Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 404: To ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he will make a statement concerning the decision of the European Court of Justice finding that Ireland broke European Union law by taking a case to a United Nations tribunal in an effort to get Britain to close the Sellafield nuclear fuel plant rather than to the European Courts; the costs incurred by this decision; if he will take a case to the European Courts; and the expected cost of such proposed action. [21683/06]

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In 2001, the Government instituted legal proceedings against the United Kingdom before the arbitral tribunal provided for under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The dispute concerned the MOX plant at Sellafield, the international transfer of radioactive substances and the protection of the marine environment of the Irish Sea. Both the United Kingdom and Ireland are parties to the Convention. The advice available to the Government, based on the state of Community and international Law at the time, indicated that the most appropriate avenue for the litigation of the issues raised for Ireland by the continued operation of Sellafield was through the dispute resolution procedures provided under the Convention.

The European Commission contended that the dispute in question came within the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and that it should not be open to Ireland to take proceedings under UNCLOS procedures in a matter of Community competence. The Commission initiated legal proceedings in the ECJ against Ireland on these issues. In the case before the ECJ the Swedish Government intervened in support of Ireland while the Commission was supported by the United Kingdom.

The Court issued its Judgment on 30 May which, inter alia, declared that Ireland, by instituting proceedings against the UK under UNCLOS, failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law and ordered that Ireland pay the Commission's costs. These costs remain to be quantified and claimed by the Commission.

A consequence of the Judgment is that, as between EU member states, resolution of disputes in relation to a wide range of international agreements, particularly in the environmental field, comes within the jurisdiction of the ECJ. In this, the Judgment represents a significant development in Community law and may present member states, such as Ireland, with new mechanisms for holding other member states to account in relation to their transboundary obligations towards the environment. These issues will be examined in detail by Ireland's international legal team, led by the Attorney General, before further decisions are taken, in consultation with the Government, on Ireland's future legal strategy in this case.

I welcome the ECJ Judgment as it clarifies the Court's role as a potentially forceful and cohesive protector of Europe's environmental heritage. I have made it clear that the Irish Government will expect both the ECJ and the Commission to embrace fully their new responsibilities in this regard.