BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) >> Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux & Ors (Environment and consumers) [2003] EUECJ C-182/02 (16 October 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2003/C18202.html
Cite as: [2003] ECR I-12105, [2003] EUECJ C-182/2, [2003] EUECJ C-182/02, EU:C:2003:558, ECLI:EU:C:2003:558

[New search] [Help]

IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The source of this judgment is the web site of the Court of Justice of the European Communities. The information in this database has been provided free of charge and is subject to a Court of Justice of the European Communities disclaimer and a copyright notice. This electronic version is not authentic and is subject to amendment.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)

16 October 2003 (1)

(Directive 79/409/EEC - Conservation of wild birds - Opening and closing dates for hunting - Derogations)

In Case C-182/02,

REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Conseil d'État (France) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between

Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux and Others

and

Premier ministre,

Ministre de l'Aménagement du territoire et de l'Environnement,

interveners:

Union nationale des fédérations départementales de chasseurs,

Association nationale des chasseurs de gibier d'eau,

on the interpretation of Article 9(1)(c) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1),

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),

composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), V. Skouris and N. Colneric, Judges,

Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,


Registrar: H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

- Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux, by A. Bougrain-Dubourg, president,

- Rassemblement des opposants à la chasse, by C. Xavier, avocat,

- Union nationale des fédérations départementales de chasseurs, by H. Farge, avocat,

- the French Government, by G. de Bergues and E. Puisais, acting as Agents,

- the Greek Government, by V.N. Kontolaimos and I. Khalkias, acting as Agents,

- the Commission of the European Communities, by G. Valero Jordana and X. Lewis, acting as Agents,

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of the Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux, the Union nationale des fédérations départementales de chasseurs, the French and Greek Governments and the Commission at the hearing on 3 April 2003,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 6 May 2003,

gives the following

Judgment

  1. By decision of 25 January 2002, received at the Court on 15 May 2002, the Conseil d'État (Council of State) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC two questions on the interpretation of Article 9(1)(c) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1, hereinafter the Directive).

  2. Those questions were raised in actions brought before the Conseil d'État by the Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux (League for the Protection of Birds), the Association pour la protection des animaux sauvages (Association for the Protection of Wild Animals) and the Rassemblement des opposants à la chasse (Anti-Hunting Union) respectively seeking the annulment, for misuse of powers, of Decree No 2000-754 of 1 August 2000 relating to the dates for the hunting of migratory birds and waterfowl and amending the Rural Code (JORF of 5 August 2000, p. 12178, hereinafter the contested decree).

    Legal framework

    Community legislation

  3. Article 7 of the Directive is worded as follows:

    1. Owing to their population level, geographical distribution and reproductive rate throughout the Community, the species listed in Annex II may be hunted under national legislation. Member States shall ensure that the hunting of these species does not jeopardise conservation efforts in their distribution area.

    2. The species referred to in Annex II/1 may be hunted in the geographical sea and land area where this directive applies.

    3. The species referred to in Annex II/2 may be hunted only in the Member States in respect of which they are indicated.

    4. Member States shall ensure that the practice of hunting, including falconry if practised, as carried on in accordance with the national measures in force, complies with the principles of wise use and ecologically balanced control of the species of birds concerned and that this practice is compatible as regards the population of these species, in particular migratory species, with the measures resulting from Article 2. They shall see in particular that the species to which hunting laws apply are not hunted during the rearing season nor during the various stages of reproduction. In the case of migratory species, they shall see in particular that the species to which hunting regulations apply are not hunted during their period of reproduction or during their return to their rearing grounds. Member States shall send the Commission all relevant information on the practical application of their hunting regulations.

  4. Article 9(1) and (2) of the Directive provides:

    1. Member States may derogate from the provisions of Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8, where there is no other satisfactory solution, for the following reasons:

    (a) - in the interests of public health and safety,

    - in the interests of air safety,

    - to prevent serious damage to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water,

    - for the protection of flora and fauna;

    (b) for the purposes of research and teaching, of re-population, of re-introduction and for the breeding necessary for these purposes;

    (c) to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, the capture, keeping or other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers.

