Charge for domestic waste is deemed to be lawful

The imposition by Dublin City Council of a fixed charge for the collection of domestic waste is lawful and not in breach of the 'polluter pays' principle as set out in EU directives or the 1996 Waste Management Act, the High Court has ruled.

Mr Justice Quirke also said the 1991 EEC directive setting out the 'polluter pays' principle could certainly not be construed as directly imposing upon local authorities such as the Council an obligation to impose charges on polluters which reflected the weight of the waste collected. Neither did it expressly require incentive measures designed to encourage householders to reduce domestic waste.

The judge was delivering his reserved judgment yesterday on legal issues raised by Mr Samuel Wright, Dunsink Road, Finglas, after proceedings were taken by Dublin City Council against Mr Wright for alleged non-payment of a €120.63 refuse collection charge for 2001. The issues were referred for determination by the High Court from Dublin District Court via a consultative case stated.

A number of bin-charge protesters were in court for yesterday's decision, as was Socialist Party TD Mr Joe Higgins. After finding against Mr Wright, Mr Justice Quirke rejected arguments by Mr Terry O'Sullivan SC, for Mr Wright, that the case involved a matter of public interest and Mr Wright therefore should not have to pay the costs.

Mr James Connolly SC, for the council, applied for costs. Mr Justice Quirke said this was not a public interest challenge and he would award costs to the council. He adjourned the case for a week to allow Mr O'Sullivan take instructions as to whether the decision should be appealed.

In his decision, the judge held the charge imposed by the council was lawful and enforceable, having regard to the provisions of the Local Government Financial Provisions (No 2) Act 1983 as amended. It had been found as a fact by the District Court that the council provided a service to Mr Wright under the provisions of the Waste Management Act (WMA) 1996 and the council was entitled to impose a charge for that service. The judge said Mr Wright argued he did not have to pay the charge because it contravened the 'polluter pays' principle as set out in council directive 91/156/EEC and the provisions of the WMA.

Mr Justice Quirke said directive 91 did not define what is meant by the 'polluter pays' principle. Insofar as the provisions of the directive might be applicable in Ireland, he found the imposition of the charge could not be deemed to have been made in breach of the express terms of the directive.

The directive, he noted, simply provided that the costs of disposing of waste must be borne by particular holders and producers of waste. In those circumstances, he was satisfied the charge imposed by the council on Mr Wright was not imposed unlawfully having regard to the provisions of the directive.