Article 6 of the Habitats Directive

Legal Requirements of Article 6of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) : 

Legal Requirements of Article 6of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Assessment of plans and projects pursuant to Article 6 (3) and (4) of the Directive EU workshop INFRA 32700 Bucharest, RO 24 Sept. 2009 © Svetoslav P. Apostolov

Slide 2: 

© Svetoslav P. Apostolov, 2009 All rights reserved. Reproduction is authorised under the Use Agreement terms and conditions.

Slide 3: 

1. The Basic 2. Provisions of Article 6 (3) 3. Provisions of Article 6 (4) 4. Conclusions Presentation Outlines

Slide 4: 

1. To contribute towards ensuring biodiversity through the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora: Measures taken pursuant to this Directive shall be designed to maintain or restore, at favourable conservation status, natural habitats and species of wild fauna and flora of Community interest. 2. To provide for sustainable development in the protected sites: Measures taken pursuant to this Directive shall take account of economic, social and cultural requirements and regional and local characteristics. Objectives of the Habitats Directive

Slide 5: 

“Limits to Growth” in Natura 2000 Sites Natura 2000 sites are not strictly off-limits areas and human activities are even encouraged therein (management measures, e.g. traditional farming practices in man-made landscapes which sustain particular habitat types and/or species). BUT! Economic and social activities may NOT have a negative impact on the protected habitat/s and/or species (compromise the site’s conservation objective/s)! Therefore Check if the planned activities are compatible with the site’s conservation objective/s!

Slide 6: 

Exceptions to “Limits to Growth” In some cases, development activities may be permitted even if they may negatively impact the Natura 2000 site. How is this regulated? Article 6 of the directive! However

Slide 7: 

Requires conservation and management measures forNatura 2000 sites. Requires avoidance of habitat deterioration and species disturbance. Requires appropriate assessment of plans or projects not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects. Provides for exceptions. Article 6 of the Habitats Directive These provisions MUST be transposed into the national legislation!

Slide 8: 

Not “a priori” prohibition of new activities. Assessment on a case-by-case basis. Evaluation and decision procedure. Supplementary protection measures for priority natural habitats (Annex I of the HD) and/or priority species (Annex II of the HD, Annex I and Art. 4 (2) of the BD), including their habitats. Case-by-case Procedure

Slide 9: 

Step-wise Procedure Screening: Article 6 (3), first sentence. Assessment: Article 6 (3), first sentence. Decision: Article 6 (3), second sentence. Exceptions: Article 6 (4). Source: Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites (European Commission, 2001)

Slide 10: 

“The protective measures prescribed in Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of [Directive 92/43/EEC] are required only as regards sites which, in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 4 (2) of the Directive, are on the list of sites selected as sites of Community importance adopted by the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 21 of the Directive.” (Case C-117/03) ECJ Reference/s Applicability However! Sites that are not on the list are also to be protected: “In the case of sites eligible for identification as sites of Community importance which are included in the national lists transmitted to the Commission and, in particular, sites hosting priority natural habitat types or priority species, the Member States are, by virtue of the Directive, required to take protective measures that are appropriate, from the point of view of the Directive’s conservation objective, for the purpose of safeguarding the relevant ecological interest which those sites have at national level.” (Case C-117/03)

Slide 11: 

1. The Basic 2. Provisions of Article 6 (3) 3. Provisions of Article 6 (4) 4. Conclusions Presentation Outlines

Slide 12: 

Article 6 (3) of the Habitats Directive: Screening, Assessment, Decision Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public.

Slide 13: 

Screening (1) To determine if the planned activity must be subjected to an assessment. Examples: significant intensification of agriculture; land-use plans; sectoral plans - insofar as they are likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site: infrastructure development (transport, energy); waste management; water management, etc. Examples: traditional agricultural practices; timber harvesting as a part of a site’s management plan pursuant to Article 6 (1). Purpose Key word: Likely An activity may be excluded from the assessment only when it will certainly NOT have a significant negative effect on the site. When uncertain of the effect’s significance: proceed with the assessment!

