Commissie vraagt Ierland om milieuwetgeving op vijf punten aan te passen aan EU-richtlijnen (en)
The European Commission has decided to pursue infringement proceedings against Ireland in five cases involving breaches of EU environment law. In one case, Ireland has received a final written warning for not heeding a 2004 European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling on the protection of the ozone layer. If Ireland fails to respond fully to the Court ruling, it could face a fine. The Commission is pursuing four other cases concerning environmental impact assessment and noise. These actions are part of a series of environment-related infringement decisions against several Member States which the Commission is now announcing over a period of days. Meanwhile, the Commission has been able to close two previously announced cases against Ireland following the provision of new information by the Irish authorities.
;Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said: " I welcome Ireland's action to put an end to some of its previous infringements. But our environment can only be well protected if Member States properly implement the legislation they have signed up to. I believe that the Irish authorities will continue to make progress in clearing up the back-log of environmental cases requiring action on their part."
;Warning about non-compliance with Court ruling: protection of the ozone layer
;The Commission has sent Ireland a final warning for non-compliance with a judgement delivered by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in October 2004 (case C-406/03). The Court ruled that Ireland had failed to report to the Commission on how it is implementing a number of provisions[1] of the EU's Regulation on substances that deplete the ozone layer[2]. This regulation aims to prevent and limit damage to the ozone layer that shields the earth from harmful solar rays, which can cause skin cancer and blindness and have also harmful effects on animals and vegetation.
;To allow co-ordination of EU and international efforts, it is important that Member States report on progress made in phasing out ozone-depleting substances. Ireland says consultants are preparing a report but so far it has not provided the necessary information to the Commission.
;If Ireland does not send the required report, the Commission can ask the ECJ to impose a fine on Ireland.
;In a separate case, Ireland is also to be referred to the Court for failing to respect other reporting requirements of the same Regulation, including reporting on the quarantine and pre-shipment (QPS) use of methyl bromide, a highly ozone-depleting pesticide that is being phased out. The Regulation still allows - to a limited extent - its use for QPS treatments to ensure that traded crops are pest-free since alternatives for this specific use are only slowly developed.
;Two Court referrals and one warning over breaches of the environmental impact assessment procedure
;The Commission has taken three separate decisions in relation to Ireland's implementation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive[3]. This Directive requires certain types of projects to be assessed for their impact before they are approved in order to avoid or minimise environmental damage and nuisances. It also provides for public consultation.
;In two cases, the Commission has decided to refer Ireland to the ECJ due to shortcomings in the Irish legislation governing environmental impact assessments (EIAs) on fish farms, projects for the restructuring of rural land holdings, projects for the use of uncultivated land or semi-natural areas for intensive agriculture and water management projects for agriculture. The Commission considers that the Irish legislation does not take enough account of sensitive nature sites or of cumulative effects, i.e. smaller individual projects having a significant impact when added together. The environmental damage that can result from such projects if they are not properly assessed includes for instance loss of archaeological monuments, infill of ecologically valuable wetlands and fragmentation of open terrain.
;Separately, the Commission is also sending Ireland a final warning because of the way it is applying EIA rules to forestry projects. Afforestation is one of the most important project types in Ireland, covering thousands of hectares of land every year and largely comprising exotic conifers. In 1999, Ireland was condemned by the Court for inadequate EIA rules covering the activity[4]. Ireland has since tightened up its legislation, but in practice it is still allowing afforestation of areas of landscape and nature sensitivity without the forms of impact assessment envisaged by the Directive.[5] ;
;Final warning before Court referral over noise.
;Ireland has been sent a final warning for failing to notify the Commission of its national implementing legislation for an EU law on noise[6]. Similar action is being taken against several other Member States (see IP/05/894)
;Cases resolved
;Following new information received from the Irish authorities, the Commission has been able to close two cases that were the subject of previous press releases.
;Plan on national emissions ceilings
;Ireland has confirmed the finalisation of a plan to comply with the EU directive setting national emission ceilings[7] for certain air pollutants (sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, volatile organic compounds and ammonia): see IP/05/37.
;No air-pollution reduction plan needed for Dublin
;Ireland has also confirmed that Dublin was erroneously identified in an Irish report as a city requiring an air pollution reduction plan: see IP/04/872.
;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.
;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] The provisions that figure in the ECJ ruling concern systems for promoting the recovery of used ozone-depleting substances and the establishment of minimum qualification requirements for technical personnel. Ireland was also judged to have failed to take all precautionary measures practicable to prevent and minimise leakages of methyl bromide, an ozone-depleting substance used for fumigation. Ireland is the only Member State not to have provided this information, for which the deadline was 31 December 2001.
;[2] Regulation 2037/2000
;[3] Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC
;[4] Case C-392/96
;[5] There are already a number of other ongoing cases against Ireland concerning the EIA Directive. Amongst other things, these address the charging of fees to the public to express an opinion, the tolerance of illegal developments and the division of impact assessment responsibilities between planning authorities and Ireland's Environmental Protection Agency.
;[6] Directive 2002/49/EC
;[7] Directive 2001/81/EC