Impact Assessment according to Art. 6 (3, 4) DI Thomas Knoll Knoll Planung & Beratung Vienna, Austria

Transcription

1 Slovakia 02/05/2006 Impact Assessment according to Art. 6 (3, 4) DI Thomas Knoll Knoll Planung & Beratung Vienna, Austria

2 EU-nature conservation. industrialization homogenizing whole landscapes fragmentation of landscapes big species losses EU- reaction: 1979 (Bird Directive) & 1992 (Habitats Directive) International Reaction: CBD, 2010 target to stop the loss of biodiversity (Kuala Lumpur 2004), a number of Conventions like Berne Convention, Convention of Migratory Species (AEWA, ) Slovakia 02/05/2006 2

3 Main focus: Favourable Conservation Status, Art. 2 Species protection: Bird Directive and Habitats Directive Protected sites: Natura 2000 with SPA & SCI impact assessment Species and Habitats of Community Importance in FCS Maintaining and restoring Biodiversity in Europe ecological coherence: Art. 10 and reintroduction efficiency control and adjustment of management Art. 11 monitoring and and Art. 17 reporting Slovakia 02/05/2006 3

4 Objects of coherence Habitats Directive: Annex I habitats Annex II species Annex IV and V species Typical species as a major component of natural habitats of Annex I ( Wild fauna and flora : species diversity as a whole) Bird Directive: Bird species of Annex I (Bird Directive) Migratory bird species Other wild bird species Habitats & species of community importance Slovakia 02/05/2006 4

5 Sites delimitation and conservation objectives : What about important areas for nature conservation outside Natura 2000? not protected under Natura 2000 no objectives What about white spots? no conservation objective as no habitats or species existing But: if projects or plans are effecting the conservation objectives an appropiate assessment has to be carried out Slovakia 02/05/2006 5

6 Species protection regime Artenschutz nach der FFH-Richtlinie: Example Beispiel Fledermaus: bat species Anhang Annex II II Anhang Annex IV IV Anhang Annex V Winterquartier Wintering: Höhle caves Habitat gemeldetes Directive FFH-Gebiet (psci) Site Summer Sommerquartier: habitat, Wald maternity roosts: forest Jagdhabitat Hunting: Heckenlandschaft with Landscape hedges Site protection Gebietsschutz for für Annex Arten II-species: des Anhangs all II: major Gesamtlebensraum components of mit the allen habitat w esentlichen should be included Teilhabitaten/ in the Habitatelementen site Streng geschützt, Strictly protected: independent of unabhängig von sites Gebietsausw eisung Nutzung möglich Use is possible with mit Managementplan, management control, unabhängig von Independent of sites Gebietsausw eisung Slovakia 02/05/2006 6

7 Methods of site selection large sites: a few big sites buffer zones included public acceptance often low simple management low administrative costs E excluding: holes where no habitat type/ species has been found omitting private property wehreever possible traffic facilities E tiny sites: many sites no buffer zones large edge effects and impacts no functional units impacts from outside not under control management difficult administration costly E Slovakia 02/05/2006 7

8 Habitat & Bird Directive: Reporting obligations Habitats Directive art. 17(2) : the composite report shall include... an appropriate evaluation of the contribution of Natura 2000 to the achievement of the objectives set out in article 3 (Art. 3(1) including SPA s (79/409/EG) Habitats Directive Bird Directive Monitoring & Conservation status / efficiency of the Directive: Art. 12 (1): national report including evaluation of measures taken (every 3 years) Art 12 (2): composite report (EU) Art. 11: monitoring habitats (I) & species (II, IV, V) Art. 17(1): national reports including evaluation of measures taken, conservation status: every 6 years Art. 17(2): composite report Derogations / species protection: Art. 9 (3) report on derogations from species protection: yearly Art. 16 report on derogations from species protection: every 2 years Slovakia 02/05/2006 8

9 Possible consequences of incomplete site proposals Consequences of not selecting all necessary SCI s according to Annex III (incomplete Community List, Biogeographic seminars: deficencies in certain habitats or species) potential SCI s : no complete impact assessment possible, no Commission Opinion, no authorization of plans/projects or at high risk Consequences of incomplete Bird Directive Sites (SPA s) factual Bird Directive Sites (not delimited or declared but obviously fulfilling the scientific criteria, IBA-lists ): legally no planning or impact possible at all full stop for any investments or changes only declared SPA s fall under the Appropriate Assessment and less strict protection regime of the Habitats Directive! potential sites which may qualify (based on scientific evidence) are to be protected Slovakia 02/05/2006 9

