IP/00/1004
Brussels, 13 September 2000
Dangerous substances in water: Commission moves
against Greece, France and Ireland
The European Commission has decided to take further legal steps against
Greece, France and Ireland for non-respect of the European Union’s 1976
Dangerous Substances Directive. In the case of Greece, the Commission has
decided to send an enforcement Reasoned Opinion (second warning letter)
under Article 228 of the Treaty for the lack of clean-up measures for the
pollution of Lake Vegoritis. The European Court of Justice already
condemned Greece for this in 1998, and the Commission's action is a followup to the Court's judgement. In the case of France, the Commission has
decided to make an application to the European Court of Justice for general
failures in relation to the Directive's requirements for pollution reduction
programmes for dangerous substances. In the case of Ireland, the
Commission has decided to send a supplementary Reasoned Opinion
(second warning letter) to Ireland for similar general failures. This
Commission decision also covers specific weaknesses in Ireland's measures
for phosphorous, the substance which gives greatest concern for Irish water
quality.
Environment Commissioner Margot Wallström commented: “The clean-up of Lake
Vegoritis is over-due and I urge the Greek authorities to re-double their anti-pollution
efforts under this important water quality directive. Likewise, I urge the French and
Irish authorities to close the serious gaps in their implementation. In the case of
Ireland, I would especially urge that phosphorous quality objectives be tightened up
and that more action be taken to tackle farmyard pollution ”.
The Dangerous Substances Directive (Council Directive 76/464/EEC on pollution
caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of
the Community) was one of the first pieces of Community environmental quality
legislation. It creates a framework for dealing with the pollution of water caused by an
extensive list of dangerous substances, including biocides, heavy metals and the
nutrient, phosphorous. Under this framework, Member States are required to adopt
pollution reduction programmes involving binding water quality objectives and a
system of authorisations for discharges. The Commission has already successfully
brought a number of Member States to the European Court of Justice for noncompliance with the Directive1. The Court has confirmed the need for pollutionreduction programmes to be specific, comprehensive and co-ordinated.
1
Apart from Greece, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg and Italy have already been
condemned by the Court of Justice. The Commission's further action against these
Member States is being assessed. Cases against Portugal and the Netherlands are
presently pending before the Court of Justice.
One of the cases already decided by the Court concerns Lake Vegoritis in Greece.
This lake has been seriously polluted by industrial discharges of dangerous
substances. The European Court has confirmed that Greece has not respected its
obligations to have in place pollution reduction programmes covering the lake.
The present Commission decision (based on Article 228 of the Treaty) follows the
failure of Greece to take the measures necessary to comply with the Court
judgement. While Greece has notified measures since the judgement, the
Commission considers that these do not meet the criteria set by the Court for
pollution reduction programmes. In particular, the Greek measures are piece-meal
and fragmentary instead of embodying a comprehensive and coherent approach.
Article 228 gives the Commission the right to take legal action against a Member
State which does not comply with a previous Court judgment. Following changes
inserted by the Treaty on European Union ("the Maastricht Treaty"), the article also
allows the Commission to ask the Court to impose a financial penalty on the Member
State concerned.
The case against France is less advanced, being based on Article 226 of the Treaty.
The Commission's decision reflects its view that France has failed to adopt pollution
reduction programmes in line with the Directive, in particular by failing to adopt
binding water quality objectives and by failing to set deadlines for pollution reduction.
The case against Ireland, also based on Article 226, relates to a similar general
failure to adopt pollution reduction programmes in line with the Directive for most of
the substances covered by the Directive. The Commission understands that Ireland
is close to adopting binding water quality objectives for a number of heavy metals
and biocides, but these have yet to be notified. Moreover, Irish local authorities enjoy
an unjustified exemption from the need for authorisation of their discharges, and,
despite recent legislation, there is still no clear requirement that authorisation of
discharges from Irish marine fish farms should be based on water quality objectives.
The case against Ireland also relates to the substance phosphorous, which is mainly
responsible for the decline in Irish lake and river quality in recent years. Despite
some recent positive developments - Ireland's 1997 adoption of phosphorous quality
objectives, the 1999 preparation by Irish local authorities of reports on the measures
to achieve these objectives, and the recent Irish Environmental Protection Agency
over-view of these reports - there are some serious shortcomings. The quality
objectives in some cases have the effect of creating unjustified official tolerance for a
decline in water quality between the 1970s and the late 1990s. There has in
particular been a failure to effectively tackle farmyard discharges of phosphorous,
and the measures reports are not fully comprehensive and co-ordinated.
The above decisions reflect the Commission’s commitment to ensuring that the
necessary legislative and practical measures to curb water pollution are fully
established across the Community.
2