Leiam este artigo com atenção e façam uma análize do precedente que se está aqui a estabelecer.
Em Portugal não vi um só jornal que escreveu algo sobre este acontecimento.
===============================================
Brussels wins right to force EU countries to jail polluters
Nicholas Watt, European editor
Wednesday September 14, 2005
The Guardian
Brussels was given greater powers over the EU's 25 members yesterday, when the European court of justice declared that the union's rules can be enforced through criminal sanctions. In a move described by Britain as disappointing, the court upheld an attempt by the European commission to allow it to force EU countries to jail polluters.
José Manuel Barroso, the commission president, hailed the ruling, which could mean the right to impose criminal penalties in a series of other areas, including the internal market, intellectual property rights and data protection. "This court judgment breaks new ground, it strengthens democracy and efficiency in the EU," Mr Barroso said.
A British government spokesman said: "We are in favour of bringing forward minimum criminal sanctions for environmental polluters. But the objection was you shouldn't be using the European community to harmonise member states' criminal sanctions."
Eurosceptics said the ruling marked a loss of sovereignty. Liam Fox, the shadow foreign secretary, said: "Despite all Tony Blair's protestations, the UK is bit by bit losing control of our ability to make our own laws."
Timothy Kirkhope, the Tory leader in the European parliament, said: "The decision on whether or not to criminalise offences in Britain should be a matter for Britain, not for the EU. We all support penalties against environmental vandals, but this sets an alarming precedent."
The court delivered its ruling after a disagreement between the commission and the council of ministers over the punishment of polluters. Both sides agreed that polluters should face criminal penalties, but they disagreed on how these should be enforced: European ministers argued that under the "Third Pillar" of the Maastricht treaty, the matter should be left in the hands of governments who would have the power of veto.
The commission argued that it should be enforced through the "First Pillar", also known as the "Community Pillar". This waters down the power of member states by involving all three of the EU centres of power - the commission, the council of ministers, and the European parliament. Countries also lose their national veto. This view was endorsed by the Luxembourg-based court.
The ruling means the commission would have the right to tell EU countries to impose criminal penalties on polluters. This would be carried out in national courts, although the commission would like to extend its powers by recommending the level of punishment.
Michel Petite, head of the European commission's legal service, said: "I suppose that for a directive to be complied with, we might want to to say it has to be a criminal penalty, we may want to say it has at least to be at this level. That could be viewed as a necessary condition for the directive to be complied with properly. But that was not contemplated in the ruling."
British government sources indicated that the result of the court's ruling will be deadlock, with no criminal charges being brought against polluters at a European-wide level. EU countries originally voted in favour of the original plan to allow governments to decide the matter by 11 votes out of 15 in 2003.
"There was such a strong vote because of the principle that this should be decided by member states. That point of principle has not changed, so there will be deadlock," one source said.
But pro-Europeans welcomed the European court of justice's ruling. Chris Davies, the Liberal Democrat leader in the European Parliament, said: "Europe needs an umpire to ensure fair play between member states and to dismiss the cheats. The commission is the only body that comes close to fitting that role and this court ruling gives it more teeth with which to bite."