Suchergebnisse

Hauptbeschreibung: Die Landwirtschaft ist die Hauptursache für die Belastungen von Böden, Gewässern und des Grundwassers sowie des Arten- und Biotopenrückgangs. Diese Umweltbelastungen zu reduzieren, ist langfristig schon aufgrund der Umsetzung der Wasserrahmenrichtlinie eine wichtige deutsche und europäische Aufgabe. Stefan Möckel untersucht, ob und wieweit eine Ökologisierung mit Umweltabgaben tatsächlich sinnvoll und rechtlich möglich ist. Insbesondere erarbeitet und prüft er lenkende Differenzierungen in der Grundsteuer und Umsatzsteuer sowie die Einführung von Abgaben auf Dünge- und Pflan

The agricultural and forestry use of land does not only mark large parts of the European Union, but also a significant share of land within the European ecological network Natura 2000. Member States, therefore, try to exempt as far as possible these land uses from the protection regime of Natura 2000-sites. However, at the same time, Member States latest reports on habitats and wild species of Community importance indicate that, in particular, the intensification of agriculture and forestry in recent decades has made it more difficult to improve conservation statuses or even worsened them. Hence, the aim of this article is to examine in detail the extent to which the protection regime of Article 6(2 and 3) Habitats Directive is applicable to land-use in agriculture and forestry. In this context, of particular relevance is the question of when the use of land in agriculture and forestry or individual management measures within and near Natura 2000-sites are projects for which an appropriate assessment is necessary before implementation; and which, in the case that significant adverse effects to a site cannot be ruled out, are permitted only under the reasons for exemption given in Article 6(4) Habitats Directive. The analysis includes the case law of the European Court of Justice, as well as decisions of the German Federal Constitutional Court and the German Federal Administrative Court.

The European Union and its Member States have been creating a network of protected areas for habitats and species since 1979. In 2017, this included over 27,500 Natura 2000 sites, a combined area of over 18 percent of the land surface in the EU and around 395,000 km2 of marine territory. According to Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC1 (HD), any projects and plans within these sites or in their vicinity require an appropriate assessment to ensure that they will not have a significant impact on the integrity of Natura 2000 site. The project or plan is to be rejected by the national authorities if this cannot be excluded without remaining reasonable scientific doubts. This article explores the procedural steps and the requirements that must be examined, which are now covered by comprehensive European Court of Justice (ECJ)2 case law. Numerous questions that are relevant in practice, however, have only been considered by national courts to date. These will be introduced in this article based on the decisions of the German Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG)3 and will be the focus of a critical discussion. Questions on the range covered by the term project and on determining significant impacts will be entered into in greater detail in two further articles, given the scope of the aspects to be examined and explored.

The Natura 2000 appropriate assessment for impacting projects or plans under Article 6(3) HD is the central statutory instrument for the protection of Sites of Community Importance (SCI) and the Special Protection Areas (SPA). The decisive factor in whether or not an appropriate assessment is required depends on the question of whether a project or plan is present within the meaning of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC1 (HD). The Habitats Directive does not define these terms in any more detail, which is why they must be specified more closely through interpretation. This paper will present the definitions given by the European Court of Justice (ECJ)2 case law and national courts like the German Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG)3 and discuss the consequences and practical scope of the terms. The focus of the following investigation will be on the term "project". This is because for "plans", the envisaged projects are essentially also decisive, given that only these can have significant adverse effects on the conservation objectives. There are a variety of questions regarding when a human activity constitutes a project and under which conditions Member States could exempt activities from the requirement for an assessment. This article will start with an outline of the temporal scope of the appropriate assessment and, following this, briefly explore the scope of plans or projects directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site, as they are not the subject of an assessment.

This article investigates the question of how the significance of potential adverse effects on Natura 2000 sites – comprising sites of Community importance (SCI) and special protection areas (SPA) – can be determined legally and methodologically within the scope of appropriate assessments for projects and plans in accordance with Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC1 (HD) and whether the results can be transferred to the prohibition of disturbance and deterioration stipulated in Article 6(2) HD. The assessment of significance is important as, according to the European Court of Justice (ECJ)2 and the German Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG)3, a project or plan is only permissible if, in the light of the best scientific knowledge in the field and without reasonable scientific doubt, the plan or project will not have lasting significant adverse effects on the integrity of that site. In this process, all aspects of the plan or project have to be identified which may, either independently or in combination with other plans or projects, affect the conservation objectives of the site concerned. This also includes a specialist forecast. Furthermore, closer specification is required of the threshold above which a non-significant adverse effect turns into a significant adverse effect and whether thresholds for bagatelles can be attributed to the proposed development.

