Brussels clears Sant'Antnin plant

The European Commission has found no evidence that EU law was violated when approval was granted to upgrade the Sant' Antnin recycling plant in Marsascala.

Claims of irregularities in the process have been repeatedly made by the lobby group opposing the plant.

Two members of the European Parliament, Briton Chris Davies and Satu Hassi from Finland, had submitted questions to the Commission following a meeting with the group in Strasbourg last May.

The two MEPs said the Commission had received representations (with supporting evidence) from many Maltese citizens concerned that the site of the proposed plant, partly funded by the European Union, "has been given approval in a grossly irregular manner and that it fails to comply with a number of environmental criteria".

They asked the Commission to investigate whether there were legal grounds to halt the development.

Replying to the MEPs' written questions, European Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said: "The Commission has assessed the information provided concerning the modernisation of the Sant'Antnin waste recycling plant with reference to compliance with requirements under Community environmental legislation.

"For the time being and on the basis of the information available to the Commission, the Commission concludes that it is not possible to identify a violation of Community law."

The Commissioner explained that under the EU treaty, the Commission has powers to control whether or not obligations under Community legislation have been correctly observed. With regard to the choice of location of individual projects in member states and the detailed arrangements for consulting the public, these are issues under the exclusive competence of the national authorities and the Commission does not have powers to intervene.

The EU's Environment Impact Assessment Directive requires that certain public and private projects likely to have significant effects on the environment are assessed before development consent can be granted.

Under Article 5(3) of the directive, where an environmental impact assessment is undertaken for a project, the developer of the project shall provide "an outline of the main alternatives studied by the developer and an indication of the main reasons for his choice, taking into account the environmental effects".

The reference to "alternatives" is a general one, implying that a range of alternatives, including alternative processes or technical solutions, as well as geographical alternatives, may be considered.

Commissioner Dimas said that in the case in question, the project is for the extension and modernisation of an existing waste recycling site. Therefore, no alternative geographical site in effect exists.

This is the first time Mr Dimas has made public comments on this controversy. Last December he had refused to give details on what had been discussed in a meeting he had in Brussels with the lobby group, or on his position over the issue.

During that meeting, the lobby group, in the presence of Labour MEPs Joseph Muscat and Louis Grech, presented Mr Dimas with a document alleging irregularities in the process to approve the recycling plant project.

The lobby had said afterwards that they had been told he would be looking at the new evidence.

Two months later he came under attack from the group with its secretary Joe Sant insisting he should take a stand on the issue and stop "sitting on the fence".

Mr Dimas had replied that the Commission was still studying the case.