Implementation deficit within the environmental sector - Sweden’s non -compliance with Environmental Directives
(2009)Department of Law
- Abstract
- The topic of this thesis deals with the implementation deficit in the environmental sector that exists within the EU. According to the 25th annual, report from the Commission, there were over 3400 complaints and infringement files under 2007. The environmental sector was the area with the highest number of open cases that concerned non-compliance in 2006 Sweden is however one of the best Member States when it comes to the implementation of Directives. Nonetheless, even Sweden has either failed to transpose Directives in time, to implement them correctly or failed to apply them correctly within the environmental area. This thesis has therefore investigated why Sweden, as one of the biggest proponents of environmental issues, has failed to... (More)
- The topic of this thesis deals with the implementation deficit in the environmental sector that exists within the EU. According to the 25th annual, report from the Commission, there were over 3400 complaints and infringement files under 2007. The environmental sector was the area with the highest number of open cases that concerned non-compliance in 2006 Sweden is however one of the best Member States when it comes to the implementation of Directives. Nonetheless, even Sweden has either failed to transpose Directives in time, to implement them correctly or failed to apply them correctly within the environmental area. This thesis has therefore investigated why Sweden, as one of the biggest proponents of environmental issues, has failed to implement Environmental Directives. This thesis has investigated three Directives: the Bathing Directive, the Directive on the disposal of Waste Oils and the Wild Birds Directive, in order to reach some conclusions as to why Sweden failed to implement these Directives correctly. Before it was possible to argue that they had failed it was primarily important to establish that the Commission had sent a letter of formal intent, a reasoned opinion and finally referred Sweden to the ECJ. In all cases, Sweden was subject to a referral to the ECJ and failed in that sense with its implementation. This thesis used explanatory factors from the Community level as from the Member State level. The Community level explanation investigated whether the enforcement procedures, the letter of formal intent and the reasoned opinion under Art 226 and 228 as well as the ruling from the ECJ, had any impact on the non-compliance of the Directives. Sweden received a letter of formal intent under article 228 as they were not complying with the judgment for its non - compliance with the Bathing Water Directive. Sweden followed the letter of formal intent immediately and the enforcement procedure had in that sense an impact since Sweden was not willing to receive penalty payments. The following Directives did not go as far, which indicates that Sweden was more inclined to comply with Directives and not receive sanctions. Explanations from the Member State level were the ability to understand the Directive, willingness to implement it and capability to implement it. Sweden was willing but had difficulties in understanding them since they were vague. This led to different interpretations at different administration levels, which caused the institutions to be inefficient. When the Directives at the same time did not fit the national legislation and Sweden had not prepared itself before they had to implement the Directives it was perfectly clear that they would fail with the implementation. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/1562588
- author
- Tideklev, Niklas
- supervisor
- organization
- year
- 2009
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- EG-rätt
- language
- English
- id
- 1562588
- date added to LUP
- 2010-03-08 15:55:30
- date last changed
- 2010-03-08 15:55:30
@misc{1562588,
abstract = {{The topic of this thesis deals with the implementation deficit in the environmental sector that exists within the EU. According to the 25th annual, report from the Commission, there were over 3400 complaints and infringement files under 2007. The environmental sector was the area with the highest number of open cases that concerned non-compliance in 2006 Sweden is however one of the best Member States when it comes to the implementation of Directives. Nonetheless, even Sweden has either failed to transpose Directives in time, to implement them correctly or failed to apply them correctly within the environmental area. This thesis has therefore investigated why Sweden, as one of the biggest proponents of environmental issues, has failed to implement Environmental Directives. This thesis has investigated three Directives: the Bathing Directive, the Directive on the disposal of Waste Oils and the Wild Birds Directive, in order to reach some conclusions as to why Sweden failed to implement these Directives correctly. Before it was possible to argue that they had failed it was primarily important to establish that the Commission had sent a letter of formal intent, a reasoned opinion and finally referred Sweden to the ECJ. In all cases, Sweden was subject to a referral to the ECJ and failed in that sense with its implementation. This thesis used explanatory factors from the Community level as from the Member State level. The Community level explanation investigated whether the enforcement procedures, the letter of formal intent and the reasoned opinion under Art 226 and 228 as well as the ruling from the ECJ, had any impact on the non-compliance of the Directives. Sweden received a letter of formal intent under article 228 as they were not complying with the judgment for its non - compliance with the Bathing Water Directive. Sweden followed the letter of formal intent immediately and the enforcement procedure had in that sense an impact since Sweden was not willing to receive penalty payments. The following Directives did not go as far, which indicates that Sweden was more inclined to comply with Directives and not receive sanctions. Explanations from the Member State level were the ability to understand the Directive, willingness to implement it and capability to implement it. Sweden was willing but had difficulties in understanding them since they were vague. This led to different interpretations at different administration levels, which caused the institutions to be inefficient. When the Directives at the same time did not fit the national legislation and Sweden had not prepared itself before they had to implement the Directives it was perfectly clear that they would fail with the implementation.}},
author = {{Tideklev, Niklas}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Implementation deficit within the environmental sector - Sweden’s non -compliance with Environmental Directives}},
year = {{2009}},
}