Slide 14: 

Screening (2) “Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site is to be subject to an appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives if it cannot be excluded, on the basis of objective information, that it will have a significant effect on that site, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects.” (Case C-127/02) “Where a plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a site is likely to undermine the site’s conservation objectives, it must be considered likely to have a significant effect on that site.” (Case C-127/02) “In case of doubt as to the absence of significant effects … an assessment must be carried out.” (Case C-127/02) ECJ Reference/s

Slide 15: 

Screening (3) As soon as the plan or project has been formulated in details sufficient to allow for the objective determination of its potential effects on the site/s. When? “The assessment of that risk must be made in the light inter alia of the characteristics and specific environmental conditions of the site concerned by such a plan or project.” (Case C-127/02) ECJ Reference/s “In order to determine the nature of any compensatory measures, the damage to the site must be precisely identified.” (Case C-304/05) “An appropriate assessment of the implications for the site concerned of the plan or project implies that, prior to its approval, all the aspects of the plan or project which can, by themselves or in combination with other plans or projects, affect the site’s conservation objectives must be identified in the light of the best scientific knowledge in the field.” (ECJ Case C-127/02)

Slide 16: 

Screening (4) General policy statements (good will/ intentions/ framework agreements): generally excluded from Art. 6 (3) if the resulting plan/s or project/s will be subjected to the Art. 6 procedure; subject to the Art. 6 procedure in cases of clear and direct link between the content of the initiative and its (likely) significant effects on the site/s. Projects included in a plan that has passed the Art. 6 (3) procedure in a general way but not in terms of project details are subject to the Art. 6 (3) procedure in relation to details not covered by the plan assessment. What? “Framework agreements ... must also provide sufficiently specific evidence to show that they are more than at the stage of preliminary administrative reflection and carry a degree of precision in the planning in question which calls for an environmental assessment of their effects.” (Case C‑179/06) ECJ Reference/s

Slide 17: 

Screening (5) 1) direct or indirect; 2) temporary or permanent; 3) beneficial or harmful to the site; 4) a combination of these. Types of effects Who? The competent national authority.

Slide 18: 

Geographical scope Planned activities not only within a protected site… Screening (6) … but also outside the site! Why? Not to forget: activities that have a positive effect on a site may have a negative effect on an adjacent site!

Slide 19: 

Screening (7) “The Court finds that by failing, in respect of certain projects carried out outside the SAC within the meaning of Article 4 (1) of the Directive, to require compulsory assessment of the impact on the site, in accordance with Article 6 (3) and (4) of the Directive whether or not such projects are capable of significantly affecting such an SAC, … Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6 (3) … of the Directive.” (Case C-98/03) ECJ Reference/s

Slide 20: 

Size Size does NOT matter, only the likely effect on the site matters. Screening (8) Lady's Slipper Orchid (Cypripedium calceolus), Laelatu Natura 2000 site (Estonia) Photo credit: “eucera” Photo credit: Arno Peksar, 1999 Photo credit: news.bg, 2007

Slide 21: 

Screening (9) “Even a small-scale project can have significant effects on the environment if it is in a location where the environmental factors set out in Article 3 of [Directive 85/337/EEC], such as fauna and flora, soil, water, climate or cultural heritage, are sensitive to the slightest alteration. Similarly, a project is likely to have significant effects where, by reason of its nature, there is a risk that it will cause a substantial or irreversible change in those environmental factors, irrespective of its size.” (Case C-392/96) Although the above judgment is on the implementation of Directive 85/337/EEC (EIA), this approach is adopted by the HD. ECJ Reference/s

Slide 22: 

Cumulative effect Several individually modest impacts may in combination produce a significant impact: simultaneous; sequential. Screening (10) Therefore: planned activities must be considered in the context of other past, existing and/or proposed activities. Source: Natura 2000 in Germany (BMU, 2008) “An appropriate assessment of the implications for the site concerned of the plan or project implies that, prior to its approval, all the aspects of the plan or project which can, by themselves or in combination with other plans or projects, affect the site’s conservation objectives must be identified in the light of the best scientific knowledge in the field.” (ECJ Case C-127/02) ECJ Reference/s

Slide 23: 

Source: Water Framework Directive - Summary of River Basin District Analysis 2004 in Germany (UBA, 2005) Screening Example: Simultaneous cumulative effect

Slide 24: 

Source: The Rhine - A river and its relations (ICPR, 2008) Screening Example: Sequential cumulative effect

Slide 25: 

