Notice for the OJ
Action brought on 8 February 2005 by Jeremy Henry Moore Newsum, Mark Anthony Loveday and Robin Shedden Broadhurst against the Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-57/05)
Language of the case: English
An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 February 2005 by Jeremy Henry Moore Newsum, Mark Anthony Loveday and Robin Shedden Broadhurst, residing in London (United Kingdom), represented by M. Kingston QC , D. Park, Barrister and J. Withinshaw , Solicitor.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
- annul the following parts of the Commission's Decision of 7 December 2004 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region1 (notified under document number C(2004) 4032);
(i) Article 1 and that item in Annex 1 of the contested decision provided with the SCI code UK0030163 Halkyn Mountain/Mynydd Helygain;
(ii) or in the alternative, Article 1 and that item in Annex 1 of the contested decision provided with the SCI code UK0030163 Halkyn Mountain/Mynydd Helygain which is shown coloured red in the plan annexed to the application;
- order the defendant to pay the costs of the applicants.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants are the owners of tracts of land which is partly used for agriculture and mineral extraction purposes which now, under the contested decision, has been declared a site of Community importance (SCI) for the Atlantic biogeographical region.
The applicants submit that the contested decision infringes their fundamental rights guaranteed by the general principles of the Community legal order. That infringement of fundamental rights is formally unlawful because upon adoption of the Commission Decision (and upon implementation of Directive 92/43/EEC2) no form of right of participation is bestowed upon the property owners concerned. The applicants also allege that the Commission encouraged or acquiesced in a public participation exercise undertaken by the Member State in question which was flawed and inadequate in its nature and duration.
The applicants further submit that no consideration was given to economic and social requirements, which includes the applicant's private property rights. The contested decision is also contrary to the provisions of Directive 92/43/EEC itself because the question of the compensation to be paid remains entirely open and unresolved.
According to the applicants, the contested decision does not specify the species and habitats for which the sites listed are of Community importance and is based on erroneous technical information. It would appear that the areas in question were listed on the basis of the presence of the great crested newt and of calaminarian grasslands. The applicants argue that the former is not an priority species and the latter is not a priority habitat and that, therefore, they do not know to which priority natural habitat type or species the contested decision refers.
____________1 - OJ L387 p. 1 2 - ouncil Directive 92/43/EE of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7).