DOCSLIB.ORG

The Role of Case Law and Increasing Efficiency in Implementing the Birds and Habitats Directives

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Role of Case Law and Increasing Efficiency in Implementing the Birds and Habitats Directives The Role of Case Law and Increasing Efficiency in Implementing the Birds and Habitats Directives Introduction The Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives has resulted in increased attention being focused on case law at European and national levels concerning the Directives. The Birds Directive was adopted in 1979, with the Habitats Directive following thirteen years later in 1992. Ongoing delays in the transposition and implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives, combined with high levels of public concern about the state of Europe’s wildlife, have resulted in higher numbers of complaints being sent to the Commission under these Directives than under other EU environmental legislation. Several of these complaints have resulted in infringement procedures against Member States, with eventual referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). This paper seeks to explain the importance of the judgments of the Court for interpreting EU Directives, while clarifying the relationship between these rulings, and the texts of these Directives. The detailed evidence presented in the annexes to this paper are provided by the RSPB but the paper is supported by the 100 organisations from the Joint LINKs. Importance of CJEU Rulings for implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives The European Commission has recognised the importance of CJEU rulings for understanding and interpreting European directives, including the Birds and Habitats Directives.1 Civil society has also acknowledged that the various judgments of the Court are an essential tool in interpreting the Articles of the Nature Directives, and that CJEU rulings should guide their better transposition, implementation and enforcement at the national level.2 Nevertheless, the total number of CJEU rulings concerning the Birds and Habitats Directives is comparatively small. Annex I to this document provides an overview of the total number of CJEU rulings compared to those specifically concerning the Birds and Habitats Directives. Even this small volume of case law has been instrumental in providing certainty in the application of provisions of the Birds and Habitats Directives in all 28 Member States, as in the example of the CJEU’s preliminary ruling in the Waddenzee case3, further described in Annex I to this document. The implementation of the Nature Directives has been informed not only by CJEU judgments but also by domestic case-law and European Commission guidance, which have together provided greater certainty and confidence around the Nature Directives for governments, as well as for business. Importance of long-term regulatory stability The age of the Birds and Habitats Directives means that there has been time for Government and businesses alike to become familiar with, and to develop best practice in, their implementation. Businesses and investors place great value in the certainty that this provides, and their concerns tend to focus on issues associated with: 1 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/others/ecj_rulings_en.pdf 2 http://www.landmarkchambers.co.uk/userfiles/documents/resources/ecj_report_rspb_final.pdf 3 C-127/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling) – “Waddenvereniging and Vogelbeschermingsvereniging” A lack of implementation and the associated uncertainty (for example the implications of the failure to identify a coherent SPA and SAC network in UK seas and its implications for marine industries);4 Poor or inconsistent implementation;5 A lack of guidance on, or information to inform implementation (for example the lack of clear conservation objectives for Natura 2000 sites);6 A lack of resource and expertise within Government authorities and regulators to support effective implementation7. Indeed this point was emphasized by Dr. Elsa Nickel, Director General, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMU), Germany at Green Week 2015. She pointed out that the Nature Directives are just beginning to work for biodiversity, and that governments and businesses have learned how to operate with the Directives, such that they have become a routine part of daily operations. “The EU Nature legislation is absolutely fit for purpose and indispensable – it is the backbone for everything we want to reach, the objectives of the EU biodiversity strategy 2020. We don’t see any reason why we should change it – we should implement better”. Dr Nickel emphasized both the need for regulatory stability for economic players and pointed out that, "This is really about our credibility in Europe - we have to fulfil the obligations from the convention on biodiversity, we have to meet the targets. If Europe does not meet them, who else will?". Experience with the Nature Directives has enabled progressive businesses to make them a routine part of their daily operations across the EU, while full transposition and implementation has delivered demonstrable positive outcomes for