
Ireland is facing fresh legal scrutiny in Brussels after the European Commission escalated a long-running dispute over peat cutting to Europe’s highest court.
After years of tension between the Irish Government and the Commission, the EU’s executive arm today referred Ireland to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), accusing the State of failing to properly apply EU requirements on environmental impact assessments.
In a statement, the Commission said Ireland had not complied with the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive.
According to the Commission, “significant peat cutting activity” continues without the necessary planning permission or environmental impact assessments, with particular concern focused on sites smaller than 50 hectares.
“Despite evidence of these ongoing illegal activities, enforcement action at the local level is not being taken. The Commission considers that efforts by the Irish authorities have been insufficient and is therefore referring Ireland to the Court of Justice of the European Union,” the statement added.
The row traces its roots to the original environmental impact assessment rules introduced in 1985.
Ireland previously appeared before the ECJ in the late 1990s after the Commission said the directive had been incorrectly transposed into national law, a case that culminated in a 1999 court ruling.
While Ireland amended its legislation in response to that judgment, the Commission said enforcement did not follow, leaving peat cutting activity insufficiently policed.
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
That prompted a second round of EU action. Brussels issued a “letter of formal notice” in July 2019, followed by a reasoned opinion in July the next year.
In today’s statement, the Commission said: “At that time, there were significant peat cutting activities ongoing that had not been subject to planning permissions or environmental impact assessments.
“Since July 2020, Ireland has taken significant action to halt peat cutting by the state-owned operator Bord Na Móna.
“Rehabilitation action on the sites owned by Bord Na Móna, where industrial cutting had taken place earlier without an environmental impact assessment, is now underway, largely funded by the EU through its Recovery and Resilience Facility.”
The Commission also said that since July 2020 the Irish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has carried out enforcement action against operators on privately owned commercial sites exceeding 50 hectares, leading to some commercial peat operators ending their activities.
In response, the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment said it noted the Commission’s announcement.
The department said commercial peat extraction is regulated, adding that “enforcement against activity at smaller sites, at a local level as refenced by the Commission, is a matter for planning authorities and the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage”.
It also said information on enforcement by the EPA regarding unauthorised extraction at the largest sites is available on the EPA’s website.
The department further set out how permissions differ depending on the scale of peat extraction:
- Fewer than 30 hectares: Planning permission from the relevant local authority and an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) may be required. An Appropriate Assessment (AA) is also required if peat extraction could have a significant effect on a protected area.
- 30 to 50 hectares: Planning permission from the relevant local authority and an EIA is required. An AA is also required if peat extraction could have a significant effect on a protected area.
- Greater than 50 hectares: An Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) licence from the EPA, planning permission from the relevant local authority and an EIA is required. An AA is also required if peat extraction could have a significant effect on a protected area.









