Mais conteúdo relacionado

Similar a Leybucht-Wild-Birds-Protection-Case.pptx(20)




  1. Leybucht Wild Birds Protection Case Presented By- Shahal Ibn Islam Joy Neptun ID-JRKVWY Mahmuda Rahman Bristy Neptun ID-VELW28 Shahria Tanzil Neptun ID-A2T5YS
  2. Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds, Article 4:  Relates to the conservation of all species of naturally occurring birds.  Covers the protection, management and control of these species and lays down rules for their exploitation. Article 4:  Subject to special conservation measures with regard to their habitat to ensure survival and reproduction.  Member states are obliged to classify the suitable territories for the conservation of these species.  Measures must be taken for the regularly occurring migratory species as well.  They shall notify the Commission all the related information so that it can coordinate to protect the species in the areas where the Directive applies.  Member States shall take appropriate steps to avoid pollution or deterioration of habitats
  3. • Applicant- Commission of the European Communities (represented by Ingolf Pernice, a member of the legal department) • Defendant- Federal Republic of Germany (represented by Ernst Röder) • Third party / Intervener- United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by S. J. Hay)
  4. The application initially comprised two claims- 1. Dredging and filling operations in the Rysumer Nacken. 2. Second concerning dyke-building operations carried out in the Leybucht. With regard to the first claim-  Rysumer Nacken is not designated as a special protection area  they will have to bear the costs relating to the point as put forward by the defendant Regarding the second claim-  Dyke-building operations in the Leybucht disturb birds which enjoy special protection under the Directive and damage.  Member states need to take positive states to avoid any deterioration or pollution of the habitat  Theirs coastal defence measures are only acceptable in case of a threat to human life
  5. The 1st Claim- • the defendant argued the Commission had all the information regarding legal status of Rysumer Nacken. • The place is not under the special protection area and is not a new argument. • New line of the dyke in the Leybucht and the areas located on the landward side of the dyke are excluded from the protected areas. • The competent authorities took account of all bird conservation requirements and balanced against the requirements of coastal protection. • new line of the dyke and the temporary disturbances constitute the smallest possible interference • Commission has not furnished any evidence for impair the protection of
  6. • Commission failed to establish significant effect under the Directive- The United Kindom • Commission materials does not support the idea that the project in Leibucht involve deterioration of habitat of the birds. • Supports the evidence provided by the defendant that the works at issue will significantly improve ecological conditions in the Leybucht. • Member States must be able to take into account the interests of persons living in or around a special protection area.
  7. • Maps and information about the park were given by Germany in 1988. • Rysumer Nacken has no defenses. • The limits of the Leybucht have been established. • A state may limit a protected area's size for reasons other than ecological. • Aerial fortification and dike construction are justified if they do not reduce the particular protection area • The state sets the size. • Fortification of coastal areas and daches Wattenmeer's avocet population is stable. They haven't updated population figures.
  8. • Application was dismissed. • The Commission was ordered to pay the costs including the costs of the intervener and those related to the application for interim measures.