nature. Annex III provides evidence of the evolution of approaches to implementation of the Birds and Habitat Directives in the UK over time and in response to the development of case law. Should CJEU jurisprudence be incorporated into the texts of Birds and Habitats Directives? The Birds and Habitats Directives set out the results that Member States must achieve, without necessarily dictating the means of achieving these results, leaving a certain amount of leeway to Member State governments as to the exact rules to be adopted. CJEU judgments do not qualify or restrict this leeway. Seeking to derive hard and fast rules from such CJEU rulings and to incorporate these into an EU Directive, effectively defining the “correct” approach to implementation, could potentially breach the subsidiarity principle. Annex II to this document provides an overview of how the CJEU operates, and the importance of the Court’s CJEU’s case law for the implementation of EU Directives. CJEU rulings do not, and are not intended to, prescribe the precise approach all Member States must take to implementing EU Directives. EU CJEU case law provides clarity as to interpretation and confirms whether Member States have acted lawfully in transposing/implementing their requirements. A judgment does not always mean that a particular approach is the only way to achieve compliance. 4 http://www.wcl.org.uk/docs/link_response_to_nature_directives_060212.pdf 5 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/AA_final_analysis.pdf 6 Review of Favourable Conservation Status and Birds Directive Article 2 interpretation within the European Union (NECR176), Natural England March 2015: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/4852573913743360 7 http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/rspb2ndsubmissiontodefrahrrcasestudycommentaryandanalysis_tcm9-305620.pdf P.18 2 Conclusions Reporting information compiled for the European Environment Agency’s State of Nature report8 shows that while much of Europe’s nature is still in trouble, we are nevertheless at the beginning of a success story. Scientific data shows that where European laws are being effectively implemented, nature is recovering. The development of case law and guidance at national and EU levels has been key to developing the consistency of transposition and implementation needed to achieve this. Thirty years of experience and case law has clarified how the processes and procedures set out in the Birds Directive and Habitats Directive apply to situations on the ground. Experience has shown how effective and efficient these measures have been once properly transposed and implemented. There is no pressing need to incorporate case law and guidance into the texts of the Birds and Habitats Directives - indeed there are strong legal and practical reasons not to do so. Such a move would be likely to fall foul of the EU’s subsidiarity principle, by limiting Member States’ freedom to implement. Any opening of the legislation would also inevitably negate the experience, case law and guidance that have been accumulated. Under that scenario, the whole process of establishing jurisprudence and developing guidance would simpl start again. Experience with CAP reform and other legislative instruments has shown just how far from an initial European Commission proposal the co-decision process can take adopted EU policy instruments. Opening the Birds and Habitats Directives to amendment by the European Parliament and the Governments of the 28 Member States would reset the evolutionary clock in transposition and implementation terms, and return nature conservation and business to the “bad old days” of uncertainty. This would be bad for nature, as progress towards the EU and global 2020 biodiversity targets would be at best put on hold, at worst set back by decades. It would also be bad for business, as the certainty built up over time would be lost. Finally, it would be disastrous for Europe’s people who, as research has shown, benefit from a multitude of ecosystem services generated by the Natura 2000 network. The Birds and Habitats Directives are an excellent example of EU regulation that is not only smart, effective where transposed and implemented, and efficient, but also highly relevant to the daily lives of Europeans. 8 http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-nature-in-the-eu 3 Annex I Number of CJEU Rulings Concerning the Birds and Habitats Directives Statistics on the judicial activity of the CJEU, available from the www.curia.europa.eu website, confirm that the court has, over time, significantly increased its levels of activity. However, in the same period the number of rulings relating specifically to the Birds and Habitats Directives has remained low, and relatively stable over time. Table A: Total Number of New CJEU Cases and CJEU Rulings over time Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 New Cases 474 537 581 593 562 631 688 632 699 622 Rulings 574 546 570 567 588 574 638 595 701 719 BHD Rulings9 8 8 11 2 3 7 10 7 1 While it is possible to search the CJEU’s case database to identify individual cases concerning the Birds and Habitats Directives, the CJEU does not itself catalogue such cases separately.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Habitats and Birds Directives Versus the Common Fisheries Policy: a Paradox