Screening (11) The likelihood of the effect’s significance is assessed based, inter alia, on: available information on the planned activity (land use, size (for projects), waste production, nuisances, risk of accidents, etc.); available information on the Natura 2000 site (conservation objective/s, regime, carrying capacity, etc.); location of the planned activity in relation to the Natura 2000 site (or its key components); site visits, etc. Likelihood assessment “The assessment of that risk must be made in the light inter alia of the characteristics and specific environmental conditions of the site concerned by such a plan or project.” (Case C-127/02) ECJ Reference/s

Slide 26: 

to determine how the planned activity will impact a Natura 2000 site, or to trigger the provisions of Article 6 (4). Appropriate assessment (1) Purpose Key phrase: Integrity of the site The concept of the “integrity of the site” does not mean simply structural completeness but involves also the site’s ecological functions and its potential for meeting the conservation objective/s. In many cases going on with a planned activity will have a positive environmental impact (e.g. technological improvements of existing industries will result in reduced emissions to the air or water, in addition to the primary aim of increased production capacity). Why determine?

Slide 27: 

Appropriate assessment (2) “The obligation set out in Article 2(1) [of Directive 85/337/EEC] that projects likely, by virtue inter alia of their nature, size or location, to have significant effects on the environment are to be subject to an impact assessment… Even a small-scale project can have significant effects on the environment if it is in a location where the environmental factors set out in Article 3 of the Directive, such as fauna and flora, soil, water, climate or cultural heritage, are sensitive to the slightest alteration. Similarly, a project is likely to have significant effects where, by reason of its nature, there is a risk that it will cause a substantial or irreversible change in those environmental factors, irrespective of its size.” (Case C-392/96) Although the above judgment relates to the implementation of Directive 85/337/EEC (EIA), this approach is adopted by the HD. “[A] part of the project has at the same time specific positive consequences for the habitat of birds. Once the works are completed it will be possible to close two navigation channels which cross the Leybucht, with the result that the Leybucht will be left in absolute peace. ... The dyke which previously protected the Hauener Hooge site will be opened, thus once more exposing an extensive area to tidal movements and allowing the formation of salt meadows of considerable ecological importance.” (Case C-57/89) ECJ Reference/s

Slide 28: 

No form/method prescribed: where the planned activity requires assessment under Directive 85/337/EEC (as amended) or Directive 2001/42/EC – the assessment may be carried out as a part of the EIA/SEA assessment.In that case the assessment required by Article 6 should be clearly distinguishable and identified within an environmental statement or reported separately. in all other cases: guides, regulations, etc.In that case the assessment must be reasoned (i.e. as comprehensive and objective as possible) and recorded. Appropriate assessment (3) Form/Method “With regard to the concept of ‘appropriate assessment’ within the meaning of Article 6 (3) of Directive 92/43, it should be noted that the latter does not define any particular method for the carrying out of such an assessment. The Court has, however, held that that assessment must be organised in such a manner that the competent national authorities can be certain that a plan or project will not have adverse effects on the integrity of the site concerned, given that, where doubt remains as to the absence of such effects, the competent authority will have to refuse authorisation.” (Case C-304/05) ECJ Reference/s

Slide 29: 

Appropriate assessment (4) “An appropriate assessment of the implications for the site concerned of the plan or project implies that, prior to its approval, all the aspects of the plan or project which can, by themselves or in combination with other plans or projects, affect the site’s conservation objectives must be identified in the light of the best scientific knowledge in the field.” (ECJ Case C-127/02) “This ‘appropriate assessment’ is not a merely formal process of examination, but must allow a detailed analysis which satisfies the conservation objectives of the site in question, as set out in Article 6, particularly as regards the protection of natural habitats and priority species.” (Case C-441/03) ECJ Reference/s To ensure the necessary level of certainty, the assessment must make use of the best scientific knowledge in the field.

Slide 30: 

Appropriate assessment (5) Assessments carried out pursuant to Directive 85/337/EEC (EIA) or Directive 2001/42/EC (SEA) does not replace the procedure provided for in Article 6 (3) and (4) of the HD. ECJ Reference/s “Assessments carried out pursuant to Directive 85/337 or Directive 2001/42 cannot replace the procedure provided for in Article 6 (3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive.” (ECJ Case C-418/04). Why?