10 Possible consequences of not respecting the EU-rules any EU-citizen/ NGO may start an infringement procedure risk of national courts to stop any activities/impacts started with the result of at least high additional costs for delays in case of missing appropriate assessments EU-court cases and judgements: both options of fines (example France fisheries obligations C304/02: a lump sum of 20Mio ) and penalty payments until full compliance (FR: 57,8 Mio every half year) possibility to stop any structural funding of the EU-Commission for not respecting the Habitats/ Bird Directives (example letter DE for Saxonia) it is wise to establish a safe legal background for any economic investments and planning by fully selecting the necessary sites and by using the prescribed methods of appropriate assessments of Art. 6(3 & 4). Slovakia 02/05/

11 Art. 6 (3) appropriate assessment 3. 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. Slovakia 02/05/

12 Art. 6 (4) in spite of negative assessments 4. 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 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. Slovakia 02/05/

13 Assessment of plans Art.6 (3) of Habitats Directive Terms plan and project are not defined Term project : reference can be made to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive Term plan : reference can be made to Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive Terms can be defined by analogy on the basis of these two related Directives Slovakia 02/05/

14 Definition of projects and plans European Commission (2000): The term project should be given a broad interpretation to include both construction works and other interventions in the natural environment. The term plan also has a broad meaning including land-use plans and sectoral plans or programmes, but leaving out general policy statements. Council Directive 85/337/EEC: The term project means the execution of construction works or of other installations or schemes or other intervention in the natural surroundings and landscape including those involving the extraction of mineral resources, which indicates that a broader definition is also envisaged here. Thus plan can refer to the planning of and tendering for and/or award of fishery licences as well as to the preparation of a gravel extraction plan regulating the extraction of gravel in a certain region (European Commission, 2000, cf. subchapter 1.4). Slovakia 02/05/

15 Definition of projects and plans Directive 2001/42/EC: For the purposes of this Directive, plans and programmes shall mean plans and programmes, including those co-financed by the European Community, as well as any modifications to them: which are subject to preparation and/or adoption by an authority at national, regional or local level or which are prepared by an authority for adoption, through a legislative procedure by Parliament or Government, and which are required by legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions. This means that the term plan under the Habitats Directive refers to legally binding, sovereign plans of a public authority. It does not refer, for example, to private plans or concepts drawn up voluntarily by public authorities. Slovakia 02/05/

16 Definition of projects and plans Project Specific project is known Land consumption is known and can be localised Possible emissions are known Other implications are known Project applicant is known Might be subject to certain conditions Implementation deadline Plan Specific project is not known Land consumption is not known or cannot be localised Emissions are not known Other possible implications can only be roughly estimated Project applicant is not known Not subject to project-specific conditions; conditions can only be related to the particular site in accordance with the respective land-use designation Date of the land consumption is not known Slovakia 02/05/

17 Planning procedures Natura 2000 Is there a general procedure to examine whether a plan must be subject to an assessment required under Article 6 of the Habitats Directive? No Differences in planning culture of EU Member States prevent general statement on the use of plans Helpful questions: Is it a plan which a public authority is obliged to prepare? Is this plan relevant to the SEA Directive? Yes Plan is also relevant to the Habitats Directive Slovakia 02/05/

18 Planning procedures Natura 2000 Which legally binding effects are arising from this plan? Only effects arising directly from the plan will be assessed, Effects in relation to a project will assessed at project level How detailed is the plan and/or is the plan usually followed by a project? Assessment of a plan does not replace assessment of a project, all anticipated effects of the plan or project have to be covered Slovakia 02/05/

19 Mitigation and comensatory measures How are migitation and compensatory measures handled, if the plan is not directed to an individual addressee? Standard addressees of plans: Citizens or subordinate authority Migitation measures: Orders and prohibitions or conditions with regard to the use of certain plots of land Direct migitation measures at project level Compensatory measures: Commission involved both in the planning and the project stages Slovakia 02/05/

20 Assessments - Habitats Directive and SEA Directive What is the relationship between assessments required under Article 6 of the Habitats Directive and assessments under SEA Directive? Plans which have to be assessed under Habitats Directive also require a SEA (strategic environmental assessment) A negative assessment under Habitats Directive may result in a rejection of a plan affecting a protected site if there are no alternative solutions and exceptions SEA Directive only requires the results of an environmental assessment to be taken into account during the preparation and before the adoption of plans Article 6 assessment Narrow assessment scope (conservation objectives of the protected site) Obligation of result Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) Broad assessment scope (efffects on the environment) Obligation of procedure Slovakia 02/05/

21 SEA EIA Article 6 assessment What steps are to be taken if an assessment required under Article 6 of the Habitats Directive is required together with an environmental impact assessment (EIA) or strategic environmental assessment (SEA)? The assessments required by Article 6 should be clearly distinguishable and identified within an environmental statement or reported separately (EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 2001) Slovakia 02/05/

22 Assessment methodology for plans and projects Are there any differences in the assessment methodology for plans and projects? Yes, for example in the sphere of regional planning. Since, in contrast to a project, most aspects of a plan which may affect a site are not known, the best-case principle is applied: A plan (e.g. a zoning plan) is ecologically compatible if it enables a compatible consumption in the context of a specific project An ecologically compatible plan gives rise to projects with or without significant effects Slovakia 02/05/

23 Best-case principle The best-case principle is also applied because A worst-case assessment would result in the exclusion of a large number of subsequent projects A real-case assessment would require all details of the specific project being known already at plan level Slovakia 02/05/

24 Example Assessment of a plan: 1. Screening Zoning plan: building land residental zone Slovakia 02/05/

25 Example Assessment of a plan: 1. Screening Identification of relevant protected habitats and species Area of habitat type 9110 Impact by overlap Slovakia 02/05/

26 Example Assessment of a plan: 1. Screening Description of relevant protected habitats and species Natura 2000 Data Form /Wienerwald.pdf Slovakia 02/05/

27 Example Assessment of a plan: 1. Screening Assessing the significance of any effects on the Natura 2000 Site Potential significant impact: loss of habitat area Slovakia 02/05/

28 Example Assessment of a plan: 2. Appropriate assessment It is objectively concluded that adverse impacts on the integrity of the site remain Slovakia 02/05/

29 Example Assessment of a plan: 3. Alternatives Slovakia 02/05/

30 Example Assessment of a plan: 3. Alternatives ( 2 ROG 1976) Assessment of Alternatives equivalent planning aims, no significant impact Alternatives exist only alternative solution permissible No Alternatives exist Best-Case Assessment compatible consumption has to be possible not possible = reason for denial possible = permission Slovakia 02/05/

31 Example Assessment of a plan: 3. Alternatives Alternative exists: other location Slovakia 02/05/

32 Example Assessment of a plan: 3. Alternatives Plan is ecologically compatible, because it enables a compatible consumption in the context of a specific project No alternatives exist: best-case principle Example plan: (hole area) Example project: (only building) Protected Habitat Protected Habitat Building Boundary of the plan Slovakia 02/05/

33 Example Assessment of a plan: 4. Assessment of Compensatory Measures Slovakia 02/05/

34 Judgements and opinions of the ECJ Definition Plans The terms plan and project must be interpreted extensively (Opinion C-259/98, C-98/03). The definition of plans and programmes set out in the Strategic Environemnt Assessment Directive limits the definition to the results of particular decision-making procedures (Opinion C-127/02). Triggering of the assessment Any plan or project has to be assessed which have a probability or a risk that the latter will have significant effects on the site concerned (C127/02). The assessment has to be carried out, if it can not be excluded that it will have a significant impact on the site (C-127/02). Appropriate assessment must not be waived because the plan or project is not in the scope of the rules of an EIA (C-143/02), because of the low costs entailed or the particular type of work planned (C-259/98). Slovakia 02/05/

35 Judgements and opinions of the ECJ Approval of plans or projects The authorisation of a plan or project must only be granted if the authority has ascertained with the best scientific knowledge in the field that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned (C-127/02). The approval can only be granted when it has been ascertained that it would not adversely affect the integrity of the site (Opinion C-209/02). Significance The assessment according to Art. 6 (3) has to be carried out, if it can not be excluded that it will have a significant impact on the site. The assessment of the significance of the impact 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. When a plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a site that is likely to undermine the site s conservation objectives, it must be considered likely to have a significant effect on that site (C-127/02). Slovakia 02/05/

36 Judgements and opinions of the ECJ Alternative Solutions Because the assessment of alternative solutions under Directive 85/337/EEC (Environmental Impact Assessment Directive) does not necessarily lead to consequences it can not substitute the obligations to consider alternative solutions under Art. 6 (4) of Habitats Directive (Opinion C-209/04). The competent administration has to ensure that all realistic alternatives have been included in the Art. 6-assessment (Opinion C-209/04). Migitation and Compensation Measures to minimise and avoid harm can be of relevance in the assessment whether a significant adverse effect is possible (C-127/02). If the approval of a plan or project is only possible in combination with mitigation measures, the respective authority has to prove that the measures are capable to ensure the preservation of the integrity of a Natura 2000 site (Opinion C-206/02). Compensation measures have to be taken in connection to the concrete impacts on the site and have to balance the damages. They have to be in place as soon as the damages are realized (Opinion C209/04). Slovakia 02/05/

37 Screening The term screening generally refers to preliminary examination procedures which determine whether a certain project or plan will have significant effects on a Natura 2000 site Screening Non-binding advisory services Binding assessment processes in the context of official procedures Slovakia 02/05/

38 Non-binding advisory systems 1. Screenings not related to an individual project (white papers, black papers, project books, plan assessment books, etc.) 2. Screenings related to an individual project performed by experts without specific ecological Abstract description of a project type, such as the construction of a forest road, and its effects on protected habitats and species in the site Advance information for landowners and other parties concerned, PR activities, etc. Specific details of a project are known Project applicant can be told whether his project is relevant to Natura 2000 Information at consultation days or in the know-how (first evaluation) context of a public authority s citizen services 3. Screenings related to an Essential effects of a project are known individual project carried Competent authority formulates result as a out by experts with consultation result, project applicant can still ecological know-how alter project details Slovakia 02/05/

39 Binding screenings 1. Screenings carried out in the context of a specific official procedure 2. Screenings in the context of an impact assessment Project applicant is granted the right to have a project reviewed by the competent authority in order to establish whether it has to undergo an impact assessment At the end of these declaratory procedures, reviewing authority issues a decision which has binding effect Screening marks beginning of an impact assessment process which is documented in context of official procedure If screening reveals that project does not have any significant effects on a protected site, the assessment process is discontinued and the impact assessment is considered as completed Slovakia 02/05/

40 Purpose A screening is to determine whether a project/plan has direct or indirect effects on a relevant Natura 2000 site and whether it has potential significant effects on the protected habitats and species. A project/plan is considered not to have any effects on a Natura 2000 site, if such effects can be ruled out with certainty precautionary principle Slovakia 02/05/

41 Purpose Method Advantages Disadvantages Role played by the authority Non-binding advisory services swift overview result is not binding Declaratory procedure result is binding the project has to be submitted stating its impacts Screening (official procedure) result is binding the whole project has to be submitted passive, provides information carries out the assessment carries out the assessment Role played by the project owner uses the provided documents as guidance submits documents submits documents Slovakia 02/05/

42 Which questions have to be answered? Is project or plan directly connected with or necessary for the management of the site and is it unlikely to have any significant effects on the Natura 2000 site? Will there be significant effect caused by direct interrelations between project/plan and one or more protected habitats and species (impacting effect, in the site, within the range of the protected habitat or species) Will there be significant effect caused by indirect interrelations between project/plan and one or more protected habitats or species (emanating effect, outside the site, at the edge of the range of the protected habitat or species) Slovakia 02/05/

43 Screening stages According to the Methodological Guidelines on the Provisions of Article 6 (3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC, screening process can be divided into four steps: Step One: Management of the site Step Two: Description of the project or plan Step Three: Characteristics of the site Step Four: Assessment of significance Step one is to determine whether project/plan is directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site Step two: Description of project/plan and description & characterisation of other projects/plans that in combination have potential for having significant effects on the site Step three aims at identifying the potential effects on the Natura 2000 site Step four is intended to assess the significance of any effects on the Natura 2000 site Slovakia 02/05/

