EU to recoup Mullaghmore funding despite ruling

THE European Commission is to claw back its funding for the controversial visitor centre planned for Mullaghmore in Co Clare - even as the European Court ruled that it had been less than transparent in dealing with the case.

Yesterday's decision of the European Court of First Instance in Luxembourg is now largely academic for the Mullaghmore issue but is seen by many in Brussels as landmark judgment on public access to documents which can be used by litigants against the Commission.

The case arose out of the Commission's refusaI to disclose documents to the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), which - with An Taisce - challenged EU funding for the Mullaghmore project on the grounds that it did not fulfil EU environmental standards.

The court ruled that the Commission's 1994 code of conduct on transparency was enforceable in law and that it had to justify any decision not to release documents. However, it also found that internal documents on current investigations did not have to be released. It awarded costs running into "several thousand pounds" to the WWF.

It also emerged yesterday that the Commission has notified the Government of its intention to cancel the allocation of £1.8 million and £900,000 respectively in subsidies towards the construction of visitor centres at Mullaghmore and Luggala, Co Wicklow.

The decision affects the "Operational Tourism Programme for Ireland 1989-93". It is defended by the Commission on the basis that only a small proportion of the work has been done and that it failed to advance the purpose desired, or any purpose at all. The money cannot be reallocated to other Irish projects.

Mr Pat Cox, the Independent MEP, said the Irish public had "every right to be angry" about the "flagrant waste" of money on the "folly" of Mullghmore. Ms Mairin Quill, the PD spokeswoman on arts and culture, said a full explanation was required for the Government's "bungling".

The Minister for Arts Culture and the Gaeltacht, Mr Higgins, pledged last month that the Luggala site would be restored to its original condition. Planning permission is being sought from Clare County Council for a scaled down visitor facility at the Mullaghmore site - now officially renamed Gortalecka.

The legacy of this most bitter of rows is now largely legal - a requirement on the Office of Public Works to adhere to the Supreme Court's decision that it cannot circumvent the normal planning process and yesterday's ruling in Europe.

Welcoming the court's decision, a WWF spokesman said it was important that the rights established should be incorporated in the treaty of the Union by the IGC as it "begins to set out some more reasonable boundaries to protect the citizen's rights to open government".

The group's lawyer, Dr Georg Berrisch, said the provision in the Commission cede of conduct which allowed it to refuse access to documents "in order to protect the institution's interest in the confidentiality of its proceedings allowed far too much discretion.

A spokesman for the Commission said it would have to consider the implications of the ruling and whether to appeal to the European Court of Justice.

If it does not, the Commission will have to decide which of the requested documents to release and provide a justification for any refusals.

The Commission had cited twos grounds for refusal - its concern for the confidentiality of its own proceedings and a legally more powerful concern for the "protection of the public interest (public security, international relations, monetary stability, court proceedings and investigations)".

In the latter case, the court found that the Commission was obliged to refuse access to documents". But in the former, it ruled that only the internal running of the Commission was at stake and, therefore there was a need to strike a balance between this and the interest of citizens.

Noting that its code of conduct had been adopted following a formal call from the European Council, the court found that although this had been done on a voluntary basis, it was "nevertheless capable of conferring on third parties legal rights which the Commission is obliged to respect".

Sweden was alone among member-states in backing the arguments of the WWF.