Directive 2002/85EC in Ireland

Going Forward

The RSA has said that it has previously received advice from the European Commission on how to implement Directive 2002/85EC, and that at it's request the Commission is reviewing the advice previously given. That was on the 29th of October 2010.(see 2 files below)

Since then the European Parliament has answered a question relating to the Directive which also contradicts the RSA's previous stance:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+WQ+E-2010-010163+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

So, how did the European Commission give conflicting advice to a state agency about the requirements of an EU Directive?

Has the Commission reviewed its previous advice to the RSA as requested and has it supplied any new or different advice to the RSA?

Does the Commission have any concern about whether this Directive was or is being properly implemented in Ireland?

TalkToEU: John

Hi Going Forward,

We're looking into to this question for you.
In the meantime, to clarify the following .

Since then the European Parliament has answered a question relating to the Directive which also contradicts the RSA's previous stance:

The European Parliament asked a question. It was the European Commission that provided an answer to that question.

Going Forward

Thanks, and apologies for my mistake re the question and answer.

Previously, the late implementation of Directive 2002/85EC caused Ireland to be referred to the European Courts of Justice in 2005.

The 2005 Press Release from the European Commission (see below) outlines which vehicles the Directive refers to-


"It requires that vehicles intended to transport passengers registered as from
1 January 2005 and having more than eight seats, including the driver’s seat,
must be equipped with a speed limitation device set in such a way that their
speed cannot exceed 100 km/hour."


(The RSA's requirements included all such passenger vehicles registered before 2005, regardless of the conditions outlined in Directive 2002/85/EC)

2005 EC Press Release:
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/05/1588&format=PDF&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

Going Forward

Hi Talk TO EU,

Seems like a long time since we spoke/wrote!
Any word from your EU partners?


Dont know if this is of use, as its from 2005 also:

http://www.transport.ie/viewitem.asp?id=7223&lang=ENG&loc=1850

TalkToEU: John

Hi Goingforward,

We were in contact again this week for an update and they've informed us that colleagues of the spokespersons for the Transport Commissioner are looking at a response to this at the moment.

Thanks again for your patience.

Going Forward

TalkToEU: John wrote: »

Hi Goingforward,

We were in contact again this week for an update and they've informed us that colleagues of the spokespersons for the Transport Commissioner are looking at a response to this at the moment.

Thanks again for your patience.

No bother John,
and thanks for the update.

It looks like, and correct me if i'm wrong, that the EC finds this a difficult question to answer.

It must be the first time an Irish government body has publicly stated that it has raised an issue with the Commission because it now has queries or doubts about previous advice received from the EC.

I can fully understand the delay, as there is clearly a dilemma in that if the EU/EC reports back to say that the advice originally given to Ireland was incorrect, then the EU/EC would be contradicting itself about the contents of one of its own Directives.

On the other hand-if the answer says that the original advice given to Ireland by the Commission was indeed correct, which I expect it was, then the EU/EC would very much look like it's publicly contradicting the contents not only of the circulars mentioned but also confirming that the requirements of the Directive have been wrongly implemented here since 2008.

Living up to my title of "Doubting Thomas", I dont forsee a clear answer being given to you, at any stage, TalkToEU John; perhaps a formula of words, but no more. Hopefully that wont be the case though.

This has all the ingredients of a good book, or at least a half-decent article!!
International diplomacy, intrigue, political dilemmas etc etc!!

Keep at them though, and I'll check in with you again, in another month;)

TalkToEU: John

Hi going forward. Representatives from the Transport and Mobility Commissioner have finally come back with a statement in regards to your original question. Apologies again for the delay in responding. When seeking comment for representatives from various departments within the Commission, the process can take some time.

Here it is:

The Commission has informed the Irish authorities that a Member State may impose more stringent requirements for domestic vehicles not traveling in other Member States (i.e. to equip all diesel powered vehicles - not traveling on the territory of another Member State - registered as of 1 October 2001 with speed limiters). Directive 92/6/EEC[1][1] does not prevent Member States to apply more stringent rules for domestic vehicles as long as they are only used for national transport.

