Luxembourg, 16/03/2001 (Agence Europe) - The Court of Justice has condemned France, Greece, Luxembourg and Germany for different degrees of infringements to European legislation.
Nitrate pollution in Brittany: a victory for the Commission
The sixth Chamber of the European Court of Justice, presided over by Claus Gulmann, passed down a ruling that observers qualify as very tough for France. It has condemned the country for having practically done nothing in twenty years to combat nitrate pollution in Brittany, pollution due intensive pig farming (and which pollutes "tap water" to the extent of at times rendering it undrinkable in certain Breton villages). The sixth Chamber thus agreed with the European Commission whose services, say some observers, have undertaken an a colossal work of research, picking through complex and technical legislation to secure France's conviction.
The Court recalls that the directive on water for human consumption was adopted in 1975 and that Member States had until 1977 to limit nitrate content to 50 mg/litre, and ten years to lower this limit to 25mg. For the Court, the "partial" measures and "fragmented" regulations have nothing to do with the programme France should have implemented to combat this pollution. The measures presented to the Commission only represent "simple one-off operations".
In addition, the "Bretagne eau pure I" programme was only aimed at improving the quality of coastal water and not surface water, and cannot be qualified as action plan as meant by the European directive. And the "Bretagne eau pure II" plan was only applied in a limited manner on the Brittany territory. The Court also criticises the French so-called "control of pollution of farming origin" programme, negotiated between the government and national farming organisations and which took effect in 1994: it only concerns "a relatively small proportion of Breton farms, whereas it is meant to cover the whole territory". The "ZES", other programme set up, only concerns "particularly polluted geographical sectors in Brittany and not all the surface water presenting worrying levels of nitrate". Finally, in 1999, no SAGE programmes (plans for water planning and management) created for Brittany were yet operational and, according to observers, the currently existing plans are only vaguely operational.
Experts point to the two consequences of this ruling. The first is immediate: the ruling paves the way for compensation for any person or company who can prove and quantify the injury France;s failure to comply with the European directive has caused them. They may turn to a French courts that will apply the Court of Justice "Brasserie du pecheur" case law (which paves the way to compensation for this type of infringement committed by Member States). The second has political implications: the Commission, which has invested so much effort into this case, cannot fail to ask of France some time in the future what it has done to comply with the European directive. If not satisfied with progress made, it may ask the Court to sentence France to a (steep) fine for each day it lags behind in complying with European legislation.
Worth noting that the Commission based part of its argument on a French report on the situation in Brittany, which itself was "overwhelmingly" incriminating for the French authorities.
In addition, the fourth Chamber, presided over by Antonio La Pergola, has also condemned France for not having transposed the 13 October 1997 directive, amending 1992 and 1993 directives on procedures to follow in cases of public procurement contracts for services, supplies and works. In its defence, the French Government said that the directive had been "partially transposed" by a ruling of 22 April 1998 and that a draft decree was currently being examined, to be "very shortly" submitted to the Conseil d'Etat.
Less harsh condemnations for other Member States
Luxembourg has been condemned for infringing the EC directive on the protection of water against nitrate pollution from agricultural sources. The third Chamber, also presided over by Claus Gulmann, again agrees with the European Commission. Luxembourg should have set distances to be respected for the spreading of chemical fertilizers near water flows. It should also regulate the conditions for spreading on steep slopes. Finally, Luxembourg was wrong in believing that the risks of pollution to fear in case of spreading on fields covered in snow were lesser when the snow was recent. Infringements that observers regard as "minor" compared to what France is accused of. Greece has also been condemned for not having amended the basic directive of the marketing of compound food for animals, whereas two new European directives obliged it to do so. It does not dispute the facts. Nor does Germany dispute the fact that it should have transposed the 1996 directive on the funding of sanitary inspections and controls in time, but claims that the European directive "is, in many ways, unclear, contradictory even".