Advanced

Medlemsstaternas skyldigheter enligt EU:s områdesskydd - särskilt om de intressekonflikter som kan uppstå

Jakobsson, Katarina LU (2012) JURM02 20121
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Uppsatsen undersöker EU-medlemsstaternas skyldigheter i samband med klassificering av särskilda skydds- och bevarandeområden enligt fågelskydds- respektive habitatdirektivet. Direktivens främsta mål är att skapa ett sammanhängande ekologiskt nätverk, Natura 2000. Uppsatsen har visat att medlemsstaterna endast får beakta ornitologiska kriterier när de föreslår områden som ska beredas skydd enligt fågelskyddsdirektivet. Vid tillämpning av såväl fågelskydds- som habitatdirektivet gäller att de artiklar som stadgar ekonomiska och sociala hänsyn inte får tillämpas när medlemsstaterna föreslår områden, för att kommissionen ska tillförsäkras en uttömmande lista och att direktivens mål ska uppfyllas. Skönsutrymme saknas för medlemsstaterna, vilket... (More)
Uppsatsen undersöker EU-medlemsstaternas skyldigheter i samband med klassificering av särskilda skydds- och bevarandeområden enligt fågelskydds- respektive habitatdirektivet. Direktivens främsta mål är att skapa ett sammanhängande ekologiskt nätverk, Natura 2000. Uppsatsen har visat att medlemsstaterna endast får beakta ornitologiska kriterier när de föreslår områden som ska beredas skydd enligt fågelskyddsdirektivet. Vid tillämpning av såväl fågelskydds- som habitatdirektivet gäller att de artiklar som stadgar ekonomiska och sociala hänsyn inte får tillämpas när medlemsstaterna föreslår områden, för att kommissionen ska tillförsäkras en uttömmande lista och att direktivens mål ska uppfyllas. Skönsutrymme saknas för medlemsstaterna, vilket ett stort antal avgöranden av EU:s domstol visar. Andra hänsyn ska istället beaktas vid tillämpning av undantaget i artikel 6.4 habitatdirektivet, enligt domstolen.
Uppsatsen visar även att höga krav ställs på skyddet i särskilda skydds- och bevarandeområden och att försiktighetsprincipen har en framträdande plats i domstolens praxis. En konsekvensbedömning ska vidtas, när det inte kan uteslutas med tillämpning av objektiva kriterier att ett projekt riskerar att påverka området. Skyddet har retroaktiv verkan och en bedömning krävs både vid befintliga verksamheter och vid fortlöpande underhållsåtgärder, vilket gör det svårt för medlemsstaterna att undanta projekt från en konsekvensbedömning. Det är de kumulativa effekterna som ska bedömas vilket innebär att andra aktiviteter i området ska tas i beaktning. Direktivens skydd har extraterritoriell verkan vilket innebär att både projekt i och utanför områdena påverkas av kravet på konsekvensbedömning. Det finns även en skyldighet att skydda de områden som har föreslagits till kommissionen men ännu inte antagits på kommissionens lista över områden av gemenskapsintresse och formellt utsetts av medlemsstaterna till särskilda skydds- och bevarandeområden. Aktiviteter får tillåtas i eller i anslutning till ett särskilt skydds- eller bevarandeområde endast då nationella myndigheter har försäkrat sig om att området inte kommer att påverkas, vilket ställer höga krav på nationella myndigheters konsekvensbedömning. Eftersom en konsekvensbedömning får uteslutas endast då direktivens målsättning inte äventyras, tillgodoses direktivens bevarandeintressen väl i detta avseende.
Uppsatsen fokuserar även på de intressekonflikter som direktiven rymmer avseende inskränkningar i skyddet. Genom habitatdirektivet infördes en möjlighet för medlemsstaterna att bevilja undantag från fågelskydds- och habitatdirektivens skydd av tvingande orsaker med väsentligt allmänintresse, inbegripet ekonomiska och sociala hänsyn. För att medlemsstaterna ska få bevilja undantag krävs att alternativa lösningar saknas och att medlemsstaterna utlovar kompensationsåtgärder. Kommissionen har till uppgift att på begäran av medlemsstaterna yttra sig över de undantag som medlemsstaterna avser att medge. Uppsatsen undersöker förutsättningarna för undantag, i teorin såväl som i praktiken, och kommer till slutsatsen att det råder avsaknad av uttömmande praxis från EU:s domstol på området och att undantaget har tolkats generöst av såväl medlemsstaterna som av kommissionen. Jag kommer till slutsatsen att habitatdirektivets införande och tillämpning har inneburit att intresset av ekonomisk och social utveckling har uppgraderats i förhållande till direktivens ekologiska bevarandeintressen. (Less)
Abstract
This paper examines the EU Member States’ obligations in connection with the designation of special protection areas and special areas of conservation under the Wild Birds- and the Habitats Directive. The primary objective of the directives is to create a coherent ecological network of protected areas, Natura 2000. The paper demonstrates that Member States may consider only ornithological criteria when proposing areas to be protected in accordance with the Wild Birds Directive. Pursuant to both the Wild Birds- and the Habitats Directive those provisions that provide for economic and social considerations should not apply when Member States propose areas, in order to ensure that the commission receives an exhaustive list and that the aims... (More)
This paper examines the EU Member States’ obligations in connection with the designation of special protection areas and special areas of conservation under the Wild Birds- and the Habitats Directive. The primary objective of the directives is to create a coherent ecological network of protected areas, Natura 2000. The paper demonstrates that Member States may consider only ornithological criteria when proposing areas to be protected in accordance with the Wild Birds Directive. Pursuant to both the Wild Birds- and the Habitats Directive those provisions that provide for economic and social considerations should not apply when Member States propose areas, in order to ensure that the commission receives an exhaustive list and that the aims of the directives are met. Therefore the only discretion Member States have when proposing areas is subject to ornithological criteria, which a large number of rulings by European Court of Justice (ECJ) show. Other considerations than the strictly ornithological should instead be considered when applying the derogation clause of article 6.4 in the Habitats Directive.
