Brussels, 7 July 1999Commission moves against Portugal's failure to respect European water directives
The European Commission has decided to take further steps under Article 228 (ex-article 171) of the Treaty against Portugal for non-respect of two previous judgements of the European Court of Justice on Portugal's failure to comply with a European Union (EU) Directive on Mercury Discharges into water, as well as a Directive on the quality of Surface Water. At the same time, the Commission also decided to notify a Reasoned Opinion to Portugal for non-respect of the EU's Dangerous Substances Directive.
On 26 June 1996, the European Court of Justice handed down a judgement against Portugal in Case C-97/208 for failure to comply with the EU's Mercury Discharges Directive (Council Directive 84/156/EEC on limit values and quality objectives for mercury discharges by sectors other than the chlor-alkali electrolysis industry). This Directive aims to control water pollution by mercury, a highly toxic substance. The Court condemned Portugal for failing to draw up a specific programme for mercury discharges by multiple sources which are not industrial plants(1). Such programmes are intended to avoid or eliminate pollution by mercury and are required to include the most appropriate measures and techniques for the replacement, retention and recycling of the substance. The latest Commission decision is to notify a Reasoned Opinion to Portugal under Article 228 for its failure to comply with the judgement.
On 26 June 1996, the European Court of Justice handed down a further judgement against Portugal in Case C-97/214 for failure to comply with the EU's Surface Water Directive (Council Directive 75/440/EEC concerning the quality required of surface water intended for the abstraction of drinking water in the Member States). This Directive aims to protect and improve the quality of surface waters used as a source of drinking water. The Court condemned Portugal for not having a systematic plan of action in accordance with the Directive aimed at improving water quality(2). At the end of 1998, Portugal transmitted an action plan, but the Commission considers this to be manifestly inadequate, hence the decision to launch a procedure under Article 228.
By way of background, Article 228 gives the Commission the right to take legal action against a Member State which does not comply with a previous Court judgement. Following changes inserted by the Treaty on European Union ("the Maastricht Treaty"), the article also allows the Commission to ask the Court to impose a financial penalty on the Member State concerned.
In the third case against Portugal, the Commission has decided to notify a Reasoned Opinion for non-respect of the EU's Dangerous Substances Directive (Council Directive 76/464/EEC on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the EU). Amongst other obligations, this Directive requires Member States to establish pollution reduction programmes involving quality objectives for a range of dangerous substances (i.e. potential pollutants), emission standards and a system of discharge authorisation. The Commission's action in this case stems from the investigation of a complaint that a herbicide manufacturing facility at Manrique de Cima, Sintra was operating without a discharge authorisation, contrary to the Directive. The Commission found the complaint to be well-founded, and was dissatisfied with the adequacy of the steps being taken by the Portuguese authorities, hence the decision to notify a Reasoned Opinion.
The decisions taken confirm the Commission's determination to make use of Article 228, as well as to pursue new actions under Article 226, in order to secure compliance with the EU's water pollution legislation.
(1)Article 4(1) of the Directive
(2)Article 4(2) of the Directive
