Commission v United Kingdom (Environment & consumers) [2005] EUECJ C-131/05 (17 November 2005)

Judgment 1 In its action, the Commission of the European Communities seeks a declaration from the Court that, by not adopting the measures necessary to comply with Article 6(1) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1; -�the birds directive-�) and Articles 12(2) and 13(1) read in conjunction with Article 2(1) 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; -�the habitats directive-�), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives. The pre-litigation procedure 2 In accordance with the procedure laid down by the first paragraph of Article 226 EC, having put the United Kingdom on formal notice to submit its observations, the Commission issued a reasoned opinion on 16 December 2003, calling upon the United Kingdom to take the measures necessary to comply within two months from the date of service. 3 By letter of 18 February 2004, the United Kingdom authorities acknowledged that the birds directive and the habitats directive had not been correctly implemented in domestic law. 4 In those circumstances, the Commission decided to bring this action. The action 5 In its defence, whilst acknowledging that the Commission-�s action is well-founded, the United Kingdom Government states that it has since taken the necessary measures to remedy the failure complained of. 6 In that regard, the Court has consistently held that the question whether there has been a failure to fulfil obligations must be examined on the basis of the position in which the Member State found itself at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion and the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes (see, for example, Case C-103/00 Commission v Greece [2002] ECR I-1147 , paragraph 23, and Case C-323/01 Commission v Italy [2002] ECR I-4711, paragraph 8). 7 The Commission-�s action must therefore be upheld. 8 The Court therefore finds that, by not adopting, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Article 6(1) of the birds directive and Articles 12(2) and 13(1), read in conjunction with Article 2(1), of the habitats directive, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives. Costs 9 Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party-�s pleadings. Since the Commission has applied for costs against the United Kingdom and the latter has been unsuccessful, the United Kingdom must be ordered to pay the costs. On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby rules: 1. By not adopting, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Article 6(1) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds and Articles 12(2) and 13(1), read in conjunction with Article 2(1), of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives. 2. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is ordered to pay the costs. [Signatures] * Language of the case: English. BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII