Procedures tegen Duitsland en Ierland inzake rioolwater, milieu-effectrapportages en ozonlaag (en)
The European Commission has decided to take further legal action against Ireland over three cases where EU laws to protect the environment and human health are being breached. The cases involve aspects of the management of waste water, assessment of the environmental impact of projects and a repeated failure to provide information on measures to protect the ozone layer. The Commission is also pursuing legal action against Germany over its failure to assess the environmental impact of a power plant burning hazardous waste.
;Irish cases
;The Commission has decided to take Ireland to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) over two separate cases and to send it a written warning over a third case.
;- The first case relates to the lack of satisfactory rules in Ireland for preventing malodours ;from sewage treatment plants in accordance with the EU framework directive on waste[1]. This directive lays down basic requirements for how Member States are to deal with waste. The case arose from complaints about smells from certain Irish treatment plants, including the largest one in Dublin. Legislation promised by the Irish government to better regulate the management of such plants has not yet materialised.
;This case also addresses the lack of satisfactory rules and controls to ensure that the siting, design and maintenance of domestic waste-water treatment systems do not harm the environment. Many Irish water supplies are contaminated by bacteria, the principal causes of which are land-spreading of animal wastes and leaking domestic waste-water treatment systems. Ireland is attempting to deal with the public health risk by devoting Community and Irish taxpayer resources to investments in chlorination and other forms of disinfection of contaminated water sources. However, more needs to be done to protect these sources from becoming polluted in the first place.
;- The second case relates to Ireland's implementation of the EU directive on environmental impact assessment (EIA)[2]. This directive aims at assessing the environmental impact of certain projects before they are undertaken in order to avoid or minimise environmental harm and nuisances. EIA procedures provide for public consultation. The decision to go to Court relates to two issues.
;Firstly, Irish legislation and enforcement practice regarding illegal developments mean that certain projects, such as quarrying and pig-rearing, can be carried out or intensified before an EIA is undertaken or considered. As a result, the public and the environment may suffer nuisance and harm.
;Secondly, the Irish authorities have failed to give any commitment to carrying out a fresh EIA, including consultation of the public concerned, before work resumes on Ireland's largest wind-farm project at Derrybrien, County Galway. Initial work on this project led to an environmental disaster in October 2003, with a half million cubic metres of peat displaced in a landslide that damaged property and killed an estimated 50,000 fish. A prior EIA had failed to properly assess the risks that the project presented as a result of soil instability.
;- In the third case, Ireland has failed to comply with a judgement delivered by the ECJ last October. The judgement condemned Ireland for failing to provide reports to the Commission on how it is implementing a number of provisions in the EU's Regulation on substances that deplete the ozone layer[3]. These provisions concern systems for promoting the recovery of used ozone-depleting substances and the establishment of minimum qualification requirements for technical personnel. Ireland was also judged to have failed to take all precautionary measures practicable to prevent and minimise leakages of methyl bromide, an ozone-depleting substance used for fumigation.
;Ireland is the only Member State not to have provided this information, for which the deadline was 31 December 2001. Ireland has mentioned the preparation of a report by consultants, but the information has still not been supplied. The Commission is therefore sending Ireland a first written warning under Article 228 of the Treaty. Article 228 gives the Commission the power to ask the ECJ to impose a fine for non-compliance should Ireland continue to ignore the Court's ruling.
;German case
;The infringement concerns the granting of a permit for the construction and operation of a power plant burning waste wood in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia, the Nivelsteiner Sandwerke. Although the original permit application mentioned only the use of non-hazardous waste, it was subsequently changed to include hazardous waste.
;The Commission takes the view that this change meant the project should have undergone a full assessment of its environmental impacts under the environmental impact assessment (EIA) directive.[4] The EIA procedure ensures that the environmental consequences of projects are identified, with the help of a public consultation, and assessed before a decision on whether to authorise them is taken. However, the permit for the plant was granted by the German authorities without any EIA being carried out.
;In response to a first warning letter from the Commission, Germany has argued that the project does not fall within the scope of the directive because it concerns only the `recovery' of waste - ie recycling or incineration with energy recovery - and not waste disposal.
;The Commission takes the view that the relevant provision of the directive covers waste installations for both disposal and recovery. It has therefore decided to send Germany a final written warning that the decision to grant the permit without a full EIA breaches the EIA directive. In the event that Germany's response is unsatisfactory, the Commission could decide to take the case before the European Court of Justice.
;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 the Commission considers that there has been an infringement of EU law, and calls upon the Member State to comply within a specified period, usually two months.
;If the Member State fails to comply with the Reasoned Opinion, the Commission may decide to bring the case before the 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. The article also 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#infractions ;
;[1] Directive 75/442/EEC as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC
;[2] Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC
;[3] Regulation 2037/2000
;[4] Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC