Commissie daagt Italië voor de rechter wegens 15 inbreuken op EU-milieuwetten (en)

The European Commission is taking further legal action against Italy in 15 cases concerning breaches of the EU's environmental laws. The legislation in question relates to waste-water treatment, industrial emissions, prevention of industrial accidents, environmental impact assessment, conservation of important natural habitats, protection of water resources, control of air pollution, emissions trading and zoos. In ten of the cases Italy is being referred to the European Court of Justice. In another case Italy has received a final warning to comply with a previous Court judgment or face the prospect of substantial penalties.

Environment Commissioner, Stavros Dimas said: "Complying with EU environmental laws will help Italy not only to protect its rich biodiversity and natural resources but also to give its citizens the safe, pleasant surroundings that they deserve. I find it particularly worrying that Italy is not applying the directive on integrated pollution prevention and control, which is a key measure for controlling industrial emissions. I urge the Italian authorities to increase their overall efforts to improve implementation."

Final warning to comply with Court ruling on wildlife sites

On 20 March 2003, the European Court of Justice ruled that by failing to classify a large number of territories as Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for the protection of bird species protected under the Wild Birds Directive^[1] and of other migratory species which regularly visit its territory, Italy had failed to fulfil its obligations under the Wild Birds Directive. The directive requires Member States to designate important sites for threatened wild bird species. While Italy has made important progress in site designation and providing site information, the overall network remains seriously deficient. Gaps are particularly evident in the following regions: Sicily, Sardinia, Lombardy and Calabria. The Commission has therefore sent Italy a final warning, under Article 228 of the Treaty, that it may take Italy to the Court again, and propose substantial fines this time, if the shortcomings are not addressed.

First warning for failure to comply with Court ruling on zoos

On 10 June 2004, the Court found that Italy had failed to transpose into its national legislation an EU directive aimed at regulating certain aspects of the management of zoos^[2] (C-302/03).

As Italy has still not notified the necessary legislation, it has been sent a first written warning, under Article 228 of the Treaty, that it could face a further court case, and the threat of fines if found guilty, unless it transposes the directive swiftly.

Decisions to refer Italy to the Court

The Commission has decided to refer Italy to the Court of Justice in ten cases:

;
• The first concerns the construction of the third phase of a very large incinerator in Brescia. This is one of the largest incinerators in Europe, with a capacity of up to 700,000 tonnes a year. Although projects of this kind and size have a considerable impact on the environment and are subject to a mandatory environmental impact assessment (EIA) under the Community's EIA Directive,^[3] no assessment has been carried out. In addition to a breach of the EIA Directive, there is also an infringement of the public consultation provisions of the Waste Incineration Directive^[4]. This imposes stringent operational conditions and technical requirements and sets emission limit values for waste incineration plants and installations co-incinerating waste and other fuels.
;
• The second relates to the lack of ;wastewater treatment plants for an agglomeration of municipalities in Varese province. The lack of wastewater treatment has caused significant pollution of the Olona River, which ultimately drains into the Adriatic Sea, a sea that is sensitive to eutrophication (i.e. over-enrichment by nutrients leading to algal blooms and other problems). The Italian authorities should have ensured proper treatment of the wastewater by the end of 1998 under the terms of the 1991 Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive^[5].
;
• Three decisions relate to EU nature conservation legislation. The Habitats Directive^[6] protects a range of rare and endangered 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. Italy failed to comply with these rules by granting development consent, notwithstanding a negative outcome of such assessment for (i) a forestry road ("Koferalm", municipality of Campo Tures, Natural Park Vedrette di Ries-Aurina) and (ii) a hard-surfaced trackway ("via ferrata" between Vallelunga and Alpe Stevia, in the municipality of Selva di Val Gardena, Natural Park Puez-Odle) both in the Dolomites in the Bolzano Province of the Trentino Alto-Adige region. It also failed to carry out such an assessment in relation to (iii) new skiing infrastructure which is being built for the 2005 alpine skiing world championship in S. Caterina, Valfurva (Sondrio), in the heart of the Stelvio National Park. This National Park founded in 1935 is one of the largest and longest-established natural parks in Italy and displays a great range of Alpine biodiversity. These decisions breach the requirements of the Habitats Directive as well as of the 1979 directive on the conservation of wild birds^[7].
;
• The sixth decision relates to a failure of Italian law to respect all the requirements of the Seveso II Directive^[8]. The Seveso II Directive is aimed at preventing major industrial accidents involving dangerous substances and at limiting their consequences for citizens' health and the environment. It replaces a previous directive on the same subject ("Seveso I," named after the town in Italy which in 1976 suffered the major industrial accident that led to the directive), providing both a wider scope and stronger provisions. The relevant Italian legislation is weaker than the Directive requires. For example, whereas the Directive requires Member States to prohibit installations with seriously deficient measures for accident prevention and mitigation from being brought into use, the Italian legislation provides only that the competent authority may prohibit the installation's bringing into use. In addition, Italian inspection provisions are weaker.
;
• The seventh decision concerns the breach by Italy of an EU Regulation which aims to curb and eventually eliminate the use of chemicals that destroy the Earth's ozone layer^[9]. Among other things, Member States must report where and how ozone-depleting substances - such as CFCs, HCFCs, halons and methyl bromide - are still used and which measures they have taken to reduce their use. Italy has failed to fulfil this obligation.
;
• The eighth decision concerns Italy's failure to make effective the rules of the Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) referring to new installations, i.e. those which started to operate after the entry into force of the directive on 30 October 1999. Consequently Italy is not applying the IPPC Directive^[10] in practice. The directive regulates the operations of a significant number of large industrial activities with a high pollution potential. It introduces a system whereby such installations must have permits to operate so that their pollution of the air, water and land can be prevented or reduced in an integrated way.
;
• The ninth decision relates to EU water legislation. Along with several other Member States, Italy has failed to transpose into national law the requirements of the Water Framework Directive^[11]. This forms the cornerstone of EU water protection policy and establishes a framework for protecting all types of water bodies across the EU. The directive aims, among other things, at protecting and enhancing the status of water resources as well as promoting sustainable water use based on long-term protection of water resources. The deadline for Member States to transpose it was 22 December 2003.
;
• The final decision relates to the failure of Italy to fully transpose into its national legislation the Emissions Trading Directive^[12]. Legislation was due by 31 December 2003.

Final warnings sent to Italy

In three cases, the Commission has sent Italy final written warnings, known as "Reasoned Opinions," aimed at securing compliance with EU environmental requirements. In the absence of a satisfactory response, the Commission may later decide to refer these cases to the Court:

;
• Apart from completing the transposition of the Emissions Trading Directive, Italy has failed to submit a complete national allocation plan. National allocation plans are required to outline the number of greenhouse gas emission allowances that Italy intends to allocate to its industries so they can participate in the EU emissions trading scheme starting in 2005. In July 2004, Italy submitted a plan, but this was incomplete and did not meet the Directive's requirements.
;
• The second warning concerns a failure by Italy to provide air pollution data for 2002 in respect of Regione Calabria. This information is required under EU air quality legislation^[13].
;
• The third warning concerns a failure by Italy to consider the cumulative effects of an urban road project in Imola before deciding that an environmental impact assessment (EIA) under the EIA Directive was unnecessary. The project involves the modification of a road known as "Asse attrezzato" in the centre of the town of Imola. In particular, the determination not to carry out an EIA on the project for the northern part (1.1 km) of the "Asse attrezzato" was taken without considering the cumulative effect of the whole project and of another related project for the enlargement of a shopping centre to provide more car-parking space.

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#infractions ;

^[1] Directive 79/409/EEC

^[2] Directive 1999/22/EC

^[3] Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC

^[4] Directive 2000/76/EC

^[5] Directive 91/271/EEC

^[6] Directive 92/43/EEC

^[7] Directive 79/409/EEC

^[8] Council Directive 96/82/EC

^[9] Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000

^[10] Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996

^[11] Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy

^[12] Directive 2003/87/EC

^[13] Directive 96/62/EC and 99/30/EC