Peat extraction has a long tradition in Ireland; however, it leads to the loss of this unique ecosystem, primarily due to the necessary drainage of the bogs and the associated release of carbon dioxide. The objectives of the Habitats Directive, to which all member states have committed, are at risk—and now the European Court of Justice is weighing in.
The current infringement proceedings between the European Commission and Ireland center on the allegation that Ireland has failed to take sufficient measures to prevent peat extraction in Natura 2000 sites, has breached its obligation to restore degraded areas, and has inadequately implemented and enforced regulations regarding the assessment of the impacts of plans and projects on Natura 2000 sites.
Regarding the prohibition on deterioration, Advocate General Kokott notes at the outset that Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive does not impose an obligation to achieve a specific result and that not every instance of deterioration in Natura 2000 sites must be prevented. Furthermore, only likely and foreseeable adverse effects need to be addressed. In the case of the peatlands in Ireland, however, the destruction caused by peat extraction was not a surprising development, and reports show that while peat extraction in Natura 2000 sites has been reduced, it has not yet been halted. The infringement was therefore foreseeable, and according to Advocate General Kokott, the protective measures taken were insufficient.
With regard to the obligation to restore, the Opinion refers to the case law on environmental impact assessments (EIA), according to which Member States are obligated to remedy all damage caused by the failure to conduct an EIA. According to Kokott, the same must apply in the case of damage to protected habitats in Natura 2000 sites where a Member State has taken insufficient protective measures. Ireland argues that it is aware of this obligation and has taken sufficient restoration measures. However, Advocate General Kokott considers these measures to be insufficient and finds that there has been a breach of the obligation to restore.
Another key issue is the question of when the protection of peatland habitats became mandatory for Ireland: from the date by which Ireland was required to propose potential Natura 2000 sites—that is, June 10, 1995—or only from the date of the actual proposal for the respective site. The Opinion refers to earlier rulings by the Court of Justice of the European Union, in which it extended the obligation to protect Natura 2000 sites to those areas that, although not yet proposed, undoubtedly meet the ecological criteria under Article 4(1) of the Habitats Directive. Since peatlands are clearly recognizable and develop over a long period of time, Ireland should have protected the sites proposed between 1996 and 2016 as early as June 10, 1995, according to Advocate General Kokott.
Regarding the final claim in the action—namely, the inadequate implementation and enforcement of the project authorization system under Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive—the Opinion states the following: Although Ireland has, in principle, classified peat extraction as an activity subject to authorization, peat extraction for private use was exempted from this requirement. According to Advocate General Kokott, this constitutes a violation of the Directive, as does the fact that the existing permit requirement was communicated only to a limited group of individuals, even though it is well known that peat is also extracted by others. Consequently, the implementation and enforcement of the project assessment provisions are inadequate.
The final decision of the European Court of Justice remains to be seen.
25.06.2026, Rs C-196/25, Kommission/ Irland (Habitats de tourbières) (Ga Kokott)