Going Forward

Hi John, thanks for coming back on it;

My previous fear about a formula of words being offered is borne out here because the reply you have been given has little to do with the question I asked!

Directive 92/6 EEC is a different Directive, for goods vehicles, not sure why thats been quoted!

It was amended around a decade later by Directive 2002/85EEC to add other types of vehicles determined by various criteria.

Directive 2002/85EEC is practicaly "word for word" on the Irish Staute Book.


Leaving that aside, how are Citizens usually made aware of whether a Member State has decided to impose "more stringent requirements"? Is there a protocol to follow; has Ireland imposed the stricter requirements?

Also can you ask them how it is determined which vehicles "are only used for national transport", is it to do with there license?

I still confused on this!

Thanks again John

Going Forward

Hi again John.

This is like getting blood from a stone.

It seems 2 me this Talk to EU is nothing more than another media excercise from the EU, if you wont engage or reply.

Going Forward

Are you there EU John?

Have you in your capacity as messenger for the EC decided on behalf of the EU not to discuss the matter further, or have you been told not to?

Does the EU/EC discourage its Citizens from questioning it?

Are there any legal issues preventing you from responding?


Talk2ME TALK2EU John.

FreudianSlippers

Going Forward wrote: »

Hi John, thanks for coming back on it;

My previous fear about a formula of words being offered is borne out here because the reply you have been given has little to do with the question I asked!

Directive 92/6 EEC is a different Directive, for goods vehicles, not sure why thats been quoted!

It was amended around a decade later by Directive 2002/85EEC to add other types of vehicles determined by various criteria.

Directive 2002/85EEC is practicaly "word for word" on the Irish Staute Book.

I'm not sure he has failed to answer your question.

The answer is that the Directive states that these vehicles post 2005 must be fitted, there is nothing to prevent the individual Member States from imposing more stringent regulations in its national legislation.

The reason that Directive 92/6/EEC is of any relevance is because of the regulations in the Road Traffic (Construction, Equipment and Use of Vehicles) (Amendment) Regulations 1993 (which implemented Directive 92/6/EEC) goods vehicles with a maximum mass exceeding 12 tonnes and buses with a maximum mass exceeding 10 tonnes must be fitted with speed limiters. These include all such vehicles registered after 1st January 1988.

It's also of note that Statutory Instrument 831 of 2005 implements multiple directives (Directive 92/6/EEC, Directive 92/24/EEC, Directive 2002/85/EC and Directive 2004/11/EC). Effectively it's a compilation of Directive implementation or sort of a greatest-hits S.I. - I'm assuming to compile everything in one place rather than all multiple places.

Leaving that aside, how are Citizens usually made aware of whether a Member State has decided to impose "more stringent requirements"? Is there a protocol to follow; has Ireland imposed the stricter requirements?

Also can you ask them how it is determined which vehicles "are only used for national transport", is it to do with there license?

These matters are really matters to be taken up with the Irish government.

I'm not genuinely sure how citizens are made aware of increased requirements, but they seem to be (remember the driver's licence changes).

As far as the national transport question, I'm afraid I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.

Going Forward

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm not sure he has failed to answer your question.

The answer is that the Directive states that these vehicles post 2005 must be fitted, there is nothing to prevent the individual Member States from imposing more stringent regulations in its national legislation.

The reason that Directive 92/6/EEC is of any relevance is because of the regulations in the Road Traffic (Construction, Equipment and Use of Vehicles) (Amendment) Regulations 1993 (which implemented Directive 92/6/EEC) goods vehicles with a maximum mass exceeding 12 tonnes and buses with a maximum mass exceeding 10 tonnes must be fitted with speed limiters. These include all such vehicles registered after 1st January 1988.

