Names of Complainants:
Marine Conservation Society Nationality The Marine Conservation Society Ltd. is a registered charity under the law of England and Wales and a company registered in England and Wales. Greenpeace Ltd. is a company registered in England and Wales. The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society is a registered charity under the law of England and Wales and a company registered in England and Wales Addresses
9 Gloucester Road, Ross-on-Wye, Herefordshire, HR9 5BU, England. Alexander House, James Street West, Bath BA1 2BT, England Field of Activity Environmental organisations Member State which has not complied with E.U. Law : United Kingdom Alleged Infringements We the aforementioned complainants wish to bring the following complaints concerning infringements of E.U. law by the United Kingdom to the Commission's attention: the failure of the U.K. Government to enact any legislation or other administrative provisions to implement the Directive on assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (85/337/EEC) (the E.I.A. Directive) in so far as the E.I.A. Directive relates to the licensing of offshore oil and gas activities; in any event , the failure of the U.K. Government in breach of Article 2 of the E.I.A. Directive to take any measures necessary to ensure that, before consent is given by the Department of Trade and Industry (D.T.I.) to offshore oil and gas activities, the project is subject to an assessment with regard to its effects; in any event, the failure of the U.K. Government to require the carrying out of environmental impact assessments complying with the E.I.A. Directive for offshore oil and gas activities and the making available of information gathered pursuant to the same; in any event, breach by the U.K. Government of an undertaking given on its behalf by the D.T.I. on 18 April 1995 regarding implementation within 12 months of the E.I.A. Directive and Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of the Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Flora and Fauna (92/43/EEC). Background On the 27 February, 1997, the Marine Conservation Society wrote to the President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Rt. Hon. Ian Lang, M.P., regarding the subject of this complaint. The Minister for Energy, the Rt. Hon. Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, P.C., Q.C. replied by a letter dated 10 March 1997. This appears to be the current Government position regarding the implementation of the E.I.A. Directive. In particular, the concluding remark of the Minister for Energy's letter states:
"The European Commission are aware , following a meeting with colleagues at the Department of the Environment on 17 February, of the progress of UK Regulations to implement the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/377 EC). We expect to consult non-Governmental organisations - including JLOGC - on draft Regulations in the near future." The concerns of the complainants are with reference to the United Kingdom continental-shelf 17th. Offshore Oil and Gas Licensing-Round. We believe that the U.K. Government should be stopped from granting petroleum production licences with reference to this round prior to the implementation of the necessary regulations for implementation of the E.I.A. Directive. The United Kingdom intends to exploit the fossil fuel potential of the area west of Shetland and the continental-shelf area known as the Atlantic Frontier. In particular, the U.K. Government intends to "fast-track" the development without any adequate environmental protection measures in place, such as the implementation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. In addition, the 17th. licensing round constitutes one of the last frontiers open for the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons that is not subject to complex international negotiation with neighbouring States with a territorial interest. A press release dated 17 December, 1996, issued by the D.T.I. and titled "Richard Page sets the end game for oil and gas frontier round", states:
"Most of the tranches offered (41) are in the Rockall Trough, located east of Rockall, and to the south-west of the discoveries in the West of Shetland area. Tranches are also offered to the south-west of England, to the north of Scotland and off the east coast of England. Some are in areas that have not been explored before or were once considered unprospective." An earlier press release dated 21 November, 1995, had said: "New oil and gas discoveries around the U.K. are now in prospect with the offer of over 270 blocks for exploration in frontier areas under the 17th offshore licensing round ... we are entering real frontier territory with some of the tranches nearly as far west as Rockall ... The Trough is in an area where little exploration has taken place but which has considerable potential for significant discoveries ... The objective of the 17th round is to encourage exploration in new areas and so to continue the development of our oil and gas resources