The Court of Justice has held that France was in breach of its obligations by failing to comply, by the deadline of 3 September 1995, with the Community directive on the protection of wild birds.
Following the receipt in August 1991 of two complaints concerning the construction of a titanogypsum treatment and storage plant in the Seine estuary, the Commission entered into correspondence with the French authorities and called upon them to adopt the measures required to ensure compliance with the European directive on the protection of wild birds. On 3 July 1995 the Commission sent France a reasoned opinion requesting it to take the necessary steps within two months, that is to say, by 3 September 1995. Having received no satisfactory response, on 30 April 1997 the Commission brought an action before the Court of Justice for a declaration that France had failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive.
The 1979 Community directive on the protection of wild birds requires the Member States, amongst other things, to classify as special protection areas (SPAs) the most suitable territories for the conservation of endangered and migratory species in the geographical land and sea area covered by the directive. It also requires the Member States to avoid pollution or deterioration of habitats or any significant disturbance affecting the birds in the classified areas.
The Seine estuary is one of the most important wetlands of the French coast from an ornithological point of view. It is visited by a large number of endangered species and by migratory species for which special protection is required under the directive. In 1990, 2 750 hectares of the Seine estuary were classified as an SPA, an area which, as the French Government itself admitted, was insufficiently large.
The Court, noting that the Seine estuary is a particularly important ecosystem for a large number of bird species, held that the area within the Seine estuary classified as an SPA was, on 3 September 1995, insufficiently large.
The Court also pointed out that for every SPA there must be an appropriate legal protection regime guaranteeing its preservation and the continued breeding and survival of the species found there. Although the land classified as an SPA in 1990 was State property and was also a maritime game reserve, this was insufficient and the Court therefore upheld the Commission's complaint that France had not provided the SPA with a legal protection regime which would attain the objectives of the Community legislation.
Lastly, the Commission complained that France had not adopted the necessary measures to avoid deterioration of the Seine estuary in that it had authorised the construction there of a titanogypsum plant. The Court found, however, that the Commission had not provided sufficient proof that the site of the factory was one of the most appropriate territories for the conservation of protected species or that France had failed to take the appropriate steps to avoid pollution or deterioration of habitats.
N.B.: Other pending cases concerning application
of the directive on the conservation of wild birds
By a judgment of 27 April 1988 France was held to have failed to implement the directive.
Four 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: French, English 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 Jean-Michel Rachet phone: (00352) 4303 3205 fax: (00352) 4303 2034