European Ombudsman Päätös asiassa 1561/2010/FOR - Uhanalaisia kasveja suojelevien sääntöjen rikkomista koskeva tutkimus Päätös Kanteluasia 1561/2010/FOR - Tutkittavaksi otetut kantelut, pvm 04/08/2010 - Päätökset, pvm 14/06/2011 - Toimielin, jota kantelu koskee Euroopan komissio ( Ei hallinnollista epäkohtaa ) | Tapaus koskee väitettä, jonka mukaan komissio ei ole tutkinut asianmukaisesti, onko Espanja noudattanut EU:n ympäristösääntöjä. Asia nousi esiin erään paikallista ekologiryhmää edustavan Espanjan kansalaisen kantelun yhteydessä. Hänen mukaansa laajamittainen rakennushanke vahingoitti Picris Willkommiin luonnollista elinympäristöä. Kyseessä on harvinainen kasvi, jota esiintyy ainoastaan Guadianajoen suulla Espanjassa. Kantelijan mukaan tällä toiminnalla rikottiin luontotyyppidirektiiviä ja ympäristövastuudirektiiviä. Oikeusasiamiehen mukaan luontotyyppidirektiivin rikkominen ei automaattisesti merkitse sitä, että komission tulisi aloittaa rikkomusmenettely Espanjaa vastaan. Hän huomautti, että komissiolla on laaja harkintavalta päättää, aloittaako se EU:n lainsäädännön väitetyn rikkomisen vuoksi menettelyn jäsenvaltiota vastaan. Hän huomautti kuitenkin myös, että komission on perusteltava harkintavaltansa käyttö. Päättäessään lopettaa kantelijan tekemän kantelun käsittelyn komissio perusteli harkintavaltansa käyttöä pääasiassa niin, että rikkomusmenettelyn jatkaminen ei takaisi parempia toimia Picris Willkommiin suojelemiseksi kuin ne toimet, joita Espanjan viranomaiset ovat jo toteuttaneet tai suunnitelleet (Espanjan viranomaiset olivat sopineet erilaisten suojelutoimien toteuttamisesta). Oikeusasiamies piti tätä riittävänä perusteluna komission päätökselle lopettaa tapauksen käsittely. Oikeusasiamies huomautti, että ympäristövastuudirektiivi ei koske ennen direktiivin voimaantuloa (30. huhtikuuta 2007) sattuneiden tapahtumien aiheuttamia vahinkoja. Hän totesi, että Picris Willkommiin elinympäristöä vahingoittivat ennen 30. huhtikuuta 2007 toteutetut alkuvaiheen kaivutyöt. Oikeusasiamies huomautti kuitenkin, että jos kantelija katsoo 30. huhtikuuta 2007 jälkeen tehtyjen rakennustöiden aiheuttaneen "uutta" vahinkoa Picris Willkommiin elinympäristölle, hänen tulisi ilmoittaa tätä tukevat tiedot toimivaltaisille kansallisille viranomaisille ja, tarvittaessa, kansallisille tuomioistuimille tai muille itsenäisille ja puolueettomille julkisille elimille. Vastaavasti jos kantelija katsoo, että kaivutyöt eivät tuhonneet elinympäristöä kokonaan ja että työmaan tulevat työt vahingoittaisivat jäljelle jäänyttä elinympäristöä, hänen tulisi ilmoittaa tätä tukevat tiedot toimivaltaisille viranomaisille. Oikeusasiamies kehotti lisäksi komissiota tiedottamaan kantelijoille kaikista kansallisista keinoista, joita on mahdollista käyttää vastaavissa myöhemmissä tapauksissa. 1 The background to the complaint 1. Picris Willkommii is a plant species which is found only near the mouth of the Guadiana River (which forms the frontier between Spain and Portugal). In Spain, the main populations of Picris Willkommii are restricted to grasslands around the town of Ayamonte. Picris Willkommii is listed as being in serious danger of extinction [1] , and is listed as a protected species under Directive 92/43/EEC (the Habitats Directive) [2] . 2. The complainant is an ecologist group called ALMACAL which brought a case before the local administrative court against the Municipality of Ayamonte. The case concerned the large-scale building project which the Municipality had authorised in 2003 in an area populated by Picris Willkommii . According to the complainant, the case was dismissed by the court after evidence was submitted by the local authorities showing that Picris Willkommii was sufficiently protected. The building project then went ahead. 3. According to the complainant, it was subsequently discovered that, during the court case, the authorities had withheld some of the reports drawn up by independent experts. According to the complainant, the withheld reports contained proof that the species was, in fact, seriously threatened. As a consequence, the complainant went on to report that, in 2005, two persons were tried before a criminal court for forging a public document [3] . The complainant explained that, under Spanish procedural rules, the administrative court would have to wait until a judgment was passed in the public document forgery case before it could make an order to allow the building work to continue. According to the complainant, given the lengthy nature of proceedings in Spanish courts, the time spent waiting for a judgment would solve nothing, because it would be too late to save the Picris Willkommii . 4. On 17 June 2007, the complainant submitted a complaint to the European Commission (complaint 2007/4600/SG(2007)A/4688/2). The Commission replied on 3 July 2007, stating that it would ask the Spanish Authorities for information regarding the issue and that it would keep the complainant updated. 5. In a letter dated 18 April 2008, the Commission informed the complainant that it considered that the Spanish authorities were taking appropriate measures to protect the species. The Commission went on to state that, since the building work in the area populated by Picris Willkommii had already started, it did not consider that continuing with its enquiry would contribute significantly to the protection of the species. It therefore proposed to close the case, and the complainant was given one month within which to submit its comments on that proposal. 6. On 17 May 2008, the complainant wrote to the Commission. It submitted the following arguments. (i) Only 35% of the planned building work had been finished by May 2008. It argued that damage to the habitat of Picris Willkommii could in be prevented in relation to 65% of the area concerned, if action were taken quickly. (ii) The Spanish authorities should be fined, especially since the measures they had taken to 2 protect Picris Willkommii were neither appropriate nor sufficient. In the complainant's view, the " extraction of samples " and keeping " germaplasm " (genetic material), were not sufficient measures to protect Picris Willkommii in its natural habitat. (iii) The Spanish authorities were being investigated for the forgery of a public document regarding the protection of Picris Willkommii . In this context, the complainant considered that their reports should, therefore, at least be checked against other sources. (iv) Picris Willkommii has now been confined to an area of 170 hectares, compared to an area of five square kilometres, which it occupied in 1999. The public administration had done nothing to prevent this from happening. Rather, the Municipality of Ayamonte was actively attacking Picris Willkommii . (v) The " in-situ conservation measures " announced by the local authorities were essentially being contradicted by the authorisation of building work in that same area. (vi) The " Botanical Garden " to which the Commission referred in its letter was, in fact, an area where Picris Willkommii will be planted in pots, a solution which the complainant did not consider sufficient to protect Picris Willkommii . (vii) There was no plan to guarantee the future development of the species; (viii) The Commission should focus more on prevention, and implement the " polluter pays " principle. (ix) There may also be an infringement of Article 2.4 (a) of Directive 2004/35/EC [4] on environmental responsibility (the Environmental Liability Directive), since, even if the damage to the species started before the rule entered into force in Spain, which was on 23 October 2007, the damage was ongoing. (x) The time limit of one month from the date of the letter, which the complainant was given to submit its observations, was too short. In fact, the letter dated 18 April 2008 arrived on 5 May 2008, significantly reducing the time during which the complainant could prepare its reply. The Commission should, therefore, either allow more it time to reply, or calculate differently the time from which the deadline starts to run (for example, from the time the letter is received, as evidenced by a postal proof of receipt). 7. On 2 April 2009, the complainant wrote to the Commission, repeating its request for answers to the points raised in its letter dated 17 May 2008. On 12 April 2009, the Commission replied, stating that there was scientific proof that building work had destroyed part of the natural habitat of Picris Willkommii . The Commission stated that this was an infringement of Article 13.1 of the Habitats Directive. The Commission considered that Spain must be compelled to ensure the conservation of the remaining natural habitat of Picris Willkommii . It stated that it had requested the Spanish authorities to draw up a protection and recuperation policy for further urban development at Ayamonte. The Commission stated that it was waiting to be informed about the ex-situ and in-situ species protection measures 3 taken, and that if it was not satisfied with those measures, it would take the appropriate action. On 8 June 2009, the complainant wrote to the Commission again, stating that a significant part of the species' habitat could still be saved if appropriate action were taken. The complainant requested copies of the Commission's last letter to the Spanish authorities, which contained the conclusions the Commission had drawn from the analysis carried out by the Infringement Unit technicians. The complainant also invited the Commission's technicians to travel to Ayamonte to examine the current