Procedure tegen Ierland - EU milieurichtlijnen in negen gevallen niet nagekomen (en)

The European Commission has decided to pursue infringement proceedings against Ireland in nine cases involving EU environment law. Several of those cases relate to insufficient protection of Ireland's rich biodiversity. But Ireland has also failed to deal adequately with unlawful, environmentally damaging waste operations, and to properly implement other EU laws aimed at providing Europe's citizens with a healthy environment. In two cases, Ireland has already been condemned by the European Court of Justice. The Commission is now following up these judgments as Ireland has still not changed its legislation and practices. These cases concern threats to a nature site and a protected bird species due to overgrazing by sheep, and the prevention of pollution of shellfish waters. Through its actions, the Commission seeks to ensure that Ireland is correctly applying agreed EU law. Failure to do so means that citizens do not get the level of environmental protection they are entitled to.

Commenting on the decisions, Environment Commissioner Margot Wallström said: "One important objective of EU environmental law is to protect Europe's biodiversity. Ireland's nature is stunningly beautiful. It is important to preserve this richness for future generations, as well as for the tourists that visit Ireland. Full implementation of EU conservation legislation will ensure this. Ireland also has to continue to fight against illegal waste operations and clean up the damage they have created to give its citizens the quality of life they have the right to expect."

Failures to protect nature and wildlife

Three cases concern Ireland's failure to respect the EU's Habitats^[1] and Wild Birds Directives^[2]. These Directives aim to protect a range of rare and endangered birds, animals and plants, as well as a selection of habitat types, by making them part of the EU's network of protected areas known as Natura 2000. Among other things, the Directive requires the assessment of potentially damaging plans and projects that may affect Natura 2000 sites before they are carried out.

;
1. Overgrazing by sheep: On 13 June 2002, Ireland was condemned by the European Court of Justice for allowing serious deterioration of wild bird habitats to occur through overstocking by sheep^[3]. The Court recognised two problems: overgrazing by sheep had resulted in widespread loss of heather, in particular on "commonage land", which is land shared by several owners.

This threatens the Red Grouse, one of Ireland's declining wild bird species. The Red Grouse uses heather to feed, build its nests and hide from predators. Under the EU Birds Directive, the Red Grouse must be guaranteed sufficient habitats. Overgrazing by sheep has also caused serious vegetation loss and erosion within Ireland's largest special protection area for birds, the 25,000 hectare Owenduff-Nephin Beg Complex in County Mayo. This area encompasses blanket bog, mountains, rivers, springs and lakes. The Owenduff-Nephin Beg Complex is part of the Natura 2000 network. Since the Court ruling in 2002, Ireland has taken steps to reduce sheep numbers, and the Commission has worked with Irish authorities to help them resolve the matter. But the plans have still not been fully implemented. In addition, binding legal requirements to prevent habitat damage have not yet been introduced for all of the Owenduff-Nephin Beg Complex. Details of how the recovery of damaged habitats will be monitored are also lacking. Consequently, the Commission will now send Ireland a first written warning requesting it to fully comply with the Court judgment.

;
1. Inadequate protection of rare animals and plants. The Commission will refer Ireland to the Court as Irish legislation and practice does not sufficiently protect a number of endangered animal and plant species that must enjoy strict protection under the Habitats Directive. Examples of such species include the Lesser Horseshoe bat, Rhinolophus hipposideros, the Natterjack toad, Bufo calamita, and cetacean species (sea mammals like dolphins and whales).Irish legislation gives wide exemptions for damage and disturbance caused by farming and other activities. The safeguards of the Directive are not applied in a meaningful way, and an adequate monitoring system for cetacean species has not been established. Ireland has stated its intention to prepare new legislation, but to date this has not been notified to the Commission. The Commission has therefore decided to refer Ireland to the Court of Justice.
;
2. Damaging recreational activities within Natura 2000 sites: The Commission has also decided to refer Ireland to the Court for another problem of non-conformity of Irish legislation with the Habitats Directive. It is based on the investigation of a complaint that use of rough-terrain motor vehicles known as quad-bikes was causing erosion within Irish sites proposed for Natura 2000. Many of these sites have fragile peat soils. The Commission found that Irish legislation does not provide for proper controls over potentially damaging recreational activities in Natura 2000 sites, such as jet skis. As the necessary additional legislation has still not been sent to the Commission, the Commission has now decided to address the Court of Justice.

