LL2012C/N Constitutional Law of the EU Autumn Semester 2008-2009 Coursework Question 1 (representing 60% of the total marks) The Council has passed two imaginary Directives concerning water pollution. One, Directive 2006/2001 concerned the chemical ABC, and the other, Directive 2006/2002 concerned another chemical, XYZ. Both chemicals are commonly used in the manufacture of fertilisers and can find their way into waste water from factories, thus contaminating groundwater in surrounding areas. Both Directives were to have been implemented in all Member States by 31 July 2008 and set out not only the maximum amount of each chemical in parts per million (ppm) that could be allowed into waste water from factories, but also a requirement for a compulsory testing regime to be put in place by each Member State to monitor compliance with the maximum limit. The following situations arise: (a) The UK has failed to implement Directive 2006/2001 with regard to chemical ABC. A manufacturer of fertiliser, Fattenem, has been increasing the use of ABC in its products and has not upgraded its waste water facilities since 1995. Residents in the neighbourhood of the factory have been complaining recently of a bad smell in local streams and ponds, and members of the local gardening club have suffered stomach upsets which their doctors have traced to the presence of high levels of ABC in their home-grown vegetables. Can (i) the residents generally and (ii) the gardeners specifically, rely on the Directive either against Fattenem or the UK government? (b) The UK has implemented Directive 2006/2002 within the time limit but the legislation does not provide for the establishment of a compulsory testing regime as required in the directive, preferring instead to rely on each user of XYZ to comply voluntarily. Lawyers for the residents and gardeners believe that Fattenem, who also use this chemical in their products, are taking advantage of the voluntary regime to allow the level of XYZ in the groundwater to rise to unacceptable levels and have the same effect as ABC on the residents and the gardeners. Advise the lawyers as to whether the residents and/or the gardeners could rely on the Directive in a claim against the UK government. Note: Do NOT discuss EU or UK environmental law or tort law. Rely on what you have learned during THIS module! Question 2 (representing 40% of the total marks). Following an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the UK, the Council of the EU and the European Parliament adopt a Decision addressed to the UK under relevant Treaty articles requiring the UK government to begin slaughtering affected animals, particularly sheep, and restricting the movement of livestock within, and to and from, the UK. The UK had been outvoted by qualified majority voting (QMV) in the adoption of this EC Decision and it feels that the Decision is potentially unlawful as, in the Government’s view, another Treaty article requiring unanimity should have been used. As the Decision is about to enter into force, the Government feels it has no choice under the Decision but to confirm the instructions in the Decision to its Department of Agriculture officials to begin the animal slaughter. The Sheep Farmers’ Association (SFA) is a relatively small-sized trade organization promoting sheep farmers’ business interests with membership of a few thousand of the 250,000 sheep farmers in the UK. Advise the UK Government about their chances of success under a possible Judicial Review action under Article 230 EC Treaty AND advise SFA on their chances of establishing standing to challenge the Decision. Note: Do NOT discuss the Common Agricultural Policy or Freedom of Movement of Goods, just what you have learnt in relation to EC Legislation and Judicial Review.