    2. The derogations must specify:

    - the species which are subject to the derogations,

    - the means, arrangements or methods authorised for capture or killing,

    - the conditions of risk and the circumstances of time and place under which such derogations may be granted,

    - the authority empowered to declare that the required conditions obtain and to decide what means, arrangements or methods may be used, within what limits and by whom,

    - the controls which will be carried out.

    National legislation

  5. Article 2 of the contested decree provides that derogations from prohibitions on hunting outside the hunting periods set by the administrative authorities and during certain vulnerable periods for birds may be granted by prefects (departmental heads of administration) to permit the capture, keeping or other judicious use of geese, wood pigeons and thrush in small numbers, until 20 February. An order of the Minister responsible for hunting, adopted following consultation with the Conseil national de la chasse et de la faune sauvage (National Council for Hunting and Wildlife), lays down the conditions in which such uses may be authorised and the procedures for the controls to be implemented. The Minister also determines, after consultation with the Fédération nationale de la chasse (National Hunting Federation) and the Office national de la chasse et de la faune sauvage (National Authority for Hunting and Wildlife), the maximum number of birds, by species, which may be taken in each department. Prefects establish the maximum number of birds which may be taken by beneficiaries of the derogation.

    The main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

  6. In the actions brought before the Conseil d'État to annul the contested decree for misuse of powers, that court in essence stated that Article 2 of that decree is intended to implement Article 9(1) of the Directive. According to the Conseil d'État, the assessment of the legality of Article 2 depends, first, on whether Article 9(1)(c) of the Directive permits derogations from the opening and closing dates for hunting set in the light of the objectives specified in Article 7(4) of the Directive and, second, if so, what the criteria and limits are when laying down those derogations.

  7. The Conseil d'État, after annulling Article 1 of the contested decree in part in so far as it related to the opening or closing dates for hunting certain species, decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:

    1. Does Article 9(1)(c) of Council Directive 79/409 of 2 April 1979 permit a Member State to derogate from the opening and closing dates for hunting which follow from consideration of the objectives specified in Article 7(4) thereof?

    2. If so, what are the criteria which make it possible to establish the limits of that derogation?

    The first question

  8. Article 9(1)(c) of the Directive provides that Member States may derogate from, inter alia, Article 7 where there is no other satisfactory solution, in order to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, the capture, keeping or other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers.

  9. It therefore appears that Article 9(1)(c) of the Directive permits authorisation, in compliance with the conditions set out in that provision, of the capture, keeping or other judicious use of certain birds during the periods mentioned in Article 7(4) of the Directive, during which the survival of wild birds is at particular risk.

  10. According to the case-law of the Court, Article 9 of the Directive authorises Member States to derogate from provisions relating, inter alia, to hunting (Case 247/85 Commission v Belgium [1987] ECR 3029, paragraph 7). The Court has also accepted the possibility of derogating from the prohibition on hunting species of birds not listed in Annex II to the Directive, to which Article 7(1) refers, in particular for the reason set out in Article 9(1)(c) of the Directive (Case C-118/94 Associazione Italiana per il WWF and Others [1996] ECR I-1223, paragraph 21).

  11. It is clear from the foregoing that the hunting of wild birds for recreational purposes during the periods mentioned in Article 7(4) of the Directive may constitute a judicious use authorised by Article 9(1)(c) of that directive, as do the capture and sale of wild birds even outside the hunting season with a view to keeping them for use as live decoys or to using them for recreational purposes in fairs and markets (see Case 262/85 Commission v Italy [1987] ECR 3073, paragraph 38).

  12. The answer to the first question must therefore be that Article 9(1)(c) of the Directive permits a Member State to derogate from the opening and closing dates for hunting which follow from consideration of the objectives set out in Article 7(4) of the Directive.

    The second question

  13. First, Article 9 of the Directive authorises Member States to derogate from the general prohibition on hunting protected species which is laid down in Articles 5 and 7 of the Directive only by measures which refer in sufficient detail to the factors mentioned in Article 9(1) and (2) (see Associazione Italiana per il WWF and Others, cited above, paragraph 26).

  14. A national measure which permits derogating from Article 7(4) of the Directive by virtue of Article 9(1), such as the measure cited in paragraph 5 of this judgment, does not comply with the latter provision if it fails to refer to the fact that such a derogation can be granted only where there is no other satisfactory solution (see, to that effect, Commission v Italy, cited above, paragraph 39).

  15. Second, as regards hunting in particular, that activity can be permitted pursuant to Article 9(1)(c) of the Directive only if:

    - there is no other satisfactory solution;

    - it is carried out under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis;

    - it applies only to certain birds in small numbers.

  16. The first of the conditions set out in the preceding paragraph cannot be considered to have been satisfied when the hunting period under a derogation coincides, without need, with periods in which the Directive aims to provide particular protection (see, to that effect, Commission v Italy, paragraph 39). There would be no such need if the sole purpose of the derogation authorising hunting were to extend the hunting periods for certain species of birds in territories which they already frequent during the hunting periods fixed in accordance with Article 7 of the Directive.

  17. The third of those conditions cannot be satisfied if a hunting derogation does not ensure the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a satisfactory level. If that condition is not fulfilled, the use of birds for recreational hunting cannot, in any event, be considered judicious and, accordingly, acceptable for the purposes of the 11th recital in the preamble to the Directive.

  18. Finally, the measures under which hunting is authorised pursuant to Article 9(1)(c) of the Directive must, in accordance with Article 9(2), specify:

    - the species which are subject to the derogations;

    - the means, arrangements or methods authorised for capture or killing;

    - the conditions of risk and the circumstances of time and place under which such derogations may be granted;

    - the authority empowered to declare that the required conditions obtain and to decide what means, arrangements or methods may be used, within what limits and by whom;

    - the controls which will be carried out.

  19. In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the second question must be that Article 9 of the Directive must be interpreted as allowing hunting to be authorised pursuant to Article 9(1)(c) where:

    - there is no other satisfactory solution. That condition would not be met, inter alia, if the sole purpose of the derogation authorising hunting were to extend the hunting periods for certain species of birds in territories which they already frequent during the hunting periods fixed in accordance with Article 7 of the Directive;

    - it is carried out under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis;

    - it applies only to certain birds in small numbers;

    - mention is made of:

    (a) the species which are subject to the derogations;

    (b) the means, arrangements or methods authorised for capture or killing;

    (c) the conditions of risk and the circumstances of time and place under which such derogations may be granted;

    (d) the authority empowered to declare that the required conditions obtain and to decide what means, arrangements or methods may be used, within what limits and by whom;

    (e) the controls which will be carried out.

    Costs

    20. 20. The costs incurred by the French and Greek Governments and by the Commission, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the proceedings pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.

    On those grounds,

    THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),

    in answer to the questions referred to it by the Conseil d'État by decision of 25 January 2002, hereby rules:

    1. Article 9(1)(c) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds permits a Member State to derogate from the opening and closing dates for hunting which follow from consideration of the objectives set out in Article 7(4) of that directive.

    2. Article 9 of Directive 79/409 must be interpreted as allowing hunting to be authorised pursuant to Article 9(1)(c) where:

    - there is no other satisfactory solution. That condition would not be met, inter alia, if the sole purpose of the derogation authorising hunting were to extend the hunting periods for certain species of birds in territories which they already frequent during the hunting periods fixed in accordance with Article 7 of Directive 79/409;

    - it is carried out under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis;

    - it applies only to certain birds in small numbers;

    - mention is made of:

    (a) the species which are subject to the derogations;

    (b) the means, arrangements or methods authorised for capture or killing;

    (c) the conditions of risk and the circumstances of time and place under which such derogations may be granted;

    (d) the authority empowered to declare that the required conditions obtain and to decide what means, arrangements or methods may be used, within what limits and by whom;

    (e) the controls which will be carried out.

    Puissochet
    Schintgen
    Gulmann

    SkourisColneric

    Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 16 October 2003.

    R. Grass V. Skouris

    Registrar President

    1: Language of the case: French.

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2003/C18202.html