EU court ruling threatens Cyprus project licensing in Natura 2000 areas

Local European Unionirelandnatura 2000Top News EU court ruling threatens Cyprus project licensing in Natura 2000 areas Image 229 Relevant News EU court ruling threatens Cyprus project licensing in Natura 2000 areas 19 August 2026 DISY leadership manages internal shock over Averof Neofytou’s remarks 19 August 2026 UN will not finish Cyprus convergences document before leaders’ meeting 19 August 2026 newsroom 19 August 2026 FacebookXWhatsAppEmailPrintViber Years of delay and the failure of Cyprus’s competent state authorities to set clear targets and issue the necessary conservation measure orders for Natura 2000 network areas led the European Commission to refer Cyprus to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), in a separate case from the ruling described below. Beyond the risk of exorbitant fines and daily financial penalties, which would fall directly on Cypriot taxpayers, the development now calls into question the legality of every project or plan licensed in protected areas. Adding to this is a recent landmark CJEU ruling in an Irish case, which explicitly states that competent authorities cannot carry out a valid assessment of the impact of projects or plans affecting Natura 2000 areas unless specific, quantified and measurable conservation objectives have first been established. The ruling has a direct impact on Cyprus, where significant gaps remain in setting specific conservation objectives. It has raised concern at the Department of Environment, which may no longer be able to examine or licence projects in areas that lack established conservation objectives. Otherwise, the Republic risks facing the same fate as Ireland, whose licensing decisions were ruled legally suspended. In Cyprus, the problem is particularly serious in both Special Areas of Conservation (SACs, areas protecting specific habitats and species) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs, areas protecting wild birds). For years, the country relied on general or inadequate objectives, which the CJEU ruled do not provide a lawful basis for assessing projects. Under the Irish ruling, issued on July 16, 2026 in Case C-27/25 (SU and Wild Ireland Defence CLG v An Bord Pleanála), following preliminary questions from Irish courts, the CJEU clarified that competent authorities cannot approve plans or projects in Natura 2000 areas unless specific conservation objectives have first been established for the protected species and habitats of each area. The ruling concerns the application of Article 6 of Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC, which requires that any project likely to significantly affect a Natura area must undergo an appropriate assessment of its impact. As a result, when specific conservation objectives have not been established for a given Special Protection Area, the competent national authority cannot carry out a valid assessment of a plan or project’s impact on the area’s integrity when examining an application for approval. In practice, this means plans or projects within Natura areas cannot be approved unless specific conservation objectives have been established for those areas, since the objectives set the framework for both conservation priorities and the necessary protection measures. Audit Office demands accountability The referral follows a decade of documented delay, and the Audit Office has been tracking it closely. Immediately after the Irish ruling was issued, the Audit Office renewed its criticism. In a letter dated July 31, 2026 to the Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Environment, it set out the case’s history and the Office’s longstanding concerns over the risks arising from the ministry’s continued inaction. It also called for the immediate adoption of the necessary conservation measure orders for all Natura 2000 areas, and for those responsible for the current situation to be identified and held accountable. According to the Audit Office, the court’s ruling creates a major problem, since the Republic of Cyprus has not set conservation objectives for most Natura 2000 areas. This is despite years of assurances from successive Agriculture ministers that the relevant orders were being issued gradually, according to a timetable. This was not the Audit Office’s first warning. Two years earlier, in a letter sent in March 2024, it had also called for accountability, warning of the risk of Cyprus being convicted by the CJEU and citing carelessness, negligence and prolonged inaction in preparing the orders. Timeline of a referral long in the making A decade-long failure by the Republic of Cyprus to comply with the EU directive: 2013: First warning signs. The European Commission opens its first investigation file (Case EUP (2013) 5493) into the Republic of Cyprus’s shortcomings in protecting environmental areas, with particular reference to the Akamas Peninsula. October 14, 2016: Formal start of infringement proceedings. The European Commission formally opens an infringement file (Case EUP (2016) 8928) against Cyprus over non-compliance with Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. The focus is the failure to set conservation objectives for most protected Natura 2000 areas. April 26, 2021: Law Office warning. In a letter to the Director-General of the Ministry of Agriculture, the Law Office informs that the European Commission has rejected Cyprus’s justifications. It notes that five years after the file was opened, implementation of commitments remains pending, with specific reference to Akamas, and urges immediate action ahead of a formal warning letter. June 9, 2021: Warning letter from the European Commission. The Commission states the objectives in question are not measurable, referring to “generalised and systemic deficiencies in the conservation objectives.” August 17, 2021: Audit Office intervention. Following the Commission’s warning letter, the Audit Office writes to the Minister of Agriculture warning of the immediate risk of referral to the CJEU. October 7, 2021: Ministry assurances. The Minister offers reassurance, stating that the orders are being issued gradually according to a timetable submitted to the Commission. April 6, 2022: Commission’s reasoned opinion. Judging Cyprus’s actions inadequate, the European Commission moves to the next stage of infringement proceedings by issuing a reasoned opinion. March 13, 2024: Decision to refer to the CJEU. The Commission announces via press release its decision to refer Cyprus to the CJEU, judging compliance efforts inadequate. March 28, 2024: Renewed Audit Office intervention. The Audit Office again criticises the delay by competent authorities, revealing that between 2021 and 2024 only 10 orders had been prepared, five of which the Commission judged completely inadequate. February 18, 2026: Official referral to the CJEU. The Commission’s case against Cyprus (Case C-111/26) is formally filed with the CJEU, seeking a ruling for breach of Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC. July 16, 2026: CJEU ruling on Ireland. The CJEU issues a landmark ruling in Case C-27/25, finding that no valid assessment of a project or plan’s impact on a Natura 2000 area can be carried out unless clear, specific conservation objectives have first been established. Subscribe to our Newsletter Latest News DISY leadership manages internal shock over Averof Neofytou’s remarks UN will not finish Cyprus convergences document before leaders’ meeting Cameroonian footballer, key witness in forgery case, faces deportation Five delivery riders hurt in Paphos brawl over food order payment Fire outside Evrychou home damages three vehicles Fire breaks out at Deryneia barber shop Five-month-old baby dies in Limassol Follow en.philenews on Google News and be the first to know all the news about Cyprus and the world.