This paper also examines the meaning of the protection under the directives. It demonstrates that special protection areas and special areas of conservation are subject to high standards of protection and that the Precautionary Principle has a prominent place in the ECJ’ case law. An impact assessment should take place when it cannot be excluded on objective criteria that a project might impact on a protected area. The protection of the Habitats Directive has a retroactive effect which means that an assessment is required both for existing and on-going and maintenance measures, making it difficult for Member States to exempt from the provision that an impact assessment should be conducted. The cumulative effect must be assessed and this entails that also other measures which impact on the area should be taken into consideration. The directive also has extra-territorial reach, which means that projects both within and without the protected area are subject to an impact assessment. Member States are also obligated to protect areas, which have been proposed but not yet adopted on the Commissions’ list of sites of Community importance and which not yet have been formally designated by the Member States as special protection areas and special areas of conservation. Permission may be given by national authorities for activities close to these areas only when it can be excluded that there will be an impact on the area and this in turn places real demands on the impact assessment of the national authorities involved. Since an impact assessment may be waived only if the objectives of the directives are not affected then the requirements the provision for conservation will be suitably met in this regard.
The paper also focuses on the conflict of interests which the directive entails regarding the derogations of protection. With the Habitats Directive the member states were given the possibility to derogate from the provisions of the directives for imperative reasons of overriding public interest including economic and social considerations. In order to derogate the Member State has to prove to the commission the absence of alternative solutions and promise compensatory measures. The role of the Commission is to provide opinions on the derogations of the Member States at their request. This paper examines the conditions for derogating from the directives, in theory as well as in practice, from ECJ case law and the Commissions’ opinions, and concludes that there is a lack of case law from ECJ, and that the derogations have been liberally interpreted by Member States as well as by the Commission. The conclusion of this paper is that the introduction and implementation of the Habitats Directive has resulted in the interests of social and economic development in Member States having been upgraded in relation to the conservation objectives of the directives from an ecologically conservationist perspective. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Jakobsson, Katarina LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
EU Member States’ obligations pursuant to the Wild Birds- and the Habitats Directive
course
JURM02 20121
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
EU-rätt, miljörätt
language
Swedish
id
2740496
date added to LUP
2012-10-15 12:20:17
date last changed
2012-10-15 12:20:17
@misc{2740496,
  abstract     = {This paper examines the EU Member States’ obligations in connection with the designation of special protection areas and special areas of conservation under the Wild Birds- and the Habitats Directive. The primary objective of the directives is to create a coherent ecological network of protected areas, Natura 2000. The paper demonstrates that Member States may consider only ornithological criteria when proposing areas to be protected in accordance with the Wild Birds Directive. Pursuant to both the Wild Birds- and the Habitats Directive those provisions that provide for economic and social considerations should not apply when Member States propose areas, in order to ensure that the commission receives an exhaustive list and that the aims of the directives are met. Therefore the only discretion Member States have when proposing areas is subject to ornithological criteria, which a large number of rulings by European Court of Justice (ECJ) show. Other considerations than the strictly ornithological should instead be considered when applying the derogation clause of article 6.4 in the Habitats Directive. 
	This paper also examines the meaning of the protection under the directives. It demonstrates that special protection areas and special areas of conservation are subject to high standards of protection and that the Precautionary Principle has a prominent place in the ECJ’ case law. An impact assessment should take place when it cannot be excluded on objective criteria that a project might impact on a protected area. The protection of the Habitats Directive has a retroactive effect which means that an assessment is required both for existing and on-going and maintenance measures, making it difficult for Member States to exempt from the provision that an impact assessment should be conducted. The cumulative effect must be assessed and this entails that also other measures which impact on the area should be taken into consideration. The directive also has extra-territorial reach, which means that projects both within and without the protected area are subject to an impact assessment. Member States are also obligated to protect areas, which have been proposed but not yet adopted on the Commissions’ list of sites of Community importance and which not yet have been formally designated by the Member States as special protection areas and special areas of conservation. Permission may be given by national authorities for activities close to these areas only when it can be excluded that there will be an impact on the area and this in turn places real demands on the impact assessment of the national authorities involved. Since an impact assessment may be waived only if the objectives of the directives are not affected then the requirements the provision for conservation will be suitably met in this regard.
	The paper also focuses on the conflict of interests which the directive entails regarding the derogations of protection. With the Habitats Directive the member states were given the possibility to derogate from the provisions of the directives for imperative reasons of overriding public interest including economic and social considerations. In order to derogate the Member State has to prove to the commission the absence of alternative solutions and promise compensatory measures. The role of the Commission is to provide opinions on the derogations of the Member States at their request. This paper examines the conditions for derogating from the directives, in theory as well as in practice, from ECJ case law and the Commissions’ opinions, and concludes that there is a lack of case law from ECJ, and that the derogations have been liberally interpreted by Member States as well as by the Commission. The conclusion of this paper is that the introduction and implementation of the Habitats Directive has resulted in the interests of social and economic development in Member States having been upgraded in relation to the conservation objectives of the directives from an ecologically conservationist perspective.},
  author       = {Jakobsson, Katarina},
  keyword      = {EU-rätt,miljörätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Medlemsstaternas skyldigheter enligt EU:s områdesskydd - särskilt om de intressekonflikter som kan uppstå},
  year         = {2012},
}