Slide 31: 

Assessment Form Example: Germany the legislative power is divided between the federation and the state level. the implementation of the legal provisions is also divided between the Federation and the Federal Lands. At the federal level - framework law: Art. 34 of the Federal Nature Conservation Act (Bundesnaturschutzgesetz, BnatSchG) of 2002 (as amended) transposes the requirements of Art. 6 (3) HD. At the state (land) level - various: state law; orders; guides, etc. Saarland: Art. 25 and Art. 26 of the Saarland’s Nature Conservation Act (Saarländisches Naturschutzgesetz, SNG) of 2006 (as amended) introduce the general provisions of Art. 34 of the Federal Nature Conservation Act; detailed procedures – in guides.

Slide 32: 

Assessment Form Example: Bulgaria Art. 31 to Art. 33 of the Biodiversity Act of 2002 (as amended) transpose the requirements of Art. 6 (3) HD. Plans, programmes and projects falling within the scope of the Environment Protection Act are assessed through the ecological assessment, respectively the EIA procedure as required under the Environment Protection Act and in compliance with the provisions of the Regulation on the terms and conditions for compatibility assessment of plans, programmes, projects and development proposals with the conservation objectives of protected zones. All other plans, programmes and projects are assessed following the procedure described in the Regulation on the terms and conditions for compatibility assessment of plans, programmes, projects and development proposals with the conservation objectives of protected zones.

Slide 33: 

It should focus on the short-, medium- and long-term implications for the site in view of its conservation objective/s. Appropriate assessment (6) Content HOWEVER… In view of the tight interconnections between components of the environment (i.e. human beings, fauna and flora, soil, water, air, climate, landscape, material assets, cultural heritage)… OR… “When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe.” John Muir Source: 4-H Earth Connections web site Freshwater marsh food web … it may be reasonable to assess the effects of a planned activity on these components as well.

Slide 34: 

“An appropriate assessment of the implications for the site concerned of the plan or project implies that, prior to its approval, all the aspects of the plan or project which can, by themselves or in combination with other plans or projects, affect the site’s conservation objectives must be identified in the light of the best scientific knowledge in the field.” (ECJ Case C-127/02) HD does not distinguish between activities planned to be implemented outside or inside a protected site – same assessment applies! (ECJ Case C-98/03) Appropriate assessment (7) ECJ Reference/s

Slide 35: 

Recommendation for developers: Undertake own repeated rounds of assessment and mitigation of impacts as the plan emerges until any adverse effects on the Natura 2000 site/s are completely avoided. Ideally: Undertake on a cyclic basis as the various plan/ project components emerge: objectives  options  preferred options  detailed proposal. Appropriate assessment (8) Benefits: No inappropriate components are taken forward and included in the draft plan; No need to search for alternatives or develop expensive compensatory measures:  Minimise the risk to the adoption of the plan or project;  Save time and money.

Slide 36: 

Those responsible for giving an authorisation or consent to the respective planned activity (i.e. plan or project): Central government administration; Regional, provincial or municipalauthorities; Their responsible agencies. Decision (1) Competent national authorities Not necessarily environment/nature protection authorities!

Slide 37: 

Decision (2) “Pursuant to Article 6 (3) of the Habitats Directive, the competent national authorities, taking account of the conclusions of the appropriate assessment of the implications … for the site concerned, in the light of the site’s conservation objectives, are to authorise such activity only if they have made certain that it will not adversely affect the integrity of that site. That is the case where no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of [adverse] effects.” (Case C-127/02) “In accordance with Article 6 (3), it is only in the second stage, that is on completion of the appropriate assessment and in the light of the conclusions on the implications for the site in question of the plan or project, that the competent authorities adopt a decision on it.” (Case C-441/03) ECJ Reference/s

Slide 38: 

1. The Basic 2. Provisions of Article 6 (3) 3. Provisions of Article 6 (4) 4. Conclusions Presentation Outlines

Slide 39: 

Article 6 (4) of the Habitats Directive: Alternatives, Exceptions, Compensatory measures, Role of the Commission If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, the Member State shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. It shall inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted. 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.

