EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels,  
SEC(2008) 2851 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying document to the  
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CO MMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 
 
on implementing European Community Environmental Law 
  
THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
{COM(2008) 773} 
{SEC(2008) 2852} 
EN 2   EN COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Impact Assessment 
Follow up on Commission Communication  to Parliament and Council on 
Implementing EC Environmental Law 
1. Policy Background  
In accordance with Article 211 of the EC Treaty, the Commission is responsible for ensuring 
that Member States observe and implement Community law properly. In particular, under 
Articles 226 and 228 of the Treaty, the Commi ssion can initiate infringement proceedings 
against Member States for failure to meet their obligations under Community law. 
With over 200 legal acts to monitor, this is a major task in the environmental field. These  
legislative measures cover all en vironmental sectors, including water, air, nature, waste, and 
chemicals, and others which deal with cross-cutting issues such as access to environmental information, and public participation in environmental decision-making. 
There are a number of ways in which the Comm ission monitors the application of Community 
environment law. In addition to undertaking its  own studies and assessments, the Commission 
also investigates complaints from European ci tizens, petitions from the European Parliament, 
and questions from MEPs. The Commission can al so use reports submitted by Member States 
themselves (pursuant to reporting obligations un der environmental Directives), as a means of 
detecting breaches of Community environment law. 
If, after the initial investig ation, the Commission considers that a breach of Community 
environment law has occurred, it will instigate fo rmal infringement proceedings against the 
Member State concerned. 
There are three categories of  breaches of Community law.  Firstly, “non-communication” 
cases, where a Member State has failed to  adopt and communicat e to the Commission 
national legislation implementing a directive, after the deadline for implementation has passed. Secondly, there are “non-conformity” cas es, where the Member State has failed to 
implement a directive correctly. The final cate gory is “bad application”, where a Member 
State is failing correctly to a pply Community environment law in practice in a particular case.  
The infringement procedure comprises several stag es and is set out formally in Article 226 of 
the Treaty establishing the Eur opean Community. If the Commi ssion considers that a Member 
State is failing to comply with Community envi ronment law, it will issue, to the government 
of that Member State, a letter of formal notice. In this letter, it will request the Member State concerned, within two months of  receipt of the lette r, to submit its observations on the case. 
Where the Member State fails to do so, or where the Commission considers the response of 
the Member State to be inadequate, it will then  issue a reasoned opinion. If the Member State 
then fails to comply with the reasoned opinion, usually within two months  of the date of its 
issue, the Commission can refer the case to the Eu ropean Court of Justice. In that case, the 
Court will then make a decision as to whet her the Member State is complying with 
Community environment law.  
EN 3   EN The Commission has discretion as to  whether or not to refer a cas e to the Court. For example, 
it may consider that whilst there is sufficient evidence of a breach of Community environment 
law, such action may not be a ppropriate or necessary if the Member State has undertaken to 
remedy the breach. The Commission will, in exerci sing its discretion, have regard to the duty 
on the Member States, under Article 10 of the Treaty, to fulfil the obligations of the Treaty and abstain from jeopardising the attain ment of the objectives of the Treaty.  
If the Court finds a Member State to be in breach of Community environment law, the 
Member State concerned must then take the measures necessary to comply with the judgement of the Court. If it fa ils to do so, it is open to the Commission to take further action 
against that Member State under Article 228 of the Treaty. The Commission can issue a 
further letter of formal notice and reasoned opinion, as under Article 22 6, on the basis of the 
failure of that Member State to  comply with the judgement of the Court. If thereafter, the 
matter is referred to the Court, and the Court finds that the Member State has not complied 
with its initial judgement, it may impose a fine on the Member State, in the form of a lump 
sum or penalty payment or both. 
2. Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties 
Questions concerning the implementation and enforcement of Community environmental law 
are a regular item for discussion with all key st akeholders. The European Parliament takes a 
particular interest in these questions, and th e Commission has regularly discussed the need to 
improve implementation and enforcement work  in the environmental sector in the 
Environment Committee, but also in the Petitions Committee and the Legal Affairs 
Committee. Discussions are also held on a regul ar basis with nationa l authorities through 
package meetings where, in the most recen t meetings, the Horizontal Communication has 
been presented and the idea of a sectoral  Communication on the implementation of EC 
environmental law has been outlined. The sa me dialogue has also been held with 
environmental groups, both at regular meetings which take place in Br ussels and those that 
now take place in conjunction with package meetings in the Member States. Questions on 
environmental enforcement and the potential for improvements in the implementation of 
environmental laws have also been regularly discussed with environmental inspectors in 
IMPEL.
1 
One of the main aims of the Communication on implementing EC environmental law is to 
update a wider audience as to the work bein g undertaken by the Comm ission, and to launch a 
debate as to whether the priority setting proposal s and idea of setting up a pilot project for 
environmental front offices in the Commission dele gations in two or thr ee Member States are 
the best way forward. This Communication is th erefore the starting poin t for a wider debate 
on how the limited resources of the Commission can best be used to ensure that the 
environment is protected. 
                                                 
1 European Union network for the implementation and enforcement of environmental law. This network 
of national inspectors was formed in 1992. 
EN 4   EN 3. The problem definition 
Citizens' concern about the environment and support for action at the Community level has 
always been high2. The Commission is very much aware of the concern that exists for 
protecting the environment th roughout the European Commun ity. Significant correspondence 
is received from citizens and environmenta l groups, bringing these concerns to the 
Commission’s attention. It is therefore not su rprising, when it comes to the enforcement of 
Community law, that the largest caseload is consistently that handled by the Environment Directorate General of the Commission.  
Open Cases in the Commission 
(a s a sse sse d in Octobe r 2007)
42 48291356880
95230698
336565
420
01002003004005006007008009001000
Agriculture 
Competition
Employment
Enterprise & Industry
Environment
Information Society Justice
Internal Market 
Health 
Taxation 
Transport & Energy
 
The European Parliament is al so increasingly active in its s upport for better enforcement of 
Community environmental law and regularly bri ngs environmental concerns to the attention 
of the Commission through its Petitions Committee.  As can be seen from the following table, 
environmental petitions in the Pa rliament regularly form a signifi cant part of the work of the 
Commission, which assesses these, providing th e Petitions Committee with its conclusions. 
                                                 
2 See Eurobarometer 66, published in September 2007, which found that on average almost 3 out of 4 
respondents believe that priority should be given in their country to protecting the environment even if 
it affects economic growth. 
EN 5   EN 
 
The task of handling environmental enforcemen t and implementation questions comes with a 
special set of needs. The significant number s of complaints and petitions received by the 
Commission from concerned citizens, environm ental groups and industry reflect the high 
expectations people have that the Commi ssion will ensure the timely and effective 
enforcement of the legislation adopted in this se ctor. The cases raised are in themselves often 
very complex, requiring fine judgement, freque ntly with the support of  scientific and other 
technical expertise. In the environmental sect or, over 57% of the cases registered with the 
Commission for investigation c oncern the application of the nature protection directives3, the 
directive on environmental impact assessment4 and directives in the waste sector. This is not 
surprising given that these are th e directives that most come in to play when proposals for new 
infrastructure developments are made. The ot her sectors that generate sizeable caseloads 
concern Community legislation on water protection and air quality, all of which have direct and tangible effects on people's quality of life.  
                                                
 
3 Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora and 
Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds. 
4 Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain pub lic and private projects on 
the environment as amende d by Directive 97/11/EC. 
EN 6   EN 
 
Questions are frequently asked as to why th ere are so many complain ts to the Commission 
about the implementation of EC environmental le gislation. The answer is  that the protection 
of the environment is a matter close to the heart of most European citize ns. This high level of 
interest translates into a high number of questions and complaints being sent to the 
Commission. Furthermore, the legisl ation being applied in this se ctor is often of a technical 
nature, requiring Member States  to make a judgement call when  deciding to give the green 
light to a new infrastructure development such as a new roa d, landfill or shopping centre. 
Much of the legislation adopted at the EC level provides a mechanism for more open and 
considered decision making proce sses, providing Member State authorities with checklists of 
requirements that they must ensure are met before giving development consent or issuing 
permits. This may include an assessment as to  whether a proposed development is likely to 
impact on a nearby area designated as sensitive for its nature interest or to increase air 
pollution in an area already under pressure. Unlike legislation ai med at regulating products or 
markets, this kind of legislation is concerne d more directly with matters impacting on the 
daily lives of citizens. The technical nature of the questions raised, and the fact that many of 
the decisions being challenged before the Co mmission are decisions of  judgement by national 
authorities, also explains why providing a suitable response to such complaints and petitions 
can take time. Assessing whether a particular landfill is in compliance with all technical 
requirements or whether the decision to build near  a protected nature site will or will not have 
negative impacts requires considerable technica l input, frequently accompanied by numerous 
exchanges of mail or meetings with the national authorities concerned.  
Against this background, account al so needs to be taken of the fact that the Community has 
undergone considerable and rapid expansion over the last few y ears to twenty-seven Member 
EN 7   EN States. This has increased not only the popu lation of the Community to over five hundred 
million people, but also the number of offici al languages in which the Commission must 
engage. It has not surprisingly increased the Commission’s workload with regard to ensuring 
the correct application of the law throughout the enlarged Community. The internal resources 
of the Commission are in the process of adapting to this enlargement, but resource shortfalls 
still exist with regard to ensuring that the si tuation in the newer Member States can be fully 
investigated by staff with the requisite language skills.  
The body of environmental law at the Community level has also increa sed, in certain cases 
tackling new and complex areas such as emissions  trading. Their application to an enlarged 
Community has generated new cha llenges requiring internal legal expertise to be significantly 
supported at a technical level.  
The adoption of the Aarhus Convention5 in 1998 and the subsequent  development of a more 
coherent policy within the Commission on good governance and improved transparency6 have 
also led to a reorganisation of working methods within the Commission. Correspondence 
from the public is required to be answered within 15 working days, and information requests also require prompt handling, with the emphasi s shifting towards a pr esumption of openness, 
and much of the infringement work of the Co mmission is now press-re leased once decisions 
reach a certain stage of matu rity within the system.  
In addition to this, increased focus and attention has been given to action on preventing 
breaches. In the environmental sector, this has been translated into action on a number of fronts described in the Communication on implementing EC environmental law.  
Conformity checks on adopted legislation are also outsourced  to provide support for the 
internal checking of compliance. This has in it self generated a considerable workload for the 
Commission. Conformity checking needs to be sp eeded up, and completed studies need to be 
given efficient and effective follow-up to ensure that the legislation adopted in each Member State provides an effective framework within whic h all players can exercise their rights to an 
improved environment in accordance with Community rules.  
Work on the prevention of breaches, often before  the adoption of legislation, but also in the 
period before directives are requ ired to be transposed into national law by Member States, is 
essential, albeit time- and resource-intensive. The Commission therefore needs to strike the 
right balance with its limited resources in en suring that additional work on the prevention of 
breaches does not eat into enforcement work.  
4. Objectives of the Communication  
The overall objective of the Commission is to  protect and improve the environment by 
improving the way environmental legislation is  implemented. Meeting this overall objective 
requires action on a variety of fronts and invol ving a wide range of players: the other 
institutions, in particular the European Parliament, national au thorities, environmental groups, 
industry bodies and, of course, individual citizens.  It will also require the Commission to be 
                                                
 
5 Convention on access to informati on, public participation in decision-making an d access to justice in 
environmental matters. 
6 The 2002 Communication on Better Monitoring of the Application of Community law, 
COM(2002)725; Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
regarding public access to European Parliame nt, Council and Commission documents which is 
implemented by Decision No C(2001) 3714/9. 
EN 8   EN more strategic in its thinking on implementation, to make the best possible use of its limited 
resources in meeting this overall objective.  
4.1 Specific objectives 
4.1.1 More efficient handling of infringements 
The objective of the Horizont al Communication is to iden tify improvements in current 
working practices so that infringement files can  be handled more effici ently. As indicated in 
the Horizontal Communication, there are many reas ons why infringement files are opened. In 
the end, relatively few issues ar e judged to require a ruling fr om the Court of Justice. Around 
70% of complaints are closed before a lette r of formal notice is sent, and around 93% are 
closed before a ruling from the Court. However, the process of resolving these cases is often lengthy: it takes an average of nineteen months to close a comp laint before a letter of formal 
notice is sent and fifty months on average for a case to be closed after a reasoned opinion is 
sent but before its referral to the Court.  
The objective of the Commissi on is to resolve implementation questions as quickly and 
efficiently as possible, in particular in key areas such as the timely adoption and communication of national implem enting legislation and checking that what has been adopted 
is correct. Ensuring that the framework for co mpliance is right is essential and will often 
resolve difficulties downstream when it comes to  the application of the law in practice.  
4.1.2 Meeting expectations of the public: ci tizens, environmental groups and the 
European Parliament 
Living in a healthy environment is at the heart of  people's concerns. Citizens thus take a keen 
interest in environmental legislation and it s implementation by national authorities. In many 
cases citizens do not fully accept that environmenta l legislation is being correctly applied in 
their country and turn to the Commission to resolve any problems. The Commission receives 
a high number of complaints from citizens. Member s of Parliament are also very interested in 
ensuring good implementation of environmental legisl ation. It is thus essential to ensure that 
everyone's concerns are dealt w ith in a transparent and effici ent way and that the Commission 
finds a way of becoming more open and accessible in addressing these concerns 
The aim should be for the Commission to find wa ys to engage more di rectly with citizens, 
taking into account their concerns and also expl aining as clearly as pos sible how these often 
technical rules apply in practice to the spec ific situations in which individuals find 
themselves. Generating more direct contacts with  national and local authorities in the Member 
States may also help to provide clarifi cation and improve implementation. Where the 
implementation framework is correct, the decisions taken are more likely to be in compliance with Community law. Making th e Commission more accessible to interested parties in the 
Member States could help to resolve questions and disputes more quickl y. It could also serve 
to provide the Commission in Brussels with  better information about the state of 
implementation on the ground.  
EN 9   EN 5. Policy options and initial analysis of individual options 
5.1 No action 
The no-action scenario would entail the Commi ssion continuing to follow up all complaints 
and petitions in an equal manner, without any special emphasis being given to certain groups 
of cases. The focus would remain on assessments carried out in Brussels. The no-action scenario would still require the Commission to find additional internal  resources to equip 
itself with the language skills necessary to answ er questions from all Member States and to 
assess their national transposing legislation. A negative effect  of continuing to work along 
these lines is that the important work of esta blishing an equal implementation baseline in all 
Member States may be disrupted by the need to handle numerous ad hoc complaints as and 
when these are registered. This baseline work will be particularly skewed for those Member States which receive higher numbers of complain ts than others. As can be seen from the 
snapshot of case numbers below, numbers va ry considerably between Member States.  
 
The numbers of cases registered with regard to  individual Member Stat es does not necessarily 
translate into an equivalent number of actual infringement cases being opened against that 
Member State. 
Continuing to work along these existing lines has a number of disadvantages. An approach 
whereby case handling merely follows up co mplaints registered with the Commission, 
thereby swamping its limited resources, fails to t ackle some of the more  strategic enforcement 
goals such as ensuring that nati onal transposing legislation is adopted in a tim ely and correct 
manner and providing an improved baseline for the application of the law in individual cases. 
This is particularly the case for those Member  States with high numbers of complaints and 
EN 10   EN petitions. The no-action scenario also fails to take account of th e need to bring the 
Commission in Brussels closer to citizens and national authoriti es in the Member States. The 
difficulties entailed in continuing to work along existing lines without additional focus in key 
priority areas in an enlarged Union therefore leads to the conclusion that the no-action policy option is not a viable one. This option s hould therefore be discarded from further 
consideration.  
5.2. Increasing emphasis on the prevention of breaches .  
Over the last decade, increas ing emphasis has been placed on the need to take action to 
prevent breaches of Community environmenta l law. Action has been taken on numerous 
fronts:  
Various thematic strategies have been used  to try to bring about improved coherence, 
resulting sometimes in the si mplification of legislation.  
Advice is given to Member States after adopt ion of Community legislation, but before the 
transposition deadline has expired.  Conformity-checking studies have been carri ed out for many environmental directives. 
Environmental reporting syst ems are being rationalised. 
Own-initiative technical studies have been commissioned. The need for cross-compliance, in particular  where projects receiv e EU funding, has been 
emphasised. The Commission has drafted numerous guidance documents on the application of Community 
environmental law, in particular in the nature and water sectors
7.  
Dialogue with authorities thr ough package meetings is now frequently supplemented by 
training and awareness-raising seminars. Dialogue with IMPEL and with stakeholder gr oups increasingly informs the work of the 
Commission on environmental implementation and enforcement. 
The aim of this policy is to continue with th ese efforts and to make them even more of a 
priority in the coming years. Furthermore, the idea is that these preventative measures will be 
reinforced by the following additional actions: 
The creation of permanent networ ks of Member State experts to  work with the Commission to 
help smooth the implementation of new direc tives through the exchan ge of experience and 
early identification of problem areas. An increased emphasis on Member States bei ng required to provide correlation tables, 
showing the match between th e provisions of directives and the corresponding national 
provisions.  Further emphasis on the producti on of guidance documents, explaining the implications of 
key environmental legislation or  recommending certain action or  approaches to be taken.  
The setting-up of a working group with Member  States on improving compliance with EC 
environmental law. 
                                                
