IP/07/391
Brussels, 22 March 2007
Ireland: Commission takes action to secure clean
drinking water and citizens' rights
The European Commission is sending Ireland a final written warning for
failing to comply fully with a 2002 European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling
requiring drinking water supplies to be kept free of E.coli bacteria. It is
sending Ireland a similar warning for failing to comply with a 2005 ECJ ruling
requiring greater controls on polluting discharges to surface water by local
authorities. If the responses are unsatisfactory, the Commission may ask the
ECJ to impose financial penalties on Ireland. The Commission is also
referring Ireland to the ECJ for failing to give adequate rights to citizens to
legally challenge decisions in cases involving environmental impact
assessments and integrated pollution prevention and control. At the same
time, action taken by Ireland to ban drift-netting of Atlantic wild salmon at
sea has allowed a case to be closed.
Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said: “I am concerned that, more than
four years after a court ruling, and despite substantial Government investments, a
significant number of local authority and private water supplies still show a presence
of e.coli." This needs to be resolved without further delay."
Polluted drinking water
On 14 November 2002, Ireland was condemned by the European Court of Justice
over the microbiological contamination of hundreds of public and private water
supplies.1 The EU's Drinking Water Directive2 requires an absence of e.coli in
drinking water supplies in order to protect human health. These bacteria point to a
high risk of human pathogens being present. Despite substantial Government
investments, a significant number of local authority and private water supplies still
show a presence of e.coli. More than half of private group water supplies in Counties
Cavan, Kerry, Leitrim, Mayo, Donegal and Sligo breached the e.coli standard in
2005. Causes include sources polluted by animal wastes and defective septic tanks,
absence of treatment, inadequate treatment and failure to maintain treatment
equipment properly.
1
2
Case C-316/00
Currently, Directive 98/83/EC, which replaces Directive 80/778/EEC, the EU legislation in
force at the time of the Court judgment.
Controls on local authority polluting discharges
On 2 June 2005, the Court found against Ireland for not having an authorisation
system for local authority water discharges of dangerous substances3 under an EU
directive on control of water pollution4.
Lack of or inadequate treatment of the urban wastewater discharges of towns and
villages is one of the main causes of surface water pollution in Ireland. This pollution
harms fish habitats and makes it more difficult to provide safe drinking water.
Ireland's environment ministry has committed itself to a new licensing system for
local authority treatment plants and collecting systems to be managed by Ireland's
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Drafts have been presented to the
Commission but adopted legislation is still not in place twenty-five years after it
became due. The ECJ ruling also requires new pollution controls on fish-farms, a
matter under the responsibility of Ireland's marine ministry. The ministry has failed to
provide any clear details of how and when the ruling will be satisfied..
Right of citizens to bring legal challenges without prohibitive expense
The Commission has decided to refer Ireland to the European Court of Justice for
failing to adopt and provide correct information on measures to give effect to the
EU's Public Participation Directive.5 The Directive implements an international
agreement, the Aarhus Convention, which promotes public participation in
environmental decision-making. The Directive requires Member States to give
citizens the right to challenge the legality of public authority decisions under EU
legislation on environmental impact assessment6 and integrated pollution prevention
and control.7 Such decisions can have profound effects on the environment, for
example by damaging nature sites or allowing urban sprawl that limits the long-term
possibility for citizens to lead lives with lower carbon impacts. The relevant
procedures should have been in place by 25 June 2005. Ireland, the only Member
State not to have ratified the Aarhus Convention, has argued that the Irish courts
already uphold the right through a system of judicial review and that additional
legislation is unnecessary. However, although not informed of this by the Irish
Government, the Commission has learnt that, during 2006, the Irish High Court
expressly refused to apply the Public Participation Directive.8
3
Case C-282/02
Directive 2006/11/EC, formerly Directive 76/464/EEC
5
Directive 2003/35/EEC
6
Directive 85/337/EEC
7
Directive 96/61/EC
8
Friends of the Curragh Environment Ltd [2006] IEHC 243 (14 July 2006). In a later
judgment of 8 December 2006, the High Court noted: " Directive 2003/35/EC is not yet
implemented in this jurisdiction." It is understood that an appeal is pending before the Irish
Supreme Court but in any case clear unambiguous implementation by the deadline of 25 June
2005 was not achieved.
4
2
Case on wild salmon closed
The Commission has decided to close a case concerning drift-net fishing at sea for
wild Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar. It had sent Ireland a final written warning in 2006
for breaching the EU Habitats Directive,9 which gives protection to the salmon. The
Irish marine ministry has since banned drift-netting at sea and introduced more
rigorous requirements for the assessment of different forms of exploitation of salmon
stocks.
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, usually two months.
If the Member State fails to comply with the Reasoned Opinion, the Commission may
decide to bring the case before the 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.
The article also allows the Commission to ask the Court to impose a financial penalty
on the Member State concerned.
9
Directive 92/43
3