The Commission fails to respond to what has been and is being asked with regard to the clear and precise implementation of Directive 92/43/EEC
31.8.2010
Question for written answer P-6984/2010
to the Commission
Rule 117
Timo Soini (EFD)
As the conservation and safeguarding of the common natural heritage has been entrusted to the respective Member States in their own territory, the implementation of the relevant measures cannot vary between Member States. In the case of the Habitats Directive, which lays down complex and technical provisions in the field of environmental law, it follows that Member States must particularly ensure that their legislation transposing that directive is clear to all and precise. Judgments C‑6/04, C‑508/04 and C‑507/04, together with their statements of grounds, show that neither inadequate implementation nor translation errors are accepted.
With reference to my Questions P‑5247/09, P‑0041/10 and P‑2433/10, I wish to reiterate the questions:
- 1.When does the Commission expect Finland to transpose clearly and precisely the Natura 2000 area selection criteria required pursuant to Article 4(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC[1] and Annex III (Stage 1), to which it refers, i.e. in the way required by points 22, 23, 24 and particularly 25 and 26 of Judgment C‑6/04 of the Court of Justice of 20 October 2005?
- 2.When does the Commission expect Finland to correct the translation of the Finnish-language Habitat Guide to correspond to the habitat type, or in the present case rock type, referred to in No 8220 of the Natura Code and its vegetation which is relevant to Finland and found only on Class 62.2A or Boreal siliceous rocks (rapakivikalliot) in its original form as ‘Boreal siliceous cliffs (rapakivi cliffs)’?
- 3.Who at the Commission has allowed Finland not to implement and thus not to comply with all Community law which applies to all Member States and not, as required by established legal practice, transpose the selection criteria for Natura 2000 areas, select Natura 2000 areas as laid down in Annex III (Stage 1) and correctly define habitats, and on what basis have Commission staff allowed Finland to act in this way?
- [1] OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
OJ C 243 E, 20/08/2011