|
The European Commission is sending a final warning to Ireland
over four cases where it has failed to comply with European
Court of Justice rulings concerning illegal development and
developments that may harm the natural and man-made heritage
of the countryside, access to the Irish courts and protection
of marine mammals.
If the necessary steps are not taken,
the Commission could refer the cases back to the Court and
ask for fines to be imposed.
Following action by the Irish authorities,
the Commission is also closing two longstanding cases on drinking
water supplies and shellfish growing areas, shelving earlier
proposed fines for the latter.
EU Environment
Commissioner Janez Potocnik said
- "I am pleased to see that Ireland
has taken the necessary measures to enable the Commission
to close two long-running cases. I would now urge the Irish
authorities to renew their efforts to satisfy other important
court rulings."
Final
warning in two environmental
impact assessment cases
The first case refers to a
Court ruling in July 2008 concerning
Ireland's failure to ensure that work on projects that might
require an environmental impact assessment (EIA) does not
start before the necessary checks or studies are carried out.
The
Court found that Ireland's use of a system of retention permission
to retrospectively approve such work was contrary to the EIA
Directive. The Court also found that there had been a failure
to undertake a proper prior impact assessment of a wind farm
at Derrybrien, Co Galway, which caused a major peat slide.
No legislation has been adopted to address the issue of retrospective
permission identified in the judgment.
In
the Derrybrien case, the Irish authorities agreed to undertake
an EIA to look in detail at further potential issues. However,
to-date, no EIA has been carried out due to delays in the
proposed new legislation.
The second
case relates to a Court ruling in November 2008, which
found that the thresholds for undertaking an environmental
impact assessment for certain types of projects - including
the restructuring of rural landholdings and water management
projects for irrigation or land drainage - were too high.
This led to loss of wetlands and other habitats and destruction
of archaeological remains without any EIAs ever being required.
No legislation has been adopted to address the issue.
Access to justice
In July 2009, the Court ruled that
Ireland had failed to transpose into national law changes
to the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, including
provisions on public participation in the decision-making
process and access to justice.
The Court
found that Irish legislation failed to explicitly require
that information on review procedures should be made available
to the public and that access to the Irish courts should not
be prohibitively expensive for
citizens and NGOs. Ireland set
out several measures it proposed to take to meet these shortcomings.
However, the Commission is not aware that any of these have
been put in place.
Nature
case
In January 2007, the Court
ruled that Ireland had failed to take the necessary steps
to adequately safeguard certain strictly protected species
- including marine mammals (whales,
dolphins and porpoises) and bats. These species represent
some of Ireland's most important indigenous wildlife.
Ireland
agreed to put in place plans to monitor and protect these
species - but, although plans are in place for bat species,
those for marine mammals have yet to be satisfactorily concluded.
In all four
cases, the Commission is sending Ireland a first written warning
under Article 260 of the Treaty
on the Functioning of the European Union.
If Ireland does not take the necessary steps, the Commission
could refer the cases back to the Court, with the possibility
of fines.
Closure of two long-running
cases
The Commission is closing two longstanding
cases following action by the Irish authorities.
In November
2002, the Court found that there were chronic problems of
microbiological contamination of hundreds of Irish private
and public water supplies, despite EU rules stipulating that
drinking water should be kept bacteria-free.
Ireland adopted
an array of measures in response - tightening legislation
and increasing enforcement powers. Several hundred million
euros were invested in upgrading drinking water supplies and
installing chlorine monitors and alarms. The Commission is
now closing the case. Issues of source protection from deficient
septic tanks are being addressed separately.
The second
case concerns measures needed to ensure quality standards
for shellfish waters on the Irish coast, following a judgment
from the Court in June 2007. In October 2009, the Commission
proposed to refer this case back to Court, with the imposition
of fines if the Irish authorities did not comply with the
judgment within three months (see IP/09/1647).
The Irish
authorities subsequently took the necessary measures, designating
the remaining shellfish water site at Rostellan, Cork and
establishing pollution reduction programmes for all designated
areas. As a result, the Commission is now closing the case.
Legal Process
The Commission has the power to take legal action against
a Member State that is not respecting its obligations under
Community law - under Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning
of the European Union.
The infringement procedure begins
with a first written warning ('Letter of Formal Notice')
to the Member State concerned, which must be answered within
two months. If the Commission is not satisfied with the reply,
this first letter may be followed by a final written warning
('Reasoned Opinion') clearly explaining the infringement
and calling on the Member State to comply within a specified
period - usually two months.
A failure to act on the final
written warning can result in a summons to the Court of Justice.
If the Court rules against the Member State, it must then
take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment.
If, despite the ruling, a Member
State still fails to act, a further round of the infringement
process begins under Article 260 of the Treaty - this time
with only one written warning. This second round can ultimately
result in financial penalties for the Member State concerned.
For current statistics on infringements
in general - Click
Here
Cases -
- EIA case 2000/4384
- EIA case 2000/5196
- Nature case 2001/4917
- Access to justice case 2005/0633
- Water case 1997/4409
- Shellfish 2002/5076
|
