By Pat Cannon
25 December at 21:20 · Edited ·
We sent this email & the attachment which we have printed out for you to read to the Irish President Christmas morning after being thwarted yet again in the Irish Courts on Friday so at least we have it on Record for Future Court cases.!
Sent 25 Dec 2014
We have tried many avenues to have the injunction below lodged but have failed, mainly because we cannot afford to. We are asking you as our President to lodge this affidavit with Mr Brendan Kelly as the plaintive . We believe we have the right to ask you to do this under the Aarhus Convention. Access to Justice is One of the Three Pillars of Justice that we have been given Under this United Nations Law signed in 1998 & ratified on 22 June 2012
Thanking you in advance
Plaintiff: Mr Brendan Kelly
Defendant: Mr Alan Kelly
Minister for the Environment / Department of the Environment
Submission to the High Court
For interim Injunction / Full Injunction
Exemption 9.4 for Ireland under the EU Water framework Directive
The Environment Minister is due to commission a report on the government’s position to the Troika 1st of January 2015 concerning Ireland’s exemption to Domestic Ground Water charges on the 9.4 EU Water Framework Directive 2000/60c it is a strong possibility that its renewal will not be sought in light of the Creation of The Private Company Irish Water. Which must be considered every 7 years? The implication of not renewing it raises questions on the Legality of the establishment of the newly formed private company Irish Water
The legislation concerned over Irelands Ground Water Natural Resource is the 2007/2013 Water Resources Act. This legislation as a Statute Provision enforced by the rule of consent needs to be challenged under The Aarhus Convention in light of its impact upon The Irish People, it raises and continues to raise a number of issues not addressed
1. Freedom of Choice
2. The Right of Assembly to protest peacefully
3. Irish Constitutional issues, concerning inviolability of the home, Bodily Integrity, Issues of privacy, protection of the family recognised by the state
4. The right to speak
5. Freedom of Movement
Just a few of many undermined by The Irish Government in its actions upon the Irish people under which orders taken by An Garda Siochana to implement works of this utility company resulting in recent courts cases arising from the 2007/2013 Water Resources Act
Issues have been continually raised over this legislation that our Ground Water Resource costs are not being met it is already funded by indirect taxation 5% car tax and an extra 2% VAT this is clearly in the
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) ACT,
AN ACT TO ENABLE LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO ENJOY
THE REVENUES FROM DUTIES CHARGED UNDER
THE FINANCE (EXCISE DUTIES) (VEHICLES) ACT,
1952, AND FROM DUTIES AND FEES CHARGED
UNDER CERTAIN OTHER ENACTMENTS, TO REMOVE
THE POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO MAKE
CHARGES FOR THE SUPPLY OF WATER FOR DOMESTIC
PURPOSES OR FOR THE DISPOSAL OF DOMESTIC
SEWAGE, TO ENABLE STEPS TO BE TAKEN FOR
THE PURPOSE OF SECURING THE PROVISION BY
LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF SERVICES IN A MORE
ECONOMICAL AND EFFICIENT MANNER, TO OTHERWISE
MAKE PROVISION IN RELATION TO LOCAL
20th May, 1997]
The Aarhus Convention
Ireland ratified the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, commonly referred to as the Aarhus Convention, on 20th June 2012. It lays down a set of basic rules to promote the involvement of citizens in environmental matters and improve enforcement of environmental law.
Made up of what is known at the 3 Pillars
PILLAR I. ACCESS TO INFORMATION
PILLAR II. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-MAKING
PILLAR III. ACCESS TO JUSTICE
Access to Information on the Environment (AIE)
You are entitled to request access to information on the environment that is held by County Councils . This right comes from Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament, the European Communities (Access to Information on the Environment) Regulations 2007 to 2011 (S.I. No. 133 of 2007 and S.I. No. 662 of 2011) (hereafter referred to as the AIE Regulations).
Under these regulations, information relating to the environment held by, or for, a public authority must be made available on request, subject to certain exceptions. The AIE regulations also oblige public authorities to be proactive in disseminating environmental information to the public.
Water law in the European Union 
For countries within the European Union, water-related directives are important for water resource management and environmental and water quality standards. Key directives include the Urban Waste Water Directive 1992  (requiring most towns and cities to treat their wastewater to specified standards), and the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC, which requires water resource plans based on river basins, including public participation based on Aarhus Convention principles
The complexity concerning Ireland’s Ground Water Resource is clear under EU law in its Directives to implement changes highlighted in this section of this affidavit which for the courts attention are endless
It highlights that no environmental impact assessment report has been conducted concerning the effects of Electro Magnetic Radiation from the Installation of smart meter devices in the 2007 /2013 water resources act at least not under provisions of the Aarhus Convention for the Irish people to ask or to understand
Further examination is required in light of other essential issues which need to be raised.
Fluoridation of our Ground water Resource for nearly 5 decades
Concerns over Waste Management
Other Toxins and bugs in our ground water supply not being addressed
Leaking pipes all over the country work which remains unfixed
Lead piping from an outdated Infrastructure known to be Victorian
All of which has known to have had €1.2 billion euro raised in Revenue yet nothing has improved but the Irish people are being to be asked to pay again by the present Irish government under Irelands Bailout arrangement?
Commissioned a detailed report 2012
Three levels of state obligation
It is now commonly understood that states have three levels of obligation in relation to human rights: the obligations “to respect”, “to protect” and “to fulfil”. The obligation to respect requires the state to refrain from any measure that may deprive individuals of the enjoyment of their rights or their ability to satisfy those rights by their efforts. This type of obligation is often associated with civil and political rights (e.g. refraining from committing torture) but it applies to economic, social and cultural rights too. With regard to the right to adequate housing, for example, states have a duty to refrain from forced or arbitrary eviction.
The obligation to protect requires the state to prevent violations of human rights by third parties. The obligation to protect is normally taken to be a central function of states, which have to prevent irreparable harm from being inflicted upon members of society. This requires states: (a) to prevent violations of rights by individuals or other non-state actors; (b) to avoid and eliminate incentives to violate rights by third parties; and (c) to provide access to legal remedies when violations have occurred, in order to prevent further deprivations.
Non-compliance with this level of obligation may be a vital determinant of state responsibility in corruption cases. By failing to act, states may infringe rights.
If they do not criminalise particular practices or fail to enforce certain criminal provisions, for example, they may not prevent, suppress or punish forms of corruption that cause or lead to violations of rights.
The obligation to protect may also provide the link required to show that corrupt behaviour by a private actor triggers state responsibility. Although it might be difficult to establish, a state might be held responsible for violating a right, for example, if it failed to enact appropriate legislation to prevent or punish corruption committed by private corporations. Or a state might be judged negligent if employers breached labour laws (minimum wage requirements, health and safety regulations) and systematically bribed government labour
5. Definition of “Public Official” According to the UNCAC
Any person holding a legislative, executive, administrative or judicial office of a State
Party, whether appointed or elected, whether permanent or temporary, whether paid or unpaid, irrespective of that person’s seniority; any other person who performs a public function, including for a public agency or public enterprise, or provides a public service, as defined in the domestic law of the State Party and as applied in the pertinent area of law of that State Party; any other person defined as a “public official” in the domestic law of a State Party. However, for the purpose of some specific measures contained in chapter II of this Convention, “public official” may mean any person who performs a public function or provides a public service as defined in the domestic law of the State Party and as applied in the pertinent area of law of that State Party. 26 Corruption and Human Rights: Making the Connection inspectors to overlook this behaviour. In the case of transnational corporations, the home and host states might both have responsibilities, although the former are often better equipped to ensure that companies comply with human rights.
This level of obligation is relevant to privatisation processes. The privatisation of public services (such as health, transport or telecommunications) may multiply opportunities for corruption and may harm the enjoyment of particular rights (access to clean water, for example). In some instances of privatisation, the state clearly retains direct responsibility for the service in question (for example, when state companies retain certain public functions after privatisation). In others, the state devolves authority to private companies; but in these cases too it is still responsible for violations of rights that they commit, and will be liable if it fails to prevent corruption (or exposure to it) as privatisation occurs, or does not protect the rights of vulnerable groups who depend on the services in question.
The obligation to fulfil requires the state to take measures to ensure that people under its jurisdiction can satisfy basic needs (as recognised in human rights instruments) that they cannot secure by their own efforts. Although this is the key state obligation in relation to economic, social and cultural rights, the duty to fulfil also arises in respect to civil and political rights. It is clear, for instance, that enforcing the prohibition of torture (which requires states to investigate and prosecute perpetrators, pass laws to punish them and take preventive measures such as police training), or providing the rights to a fair trial (which requires investment in courts and judges), to free and fair elections, and to legal assistance, all require considerable costs and investments. A violation of a human right therefore occurs when a state’s acts, or failure to act, do not conform with that state’s obligation to respect, protect or fulfil recognised human rights of persons under its jurisdiction. To assess a given state’s behaviour in practice, however, it is necessary to determine in addition what specific conduct is required of the state in relation to each right. This will depend on the terms of the state’s human rights obligations, as well as their interpretation and application; and this in turn should take into account the object and purpose of each obligation and the facts of each case. The term “violation” should only be used formally when a legal obligation exists.
Where states privatise services in areas such as healthcare, education and the water sector, the distinction between the public and private sector may become blurred. Nonetheless (as discussed earlier in chapter III), even when public services are privatised, a state is still responsible for some violations of rights that private companies commit, and will be liable if it fails to prevent corruption (or exposure to it) as privatisation occurs, or does not protect the rights of vulnerable groups which depend on the services in question.