into the next century." The Government claims that there is comparison between its Atlantic Frontier development and drilling in deep water in locations such as Brazil and the Gulf of Mexico. However, there are significant differences between the locations, in particular the weather conditions and the fact that technology to deal with such adverse conditions remain largely untested. The complainants submit that a precautionary approach to this untouched and pristine area requires an environmental impact assessment to look at the implications of this new technology and of the scale of the proposed development on the marine diversity and potential ecological fragility of the region. The Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon John Major, M.P. has informed Greenpeace that:
"The region to the west of the Shetland Islands represents one of the remaining offshore areas in the U.K. where oil and gas reserves may be found. This area is being opened up for exploration in an environmentally sensitive manner" However, the Prime Minister is wrongly informed in this respect. In our view, there are no legal or administrative measures currently in place to ensure that production licences about to be offered by the D.T.I. will require applicants to develop the Atlantic Frontier in compliance with the objectives of the E.I.A. Directive. In fact, as part of the "fast-track" approach to the region the D.T.I. is keen for the operators to demonstrate 'work programmes' which are "framed to ensure optimum exploration and appraisal of the area under licence in the initial term." In order to aid a "fast-track" approach, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 21 November, 1996, made the Petroleum (Production) (Seaward Areas) (Amendment) Regulations 1996. These came into force on 16 December, 1996. As stated by Lord Fraser in a D.T.I. press release dated 17 December, 1996, with reference to the new regulations:
"Proposals revealed today, following a review of the licensing system and consultation with industry, include: Furthermore, Lord Fraser had this to say about the 18th. licensing round:
"I expect that the regulations for the future 18th offshore round will remove licensees' exclusive right of access for surveying. Open seismic access is a major encouragement to innovative analysis. Industry has recognised its potential and is working on a voluntary scheme to give agreed open seismic access to acreage already under licence. I am sure this will pay dividends for all in the long run." We hold the view that this approach is unlikely to pay dividends for the marine environment without the operators being required to carry out full assessments of the environmental impact for any project likely to have significant effects on the environment prior to the grant of any production licence under section 2 of the Petroleum (Production )Act 1934 as amended. It is with regret we note that in introducing new regulations to deal with the 17th. Licensing Round the U.K. Government did not take the opportunity to implement the E.I.A. Directive. We note this is despite the undertaking (infringement 4) to the Commission on this matter. A letter dated 31 July, 1995, from Directorate-General XI to Mr. Mick Green of Friends of Cardigan Bay records:
"The U.K. is undertaking to formulate regulations within the next year, setting out the requirements for an EIA regarding offshore developments, which will constitute the implementation of Directive 85/337/EEC in relation to oil and gas exploration and production projects." And that:
"The U.K. further undertakes to lay down regulations within the next year which will specifically require the issue of such licences to be subject to the provisions of Articles 6(2), (3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and will also require the review of the licences already granted." These regulations were not in place for the 16th. licensing round (the subject matter of Complaint no. P4979/94 from Friends of Cardigan Bay) and will not be in place for the 17th. licensing round which closes for applications on the 25 March, 1997. Similarly, the U.K. Government has given various assurances to Parliament regarding this matter . On the 7 June, 1995, the Government was asked when it would bring forward regulations to implement the E.I.A. Directive on environmental impact assessments in respect of offshore oil and gas licensing. In response, the Minister for Trade and Industry, the Rt. Hon. Tim Eggar, M.P., replied:
"The Government confirmed to the European Commission on 18 April 1995 that legislation to implement Directive 85/337 in respect of oil and gas licensing would be introduced within the next year." And
