Included here are all the judgments, opinions and orders relating to Irish cases. Work is  ongoing posting the case summaries, relevant Press Releases from the Commission and from Ireland in respects of efforts to comply with judgments or to addresses cases at an early stage. See our scorecards.

.

LATEST:

Scorecard updated following yesterday’s meeting [8 October 2012] with the Commission. Note that two Irish cases for fines were heard by the ECJ last Thursday – C–374/11 (in respect of C–188/08 septic tanks) and C–279/11 (in respect of C–66/06 EIA agriculture/aquaculture). These are open and shut cases, so we can expect to see fines in both cases around 6 months from now (based on recent precedents). This means that the first fines against Ireland will be implemented during Ireland’s Presidency of the EU. Also note that in June this year the Commission took a formal decision to take a third case back to the ECJ for a fine – in respect of the ECJ’s judgment in C–50/09 (EIA) – the application to the ECJ is being drafted at present.ead More //

• Opinion (17 Dec ‘98)
• Judgment (21 Sep ‘99 )

[These urls have been corrected – apologies. 24.01.12.]

The court in Luxembourg has ruled that every county in the Republic, with the exception of County Cavan, has failed to comply with the 1975 EU Waste Directive governing septic tanks and other treatment systems.
The government had argued that Irish legislation was sufficient to regulate domestic waste water systems, and that there was no need to transpose the EU directive into Irish law. But the EU court dismissed the claim, concluding that Ireland had failed to meet its legal obligations.

Under the EU Waste Framework Directive domestic waste water involving septic tanks or other individual waste water treatment must be recovered or disposed of without endangering human health or the environment. In October 2009, the EU Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that Ireland had not adopted adequate measures to comply with this requirement. Irish legislation lacks in particular systematic periodic checks and inspections.

Following the Court judgement, Ireland was required to adopt the necessary legislation, which ought to have been in place by April 1993. Despite an earlier warning from the Commission (see IP/10/1582), Ireland is still in the process of preparing these measures. While the Commission has recently seen some positive steps taken, it is not satisfied with the slow pace of progress in complying with the requirements of the ECJ judgment.It is therefore referring Ireland back to the Court and asking for a lump-sum fine of €2.7 million and a daily penalty payment of €26,173 as long as the infringement persists after the second Court ruling.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber)
16 July 2009 (*)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment - Directive 85/337/EEC - Access to justice - Directive 2003/35/EC)
In Case C 427/07,
ACTION under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 14 September 2007,
Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Recchia, P. Oliver and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
applicant,
v
Ireland, represented by D. O'Hagan, acting as Agent, and M. Collins SC, and D. McGrath BL, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
defendant,
THE COURT (Second Chamber),
composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J. C. Bonichot, K. Schiemann, J. Makarczyk (Rapporteur) and C. Toader, Judges,
Advocate General: J. Kokott,
having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 27 November 2008,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 15 January 2009,
gives the following
Judgment

20 November 2008 (*)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 85/337/EEC -Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment - Consent given without an assessment)

In Case C?66/06,

ACTION under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 6 February 2006

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber)

6 November 2008 (*)

(Pollution of the aquatic environment - Directive 2006/11/EC - Article 6 - Dangerous substances - Discharges - Prior authorisation - Fixing of emission standards - Declaratory scheme - Fish farms)

In Case C?381/07,

REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Conseil d'État (France), made by decision of 4 June 2007, received at the Court on 8 August 2007, in the proceedings after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,

gives the following

Judgment

1 This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 6 of Directive 2006/11/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community (OJ 2006 L 64, p. 52).

11 September 2008 (*)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 91/271/EEC - Pollution and nuisance - Treatment of urban waste water)

In Case C?316/06,

ACTION under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 20 July 2006,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by S. Pardo Quintillán and D. Lawunmi, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

applicant,

v

Ireland, represented by D. O'Hagan, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

defendant,

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - No assessment of the environmental effects of projects within the scope of Directive 85/337/EEC - Regularisation after the event)

In Case C?215/06,

ACTION under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 11 May 2006,

16 October 2003 (1)

(EAGGF - Clearance of accounts - Financial years 1997 and 1998 - Aid for afforestation of agricultural land - Article 2(1)(c) and (2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92 - Concept of a private-law legal person - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Duty to cooperate in good faith)

In Case C-339/00,

Ireland, represented by D.J. O'Hagan, acting as Agent, assisted by R. Brady, SC, and A.M. Collins, BL, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

applicant,

v

Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Niejahr and K. Fitch, acting as Agents, assisted by J. O'Reilly, SC, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

defendant,

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/449/EC of 5 July 2000 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2000 L 180, p. 49) in so far as it excludes from Community financing the sum of EUR 4 844 345.35 in afforestation aid paid by Ireland for the financial years 1997 and 1998,

.

See FIE Press Release on this comprehensive condemnation of Ireland's legislation and practice in relation to the protection of wild birds or  // Read More // for the judgment itself.

21 May 2007 (*)

(Intervention - Confidentiality)

In Case C?66/06,

ACTION under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 6 February 2006,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by F. Simonetti and X. Lewis, acting as Agents, assisted by F. Louis, avocat, and by C. O'Daly, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

applicant,

v

Ireland, represented by D. O'Hagan, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

defendant,

8 October 2007 (*)

(Removal from the register)

In Case C-21/07,

ACTION under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 23 January 2007,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by J. Hottiaux and D. Lawunmi, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

applicant,

v

Ireland, represented by D. O'Hagan, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

defendant,

Subject: Ireland's breaches of EU environmental law

Could the Commission please provide us with information on how many EU environmental laws Ireland has breached and what they are? Also what cases are pending at the moment?

It covers Special Protection Areas ("SPA") and Special Areas of Conservation ("SAC"), and European Court of Justice ("ECJ") decisions that cover the interpretation of key provisions of Birds Directive and Habitats Directive . 

A brief look is given at some of the more recent European cases and a few Irish contentions that, together, illustrate how protected area controls are operating.  The implications of the recently passed Directive on Environmental Liability are also examined. 

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 91/676/EEC - Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources - Identification of waters affected by pollution and waters which could be affected by pollution - Designation of vulnerable zones which contribute to pollution - Establishment of action programmes in respect of designated vulnerable zones - Monitoring and review)

In Case C-396/01,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by R.B. Wainwright, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

applicant,

v

Ireland, represented by D.J. O'Hagan, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

defendant,

Case C-396/01
Commission of the European Communities
v
Ireland

(Non-compliance with Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources - Identification of waters which are or could be affected by pollution - Establishment of action programmes)

26 April 2005 (*)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Waste management - Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended by Directive 91/156/EC - Articles 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14)

In Case C-494/01,

ACTION under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 20 December 2001,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by R. Wainwright and X. Lewis, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

applicant,

v

Ireland, represented by D. O'Hagan, acting as Agent, assisted by P. Charleton SC and A. Collins BL, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

defendant,

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL
GEELHOED
delivered on 23 September 2004 (1)

Case C-494/01
Commission of the European Communities
v
Ireland

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Infringement of Articles 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991)

11 September 2001 (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfill its obligations - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats - Conservation of wild fauna and flora - Article 4(1) - List of sites - Site information)

In Case C-67/99,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by R. Wainwright and P. Stancanelli, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

applicant,

v

Ireland, represented by M.A. Buckley, acting as Agent, H.A. Whelehan SC and A.M. Collins BL, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

defendant,

APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing to transmit to the Commission the full list of sites mentioned in the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), together with the information on each site required by the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) thereof, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive,

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),

composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, V. Skouris, R. Schintgen, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges,

Advocate General: P. Léger,

Registrar: H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing oral argument from the parties at the hearing on 18 January 2001,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 3 May 2001,

gives the following

Judgment

LÉGER

delivered on 3 May 2001 (1)

Cases C-67/99

[common to Cases C-67/99, C-71/99 and C-220/99, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic ]

Commission of the European Communities

v

Ireland,

C-71/99

Commission of the European Communities

v

Federal Republic of Germany,

and C-220/99

Commission of the European Communities

v

French Republic

(Failure by Member States to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - List of sites eligible for designation as special areas of conservation)

17 January 2002 (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 96/82/EC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

In Case C-394/00,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by G. zur Hausen, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

applicant,

v

Ireland, represented by D. O'Hagan, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

defendant,

APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13) or, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission of those provisions, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive,

RUIZ-JARABO COLOMER

delivered on 11 October 2001 (1)

Case C-394/00

Commission of the European Communities

v

Ireland

(Action for failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 96/82/EC - Failure to transpose into national law within the period prescribed)

Pollution of Water Sources is not Acceptable

• Waste Water Discharge (Authorisation) Regulations 2007 Signed

• All local authority waste water discharges must be authorised

• New Regulations should result in improved water quality in rivers, lakes and coastal waters

• All sources of pollution must be tackled

Notice 31 July 2002

Judgment 2 June 2005

NEW!   Irish Compliance 12 October 2007

(Case C-282/02)

An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 July 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Michael Shotter, acting as agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

-declare that, in failing to take all the measures necessary to ensure a correct transposition and application of Council Directive 76/464/EEC1 of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community, Ireland has failed to comply with Directive 76/464/EEC and in particular Articles 7 and 9 thereof and with its obligations under the EC Treaty;

-order Ireland to pay the costs.

2 June 2005 (*)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Water pollution - Directive 76/464/EEC)

In Case C-282/02,

ACTION under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 31 July 2002,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Shotter, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

applicant,

v

Ireland, represented by D.J. O'Hagan, acting as Agent, and A.M. Collins, BL, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

defendant,

THE COURT (Second Chamber),

composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, J. Makarczyk and P. K?ris, Judges,

Advocate General: M. Poiares Maduro,

Registrar: R. Grass,

having regard to the written procedure,

having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,

gives the following

IP/07/391

Brussels, 22 March 2007

Ireland: Commission takes action to secure clean drinking water

The commission is returning to the Courts for Ireland's failure to comform to the 1998 Judgment. 

• Opinion (24 Apr '02)
• Judgment (14 Nov '02)
• Return to Court Announced 22 March 2007. 'Lack of or inadequate treatment of the urban wastewater discharges of towns and villages is one of the main causes of surface water pollution in Ireland. This pollution harms fish habitats and makes it more difficult to provide safe drinking water.'

Transport        

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to implement Directive 98/20/EC on the limitation of the operation of aeroplanes  

Opinion (20 Jun '02)    

Judgment (15 Oct '02)

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.