    article The Habitats and Birds Directives versus the Common Fisheries Policy: A Paradox Jaap Leijen Keywords Conservation of habitats, conservation of birds, fisheries conservation, exclusive competence, Habitats Directive, Birds Di- rective, CFP Basic Regulation, EU environmental policy, EU common fisheries policy. Abstract The interaction between environmental conservation and fisheries has never been easy. This is no less true for European Union (EU) policy in these areas. Numerous EU Member States, and the European Commission, are struggling with the paradox in EU law that emerges when EU environmental policy and EU fisheries policy overlap. On the one hand, EU Member States are required to take conservation or protection measures, if necessary, in specific areas to fulfil their duties stemming from the Habitats and Birds Directives. On the other hand, Member States are, to a great extent, deprived of their competence to fulfil these duties as soon as these measures possibly touch upon fisheries. There is an exclusive competence for the EU attached to the common fisheries policy of the EU. This article addresses this paradoxical situation by analysing the Habitats and Birds Directives on the one side, and the exclusive competence of the EU in the area of fisheries on the other. The article concludes by examining possible solutions to the paradox, hopefully constituting worthwhile contributions to an ungoing discussion. The article is a revised version of a report written on behalf of the Amsterdam International Law Clinic. Author Affiliations Jaap Leijen is a law student at the University of Amsterdam, where he is currently finishing the LLM Programme in European Union Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Natura 2000— the Largest Network of Protected Areas in the World
    The Best Idea Europe Has Ever Had? Natura 2000— The Largest Network of Protected Areas in the World Wouter Langhout and Ariel L. Brunner The birth of the Birds Directive Our story starts with birds. When several countries in Europe in 1957 intensified their cooperation under the predecessor of the European Union (EU), an opportunity arose to address the topic of migratory birds. Italy and France were notorious for the large-scale mas- sacres of finches, cranes, swans and other birds. Citizens from Germany, the Netherlands and Luxembourg engaged in vocal campaigns to “save the migratory birds” and found a willing ear in the European Commission (Meyer 2010), the EU institution that is tasked with proposing and implementing legislation. The campaigns gathered momentum following ac- cession of the United Kingdom with its powerful birding community. Following a proposal from the commission, the EU member states adopted a piece of legislation that aimed to protect all wild birds and their habitats. The EU Birds Directive was born (European Eco- nomic Community 1979). It was adopted in 1979, and being the first dedicated EU law on the environment, it paved the way for many more initiatives, which together have enormously improved the quality of life on the European continent. The Birds Directive was in many ways far ahead of its time: A rather short piece of EU legislation, consisting of only 20 articles, it set out all the necessary action for bird conser- vation in the EU. It introduced strict protection of all wild species of birds against their de- liberate killing or removal from the wild.
    [Show full text]
  • MACRO-REGIONAL INTEGRATION – New Scales, Spaces and Governance for Europe?
    MACRO-REGIONAL INTEGRATION – new scales, spaces and governance for Europe? Der Naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades Dr. rer. nat. vorgelegt von Franziska Sielker aus Meppen Als Dissertation genehmigt von der Naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 08.02.2017 Vorsitzender des Promotionsorgans: Prof. Dr. Georg Kreimer Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Tobias Chilla Prof. Philip Allmendinger Acknowledgements Approaching and completing a PhD project is not possible without the support of a wide range of people ‘at home’, ‘at work’, and in my case ‘in macro-regions’. I have been very lucky to have received substantial support over the last four years. I would like to extend my thanks to everyone who contributed in one way or the other to my journey. I use this opportunity to place a few personalised thank-you words. In addition, I choose to name ‘places’ that marked important parts of my last years’ journey, and are naturally as well related to people. ‘At work’ - starting with my supervisors, co-authors, examiners and mentors My thanks goes, first, to Tobias Chilla for taking me on board in your new Erlangen team. I still appreciate that you instantly agreed to supervise a PhD thesis on macro-regions. During the last years, we worked on a day-to-day practice in very variable settings. Just to mention a few, you were my chef, my supervisor, my co-author, my project- chef and partner and my mentor. Thank you for providing this particular framework, the working atmosphere and giving me the opportunity to learn from you.
