The European Court of Justice declared today that Malta had failed to fulfil its obligations under the Water Framework Directive to establish monitoring programmes on the status of inland surface water.

The Court did not challenge the unique situation and the scientific arguments put forward by Malta, the government said in a statement.

The court, however, said Malta's pleas were inadmissible since they were presented in the wrong stage of proceedings.

Malta had argued that no monitoring programmes were established since the scientific methods for monitoring surface waters prescribed by the Water Framework Directive cannot be applied in the Maltese context.

The Water Framework Directive was negotiated and adopted in 2000, before Malta’s accession to the European Union; Malta was therefore not involved in the discussions leading up to the adoption of this directive and the particular nature and size was not taken into account in the drafting of this legislation.

"Malta’s inland surface waters are very small and generally temporary since water flow occurs mainly through rainfall. These features make them unique to the islands. Other technical considerations, such as a lack of historical scientific data trends on Malta’s inland surface waters makes the scientific monitoring methods required by the Directive unsuitable to Malta’s case," the government insisted.

"Malta’s inland surface and transitional water bodies are aquatic and wetland habitats of high conservation value and are therefore already protected to a high degree under national legislation and under the EU Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive."

In its judgement, the court pointed out that under its rules of procedure no new plea may be introduced in the course of proceedings unless it is based on matters of law or of fact which come to light in the course of the procedure.

However, Malta's pleas in respect of the substance of the case were advanced for the first time in the rejoinder even though they were not based on matters of law or of fact which had come to light in the course of the procedure. A report submitted by Malta as the scientific basis of its reasoning was actually dated April 2008, which is over a year before the proceedings were commenced.

"Therefore, the claims for dismissal of the substance of the action and the underlying pleas advanced for the first time in the rejoinder must be considered as late and, therefore, inadmissible," the court said.

It also ordered Malta to bear the costs of the case.

The government said it would liaise with the European Commission to identify a practical way forward to comply with the Court judgement.