Europe - UNEP

Brewery, Brugge, Belgium. Photo credit: Sandra Arbogast.
they employ, including negotiations, “or any
other means of dispute settlement” acceptable to
them. However, arbitration and judicial settlement
through the International Court of Justice are
provided for under this convention only if the
contracting parties consent to it.
Disputes arising pursuant to EU water law
are decided by the European Court of Justice.
The court has the power to settle legal disputes
between member countries, EU institutions,
businesses, and individuals. Both the European
Commission and other member countries can
initiate proceedings against member countries for
failing to fulfil their obligations under EU water
law. If, after investigation the court finds a
member country at fault, then that country is
obligated to remedy the situation. There have
been over 45 cases before the EU Court of
Justice due to the failure of various member
countries to fulfil the requirements of the EU WFD
in the last 25 years. Most cases have been
launched by the EU Commission against a range
of member countries, including Denmark,
Germany, Greece, France, Ireland, Italy, Portugal,
Spain, Sweden, and the Netherlands. The most
prevalent directives that have not been complied
with are the 1975 Drinking Water Directive, 1976
Dangerous Substances Directive, 1976 Bathing
Water Directive, 1980 Directive of Water for
Human Consumption, 1991 Nitrates Directive,
and 1991 Urban Wastewater Directive.
Besides the EU Court of Justice decisions, a
number of disputes concerning transboundary
water within Europe have been referred to
arbitration by judicial settlement. The 1927
Permanent Court of International Justice heard a
case between Belgium and the Netherlands over
the diversion of the River Meuse and in 1929 the
same court heard a case between Germany,
Denmark, France, Great Britain, Sweden, former
Czechoslovakia, and Poland concerning the River
Oder. In 1957 France and Spain took their
dispute over Lake Lanoux and the River Carol to
an international arbitral tribunal. More recently,
the International Court of Justice heard the
dispute between Hungary and Slovakia
concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Dam
system on the Danube. Another recent example is
the Permanent Court of Arbitration case between
France and the Netherlands decided in March of
2004 that concerned the interpretation and
application of a protocol related to the 1976
Chapter 4. Major Trends in Conflict and Cooperation — 59