The Court of Justice has ruled that France is in breach of its obligations in failing, by the prescribed deadline (28 January 1996), to classify a sufficient area of the Marais Poitevin (Poitevin Marsh) as SPAs and in failing to adopt appropriate measures to supplement the protection regime for the SPAs already classified.
The 1979 Community Directive on the protection of wild birds requires Member States to classify in particular the most suitable territories in the geographical land and sea area covered by the Directive as special protection areas (SPAs) for the conservation of endangered and migratory species. The Directive also requires Member States to avoid pollution or deterioration of habitats or any significant disturbance affecting the birds in the classified areas (a second directive adopted in 1992 and scheduled to enter into force in June 1994 introduced additional protective measures).
The Commission called on the Court to rule that, by failing to adopt the special measures necessary for the conservation of wild birds in the Poitevin Marsh and by failing to take appropriate steps to avoid deterioration of their habitats, France had failed to fulfil its obligations under the "Birds" Directive.
The Court noted that the Poitevin Marsh is indeed a natural area of very great ornithological value. It pointed out that the French Government had itself acknowledged that it had failed within the prescribed period to confer SPA classification on a sufficient area within the Poitevin Marsh (33 742 hectares classified in April 1996 for an area of 77 900 hectares recognised by the French authorities as constituting an important area for the conservation of wild birds).
The Court also took the view that France had failed to adopt within the proper time the measures necessary for the protection of the areas classified in that region. In particular, the 1992 French Law on Water and the contracts concluded between the State and farmers designed in particular to develop environmentally-friendly farming methods were not sufficient to ensure breeding and survival of the protected species (the Law related only to water and the contracts were voluntary in nature).
The Court ruled that the French authorities had failed to take appropriate measures to avoid deterioration of the areas in the Poitevin Marsh classified as SPAs and of certain of those which should have been so classified. The Court pointed out in this regard that States had an obligation to take appropriate steps to avoid deterioration of habitats in those areas which were most suitable for the conservation of birds, even where the areas in question had not been classified as SPAs. With regard to this latter point, the Court did not have sufficient evidence before it to establish that all the areas which should have been classified had suffered deterioration. With regard to the classified areas, the Court referred to, inter alia, a study by the Bird Protection League indicating that on two sites (the Baie de l'Aiguillon and the Pointe d'Arçay) the population of wintering ducks had fallen from 67 845 to 16 551 between 1986 and 1996. France could not, the Court ruled, plead application of the common agricultural policy, which, according to France, was primarily responsible for the reduction in wetlands.
N.B.: Other pending cases concerning application of the Directive on the conservation of wild birds
The Court has already ruled against France on two occasions, by judgments of 27 April 1988 and 18 March 1999 (Seine Estuary) for failure to implement this Directive.
Three other actions brought by the Commission are also pending against France.
For media use only, unofficial document which does not bind the Court of Justice. Available in: English, French and German.
For the full text, please consult our Internet page www.curia.eu.int at approximately 3 p.m. today.
For additional information please contact Fionnuala Connolly, phone: (00352) 4303 3355 fax: (00352) 4303 2731