This issue merits specific analysis because it applies explicitly to all economic, social and cultural rights. When states ratify the ICESCR, they accept a general legal obligation to take steps to the maximum of their available resources to progressively achieve the full realisation of economic, social and cultural rights
(ICESCR, Article 2). In doing so, a state accepts three obligations: to take immediate steps to make sure that economic, social and cultural rights will progressively become available to all those under its jurisdiction; to prohibit retrogressive measures; and to devote a maximum of available resources to this purpose. States must take deliberate, specific and targeted steps towards the goal of full realisation of the relevant rights. The obligation is an immediate one and states are required to adopt a range of different measures (such as enacting relevant legislation, providing judicial remedies, and taking administrative, financial, educational or social measures). States must move as quickly and effectively as possible towards full realisation; any deliberate retrogressive measures need to be justified by reference to the use of maximum available resources.
The prohibition on taking deliberately retrogressive measures
The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) has noted that “any deliberately retrogressive measures […] would require the most careful consideration and would need to be fully justified by reference to the totality of the rights provided for in the Covenant and in the context of the full use of the maximum available resources”.42 In order to understand the Committee’s statement, it is important to analyse what constitutes a “deliberately retrogressive measure”. The Committee has not provided a definition. However, some guidance is to be found in General Comment No. 4, which states that “[A] general decline in living and housing conditions, directly attributable to policy and legislative decisions by States
Parties, and in the absence of accompanying compensatory measures, would be inconsistent with the obligations under the Covenant”.43 It is therefore possible to argue that a “deliberate retrogressive measure” means any measure that implies a step back in the level of protection accorded to the rights contained in the Covenant resulting from an intentional decision by the state concerned.
The right to water and the right to an adequate standard of living are linked.
Access to clean water is essential for fulfilment of the right to an adequate standard of living (ICESCR, Article 11) and the right to health (ICESCR,
Article12). Without it, these rights are not attainable.
Core content of the right to Ground water
The core content of the right to Ground water is analysed in CESCR, General Comment
No. 15. Availability: each person has the right to a water supply that is sufficient and continuous for personal and domestic use (such as drinking, personal sanitation, washing of clothes, food preparation, personal and household hygiene). Water must be of adequate quality. Water for personal or domestic use must be safe and free from micro-organisms, chemical substances and radiological hazards that constitute a threat to health. Furthermore, water should be of an acceptable colour, odour and taste for personal or domestic use. Accessibility: water facilities and services must be physically and economically accessible to everyone without discrimination. Information accessibility is defined as including the right to seek, receive and impart information concerning water issues.
It has been argued that the shortage of clean water and rising water pollution are not caused by a lack of natural supply or engineering problems but by corruption.
46 Corruption will violate the right to water when, for example, companies bribe state water regulators to allow them to draw excessive amounts from rivers and groundwater reservoirs, ultimately denying water access to neighbouring communities. Corruption also occurs when citizens have to pay bribes in order to be connected to the national water grid, or to avoid drinking unclean water from sources such as rivers or dams. Women tend to use more water because of their roles as caretakers of the home. In poor female-headed households, lack of money to bribe water officials exposes them to unhygienic water sources, increasing their exposure to water-borne diseases. Where women are responsible for providing the household with water, interruptions of the supply due to corruption will mean that women have to walk further to fetch water.
Corruption can harm the quality of water as well. If a company bribes a public inspector to overlook the discharge of waste into water resources, water supplies will be polluted and the right of people who depend on that water will be infringed. Again, the right of indigenous and minority populations to water is frequently threatened because many indigenous settlements are located by lakes or rivers.
The Irish Constitution and Summary of Human Rights and United Nations Covenants as well as The European Charter on Fundamental Rights and The European Social Charter Require Examination
The Irish Constitution,
United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
United Nations international Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights
The European Charter on Fundamental Rights
The European Social Charter
The European Convention on Human Rights
Universal Declaration on human Rights
United Nations Rights to Water
All the above mentioned are powerful Instruments of Law which the court will recognise under ratification of Successive Irish Governments with obligations that are not being met and are being abused at will concerning Austerity polices
It is clear from continuous changes in policy at this time with continuous Speculation were The Government is going with The Water Resources Act 2007/2013. That its full impact on people’s lives is having a negative impact which is clear in their objections This Objection highlighted in this Article in particular
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
Right and respect for private and family life
This Article protects a person’s privacy, family life and the home from unwarranted interference by the state. It also means that if decisions are being taken which will affect a person’s privacy or family life, that person must generally be involved in the decision making process
This right may be restricted if the restriction is.
In the interests of National Security, or the interests of public safety for the economic well being of the country to prevent disorder or crime, to protect health and morals to protect the rights and freedoms of others
Further documents can be provided raising further Questions in Support of
The Aarhus Convention provisions to establish essentially a Fundamental Right to Water that it should not be considered a commodity or that People’s Tax Euro be pumped into a Private Company without the consent of The Irish people and without explicit liability to potential Customers that remains unknown concerning leaks and additional costs and the environmental and health concerns the choice should be given to the Irish people in a Referendum under Article 47 Of The Irish Constitution
The affidavit is to secure an interim injunction / Full Injunction until state obligations to the Electorate are met by dismissing the latest Austerity Policy or cancelling The private Company know as Irish Water or more open transparency is established over the issue which is monitored by the Troika which needs to be fairer than it is showing