Commissie maant Spanje om te voldoen aan uitspraken EU-Hof inzake afvalstortplaatsen (en)
The European Commission is taking legal action against Spain in two cases involving EU environment law. The Commission is asking Spain to comply with a ruling by the European Court of Justice, which condemned Spain in 2003 over a number of uncontrolled waste disposal sites. These sites pose a threat to human health and the environment. In the second case, the Commission is referring Spain to the European Court of Justice for failure to carry out an appropriate environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the construction of an airport next to a protected area for birds.
;Failure to act over illegal waste disposal sites
;In June 2003, the European Court of Justice ruled[1] that five waste disposal sites in Spain were illegal and in breach of the EU's Waste Framework Directive[2].
;The Commission's investigation of complaints showed that waste was dumped in these landfills without any prior treatment, and that none of these sites were equipped with systems to seal the area and recover dangerous liquid leaks, which contaminate soil and can also pollute groundwater and surface water. The Waste Framework Directive requires Member States to ensure that the disposal and recovery of waste does not present a risk to human health, animals and plants and does not pollute water, air, and soil. Member States must make sure that waste operators are licensed on condition that their operations fulfil these requirements, and they must periodically inspect the sites.
;Since the Court ruling, problems continue to persist with three sites:
;- ;
- The authorities have closed and sealed the landfill at Torreblanca-Fuengirola (Málaga). But it still does not hold a permit in the sense of the EU's Waste Framework Directive. This is an obligation that in the Commission's opinion applies to both open and closed landfills since former landfills may present a risk to human health and the environment unless they are properly managed and monitored. Licensing is the most appropriate instrument to ensure this. In addition, the Commission considers that the monitoring activities described by the authorities as taking place at the site cannot be regarded as appropriate periodic inspections of the possible negative environmental effects produced by the landfill. ;
- The procedure for closing and sealing the landfill at Santalla del Bierzo (León) has not yet been completed, which the authorities acknowledge. ;
- In addition, the landfill has also not yet been licensed, like the landfill at Torreblanca-Fuengirola, which the Commission believes is necessary to ensure that it does not present risks to human health and the environment after closure. ;
- Finally, in relation to the site at Ca na Putxa-Sa Roca (Ibiza), the authorities have not yet completed the works foreseen in the conditioning plan, which will bring the landfill in compliance with the requirements under the Waste Framework Directive. The authorities are aware of this, and they have also reported that authorisation has been requested.
In all three cases, the Commission considers that more needs to be done to properly protect the environment and human health. It has therefore sent Spain a final written warning asking it to take measures to solve the remaining problems and comply with the Court ruling. If the Commission is not satisfied with Spain's response it could bring the case again before the European Court of Justice and this time ask for a financial penalty to be imposed.
;Impact of a planned airport on bird area
;The Commission has decided to refer Spain to the European Court of Justice for failure to carry out an appropriate environmental impact assessment (EIA) on a project for the construction of an airport in the province of Ciudad Real within the Autonomous Community of Castilla-La Mancha. The Commission considers that the EIA carried out by the Spanish authorities on this project is insufficient in several aspects. These include the lack of a proper outline of the alternatives studied by the developer and of the impact assessment of the facilities associated to the project (access roads, power supply etc.).
;By not having adequately assessed the impacts of all the aspects of the project on the environment, Spain is in breach of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive[3]. This directive requires Member States to carry out EIAs on public and private projects that are likely to have significant impacts on the environment. This is to be done before they are authorised. Failure to carry out environmental impact assessments means that citizens lose an opportunity to give their opinions and may also mean that the best way of protecting the environment is overlooked and more harm than necessary is done.
;In addition, the site for the airport is located next to a Special Protection Area classified by the Spanish authorities under the EU's Directive on the conservation of wild birds[4]. This area hosts in particular endangered steppe birds. The Birds Directive requires that Member States strive to avoid pollution or deterioration of habitats even outside of the protection areas. As Spain has not adequately studied the impacts of the project on the wildlife in the area, the necessary measures to prevent or avoid the deterioration of the habitats could not possibly be adopted. Spain is therefore also in breach of the Wild Birds Directive.
;In December 2003, the Commission sent Spain a first written warning, stating that all the impacts of the airport construction must be assessed under both the Birds and EIA Directives.
;In January 2004, the Spanish authorities responded and pointed to a number of studies that had been carried out. However, the Commission considered that these did not provide for the necessary impact assessments and consequently sent a final written warning in July 2004.
;In response, the Spanish authorities stated that work on the project had indeed been stopped in order to undertake the proper impact assessment. However, in spite of this assurance, evidence provided to the Commission shows that the construction work continues. For this reason, the Commission is taking the matter before the Court.
;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" (second and 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, 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#infractions
For rulings by the European Court of Justice see:
http://curia.eu.int/en/content/juris/index.htm
;[1] case C-446/01
;[2] Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC
;[3] Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, amended by Directive 97/11/EC
;[4] Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds