You are on page 1of 1

11.8.2001

EN
EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 227/15

2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (the ‘birds

directive’) by 1 January 1995. As of that date the obligations European Communities against French Republic under the first sentence of Article 4(4) of the birds directive in

respect of all areas classified pursuant to Article 4(1) and (2) of the birds directive were replaced by the obligations in Article 6(2) to (4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (‘habitats directive’) as laid down in Article 7 of that directive.

Action brought on 3 July 2001 by Commission of the

(Case C-259/01)

(2001/C 227/27)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 July 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Roland Tricot acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(a)

Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 98/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas( 1 ), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive and, in particular, Article 29;

(b)

Order the French Republic to pay the costs.

As regards the first sentence of Article 4(4) of the birds directive with reference to Article 6(3) and (4) of the habitats

number

of amendments to its legislation were required to implement the directive. The Commission claims that the necessary

directive the Swedish government considered that a

measures were not taken within the period of two months prescribed in the reasoned opinion.

As regards the consultation obligation under Article 6(3) of

necessary measures were not taken within the period of two months prescribed in the reasoned opinion.

the birds directive the Commission claims that the

implemen-

tation of Article 9 of the birds directive, the legal provisions

say

Paragraph 23a of the Jaktförordningen (hunting regulation), which incorporates Article 9(1)(a), Paragraph 9 of the Jaktlagen (hunting law), which incorporates Article 9(1)(c) and Para- graph 31 of the Jaktförordningen, which incorporates Article 9(1)(b), do not contain the specific information required under Article 9(2) of the birds directive. The further dero- gations in the Swedish Jaktförordningen (Paragraphs 14, 15,

20, 21, 27 and 29), in Paragraph 12 of the Artskyddförordn- ingen (species protection regulation) (SFS 1998:1790) and in Paragraph 5 of the protective provisions of the Naturvårdverket (Swedish environment protection board) (NFS 1997:5) do not contain the information required under Article 9(2) of the birds directive. Nor does Paragraph 9b of the Jaktförordningen specify the conditions of risk as prescribed by the third indent of Article 9(2).

Finally, as regards the deficiencies in the correct

which Sweden claims incorporate Article 9, that is to

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under the third paragraph of Article 249 and the first paragraph of Article 10 of the EC Treaty France was required to adopt the measures necessary to transpose Directive 98/30/EC at the latest by 10 August 2000, the date laid down in Article 29 thereof.

( 1 ) OJ 1998 L 204, p. 1.

Removal from the register of Case C-216/00 ( 1 )

(2001/C 227/28)

( 1 ) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

9.

( 2 ) OJ L 223, 13.8.1997, p.

( 3 ) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

By order of 28 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-216/00: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.

( 1 ) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.

register of Case C-216/00: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic. ( 1 ) OJ