Brussels, 17/10/2007 (Agence Europe) - The European Commission has decided to take a further step in the infringement procedures against the United Kingdom and Ireland, which, despite several warnings, are still failing to respect EU environmental legislation. Two infringements committed involve the European directive (85/337/EEC) compelling member states to assess the environmental impact of certain private or public projects, before granting them authorisation. In the most serious case raised by the Commission, the non-execution of a European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling, the United Kingdom is under threat of financial sanctions, as stipulated in Article 228 of the treaty, if the Commission refers the case to the ECJ for a second time. The details in each case are as follows:
United Kingdom - the United Kingdom received a second written warning for failing to comply with a May 2006 ruling by the ECJ on the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive on a large leisure complex on parkland in Crystal Palace, London. British legislation erroneously transposed the European directive in question because it did not demand an impact assessment at the landscaping, design and site access stage. The British authorities had indeed announced that they would amend their national legislation but the Commission is still awaiting notification of the new provisions.
Ireland - Ireland will be referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in a case concerning inadequate transposition into national law of the directive on “impact assessments” (third stage of procedure under Article 226 of the treaty). The Commission has criticised this member state for the way it made its decisions on the destruction and removal of historic sites and archaeological monuments without having made a preliminary impact assessment, or the public being able to give their comments on the matter.
Although the directive expressly mentions effects on archaeological heritage, Ireland believes that the decisions taken through two different channels (the national planning authorities and Ireland's Environmental Protection Agency), do not fall under the scope of the directive. The Commission believes otherwise, insofar as these decisions aim to facilitate projects such as the construction of motorways. The Commission considers that because of Irish legislation splitting decision-making, there are risks that outcomes required by the directive will not always be achieved because Irish rules do not guarantee that interactions between pollution-control measures and the landscape will be adequately assessed (with decisions on proposed incinerators, for example). These arguments used by the Commission in its reasoned opinion in June 2007 were strongly refuted by Ireland. The Commission is therefore continuing infringement procedures. (A.N.)