44 Screening stages Slovakia 02/05/

45 What is necessary to carry out a screening? Project owner has to submit different pieces of information, such as : Details about project applicant Project characteristics Location and use Description of measures during construction stage Description of effects during operation stage Compensatory and/or mitigation measures Information on respective site and its species and habitats Slovakia 02/05/

46 Advantages of a screening system Swiftly & cost-efficiently Avoidance of unnecessary procedures Screening system helps to determine swiftly and costefficiently whether an impact assessment is necessary or not Advantage for administrative authorities, since unnecessary procedures will be avoided and the workload, which has increased as a result of the implementation of the EU wide nature conservation directives, can be better coped with After obtaining decision of competent authority project applicant can take appropriate steps, thus preventing unnecessary delays in the implementation of the project In some cases, a few small changes will prevent a project from adversely affecting a protected site Slovakia 02/05/

47 Why is it advisable to establish a screening system? It is advisable in any case to establish a screening system. There have to be clear answers to the following questions: Which authority is entitled to carry out screenings (for plans and projects)? Which experts are allowed to carry out screenings? How are the results published and documented? What is the legal relevance of the results? Slovakia 02/05/

48 Example: Screening system in the Federal Province of Lower Austria, Austria Three-stage screening system which serves to determine whether a plan/project has to undergo an Article 6 assessment (assessment required under Article 6 of the Habitats Directive) : Project books and plan assessment books Determination whether projects/plans affecting Natura 2000 sites have to be subject to an assessment First evaluation Screening Determination whether a project may have any effects on a Natura 2000 site and/or whether the project may adversely affect habitats and species protected under Natura 2000 Determination whether a project requires an Article 6 assessment Information & forms are included in guidance material entitled Leitfaden Natura 2000 in Niederösterreich (Guidance on Natura 2000 in Lower Austria): Slovakia 02/05/

49 Example Project books Project books establish in advance whether typical projects (project types) existing in a site should be subject to an assessment Protected habitats Protected species Conflict: Impact by overlap Conflict: Impact by emission Slovakia 02/05/

50 Abstract Project book Project: Construction of a leisure park Brief description of effects: Screening is recommended Impact by overlap: No assessment required Impact by emission: Habitats & species Slovakia 02/05/

51 Example First evaluation Possible answers: First evaluation Negative impact is impossible Project may have significant effects Project may have effects Summary report stating the reasons Ecological impact assessment Screening assessment Slovakia 02/05/

52 Example Screening Project applicant: If requested, the screening is initiated by the Department of Nature Conservation of the Federal Province of Lower Austria Contact details The project owner has to submit different pieces of information, such as : Project characteristics Location & use Slovakia 02/05/

53 Example Screening Project applicant: Description of measures during construction stage Description of effects during operation stage Slovakia 02/05/

54 Example Screening Project applicant: Compensatory and/or migitation mearsures Slovakia 02/05/

55 Example Screening Expert: Identification of relevant protected habitats and species Slovakia 02/05/

56 Example Screening Description of relevant protected habitats and species Expert: Natura 2000 Data form Slovakia 02/05/

57 Example Screening Identification of potential effects during construction and operation stage Expert: Identification of cumulative impacts with other existing or planned activities Assessing the significance of any effects on the Natura 2000 site Slovakia 02/05/

58 Example Screening Expert: Significant impacts are likely to occur? Yes No Article 6 Assessment required Slovakia 02/05/

59 Example Screening Judgements and opinions of the ECJ Systems of abstract advance assessment of potential risks neglect the specific characteristics of projects. Consequently, in merely defining potentially damaging operations for each site concerned, the risk is run that certain projects which on the basis of their specific characteristics are likely to have an effect on the site are not covered (C-6/04). Slovakia 02/05/

60 Article 6 Assessment 1. Screening 2. Appropriate assessment 3. Assessment of Alternative Solutions 4. Assessment of Compensatory Measures Slovakia 02/05/

61 Example: Article 6 Assessment Project: S1 Vienna express highway Conflict: Impact by emission Natura 2000 Site Migitation Measure: Express highway with noise barrier Slovakia 02/05/

