Ierse wetgeving voldoet op acht punten niet aan EU-milieurichtlijnen (en)

The European Commission has decided to pursue infringement proceedings against Ireland in eight cases involving breaches of EU environment law. The Commission's action in these cases is aimed at reducing agricultural and sewage-related water pollution, protecting citizens from noxious sewage odours, ensuring safe waste disposal, ensuring that significant projects are properly environmentally assessed, restoring an important nature site and getting Ireland to participate more fully in wider efforts to curb air pollution and protect the Earth's ozone layer. The Commission has a duty to ensure that each Member State lives up to its commitments to safeguard the environment and human health.

Environment Commissioner Stavrosby Dimas said: "I welcome Ireland's decision taken in 2003 to apply throughout its territory an action programme to reduce water pollution by nitrates from farming. However, the programme needs serious strengthening in key areas if it is to contribute successfully to securing clean water for Irish citizens and to satisfying the March 2004 ruling of the Court of Justice."

First warning for failure to comply with Court ruling on nitrates

On 11 March 2004, Ireland was condemned by the Court of Justice for failing to designate zones vulnerable to nitrate pollution and to adopt a nitrate action programme under the 1991 directive on the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agriculture^[1] (Case C-396/01). The Nitrates Directive aims to reduce surface and groundwater pollution caused by nitrates coming from chemical fertilizers and animal manures. Excess nitrate can be washed off the soil by rain and run off into rivers and other water bodies which then become over-rich in nutrients, causing ecological harm. The Commission welcomes Ireland's 2003 decision to address the issue of nitrate-vulnerable zones by treating its whole territory as nitrate-vulnerable. However, the nitrate action programme submitted by Ireland in October 2004 is not compliant with the directive. In particular, proposed mandatory liquid manure storage periods and prohibited periods for land-spreading are too short. Proposals made by the Irish authorities themselves in a public consultation in December 2003 have been seriously weakened. For example, the proposed minimum storage period in County Donegal has dropped from 24 to 16 weeks. The periods concerned need to be long enough to ensure that slurries are not put out on land when plants are not growing and there is a high risk of nitrate run-off into water bodies. Nevertheless, the December 2003 draft programme contained positive elements on which a compliant programme might have been built although it also contained some shortcomings with regard for instance to aspects of manure storage and prohibited periods for manure application.

The Commission has sent Ireland a first warning letter asking it to comply with the Court judgment. Member States can face substantial fines if they do not comply with Court judgments.

Final warnings

In seven cases, the Commission has sent Ireland final written warnings, known as "Reasoned Opinions," aimed at securing compliance with EU environmental law. In the absence of satisfactory responses, the Commission may later decide to refer these cases to the Court:

;
• The first case concerns delays in upgrading waste-water treatment for the towns of Bray, Shanganagh, Howth, Letterkenny, Sligo and Tramore. Under the EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive^[2], these towns should have been provided with `secondary'-level (ie, usually biological) waste water treatment by 31 December 2000 at the latest. Implementation of this key directive contributes to the achievement of other EU water quality objectives, such as clean bathing water.
;
• The second case relates to the lack of satisfactory rules in Ireland for preventing malodours from urban waste-water treatment plants in accordance with the EU Framework Directive on Waste^[3]. This directive defines waste and lays down basic requirements for how Member States are to deal with it. There have been complaints about malodours from certain Irish waste-water treatment plants, including the largest one in Dublin. The Irish government promised legislation to better regulate the management of such plants but this has not yet materialised. This case also addresses the lack of satisfactory rules to ensure that domestic waste-water treatment systems do not harm the environment. In Ireland, such systems make a significant contribution to bacteriological contamination of drinking water. Community and Irish taxpayers have been making considerable investments in disinfection of polluted drinking water sources, but more needs to be done to protect these sources from becoming polluted in the first place.
;
• The third case concerns the disposal of construction waste ;from the site of the former Tynagh Mines in County Galway, which is contaminated with heavy metals, including zinc, arsenic, cadmium and lead. In 2002, approval was given for a new metal-finishing plant on the site. Construction involved movement and disposal on site of contaminated excavation material. Ireland has not demonstrated that this disposal was made subject to a waste permit under the EU Framework Directive on Waste.^[4] Ireland has since submitted arguments that a waste permit was unnecessary and these are being examined.
;
• The fourth case relates to a failure to remove waste from and to restore wetlands ;in the Boyne Estuary, which is a special protection area (SPA) designated under the Wild Birds Directive^[5] and protected under the Habitats Directive^[6]. In 1999, a waste licence was given for use of 18 hectares of mudflat at Stagrennan Polder within the SPA for temporary storage of dredging spoil generated by deepening of the Boyne Estuary. The waste was to have been removed by January 2004 and the site restored. However, despite the expiry of the licence, significant quantities of waste remain on the site and restoration has not yet taken place.