Lack of protection of shellfish waters

Ireland has failed to comply with a ruling by the Court from 11 September 2003^[4] which requires Ireland to establish pollution reduction programmes for the 14 areas along the Irish coast designated as shellfish waters under the EU Shellfish Waters Directive^[5].

Under this Directive Member States must designate waters in which shellfish are in need of protection and to achieve mandatory quality standards through the implementation of pollution reduction programmes.

Of particular concern are sources of pollution such as untreated urban waste-water that can lead to harmful microbes entering the shellfish waters. Since the Court ruling, Ireland has provided information on how it intends to comply with the Court judgment, but the outlined measures do not go far enough. The Commission will therefore send Ireland a first written warning asking it to comply with the Court judgment.

A second case concerns the same directive. While the previous case was about lack of pollution reduction programmes for the existing 14 shellfish waters in Ireland, under the Shellfish Water Directive Ireland should have designated many more such waters to protect its shellfish culture. Evidence submitted by complainants indicates that shellfish culture takes place in many waters around Ireland's lengthy coastline and that the shellfish have been suffering from a decline in water quality. The Commission already warned Ireland twice, and Ireland has said it would designate more shellfish waters, but so far it has not done so. This is why the Commission has now decided to refer Ireland to the Court of Justice.

Unauthorised waste activities

For some years, the Commission has been concerned at the extent of unauthorised waste activities in Ireland. They violate the EU's Waste Framework Directive^[6], which lays down basic rules for handling waste. Most important, Member States must ensure that the disposal and recovery of waste does not present a risk to water, air, soil, plants and animals. To this end, they must have waste management plans and control waste activities by issuing permits and conducting regular inspections.

An investigation of complaints concerning unauthorised waste activities in Ireland in the period 1997 to 2001 led to proceedings against Ireland in the European Court of Justice, which are still ongoing. Since then, Ireland has taken a number of steps to clamp down on such activities, notably through the creation of a national Office of Environmental Enforcement. However, complaints investigated since 2001 show that serious problems persist. In particular, illegal waste sites have not been cleaned up in all cases, and the waste in question has not been covered by waste licences that respect the environment. Evidence of effective sanctions imposed on illegal waste operators is also lacking.

The Commission has sent Ireland final written warnings in five cases:

;
• Extensive quantities of dumped waste have not been removed from wetlands at Granny Ferry, County Kilkenny.
;
• The Commission has not received any confirmation that unauthorised waste disposal sites at Tinnapark, County Wicklow, at Murphy's Rock, Blackpool and at Cork and Ardistan, County Carlow, have been cleaned up. The unauthorised disposal of waste material at Murphy's Rock in 1999 is of particular concern, since the EU in 1999 co-financed the construction of the Blackpool Bypass, which generated this waste. The project was under the responsibility of a public body, Cork Corporation, which is also a waste management authority.
;
• Confirmation is lacking that environmental problems with regard to the former waste facility of the local authorities of Dunsink, County Fingal, have been fully resolved. These problems have included local water pollution.

The Commission hopes that the Irish authorities will now solve these problems so no further Court action will be necessary.

Emissions trading, ozone-depleting substances and treatment of wastewater

Along with several other Member States, Ireland has received warnings from the Commission drawing attention to the following failures:

;
• to adopt and notify by 31 December 2003 the transposition of the Directive establishing the EU emissions trading system^[7] (final written warning);
;
• to submit reports on the use of the pesticide methyl bromide on traded crops. Methyl bromide damages the Earth's protective ozone layer and must be phased out under the EU Ozone Regulation^[8] (first written warning);
;
• to meet a December 2000 deadline for installing proper treatment for wastewater discharges from cities and towns with more than 15,000 inhabitants under the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (first written warning).

These three cases are the subject of separate press releases (IP/04/861, IP/04/878 and IP/04/870).

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 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#infractions ;
For rulings by the European Court of Justice see:
http://curia.eu.int/en/content/juris/index.htm ;

^[1] Council Directive 92/43/EEC

^[2] Council Directive 79/409/EEC

^[3] case C-117/00

^[4] case C-67/02

^[5] Council Directive 79/923/EEC of 30 October 1979 on the quality required of shellfish waters

^[6] Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC

^[7] Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community

^[8] Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer