Commissie daagt Oostenrijk en Duitsland voor de rechter wegens inbreuken op EU-milieuwetten (en)

The European Commission will take Austria and Germany to the European Court of Justice for breaches of environmental legislation in four cases. They have both failed to comply fully with an EU law on recycling of old cars. Germany has not fully transposed into its national legislation an important EU law on water protection and Austria has not correctly transposed the `Seveso' directive on the prevention of major industrial accident hazards.

Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said: "By failing to comply fully with these laws, Austria and Germany are not delivering the level of protection against pollution and other environmental hazards that they have signed up to at European level. Europe's citizens deserve a safe and healthy environment, and I intend to give priority to ensuring that Member States live up to their commitments. "

End of life vehicles: Court cases against Austria and Germany for non-conformity

Under the End of Life Vehicles Directive consumers must be able to hand in their old car for dismantling free of charge. This aspect is not correctly implemented in Austrian law where producers' obligation is limited to cars of their own brand and registered in Austria. This is contrary to what the Directive requires and thus weakening its environmental benefits. Also, citizens do not get the deal they are entitled to and are discriminated against compared to other EU citizens. The Commission sent Austria a final written warning in July but Austria has maintained its position, hence the decision now to refer the case to the Court.

In Germany, the directive has been transposed into national law through the End-of-Life Vehicle Act of 2002. However, an in-depth analysis of this Act by the Commission has concluded that it does not transpose the Directive correctly, leaving a number of gaps which reduce the directive's intended environmental benefits. These include a narrowing of the scope of the directive and of the substance ban, and exemptions from the free take-back obligation. For these reasons the Commission is taking Germany to the European Court.

The End-of-Life Vehicles Directive^[1] has a dual aim: to prevent cars and car components that have reached the end of their life-cycles from becoming waste, and to promote reuse, recycling and other forms of recovery of car bodies and parts. Among other things, the directive requires collection systems for end-of-life cars to be set up and seeks to reduce the use of chemicals that impede safe disposal and recovery of vehicles.

Seveso II Directive: Court case against Austria for non-conformity

This 1996 Directive^[2] aims to prevent major industrial accidents involving dangerous substances, and at limiting their consequences through emergency preparedness. It strengthens an earlier directive, passed in response to the 1976 explosion at a chemical plant in the Italian town of Seveso which contaminated a wide area with dioxin, one of the most toxic substances known. The revised directive imposes stringent obligations on companies that store dangerous substances and requires that a major-accident prevention policy and emergency plans are prepared in advance. It also sets out requirements for land-use planning and public information.

There is a complex body of legislation at both national and regional levels to implement this directive into Austrian law. Additional legislation was adopted in response to Commission investigations in 2002 but there are still several gaps, as Austria has itself recognised. These include the transposition of the directive in various sectors concerning specific establishments (mining establishments, shooting and explosives producers, some electricity installations). In addition, rules on emergency plans and land-use planning are incorrect in some of the laws of the Austrian Länder. As these issues are of importance for ensuring the level of public protection intended by the directive, the Commission is referring the case to the Court.

Water Framework Directive: Court case against Germany for incomplete transposition

The Water Framework Directive^{[3] ;}establishes a European framework for the protection of all water bodies in the European Union - rivers, lakes, coastal waters, groundwater and inland surface water. Its objective is to reach a good quality of water resources by 2015. This objective is to be reached through integrated management based on river basins, since water systems do not stop at administrative borders. The Water Framework Directive operates with clear deadlines for various steps that are required to move toward sustainable, integrated water management in Europe.

The national legislation necessary to implement the directive became due on 22 December 2003. In Germany the directive has been fully transposed into national law at federal level and in ten of the Länder (states). However, Germany has not provided clear information on when this will be done in the remaining six Länder (Berlin, Hesse, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate and Saxony-Anhalt). The Commission has therefore decided to take the matter to 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" (r 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. The Court can make a judgement confirming that the Member State is in breach of its obligations. The Member State must take steps to comply with the judgement as soon as possible.

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. Such action also involves the stages of a "Letter of Formal Notice" and "Reasoned Opinion". 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, please visit the following web-site:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/droit_com/index_en.htm#infractions

^[1] Directive 2000/53/EC

^[2] Directive 96/82/EC

^[3] Directive 2000/60/EC