    [Show full text]
  • EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels
    EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 1.10.2010 SEC(2010) 1143 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT SITUATION IN THE DIFFERENT SECTORS Accompanying document to the REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 27th ANNUAL REPORT ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW (2009) COM(2010) 538 SEC(2010) 1144 EN EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. ENTERPRISE and INDUSTRY............................................................................. 18 1.1. General introduction................................................................................................ 18 1.2. Automotive Industry................................................................................................ 21 1.3. Chemicals.................................................................................................................. 25 1.4. Pharmaceuticals ....................................................................................................... 30 1.5. Medical devices......................................................................................................... 34 1.6. Cosmetics .................................................................................................................. 35 1.7. Mechanical, electrical and telecommunications equipment................................. 37 1.8. Gas appliances, pressure equipment and legal metrology ................................... 38 1.8.1. Gas appliances........................................................................................................... 38 1.8.2. Pressure equipment...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Exposé J Dittrich
    Julika Dittrich, Matr.Nr.: 1463588 Exposé Dissertation Title Liability for Biodiversity Damage in European Union Law Challenges and Opportunities for the Role of Environmental Administrative Liability and Environmental Criminal Liability in the Protection of Biodiversity in the European Union Doctoral Candidate: Julika Dittrich, LL.M. Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Friedl Weiss Discipline: Law J Dittrich: Exposé Julika Dittrich, Matr.Nr.: 1463588 Table of Contents A. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1 B. BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................................... 2 I. The Birds and Habitats Directives ................................................................................... 3 II. The Environmental Liability Directive (ELD): Administrative Liability for Environmental Damage .......................................................................................................... 5 III. The Environmental Crime Directive (ECD): Criminal Liability for Environmental Damage ................................................................................................................................... 7 C. RESEARCH PROBLEM & STATE OF RESEARCH ............................................................................. 8 D. AIM OF THE THESIS ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 14.4.2016 SWD(2016) 121 Final
    EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 14.4.2016 SWD(2016) 121 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT REFIT Evaluation of the Environmental Liability Directive Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council pursuant to Article 18(2) of Directive 2004/35/EC on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage {COM(2016) 204 final} {SWD(2016) 122 final} EN EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................3 1.1. Purpose of the evaluation ..................................................................................3 1.2. Scope of the evaluation .....................................................................................4 2. BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE ...................................................................5 2.1. Description of the initiative and its objectives ..................................................5 2.2. Baseline .............................................................................................................7 2.2.1. Overview on the functioning of the Environmental Liability Directive ..............................................................................................7 2.2.2. Objectives of the Environmental Liability Directive ........................10 2.2.3. The Polluter-Pays Principle...............................................................11 2.2.4. The Liability Scope and Standard of the ELD ..................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Making European Citizens: Civic Inclusion in a Transnational Context
