|
|
Rights, Freedoms and Repression
Blog Feeds
Anti-Empire
Human Rights in IrelandPromoting Human Rights in Ireland
Lockdown Skeptics
Voltaire NetworkVoltaire, international edition
|
Government Breaching EU Health and Environment Law in a ‘General and Structural Manner’ national |
rights, freedoms and repression |
feature
 Friday September 24, 2004 15:38 by Joe Noonan / Indymedia Editorial - NLCC jnoonan at nlcc dot ie Cork 021 427 0518
 Advocate General of the European Court of Justice reads Government the Riot Act: A report on the health risk caused by illegal dumping carried out by the state. Endangering human health and causing environmental harm is not what any government wants on its CV. But that is exactly what the Irish Government has been doing in the opinion of the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice. Government press people are trying to kill the story. The Government press response today (as carried in the Irish Times today) claiming that this was ancient history and that things are different now does not stand up. Already further legal action is threatened by the Commission in relation to a proposal to put a superdump next to a candidate Special Area of Conservation in Waterford. The Government tried to suppress the Commission's warning letter to it (known as a 'Reasoned Opinion'). Happily the letter came into the public domain despite that effort.
The Advocate-General’s opinion is not binding but is normally followed by the Court. Because of the significance of the issues at stake in the case, both parties’ arguments were heard by the Court’s Grand Chamber (full panel) in July. The EU Commission brought the case to the Court following complaints about breaches of EU waste law at twelve separate locations throughout the country, including Dublin, Cork, Waterford, Wexford, Limerick, Carlow, Laois and Louth. Government lawyers had claimed that these were only 'isolated incidents' and that there was no evidence of 'actual environmental harm'. The Advocate General flatly rejected these claims and in an unusually strongly worded opinion said that there were sufficient grounds for establishing that Ireland had infringed the Waste Directive in a ‘general and structural manner’ - in effect institutionalised lawbreaking. The government has, he says, infringed its obligations because, among other reasons, it has failed to ‘prevent the abandonment, dumping and uncontrolled disposal of waste, thereby endangering human health and causing environmental harm’. This is the first time any EU Member State has been criticised for breaching EU health and environment law in a ‘general and structural manner’. The Advocate General’s opinion is likely to prove devastating to the Government’s defence strategy in this landmark case. His recommendation that Ireland should pay the legal costs of the case would see a hefty legal bill for the Irish taxpayer - another consequence of the ‘persistent widespread and serious’ failure by Government to obey and uphold a fundamental law which is supposed to protect public health and the environment. Whether any of this makes any real difference will depend in part on whether people know about it. So far the Government Press people are playing a blinder in killing the story. The line is that this is all ancient history and they're reformed characters now... The full text of the Advocate General’s Opinion is on the European Court’s website at www.curia.eu.int. Go here and click on the case number in the top right corner (Case C-494/01) to Access Full Text of Advocate General's Opinion. |
The Government of Ireland was slammed for ‘persistent widespread and serious’ failure to comply with EU waste law in the European Court Thursday (Sept. 23). Advocate-General Geelhoed told the Court that as a result of this failure the government has endangered human health and caused environmental harm. In a formal opinion delivered to the Court in Case C-494/01Commission v Ireland the Advocate-General recommends that the Court should declare Ireland to be in breach of no fewer than four separate Articles of the Waste Directive and also in breach of Article 10 of the EC Treaty.
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (14 of 14)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14I would like to (as I assume a lot of you would too) do a bit of feeding with this story, make a few phone calls and send a few emails to the, "What!-Do-My-Own-Research!-But But-I'm-A-Journalist" people on the island (ah I'm only joking) - don't want to and can't do it without the references.
Just can't find direct reference to the case on that URL above.
Perhaps a concerted effort to harass media until they cover the story - bin tax my ass!
Go to www.curia.eu.int. Then click on en (for the English version); then click on Caselaw and then on Search Form. Insert the case number: C-494/0. That should do the trick. Good luck.
C-494/01
now go pick a good thick legal tome off your overburdened bookshelf - perhaps 'Rules of the Superior European Courts' or some such major ham with a bit of serious bone in it - and start swatting the (ir)responsible f***ers about the ears with it until they smarten up a bit. This will certainly never happen but you (and everybody else) will enjoy their pathetic squeaks of pain, and -double-plus-good- it is excellent aerobic exercise that will help maintain your body in trim and brain-cellulitis at bay for donkey's years to come.
Cheers, BP
The Government press response today (as carried in the Irish Times) claiming that this was ancient history and that things are different now does not stand up. Already further legal action is threatened by the Commission in relation to a proposal to put a superdump next to a candidate Special Area of Conservation in Waterford. The Government tried to suppress the Commission's warning letter to it (known as a 'Reasoned Opinion'). Happily the letter came into the public domain despite that effort.
.
The link below should bring you that bit closer to the text ........
My favourite bits are:
8. As indicated above the background to this case was formed by a series of 12 complaints received by the Commission between 1997 and 2000 concerning some 18 waste disposal incidents in Ireland.
[...]
121. The evidential material contained in the 12 complaints also illustrates that the problems of illegal, i.e. unlicensed, waste operations were not confined to certain localities but that these were widespread in Irish territory. They also took place within the remit of various local authorities which is indicative of an administrative problem of a more general character. Such a situation can only be resolved by a change of policy at the level of central government.
