View in EDS

Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea (Sala Primera), de 26 de febrero de 2026: interpretación del artículo 5, letra d), de la Directiva 2009/147/CE relativa a la conservación de las aves silvestres. Perturbación intencionada. Medidas de prevención y mitigación. Prueba de su eficacia.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea (Sala Primera), de 26 de febrero de 2026: interpretación del artículo 5, letra d), de la Directiva 2009/147/CE relativa a la conservación de las aves silvestres. Perturbación intencionada. Medidas de prevención y mitigación. Prueba de su eficacia.
Authors: de Guerrero Manso, María del Carmen1
Source: Actualidad Jurídica Ambiental. may2026, Issue 167, p266-270. 5p.
Subject Terms: *Bird conservation, *Precautionary principle, *Nature conservation, *Ecological disturbances, *Environmental impact statements
Company/Entity: Court of Justice of the European Union , European Union , European Court of Justice
Abstract (English): The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of February 26, 2026, interprets Article 5, letter d), of Directive 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild birds, in relation to intentional disturbance and the prevention and mitigation measures in projects that may affect these species. The Court establishes that there is no intentional disturbance if the planned measures prevent significant effects on bird populations, considering these measures from the outset in the assessment, unlike the regime of the Habitats Directive. Furthermore, it determines that the effectiveness of these measures can be demonstrated through expert reports based on reliable scientific data, without requiring documentation proving their practical success. This ruling provides clear criteria for evaluating infrastructure projects that impact protected species, balancing environmental protection with the feasibility of the works. [Extracted from the article]
Abstract (Spanish): La sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea (TJUE) del 26 de febrero de 2026 interpreta el artículo 5, letra d), de la Directiva 2009/147/CE relativa a la conservación de las aves silvestres, en relación con la perturbación intencionada y las medidas de prevención y mitigación en proyectos que puedan afectar a estas especies. El Tribunal establece que no existe perturbación intencionada si las medidas previstas evitan efectos significativos sobre las poblaciones de aves, considerando desde el inicio dichas medidas en la evaluación, a diferencia del régimen de la Directiva sobre los hábitats. Además, determina que la eficacia de estas medidas puede acreditarse mediante informes periciales fundamentados en datos científicos fiables, sin exigir documentación que pruebe su éxito práctico. Esta resolución aporta criterios claros para evaluar proyectos de infraestructuras que impacten especies protegidas, equilibrando la protección ambiental con la viabilidad de las obras. [Extracted from the article]
Copyright of Actualidad Jurídica Ambiental is the property of CIEMAT, through its Centro Internacional de Estudios de Derecho Ambiental (CIEDA) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: GreenFILE
Description
Abstract:The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of February 26, 2026, interprets Article 5, letter d), of Directive 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild birds, in relation to intentional disturbance and the prevention and mitigation measures in projects that may affect these species. The Court establishes that there is no intentional disturbance if the planned measures prevent significant effects on bird populations, considering these measures from the outset in the assessment, unlike the regime of the Habitats Directive. Furthermore, it determines that the effectiveness of these measures can be demonstrated through expert reports based on reliable scientific data, without requiring documentation proving their practical success. This ruling provides clear criteria for evaluating infrastructure projects that impact protected species, balancing environmental protection with the feasibility of the works. [Extracted from the article]
ISSN:19895666