Commission acts against Portugal, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, France and Greece for not complying with water quality

Brussels, 2 July 2002

The European Commission has decided to take further legal action against Portugal, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, France and Greece for non-compliance with EU laws on water quality legislation. The laws in question are the Directives governing bathing water, drinking water, urban wastewater, nitrates, and discharges of dangerous substances. The Bathing Water and Drinking Water Directives set quality standards for water used for bathing and drinking, respectively, with the objective of safeguarding the public. Breaches can endanger human health. The Urban Waste Water Directive sets requirements for treating waste water from major cities and towns, so helping to avoid breaches of standards such as those of the Bathing Water Directive. The Nitrates Directive aims to complement such treatment by reducing pollution from agriculture. The Directive on Dangerous Substances requires controls on polluting discharges from industries and other activities. Non-compliance with these laws often manifests itself in polluted rivers, lakes and coastal waters.

Commenting on the decisions, Margot Wallström, the Environment Commissioner, said: "The European Commission must respond to society's special concern for a high level of water protection by ensuring that Member States comply with the range of EU laws that they have adopted for this purpose. It is essential that all Member States adhere fully to these laws if we are to ensure the sustainable management of water quality in Europe."

Portugal

On 13 July 2000, the Court of Justice ruled against Portugal for its failure to adopt and communicate pollution-reduction programmes for ninety-nine dangerous substances under the Dangerous Substances Directive, and for failing to fix deadlines for their implementation (Case C-1998/261). While Portugal has carried out monitoring, it has not yet provided complete details of its programmes. Therefore, the Commission has decided to send Portugal a Reasoned Opinion (second written warning) for not complying with the judgement, under Article 228 of the EC Treaty.

The Commission has also decided to refer Portugal to the Court under Article 226 of the Treaty for insufficiently designating areas for protection under the Nitrates Directive. To date, Portugal has only designated three small nitrate vulnerable zones. However, studies undertaken by the Commission indicate the need to designate up to twenty-two more areas nationwide, some of them very large. For example, the Commission considers that important irrigated areas of the Algarve and Setubal regions should be designated as nitrate vulnerable zones.

Portugal is also to receive a Reasoned Opinion for failing to ensure that, in the limited areas that have been designated, action programmes to reduce pollution by nitrates comply with the Directive. Although the Portuguese programmes have been improved, several shortcomings still remain. For example, limits imposed on the amount of nitrate-based fertilizer that can be applied to maize crops in one of the designated areas are not sufficiently strict.

The Commission has also decided to send a separate Reasoned Opinion to Portugal for widespread breaches of the quality standards laid down in the Drinking Water Directive, especially standards relating to faecal coliforms, total coliforms and nitrates. These breaches are highlighted in Portuguese drinking water reports for 1999 and 2000. Breaches of the faecal coliform standards are of particular concern, pointing to a risk of human exposure to bacteria and viruses that cause disease.

Spain

The Commission has decided to refer Spain to the Court of Justice for breaches of the Drinking Water Directive with respect to the Baix Ter aquifer in Catalonia. A complaint investigation into pollution problems in the area found that up to 25% of drinking water samples abstracted from the aquifer exceeded the Directive's 50µg/l nitrate maximum admissible concentration (MAC). The Commission believes that these breaches are linked to the inadequate control of intensive pig farming operations in the area.

The Commission has also decided to send Spain a Reasoned Opinion for contravening the Bathing Water Directive at several beaches in Ría de Vigo in Galicia, notably at «Videira», «Niño do Corvo» and «Canabal», in the municipality of Moaña. Results of monitoring show very high levels of faecal coliforms, an indicator of pollution due to sewage. This is linked to the failure to adequately upgrade wastewater treatment operations in the area.

Finally, the Commission has decided to send Spain a Letter of Formal Notice (first written warning) for failing to provide sufficient information on how the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive is implemented. This relates in particular to the lack of a general implementation report and of information on industrial sectors. The Commission has decided to send similar letters to several other Member States.