122. Finally, in looking at the seriousness of the infringement, the test is the extent to which the practical situation deviates from that which is prescribed by the directive. Having regard to the situations leading to the 12 complaints, it is evident that these do not conform to the objectives listed in Article 4. They contain many examples of serious environmental pollution and damage to wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas.
123. It follows from these observations that I do indeed consider that the failure to comply with Articles 4, 5, 9 and 10, which constitute the core of the waste directive, has been persistent, widespread and serious so that there are sufficient grounds for establishing that Ireland has infringed the waste directive in a general and structural manner.
The Commission has decided to send Ireland a Reasoned Opinion for failing to comply with the Groundwater Directive. This follows the investigation of three complaints about failures to properly investigate and authorise groundwater discharges. The complaints relate to a landfill site at Avoca, County Wicklow, an animal burial ground in Ballinrobe, County Mayo, and a hotel at Creakan Lower, New Ross, County Wexford. The investigation showed that no groundwater authorisation had been given for the animal burial ground, that wastewater disposal at Creakan Lower had been going on for several years without authorisation and that the Irish Environmental Protection Agency had failed to properly ensure groundwater protection at Avoca. It also appears that Ireland interprets the Directive too restrictively, failing to provide for groundwater investigation and authorisation in circumstances covered by the Directive.
The Commission has also decided to send Ireland a Reasoned Opinion for failing, under the Bathing Water Directive, to recognise and protect a bathing area at the Pier, Tramore, County Waterford.
Dated 13 July 2004 .....
Don't believe the effin' effers when they tell you this is old hat ......
The c**nts are in serious trouble alright ....
The Green Party has produced a useful summary of pending investigations:
http://www.greenparty.ie/publications/Pubs/pubs_folder/compliance_report_pmckenna_sml.pdf
You will find the text of *a* reasoned opinion here:
http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/main/article.php?sid=69&mode=thread&order=0
REASONED OPINION
addressed to Ireland under Article 226 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on account of its failure to fulfil obligations under Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment and Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC
There may be more on that site as the Friends of the Irish Environment seem to be fairly active in monitoring breaches of EU directives on environmental matters.
The situation seems to be that previously the Free State gov. tended to release such correspondance from the EU Commission on request but lately they have become much more restrictive with their release of Information policy on such matters.
You'll find more information about that under the following link on the same site:
http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/main/article.php?sid=425
Here's a small excerpt (which hopefully won't be denounced as a copy/paste operation !):
"Friends of the Irish Environment [FIE] Director Tony Lowes, speaking to a study tour on Freedom of Information at the Irish Public Administration [IPA] ... told the international study group that, until recently, Irish NGOs had regularly obtained copies of Reasoned Opinion and Warning Letters on a variety of cases. However the Department of the Environment’s International Affairs Division had told him recently that they had been instructed to refer the release of these documents to the Chief State Solicitors Office, who had subsequently instructed the Department to cease releasing them."
Before I sign off, I'll just note that based on the information on their site Friends of the Irish Environment seem to be quite active on this front and would probably have the necessary experience to give advice to anyone interested in filing a complaint at EU level about breaches of environmental directives by the Free State gov.
(That is unless you suffer from an ideological aversion to talking with tree-huggers ......)
According to the reports on the previously cited web-site, the Irish Examiner was the only newspaper to report on the culture of secrecy re. access to documents on EU infringement cases.
http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/papers/article.php?sid=3661&mode=thread&order=0
Could THIS be the reason ?
"Cases which previously came to light following the release of EU warning letters include the Kildare bypass and Carrickmines controversy."
OF COURSE NOT - IT'S ALL FOR YOUR OWN GOOD .... ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION WILL BE RELEASED ON A NEED TO KNOW BASIS .....
We see no absolutely no necessity for you to know that government environmental policy is right bleeding mess ....... especially when this is being pointed out by a bunch of meddling foreigners ......
i do remember a series of letters in the times between someone and dick roche over how many eu directives they were behind on, dick roche tried to misrepresent the figures but finally insisted that they fully up to date on the _economic_ directives
And what pray tell is an "economic directive" ?
Waste Directives are also "economic directives" because waste management is - or at least in any civilised country should be - an integral part of economic policy .....
The problem with ye fecking thwats in the Free State is that yeer conception of "economics" is "bizniss" and making money .....
Maybe ye should take a breath of fresh air, broaden yeer horizons, cast off the ideological straight-jacket of anglo-american mercantilism and finally realise that there is more to "economics" than wanking off into a greasy till to the tune of the Star-Spangled Banner .....
Let's start at square one. "Economics" comes from the Greek word "oikonomos" which more or less means "managing the household".
Now if waste management isn't an intergal part of "managing the household" - whether at domestic or national level - then what is ?
So by any reasonable definition waste managment is an aspect of economic policy despite the fact that the Free State gombeen men would like to dismiss it as tree-hugging nonsense ..... BECAUSE HAVING TO SHOULDER THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT WOULD EAT INTO THEIR TASTY PROFITS ......
Ditto goes for Groundwater Management.
EVER TRIED TO RUN AN ECONOMY WITHOUT NON-TOXIC GROUNDWATER ?
HAVE FUN TRYING IT SOMETIME ......
And as for Prick Roche and the Squirish Mimes .... who really gives a toss about the lies and blather emanating from the Department of the Taoiseach and obsequiously published by the forelock-tugging white niggers and wee parrots in D'Olier Street ....