62 Baden-Airpark in Germany: a positive opinion Commision Opinion of 06/VI/2005 directly affected site DE Baden-Airpark (BW) indirectly affected sites: DE Stollhofener Platte DE Bruch bei Brühl DE Niederwald bei Sandweiher DE Rheinniederung von Iffzeheim bis Karlsruhe SPA (DE ): Rheinniederung von der Rench- bis zur Murgmündung (3053 ha) Planning: new landing strip, renewal of runways, new buildings and change of runoff-water treatment Site character DE (SCI): with 225 ha one of the last continental dune complexes in the Rhine-valley, formerly under military use * 6230: species rich Nardus grasslands Slovakia 02/05/

63 Baden-Airpark: positive COM-opinion I Reasons: A. Best alternative chosen (for Nature Conservation ): 7 alternatives were checked; the accepted variant has no negative impacts on adjacent sites but destroys a slightly larger area of the * habitat (the habitat type is existing/ depending from the specific mowing regime/ conditions on the airport) B. imperative reasons of overriding public interest given: need proofed: passenger numbers increased by a third in last 3 years, major international connection, safety standards have to be met is part of the trans-european transport network (Decision No 1692/96/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 July 1996) Slovakia 02/05/

64 Baden-Airpark: conditions C. Compensation measures habitat 2330 (4 ha): destroyed 1,5 ha, temporarly used 0,5 ha; compensation 45 ha redevelopment habitat 4030 (0,05 ha): only temporal use of 0,02 ha ; compensation of 2 ha habitat *6230 (25,47 ha): destroyed 3,3 ha, temporarly used 2,88 ha ; compensation: creation of 3,5 ha with an optional 2,3 ha.. Compensation measures are sufficient to ensure the global coherence of Natura 2000: geografically as compensation is done in the same region the losses of habitats are both in quantity and in quality fully compensated by the creation of new ocurrences/areas Slovakia 02/05/

65 Trupach in Germany: a negative opinion Commision Opinion of 24/04/2003 site DE Heiden und Magerrasen Trupbach (NRW) whole area 295 ha of former military use a 85 ha large complex of heathland and species rich nutrient poor hay meadows is SCI habitats: 4030 dry heaths (all subtypes, 8 ha), *6230 species rich Nardus grasslands (11 ha), 140 ha planned industrial estate & business parc Slovakia 02/05/

66 Trupach in Germany: negative impacts/arguments Significant negative effects will be clearly the result of the project: quantitative loss of habitat-area deterioration of the structural and functional integrity of the site mitigation measures are not possible As a priority habitat (*6230) is existing in the site Art. 6(4) has to be applied: alternatives imperative reasons of overriding public interest Slovakia 02/05/

67 Trupach: negative COM-opinion Reasons: A. Existing alternatives: 3 other areas suitable for new business parks existing business parks include over 370 ha of still unused land alternatives in adjacent communities/administrative regions exist (Member State affair) B. imperative reasons of overriding public interest not given: need not proofed: the assessment for the need of areas for industrial parks where too old (10a) alternatives existing local or regional reasons without major positive effects on economy in the country Slovakia 02/05/

68 The European Court of Justice (ECJ) Seat of the Court: Luxembourg Composition: 25 Judges (from each Member State) assisted by 8 Advocates General appointed by common accord of the Member State Governments for 6 years Responsibility: It shall ensure that in the interpretation and application of the Treaties (Constitution) the law is observed Infringement Procedure: Before the ECJ is involved the Commission confers extensively with the Member State Action of the ECJ: Either the Commission or a citizen (natural or legal person) can send a written application to the ECJ. The case will be registered by a serial number (e.g. C-209/04) Judge-Rapporteur and Advocate-General will follow the progress of the case Two stages: written and oral stage Judgementsareavailableon Slovakia 02/05/

69 A summary of Commission Opinions Commision opinions are available on the EU website: nature_legislation/specific_articles/art6/index_n.htm 9 Commision opinions relevant to Art 6(4) guideline Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites (Art. 6(3), 6(4)) An Art. 6(4) opinion is triggered by significant negative impacts & existing priority habitats /species The COM-opinion is not a DG Environment opinion Requirements for a positive opinion, allowing the plan or project: no alternatives (spatial within MS, functional) exist imperative reasons of overriding public interest must be proofed: e.g. trans-european transport network (decisions 1692/96/EC, accession treaty) Slovakia 02/05/