Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 January 2010.

Stadt Papenburg v Bundesrepublik Deutschland.

Reference for a preliminary ruling: Verwaltungsgericht Oldenburg - Germany.

Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Decision of the Member State concerned to give its agreement to the draft list of sites of Community importance drawn up by the Commission - Interests and points of view which must be taken into account.

Case C-226/08.


Top of the page Documents in the Case
Document Date Name of the parties Subject-matter Curia EUR-Lex
Judgment (OJ)
13/03/2010 Stadt Papenburg
View pdf documents
Judgment
ECLI:EU:C:2010:10
14/01/2010 Stadt Papenburg
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Judgment (Summary)
ECLI:EU:C:2010:10
14/01/2010 Stadt Papenburg
Opinion
ECLI:EU:C:2009:440
09/07/2009 Stadt Papenburg
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Application (OJ)
15/08/2008 Stadt Papenburg
View pdf documents
Top of the page Legal analysis of the decision or of the case

Reports of Cases

2010 I-00131

Subject-matter

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Verwaltungsgericht Oldenburg – Interpretation of Article 2(3), the first subparagraph of Article 4(2), and Article 6(3) and (4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) – Economic interests of a municipality, linked to the operation of a river port and protected by the Constitution, which may suffer lasting effects as a result of the possible designation of the site concerned as a site of Community importance – Interests and points of view which must be taken into consideration by the Member State concerned when deciding to give its agreement to the draft list of sites of Community importance established by the Commission

Systematic classification scheme

1.
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.23 Environment, sustainable development and climate
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.23 Environment, sustainable development and climate


Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

  • EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 234 : paragraph 23
  • Directive 85/337 -A01P2T2 : paragraphs 38, 39
  • Court of Justice - Rules of Procedure (1991) -A61 : paragraphs 19, 21
  • Directive 92/43 -A01PTCL3 : paragraph 27
  • Directive 92/43 -A02P3 : paragraphs 1, 3, 32
  • Directive 92/43 -A03P1 : paragraphs 4, 29, 31
  • Directive 92/43 -A04P1 : paragraphs 5, 49
  • Directive 92/43 -A04P2 : paragraphs 1, 5
  • Directive 92/43 -A04P2L1 : paragraphs 22, 27, 30, 31, 33
  • Directive 92/43 -A04P2L3 : paragraphs 35, 49, 50
  • Directive 92/43 -A06P2 : paragraphs 7, 49
  • Directive 92/43 -A06P3 : paragraphs 1, 7, 35, 40, 42, 44, 47, 50, 51
  • Directive 92/43 -A06P3L1 : paragraphs 36, 37
  • Directive 92/43 -A06P4 : paragraphs 1, 7, 35, 42, 44, 50
  • Directive 92/43 -N1 : paragraphs 4, 29, 31
  • Directive 92/43 -N2 : paragraphs 4, 29, 31
  • Directive 92/43 -N3 : paragraphs 6, 27, 28
  • Directive 2006/105 : paragraph 1
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -104/77 : paragraph 23
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -435/97 : paragraph 23
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -162/00 : paragraph 46
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -127/02 : paragraphs 36, 38, 49
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -17/03 : paragraph 45
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -117/03 : paragraph 49
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -209/04 : paragraph 48
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -244/05 : paragraph 49
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -284/06 : paragraph 21
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -11/07 : paragraph 23
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -42/07 : paragraph 21
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -226/08 : paragraph 32

Operative part

  • Interprets : Directive 92/43 -A04P2L1
  • Interprets : Directive 92/43 -A04P2L3
  • Interprets : Directive 92/43 -A06P3
  • Interprets : Directive 92/43 -A06P4

