European Union Decision on Moville / Greencastle Water
Apr14
By Enda Craig.
There is an interesting battle shaping up in Brussels between MEP Marian Harkin and the European Commission as to how the Commission finalises proven complaints from European citizens.
In a Nutshell
1. Irish citizen launches an appeal to An Bord Pleanala against decision by Donegal Co Council to construct a Waste Water Treatment Plant and effluent discharge pipe into Lough Foyle at Carnagarve, Moville, Co Donegal.
2. ABP upholds decision by DCC to proceed with plant and discharge pipe.
Citizen decides to appeal to the High Court for Judicial Review.
3. High Court upholds decision by ABP to allow DCC to proceed with plant and discharge pipe.
4. Citizen decides to make a formal complaint to European Commission.
Complaint is based on the fact that the High Court and ABP ignored relevant European legislation (C50-09 ECJ ruling of March 2011).
5. Commission upholds citizens complaint, finds Irish Government guilty and insists Government forwards amended legislation to come into compliance with C50-09 ruling.
6. European Commission accepts amended legislation.
5. Commission upholds citizens complaint, finds Irish Government guilty and insists Government forwards amended legislation to come into compliance with C50-09 ruling.
6. European Commission accepts amended legislation.
7. European Commission now forwards Letter to Irish citizen stating his/her complaint is closed as Irish Govt is now in compliance with relevant EU legislation.
6. Unbelievably, WWTP and discharge pipe project at Carnagarve now allowed to continue under the original defective legislation.
Amended legislation will not apply to proposed WWTP and discharge pipe at Carnagarve.
It will now apply only to projects into the future.
This means, despite Carnagarve residents winning their case in Europe, the Irish Government being found guilty, the amended laws WILL NOT COVER THEIR CASE – Only future complaints.
This is a convenient and cynical arrangement between the member state and the European Commission which allows the member state (Ireland), having been found guilty, completely off the hook
A DECISION TAKEN UNDER DEFECTIVE LEGISLATION HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO STAND.
This a a travesty of justice and brings the Commission into disrepute.
A DECISION TAKEN UNDER DEFECTIVE LEGISLATION HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO STAND.
This a a travesty of justice and brings the Commission into disrepute.
Again we see a classic case of unaccountability.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Dear Commissioner,
This is a summation of my legal journey from An Bord Pleanala, Ireland to formal complaint with European Commission.
I would like to highlight and object in the strongest possible terms to the possible closure of my complaint to the European Commission.
I support totally MEP Marian Harkin’s attempt to rectify this cosy cynical arrangement.
Should this be allowed to happen I will consider it a travesty of justice.
I complained to the Commission, as a last resort, in the hope and belief that i would receive access to justice which had been so shamefully and blatantly denied to me in my own country, Ireland.
Do not allow the reputation of the European Commission to come into disrepute simply to enable Ireland to receive a ‘fools pardon’ for blatantly and deliberately flaunting an ECJ judgement.
Myself and my group ( Community For a Clean Estuary www.savethefoyle.com www.savethefoyle.com/eccomplaint ) have worked tirelessly, for many years, in an honest attempt to challenge a very poor proposal which we believed would have had a serious detrimental effect on our local environment.
Hoping you will give these comments your utmost attention,
Yours faithfully,
Enda Craig spokesperson CFCE
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
MEP Marian Harkin, on behalf of Irish citizen is now challenging the European Commission in relation to this possible ‘modus operandi ‘
Why, in God’s name, would any citizen bother taking a formal complaint to Europe knowing that such an immoral decision could await them at the end of the line?
The Commission’s reputation would be besmirched by allowing a member state to flout and ignore a European Court of Justice ruling.
Enda Craig CFCE
Additional comment.
If the commission continues to give immunity by providing cover with this ‘sweetheart deal’ then their is absolutely no incentive on the member state to to transpose the Directives properly.
The member state will simply transpose to their advantage and if, at some time in the future, some eagle-eyed citizen identifies the ” mistakes” and makes a complaint, sure what the hell – the legislation is brought into compliance,the member state gets a fools pardon, the complaint is closed down, the complainant get’s a pat on the head, the illegal decision stands, and bob’s your uncle.
Unbelievable.
This issue is picking up a lot of interest in different places.
Basically, people cannot understand how the Commission would connive to leave an illegal judgement under EU law on the books.
Even MEPs seemed not to be aware of this possibility and the fact that it seems to be Commission policy.
Seems more important to shield the institutions of the member state than to make sure the complainant gets access to justice.
This will go to the European Ombudsman if needs be and then further again – this is a poor arrangement and makes no sense
Enda
CraicOn comment:-
If anyone else wants to write an article for CraicOn simply fill in the form on the home page.