Habitats: how to stop death by a thousand cuts

27 November 2012 by

Sweetman v. An Bord Pleanala, CJEU, Advocate-General Sharpston, 22 November 2012 read opinion 

In May 2012 the Habitats Directive celebrated its 20th birthday. It has been under a good deal of flak over the years, particularly from business interests both in and out of government. The reason is plain. The Directive has made member states identify important sites in their territories to the EU (with a certain amount of prodding on the way). It then tells them to keep those sites unaffected by development save in exceptional cases, where there is overriding public interest in the project, there is no alternative solution and, further, that there can be full compensation for the losses caused by the development.

So a member state cannot routinely fudge things against protected habitats in favour of whatever other public interest may be uppermost at the time – wind farms, or supermarkets or chemical works or residential newbuild on greenbelt, for instance. In all but exceptional cases (see here for my post on a proposal which was said to be exceptional), you must not adversely affect the site.

Now for this powerful system of protection in practice, thanks to a tour d’horizon (and de force) by the Advocate-General.

Article 6

The key to the Directive is Article 6 setting out both its prohibitions and its procedures. It is not an elegant piece of drafting and it takes a bit of reading to see how it fits together. Fortunately, this opinion by the UK Advocate-General for the EU Court makes its meaning crystal clear. Article 6(2) imposes an “overarching obligation” (A-G at [42]) on member states to avoid deterioration of habitats and disturbance of species – to “maintain the status quo…Benign neglect is not an option” [44]. It is addressed at the every-day operation of the site.

Articles 6(3) & 6(4) then are concerned with a plan or project – not part of everyday operations. Article 6(3) poses the first test – is the plan or project “likely” to have “a significant effect” on the site – and “likely” means no more than there is a “possibility’ of such an effect. This stage is simply the trigger to whether an “appropriate assessment” of the impact is required – the threshold is “thus a very low one.” Such an assessment (the second test) should consider the proposal and its impact “using the best scientific knowledge in the field” [49], as well as local knowledge. Its purpose is to look at the implications for the site in the light of its conservation objective, and the plan or project may proceed only if it will not “adversely affect the integrity of the site.”  As the A-G put it, the first test is really – should we bother to check? – and the second – what will happen if this project goes ahead? [50].

But what does “adverse effect” on “integrity of the site” actually mean? The A-G sets out various language versions at [53] – the French, German and English are very similar and abstract. The German means adversely affecting the site “as such”; the Dutch talks about affecting the “natural characteristics” of the site. So the key question, says the A-G, is “why was this site designated and what are its conservation objectives?” Once that it is answered, you can decide whether those attributes will be affected by the proposal.

All very helpful – and a good deal more clearly expressed than the case law so far.

Irish limestone and a bypass

Now to the case in question. An Irish Planning Inspector was concerned with a proposed road across an important geological feature known as a limestone pavement. There were some 270 ha of this feature within the protected site (running to over 25,000 ha). The road scheme would lead to the permanent loss of 1.5ha of limestone pavement. The Inspector decided that this would not seriously affect the integrity of the site. The Planning Board agreed with the Inspector. Mr Sweetman said that this was the wrong approach in law, and in due course the Supreme Court of Ireland referred various questions to the CJEU.

The A-G had no doubt about the answer: a permanent loss of 1.5ha of a feature underlying the designation does amount to an adverse effect [60] – limestone pavement was to be replaced by road to that extent. She contrasted this with the temporary works and disturbance arising from the laying of a pipeline, which, provided it could be made good in due course, would not amount to adverse effect within Article 6(3).

Now briefly to Article 6(4) whose contents I summarised above. This concerns the exceptional case where despite a negative assessment a proposal may go ahead where there are Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest (IROPI in the inevitable acronym) etc. The A-G dismissed an argument (brought by Galway City and County Councils, and, depressingly, supported by the UK) that in some way the test arising under Article 6(3) posed a lower level of protection than that envisaged by Article 6(4); Article 6(4) does no more than give an exception when a project fails to meet the Article 6(3) test. The idea appears to have been that you can authorise some minor impairments under Article 6(3), whereas for major projects, you can only proceed via the Article 6(4) route. No, she said:

Such an interpretation would also fail to prevent what the Commission terms the ‘death by a thousand cuts’ phenomenon, that is to say, cumulative habitat loss as a result of multiple, or at least a number of, lower level projects being allowed to proceed on the same site [67].

Her summary at [76] on adverse integrity within Article 6(3) was unequivocal:

it is necessary to determine whether that plan or project will have a negative effect on the constitutive elements of the site concerned, having regard to the reasons for which the site was designated and their associated conservation objectives. An effect which is permanent or long lasting must be regarded as an adverse one. In reaching such a determination, the precautionary principle will apply.

One further point of wider interest. The site in question was not yet a European protected site, because the Commission had not yet confirmed it. Its current protected status as a matter of Irish law was governed by domestic regulations modelled on the Habitats Directive. The Councils argued that the CJEU had no business answering the questions referred because they did not concern a principle of EU law – it was a domestic matter of interpretation. The A-G was having none of that. The CJEU has jurisdiction to rule on the meaning of national legislation implementing EU law, even though the particular situation was governed solely by domestic law. It was important that EU-based law be capable of being interpreted by the CJEU, to forestall future differences in interpretation: [28].

So a fascinating case – and the best way in to see the strength of the protection conferred by the Habitats Directive.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:


  1. Peter Sweetman says:

    Actually you are being a bit unfair to Ireland, it was Galway County Council not the Government which made this point “6(3) posed a lower level of protection than that envisaged by Article 6(4);” The NPWS(The designated body) supported me at the oral hearing. We made them a respondent so that they could not sit on the fence.

    I loved your opinion on the case.
    Peter Sweetman

  2. John Evans BL says:

    For once, Ireland was with Peter Sweetman – the UK joined with the Irish national planning board (An Bord Pleanála) and the local authority – the two decision-makers in this case.
    Best Wishes
    John Evans BL

  3. hicham says:

    Human rights refers to the universal rights of people regardless of jurisdiction or other factors, such as ethnicity, age, nationality, sexual orientation or religion.
    The idea of human rights descended from the philosophical idea of natural rights; some recognize virtually no difference between the two and regard both as labels for the same thing while others choose to keep the terms separate to eliminate association with some features traditionally associated with natural rights.

  4. Andrew says:

    The sort of case which leaves citizens throughout Europe wondering why they elect governments.

  5. Rosemary Cantwell says:

    27 November 2012

    Dear Mr Hart

    I am fascinated by your analysis of protected sites.

    Does a “RAMSAR” site qualify as a protected environment?

    There is a planning application which is causing some debate.

    Thank you very much for your help.

    With best wishes

    Rosemary Cantwell

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: