Twenty-thousand euros a day. This was the penalty that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ordered Greece to pay for as long as it postponed action on a 1992 judgement that it violated EU waste legislation. After enjoying a two-year de facto grace period under the close scrutiny of the Commission, this summer the new member states in Central and Eastern Europe faced the first stages of the EU’s infringement procedure. If the new member states don’t redress instances of noncompliance by the given deadlines, they could end up before the ECJ. That’s a grim prospect, as penalties can be very costly.Apart from financial considerations, this will be the first test of whether these states can meet their EU obligations, and if not, whether they can pay the consequences. Keeping member states in line with the union’s own laws is essential for the EU to keep the global commitments that underlie its environmental identity. These include multilateral commitments such as the 2010 biodiversity target and the fight against climate change.

Here is how it all works. Article 226 of the European Community Treaty authorizes the Commission to take legal action against any member state for non-compliance with its obligations. The procedure has several stages, during which the member state may seek to redress the noncompliance status. First, the Commission sends a written warning to the member state and requests an explanation. If the member state fails to reply or the Commission finds the explanation wanting, the EU’s executive body issues a reasoned opinion — the final written warning. If the country again fails to comply, the Commission may take the case to the ECJ. There, the court would make a judgment of whether a violation took place and if so what remediation is required. If the state doesn’t comply with this order, Article 228 of the Treaty empowers the Commission to demand in court the payment of a lump sum or penalty.

In the above-mentioned case, the final amount that Greece paid for an unauthorized landfill was EUR 4.5 million. As they come under the Commission’s spotlight, a few of the new member states may now face similar fates. The first warning letters were posted in June 2006 to Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Malta and Poland for failing to require environmental impact assessment (EIA) for certain project categories. The countries did not put in place adequate provisions for screening projects to determine if EIAs were needed. In the case of the Czech Republic, restrictive provisions for access to justice were the main concern.

First warnings were sent to Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia for noncompliance with the Birds Directive. Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia were warned concerning the Habitats Directive. The Commission’s action on nature protection laws is even tougher, as the EU has committed to halt biodiversity loss by 2010. “Only the correct and swift implementation of these directives can halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010: member states must act quickly in order to ensure the proper protection of  birds and habitats on their territory,” said Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas.

On another key global issue, climate change, the Commission issued first-warning letters to Cyprus, Malta and Poland for failure to set up national registries for emission allowances. The same countries received a final written warning for failure to report on the policies and measures taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and projections of future emissions. Cyprus and Malta were also the only two new member states who did not submit their annual report on greenhouse gas emissions for 2004. A first written warning was issued against them.