    Making European Citizens Civic Inclusion in a Transnational Context Edited by Richard Bellamy, Dario Castiglione and Jo Shaw One Europe or Several? Series Editor: Helen Wallace The One Europe or Several? series examines contemporary processes of political, security, economic, social and cultural change across the European continent, as well as issues of convergence/divergence and prospects for integration and fragmentation. Many of the books in the series are cross-country comparisons; others evaluate the European institutions, in particular the European Union and NATO, in the context of eastern enlargement. Titles include: Brian Ardy, Iain Begg, Dermot Hodson, Imelda Maher and David G. Mayes ADJUSTING TO EMU Richard Bellamy, Dario Castiglione and Jo Shaw (editors) MAKING EUROPEAN CITIZENS Civic Inclusion in a Transnational Context Sarah Birch ELECTORAL SYSTEMS AND POLITICAL TRANSFORMATION IN POST-COMMUNIST EUROPE Sarah Birch, Frances Millard, Marina Popescu and Kieran Williams EMBODYING DEMOCRACY Electoral System Design in Post-Communist Europe Andrew Cottey, Timothy Edmunds and Anthony Forster (editors) DEMOCRATIC CONTROL OF THE MILITARY IN POSTCOMMUNIST EUROPE Guarding the Guards Anthony Forster, Timothy Edmunds and Andrew Cottey (editors) THE CHALLENGE OF MILITARY REFORM IN POSTCOMMUNIST EUROPE Building Professional Armed Forces Anthony Forster, Timothy Edmunds and Andrew Cottey (editors) SOLDIERS AND SOCIETIES IN POSTCOMMUNIST EUROPE Legitimacy and Change Karen Henderson (editor) THE AREA OF FREEDOM, SECURITY AND JUSTICE IN THE ENLARGED
    [Show full text]
  • THE FACE ANNUAL REPORT the FACE ANNUAL2012 REPORT 2012 FACE Is the European Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation
    THE FACE ANNUAL REPORT THE FACE ANNUAL2012 REPORT 2012 FACE is the European Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation. Established in 1977, it represents the interests of Europe’s 7 million hunters as an international non-profit-making non-governmental organisation (INGO). This makes FACE the largest democratically representative body for hunters in the world and is probably one of the largest European civil society organisations. FACE is made up of its Members: national hunters’ associations from 38 European countries including the EU-27. FACE also has 4 Associate Members and has its Secretariat in Brussels. FACE upholds the principle of sustainable use, has been a member of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) since 1987, and more recently of Wetlands International. FACE works with its partners on a range of hunting-related issues, from international conservation agreements to local implementations with the aim of sustaining hunting across Europe. This annual report covers September 2010-December 2011 and outlines the background and key activities of our main working themes in a new format which will run from January to December, in line with our financial reporting. THE FACE ANNUAL REPORT 2012 1 - The FACE Annual Report 2012 2 - The FACE Annual Report 2012 INDEX President’s Foreword 5 FACE MEMBERS 6 NATURE CONSERVATION 26 SPECIAL FOCUS - FACE & BIRDS 40 INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS 42 FIREARMS & AMMUNITION 52 ANIMAL WELFARE & HEALTH 56 HUNTING METHODS & CULTURE 60 PROJECTS 66 FACE Finances 72 Endnotes 73 3 - The FACE Annual Report 2012 4 - The FACE Annual Report 2012 PRESIDENT'S FOREWORD 2011 has been a year of significant scope for hunters in Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • Settings for Revised
    Manual of European Environmental Policy The following pages are a section from the Manual of European Environmental Policy written by the Institute for European Environmental Policy. The Manual was published by Earthscan/Routledge from 2010 to 2012. It was designed as an on on-line interactive reference work and annual printed versions were also produced. This section is the text of the Manual as published in 2012. It is therefore important to note the following: The contents have not been updated since 2012 and no guarantee is given of the accuracy of the contents given potential subsequent developments. The sections include links to external websites (e.g. to legal texts). These links continue to work as long as those links are not broken by those websites. The sections also include the original links that enabled interactivity within the published on-line version of the Manual. These links no longer work. © Copyright IEEP 2014 The Manual should be cited as follows: Farmer, A.M. (2012) (Editor). Manual of European Environmental Policy. 1043pp. Routledge, London. 1 Birds and their habitats Formal references 2009/147/EC (OJ L20 Directive on the conservation of wild birds 26.1.2010) Proposed 20.3.2009 – COM(2009)129 Legal base Article 192 TFEU (originally Article 175 TEC) Repealed Directives 79/409/EEC (OJ L103 25.4.1979) Proposed 20.12.1976 – COM(76)676 Amended by 1979 Act of Accession (OJ L291 19.11.1979) 81/854/EEC (OJ L319 07.11.1981) 85/411/EEC (OJ L233 30.8.1985) 1985 Act of Accession (OJ L302 15.11.1985) 86/122/EEC (OJ L100 16.04.1986)
    [Show full text]
  • Derogations from the Protection of Birds