 
7 For example, the Commission has produced twenty-four guidance documents on key aspects of the 
Water Framework Directive, 2000/60/EC; six guidance documents on the Seveso II or Major-Accident 
Hazard Directive, 96/82/EC and several guidance docum ents on the Wild Birds and Habitats Directives, 
79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC. 
EN 11   EN 5.3. Assuring a local physical presence in the Commission representation offices of 
selected Member States.  
The Communication on Implementing European  Community Environmental Law suggests 
that the Commission’s role in dealing directly with information requests and complaints from 
the public might be supported by having a local physical presence in the Commission 
representation offices of  four Member States as a pilot project. The aim of this new policy 
initiative would be to bring the Commission in closer contact with citizens in these Member 
State, enabling complaints and concerns to be resolved more efficiently and effectively. It 
would also provide a mechanism for keeping the Commission more directly informed of 
environmental concerns on the ground. Contacts with environmental groups, industry bodies 
and national authorities at the va rious regional levels would al so benefit. In practice this 
would involve three or four Me mber States being selected on the basis that their language 
requirements are not easily addressed by Co mmission staff in Brusse ls, whose official 
working languages are English, French and Germ an. A further criterio n would be that the 
Member States chosen generate a considerable number of questions and complaints from their 
citizens to the Commission. The aim would be to set up this pilot project in  2008 and to assess 
its success in reaching out to citizens, environmental groups, business groups and national and local administrations to provide more direct answers to que stions and to provide feedback on 
the implementation of EC environmental law to the Commission in Brussels.  
This scheme will involve the deployment of some limited new internal resources. To be 
effective, staff will need to be versed in bot h their national environmental legislation and the 
Community’s environmental acquis. The idea is  that initially one staff member will be 
deployed in four selected Member States.  
5.4. The Commission to beco me more focused in its handling of important 
environmental cases 
The Commission’s Horizontal Communication suggests that pr iority areas will include 
breaches consisting of a failure to adopt and notify required national laws and a failure to 
comply with rulings of the European Court of  Justice. In the environmental sector, both 
categories are already a priority. Priority is also  given to ensuring that national legislation is 
comprehensive and correct. The Communication on implementing European Community environmental law suggests that, in the envi ronmental sector, the focus should in future 
extend to systemic breaches where contraventio n is geographically wide spread or repeated, 
despite having been drawn to the attention of th e national authorities. Furthermore, priority 
cases will include breaches of core responsi bilities such as the designation of nature 
protection sites, breaches concerning big infr astructure projects, and interventions involving 
EU funding or a trans-frontier dimension. These cas es will be handled in a more intensive and 
immediate manner. 
Whilst focusing on these important priority cas es, the Commission will continue to handle 
cases which do not fall into one of the above categories of important cases.  
EN 12   EN 5.5. The Commission to take on an enhanced role which focuses on its own powers of 
investigating and prosecuting environmenta l cases before the Court of Justice  
One option open to the Commissi on would be to focus its resources on bringing more actions 
before the European Court of Justice, pursuing these cases as  quickly as po ssible through the 
pre-litigation steps. Currently only about 10% of  cases registered with the Commission result 
in a case being lodged with th e European Court of Justice. This idea has received some 
support in the European Parliament and al so from sectors of the NGO community.  
6. Comparing positive and negative eff ects of the different policy options 
The first option, the no-action option, was discarded at the initial phase of analysis, and so this 
comparison will focus on the remaining four options outlined above.  
Option 2 — Increasing emphasis on the prevention of breaches 
Positive effects Negative effects 
The creation of a good baseline, with timely 
adoption of correct national implementing legislation, should assist in reducing difficulties and complaints about its application downstream.  A potential negative effect of these activities 
is that they could dist ract resources and focus 
from other important objectives such as increasing dialogue with the various 
stakeholders and focusing on important priority cases that need to be moved forward rapidly.  
Measures such as internet-based guidance 
provide a wide audience with key interpretative tools for questions which might otherwise require individual attention, potentially warding off complaints and petitions.   
Increased dialogue with  Member States at 
package meetings and through focused awareness-raising events should help to reduce areas of confusion and conflict.   
Reaching out to a wider group of 
stakeholders to draft guidance and increasing contact with Member State experts at an early stage in the transposit ion process should help 
to identify points of di fficulty more quickly 
and provide clarification.   
An increased insistence on the provision of 
conformity tables should focus Member States' minds on the details of implementation and improve the transparency of what has been adopted for the Commission, and for the wider public.   
EN 13   EN In the long term, the creation of an improved 
compliance baseline in all Member States should bear fruit, potentially reducing 
citizens' complaints and/or allowing questions to be resolved at the national level without recourse to the Commission being deemed necessary.   
Option 3 — Having a local physical presen ce in Commission representation offices of 
selected Member States 
Positive effects Negative effects 
This policy option should provide citizens, local authorities and industry with a focal 
point for questions.  This option will initiall y result in additional 
work for the Commission in Brussels in the start-up phase.  
Questions currently being directed to Brussels, whether to the Commission or the European Parliament, can initially be answered closer to hom e, hopefully providing 
a more accessible face of the Commission and speedier responses.  It is essential that work between the 
Commission in Brussels and the offices in Member States be closely coordinated to avoid duplication and/or contradiction in positions taken. 
In the long term, this approach should result in fewer questions having to be answered by the Commission in Brussels.  The need to find additional resources at a 
time when such resources are limited . 
Information form the Member State on the 
state of implementation in the environmental 
sector can be filtered back better to Brussels.   
There should be increased scope for 
identifying country-speci fic needs for training 
and workshops to improve understanding and implementation of environmental legislation focused on specific problem areas.   
The presence of new staff in the Commission 
representation offices will also be able to assist fact-finding missions of the European Parliament. 
  
EN 14   EN Option 4 — The Commission to become mo re focused in its handling of important 
environmental cases 
Positive effects Negative effects 
By focusing on priority areas such as the correct transposition of legislation and similar breaches across the Member States, it is hoped that in the longer term the baseline for compliance in the Member States will improve, with a resultant drop in complaints. 
Such a forecast is however difficult to 
quantify.  In the short term, the internal effects are 
likely to be a slightly increased workload, given that all cases will continue to be handled by the Commission, but with increased emphasis on the priority areas outlined.  
Option 5 — The Commission to take on an enhanced role which focuses on its own 
powers of investigating and prosecuting envi ronmental cases before the Court of Justice 
Positive effects Negative effects 
After an initial shock, Member States would 
learn that a swift res ponse was required once 
the pre-litigation phase of action under Article 226 of the EC Treaty was initiated.  Member State may be quicker to adopt a set 
position, which is as likely to be a defensive one as one of submission to the Commission’s arguments.  
Court judgements may be obtained more 
quickly, clarifying difficult legal questions.  Many cases are currently resolved positively 
at an early stage in the pre-litigation procedures through dialogue between the Member State and the Commission. A more aggressive and litigious stance is likely to impact negatively on open dialogue where both parties are focused on protecting their legal positions.  
 If the emphasis is on speeding up litigation 
without establishing pr iorities for important 
cases, the results may not address the most urgent environmental protection needs.  
  
6. Preferred policy option 
The preferred policy option is a mix of options 2, 3 and 4. This would exclude recourse to 
options 1 and 5. The Commission is of the opinion that  a mixture of opti ons will make the 
best use of its resources in a more focuse d way, allowing action to be concentrated on 
preventative measures and at the same time ho ming in on important cases which will have the 
widest benefits for the environment. The ne w pilot scheme providing  for a local physical 
presence in the Commission representation offices of three or four Memb er States will also 
enable the Commission to be more in touch w ith the concerns of citizens and should provide 
quicker responses to concerns raised at a local level. If the results are positive, this pilot scheme could be extended to other Member States.  
EN 15   EN The option of focusing on bringing cases to the Court of Justice does not help in reaching out 
to citizens in this more direct way, and is likely to result in Member States quickly adopting a more entrenched position rather than seeking to  resolve matters in a constructive manner. In 
the long run, increased recourse to formal lega l action is unlikely to br ing about more tangible 
benefits for the environment than the course of action preferred by th e Commission which, in 
any case, maintains recourse to th e Court of Justice as an option.  
The preferred policy option is therefor e a combination of options 2, 3 and 4. 
7. Monitoring and evaluation 
The Communication on implementing European Co mmunity environmental law is a starting 
point for the debate on how best the Co mmission should tackle the challenge of 
implementation and enforcement of Community environmental law in an enlarged Community. In the coming year, the Commissi on will discuss the Communication with a 
wide audience, presenting it to the European Pa rliament, to Member States through package 
meetings and the environmental groups through its regular dialogues in Brussels, but also at 
its now regular meetings in the Member States. As foreseen in the Horizontal 
Communication, the Commission will be presenting an  annual review of its priority-setting 
focus in its Annual Reports. This will also be an opportunity to evaluate stated priority areas 
and where necessary propose amendments to th e existing approach. For the pilot project 
creating an enhanced presence in four national cap itals, this wider debate will feed into the 
evaluation of their success a nd potential for future expansi on to other Member States.