ECJ 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. In an action under Article 169 of the Treaty, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion. Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds requires the Member States to provide the special protection areas referred to therein 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 which are regular visitors, albeit not listed in that annex. A protection regime under which – for want of any specific substantive measures, except in relation to hunting – the only status enjoyed by a special protection area is that of State-owned land and of a maritime game reserve is incapable of providing adequate protection for the purposes of those provisions. 4 Under Article 4(4) of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds, Member States are required to take appropriate steps to avoid pollution and deterioration of the habitats of the species concerned, even in relation to an area which has not been classified as a special protection area provided that, under the directive, it should have been so classified. It follows that any infringement of that provision presupposes that the area in question is one of 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) of the directive which lays down the criteria for such classification. In this connection, the mere fact that a site has been included by a Member State in an inventory of important areas for bird conservation does not prove that it ought to have been classified as a special protection area.
Citations:
C-166/97, [1999] ECR I-1719
Cited by:
Cited – Bown v Secretary of State for Transport CA 31-Jul-2003
The appeal concerned the environmental effect of the erection of a bridge being part of a bypass. It was claimed that the area should have been designated as a Special Protection Area for Birds (SPA), and that if so it should be treated as such for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
European, Environment
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.162112