LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 February 2003.
Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxemburg.
C-75/01 • 62001CJ0075 • ECLI:EU:C:2003:95
- Inbound citations: 7
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 3
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 February 2003.
Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxemburg.
C-75/01 • 62001CJ0075 • ECLI:EU:C:2003:95
Cited paragraphs only
«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats – Wild fauna and flora)»
Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by the Member States – Mere administrative practice does not constitute fulfilment of that obligation (Art. 249 EC, third para.)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 13 February 2003 (1)
((Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats – Wild fauna and flora))
In Case C-75/01,
applicant,
v
defendant,
APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing to take all the necessary measures to implement fully and correctly Articles 1, 4(5), 5(4), 6, 7, 12(1)(b) and (c), 12(2), 12(4), 13(1)(b) and 13(2), 14, 15, 16(1), 22(b) and (c), and 23(2) 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) in conjunction with Annexes I, II, IV, V and VI to that directive, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive and under the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),,
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), V. Skouris, F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges,
Advocate General: A. Tizzano,
having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 29 January 2002,
gives the following
...
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.
...
...
...
...
Incomplete transposition of Article 1 of the Directive
Failure to transpose Article 4(5) of the Directive
Failure to transpose Article 5(4) of the Directive
Failure to transpose Article 6 of the Directive
Article 6(1) of the Directive
Article 6(2) of the Directive
Article 6(3) and (4) of the Directive
Failure to transpose Article 7 of the Directive
Inadequate transposition of Article 12(1)(b) and (c), (2) and (4) of the Directive
Article 12(1)(b) of the Directive
Article 12(1)(c) of the Directive
Article 12(2) of the Directive
Article 12(4) of the Directive
Inadequate transposition of Article 13(1)(b) and (2) of the Directive
Article 13(1)(b) of the Directive
Article 13(2) of the Directive
Non-transposition of Article 14 of the Directive
Incorrect transposition of Article 15 of the Directive
Unsatisfactory transposition of Article 16(1) of the Directive
Incorrect transposition of Article 22(b) and (c) of the Directive
Article 22(b) of the Directive
Article 22(c) of the Directive
Infringement of Article 23(2) of the Directive
On those grounds,
THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),
hereby:
Puissochet
Gulmann
Skouris
Macken
Colneric
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 13 February 2003.
R. Grass
J.-P. Puissochet
Registrar
President of the Sixth Chamber
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2025
Related cases
Select a keyword to display the most cited other cases
