Commissie maant Italië om 17 milieurichtlijnen om te zetten in nationale regelgeving (en)
The European Commission has decided to pursue infringement proceedings against Italy in 17 cases involving breaches of EU environment law. Several environment areas are concerned: waste management, nature protection, environmental impact assessment, air quality, noise, access to environmental information and others. These actions are part of a series of environment-related infringement decisions against several Member States, which the Commission is now announcing. On the positive side, three previously publicised infringement cases have been closed since Italy has taken the necessary measures.
;Environment Commissioner, Stavros Dimas said: "I am pleased that we were able to close three of our cases against Italy. But I find it worrying that, in spite of repeated warnings, Italy is still not fully following EU environmental legislation in crucial areas which directly affect citizens' health, well being and rights. I urge the Italian authorities to increase their overall effort to improve their implementation record."
;Waste management
;The Commission took further steps against Italy in five separate cases relating to problems with waste management rules.
;Two first `follow-up' warnings were sent to Italy asking the authorities to comply with rulings by the European Court of Justice from 2004. Both concern the EU's Waste Framework Directive[1]. This Directive lays the foundation and common principles for waste management in the EU. It requires Member States to ensure that the disposal and recovery of waste does not present a risk to human health and the environment and does not pollute water, air, and soil.
;- ;
- In the first case (case C-103/02) the Court found that Italian law fails to determine the maximum quantities of waste which can be treated by waste installations under the so-called "simplified permit procedures". In the EU, all waste installations must fulfil certain criteria and have a permit to operate. As a consequence of the failure in Italian law, Italian waste installations have been subject to the simplified procedure - which is only meant to apply to small installations - instead of the normal, stricter authorisation procedure.
The second case (C-383/02) concerns three illegal landfills of hazardous waste located at a former industrial site in Rodano (Milano). Dangerous waste has been abandoned on these three sites since 1986, leading to air, soil and water pollution. Italy has not yet adopted measures to remove this waste and start decontaminating the sites.
;The Commission further decided to refer Italy to the European Court of Justice over its legislation[2] on `end of life vehicles'. The EU's End of Life Vehicles Directive[3] outlines measures to prevent cars and car components from becoming waste at the end of their lives. It also promotes car reuse, recycling and other forms of recovery. Consumers must be able to return their used cars free of charge for dismantling. The Italian law transposing the EU Directive is not going far enough on a number of issues such as the definition of waste, the rules on free take-back and producer responsibility, the collection and deregistration of end of life vehicles, the provisions on recycling and recovery of end of life vehicles.
;A final warning has been sent to Italy due to its failure to provide waste management plans for some of its regions and provinces. Although this obligation has existed in EU law since 1975, hazardous waste management plans for the Friuli Venezia Giulia and Puglia regions and for the autonomous province of Bolzano, have not yet been adopted and sent to the Commission. Non-hazardous waste plans are missing for the provinces of the Lazio region, as well as for the provinces of Gorizia, Modena and Rimini. Waste management planning is the cornerstone of any national, regional or local policy on waste management. It makes it possible to take stock of the existing situation, to define the objectives that need to be met in the future, to formulate appropriate strategies and to identify the necessary implementation means. Italy has also been sent a final warning for failing to notify the Commission of its national implementing legislation for EU laws on waste electrical and electronic equipment[4] and on hazardous materials contained in such equipment[5] This case is the subject of a separate press release: see IP/05/895.
;By not fulfilling its obligations under EU waste law, Italy is not offering the environment and its citizens the high level of protection from waste-related problems which are intended in EU waste law.
;Nature protection
;The Commission decided to take further legal steps against Italy in four cases over problems with nature protection.
;Italy is to be referred to the European Court of Justice because the Italian authorities failed to properly assess what damage a development of an industrial zone in the area of Manfredonia (Foggia, Puglia) could have on the "Valloni e steppe Pedegarganiche" natural site.
;The installations built in the industrial zone have deteroriated the habitats and disturbed the species living in this protected site. In particular, steppic habitats have been destroyed. A number of bird species[6] have also been disturbed. Italy did not properly assess the plan's impact on the protected site, nor did it take any steps to avoid the negative effects. It has therefore violated the EU's Birds Directive[7].
;Final warnings were sent to Italy in three cases :
;In the first case, Italy is blamed for authorising water extraction for irrigation purposes from the Trasimeno Lake (Umbria). The lake is situated in a Special Protection Area (SPA) classified under the Wild Birds directive.
;The Italian authorities have adopted a plan to restore and protect the ecosystem of the lake and its banks. This plan provides measures to address the loss of water and to diminish the speed at which the hydrometric level is decreasing. However, the Italian authorities derogate to their own plan and continue to authorise water extraction. This has a negative impact on fish, flora, microflora, birds and birds habitats. It also endangers the lake's ecosystem.
;The second case concerns changes to a planned development of about 100 industrial locations, most of which would be located within the Murgia Alta Special Protection Areas. The municipality of Altamura (Puglia) has approved changes to the plan without carrying out the assessment procedure provided by the EU's Habitats Directive[8]. The assessment should have made sure that the development will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned.
;In the third case, Italy has received a final warning for authorising on a regular basis motor rally events in the Province of Pordenone ("Italian Baia del Cellina") within the Magredi del Cellina site, an area protected under the EU Habitats Directive, and in Magredi di Pordenone, an area which should have been designated as Special Protection Area. The areas host some very rare and protected habitats, and the motor rallies deteriorate these and disturb the bird species which live on the sites.
;Environmental impact assessment
;The Commission has taken two separate decisions in relation to the way Italy has implemented the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (EIA)[9]. The Directive requires authorities to examine the environmental impacts of infrastructure projects so that they can be taken into account in the authorisation process. It also provides for public consultation, and the results of this must also be taken into account in the authorisation process.
