Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

Criminal Proceedings against Xavier Tridon

Type de cour
Cour internationale
Date
Oct 23, 2001
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
European Court of Justice
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Espèces sauvages et écosystèmes
Résumé
Mr. Tridon operates a centre for the artificial incubation of parrot eggs in Champagnier. He is accused in the main proceedings of having transferred for consideration captive born and bred specimens of species of macaw whose use for commercial purposes is prohibited throughout national territory by the Guyane decree. Between November 1995 and November 1997 Mr. Tridon allegedly sold by way of trade to partners or customers captive born and bred macaw occuring in the overseas département of Guyane (France). As a defence to the prosecution brought against him, Mr. Tridon submits that the provisions of the Code rural, in particular Article L.211-1 thereof, and the Guyane decree are incompatible both with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Speciesof Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), and Articles 28 and 30 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), as well as EEC Regulation No 3626/82 and EC Regulation No 338/97, which were adopted successively for the application of CITES in the Community. The Tribunal de grande instance de Grenoble referred the following questions to the European Court of Justice (ECJ, "The Court"): 1. Before 1 June 1997, must provisions of CITES, in particular Articles VII and XIV, EEC Regulation No 3626/82, in particular Articles 6 and 15, and Articles 28 and 30 of the TEU be interpreted as allowing a Member State take or maintain domestic measures prohibiting at any time and in the whole territory of that State any commercial use of captive born and bred specimens of wild species occurring in the wild in all or part of the territory of that State? 2. After 1 June 1997, must provisions of CITES, in partuclar Articles VII and XIV, EC Regulation No 338/97, and Articles 28 and 30 of the TFEU be interpreted as allowing a Member States to take or maintain domestic measures prohibiting at any time and in the whole territory of that State any commercial use of captive born and bred specimens of wild species occurring in the wild in all or part of the territory of that State? The Court ruled: As regards species covered by Annex A to EC Regulation No 338/97 on their protection and regulating trade therein, that regulation must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which lays down a general prohibition in its territory. Also, as regards species covered by Annex B to this regulation, that regulation does not prohibit the commercial use of specimens of those species, provided that the conditions laid down in Article 8(5) of that regulation are met. As regards species covered by Appendix II to CITES, EEC Regulation No 3626/82 does not prohibit the commercial use of specimens of those species. Also, as regards species covered by Appendix I, this regulation must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which lays down a general prohibition on its territory.
Texte intégral
EU-2.pdf
Site web
www.unodc.org