It's also of note that Statutory Instrument 831 of 2005 implements multiple directives (Directive 92/6/EEC, Directive 92/24/EEC, Directive 2002/85/EC and Directive 2004/11/EC). Effectively it's a compilation of Directive implementation or sort of a greatest-hits S.I. - I'm assuming to compile everything in one place rather than all multiple places.

These matters are really matters to be taken up with the Irish government.

I'm not genuinely sure how citizens are made aware of increased requirements, but they seem to be (remember the driver's licence changes).

As far as the national transport question, I'm afraid I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.

It is of course up to a country to impose more stringent requirements.
But Ireland did not do this. The Directive was accepted here "as is" in SI 831 of 2005.
It is misleading to suggest that Ireland may have somewhere along the line amended/rejected or altered part of the Directive before or since it went on the Statue books.

The rsa's bulletin states that it is introducing different testing requirements for vehicles made before 2005, as it now questions advice previously received from the EC.
The bulletin presumably relates to Directive 2002/85, which as you mention covers mainly vehicles made after 2005.

If you accept that the bulletin appears to suggest that the RSA is not convinced or satisfied with previous advice received from the EC regarding vehickles made before 2005, then you may accept that there is a problem with how the Directive was implemented in Ireland, again as aresult of the rsa having received quetionable advice from the EC.

If as the rsa suggests the EC did give incorrect advice, it would be contradicting what is contained in the Directive for vehicles registered pre 2005.

The European Parliament answer confirmed that only certain vehicles and not all vehicles made before 2005 were affected by 2002/85.
That is why that Directive 2002/85 and not another Directive should be addressed.
I am not aware of any problem with how Directive 92/6/EEC was followed in Ireland and did not mention it.

The question about how citizens are supposed to know about legislation is quite simple, yes they must look it up, - and either a Statutory Instrument (and any amendments or alterations) covering a Directive and the requirements contained in both is binding or its not.
And it either has been implemented properly all along or it has not.

It cant go both ways.

And I think you will agree that that was not answered or addressed in TalkToEU's response.

FreudianSlippers

The RSA has little or nothing to do with the implementation of Directives. I don't agree that the Oireachtas has implemented the Directives "as is"... it's clear that SI 831/2005 contains and implements various directives and imposes more stringent requirements on vehicles including those pre-2005. You're right, the Directive was not "altered"; we just chose to implement it in a way which was more stringent than stated and this is perfectly acceptable. We, of course, did not reject the Directive if we are implementing it and going beyond it.

If the EC suggested that this directive applied to pre-2005 vehicles and as such that was the way it was legislated in this jurisdiction, then certainly the RSA are correct in requiring clarification or challenging it.

If the EC merely stated that Ireland's implementation of the Directive was acceptable (including the choice of Ireland to impose stricter regulation) then the RSA should be challenging this at a Constitutional level.

I should point out that a Directive is never binding on the sovereign of a Member State; it is merely binding on the Member State to, at the very least, implement what is contained in that Directive into national legislation which is then binding on its people.

Going Forward

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

If the EC suggested that this directive applied to pre-2005 vehicles and as such that was the way it was legislated in this jurisdiction, then certainly the RSA are correct in requiring clarification or challenging it.

If the EC merely stated that Ireland's implementation of the Directive was acceptable (including the choice of Ireland to impose stricter regulation) then the RSA should be challenging this at a Constitutional level.

These are the substantive points that have not been addressed by TalkToEu.

View

Maybe the simplest thing would be to ask the RSA to publish the advice on the matter that it received from the EC?

Given the subject, they can hardly object to such a request (It is not exactly the stuff of state secrets).

And, of course, if they do, then:
a) a FOI request might result in it being produced, or,
b) a question in the Dail - where a TD asks the relevant Minister to produce or read out the full text received from the EC, or,
c) a question in the EP - where an MEP asks the relevant Commissioner to produce or read out the full text sent to the RSA.

