EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2004/106/68
Case C-135/04: Actionbrought on 12 March 2004 by the Commission ofthe European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
Case C-135/04: Actionbrought on 12 March 2004 by the Commission ofthe European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
Case C-135/04: Actionbrought on 12 March 2004 by the Commission ofthe European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
OJ C 106, 30.4.2004, p. 39–40
(ES, DA, DE, EL, EN, FR, IT, NL, PT, FI, SV)
|
30.4.2004 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 106/39 |
Action brought on 12 March 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
(Case C-135/04)
(2004/C 106/68)
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 March 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Michel Van Beek, Legal Adviser, and Gregorio Valero Jordano, member of its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
declare that, by allowing the practice of hunting migratory birds (woodpigeon – Columba palumbus) in Guipúzcoa, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(4) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC (1) of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds; |
|
— |
order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments:
The hunting of returning migratory birds, ‘caza a contrapasa’, in this instance woodpigeon returning to their rearing grounds, entails a failure to comply with Article 7(4) of Directive 79/409.
None of the reasons put forward by the Kingdom of Spain to justify the practice of that type of hunting in Guipúzcoa is acceptable:
|
— |
adoption of a derogation from Article 7(4) on the basis of Article 9(1)(c) of the Directive, since in this case the condition that there is no other satisfactory solution, which must be met for the system of exceptions to apply properly, is not fulfilled. |
|
— |
historical and cultural traditions and social convention, since those are not reasons capable of justifying the derogations laid down in Article 9, given that they are not mentioned in that provision. |
|
— |
judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 252/85 Commission v France, since the judgment was given in relation to a derogation from Article 8(1) of the Directive relating to hunting methods. |