EC COURT OF JUSTICE, Section II, 04/03/2010, Judgment C-241/08
VENATORY AND FISHING LAW - EIA - Incorrect transposition - Special areas of conservation - Significant consequences of a project on the environment - "Non-disruptive" nature of certain activities - Assessment of effects on the environment - Natura 2000 contracts - Non-fulfillment of a State (France) - Art . 6, nos. 2 and 3, Directive 92/43 / EEC. The French Republic, providing on the one hand, in general terms, that fishing, aquaculture activities, hunting and other hunting activities carried out in the conditions and in the territories authorized by the laws and regulations in force do not constitute disturbing activities or having similar consequences , and, on the other hand, by systematically exempting the works, works and constructions envisaged by Natura 2000 contracts from the assessment procedure of the effects on the site.
By systematically exempting from this procedure the programs and projects of works, works or realizations subject to the declaration regime, it has failed to fulfill its obligations under, respectively, art. 6, no. 2, of the Council Directive of 21 May 1992, 92/43 / EEC, relating to the conservation of natural and semi-natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna, and of art. 6, no. 3, of the same directive. Pres. Bonichot - Rel. Bay Larsen - European Commission c. French Republic. EC COURT OF JUSTICE, Section II, 04/03/2010, Judgment C-241/08
FAUNA AND FLORA - EIA - Habitats Directive - Assessment of the effects - Necessity - Environmental Code - Failure of a State (France) to fulfill its obligations - Art. 6, nn. 2 and 3, Directive 92/43 / EEC. Pursuant to art. 6, no. 3 of the Habitats Directive, the possibility of exempting, in general terms, certain activities, in accordance with the legislation in force, from the need for an assessment of the effects on the site concerned does not comply with that provision. Therefore, such an exemption is not suitable for ensuring that such activities do not jeopardize the integrity of the protected site (see, to that effect, judgment 10/01/2006, case C-98/03, Commission v Germany).
Consequently, taking into account the level of similar protection envisaged by n. 2 of art. 6 of the "habitats" directive and subsequent n. 3, art. L. 414-1, n. 5, third paragraph, fourth sentence, of the Environmental Code, where it declares in general terms that certain activities, such as hunting and fishing, are not a source of disturbance, can be considered compliant with art. 6, no. 2 of that directive only if it is ensured that those activities do not generate any disturbance capable of significantly affecting the objectives of that directive. Therefore, pursuant to art. 6, no. 3 of the Habitats Directive, any plan or project not directly connected or necessary to the management of the site but capable of significantly affecting the site itself must be subject to an appropriate assessment of its impact on that site in light of the conservation objectives of the site. same. Pres. Bonichot - Rel. Bay Larsen - European Commission c. French Republic. EC COURT OF JUSTICE, Section II, 04/03/2010, Judgment C-241/08