Slide 40: 

Article 6 (4) of the Habitats Directive “Article 6 (4) of Directive 92/43 can apply only after the implications of a plan or project have been studied in accordance with Article 6 (3) of that directive.” (Case C-304/05) ECJ Reference/s

Slide 41: 

Alternatives (1) Purpose to determine the best method of achieving the desired objectives of the plan or project while minimising environmental impacts (i.e. indicate the most environmentally friendly option), or to trigger the exception provision of Article 6 (4). “The implementation of a plan or project under Article 6 (4) of the Habitats Directive is, inter alia, subject to the condition that the absence of alternative solutions be demonstrated.” (Case C-239/04) ECJ Reference/s

Slide 42: 

Alternatives (2) Responsibility The competent national authority determines if alternative solutions exist or not – once the appropriate assessment has concluded that the planned activity will have a negative impact on the Natura 2000 site. Examples: alternative location/s and/or implementation schedule (timing); different scales; different designs of development; alternative processes, etc. Most important: Zero-alternative (“no-go”) “Go” alternative may have an added value: a positive environmental impact. Why?

Slide 43: 

Alternatives (3) Developer’s (proponent’s) alternative solutions: voluntary; genuine and well-documented search; at the earliest stages of development (before a choice has been made). Competent authority: May consider developer’s alternatives and/or May consult other stakeholders (better alternatives).

Slide 44: 

Mitigation Measures Purpose to prevent, minimise or eliminate the actual or potential adverse effects of a plan or project during its implementation or after its completion. Developer’s (proponent’s) mitigation measures: encouraged; at the earliest stages of development. However! Competent authority: Should carry out the screening and assessment without any consideration of possible mitigation measures; Determines the appropriate type and level of mitigation; May require additional mitigation measures. “In order to determine the nature of any compensatory measures, the damage to the site must be precisely identified.” (Case C-304/05) ECJ Reference/s

Slide 45: 

Mitigation Measures Example: Germany A20 motorway in the Peene Valley, Germany Photo credit: DEGES/Rochow

Slide 46: 

Exceptions (1) Purpose to grant a limited possibility for a Member State to override a negative assessment and to authorise the implementation of the planned activity in the absence of less harmful alternatives. Only possible if: Imperative reasons of overriding public interest outweigh the public interest of conserving the Natura 2000 site; Adequate compensatory measures to ensure the coherence ofthe Natura 2000 networkare provided. In all other cases – rejection!

Slide 47: 

Exceptions (2) “The power of the Member States to reduce the extent of a special protection area can be justified only on exceptional grounds. Those grounds must correspond to a general interest which is superior to the general interest represented by the ecological objective of [Directive 79/409/EEC].” (ECJ Case C-57/89) “With regard to the part of the project concerning the Leyhoern area, the line of the dyke was influenced by considerations relating not only to coastal protection but also to the concern to ensure that fishing vessels from Greetsiel had access to the harbour. In the light of the principles for the interpretation of Article 4 (4) of [Directive 79/409/EEC] set out above, to take account of such an interest is in principle incompatible with the requirements of the provision.” (ECJ Case C-57/89) Although the above judgment relates to the implementation of Directive 79/409/EEC (BD), this approach is adopted by the HD. ECJ Reference/s

Slide 48: 

Exceptions (3) “The Spanish Government takes the view that the ecological requirements laid down in that provision must be subordinate to other interests, such as social and economic interests, or must at the very least be balanced against them. That argument cannot be accepted. It is clear from the Court' s judgment in Case C-57/89 … that, in implementing [Directive 79/409/EEC], Member States are not authorized to invoke, at their option, grounds of derogation based on taking other interests into account… The Court held in that judgment that, in order to be acceptable, such [derogation] grounds must correspond to a general interest which is superior to the general interest represented by the ecological objective of the directive.” (Case C-355/90). “… considerations relating to the economic problems … cannot justify a derogation from the protection requirements laid down in Article 4 (4) of [Directive 79/409/EEC].” (Case C-355/90). ECJ Reference/s

Slide 49: 

Exceptions (4) Imperative reasons of overriding public interest Examples: projects or plans that are specifically targeted at improving public health and/or safety; projects or plans that are specifically targeted at safeguarding human life and property; projects or plans where there is a demonstrable public or environmental need. Primary: human health; public safety; beneficial consequences for the environment. Secondary: other social or economic activities that (will) provide public service. Given the long-term conservation aim of the HD: only long-term public interest can be overriding; interests which would only yield short-term benefits for the society would not appear to be sufficient to outweigh the long-term conservation objectives of the Directive.

