yandex rtb 1
ГоловнаЗворотній зв'язок
yande share
Главная->Право->Содержание->Джерела європейського права навколишнього середовища77

Європейське право навколишнього середовища

Джерела європейського права навколишнього середовища77

June 2002, the Court found that Greece has failed to send to the Commission, within the prescribed period, all the information required under Article 8(3) of the Directive (Case C-33/01).

Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life vehicles had to be transposed by Member States by 21 April 2002. By the end of 2002, the Commission had non-communication cases open against ten Member States who had not adopted and communicated their transposal measures to the Commission. Regarding Directive 75/439/EEC on the disposal of waste oils, the Commission had opened in 2001 infringement proceedings against 11 Member States for the non-conformity and/or bad ap­plication of national legislation with several Articles of the Directive, particularly regarding the obligation to give priority to the processing of waste oils by regeneration, provided that technical, economic and organisational constraints so allowed. During 2002, the Commission continued infringement proceedings against France, Belgium, Ireland, the Netherlands, Finland, Denmark, and Sweden and decided to open court proceedings against Austria, Greece, the United Kingdom and Portugal.

With regard to the disposal of PCBs and PCTs, two particularly dangerous substances, Directive 96/59/EC stipulates that Member States shall draw up, within three years of its adoption, namely by 16 September 1999, plans for the decontamination and/or disposal of inventoried equipment and PCBs contained therein and outlines for the collection and subsequent disposal of certain equipment under Article 11 of the Directive, as well as inventories under Article 4(1) of the Directive. However, many Member States have still not communicated to the Commission the necessary measures. Thus, in 2002 the Court gave judgments against several Member States for the absence of the above information (Case C-174/01 concerning Luxembourg, Case C-46/01 concerning Italy, Case C-177/01 concerning France and Case C-47/01 concerning Spain). As regards Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, two particular developments merit attention. The Commission continued the court action (Case C-463/01) against Germany concerning its packaging Ordinance (commonly referred to as the ‘Topfer’ Ordinance), which promotes the re-use of packaging materials since the reuse quota as set up by the German Ordinance amounts to a barrier to trade and indirect discrimination of imported natural mineral waters to be filled at source. On the other hand, the Commission was able to withdraw the case opened earlier against Denmark (Case C-246/99) in relation to Denmark’s so-called ‘Can Ban’, i.e. Danish legislation which bans the marketing of beer and carbonated drinks in metal cans and other types of non-reusable packaging. This was because Denmark repealed the legislation at issue.

9. Environment and industry

Directive 96/61/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC), adopted on 24 September 1996, was due to be implemented by 30 October 1999. In the course of 2002, proceedings for non-communication of the transposition measures to the Commission still had to be continued against a few Member States. In 2002, the Court gave judgments against Spain, Greece and the United Kingdom for failure to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary in order to comply with the Directive. Reasoned opinions were issued for Finland, Sweden and Austria for non-conformity of certain aspects of



78Розділ 3

their national legislation with the Directive. Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major accident hazards involving dangerous substances (“Seveso II”), replacing Directive 82/501/EEC from 3 February 2001 (“Seveso I”), was due to be transposed by no later than 3 February 1999. The notification of implementing measures by few Member States is still incomplete, particularly as regards Articles 11 and 12 of the Directive.

10. Radiation protection

Council Directive 96/29/Euratom, laying down basic safety standards for the health protection of the general public and workers against the dangers of ionising radiation (OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, p. 1), and Council Directive 97/43/Euratom on health protection of individuals against dangers of ionising radiation in relation to medical exposure (OJ L 180, 9.7.1997, p. 22), were to be transposed by May 2000. In December 2002, a majority of Member States had adopted transposing measures for both Directives, while some provisions were still missing in the United Kingdom and Denmark (for Directive 96/29) and in France (for both Directives). In 2002 the Commission received five submissions of national draft legislation under Article 33 of the Euratom Treaty (one concerning Directive 92/3 on shipments of radioactive waste and four for transposing measures of the two Directives mentioned above). No formal recommendation was issued. In accordance to Article 35 of the Euratom Treaty, the Commission carried out one verification in Portugal in order to check the facilities necessary for the continuous monitoring of the environmental level of radioactivity.

In 2002 the Commission received 9 submissions of general data relating to plans for the disposal of radioactive waste, under Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, so that it could assess the data and determine whether the implementation of the plans was able to cause radioactive contamination of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State. The Commission issued 17 opinions.

The Commission dealt with a number of infringement procedures under Article 141 of the Euratom Treaty. It opened four new own initiative cases and received two complaints. It sent one reasoned opinion to the United Kingdom concerning the implementation of Directive 89/618, on the information of the population in case of radiological emergency. It decided to refer the UK to the Court because of the non-submission of data under Article 37 of the Treaty concerning the dismantling of the JASON research reactor. It also decided to refer Denmark to the Court because of the non-communication of all transposing measures for Directive 96/29. In view of the progress made in the transposition of Directives 96/29 and 97/43, the Commission decided the closure of the procedures opened against the Netherlands and the withdrawal of the Court applications against Ireland and Portugal. This was also the case for Germany, in view of the adoption of new legislation concerning Directive 89/618.