"I intend to introduce the necessary regulations by April 1996, in accordance with the confirmation given to the European Commission on 18 April 1995. It is intended that these regulations will, when in force, apply to developments under licences awarded in the 16th. round." On the 24 December, 1996, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry published in the Official Journal of the European Communities an invitation by interested persons to apply for a production licence in respect of the 17th. offshore oil and gas licensing round. No such regulations were in place at this date. The Government was asked questions on the matter in Parliament on the 23 and 29 January, 1997, but did not refer to any regulations likely to implement the E.I.A. Directive prior to the grant of petroleum production licences during the 17th. licensing round. The complainants do not accept the U.K. Government's current position on this issue. We fear that the U.K. Government has no intention of fulfilling its promise and introducing the necessary regulations until after the grant of production licences for 17th. licensing round, if at all. In view of the special nature of the Atlantic Frontier and its unusual and exceptional features we respectfully invite the Commission to take action against the U.K. Government in this matter. Infringement 1 - Failure to enact implementing legislation and/or administrative measures Offshore oil and gas activities are covered by Annex II, 2 (f) and (g) of the E.I.A. Directive and are therefore subject to the provisions of Article 4(2). Member States are required to take the measures necessary to comply with the E.I.A. Directive within three years of its notification. The U.K. Government ought to have implemented regulations for dealing with offshore oil and gas activities by the 3 July, 1988. Broadly speaking, the U.K. Government has sought to implement the E.I.A. Directive through its planning regime by requiring, in certain cases, that an environmental statement is provided by an applicant for planning permission. The principal Regulations for England and Wales came into effect as the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 on July 15, 1988. Whilst there are Regulations for dealing with environmental assessment of onshore hydrocarbon activities which normally are subjected to the U.K. planning process there are no planning regulations concerning the offshore industry. Offshore oil and gas activities are licensed under section 2 of the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934 (as amended). Specific Regulations dealing with the various stages from exploration to production of a licensed area, including payment of a licence fee and royalties to the U.K. Government upon production of hydrocarbons are provided for in the Petroleum (Production) (Seaward Areas) Regulations 1988 (as amended) ("The 1988 Regulations"). Schedule 4 of the 1988 Regulations includes prescribed model clauses that must be incorporated within any licence, subject to a right of the Secretary of State to exclude or modify. Under the 1988 Regulations an initial term is granted for three years . As a pre-condition to exercising the option to continue with the licence beyond a second three-year term, the 1988 Regulations provide for an amended model clause requiring the licensee to have drilled at least one well in the area described in the licence. In addition, the D.T.I. now allows bidding, inter alia, for "groups of contiguous blocks … referred to as 'tranches' " in the case of an application for a production licence. … tranche size varies from 2 to 13 blocks, that is between approximately 500 and 3250 sq. km." Neither the above-mentioned Acts of Parliament and statutory instruments, nor any other national legislation achieve compliance with the E.I.A. Directive. As a result the complainants are denied their individual rights under the terms of the E.I.A. Directive. For example, the U.K. Government has a duty to take into account all information gathered pursuant to Articles 5, 6, and 7 as part of the consent procedure by virtue of Article 8 of the E.I.A. Directive In Re the Großkrotzenburg Power Station: E.C. Commission v Germany, the European Court of Justice rejected a submission that Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the E.I.A. Directive were not mandatory and then stated:
"Article 2 of the directive lays down an unequivocal obligation, incumbent on the competent authority in each Member State for the approval of projects, to make certain projects subject to an assessment of their effects on the environment. Article 3 prescribes the content of the assessment, lists the factors which must be taken into account in it and leaves the competent authority a certain discretion as to the appropriate way of carrying out the assessment in the light of each individual case. Article 8 furthermore requires the competent national authorities to take into consideration in the development consent procedure the information gathered in the course of the assessment." Furthermore, the U.K. Government is under a duty by virtue of Article 6(2) of the E.I.A. Directive to ensure that information gathered pursuant to an environmental impact assessment is made available to the public and that the public is given an opportunity to express an opinion before the project is initiated. In particular, Article 3 requires that any environmental impact assessment identifies, describes and assesses in accordance with Articles 4 to 11, the direct and indirect effects of a project on the following factors:
human beings, fauna and flora, More detailed information is to be supplied in an "appropriate form" together with "a non-technical summary". However, there is no provision in the current U.K. Government scheme for the licensing of offshore oil and gas activities for the information to be provided in an accessible form for the purposes of any detailed public consultation. In contrast, the Junior Energy Minister, Richard Page, M.P., told the House of Commons that
"I do not at present have any plans to publish the environmental policy statements provided by successful applicants in support of their applications for petroleum licences, but such information may be made available for inspection to members of the public subject to prior arrangement with my officials." Moreover, the individual right to consultation under Article 6 (2) and (3) are denied. In his letter to the Marine Conservation Society of 10 March, 1997, the Minister for Energy infers that sufficient consultation has previously taken place regarding the Atlantic Frontier region. He states:
"Companies were invited to nominate blocks for inclusion in the 17th Seaward Licensing Round on 22 November 1994. In total, 691 blocks were nominated. These were then the subject of consultation … .The list of consultees included the Joint Nature Conservation Committee….as well as the Joint Links' Oil and Gas Consortium (JLOGC) on which your own organisation is represented and which you cite in your letter." In its response to the consultation the J.L.O.G.C. required, as a minimum, that the listed blocks be withdrawn due to the fact that they exhibited some of the highest levels of environmental sensitivity. The J.L.O.G.C. did not receive a copy of the submission by the J.N.C.C. or other bodies - and would reject any assertion that the process represents any form of fair and reasonable consultation as intended by the E.I.A. Directive. Thus, despite the special nature of the Atlantic-Frontier development, the U.K. Government is taking no effective steps to provide for basic individual rights as set out in the E.I.A. Directive. Furthermore, what steps it intends to take are inadequate to ensure the biological diversity of the species and the marine ecosystem as a basic resource for life. In our submission, the only manner in which the community objectives can be achieved is through the full implementation of the Directive to the offshore industry by virtue of either primary or secondary legislation. In these circumstances, we submit that the U.K. Government is in clear and unequivocal breach of its obligations under the Treaty. Infringement 2 - Failure to take necessary measures to implement the E.I.A. Directive prior to the grant of a production licence. As stated above, the extraction of oil and gas is a project subject to Article 4(2) of the E.I.A. Directive. In the complaint submitted to the Commission from F.o.E. Cymru, it stated:
" As far as it is possible to judge, the administrative application of this Directive for the purpose of this alleged infringement appears to be restricted to the 1993 announcement referred to in Infringement 1 above. In connection with the 14th. Round, the Minister stated, inter alia, that full E.I.A.'s would only be carried out at the production stage (and then only for certain categories of blocks ,….) More recent statements of policy claim that "environmental impact assessments for offshore oil and gas production projects within 25 miles of the coast or in other sensitive areas" are currently required and that "similar assessments may be requested for exploration activities, where there are likely to be significant environmental impacts". As described above, any application for a production licence under the 1988 Regulations includes an initial stage of exploration leading to full consent for production of any exploitable field. Thus, exploration is an integral part and pre-condition to the obtaining of a production licence under the current Regulations. The initial stages are made more than preparatory by the requirement in the 1988 Regulations for at least one well to be drilled before the option to continue the licence beyond a second three-year term can be exercised. The act of extraction has become, therefore, a pre-requisite to the continuance of the licence and a necessary part of the initial six years of the licence. As such, we submit there is no relevant distinction to be drawn between exploration and production in the context of licences granted during the 17th. licensing round. Hence there should be an environmental impact assessment before consent for the exploratory stage for all projects that are likely to have a significant effect on the environment. In addition, model clause 42 of the 1988 Regulations only refers to revocation of the licence once granted upon the occurrence of certain events including breach of conditions of the licence. It may be argued that as a matter of general administrative law Ministers retain a discretionary power to withhold or revoke a licence, such power not to be exercised unreasonably. However, once a production licence is granted the exercise of such power by Ministers is likely to lead to compensatory damages. It has been argued that:
" ... where, as in the U.K., planning consents cannot be revoked except on paying full compensation calculated on the basis that the developer is entitled to proceed with his project, the Directive should almost certainly properly be understood as requiring the public consultation to precede any action by the planning authority that would in practice significantly restrict its ability to determine the fate of a proposed project " The exploration and production of hydrocarbons is a project of the class listed in Annex II of the E.I.A. Directive and which "shall be made subject to an assessment, in accordance with Articles 5 to 10, where Member States consider that their characteristics so require." However, the U.K. Government has stated that it will only require assessments for "specific projects in specific locations" and that it will only ask for "assessments where appropriate". The test as enunciated in the Directive requires an assessment where the Member States consider that the development's characteristics so require and where the development is likely to have "significant effects on the environment by virtue inter alia, of their nature, size or location". (Article 2) We are concerned that seismic testing can cause significant effects upon the marine life and in particular cetaceans. It is well established that drilling activities can have significant impacts upon the sensitivities of a marine ecosystem. The Government has said that conditions attached to licences will "include a requirement to report the findings of marine surveys carried out at least twelve months before drilling to establish what sensitivities need to be addressed to ensure safe operations during the period when the rig is on site before consent to drill can be given". However, this approach appears much more random than the scheme envisaged by the E.I.A. Directive and fails to meet the Community objective. The U.K. Government approach does not seem to establish any proper criteria or thresholds against which the process of selection of the 'appropriate' development for assessment can be rationally understood. We would submit that the Government has previously acknowledged the significant nature of the offshore oil and gas industry in both its undertaking to the Commission and in the responses to the House of Commons referred to above. In the alternative, we would submit that the impacts from this industry are so significant that they must be subjected to a full environmental impact assessment in advance of any grant of a production licence. For these reasons we believe that a proper assessment of the area under offer within the 17th. licensing round is a matter for public information and consultation and not simply a foregone conclusion. We submit that the Government's approach is unlawful. 3) Infringement 3 - Failure to require environmental impact assessments and the making available of information The current approach of the D.T.I. to offshore oil and gas appears to favour simple administrative measures to attempt to reflect the objectives of the E.I.A. Directive. Some of these measures are found in the 1988 Regulations. These make provision (in the case of applications for production licences only) for a statement of general environmental policy of the proposed operator to be submitted together with a summary of its environmental management systems and its application to the company's work programme. In the Notes for Applicants on the Presentation of Information to Support an Application for the 17th round, the D.T.I. explains, inter alia, that:
"(b) A summary of how the management systems … will be applied to any work programme proposed for the tranche(s) applied for. This should include: It is submitted that these administrative requirements do not comply with the provisions of Article 2 of the E.I.A. Directive. In the first instance, the U.K. Government seeks only an assessment of the environment. In other words, a general overview of what is known of the existing marine ecology and bio-diversity of the area under licence in order to establish base-line conditions for the region. This is in sharp contrast to the needs of Article 2 of the E.I.A. Directive where an assessment of the effects is required of any project likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature size or location , as defined in Article 4. In fact, it has been the Government's policy since 1988 to attach special conditions to licences for blocks within 25 miles of the coast or in other sensitive areas requiring companies to carry out environmental impact assessments. These do not implement the E.I.A. Directive. It would appear that the Government also favours this approach for areas more than 25 miles from the coast. We