Opinion

  • Directive 79/409 -A02 : point 38
  • Directive 79/409 -A04P1 : points 34 - 36
  • Directive 79/409 -A04P2 : points 34 - 36
  • Directive 79/409 -A04P4L1 : point 35
  • Directive 85/337 -A01P2 : points 46, 48
  • Directive 92/43 : points 36, 62
  • Directive 92/43 -A01 : point 8
  • Directive 92/43 -A02P3 : points 9, 28, 37, 38
  • Directive 92/43 -A03 : point 10
  • Directive 92/43 -A03P1 : point 34
  • Directive 92/43 -A03P1L1 : point 27
  • Directive 92/43 -A03P2 : point 23
  • Directive 92/43 -A04 : points 11, 23
  • Directive 92/43 -A04P1 : points 24, 26, 28
  • Directive 92/43 -A04P2 : point 33
  • Directive 92/43 -A04P2L1 : point 42
  • Directive 92/43 -A04P2L2 : point 33
  • Directive 92/43 -A04P2L3 : point 24
  • Directive 92/43 -A04P4 : point 24
  • Directive 92/43 -A04P5 : point 24
  • Directive 92/43 -A06 : point 12
  • Directive 92/43 -A06P1 : point 40
  • Directive 92/43 -A06P2 : points 11, 24, 40, 57, 68 - 70
  • Directive 92/43 -A06P3 : points 11, 24, 35, 37, 40, 44, 46, 48 - 53, 56, 57, 66 - 68, 70, 71
  • Directive 92/43 -A06P4 : points 11, 24, 35, 37, 39 - 41, 44, 48, 51, 52, 65, 67, 71
  • Directive 92/43 -N1 : points 24, 26, 30, 33
  • Directive 92/43 -N2 : points 24, 26, 30, 33
  • Directive 92/43 -N3 : points 13, 24, 26, 27, 33
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -278/84 : point 64
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -247/85 : point 38
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -44/95 : points 35, 37
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -60/98 : point 64
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -371/98 : point 30
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -371/98 : points 23, 26 - 28, 33
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -512/99 : point 64
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -162/00 : point 64
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -453/00 : point 58
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -127/02 : points 54, 67
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -127/02 : points 46 - 48, 68, 69
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -17/03 : points 61 - 63, 65
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -418/04 : point 48
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -418/04 : points 44, 48
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -142/05 : point 49
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -342/05 : point 56
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -388/05 : points 34, 40, 44, 51, 52


Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

  • 26/05/2008

Date of the Opinion

  • 09/07/2009

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

14/01/2010


References

Publication in the Official Journal

Application: OJ C 209 from 15.08.2008, p.24

Judgment: OJ C 63 from 13.03.2010, p.5

Name of the parties

Stadt Papenburg

Notes on Academic Writings

  1. Stüer, Bernhard: Bestandskraft von Zulassungsentscheidungen wird durch FFH-Regime durchbrochen, Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt 2010 p.245-247 (DE)
  2. Gärditz, Klaus Ferdinand: Kein Bestandsschutz für rechtmäßig genehmigte Vorhaben im europäischen Naturschutzrecht ?, Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt 2010 p.247-250 (DE)
  3. Glaser, Andreas: Mitgliedstaatliche Zustimmungsabsicht zu Gebietsschutz nach FFH-Richtlinie gegen Willen klagender Stadt, Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 2010 p.225-227 (DE)
  4. Backes, Ch.W.: Nederlandse jurisprudentie ; Uitspraken in burgerlijke en strafzaken 2010 nº 68 (NL)
  5. Michel, Valérie: Site protégé et autonomie communale, Europe 2010 Mars Comm. nº 121 p.28-29 (FR)
  6. Jolivet, Simon: Directive Habitats, Revue juridique de l'environnement 2010 p. 295-305 (FR)
  7. Dumitraşcu, Augustina: Curtea de Justiție a Uniunii Europene, Curierul judiciar 2010 nº 3 p.173-175 (RO)
  8. Verschuuren, J.M.: Milieu en recht 2010 p.315-316 (NL)
  9. Cudennec, Annie ; Curtil, Olivier ; De Cet-Bertin, Cécile ; Guéguen-Hallouët, Gaëlle ; Labrot, Véronique: Chronique maritime - Environnement - Jurisprudence - Mise en oeuvre de la Directive 92/43/CEE (directive habitats), Revue du marché commun et de l'Union européenne 2010 nº 542 p.605-606 (FR)
  10. Trébulle, François Guy: Droit de l'environnement - Droit de l'Union européenne, Recueil Le Dalloz 2010 nº 37 p.2470-2473 (FR)
  11. Zinzi, Maddalena: Natura 2000 e criteri di selezione dei SIC: l'inderogabilità del dato tecnico-scientifico, Diritto pubblico comparato ed europeo 2010 p.900-902 (IT)
  12. Hecker, Jan: Europäisierung der Widerrufsdogmatik? - Zum "Papenburg"-Urteil des Europäischen Gerichtshofs, Umwelt - Hochschule - Staat (Ed. Duncker & Humblot - Berlin) 2016 p.663-672 (DE)



Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Verwaltungsgericht Oldenburg - Germany

Subject-matter

  • Environment

Provisions of national law referred to

DE - Grundgesetz, Art. 28 par. 2

Provisions of international law referred to

Information not available

Procedure and result

  • Reference for a preliminary ruling

Formation of the Court

deuxième chambre (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

Bay Larsen

Advocate General

Sharpston

Language(s) of the Case

  • German

Language(s) of the Opinion

  • English