Maritime Spatial Planning: The European Court's decision exposes Greece's unjustified negligence

Posted on March, 07 2025

The decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union, published a few days ago, condemns our country for the lack of maritime spatial planning (MSP).

Greece had been referred to the court by the European Commission as it should have adopted, as early as March 2021, the necessary spatial plans, as required by the MSP Directive (2014/89/EU). Four years after this milestone, and despite the compliance check (infringement procedure) that the Commission has been conducting since December 2021, our country continues to show almost zero progress.

THE COUNTRY'S MOST PRECIOUS RESOURCE AS A MILESTONE OF POLITICAL NEGLIGENCE

The text of the decision bluntly reveals the flawed approach that has been "consistently" demonstrated for the MSP. The arguments put forward by Greece in defense of the delays were, first, the complexity of the legal framework, the geographical specificities, the multi-island nature, and the geopolitical conditions in the Eastern Mediterranean. It then focused more extensively on the fact that, due to the negotiations with Egypt on the designation of an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), it was not possible to finalize the geographical scope of the maritime planning. Therefore, it was invoked that there was an objective inability and lack of sufficient time that justify the delay in the adoption of spatial plans (which, however, the Greek side estimates that will be completed by May 2026).

These arguments were rejected in their entirety by the court, resoundingly highlighting not only the weak legal approach of the Greek authorities, but above all the substantial and completely unjustified negligence on maritime spatial planning issues, which in turn reveals a blatant lack of political will.

The reasoning of the decision, which also makes references to the Commission's arguments in the infringement procedure, includes the following key points:

Member States may not invoke internal difficulties to justify non-compliance with obligations arising from EU law.
Geographical characteristics may not be invoked to justify non-compliance with obligations arising from the Directive.
The negotiations relating to the EEZ do not constitute force majeure that can justify non-compliance, nor have they contributed to a justified insufficiency of time.
The preparation of spatial plans cannot depend on the delimitation of the EEZ due to both the different subject matter and the possibility of later updating the plans.
Compliance with the obligations arising from EU law cannot depend on the cooperation of a third country.

MARITIME SPATIAL PLANNING IS A NECESSITY

Spatial planning at sea is necessary for many reasons: spatial and temporal division of the various uses (fishing, tourism, aquaculture, RES, etc.), protection of marine ecosystems against threats such as overfishing or pollution, rational organization of competing activities in the "dense" coastal area. The sustainability of many activities of high socio-economic value is directly intertwined with the “common resource” of our seas and inextricably linked to the marine ecosystems themselves. This is why the management of this important system cannot be done in a fragmented and ad hoc manner. On the contrary, a must-have integrated approach is at the core of the MSP. It is therefore obvious that the political misrecognition of the MSP is completely disproportionate to the value of the marine space from an environmental, economic and social point of view.

THE PROBLEM IS EVEN BIGGER

The magnitude of the problem is even greater when considering the diverse and substantial changes that need to be made so that Greece acquires effective maritime spatial planning. As we pointed out a few months earlier, when we once again noted the dangerously zero progress that had been made:

The MSP needs to be properly integrated into the national spatial planning system, so that maritime spatial planning is not misguided by the fragmentary provisions of overarching spatial planning tools (dealing with e.g. aquaculture, RES or offshore wind).
A series of MSP parameters need to be clarified and strengthened in our legal framework in compliance with EU requirements, in particular public participation in planning, an ecosystem-based and integrated approach, and effective management of the interaction between marine and coastal areas.

Although more than ten years have passed since the adoption of the MSP Directive and four years since our country should have adopted spatial plans, the procurement process for developing the relevant studies has not even started. All this negligence is yet another glaring example of how lame the answer given by Greece during the infringement procedure is that the plans will be prepared and adopted within the next 14 months - an impossible fact given how demanding the relevant procedures are. At the same time, we are still missing the adoption of the national maritime spatial strategy, another important tool provided for in our national legislation; the strategy was prepared and presented (yet not disseminated) in its final form two years ago, while its initial draft was highly problematic.

The European Court of Justice’s condemning decision is the natural -and shameful- consequence of years of cross-party and unjustified negligence. As long as maritime spatial planning does not progress, Greek seas will continue to be vulnerable vis-à-vis existing and newer threats, or be subject to fragmented policies that harm not only the environment but also our economy per se.

We hope that the recent ruling sets a milestone, even at this late point, for the necessary political initiatives to be undertaken, so that our country’s most valuable resource may enjoy the efficient planning and management that corresponds to its importance.