IP/07/1524
Brussels, 17 October 2007
Ireland: Commission to brin=
environmental impact assessment case to the European Cour= of
Justice
The European Commission =as
decided to refer Ireland to the European Court of Justice=20
(ECJ) in a case concerning European Community (EC) legisl=tion
on environmental impact assessments. The case concerns =
provisions of Irish legislation governing the approval of=20
incinerators and other large industrial projects and
provisions governing the removal of important archaeologi=al
sites. The Commission is happy to announce that steps tak=n by
the Irish authorities have brought the Commission to clos= a
separate case concerning nitrates. The Commission also =
welcomes a co-operation document agreed between Ireland a=d
the United Kingdom on combating illegal waste
exports.
EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said: "I am=20
disappointed that Ireland has not accepted the Commission=view
that improvements are needed in its legislation on impact=20
assessments in order to better safeguard, and give the pu=lic
more say in decisions affecting, its rich archaeological=20
heritage, and to better guarantee that industrial project=
will be comprehensively assessed."
Court referral on Irish environmental impact assess=ent
rules
The Commission is referring Ireland to the ECJ over =
shortcomings in Irish legislation used to implement the=20
Environmental Impact Assessment Directive[1]. Under the directive, Membe=
States are obliged to carry out environmental impact
assessments (EIA) before certain types of public and priv=te
projects believed to have a significant impact on the
environment are authorised. The Commission's case is divi=ed
into two parts.
First, the Commission considers Ireland's approach to=20
decisions involving the removal of historic structures an=
archaeological monuments to be in contravention of the =
directive. The directive expressly mentions effects on =
archaeological heritage and the Commission is concerned t=at
Ireland interprets the directive as not applying to certa=n
separate decisions involving the removal of structures an=
monuments in order to facilitate infrastructure and other=20
project types covered by the directive. In a final warnin=
sent to Ireland in June 2007, the Commission mentioned by=way
of example the lack of an assessment carried out for a 20=7
decision to remove a national monument situated at Lismul=in
in the path of the M3 motorway project near Tara in Count=
Meath. Because the pre-historic site was only identified =n
2007, its significance could not be taken into account in=a
2003 assessment of the motorway project.In response, Irel=nd
argues that the ministerial direction in relation to the=20
excavation and preservation by record of the national mon=ment
in question does not constitute an element of the develop=ent
consent for the M3 under the provisions of the
Directive.=/P>
Secondly, the Commission considers that, because of =
weaknesses in Irish legislation splitting decision-making=20
between Irish planning authorities and Ireland's Environm=ntal
Protection Agency, there are risks that outcomes required=by
the directive will not always be achieved. When decisions=are
being taken on proposed incinerators and other industrial=20
projects, for example, Irish rules do not guarantee that=20
inter-actions such as those between pollution-control mea=ures
and the landscape will be adequately assessed and taken i=to
account. In its response to the Commission's June 2007 fi=al
written warning Ireland strongly defends its project appr=val
procedure.
Closure of case on the Nitrates Directive
The adoption of higher national sanctions this summer =as
allowed the Commission to close its case against Ireland =or
breaching the Nitrates Directive[2]. In March 2004 Ireland was=20
condemned by the ECJ for not putting in place an action=20
programme to reduce nitrate pollution from agricultural=20
run-off[3]. Since then Ireland has ado=ted
new legislation to give effect to an action programme. Th=s
involves requirements to safely store slurries, prohibit=20
land-spreading during the winter and avoid excessive use =f
fertilizers.
Co-operation document on illegal waste
exports<=P>
The Commission welcomes the adoption of a co-operation=20
document aimed at strengthening contacts between Ireland =nd
the United Kingdom to combat illegal waste exports. In 20=4,
the Commission contacted both Member States after becomin=
aware of significant illegal waste exports from Ireland t=
Northern Ireland. Following this, both States worked toge=her
to deal with the problem and have agreed on a co-operatio=
document.
Legal Process
Article 226 of the Treaty gives the Commission powers =o
take legal action against a Member State that is not
respecting its obligations.
If the Commission considers that there may be an
infringement of EU law that warrants the opening of an =
infringement procedure, it addresses a "Letter of Formal=20
Notice" (first written warning) to the Member State conce=ned,
requesting it to submit its observations by a specified d=te,
usually two months.
In the light of the reply or absence of a reply from t=e
Member State concerned, the Commission may decide to addr=ss a
"Reasoned Opinion" (final written warning) to the Member=20
State. This clearly and definitively sets out the reasons=why
it considers there to have been an infringement of EU law= and
calls upon the Member State to comply within a specified=20
period, usually two months.
If the Member State fails to comply with the Reasoned=20
Opinion, the Commission may decide to bring the case befo=e
the Court of Justice. Where the Court of Justice finds th=t
the Treaty has been infringed, the offending Member State=is
required to take the measures necessary to conform.
Article 228 of the Treaty gives the Commission power t= act
against a Member State that does not comply with a previo=s
judgement of the European Court of Justice. The article a=so
allows the Commission to ask the Court to impose a financ=al
penalty on the Member State concerned. For
rulings by the European Court of Justice see:
h=tp://curia.eu.int/en/content/juris/index.htm
[1] Directive 85/337/EEC on the=20
assessment of the effects of certain public and private=20
projects on the environment
[2] Directive 91/676/EEC concern=ng the
protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates=from
agricultural sources
[3] Case C-396/01, Commission=v
Ireland |