;The projects covered by the Directive are identified in the Annexes to the Directive. Projects listed in Annex I are automatically subject to an EIA procedure. For projects listed in Annex II, Member States must determine on a case-by case basis, or by setting criteria or thresholds, whether a project has to go through an EIA procedure. Italy has transposed the Directive both at regional and national level.
;In the first case, the Commission sent a final warning asking Italy to amend its legislation both at national and regional level, as it does not comply with the EIA Directive in a number of ways. The shortcomings mainly concern the criteria and thresholds for Annex II projects, but also other aspects and links between legislation at national and regional levels. The issue at stake here is the conformity with the Directive of the entire Italian legislation concerning Environmental Impact Assessment. After receiving a first warning from the Commission in December 2003, the Italian authorities promised to change both the national and regional EIA legislation, but so far the changes have not been made.
;In a second case, the Commission sent Italy an additional final warning for failing to submit an open cast mine project in the "Monte Bruzeta" area (Alessandria, Piemonte) to an EIA. No EIA procedure has been deemed necessary, following a "screening" exercise which had not been undertaken correctly. The project covered a large surface (15,5 ha), it entailed displacing large amounts of soil and was close to a site proposed for protection under the EU Habitats Directive. As a result, the project is bound to have a significant impact on the environment. Even according to Italian law, this kind of project must undergo an EIA.
;Air Quality
;The Commission has sent an additional final written warning asking Italy to measure air pollution by particulate matter (PM10) and inform the public about the pollution levels in the municipality of Civitavecchia (Rome). Italy is presently violating EU air quality legislation[10] which says that, under certain conditions, Member states must measure the concentrations of a number of air pollutants including PM10 and ensure that information about this measurement is routinely made available to the public.
;PM10 are small airborne particles which are mainly generated by the combustion of petrol and diesel in motor vehicles and by other combustion processes. According to the World Health Organisation, long-term exposure to PM10 concentrations commonly found in urban areas can reduce life expectancy by increasing the risks of cardio-pulmonary diseases and lung cancer. It is therefore important that measurements are carried out correctly and the public is informed.
;A final warning was sent to Italy in July 2004. An additional warning has now been sent to remind the Italian authorities that Civitavecchia falls within a zone where measurements are obligatory, and that pollution by PM10 is indeed above the assessment thresholdsset in EU air legislation.
;In a separate case, the Commission also sent a final written warning for Italy's failure to measure the content of PM10 and lead in the air in the town of Brindisi (Puglia). This is equally a breach of the above mentioned air quality legislation.
;Other final warnings
;Italy has been sent final warnings for failing to notify to the Commission its national implementing legislation of EU laws on noise[11] (see IP/05/894), on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment[12] (see IP/05/897), on public access to environmental information (see IP/05/892) and on the availability of consumer information on fuel economy and CO2 emissions in respect of the marketing of new passenger cars[13]. Similar action is being taken against several other Member States.
;Lack of co-operation with the Commission
;Finally, the Commission has sent Italy a final written warning for breach of Article 10 of the Treaty, which requires Member States to cooperate with the Commission to "facilitate the achievement of the Community's tasks". Italy has consistently failed to respond to the Commission's requests for information since 2003 concerning a dredging works project at Marano Lagunare (Udine, Friuli Venezia Giulia) where an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was not carried out. By failing to send the required information for such a long time, Italy prevents the Commission from carrying out its own tasks under the EU's EIA Directive.
;Cases resolved
;Following new information received from the Italian authorities, the Commission has been able to close 3 cases that were the subject of previous press releases. The three case concerned :
;- ;
- Failure to comply with a Court Ruling from 2002 concerning Italy's failure to fulfill its obligations under the PCB/PCT Directive[14] (see IP/03/1108). Italy has now elaborated the necessary plans for how to deal with these dangerous substances. ;
- Failure to comply with a Court Ruling from 2004 concerning Italy's failure to fulfil its obligations under the EU's sewage sludge Directive[15] (see IP/01/1064). Italy has now provided the necessary data on its uses of sludge and fulfilled other outstanding requirements. ;
- Failure to comply with a Court Ruling from 2004 concerning Italy's failure to transpose the EU's Zoo Directive[16] into Italian law (see IP 05/56). Italy has now transposed the Directive.
Legal Process
;Standard procedure
;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.
;The infringement actions mentioned in this press release have been taken under Article 226 unless otherwise stated.
;`Follow-up' procedure
;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] Directive 75/442/EEC on waste.
;[2] Decreto legislativo n° 209 of 2003
;[3] Directive 2000/53/EC
;[4] Directives 2002/96/EC and 2003/108/EC, amending Directive 2002/96/EC
; ;[6] These species include: Falco biarmicus, Tetrax tetrax, Neoprhon percnopterus, Burhinus oedicnemus, Melanocorypha calandra, Calandrella brachydactyla, Falco peregrinus and chiroptera Rhinolophus ferrumequinum
;[7] Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds.
;[8] Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna.
;[9] Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC
;[10] Council Directive 96/62/EC `Air Framework Directive' and Directive 1999/30/EC setting limit values for nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, lead and particulate matter
;[11] Directive 2002/49/EC
;[12] Directive 2001/42/EC
;[13] Directive 2003/73/EC amending Annex III to Directive 1999/94/EC
;[14] 96/59/EC on polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls.. These are hazardous chemicals whose toxicity and tendency to accumulate in living tissue represent a threat to the environment and to human health,
;[15] Directive 86/278/EEC on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture
;[16] Directive 99/22/EC on the keeping of wild animals in Zoos