Commission pursues legal action against eight Member States over EU water laws

Brussels, 21 January 2003

As part of its efforts to ensure a high level of protection of the environment and human health, the European Commission has decided to take further legal action against Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, France, United Kingdom, Sweden, Ireland and Portugal for non-compliance with EU laws on water quality. Notably, the Commission requests a number of Member States to comply with rulings of the Court of Justice: Germany over bathing water and nitrates pollution, Belgium over bathing water quality, the Netherlands over dangerous substances in water and Sweden over bathing water. Failure to comply with Court rulings can result in substantial fines being imposed on the Member States in question. In addition, Belgium and France have both received requests to supply information on implementation of the urban waste directive, and France has received an additional request to ensure higher drinking water standards in Brittany. The UK has been requested to implement correctly the freshwater fish directive. Two requests have been sent to Ireland on the groundwater and bathing water directives respectively. These requests take the form of Reasoned Opinions. Finally, the Commission is to refer Portugal to the Court with the aim of requesting an improvement in drinking water quality. Non-compliance with these EU water laws may result in polluted rivers, lakes, aquifers and coastal waters, and can present a risk to public health.

Commenting on the decisions, Environment Commissioner Margot Wallström said: "The European Commission's commitment to ensuring a high level of water protection has prompted reminders to be sent to Member States, so that they adhere fully to EU laws that they adopted for this purpose."

Cases against individual member states

Germany

On 8 June 1999, the Court of Justice ruled that Germany had failed to fulfil its obligations under the Bathing Water Directive. In fact, the "old" Länder had failed to take the necessary steps to ensure that bathing water quality conforms to the Directive's standards by December 1985. Germany had also failed to adhere to minimum sampling frequency requirements laid down in the legislation (Case C-1997/198). Since then, the quality of the bathing waters concerned and the frequency of sampling have both steadily improved. However, the situation with regard to inland bathing waters remains unsatisfactory and the Commission has, therefore, decided to send Germany a Reasoned Opinion, (a final written warning) under Article 228 of the Treaty.

On 14 March 2002, the Court ruled that Germany had failed to adopt all the necessary measures to comply with the Nitrates Directive (C-2000/161). More specifically, the relevant German legislation (the 1996 'Düngeverordnung' law), did not respect the maximum limit for nitrate-based fertilizers that could be applied to farm-land. Germany has since confirmed its intention to make legislative changes. However, as these have not yet been notified, the Commission has decided to send a Letter of Formal Notice (a first written warning), in accordance with Article 228.

Belgium

On 25 May 2000, the Court of Justice ruled that Belgium had failed to fulfil its obligations under the Bathing Water Directive by omitting certain freshwater bathing areas from the safeguards required under the Directive. Belgium had also failed to take the necessary steps to ensure that the quality of bathing water conformed to the required standards by December 1985 (Case C-307/98). While Belgian coastal bathing waters are now of good quality, the situation is still unsatisfactory concerning the omitted freshwater areas. The Commission has therefore decided to send Belgium a Reasoned Opinion (second written warning) under Article 228 of the Treaty.

The Commission has also decided to send Belgium a Reasoned Opinion, 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 for both regions and of inadequate information on sensitive areas in the Brussels region.

The Netherlands

On 10 May 2001, the Court of Justice ruled against the Netherlands on account of its failure to adopt and communicate pollution-reduction programmes for ninety-nine dangerous substances under the Dangerous Substances in Water Directive. It had also failed to fix deadlines for their implementation (Case C-1998/152). Although the Netherlands has since prepared measures, it has not yet informed the Commission of its complete programmes. Under Article 228 of the Treaty, the Commission has, therefore, decided to send the Netherlands a Reasoned Opinion for not complying with the judgement.

France

The Commission has decided to send France a Reasoned Opinion for breaches (in Brittany) of the quality standards for nitrates and pesticides that are laid down in the Drinking Water Directive. Information from the French authorities indicates that, in 1998, 13% of the population of this region was supplied with drinking water that exceeded the limit of 50mg/l for nitrates, as laid down in the Directive. The figure for 1996 was 6% of the population. In addition, 33% of the population of Brittany received drinking water that did not respect the standards with regard to pesticides. On 8 March 2001, in a separate case, the Court of Justice condemned France because of high nitrate levels that were found in surface waters in Brittany. These waters were used for the abstraction of drinking water (Case C-1999/266). Whereas the earlier case concerned the pollution of drinking water sources, the present case concerns the quality of the drinking water actually supplied to consumers.

The Commission also decided to send France a Reasoned Opinion for failing to provide sufficient information on how the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive is implemented. This relates in particular to the lack of information on sensitive areas.

United Kingdom

The Commission has decided to send the United Kingdom a Reasoned Opinion, under Article 226 of the Treaty, for failing to adopt the necessary measures to comply with the Freshwater Fish Directive. This follows the investigation of a complaint. Evidence indicated that the United Kingdom approach to designating waters means that it has failed to designate waters throughout the United Kingdom which should have been protected, and that it has failed to draw up and implement adequate pollution-reduction programmes.

Sweden

On 14 June 2001, the Court of Justice ruled that Sweden had failed to fulfil its obligations under the Bathing Water Directive (C-2000/368). More specifically, Sweden had not ensured that all of its 370 coastal water bathing areas and 400 fresh water bathing areas were monitored as often as stipulated by the Directive. While the situation has improved since then, a small number of bathing areas mainly freshwaters around the country - are still not sufficiently monitored. The Commission has, therefore, decided to send Sweden a Letter of Formal Notice under Article 228 of the Treaty.

Ireland

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.

Portugal

The Commission has decided to refer Portugal to the Court of Justice for breaches of the quality standards laid down in the Drinking Water Directive, especially those relating to faecal coliforms, total coliforms and nitrates in respect of small drinking water supplies. 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.

Background

EU legislation

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 that involve 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 blooms of algae. 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 (zones of intensive agriculture 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 that discharges excessive levels of nutrients (in particular, phosphorous and nitrates) into rivers and seas causes "eutrophication. " Eutrophication occurs when there is a sharp increase of photosynthetic organisms - including algae - in the water. This leads to a lowering of oxygen levels (as microbiological organisms degrade the dead algae and other organic material) and to a number of other negative ecological effects. The end result is an imbalance in the 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 urban centres meet minimum wastewater collection and treatment standards within deadlines fixed by the Directive. Two deadlines expired at the end of 1998 and 2000. Another deadline is due to expire in 2005. The deadlines are fixed depending upon 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 (the same applies to the extraction of the nutrients that contribute to eutrophication). The Directive also imposes several other requirements, including those relating to the monitoring of wastewater discharges.

The Surface Water Directive⁽⁴⁾ aims to protect the quality of surface waters used for the abstraction of drinking water. It sets standards and requires Member States to draw up a global and coherent plan of action for all waters, with a special focus on poor-quality ones. This was designed to promote a reduction of pollution within 12 years of the entry into force of the Directive.

The Drinking Water Directive⁽⁵⁾ 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 microbiological parameters, given the public health implications.

The Bathing Water Quality Directive⁽⁶⁾ 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. Details of member states performance can be found in the annual report on bathing water quality

http://europa.eu.int/water/water-bathing/report.html

The Freshwater Fish Directive⁽⁷⁾ requires Member States to designate surface waters that need protecting or improving in order to support fish populations. It also requires, among other things, that mandatory quality standards be achieved in the designated waters. It requires Member States to do regular sampling and to establish pollution reduction programmes.

The Groundwater Directive⁽⁸⁾ requires Member States to apply a system of investigation and authorisation to waste disposal and other activities in order to ensure that groundwater is not polluted by dangerous substances.

Legal Process

Article 226 of the Treaty 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" (or first written warning) 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 final 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, usually two months.

If the Member State fails to comply with the Reasoned Opinion, the Commission may decide to bring the case before the 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 75/440/EEC concerning the quality required of surface waters intended for the abstraction of drinking water in the Member States}

^{(5)Directive 80/778/EEC on the quality of water intended for human consumption}

^{(6)Directive 76/160/EEC concerning the quality of bathing water}

^{(7)Council Directive 78/659/EEC on the quality of fresh waters needing protection or improvement in order to support fish life}

^{(8)Directive 80/68/EEC on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances}