«(Directive 92/43/EEC – Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Conservation of natural habitats – Wild fauna and flora – Habitat of the corncrake – Wörschacher Moos special protection area)»

1.. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down by the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC)

2.. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Subject-matter of the dispute – Determination by the reasoned opinion – Time-limit imposed on the Member State – Later cessation of the failure to fulfil obligations – Interest in continuing the action – National decision which is the source of the failure to fulfil obligations still in force on expiry of the time-limit imposed on the Member State (Art. 226 EC)

3.. Environment – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Directive 92/43 – Special protection areas – Obligations of Member States – Assessment of the impact of a project on a site – Negative conclusions – Obligation to take into account the likelihood of adverse effects on the integrity of the area (Council Directives 79/409, Art. 4, and 92/43, Arts 6(3) and (4) and 7)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) 29 January 2004 (1)

((Directive 92/43/EEC – Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Conservation of natural habitats – Wild fauna and flora – Habitat of the corncrake – Wörschacher Moos special protection area))

In Case C-209/02,

applicant,

v

defendant,

APPLICATION for a declaration that, by authorising the proposed extension of the golf course in the district of Wörschach in the Province of Styria despite a negative assessment of the implications for the habitat of the corncrake (

THE COURT (Second Chamber),,

composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet and N. Colneric, Judges,

Advocate General: P. Léger,

having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 6 November 2003,

gives the following

The Birds Directive

The Habitats Directive

Where the site concerned hosts a priority natural habitat type and/or a priority species, the only considerations which may be raised are those relating to human health or public safety, to beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment or, further to an opinion from the Commission, to other imperative reasons of overriding public interest.

Arguments of the parties

Findings of the Court

Arguments of the parties

Findings of the Court

On those grounds,

THE COURT (Second Chamber)

hereby:

Timmermans

Gulmann

Cunha Rodrigues

Puissochet

Colneric

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 29 January 2004.

R. Grass

C.W.A. Timmermans

Registrar

President of the Second Chamber