![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) >> Commission v Finland (Environment & consumers) [2007] EUECJ C-342/05 (14 June 2007) URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2007/C34205.html Cite as: [2007] EUECJ C-342/05, [2007] EUECJ C-342/5, [2007] ECR I-4713 |
[New search] [Printable version] [Help]
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Directive 92/43/EEC Conservation of natural habitats Wild fauna and flora Wolf hunting)
In Case C-342/05,
ACTION under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 14 September 2005,
Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. van Beek and I. Koskinen, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
applicant,
Republic of Finland, represented by E. Bygglin, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
defendant,
composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann, J. Makarczyk, L. Bay Larsen (Rapporteur) and J.-C. Bonichot, Judges,
Advocate General: J. Kokott,
Registrar: R. Grass,
having regard to the written procedure,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 30 November 2006,
gives the following
Legislative background
The Habitats Directive
'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;
...'.
'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;
...'.
'(i) 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'.
Finnish law
The pre-litigation procedure
The action
Arguments of the parties
Findings of the Court
the Finnish authorities authorise wolf hunting each year, to a limited extent, by way of derogation;
according to the report on the threat to species in Finland in 2000, published in 2001 by the Ministry of the Environment and the Finnish Environment Centre (Pertti Rassi, Aulikki Alanen, Tiina Kanerva ja Ilpo Mannerkoski: (toim.): Suomen lajien uhanalaisuus 2000. Uhanalaisten lajien II seurantaryhmä. Ympäristöministeriö & Suomen ympäristökeskus, Helsinki 2001), the wolf is classified as an endangered species in Finland;
in that report, it is stated that the number of wolves capable of reproducing is less than 50, a figure which is the limit below which an acute danger of extinction exists;
according to point 7.2 of the Management Plan for the Wolf Population, published in 2005 by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry ('the management plan'), it can be estimated that Finland requires 20 breeding pairs in order to ensure the maintenance in the long term of a wolf population as a viable component of its natural habitats;
as regards 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004, the number of breeding pairs was estimated, according to point 2.1.5 of the management plan, at 11, 12, 13 and 16 respectively.
Costs
On those grounds, the Court (Second Chamber) hereby:
1. Declares that, by authorising wolf hunting on a preventive basis, without it being established that the hunting is such as to prevent serious damage within the meaning of Article 16(1)(b) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12(1) and 16(1)(b) of that directive;
2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.
[Signatures]
* Language of the case: Finnish.