Slide 50: 

Exceptions Example: Germany Germany started construction works on a dyke – border of a special protection area. Reason: public safety (flood prevention). Project design: influenced by economic considerations. The Commission took Germany to the ECJ. The ECJ (Case C-57/89) decided that: “the danger of flooding and the protection of the coast constitute sufficiently serious reasons to justify the dyke works and the strengthening of coastal structures as long as those measures are confined to a strict minimum and involve only the smallest possible reduction of the special protection area.” “[A] part of the project has at the same time specific positive consequences for the habitat of birds. Once the works are completed it will be possible to close two navigation channels which cross the Leybucht, with the result that the Leybucht will be left in absolute peace. ... The dyke which previously protected the Hauener Hooge site will be opened, thus once more exposing an extensive area to tidal movements and allowing the formation of salt meadows of considerable ecological importance. The desire to ensure the survival of the fishing port of Greetsiel could thus be taken into account in order to justify the decision on the line of the new dyke because there were the abovementioned offsetting ecological benefits, and solely for that reason.”

Slide 51: 

Compensatory Measures (1) Purpose to offset the negative impact of a planned activity and to provide compensation corresponding precisely to the negative effects on the species or habitat concerned, thus ensuring the coherence of the Natura 2000 network. Additional to the proper implementation of the BD and HD! “In order to determine the nature of any compensatory measures, the damage to the site must be precisely identified.” (Case C-304/05) ECJ Reference/s Additional to the mitigation measures (“last resort”)!

Slide 52: 

Compensatory Measures (2) Requirements: appropriate to the site and the loss caused by the project or plan; able to maintain or enhance the overall coherence of Natura 2000; feasible; can be operational by the time the damage to the site is effected (unless this can be proved unnecessary in the circumstances of the case). Examples: Restoration: restore the habitat to ensure the maintenance of its conservation value and compliance with the conservation objective/s of the site; Creation: create a new habitat on a new site or through the enlargement of the existing site; Enhancement: improve the remaining habitat (or another Natura 2000 site) proportional to that which is lost due to the project or plan; Preservation of habitat stock: propose a new site under the HD.

Slide 53: 

Relation between Alternatives, Mitigation and Compensation

Slide 54: 

Role of the Commission (1) 2 main hypotheses: Site does not host a priority habitat and/or species; Site hosts a priority habitat and/or species. Inform the Commission: send information about the planned activity and the compensation measures. Why? “The purpose of that requirement to inform is to enable the Commission to consider whether the compensatory measures adopted are such as to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected and, depending on the circumstances, to draw the appropriate conclusions.” (ECJ Case C-324/01). Bottom line: take legal steps. When? Before the CMs are implemented and before the realisation of the proposed activity but after its authorisation.

Slide 55: 

Role of the Commission (2) Consult with the Commission: ask for an opinion – “go” or “no-go”. Why? To enable the Commission to check the: balance between the invoked imperative reasons of overriding public interest and the ecological values likely to be affected by the proposed activity; b) adequacy of the proposed compensatory measures. 2. To enable the Commission to provide recommendations and/or restrictions. The opinion is not a legally binding act. However, failure to comply with it is likely to result in legal implications for the MS concerned.

Slide 56: 

Further Readings (1) All guides are available online: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm Part on Art. 6 (4) obsolete!

Slide 57: 

Further Readings (2) Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/caselaw/index_en.htm Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/cases_judgements.htm

Slide 58: 

http://curia.europa.eu http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOIndex.do

Slide 59: 

1. The Basic 2. Provisions of Article 6 (3) 3. Provisions of Article 6 (4) 4. Conclusions Presentation Outlines

Slide 60: 

Art. 6 (3) and (4) provides for development activities even if they may negatively impact a Natura 2000 site. EIA and/or SEA procedures do not replace the Art. 6 (3) assessment. The implementation of the provisions of Art. 6 (3) and (4) is responsibility of the competent national authorities. All plans and projects , irrespectively of size and location, likely to have a significant effect on a protected site are subject to the Art. 6 (3) procedure. The best scientific knowledge in the field must be used. Start the procedure as early as reasonable: minimise the risk to the adoption of the plan or project and save time and money. In exceptional cases a plan or project may be authorised even in the light of negative outcomes of the appropriate assessment  Compensation! Conclusions 8. The Commission safeguards the correct implementation of Art. 6.

