Europe ruling to affect incinerator challenge outcome

A RESIDENTS’ challenge by to a €75 million plan for the State’s first hazardous waste incinerator in Co Cork will be profoundly affected by the European Commission’s decision to bring a legal action against Ireland, the High Court was told yesterday.

The commission’s case is based on its view that Ireland has failed to properly transpose into law an EC directive relating to the environmental impact assessment of public and private projects, including incinerators and projects affecting archaeological sites such as the proposed N3 motorway near the Hill of Tara.

Among the grounds on which the Ringaskiddy residents challenged the incinerator development is that the same EC directive was not properly transposed.

However, the State is opposing an application by the residents to adjourn their legal challenge until the European Court of Justice has decided the matter. The hearing of that application adjournment opened yesterday before Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy and continues today.

The State is insisting that the High Court is bound at this stage by a Supreme Court decision earlier this year rejecting a challenge by Eric Martin to the development of an incinerator in Co Meath, in which the Supreme Court dismissed claims that the EIA directive was not properly transposed. The Supreme Court had also refused Mr Martin’s request to refer to the European Court of Justice the issue of whether the directive was properly transposed.

If the European Court of Justice decides the directive was not properly given effect to, then that decision effectively nullifies the Supreme Court decision as European law takes precedence over domestic law, Michael Collins SC, for the residents, said yesterday.

In those circumstances, he asked the judge to adjourn the two sets of proceedings challenging the development until the European Court gave its decision.

The court was due yesterday to begin hearing a judicial review challenge by several local people to the development. That action is against An Bord Pleanála and the State and arises from the board’s decision on January 15, 2004, granting permission to Indaver NV, trading as Indaver Ireland, to construct the development.

In the second proceedings, the Ringaskiddy and District Residents’ Association are seeking leave from the court to bring proceedings against the Environmental Protection Agency and the State.

Among the grounds on which the residents secured leave to bring their challenge against An Bord Pleanála and the State was a claim that the Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Indaver was inadequate. That case was put on hold pending the outcome of Mr Martin’s challenge.

Following the Supreme Court rejection of Mr Martin’s case, the residents effectively abandoned the grounds relating to the EIA directive but say they want to await the result of the European Court of Justice case.

Irish Examiner

www.buckplanning.ie