Europese rechtszaak tegen Griekenland vanwege jacht op beschermde zeeschildpad (en)

The European Commission has decided to pursue legal action against Greece for failure to effectively protect the rare loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) on the island of Zakynthos. Greece was already condemned by the European Court of Justice in 2002 for this failure. The Court found that Greece was not doing enough to protect the breeding sites of the sea turtle on a number of beaches on Zakynthos. The Commission will now send Greece a final written warning urging it to comply with the 2002 ruling. This warning is the last step before the Commission can ask the Court to impose penalties on Greece. With this action, the Commission wants to ensure that Greece protects its rich biodiversity to the benefit of their citizens and future generations.

Commenting on the decisions, Environment Commissioner Margot Wallström said: "Stopping the loss of Europe's biodiversity is one of the most important items on the EU's environmental agenda. The loggerhead sea turtle is a rare and endangered species, and the breeding sites on Zakynthos are its most important in Europe. Greece started taking measures to allow the turtle to breed undisturbed, but these efforts have stopped. I hope Greece will resume the establishment and implementation of an effective system of protection. The country must be proud to be hosting such an important and delightful creature."

The loggerhead sea turtle in Greece

On 30 January 2002, Greece was condemned by the Court of Justice for failing to adequately protect the rare loggerhead sea turtle, Caretta caretta, on the island of Zakynthos.^[1] Laganas Bay in Zakynthos is the most important breeding site for the species ;in the Mediterranean. The sea turtle lays eggs only every two or three years, during the summer months, and when the baby turtles hatch two months later, they are very vulnerable. The Court declared that Greece had failed to establish and implement an effective system of strict protection, thereby violating its obligations under the 1992 Habitats Directive.^[2] ;

This Directive provides for a comprehensive protection scheme for a range of endangered and valuable animals and plants as well as a selection of habitat types. It has established Natura 2000, the EU's network of protected nature sites, which by now covers around 18% of the EU territory. Under the Habitats Directive, the Caretta caretta must be strictly protected. In addition, the Greek government has proposed Laganas Bay as a Natura 2000 site.

In December 2002, the Commission sent Greece a first warning for non-compliance with the Court judgement. Subsequent exchanges with the Greek authorities were encouraging and considerable progress has been made. However, in April 2004 the National Marine Park of Zakynthos, which is the official management body, ceased operating due to severe financial problems. During the summer of 2004, there was no staff to run the Park, and the public was not provided with proper information on how to avoid disturbing the turtle sites. In addition, no seasonal wardens were hired, the marine area was not sufficiently patrolled, and no controls were exercised over illegal activities.

As a result, there were incidents of illegal fishing and anchoring in front of the important nesting beach of Sekania, which is legally an area of absolute protection. On Daphni beach, illegal bars and taverns continued to operate. On the sand dunes and the beach of Kalamaki, cars, motorcycles and horses were routinely used. Last but not least, the limits set for the numbers of sun beds and umbrellas on the nesting beaches of Kalamaki and Gerakas were repeatedly violated. In summary, all important breeding sites on the island were badly affected, and the sea turtle was deliberately disturbed during its reproduction period.

In its warning letter, the Commission is asking Greece to urgently comply with the Court's ruling within two months, after which the Commission may ask the Court to impose penalties.

Legal Process

The Commission took the two decisions in question at its Complaints and Infringement Meeting today where it decided to advance dozens of other infringement cases involving most EU Member States.

Article 226 of the Treaty gives the Commission powers to take legal action against a Member State that is not respecting its obligations.

If the Commission considers that there may be an infringement of EU law that warrants the opening of an infringement procedure, it addresses a "Letter of Formal Notice" (first written warning) to the Member State concerned, requesting it to submit its observations by a specified date, usually two months.

In the light of the reply or absence of a reply from the Member State concerned, the Commission may decide to address a "Reasoned Opinion" (final written warning) to the Member State. This clearly and definitively sets out the reasons why it considers there to have been an infringement of EU law and calls upon the Member State to comply within a specified period, normally two months.

If the Member State fails to comply with the Reasoned Opinion, the Commission may decide to bring the case before the European Court of Justice.

Where the Court of Justice finds that the Treaty has been infringed, the offending Member State is required to take the measures necessary to conform. Where the Court of Justice finds that the Treaty has been infringed, the offending Member State is required to take the measures necessary to conform.

Article 228 of the Treaty gives the Commission power to act against a Member State that does not comply with a previous judgement of the European Court of Justice, again by issuing a first written warning ("Letter of Formal Notice") and then a final written warning ("Reasoned Opinion"). The article then allows the Commission to ask the Court to impose a financial penalty on the Member State concerned.
For current statistics on infringements in general see:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/droit_com/index_en.htm#infractions ;
For rulings by the European Court of Justice see:

http://curia.eu.int/en/content/juris/index.htm ;
For nature protection in the EU see:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature_biodiversity/index_en.htm ;

^[1] Case C-103/00, Commission v Greece

^[2] Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna