1.

Is the proper application of Articles 9 and 10 of Directive 92/43/EEC (1) prevented by a provision of national law (Article 3(4a) of Decree No 357/97 of the President of the Republic) under which power is conferred on the Regions and the Autonomous Provinces to propose, of their own motion, a review of the [Sites of Community Importance, ‘SCIs’], but no obligation is placed on them to exercise that power in response to a reasoned request to that effect made by private owners of land falling within SCIs, even where those private individuals argue that the land has suffered environmental degradation?

2.

Is the proper application of Articles 9 and 10 of Directive 92/43/EEC prevented by a provision of national law (Article 3(4a) of Decree No 357/97 of the President of the Republic) under which power is conferred on the Regions and the Autonomous Provinces to propose, of their own motion, a review of the SCIs, through a periodic assessment, but the frequency with which that review must be conducted (every two or three years, for example) is not specified and there is no obligation for notice to be given of the periodic review by the Regions and Autonomous Provinces by means of some form of general advertising campaign designed to enable stakeholders to submit comments or proposals?

3.

Is the proper application of Articles 9 and 10 of Directive 92/43/EEC prevented by a provision of national law (Article 3(4a) of Decree No 357/97 of the President of the Republic) under which a power of initiative is conferred on the Regions and Autonomous Provinces in relation to the review of the SCIs, but no power of initiative is also conferred on the State, even to act in lieu of the Regions or Autonomous Provinces in the event that they fail to act?

4.

Is the proper application of Articles 9 and 10 of Directive 92/43/EEC prevented by a provision of national law (Article 3(4a) of Decree No 357/97 of the President of the Republic) under which power is conferred on the Regions and Autonomous Provinces to propose, of their own motion, a review of the SCIs, where that power is entirely discretionary and not mandatory, even where pollution or environmental degradation has taken place and this has been formally confirmed?

1.

Does Community law and, in particular, Directive 92/43/EEC preclude legislation of a Member State under which it is necessary to initiate the declassification procedure, rather than to adopt further monitoring and protection measures, on the basis of a report from a private party concerning the degree of degradation of the site?

2.

Does Community law and, in particular, Directive 92/43/EEC preclude legislation of a Member State under which the declassification procedure must be initiated in relation to a site covered by the Natura 2000 network in order to protect exclusively private interests of a commercial nature?

3.

Does Community law and, in particular, Directive 92/43/EEC preclude legislation of a Member State under which, in the context of infrastructure projects in the general, social and economic interest — acknowledged also by the European Union — which may be detrimental to a natural habitat recognised in accordance with that directive, it is necessary to initiate a procedure for the declassification of the site rather than to adopt countervailing measures to ensure the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network?

4.

Does Community law and, in particular, Directive 92/43/EEC preclude legislation of a Member State under which, as regards natural habitats, importance is attributed to the commercial interests of individual owners, enabling them to obtain from the national court a decision requiring the boundaries of the site to be re-drawn?

5.

Does Community law and, in particular, Directive 92/43/EEC preclude legislation of a Member State under which provision is made for a site to be declassified where it has suffered degradation which is anthropogenic and not natural in origin?