And if that still doesn't work, try a complaint to the European Ombudsman and/or the (domestic) Ombudsman - I think maladministration should cover it. :-)

It looks like someone, somewhere, screwed-up and doesn't want to admit it...

TalkToEU: John

We've requested, from DG Transport, to confirm whether they have answered this request for more information or not, and if so, what that answer was in full. Representatives from the European Commission Representation in Ireland have put this request in and are awaiting a response from DG Transport in Brussels.

Admittedly, this has been slow to progress as it relies on a chain of people to request information and for the technical aspects of the request to be filtered down to somebody competent in that area to provide an answer.
We'll be posting more information tomorrow and addressing some of the points raised by GoingForward.

Going Forward

View wrote: »

Maybe the simplest thing would be to ask the RSA to publish the advice on the matter that it received from the EC?

Given the subject, they can hardly object to such a request (It is not exactly the stuff of state secrets).

And, of course, if they do, then:
a) a FOI request might result in it being produced, or,
b) a question in the Dail - where a TD asks the relevant Minister to produce or read out the full text received from the EC, or,
c) a question in the EP - where an MEP asks the relevant Commissioner to produce or read out the full text sent to the RSA.

And if that still doesn't work, try a complaint to the European Ombudsman and/or the (domestic) Ombudsman - I think maladministration should cover it. :-)

It looks like someone, somewhere, screwed-up and doesn't want to admit it...

The RSA is not subject to the FOI act.
Yes, someone has indeed screwed up big time.

Going Forward

TalkToEU: John wrote: »

We've requested, from DG Transport, to confirm whether they have answered this request for more information or not, and if so, what that answer was in full.

Hi TalkToEu-

Does the request for information relate to the original "previous" "advice" claimed to have been received by the rsa from the EC, (presumably dating from 2008 when the rsa imposed more srtingent requirements), or to the recent enquiry which you submitted?

TalkToEU: John

Going Forward wrote: »

Hi TalkToEu-

Does the request for information relate to the original "previous" "advice" claimed to have been received by the rsa from the EC, (presumably dating from 2008 when the rsa imposed more srtingent requirements), or to the recent enquiry which you submitted?

It's a follow up to the circular they published in October 29th 2010. From what we understand though, a response was given, but we're just waiting for the relevant person to come back with the specific response. Our colleagues in the European Commission Representation in Dublin have been pushing for this.

Going Forward

TalkToEU: John wrote: »

It's a follow up to the circular they published in October 29th 2010. From what we understand though, a response was given, but we're just waiting for the relevant person to come back with the specific response. Our colleagues in the European Commission Representation in Dublin have been pushing for this.

Thanks.

Is the Commission prepared to publish its original advice to the RSa (to which the Rsa's bulletin refers).

This advice is what the Rsa acted on until October 2010.

TalkToEU: John

Going Forward wrote: »

Thanks.

Is the Commission prepared to publish its original advice to the RSa (to which the Rsa's bulletin refers).

This advice is what the Rsa acted on until October 2010.

Update.
Firstly, this is dragging on far too long for everybody and we fully understand, and apologise for this. Having caught up again today with colleagues in the European Commission Representation Ireland, they've clarified that this query is with DG Transport and has been received, but a clear answer is still to be provided.

Is the Commission prepared to publish its original advice to the RSa (to which the Rsa's bulletin refers).

This advice is what the Rsa acted on until October 2010.

We have requested this information.

More info.
In relation to the original query re: Has the Commission followed up on the request for more information based previous advice given to the RSA? The two institutions have been in contact , and our colleagues in the ECR Ireland are requesting information on the nature of this correspondence.

Having also been in contact with the RSA, they confirmed that their request for clarification has been followed up upon. They are kindly responding to us with more information relating to their correspondent and request for more information.

The general feeling is that nobody is covering anything up due to a screw up as mentioned in an above post, but this is just simply taking a very tedious amount of time. In our experience, some queries take less than a day to turn around, but some can take weeks because it relies on a chain of people to delegate the request on and on until the representative with the knowledge to answer the query is reached, and has the time to respond.