Natura 2000 network covers over 18 percent of the land area in the European Union. All proposals for development affecting these sites must be previously assessed for their implications for the site's conservation objectives. In cases where it cannot be ascertained that there is no adverse effect on the integrity of a Natura 2000 site, the proposal for development can now only be approved within the scope of a derogation assessment pursuant to Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC1 (HD). This article explores the requirements for an approval for derogation. In addition to the decisions of the European Court of Justice (ECJ)2 and the European Commission guidelines on this issue, this article focuses, in particular, on the comprehensive German Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG)3 decisions on this matter, which has had to assess a substantially greater number of cases to date, and provides a critical discussion on this in relation to the conservation aims of the Habitats Directive.

The European Union and its Member States have been creating a network of protected areas for habitats and species since 1979. In 2017, this included over 27,500 Natura 2000 sites, a combined area of over 18 percent of the land surface in the EU and around 395,000 km2 of marine territory. According to Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC1 (HD), any projects and plans within these sites or in their vicinity require an appropriate assessment to ensure that they will not have a significant impact on the integrity of Natura 2000 site. The project or plan is to be rejected by the national authorities if this cannot be excluded without remaining reasonable scientific doubts. This article explores the procedural steps and the requirements that must be examined, which are now covered by comprehensive European Court of Justice (ECJ)2 case law. Numerous questions that are relevant in practice, however, have only been considered by national courts to date. These will be introduced in this article based on the decisions of the German Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG)3 and will be the focus of a critical discussion. Questions on the range covered by the term project and on determining significant impacts will be entered into in greater detail in two further articles, given the scope of the aspects to be examined and explored.

The Natura 2000 appropriate assessment for impacting projects or plans under Article 6(3) HD is the central statutory instrument for the protection of Sites of Community Importance (SCI) and the Special Protection Areas (SPA). The decisive factor in whether or not an appropriate assessment is required depends on the question of whether a project or plan is present within the meaning of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC1 (HD). The Habitats Directive does not define these terms in any more detail, which is why they must be specified more closely through interpretation. This paper will present the definitions given by the European Court of Justice (ECJ)2 case law and national courts like the German Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG)3 and discuss the consequences and practical scope of the terms. The focus of the following investigation will be on the term "project". This is because for "plans", the envisaged projects are essentially also decisive, given that only these can have significant adverse effects on the conservation objectives. There are a variety of questions regarding when a human activity constitutes a project and under which conditions Member States could exempt activities from the requirement for an assessment. This article will start with an outline of the temporal scope of the appropriate assessment and, following this, briefly explore the scope of plans or projects directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site, as they are not the subject of an assessment.

This article investigates the question of how the significance of potential adverse effects on Natura 2000 sites – comprising sites of Community importance (SCI) and special protection areas (SPA) – can be determined legally and methodologically within the scope of appropriate assessments for projects and plans in accordance with Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC1 (HD) and whether the results can be transferred to the prohibition of disturbance and deterioration stipulated in Article 6(2) HD. The assessment of significance is important as, according to the European Court of Justice (ECJ)2 and the German Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG)3, a project or plan is only permissible if, in the light of the best scientific knowledge in the field and without reasonable scientific doubt, the plan or project will not have lasting significant adverse effects on the integrity of that site. In this process, all aspects of the plan or project have to be identified which may, either independently or in combination with other plans or projects, affect the conservation objectives of the site concerned. This also includes a specialist forecast. Furthermore, closer specification is required of the threshold above which a non-significant adverse effect turns into a significant adverse effect and whether thresholds for bagatelles can be attributed to the proposed development.

Natura 2000 network covers over 18 percent of the land area in the European Union. All proposals for development affecting these sites must be previously assessed for their implications for the site's conservation objectives. In cases where it cannot be ascertained that there is no adverse effect on the integrity of a Natura 2000 site, the proposal for development can now only be approved within the scope of a derogation assessment pursuant to Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC1 (HD). This article explores the requirements for an approval for derogation. In addition to the decisions of the European Court of Justice (ECJ)2 and the European Commission guidelines on this issue, this article focuses, in particular, on the comprehensive German Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG)3 decisions on this matter, which has had to assess a substantially greater number of cases to date, and provides a critical discussion on this in relation to the conservation aims of the Habitats Directive.