Italy

On 8 November 2001, the Court of Justice ruled against Italy for its failure to adopt a pollution action programme, to carry out monitoring and to report to the Commission as required under the Nitrates Directive (Case C-1999/127). The situation has still not been rectified, so the Commission has decided to send Italy a Letter of Formal Notice (first written warning) for not complying with the judgement, under Article 228 of the EC Treaty.

Sweden

The Commission has decided to send Sweden a Reasoned Opinion under Article 226 of the Treaty for breach of the Nitrates Directive. This follows a Commission review of the areas designated by Sweden as vulnerable to nitrate pollution. The Commission's conclusion was that Sweden had failed to designate agricultural areas close to certain important lakes (Vanern, Vattern, Hjalmaren and Malaren). The Swedish authorities have since reviewed the situation, but no additional designations have yet been made.

The Commission has also decided to send Sweden a Letter of Formal Notice (first written warning) for failing to provide a report on how the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive is implemented. Similar letters will be sent to several other Member States.

France

The Commission has decided to send France a Letter of Formal Notice (first written warning) for failing to provide sufficient information on how the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive is implemented. This relates in particular to the lack of a general implementation report and of information on sensitive areas. The Commission has decided to send similar letters to several other Member States.

Belgium

On 21 January 1999, the Court of Justice ruled against Belgium for its failure to adopt and communicate pollution-reduction programmes for ninety-nine dangerous substances under the Dangerous Substances Directive, and for failing to fix deadlines for their implementation (Case C-1997/207). Complete programmes are still lacking from the Brussels and Wallonia regions. Therefore the Commission has decided to send Belgium a Reasoned Opinion (second written warning) under Article 228 of the EC Treaty for not complying with the judgement. The Commission has also decided to send Belgium a Letter of Formal Notice (first written warning) under Article 226 of the Treaty for failing to provide sufficient information on how the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive is implemented in the Brussels and Wallonia regions. This relates in particular to the lack of a general implementation report and of information on sensitive areas. The Commission has decided to send similar letters to several other Member States.

Luxembourg

On 11 June 1998, the Court of Justice ruled against Luxembourg for its failure to adopt and communicate pollution-reduction programmes for ninety-nine dangerous substances under the Dangerous Substances Directive, and for failing to fix deadlines for their implementation (Case C-1996/206). Although Luxembourg has since prepared measures, it has not yet sent notification of complete programmes. The Commission has, therefore, decided to send Luxembourg a Reasoned Opinion (second written warning) under Article 228 of the EC Treaty for not complying with the judgement .

The Netherlands

On 10 May 2001, the Court of Justice ruled against the Netherlands for its failure to adopt and communicate pollution-reduction programmes for ninety-nine dangerous substances under the Dangerous Substances Directive, and for failing to fix deadlines for their implementation (Case C-1998/152). Although the Netherlands has since prepared measures, it has not yet sent notification of complete programmes. The Commission has, therefore, decided to send the Netherlands a Letter of Formal Notice (first written warning) for not complying with the judgement, under Article 228 of the Treaty of the European Communities (EC).

Greece

The Commission has decided to send Greece a Letter of Formal Notice (first written warning) for failing to provide sufficient information on how the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive is implemented. This relates in particular to the lack of a general implementation report and of information on industrial sectors. The Commission has decided to send similar letters to several other Member States.

Protecting Europe's water: Relevant EU laws

The Dangerous Substances Directive⁽¹⁾ is one of the earliest pieces of EU environmental legislation. It creates a framework for dealing with water pollution caused by an extensive list of dangerous substances. Under this framework, Member States are required to adopt pollution-reduction programmes involving binding water quality objectives and a system of authorisations for discharges. The Commission has taken a number of Member States to the European Court of Justice for non-compliance with the Directive, and the Court has confirmed the need for pollution-reduction programmes to be specific, comprehensive and co-ordinated.

The Nitrates Directive⁽²⁾ aims to prevent the introduction into surface waters and ground waters of excessive levels of nitrates due to the presence of agricultural fertilisers and agricultural waste. Excessive nitrate levels cause undesirable ecological changes in water and are a factor in the proliferation of harmful algal blooms. They also adversely affect public health. The Directive required Member States to carry out monitoring of surface waters and ground water, to identify nitrate-polluted waters and to designate vulnerable zones (i.e. intensive agricultural zones that include nitrate-polluted waters) by December 1993.

The Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive⁽³⁾ addresses nutrient-based, bacterial and viral pollution caused by urban wastewater. Urban wastewater discharges, by discharging excessive levels of nutrients (in particular, phosphorous and nitrates) into rivers and seas, cause "eutrophication. " Eutrophication is caused by sharp increases in the presence of photosynthetic organisms - including algae -by a lowering of oxygen levels as anaerobic organisms degrade the dead algae, and by a number of other ecological effects. The end result is a disturbance of the balance of organisms present in water and a reduction in water quality. This can drastically change the ecosystem of a lake or sea. It may even lead to the death of large numbers of fish. By introducing potentially harmful bacteria and viruses, the discharges also pose human health risks in waters that are used for bathing or shellfish culture.

The Directive requires that cities, towns and other population centres meet minimum wastewater collection and treatment standards within deadlines fixed by the Directive. The deadlines expired at the end of 1998, 2000 and 2005, depending on the sensitivity of the receiving water and on the size of the population centre in question. The Directive required Member States to have identified sensitive areas by 31 December 1993, and to have met strict standards for the discharging of wastewater directly into sensitive areas or their catchments. This should have been achieved by 31 December 1998 (including the extraction of nutrients that contribute to eutrophication). The Directive also imposes several other requirements, including those relating to the monitoring of wastewater discharges.

The Drinking Water Directive⁽⁴⁾ establishes quality standards for drinking water and is a key instrument for safeguarding public health. These standards apply to a range of substances, properties and organisms (called parameters). The Directive is particularly strict with regard to micro-biological parameters, given the public health implications.

The Bathing Water Quality Directive⁽⁵⁾ is also important for public health. It aims to ensure that bathing waters meet minimum quality criteria by establishing a set of binding and stricter EU standards for a range of key parameters (including indicators of the presence of faecal bacteria).

The Directive also requires that Member States carry out regular water quality monitoring and send annual reports to the Commission, detailing bathing water quality. The legal deadline for complying with these standards was 1985.

Legal Process

As guardian of the EC Treaty, the Commission must ensure that the legal requirements of the Treaty and legislation adopted under the Treaty are respected by Member States. The procedure being followed in this case relates to Article 226 of the Treaty, which gives the Commission powers to take legal action against a Member State that is not respecting its obligations.

If the Commission considers that there may be an infringement of Community law that warrants the opening of an infringement procedure, it addresses a "Letter of Formal Notice" to the Member State concerned, requesting it to submit its observations by a specified date, usually two months.

In the light of the reply or absence of a reply from the Member State concerned, the Commission may decide to address a "Reasoned Opinion" (or second written warning) to the Member State. This clearly and definitively sets out the reasons why it considers there to have been an infringement of Community law and calls upon the Member State to comply within a specified period, normally two months.

If the Member State fails to comply with the Reasoned Opinion, the Commission may decide to bring the case before the European Court of Justice.

Article 228 of the Treaty gives the Commission power to act against a Member State that does not comply with a previous judgement of the European Court of Justice. The article also allows the Commission to ask the Court to impose a financial penalty on the Member State concerned.

For current statistics on infringements in general see:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/droit_com/index_en.htm#infractions

⁽¹⁾^{Council Directive 76/464/EEC on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community}

⁽²⁾^{Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources}

⁽³⁾^{Council Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste water treatment}

⁽⁴⁾^{Directive 80/778/EEC on the quality of water intended for human consumption}

⁽⁵⁾^{Directive 76/160/EEC concerning the quality of bathing water}



© Waternunc.com 2002