would submit that these types of administrative measures are inadequate to reflect the objective of the E.I.A. Directive. They allow the U.K. Government to avoid its Union Law obligations through inadequate implementation of the E.I.A. Directive. It is settled Community law that a Member State must comply with Article 5 of the E.C. Treaty and take "all appropriate measures " to protect the Community objective. Thus everything that can be done should be done to achieve the objective of the E.I.A. Directive. In our submission, this is not the position within the United Kingdom. A recent ruling in the European Court of Justice concluded that "the wording of the Directive indicates that it has a wide scope and purpose" and that it was the obligation of all Member States to take all the measures necessary to achieve the result prescribed. This is a binding obligation imposed by the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty and by the Directive itself. At issue is whether the U.K. Government can claim that taking administrative steps such as attaching conditions to production licences achieves the Community objective. The U.K. Government has stated to Parliament:–
"My officials currently consult, among others, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee before any seaward area of the United Kingdom continental shelf, including the North sea, is offered for licensing. The JNCC provides advice about the potential impact of oil and gas activities on the environmental resources of the area and, where appropriate, suggests conditions that might be applied to the licence to mitigate these impacts in the event of licence being awarded. The conditions can include requirements for environmental assessment before particular activities under the licence can take place. I expect that these arrangements, or some similar mechanism, will continue for future licensing rounds." This statement is repeated by the Minister for Energy in his letter of 10 March, 1997, to the Marine Conservation Society:
"All of the blocks offered in the Atlantic Margin are subject to conditions agreed with JNCC and relevant Departments and designed to protect environmental sensitivities and the interests of other sea users. These include a requirement to report the findings of marine surveys carried out at least twelve months before drilling to establish what sensitivities need to be addressed to ensure safe operations during the period when the rig is on site before consent to drill can be given" We query the nature and extent of these conditions and whether conditions in themselves can ever take the place of an environmental impact assessment. In particular, as the purpose of an assessment is to "draw to the attention of the authority material relevant to the coming to a decision". In the case of the 17th. licensing round we have already demonstrated that such material will not be before Ministers upon their determination of consents. Without a full assessment of the impacts of this major development by the operators of the fields in the Atlantic Frontier it is impossible for the U.K. Government to have any rational approach to the attachment of conditions to licences: in particular, as much of the area under offer has not been the subject of any particular assessment by the J.N.C.C. The Government makes this point in its Notes for Applicants on the Presentation of Information to Support an Application for the 17th. This document states:
"Note 2: The Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), in conjunction with the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association (UKOOA), have published Regional Directories of the U.K. Coastal Areas environmental resources. In view of UKOOA's funding of the Directories, they will distribute copies to their members. Non UKOOA members can obtain copies from the JNCC ... . JNCC will charge for this service. However, the Minister for Energy in his letter of 10 March, 1997, informed the Marine Conservation Society that:
"Consent to development of any commercially exploitable discoveries in frontier acreage depends upon whether it can be achieved within acceptable and minimal levels of risk to personnel, installations and other sea users, as well as to the environment. Any 'fast tracking' of such developments in no sense implies taking short cuts which would compromise standards required for consents to be given." We submit that the "fast track" approach to the development of the Atlantic Frontier will ensure that significant commitment by the oil industry is made to this whole region without first having established the base-line conditions against which likely impacts upon the marine bio-diversity can be measured. We believe that after the second term of a production licence much of this information is likely to have been destroyed by the offshore industry's activities. The Government's approach is to allow development to proceed so that the industry makes a significant financial commitment. These commitments will become important factors in any later determination of the weight to be given to any environmental impact assessment. For the above reasons we respectfully submit that such administrative measures as the U.K. Government has taken are inadequate to comply with the Community objective of the E.I.A. Directive and urge the Commission to require from the U.K. Government immediate positive action to remedy its unlawful conduct. 