According to the Habitats Directive, EU states must designate specific protected areas. But Germany did not do this in a timely manner and did not always take concrete steps. Now there have been complaints from the ECJ.
When it comes to costs, it becomes clear how the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the highest court in the EU, sees the matter: Germany has to bear all costs of the legal proceedings – so from the judges’ point of view, it has essentially lost.
In fact, Germany is criticized several times in the judgment. Above all, we did not implement the requirements of the European Habitats Directive in a timely manner.
Specifications for more than 30 years
This EU law has existed since 1992. It is intended to ensure that natural habitats in the member countries are preserved. Since 2012, the EU Commission has asked Germany several times to state which protected areas we have officially designated.
In 2020, Germany announced: Most of the more than 4,000 protected areas have now been identified – except in Lower Saxony, where 88 areas still need to be designated. The Commission had also put pressure on other countries, for example Ireland and Greece. And because Germany did not ensure nature conservation in a timely manner, Germany was also sued.
Germany should have acted faster
The European Court of Justice now states: Yes, Germany did not meet its obligations in a timely manner. Eva Lohse, professor of environmental law from Bayreuth, sums it up like this: On the one hand, it has not yet designated certain areas that it should have designated. On the other hand, Germany has not yet determined which goals should actually be achieved and which measures will be taken in areas that have already been designated as protected areas.
This means: The federal government would also have had to write down in detail which environmental goals should be achieved for the last 88 areas. So Germany has to rework – and that’s no small thing. How nature should be preserved still needs to be determined for more than 700 areas.
Lower Saxony in particular will have to make an effort in the coming years, says Lohse. The Commission will probably take a closer look at what is happening. And after some time it will probably be checked whether the implementation went as promised.
However, the judges found the EU Commission to be too strict in some points. The member states do not always have to specify in detail how success can be measured. Measuring success specifically – that depends on which measurement is actually scientifically possible.
No penalty payment
The Court has therefore only determined that Germany has done too little for nature conservation. A penalty payment is not yet due. But, says environmental lawyer Lohse: “If implementation continues to fail or is not done to the satisfaction of the European Union, then a second procedure before the ECJ could actually lead to sanctions.”
One thing is certain: the EU Commission will stick with it.