HAVET & VANHUFFEL – Association d’avocats
In its judgment of 16 July 2026 (Joined Cases C-27/25 and C-356/25), the Court of Justice of the European Union held that Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive precludes a national authority from lawfully carrying out an appropriate assessment of a project affecting a Special Protection Zone (Zone de Protection Spéciale – ZPS) where the site-specific conservation objectives for that zone have not been adopted beforehand. The Court further held that, prior to the adoption of those conservation objectives, only the geographical delimitation of the area potentially affected may be undertaken, whereas the assessment of the project’s effects on the protected site cannot. The judgment thus reinforces the principle that site-specific conservation objectives are a necessary and indispensable prerequisite for the protection regime governing Natura 2000 sites.
In the joined cases C-27/25 and C-356/25, the Court of Justice of the European Union was asked to interpret Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. The disputes concerned the legality of planning permissions granted for wind farm projects likely to affect a Special Protection Zone (Zone de Protection Spéciale – ZPS) designated under the Birds Directive.
The common feature of both cases was that Ireland had not yet adopted site-specific conservation objectives for the Special Protection Zone (Zone de Protection Spéciale – ZPS) of Blackwater Callows when the national authorities carried out the environmental assessments and granted the planning permissions.
The central legal issue before the Court was therefore whether a national authority may lawfully conduct a screening assessment or an appropriate assessment of the effects of a project on a Special Protection Zone in the absence of conservation objectives specifically established for that site.
To answer this question, the Court first recalled that Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive requires an appropriate assessment to be carried out « in view of the conservation objectives of that site. » This wording makes those objectives the indispensable benchmark for any assessment.
The Court then emphasized that conservation objectives cannot be general or abstract. They must be site-specific, precise, and tailored to the habitats and species that justify the protection of each Special Protection Zone. General conservation objectives applicable to several sites do not satisfy the requirements of EU law.
The Court concluded that an assessment carried out without site-specific conservation objectives necessarily rests on an incomplete basis. Consequently, it is impossible to determine properly whether the proposed project is liable to adversely affect the integrity of the protected site.
This interpretation is reinforced by the broader context of the Habitats Directive. The Court recalled that an appropriate assessment must eliminate all reasonable scientific doubt regarding the effects of the project on the protected site. In the absence of clearly defined conservation objectives, this requirement of scientific certainty cannot be fulfilled.
The Court further stressed that Member States are under a legal obligation to establish conservation objectives and conservation measures for each Special Protection Zone. This obligation derives jointly from the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive and constitutes a prerequisite for the effective management of Natura 2000 sites.
According to the Court, conservation objectives serve several essential functions: they guide the adoption of conservation measures, establish management priorities, and provide the legal framework for environmental assessments. They therefore constitute a fundamental element of the Natura 2000 protection regime.
The Court rejected Ireland’s argument that the temporary absence of conservation objectives could be justified by the time limits applicable to the designation of protected sites. It recalled that the obligations relating to Special Protection Zones apply from the moment such areas are designated and that the prolonged absence of site-specific conservation objectives already constitutes a breach of EU law.
The judgment also highlights the objectives pursued by the Natura 2000 network. Each protected site contributes to the overall conservation of habitats and species across the European Union. This objective can only be achieved if the conservation objectives specific to each Special Protection Zone are clearly established before any decision is taken that could affect the site’s integrity.
The Court therefore held that the prior adoption of site-specific conservation objectives constitutes a condition for the legality of the appropriate assessment required under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. Any authorization based on an assessment carried out without such objectives is incompatible with EU law.
Regarding the screening stage, the Court adopted a more nuanced position. It accepted that certain preliminary operations, such as identifying the protected sites potentially concerned or defining the geographical area likely to be affected, may be undertaken without site-specific conservation objectives.
However, once the competent authority has to determine whether a project is likely to have a significant effect on a particular Special Protection Zone, site-specific conservation objectives become indispensable. Without them, it is impossible to assess environmental risks properly in accordance with the precautionary principle.
The Court ultimately ruled that Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive precludes a national authority from lawfully carrying out an appropriate assessment of a project affecting a Special Protection Zone unless site-specific conservation objectives have first been adopted for that protected area. Only the preliminary geographical identification of potentially affected sites may take place before those objectives are established; the assessment of the project’s likely effects on the protected site cannot. The judgment therefore strengthens the principle that site-specific conservation objectives are an indispensable legal prerequisite for the protection of Natura 2000 sites.
On those grounds, the Court hereby rules:
Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as meaning that where conservation objectives specific to the special protection area concerned have not been adopted beforehand, a national authority cannot carry out a valid appropriate assessment of the implications of a plan or project for the integrity of that area, in the context of the examination of an application for consent for that plan or project. In the context of the screening phase, it may be possible to delimit the geographical area likely to be affected by a plan or project without it being necessary to take into account the conservation objectives specific to each of the protected sites. By contrast, the assessment of the probability or risk of such a plan or project having a significant effect on a protected site within that geographical area cannot be carried out without taking account of the conservation objectives specific to that site.
To access the judgment, please follow the link below : https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/document/C/2025/C-0027-25-00000000RP-01-P-01/ARRET/323836-EN-1-html.