4) Infringement 4 - breach of the undertaking of 18 April, 1995, regarding implementation within 12 months We have referred previously to the numerous promises given by the U.K. Government to implement the E.I.A. Directive offshore to oil and gas. We noted in particular the undertaking provided to the Commission by the U.K. Government on the matter. The U.K. Government led the public to believe that the Directive would be in place to have an effect on the progress of the 16th. licensing round. This did not happen. It has since led the public to believe that regulations would be in place at the grant of production licences for the 17th. licensing round. These regulations have not as yet materialised. We understand that draft regulations are currently being considered by the Joint National Conservation Committee and are told by the Secretary of State that the Commission is aware of the U.K. Government progress following a meeting on the 17 February, 1997. However, implementation of regulations subsequent to the grant of licences for the 17th. licensing round is inadequate. The U.K. Government continues to remain in breach of the E.I.A. Directive despite its many promises and undertakings. We respectfully request that the Commission demands urgent action from the U.K. Government on this matter and if its position remains intransigent, to forward the matter to the European Court of Justice for legal proceedings. Conclusion The Marine Conservation Society, Greenpeace U.K. and The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society respectfully urge the Commission to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure compliance by the U.K. Government with Directive 337/85. The matter is clearly urgent. There is a need for intervention to take place now so that the environment impact of the grant of licences is properly assessed and properly taken into account. If this does not happen, irreversible damage to the marine environment may occur. 2nd April 1997 DEBORAH TRIPLEY TIMOTHY JONES
O.J. L175/40, 5.7.85. O.J. L206/7, 21.5.92. i.e. The Joint Links' Oil and Gas Consortium, a group of environmental non-governmental organisations including the Marine Conservation Society and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Letter to Guy Linley-Adams of M.C.S. from the Minister for Energy , dated 10 March, 1997. Junior Energy Minister, Richard Page, M.P.. Penultimate paragraph of the Letter to Guy Linley-Adams of M.C.S. from the Minister for Energy dated 10 March, 1997. Letter to Lord Melchett from the Prime Minister dated 26 September, 1996. Ante-penultimate paragraph of the letter to Guy Linley Adams of M.C.S. from the Minister for Energy , dated 10 March, 1997. S.I. 1966/2946. Hansard 7/6/95 Written Answers col. 238. Applications for the United Kingdom continental shelf (96/C 390/05). Hansard 23/1/97 Written Answers, cols. 709-710, Mr. Ainger to Mr. Page. Hansard 29/1/97 Written Answers, col. 228 Mr. Khabra to Mr. Page. Directive 85/337/EEC, Article 12. S.I. 1988 No. 1199. These have subsequently been amended by S.I. 1990 No. 367, S.I. 1992 No. 1494, and S.I. 1994 No. 677. S.I. No. 1213. Regulation 8(e) of the Petroleum (Production) (Seaward Areas) (Amendment) Regulations 1996 (S.I. 1966/2946). [1996] 1 C.M.L.R. 196. Ibid., paragraph 39 of the judgment. Article 5 (2) and Annex III. Hansard 29/1/97 Written Answers, col. 228, Mr. Page to Mr. Khabra. F.o.E. Cymru complaint no P 4979/94 (or 4908/94) - offshore oil and gas. Hansard 23/1/97 Written Answers, col. 710, Mr. Page to Mr. Ainger. Environmental Law, Richard Burnett-Hall, London, Sweet & Maxwell 1995. The measure of discretion given to Member States by Article 4(2) is limited: Aannemersbedrijf P.K Kraaijeveld BV v Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland, judgment of 24 October, 1996, Case C-72/95. Paragraph 7(h) of the prescribed Form of Application for a Licence contained in Schedule 3 of the 1988 Regulations. Appendix C, paragraph 29(b). Case 70/77 Simmenthal v Italian Finance Administration [1978] E.C.R. 1453, Case 14/83 Von Colson and Kamann v Land Nordrhein Westfalen [1984] E.C.R. 1891 and Cases C-6 and 9/90 Francovich v The Republic (Italy) [1993] 3 C.M.L.R. 66. Aannemersbedrijf P.K Kraaijeveld BV v Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland, judgment of 24 October, 1996, Case C-72/95. Hansard 29/1/97 Written Answers, col. 228, Mr. Page to Mr. Khabra. R v Poole Borough Council, ex parte Beebee and Others [1991] 2 PLR 27, 35H. Paragraph 29 (b) (ii) states: "how the work programme will be managed to avoid or minimise risk to the environment and a description of the procedures in place for monitoring environmental performance" .
|