This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2005/171/38
Case T-122/05: Action brought on 21 March 2005 by Robert Benkö and Others against the Commission of the European Communities
Case T-122/05: Action brought on 21 March 2005 by Robert Benkö and Others against the Commission of the European Communities
Case T-122/05: Action brought on 21 March 2005 by Robert Benkö and Others against the Commission of the European Communities
SL C 171, 9.7.2005, p. 22–23
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
9.7.2005 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 171/22 |
Action brought on 21 March 2005 by Robert Benkö and Others against the Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-122/05)
(2005/C 171/38)
Language of the case: German
An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 21 March 2005 by Robert Benkö, Kohfidisch (Austria), Nikolaus Draskovich, Güssing (Austria), Alexander Freiherr von Kottwitz-Erdödy, Kohlfidisch (Austria), Peter Masser, Schwanberg (Austria), Alfred Prinz von und zu Liechtenstein, Deutschlandsberg (Austria), Marenzi Privatstiftung, Ebergassing (Austria), Marktgemeinde Götzendorf an der Leitha (Austria), Gemeinde Ebergassing (Austria), Ernst Harrach, Bruck an der Leitha (Austria), Schlossgut Schönbühel-Aggstein AG, Vaduz, and Heinrich Rüdiger Fürst Starhemberg'sche Familienstiftung, Vaduz, represented by M. Schaffgotsch, lawyer.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
|
1. |
annul the contested Commission decision in its entirety or, should that form of order not be granted, in the alternative, |
|
2. |
annul the contested decision in respect of all the Austrian sites of Community importance (code AT in Annex 1 to the contested decision) or, should that form of order not be granted, in the alternative, |
|
3. |
annul the inclusion of sites AT 1114813, AT 2242000, AT 1220000, AT 1205A00, AT 3122000 and AT 3120000 in the contested Commission decision or, should that form of order not be granted, in the alternative, |
|
4. |
annul the inclusion of sites specified in Annex 1 to the contested decision as sites of Community importance for habitats and species with a degree of representativity and global assessment of B, C and D (in the alternative, C and D or, in the further alternative, D only) in accordance with the standard data sheets of the Member States, in respect of
|
|
5. |
in any event, however, order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Under Commission Decision C(2004) 4031 of 7 December 2004 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, (1) the list of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region, (2) properties belonging to the applicants fall under the protective regime established by that directive.
The applicants claim inter alia that the contested decision was not based on the necessary weighing of benefits as between the higher public interests and the rights of the citizen and the regional authority, who are directly affected.
The applicants submit that the contested decision is at variance with Directive 92/43/EEC since the necessary bases for estimating the required cost of financing were not properly drawn up, and since the action framework to be adopted pursuant to Article 8 of the directive was not drawn up and would not have been sufficient.
The applicants further complain that, because of the division of jurisdiction in Austria, the coherence of the network of areas of conservation called for by Directive 92/43/EEC is not guaranteed, and that in practically all cases the areas of conservation actually end at Land frontiers, which in the applicants' view is wrong both under Community law and from the technical point of view of nature conservation.
The applicants also submit that the Commission failed, in the contested decision, to state expressly and specifically for which species and habitats the sites now listed as sites of Community importance are actually of Community importance.
Finally, the applicants claim that, as far as the sites affecting the applicants are concerned, inaccurate technical bases were turned into the substance of the decision, and that the sites were therefore incorrectly declared to be sites of Community importance for certain species and habitats.
(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).