Detlef Czybulka, Gerold Janssen

Zeitschrift für Europäisches Umwelt- und Planungsrecht, Jahrgang 21 (2023), Ausgabe 2, Seite 161 - 185

The second generation of spatial plans for the German exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the North Sea and Baltic Sea were established in 2021. Because marine nature conservation was only insufficiently taken into account in the previous plan and capacities and sites for offshore wind energy were to be expanded due to the desired transformation of the German economy, the plan had to be fundamentally rewritten using the ecosystem approach prescribed by European Union law. This has been achieved in rudimentary form at best, as shown by the analysis of the provisions of the spatial plan, particularly in the area of marine nature conservation. The science-based ecosystem approach and the precautionary principle were misunderstood. There is a lack of connectivity, open spaces and no-take areas for marine nature, which is under pressure from multiple uses in the small German EEZ. The marine protected areas (MPAs) are sufficient in terms of area, but hardly more than paper parks in terms of quality.

Detlef Czybulka

Zeitschrift für Europäisches Umwelt- und Planungsrecht, Jahrgang 19 (2021), Ausgabe 1, Seite 2 - 21

After the agricultural landscape, ecological degradation has also reached the forest in Europe. How the biodiversity of the forest is to be legally secured is the focus of the 14th German Nature Conservation Law Day. Based on the CBD, the fundamental state objective provision of Art. 20a of the German Constitution (GG) and on EU legal requirements, the paper explores the legislator's scope for preserving and restoring biodiversity. Economic and ethical aspects are included. The focus is on the ecological liability of all owners of natural goods. It becomes apparent that the legislator's escape from concretizing the basic obligations of the owners of natural goods is partly responsible for the current biodiversity crisis, also in the forests. Remedial action is needed.

Detlef Czybulka, Kurt Faßbender

Zeitschrift für Europäisches Umwelt- und Planungsrecht, Jahrgang 19 (2021), Ausgabe 1, Seite 1 - 1

Detlef Czybulka, Klaus Ferdinand Gärditz

Zeitschrift für Europäisches Umwelt- und Planungsrecht, Jahrgang 18 (2020), Ausgabe 1, Seite 1 - 1

Detlef Czybulka

Zeitschrift für Europäisches Umwelt- und Planungsrecht, Jahrgang 18 (2020), Ausgabe 2, Seite 123 - 123

Detlef Czybulka

Zeitschrift für Europäisches Umwelt- und Planungsrecht, Jahrgang 17 (2019), Ausgabe 2, Seite 261 - 267

The European Union (EU) is neither a member of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) nor a State party to the MARPOL Convention. In the past, the compatibility of certain EU regulations concerning the reduction of exhaust emissions of (also foreign) vessels navigating in the ports, the territorial seas or the exclusive economic zones of the Member States with Annex VI of the MARPOL Convention was subject to debate. This article argues that the relevant decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union were not only formally correct but also substantially justified: Inadequate rules and standards established by the IMO cannot be held to be “generally accepted” in terms of Art. 211 (5) LOSC when they do not implement the guiding idea of Part XII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, namely to minimize pollution to the fullest possible extent in all maritime zones as well as the airspace above them.

Detlef Czybulka

Zeitschrift für Europäisches Umwelt- und Planungsrecht, Jahrgang 14 (2016), Ausgabe 4, Seite 276 - 289

Conservation of Biodiversity in Germany is not a plain success story, although the NATURA 2000 network exists now in form of numerous listed Sites of Community Interest. The formal designation of and the necessary conservation measures for the sites are still lacking in more than a half of the SCIs. The transposition and implementation of European Legislation, especially of the Habitats Directive has been very reluctant and provokes now a new infringement procedure by the European Commission towards Germany. Especially the multifunctional instrument of „management plans“ for the sites (Art. 6 para. 1 Habitats Directive) is not yet arrived properly in German legislation and doctrine. The article analyses the function and legal status of management plans, shows the „misunderstandings“ of the so called German „1:1“-way of implementation and offers a solution to the legislator for a correct and efficient implementation of Art. 6 para. 1 Habitats Directive so that this excellent instrument of nature conservation can be used by the administration in a due manner.

Detlef Czybulka

Zeitschrift für Europäisches Umwelt- und Planungsrecht, Jahrgang 14 (2016), Ausgabe 1, Seite 58 - 73

Detlef Czybulka

Zeitschrift für Europäisches Umwelt- und Planungsrecht, Jahrgang 10 (2012), Ausgabe 5, Seite 215 - 215

Dieses Heft der EurUP hat im Aufsatzteil mit zwei Beiträgen einen Schwerpunkt in raumordnerischen Fragestellungen, freilich unter jeweils anderem Blickwinkel. Spannowsky untersucht im Titelaufsatz angesichts der wegen der Raumordnungspläne mehrerer Bundesländer gegen Deutschland eingeleiteten Vertragsverletzungsverfahren die prinzipielle Fragestellung, ob planerische Festlegungen, die sich im Ergebnis auf die Ansiedlung großflächiger Einzelhandelsbetriebe

Detlef Czybulka

Zeitschrift für Europäisches Umwelt- und Planungsrecht, Jahrgang 10 (2012), Ausgabe 5, Seite 229 - 238

In Germany the general protection of nature and landscape outside protected areas is warranted since 1976 by an ubiquitous instrument which obliges any intervening party, even the state, firstly to avoid adverse effects and, secondly, in case of unavoidableness, to compensate for any (unavoidable) adverse effects by means of nature conservation or landscape management measures (compensation measures) or to substitute them in some other way in the r