Mr. Conleth Bradley:

I appreciate Mr. Ciobanu-Dordea's answer, which was interesting and useful. The objective of the Water Framework Directive, as he outlined, is about quality, not quantity. The terms of Article 9.4 are interesting. The reporting of the non-compliance or the derogation is in the report on the river basin management plan, but the reference to an established practice is an important point. I am sure that Mr. Ciobanu-Dordea is not that familiar with established practice under Irish law. There are key dates for ascertaining the established practice. The beginning was 1962, when the Public Health (Ireland) Act 1896 was amended. Other keystone dates are 1983, 1997, 2013 and 2016. To ascertain established practice, one must examine the range of the established practice. When the directive came into force, the established practice was not to charge. As Members will know well, the history of established practice in Ireland is tied into local government and the responsibility of elected members versus the executive. In my respectful view, it is clear that the established practice applies in the way that I have described, that being, the established practice on the key date was not to charge.

Mr. Ciobanu-Dordea referred to the river basin management plans. That relates to the reportage aspect of Article 9.4. The key phrase is "established practice".

I wish to mention another matter relating to Article 9. Mr. Ciobanu-Dordea will be aware of a recent decision of the European Court of Justice, ECJ, involving a hydroelectric plan. The Commission took Germany to the ECJ in an infringement action and lost. Important principles arose from that case. I accept that it was about a hydroelectric plan, but it was the first challenge under the Water Framework Directive. That decision has been recently upheld in a case taken by the Commission against Austria, where the ECJ again confirmed what Mr. Ciobanu-Dordea has correctly set out, namely, the margin of appreciation or discretion that is given to a member state.

This is about quality, not quantity, and the margin of appreciation given to a member state. It is important that the Commission be aware of this, which I am sure it is. That margin of appreciation was emphasised in the ECJ decision.