WRITTEN QUESTION E-3404/03 by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Ireland and infringement cases for bad application of EU environmental legislation.
Date: 2003-11-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Ireland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental law, environmental protection, infringement of EU law, infringement procedure (EU), waste management

C 78 E/538

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Directive 2002/24/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 18 March 2002 relates to the type approval
of two and three-wheeled motor vehicles (1). It does not regulate the conditions under which such vehicles
may be used in the Member States. In the absence of Community harmonising rules, Member States have a
wide discretion as to the rules they adopt in relation to the use of motorised bicycles on public roads.

The fact that, in relation to the requirements laid down for type approval, the Directive distinguishes
between categories of cycles with pedal assistance and indicates that specific type approval requirements
will be laid down for low performance mopeds in no way obliges Member States to make a similar
distinction in their rules regarding the use of such vehicles. Therefore, the Commission considers that the
United Kingdom is not acting in a manner incompatible with the Directive in failing to distinguish
between ordinary and low performance mopeds in relation to such matters as registration, road tax,
Ministry of Transport test (MOT) requirements, third-party insurance and the obligation to wear a crash
helmet.

To the extent that the burdensome character of the rules imposed by a Member State for the use of a
product may hinder the import of such product from other Member States, the Commission wonders
whether the United Kingdom’s rules on the use of low performance mopeds amount to an unjustified
measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction on trade in the meaning of Articles 28 and
30 of the EC Treaty. However, it is not apparent from the Honourable Member’s question that the United
Kingdom’s rules at stake are creating a barrier to imports.

Furthermore, the Commission notes that, even if this should appear to be the case, at least some of the
obligations imposed by the United Kingdom (such as the one concerning third-party insurance or the
compulsory wearing of a crash helmet) may be considered as justified under public health or road security
considerations, i.e. either under one of the explicit grounds set by Article 30 of the EC Treaty or under an
overriding requirement in the general public interest as defined by the Court of Justice.

Furthermore the Commission recalls that, under the First Motor Insurance Directive (72/5/EEC (2)) ‘any
motor vehicle intended for travel on land and propelled by mechanical power, but not running on rails,
and any trailer, whether or not coupled’ must have a compulsory insurance cover. Therefore, also in this
perspective it appears that the United Kingdom can legitimately impose that low performance mopeds be
covered by motor third party liability insurance.

(1) OJ L 124, 9.5.2002.
(2) OJ L 103, 2.5.1972.

(2004/C 78 E/0560)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3404/03

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 November 2003)

Subject: Ireland and infringement cases for bad application of EU environmental legislation

1. What are the 85 cases from the period 1998 to 2002 in which Ireland received a letter of formal
notice due to the bad application of environmental law and to which directives do they relate?

2.

3.

How many implementation court cases has Ireland lost in the period 1993-2003?

How many ‘letters of formal notice’ were delivered to Ireland in the period 1993 to 1998?

4. What are the cases for which the Commission has officially opened files relating to Ireland but which
have not yet led to a letter of formal notice?

Regarding other Member States, in how many cases has the Commission issued a ‘reasoned opinion’

5.
during the period 1993 to 2003?

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/539

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

1.
Between 1998 and 2002, a total of 75 letters of formal notice were notified to Ireland with regard to
cases involving bad application of Union environmental legislation (1). An additional number of letters of
formal notice were notified for cases
involving only issues of non-communication of national
implementing legislation or the non-conformity of such legislation, giving a total of 108 letters of formal
notice. Of the 75 letters relating to bad application, most related to complaint files, but 14 concerned files
opened on the Commission’s own initiative. These addressed the failure to classify sufficient special
protection areas for wild birds, the failure to sufficiently identify sensitive areas for purposes of urban
waste water treatment and the failure to submit reports or other information required by environmental
directives. Several
letters of formal notice involved a failure to respond to Commission information
requests, and were based on Article 10 of the EC Treaty (duty of co-operation). Other letters of formal
notice forming part of complaint investigations covered a wide range of issues, including the following: the
failure to undertake environmental impact assessments; threats to important wild-life sites from projects or
activities; the lack of effective action to deal with illegal waste activities; the failure to ensure adequate
groundwater protection; the lack of adequate protection of shellfish production areas from water pollution;
the lack of compliance with rules on animal experiments; the odour nuisance from an urban waste water
treatment plant.

In the period 1993-2003,

Ireland in relation to Union
2.
environmental legislation. The judgements concerned cases C-392/96 on impact assessment, C-354/99 on
animal experiments, C-67/99 on habitat nominations, C-177/2000 on sheep overgrazing, C-316/2000 on
polluted drinking water, C-394/2000 on major accident hazards, C-376/2001 on biocidal products and
C-67/2002 on pollution reduction programmes for shellfish waters.

judgements against

there were eight

3.

16 letters of formal notice were sent to Ireland for bad application in the period 1993-1998.

In mid-November 2003, the Commission had 85 complaint and own-initiative files open against
4.
Ireland for which no letter of formal notice had been sent. These files covered a range of matters, including
alleged failures with regard to environmental
illegal waste
operations and pollution of drinking water.

impact assessment, threats to wildlife sites,

5.
During the period 1993 to 2003, 279 Reasoned Opinions in total were notified to Member States
other than Ireland in cases involving bad application of Union environmental legislation. A total of 894
Reasoned Opinions was notified to other Member States in relation to all aspects of compliance with
Union environmental legislation, i.e. non-communication and non-conformity as well as bad application.

(1) Because of communications by Ireland, not all Commission decisions to notify a Letter of Formal Notice to Ireland

were implemented.

(2004/C 78 E/0561)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3405/03

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 November 2003)

Subject: Management of the Structural Funds

With regard to the management of Structural Fund monies for Objectives 1, 2 and 3 (2000-2006), will the
Commission please state who the designated payment and management authorities are in Austria, Belgium,
France, Germany, Italy and Spain?