Justice turf battle over pollution penalties

Date: 08/03/01

By John Shelley

A BITTER legal row between the European Commission and member states is threatening to undermine the power of EU governments to veto legislation in the justice field.

The member states want to introduce tough new laws to make polluting a criminal act, but the Commission argues that the legal basis on which they are being pushed through is in breach of the treaties.

Justice and Home Affairs Commissioner António Vitorino and environment chief Margot Wallström insist the legislation must be implemented under 'first pillar' procedure that requires only qualified majority support.

If the Commission gets its way - and officials are threatening to take member states to court if it does not - it would mean the plans could be enacted without uanimous approval. The member states want the laws introduced under the usual justice 'third pillar' mechanism which gives them the power of veto.

Insiders say the Commission's demands could open the door to a flood of other crime proposals that bypass the veto - a loss of sovereignty that Union governments are loath to tolerate.

"We are trying to stick to the legal arguments but I can't deny there is a political background to this," said one Commission official. "Criminal law is always a sensitive issue for member states; it's considered a core part of sovereignty."

British Liberal MEP Graham Watson, chairman of the Parliament's citizens' rights and freedoms committee, said the row was a crucial test case in the ongoing turf war over who should be the driving force in EU justice policy: the Commission or member states.

"This is part of a very definite attempt by member states to try and regain the initiative in policy in this area," he said. "They are trying to keep the Commission and the Parliament out of things."

Germany's internal affairs minister, Otto Schilly, and the UK's home secretary, Jack Straw, are both particularly opposed to giving the Commission extra justice powers.

"Undoubtedly member states see this as an essential area of national sovereignty," said Watson. "We've got national elections coming up in a number of them and they don't want to get into this debate right now."

The proposed rules on environmental crime, originally tabled by the Danish, are being pushed hard by the Swedish presidency.

Under the plans every member state would be required to make polluting a criminal offence and introduce tough sentencing for managers who allow their firms to harm the environment.

Justice ministers are scheduled to reach preliminary agreements on the proposals next week, just as Vitorino and Wallström step into the fray by launching their rival vision for the legislation. The Commissioners argue that the rules must be introduced under environmental rather than justice and home affairs procedures.

This would mean the executive alone would have the right to suggest new rules and also that the legislation could be voted through by a qualified majority of member states rather than requiring their unanimous agreement.

The Commission also says its proposals will be tougher, making pollution a criminal offence regardless of whether there is actual risk to human health, animals or property.

A bitter legal row between the European Commission and Member States is threatening to undermine the power of EU governments to veto legislation in the justice field. The Member States want to introduce tough new laws to make polluting a criminal act, but the Commission argues that the legal basis on which they are being pushed through is in breach of the treaties, and that the rules must be introduced under environmental rather than justice and home affairs procedures.