Ireland's attempt to have the Sellafield nuclear plant in north west England closed cannot be processed by a United Nations body, an EU court has found.
Ireland has been attempting to invoke provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to compel the British to provide its assessment of the economic and environmental justification for the Sellafied MOX reprocessing plant in Cumbria.
International law provides that detailed information be provided to a state which has legitimate interest in the activities of another state which may have environmental consequences. The State argued that the UN Tribunal of the Sea was the appropriate forum for resolution because Britain was in contravention of international marine environmental protection obligations under UNCLOS.
Britain has refused to disclose full details of an independent report conducted by PA Consultants on the plant, which reprocesses spent nuclear fuel containing plutonium and uranium into a mixed oxide fuel (MOX). The British say the information is commercially sensitive.
An interim finding by the tribunal required Britain to furnish with more information but a final ruling has not been issued.
Ireland previously failed in its attempt to have the issue addressed under the OSPAR Convention on protection of the north Atlantic through the independent, Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2003.
Ireland then referred the matter to the UN tribunal but today the European Court of First Instance - a division of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) - found the dispute is covered by European Union agreements and therefore should be before EU courts.
The case against Ireland was taken by the Commission which had argued that environmental protection is "an area of shared competence in EU law" and that "Community institutions should be given precedence as the forum for dispute resolution."
Advocate General Miguel Poiares Maduro agreed: "By instituting UN dispute settlement proceedings against the UK concerning the Sellafield MOX plant, without prior consultation with the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its Treaty obligations."
His said Ireland had "wrongly" asked the UN tribunal to interpret EU law and was in breach of its duty of co-operation as an EU member in not consulting with the Commission prior to initiating proceedings.
Ireland had argued that if it was forced to take its case to the ECJ, it would be deprived of an adequate remedy. However the Advocate General cited article 227 and 243 as examples of Community law which Ireland could invoke.
A Department of Environment spokeswoman said the opinion had been received and was being studied in consultation with the Attorney General.
The Advocate General issues opinions rather than rulings but the findings are usually accepted by the European Court of Justice. A date for the ECJ's ruling has not yet been established.