July 26, 2002 -- The European Commission is acting to safeguard the environment by pursuing infringement proceedings against Belgium and Sweden.
The Commission has sent Belgium a request for information concerning measures taken to comply with a 2001 ruling of the Court of Justice. This ruling condemned Belgian legislation allowing activities with an impact upon the environment to be authorised without an express act of the administration (so-called "tacit authorisations").
In separate cases, Sweden and Finland have received formal requests ('Reasoned Opinions') to correct shortcomings in their legislation on integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC).
EU law on IPPC law aims to ensure that potentially polluting operations are subject to strict environmental controls. Current Swedish and Finnish legislation does not guarantee citizens that their environment will be protected as strictly as the Directive requires.
In the absence of a satisfactory response within 2 months of receipt of the 'Reasoned Opinion', the Commission may refer Sweden and Finland to the Court.
Commenting on the proceedings, Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom said:
"Correct authorisation procedures are necessary in order to control activities that could have a harmful effect on the environment. There is no point in Member States agreeing to legislation which they then fail to implement. I therefore urge Belgium, Sweden and Finland to bring their legislation and practices into line with EU legislation as soon as possible."
Belgium tacit authorisations
On 14 June 2001, the European Court of Justice ruled against Belgium with regard to tacit authorisations (Case C-2000/230).
Authorisations are a key instrument for promoting environmental protection. Several EU environmental Directives require Member States to allow certain activities to be carried out only where an authorisation has been granted which takes account of environmental requirements.
Where a person applies for authorisation, and the administration does not react within a certain period, Belgian legislation deems an authorisation to be granted. However, EU legislation requires an administration to do more than simply remain passive. Citizens are entitled to expect that activities that may affect them or their environment will be given proper and express consideration. The following are examples of such Directives:
* The Framework Waste Directive(1) (which requires permits for waste facilities)
* The Dangerous Substances Directive(2) (which requires prior authorisation for the discharging of dangerous substances into surface water),
* The Groundwater Directive(3) (which requires prior authorisation of the discharging of dangerous substances to groundwater)
* The Industrial Plants Directive(4) (which requires the authorisation of certain industrial plants in respect of their air pollution emissions).
In addition to these Directives, the EU's Environmental Impact Assessment Directive(5) requires that, for certain categories of project, an environmental impact assessment first be carried out before an authorisation is granted.
Under Belgian law, when an application is made for an authorisation and the authorities do not oppose it within a certain period of time, the authorisation is considered to have been granted. The Court of Justice ruled against Belgium on the grounds that authorisation cannot be granted by default.
Since then, Belgium has not informed the Commission of any measures that it has taken to correct its legislation. The Commission has, therefore, decided to issue a letter of formal notice to ask for information under Article 228 of the EC Treaty.
Sweden and Finland - IPPC
The decision to send Sweden a Reasoned Opinion follows close examination of Swedish legislation used to implement the Directive. The provisions of this legislation do not accurately reflect key concepts found in the Directive such as"Best Available Techniques" ( BAT ).
Furthermore, Swedish legislation is weaker than the Directive in terms of the mandatory content of applications for authorisation and permit conditions and it does not require any review of permits. Sweden has confirmed that it intends to supplement its legislation on a number of points raised by the Commission, but adopted texts have not yet been notified to the Commission.
The decision to send Finland a Reasoned Opinion follows a similar examination of Finnish legislation. This revealed a few points on which the Finnish legislation did not accurately reflect the wording of the Directive, such as the obligation to include 'emission limit values' in permit conditions. Finland has confirmed an intention to make the necessary changes in its legislation, but new measures have yet to be communicated.
The IPPC Directive(6) is one of the EU's major pieces of environmental legislation. It is a further example of legislation which relies on authorisation to control environmental impacts.
The Directive applies to a significant number of mainly industrial activities with a high pollution potential covering, for example, the energy sector, the production and processing of metals, the mineral and chemical industries, waste management facilities and food production. It also applies to intensive livestock farming. It seeks to prevent or reduce pollution of the air, water and land through a comprehensive permit system that assesses each environmental medium simultaneously.
In addition, the Directive's scope covers the generation of waste, energy use, accident prevention and the cleaningup of industrial sites. This approach ensures a high degree of environmental protection and contrasts with the approach of older environmental legislation, which regulated each environmental medium individually.
For current statistics on infringements in general, please visit the following web-site:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/droit_com/index_en.htm#infractions