    Derogations from the protection of birds Under the EU Birds Directive, the Bern Convention and the African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement OCTOBER 2020 Eurasian Sparrowhawk Compiled by Wouter Langhout Langhout Ecologisch Advies, 2020 Citation: BirdLife International 2020: Derogations from the protection of birds. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International Summary The EU Birds Directive, the Bern Convention and the African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement (AEWA) aim to conserve birds by, among other things, protecting birds, eggs and nests, regulating hunting and prohibiting unselective or large-scale methods of killing. All three agreements have a system of derogations from the legal protection requirements in order to prevent birds from causing damage to human activities and property and to allow for research and the use of small numbers of birds. The Birds Directive has a mature derogation system, building on rulings by the ECJ. There are however persistent problems with reporting, with Member States sending incomplete reports or no reports at all. The new reporting system in 2015 represents a significant downgrade in terms of quality of information compared to the previous system. Due to poor reporting, an estimated 19 % of derogations recorded did not have a clear purpose and at least 22 % did not meet legal requirements in terms of required information. Between 2009 and 2017, more than 84 000 derogations were granted under the Birds Directive, resulting in the killing of more than 14 million birds. For the Great Cormorant in particular, the numbers of individuals killed under derogations are so large that EU population impacts are likely, but impacts on other species cannot be ruled out.
    [Show full text]
  • Nature & Biodiversity
    Nature & Biodiversity LIFE PROJECTS 2015 LIFE Environment Environment EUROPEAN COMMISSION ENVIRONMENT DIRECTORATE-GENERAL LIFE (“The Financial Instrument for the Environment and Climate Action”) is a programme launched by the European Commission and coordinated by the Environmen t and Climate Action Directorates-General . The Commission has delegated the implementation of many components of the LIFE programme to the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME). The contents of the publication “Nature & Biodiversity LIFE Projects 2015” do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the institutions of the European Union. HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS Free publications: • via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); • at the European Commission’s representations or delegations. You can obtain their contact details on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758. Priced publications: • via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). Priced subscriptions (e.g. annual series of the Official Journal of the European Union and reports of cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union): • via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union (http://publications.europa.eu/others/ agents/index_en.htm). Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union. Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016 ISBN 978-92-79-62356-1 ISSN 1977-2300 doi:10.2779/262192 © European Union, 2016 Reuse authorised.
    [Show full text]
  • 1976 Wildlife Act 1976 Sections 5, 8, 9 and 76(5); Second Schedule, Paragraphs 11 and 12
    Number 39 of 1976 WILDLIFE ACT 1976 REVISED Updated to 24 June 2021 This revised Act is an administrative consolidation of the Wildlife Act 1976. It is prepared by the Law Reform Commission in accordance with its function under the Law Reform Commission Act 1975 (3/1975) to keep the law under review and to undertake revision and consolidation of statute law. All Acts up to and including the Criminal Justice (Perjury and Related Offences) Act 2021 (13/2021), enacted 21 June 2021, and all statutory instruments up to and including the Heritage (Transfer of Departmental Administration and Ministerial Functions) Order 2021 (S.I. No. 302 of 2021), made 24 June 2021, were considered in the preparation of this revision. Disclaimer: While every care has been taken in the preparation of this Revised Act, the Law Reform Commission can assume no responsibility for and give no guarantees, undertakings or warranties concerning the accuracy, completeness or up to date nature of the information provided and does not accept any liability whatsoever arising from any errors or omissions. Please notify any errors, omissions and comments by email to [email protected]. Number 39 of 1976 WILDLIFE ACT 1976 REVISED Updated to 24 June 2021 Introduction This revision presents the text of the Act as it has been amended since enactment, and preserves the format in which it was passed. Related legislation Wildlife Acts 1976 to 2021: this Act is one of a group of Acts included in this collective citation (Planning and Development, Heritage and Broadcasting (Amendment) Act 2021, s. 1(3)).
    [Show full text]