1
CASE STUDY - NATURE PROTECTION
National park Šumava is situated in the South-Western part of Bohemia. The National Park is
a unique scientific laboratory,enabling the monitoring of natural processes at a level which is
unfeasible elsewhere. With its 68 064 ha Šumava National Park is the largest national park in
the Czech Republic. Since the end of 1963, its territorry has been declared as „Protected
landscape area of Šumava(PLA)“ (which covers 168,654 hectares) with the aim to conserve
and protect the nature and the unique character of the landscape. Lately (20. 3. 1991) the
National Park has been established by the CR Government Regulation No. 163/1991 Coll. on
the territorry of the PLA. Šumava National Park includes the majority of the precious nature
reserves in Šumava that require strong protection. For example, these are the remains of the
virgin mountain forests, glacial lakes and upland moors.
Šumava gained the status of the "Biosphere Reserve" Since 1990, Šumava has been entered
into the UNESCO list in Paris, with the borders usually including the former Šumava PLA, and
the central area of Šumava National Park.
"Šumava peat-bogs" are the most typical phenomenon of nature conservation in Šumava,
and have been listed since 1990 as the so called Ramsar Convention for the protection of
internationally significant wetlands.
"Šumava" was included by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in
the "Red Book of ecosystems".
2
The Šumava landscape and its current condition is the result of the long time co-existence of
the people and nature. The aim of the protection of the Natura 2000 sites is not the
expulsion of the people from the countryside, but to support those activities that enable
both humans and nature to survive in the future.
There are defined watercourses on the Vltava river for water tourism. Use of other rivers
and streams in the National Park is not permitted in accordance with the Visiting Rules of
the National Park Šumava..
These visiting rules have a special form specified in the Administrative Code and this
document may be subject to a judicial review. At the same time, there are rules established
by the EIA Act (Act. No. 100/2001 Coll.) and by Nature Protection Act (114/1992 Coll.) and by
other general laws that must be complied with in the process of adoption of those visiting
rules. These laws are supposed to implement the EU legislation.
It is obvious that water tourism may signifficantly affect the protected parts of the nature
(especially some aquatic animal species). Without regards to this fact, Správa NP Šumava
(which is the competent state authority for the territorry of the national park) adopted the
Visiting Rules of the National Park of Šumava enaibling the water tourism in a specific parts
of the Vltava river without proper assessment of the its impact on the nature. This was
opposed by NGO Zdikovsko and by some of inhabitants living in the villages located close to
the river.
3
4
As can be seen above (1st pictue = SPAs /special protection areas/, 2nd picture= SAC
/special areas of conservation/), Sumava is protected as a part of Natura 2000 (under both
habitats and birds directives).
Study Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora
and Directive 2009/147, take into account the Aarhus Convention along with EU legislation
on EIA/SEA and answer questions:
1/ Explain the possibility to carry out water tourism in Šumava. Consider also the possibility
to carry out development activities (for example ski areals, industrial plants etc.)
2/ What duties established by the EU law for SPAs/SACs were breached by adoption of
Visiting rules? In this regard, what steps should have been taken?
3/ Could Mrs. Mala (who is living 5 km away from the river ) have a standing to bring an
action against Sprava NP (nature protection authority) before the administrative court
according to EU law/your national law? What claim she could try to enforce?
4/ Should the NGO Zdikovsko have the standing to bring the case before the court? Based on
what grounds?
5/ What is your opinion on possible direct effect of Art. 6 of the Habitats Directive?
Related case-law:
C- 247/85; C- 149/94
C- 226/08
C- 127/02
C – 256/98