Going Forward

This is not a new issue; the Commission has been aware of it for some time, so it is curious that it is taking it so long to respond.

But it is not dissimilar to the quality of the answer given by the Commission when Irish MEPS raised the issue in some detail in the European Parliament in 2010 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=WQ&reference=E-2010-010163&language=EN -In that instance, when the irregularities in Ireland were brought to its attention, the Commission simply looked the other way in relation to the implementation of the Directive.


So one could be forgiven for thinking that the ideals published here http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/infringements/infringements_en.htm by the Commission do not apply to cases in Ireland:

"Each Member State is responsible for the implementation of EU law (adoption of implementing measures before a specified deadline, conformity and correct application) within its own legal system. Under the Treaties (Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU); Article 141 of the Euratom Treaty), the Commission of the European Communities is responsible for ensuring that EU law is correctly applied. Consequently, where a Member State fails to comply with EU law, the Commission has powers of its own (action for non-compliance) to try to bring the infringement to an end and, where necessary, may refer the case to the European Court of Justice.

The Commission takes whatever action it deems appropriate in response to either a complaint or indications of infringements which it detects itself. Non-compliance means failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations under EU law. It may consist either of action or omission. The term State is taken to mean the Member State which infringes EU law, irrespective of the authority - central, regional or local - to which the compliance is attributable."

Indeed. The Commission promises much but has done little when asked.

It is in this context that one could also be forgiven for suspecting that neither the RSA nor the Commission envisaged that the matter would be raised in a public forum.

Words like conspire and collusion easily spring to mind under such circumstances, which does neither institution (both of which remain suspiciously mute on the subject) any good.

Going Forward

As this degenerates into something of a PR disaster for TalkToEU, the European Commission and the Road Safety Authority, I though it would be good to check in on our friends in Northern Ireland and across the water (who are also subject to the requirements of Directive 2002/85) to see how they implement the Directive:

http://www.dvlni.gov.uk/Freedom%20of%20Information/Heavy%20Vehicle%20Inspection%20Manual/Speed%20limiter.pdf

and

http://www.dft.gov.uk/vosa/newsandevents/pressreleases/2006pressreleases/28-12-06speedlimiterlegislation.htm

Yes, seems like they can understand the Directive.

Doesn't look like they got any other odd "advice" from the European Commission either, so full marks there!

oscarBravo

Going Forward wrote: »

As this degenerates into something of a PR disaster...

Yeah, it's been wall-to-wall coverage on the news today.

Corsendonk

This sort of thing seems actually quite common. When the EU brought in the Hygiene package(178/2002) the Irish government implemented it to the exact letter and closed down all the small abbatoirs in the country doing so whilst other member states like Italy used common sense and allowed some sway to the little abbatoirs that kill 2-3 animals a week. Directives do allow for common sense to be applied but the Irish government doesn't seem to allow for it.

Going Forward

Corsendonk wrote: »

This sort of thing seems actually quite common. When the EU brought in the Hygiene package(178/2002) the Irish government implemented it to the exact letter and closed down all the small abbatoirs in the country doing so whilst other member states like Italy used common sense and allowed some sway to the little abbatoirs that kill 2-3 animals a week. Directives do allow for common sense to be applied but the Irish government doesn't seem to allow for it.

This is different in that Directive 2002/85EC actually was being implemented correctly here by the Department of Transport until 2008.

The Road Safety Authority in 2008 then applied it to vehicles that were outside of the scope of the Directive, claiming in 2010 that it had received advice/permission/authorisation from the European Commission to do so.

The Directive still stands now as it did in 2005; it was never amended to widen its scope to include the vehicles which the RSA included.

Corsendonk

Going Forward wrote: »

This is different in that Directive 2002/85EC actually was being implemented correctly here by the Department of Transport until 2008.

