Habitats Directive - lessons from case-law of Court of Justice of European Union since 1999
description
Transcript of Habitats Directive - lessons from case-law of Court of Justice of European Union since 1999
Habitats Directive - lessons from case-law of
Court of Justice of European Union since 1999
European Commission,
DG Environment
Overview
Why are legal cases necessary? Commission enforcement policy Why is the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)
important? Commission enforcement: nature in context CJEU decisions in Commission actions, 1999-2012 CJEU rulings in preliminary references, 2000-2011 Lessons from case-law – interpretation Lessons from case-law – Commission and Member States Future challenges Future policy Future policy – questions for discussion
Why are legal cases necessary?
European CommissionDuty as guardian of Treaties to address implementation gaps – Article 17 of TEUPowers to act under Articles 258, 260 and 279 of TFEU
Member StatesCompetent authorities need to take enforcement action – public enforcementDecisions against decisions, acts and omissions – private enforcement through access to justicePreliminary references to the Court of Justice for interpretation – Article 267 of TFEU
Commission enforcement policy
Partly defined in policy communications, see 2007 “A Europe of Results”, COM(2007)502 and 2008 Communication on implementing environment law, COM(2008)773
Enforcement is within context that includes compliance promotion, e.g. guidance documents, LIFE funding, EU Pilot
Enforcement related to citizen complaints/European Parliament petitions – Directive 92/43/EEC frequently cited
Trend towards strategic use of enforcement powers confirmed by 2008 Communication
Why is the Court of Justice of the European Union important? Final arbiter in disputes between Commission
and Member States (80% of cases) Can order interim measures (rare, only one
case concerning Directive 92/43/EEC) Definitively interprets in references from
national courts (20% of cases)
Commission enforcementDG ENV open cases per sector (445) on 31/12/2010
AIR56
13%
WASTE65
15%
NATURE89
20%
CHEMICALS46
10%
IMPACT429%
INFORMATION9
2%
LIABILITY1
0%MISCELLANEOUS1
0%
WATER13631%
DG ENV open cases per sector (339) on 31/12/2011
CHEMICALS268%
AIR35
10%
WASTE76
22%
NATURE76
22%
MISCELLANEOUS1
0%
LIABILITY1
0%
IMPACT43
13%
INFORMATION1
0%
WATER80
25%
CJEU decisions in Commission actions, 1999-2012Subject-matter, number of cases Case reference, Member State
National legislation (17. 13 MS) C-256/98, FR, 2000; C-324/01, BE, 2002; C-75/01, LU, C-72/02, PT, C-143/02, IT, 2003; C-407/03, FI, 2004; C-441/03, NL, C-6/04, UK, C-131/05, UK, 2005; C-98/03, DE, 2006; C-418/04, IE, C-183/05, IE, C-508/04, AT, 2007; C-293/07, EL, 2008; C-241/08, FR, 2010; C-538/09, BE, 2011; C-46/11, PL, 2012
National list (5, 5 MS), SAC designation C-67/99, IE, C-71/99, DE, C-220/99, FR, 2001; C-90/10, ES, 2011; C-340/10, CY, 2012
Site protection, projects (15, 8 MS) C-374/98, FR, 2000; C-117/00, IE, 2002; C-209/02, AT, 2004; C-209/04, AT, C-239/04, PT, 2006; C-418/04, IE, C-304/05, IT, C-388/05, IT, C-179/06, IT, 2007; C-293/07, EL, 2008; C-535/07, AT, C-491/08, IT, 2010; C-560/08, ES, C-404/09, ES, 2011; C-340/10, CY, 2012
Strict protection of species (9, 7 MS) C-103/00, EL, 2002; C-434/01, UK, 2003; C-221/04, ES, 2006; C-518/04, EL, C-183/05, IE, C-342/05, FI, 2007; C-308/08, ES, 2010; C-383/09, FR, C-90/10, ES, 2011; C-340/10, CY, 2012
CJEU rulings in preliminary references (1) 2000: C-371/98, First Corporate Shipping, scientific
basis of Natura 2000 sites 2004: C-127/98, Waddenzee, duty of appropriate
assessment 2005: C-117/03, Dragaggi, duty of interim protection 2006: C-244/05, Bund Naturschutz, duty of interim
protection 2010: C-226/08, Stadt Papenburg, duty to prevent
deterioration
CJEU rulings in preliminary references (2) 2011: C-115/09, Trianel, access to justice rights for
Impact Assessment allow Directive 92/43/EEC issues to be raised
2011: C-240/09, Slovak Bears, rights of e-NGOs in cases concerning Directive 92/43/EEC
2011: C-2/10, Azienda Agro-Zootecnica Franchini and Eolica d Altamura, prohibition on wind-turbines, proportionality
2012: C-182/10, Solvay and others, need for appropriate assessment where projects adopted by legislation, IROPI
Lessons from case-law – interpretation Interpretations found in judgments as well as in
preliminary rulings Interpretations tend to be rigorous and teleological,
importance of objective science-base Interface with other directives, notably Birds,
79/409/EEC, e.g. on interim measures, and Impact Assessment, 85/337/EEC;
Interface with access to justice, role of private enforcement
Still room for future interpretation Helpfulness of Commission guidance documents
Lessons from case-law – Commission and Member States Court cases a last resort Positive role of EU Pilot?
Commission success rate – 80%
National legislation Dominant category Not complaint-driven New Member States try to resolve sooner
National list Very limited need for court action Positive influence of bio-geographic process?
Site protection and species protection Strong link with complaints Access to justice an alternative? Advantages of national complaint-handling criteria?
Future Challenges
Monitoring systems Designation of SACs, implementation of
Article 6(1) Site protection Public enforcement at national level Private enforcement at national level
Future Policy
2012 Implementation Communication, COM(2012)95
o Implementation one of 3 priorities of Commissioner Potočnik
o Objective to complement rather than replace earlier communications
o Not an infringement communicationo Focus on improving information systems and checks and
balances at national levelo 2 themes: Knowledge and responsivenesso Adopted 7 March 2012o Helps set scene for 7th Environmental Action Programme
Future policy – questions for discussion What are the strengths and weaknesses of existing policy? Have we
right balance between enforcement and compliance promotion? Knowledge: How can we build on existing active dissemination of information about
Directive 92/43/EEC, such as Natura 2000 maps, Natura Barometer? Responsiveness: How to ensure establishment of best practice and best methodologies
for inspections and surveillance in the field of nature? Can trans-network cooperation (inspectors, prosecutors, judges)
improve how the enforcement chain functions in relation to wildlife crime?
How to ensure consistent, structured exchanges between complainants and national authorities?
How to provide access to justice in nature cases in response to Slovak Bears?