As a result, wild birds hosted by the Estuary continue to be deprived of part of their habitat.

;
• The fifth case concerns a failure to submit reports on the use of certain ozone-depleting substances, such as the pesticide methyl bromide on traded crops, halons in fire-fighting equipment in special areas, for instance aircraft and military applications, and HCFCs replacing halons as the fire-fighting agent in existing fire protection systems. The substances mentioned damage the ozone layer that shields the earth from harmful solar rays. For the continued efforts to protect the ozone layer it is very important that Member States report on progress made in phasing out ozone-depleting substances under the EU Ozone Regulation^[7]and show active commitment to prevent further depletion. In a separate case, on 26 October 2004 Ireland was condemned by the European Court of Justice for failing to provide other information under this Regulation (Case C-406/03).
;
• The sixth case concerns a failure by Ireland to submit a finalised plan to meet national emission limits for certain air pollutants (sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, volatile organic compounds and ammonia). In 2001, the EU adopted a directive^[8] which aims to reduce air pollution by setting national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants that must be met by the Member States by 2010. The National Emissions Ceilings Directive also requires Member States to report to the Commission the measures that they have taken to meet the directive's requirements. In particular, by 31 December 2002, they must inform the Commission of their plans for meeting the emission ceilings, which must be drawn up by 1 October 2002. Ireland referred to a draft plan in 2003 but the finalised plan has not been submitted.
;
• The seventh case relates to Ireland's implementation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive^[9]. This Directive aims at environmentally assessing certain projects before they are undertaken in order to avoid or minimise environmental harm and nuisances. It also provides for public consultation. In October 2003, a major landslide involving more than a half million cubic metres of peat took place over a distance of two kilometres at Derrybrien, County Galway, damaging property and killing an estimated 50,000 fish. The landslide was caused by work on Ireland's largest wind-farm project. Despite the environmental disaster and the failure to properly assess in advance the risks that the project presented as a result of soil instability, the Irish authorities did not given any commitment to carrying out a fresh environmental impact assessment (EIA), including consultation of the public concerned, before resumption of work at Derrybrien. This case also addresses a wider problem, namely that, as a result of Irish legislation and enforcement practice concerning retention of illegal developments, certain projects, such as quarrying and pig-rearing, are being carried out or intensified before an EIA is undertaken or considered. The public and the environment and thereby potentially exposed to damage and nuisances.

Legal Process

Article 226 of the Treaty gives the Commission powers to 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 Notice" (first written warning) to the Member State concerned, requesting it to submit its observations by a specified date, usually two months.

In the light of the reply or absence of a reply from the Member State concerned, the Commission may decide to address a "Reasoned Opinion" (final written warning) to the Member 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 period, normally two months.

If the Member State fails to comply with the Reasoned Opinion, the Commission may decide to bring the case before the European Court of Justice. Where the Court of Justice finds that 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 to act against a Member State that does not comply with a previous judgement of the European Court of Justice, again by issuing a first written warning ("Letter of Formal Notice") and then a second and final written warning ("Reasoned Opinion"). The article then allows the Commission to ask the Court to impose a financial penalty on the Member State concerned.

For current statistics on infringements in general see:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/droit_com/index_en.htm

For rulings by the European Court of Justice see

http://curia.eu.int/en/content/juris/index.htm

^[1] Directive 91/676/EEC

^[2] Directive 91/271/EEC

^[3] Directive 75/442/EEC as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC

^[4] Directive 75/442/EEC as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC

^[5] Directive 79/409/EEC

^[6] Directive 92/43/EEC

^[7] Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer

^[8] Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emissions ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants

^[9] Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC