Case C-66/06: Action brought on  6 February 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
Date: 2006-05-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Ireland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental impact, fish farming, project evaluation

6.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

Action brought on 6 February 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-66/06)

(2006/C 108/01)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: F. Simonetti and X. Lewis, Agents, F. Louis, avocat
and C. O'Daly, Solicitor)

Defendant: Ireland

Article 4(2) permits Member States to determine, by either a
case-by-case examination or by ‘thresholds or criteria set by the
Member State’, the necessity of an EIA for projects listed in
Annex II. Whatever the means of determination implemented
by the Member State, this means must satisfy Article 4(3), i.e.,
take into account the selection criteria listed in Annex III.
These selection criteria include, for example, the project size,
cumulation with other projects, its location, the environmental
sensitivity of the geographical area and its impact on land-
scapes of historical, cultural or archaeological significance.

In its transposing legislation regarding projects falling under
Annex II Class 1(a), (b) and (c), Ireland has, however, relied on
a uniform, unqualified size threshold without any possibility of
assessing any other project characteristics.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Intensive fish farming

— declare that, by not adopting, in conformity with Articles
2(1) and 4(2), (3) and (4) of the EIA Directive, all measures
to ensure that, before consent is given, projects likely to
have significant effects on the environment that belong to
the categories of projects covered by Annex II Class 1(a),
(b), (c) and (f) are made subject to a requirement for devel-
opment consent and to an assessment with regard to their
effects in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of the EIA Direc-
tive, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the said
Directive; and

— order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The use of uniform, unqualified size thresholds

The Commission considers the Irish transposing legislation is
deficient as it does not provide, in respect of project categories
covered by Annex II Class 1(a), (b) and (c) of the Environmental
Impact Assessment (the EIA Directive), for effective measures
to achieve the results required by Articles 2(1), 4(2) and 4(3) of
the EIA Directive.

fish farms,

With regard to trial
the transposing legislation
would appear to allow for the possibility of an EIA ‘if the
Minister considers that the proposed aquaculture is likely to
have significant effects on the environment.’ This legislation,
however, does not contain any reference to the selection
criteria set out in Annex III of the EIA Directive. Thus, the
Minister is under no express obligation to take account of the
proposed location of such a trial fish farm or of any of the
other selection criteria, for the purposes of determining if an
EIA is necessary.

The Commission notes that Ireland acknowledges the need to
make express provision for the Annex III selection criteria with
regard to fish farm projects. However, as far as the Commission
is aware, no amending legislation has been enacted or commu-
nicated to the Commission.