Monitoring the Application of the Birds and the Habitats Directives
In: Journal for European Environmental & Planning LawSearch for other papers by Ludwig Krämer in
Current site
Google Scholar
The contribution examines the monitoring of the application of Directives 2009/147 on birds and 92/43 on habitats and wild fauna and flora by the EU institutions. It concludes that while without such monitoring, the situation of biodiversity in the EU would be worse, the application of directives and their effects on fauna and flora species is not a success story.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
34)
Already in 1991, the Commission had indicated, for the derogation reports under the Birds Directive, that the derogation reports were so general that they did not allow any control, Commission, Eighth report on monitoring application of Community law, OJ 1991, C 338, p.220.
-
35)
Commission (fn.31, above), p.8, p.13, p.19.
-
64)
Commission, Financing Natura 2000, COM(2004) 431.
-
69)
Between 1994 and February 2013, the Commission applied to the Court in fourteen concrete cases of habitat impairment: cases C-166/97 Commission v. France, ECR 1999, p.I-1719 (Seine); C—374/98 Commission v. France, ECR 2000, p.I-10799 (Basses Corbières); C-96/98 Commission v. France, ECR 1999, p.I-8531(Marais de Poitevin); C-202/01 Commission v. France, ECR 2002, p.I-11019 (Plaine des Maures); C-166/04 Commission v. Greece, judgment of 27 October 2005 (Messolongi); (C-209/04 Commission v. Austria, ECR 2006 p.I-2755 (Lauteracher Ried); C-388/05 Commission v. Italy, ECR 2007, p.I-7555 (Valloni pedegargariche); C-186/06 Commission v. Spain, ECR 2007 p.I-12093 (Segara-Garrigues); C-193/07R Commission v. Poland, decision of 18 July 2007 (Agustów); C-308/08 Commission v. Spain, ECR 2010, p.I-4281 (Donana); C-491/08 Commission v.Italy ECR 2010, p.I-74 (Is Arena); C-404/09 Commission v.Spain, judgment of 24 November 2011 (Alto Sil); C-340/10, Commission v. Cyprus (fn.41, above) (Paralimni Lake); C-517/11 Commission v.Greece, judgment of 7 February 2013 (Lake Langadas). In six cases, a specific species was threatened: C-103/00 Commission v.Greece ECR 2002, p.I-1147 (sea turtle Caretta caretta); C-117/00 Commission v. Ireland, ECR 2002, p.I-5335 (Red Grouse); C-518/04 Commission v. Greece, ECR 2006, p.I-42 (Vipère); C-342/05 Commission v. Finland ECR 2007, p.I-4713(Wolf); C-383/09 Commission v. France, judgment of 9 June 2011 (Hamster); C-340/10 Commission v. Cyprus (fn.41, above) (grass-snake).
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 324 | 73 | 6 |
| Full Text Views | 188 | 4 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 116 | 14 | 0 |
Monitoring the Application of the Birds and the Habitats Directives
In: Journal for European Environmental & Planning LawSearch for other papers by Ludwig Krämer in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
The contribution examines the monitoring of the application of Directives 2009/147 on birds and 92/43 on habitats and wild fauna and flora by the EU institutions. It concludes that while without such monitoring, the situation of biodiversity in the EU would be worse, the application of directives and their effects on fauna and flora species is not a success story.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 324 | 73 | 6 |
| Full Text Views | 188 | 4 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 116 | 14 | 0 |