Slide 62: 

USE AGREEMENT FOR THE PRESENTATION Legal Requirements of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC): Assessment of plans and projects pursuant to Article 6 (3) and (4) of the Directive AGREEMENT REQUIRED TO USE THE PRESENTATION Thank you for your interest in the Legal Requirements of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC): Assessment of plans and projects pursuant to Article 6 (3) and (4) of the Directive presentation. The presentation is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright. By continuing working with the presentation, you agree to accept and abide by the terms and conditions specified hereunder. Age and responsibility for Agreement You represent that you are of sufficient legal age to contract or create a binding legal obligation.   Assignment You may not assign, convey, subcontract, give or donate, or delegate your rights, duties or obligations under this Use Agreement.

Slide 63: 

USE AGREEMENT (continued) Disclaimer § 1. General The Legal Requirements of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC): Assessment of plans and projects pursuant to Article 6 (3) and (4) of the Directive presentation (hereafter: the presentation) is published by Svetoslav P. Apostolov (hereunder: the Author) with the aim of enhancing public access to information on the correct application of the provisions of Article 6 (3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive and on the relevant case-law of the European Court of Justice. The use of the presentation takes place on the basis of these terms and conditions of use. The user accepts these as soon as he/she has been informed of them, has had a reasonable opportunity to read them and continues to use the presentation. This disclaimer is not intended to limit the liability of the Author in contravention of any requirements laid down in applicable national law nor to exclude his liability for matters which may not be excluded under that law.

Slide 64: 

USE AGREEMENT (continued) (4) The Author reserves the right to modify and/or change this Use Agreement at any time without notice. It is the sole responsibility of the user to review this page regularly in order to ensure he/she is familiar with the most up-to-date Use Agreement. The user understands and agrees that if he/she uses the presentation after the date on which the Use Agreement has been updated, his/her use will be treated as acceptance of the updated Use Agreement. (5) The Author reserves the right to suspend or discontinue providing access to the presentation (or any part thereof) at any time without notice. § 2. Responsibility for contents For his own content, which the Author has ready for use, the Author is responsible only in accordance with the general law. (2) The information contained in the presentation is: of a general nature only and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual or entity;

Slide 65: 

USE AGREEMENT (continued) not necessarily comprehensive, complete, accurate or up to date; not professional or legal advice (if you need specific advice, you should always consult a suitably qualified professional). (3) The Author shall in no event be held responsible for errors, injuries, damages or losses of any kind (including but not limited to actual losses or lost profits, or missed opportunities) incurred by or in any way connected to the use of the information contained in the presentation. Otherwise the responsibility will be in accordance with the general law. § 3. Technical availability For technical reasons the system providing access to the presentation can from time to time be used only temporarily and/or for only part of the contents. In that case the Author will not be responsible for the Author has no influence on the system. A right to unrestricted access to what is offered does not exist.

Slide 66: 

USE AGREEMENT (continued)   § 4. Exclusion of liability for the system Data or information on the system providing access to the presentation may have been created or structured in files or formats that are not error-free, and the Author cannot guarantee that the service will not be interrupted or otherwise affected by such problems. The Author accepts no responsibility with regard to such problems incurred as a result of using the system, in particular for errors. The same applies for material and software, which are offered on any linked external websites independent of the Author. The Author accepts no responsibility with regard to any possible incompatibility between the system (or its individual elements) providing access to the presentation and the user's specific hardware and software. The Author accepts no responsibility with regard to any possible damages of any kind in the user's hardware or software incurred by or in any way connected to the use of the presentation.

Slide 67: 

USE AGREEMENT (continued) Copyright notice § 1. Copyright law The presentation, including its layout, is protected by the relevant national and international copyright law. The presentation is intended for information and education only and is free to use for non-commercial purposes. A single copy of the presentation may be downloaded for personal, non-commercial, educational or research use and reference. When used for reference, the source must be duly acknowledged. Alterations are forbidden! For any use for commercial purposes, or to make or distribute additional copies, the prior written permission by the Author must be obtained. However, it is permitted to provide any person with the URL [website address] of the presentation or place a hyperlink to the presentation on the maintained by you website(s). Accept and continue reading Decline and exit