken as "favourable" when: - population dynamics data on the species concerned indicate that it is maintaining itself on a long-term basis as a viable component of its natural habitats, and - the natural range of the species is neither being reduced nor is likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future, and - there is, and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a long-term basis;
[12] The aim of this Directive shall be to contribute towards ensuring bio-diversity through the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora in the European territory of the Member States to which the Treaty applies.
[13] Whereas the preservation, protection and improvement of the quality of the environment, including the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, are an essential objective of general interest pursued by the Community, as stated in Article 130r of the Treaty;
[14] http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31985L0337:EN:HTML
[15] Community policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection taking into account the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Community. It shall be based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay.
[16] Whereas, the main aim of this Directive being to promote the maintenance of biodiversity, taking account of economic, social, cultural and regional requirements, this Directive makes a contribution to the general objective of sustainable development; whereas the maintenance of such biodiversity may in certain cases require the maintenance, or indeed the encouragement, of human activities;
