Text of a parliamentary question to the European Commission by Kathy Sinnott MEP
Nov. 9th 2007
Question Title: European Commission's injunction on desecration of historical monuments along M3.
Last June, the Commission sent a final warning to Ireland indicating that it had failed to adopt proper legislation to account for the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC) and was pursuing legal action. The case suggests that (1) Ireland's approach to decisions involving the removal of historic structures and archaeological monuments is in contravention of the directive and (2) that the weaknesses in Irish legislation splits decision-making between Irish planning authorities and Ireland's Environmental Protection Agency and result in outcomes not permitted by the directive. The Commission particularly cites the case of Lismullen, Co Meath in this warning.In late July, European Parliaments Petitions committee called for a halt on construction of the M3 motorway, pending a decision on the legality of the project. It was felt that at the very least, demolition of Tara should cease until a decision is reached. Currently in Ireland, demolition of historic and archaeological sites at Tara continues at a rapid pace and blatant disregard for European Community law and Commission warnings only intensifies. This destruction can even take place after dark in order to avoid investigation and further attention.
This is not in accordance with EU law and is also illegal according to the excavation contracts of those involved.We wish to know, (1) If the Commission can legally demand a temporary halt? If it is willing to do so? If so, when is the earliest it will impose such a halt?(2) If the Commission can not or will not impose a halt, what does the Commission hope to achieve through a court case, if the monuments will be long since destroyed by the time a judgement is passed?
Question Title: European Commission's injunction on desecration of historical monuments along M3.
Last June, the Commission sent a final warning to Ireland indicating that it had failed to adopt proper legislation to account for the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC) and was pursuing legal action. The case suggests that (1) Ireland's approach to decisions involving the removal of historic structures and archaeological monuments is in contravention of the directive and (2) that the weaknesses in Irish legislation splits decision-making between Irish planning authorities and Ireland's Environmental Protection Agency and result in outcomes not permitted by the directive. The Commission particularly cites the case of Lismullen, Co Meath in this warning.In late July, European Parliaments Petitions committee called for a halt on construction of the M3 motorway, pending a decision on the legality of the project. It was felt that at the very least, demolition of Tara should cease until a decision is reached. Currently in Ireland, demolition of historic and archaeological sites at Tara continues at a rapid pace and blatant disregard for European Community law and Commission warnings only intensifies. This destruction can even take place after dark in order to avoid investigation and further attention.
This is not in accordance with EU law and is also illegal according to the excavation contracts of those involved.We wish to know, (1) If the Commission can legally demand a temporary halt? If it is willing to do so? If so, when is the earliest it will impose such a halt?(2) If the Commission can not or will not impose a halt, what does the Commission hope to achieve through a court case, if the monuments will be long since destroyed by the time a judgement is passed?
<< Home