The Road Safety Authority in 2008 then applied it to vehicles that were outside of the scope of the Directive, claiming in 2010 that it had received advice/permission/authorisation from the European Commission to do so.

The Directive still stands now as it did in 2005; it was never amended to widen its scope to include the vehicles which the RSA included.

Can you request that documentation from the RSA?

Going Forward

Corsendonk wrote: »

Can you request that documentation from the RSA?

They are not subject to the FOI Act thats why I've asked TAlkToEU to explain the European Commission's involvement in altering the requirements of a Statutory Instrument.

later12

GoingForward I've been following this thread with amusement over the past few months as you try to extract some - on the face of it, pretty basic - information from the EU representatives. Maybe you should contact the EU Commission Representation in Dublin yourself, and cut out of the middleman? Or a local MEP? Or has it been tried (I read your earlier link to the Parliamentary question posed by the Irish MEPs)?

Going Forward

later10 wrote: »

GoingForward I've been following this thread with amusement over the past few months as you try to extract some - on the face of it, pretty basic - information from the EU representatives. Maybe you should contact the EU Commission Representation in Dublin yourself, and cut out of the middleman? Or a local MEP? Or has it been tried (I read your earlier link to the Parliamentary question posed by the Irish MEPs)?

I dont think they would have much interest TBH!!
I'll wait for TalkTOEU who is supposed to be the European Commission's represntative in Ireland.

I presume they have a hotline to Brussels.

TalkToEU: John

Update:

In response to our request for more information surrounding the correspondence between the European Commission and the RSA, and at the request of the European Commission Representation Ireland, representatives from the DG Mobility and Transport have responded with the below.

You'll see that it's a similar response to the one previously given.

The Commission has replied to the letter from the Irish Road Safety Authority dated 21 October 2010 following Commission internal consultation by 21 December 2010.

The concluding results are the following:

Directive 92/6/EEC, (later amended by Directive 2002/85/EC) on the installation and use of speed limitation devices does not prevent Member States to apply more stringent rules (i.e. to equip all diesel powered vehicles of more than 3,5 tons, registered as of 1 October 2001, with speed limiters) for domestic vehicles as long as they are only used for national transport. Nevertheless it should be ensured that these rules are compatible with Articles 24-36 TFEU.

View

That sounds a bit like the Commission is saying it didn't give "conflicting advice" and anything "Extra" above and beyond the minimum standards set in the EU directive is a matter of domestic legislation from the Oireachtas and/or domestic rules that the RSA thought up.

Or is that reading too much into the Commission's answer?

Going Forward

Hi TalkToEu.

My question was specifically about the implementation of Directive 2002/85EC in Ireland.

This is the second time you have posted a reply citing Directive 92/6/EEC.

Is it possible to address the questions I posed regarding Directive 2002/85EC?

Going Forward

View wrote: »

That sounds a bit like the Commission is saying it didn't give "conflicting advice" and anything "Extra" above and beyond the minimum standards set in the EU directive is a matter of domestic legislation from the Oireachtas and/or domestic rules that the RSA thought up.

Or is that reading too much into the Commission's answer?

The Commission certainly would not be expected to dole out incorrect advice.

That would leave the RSA in something of a pickle.

Its now beginning to look as if the RSA's bulletin of 2008 to vehicle test centres was actually nothing more than a suggestion to them to test the vehicles listed for speed limiters.

That would be a good get out clause; the only problem is that the RSA incorrectly quoted the provisions of SI 831 of 2005 (Directive 2002/85EC) and then cited advice having been received from the European Commission as their reason for doing so.

Quote:

"At the request of the RSA, the European Commission is reviewing its previous advice that this
requirement applies to M2 (passenger vehicles with seating for more than eight persons exclusive of
the driver’s seat and with DGVW not exceeding 5t) and N2 vehicles (goods vehicles with DGVW
greater than 3.5 t but not exceeding 12t) which have been type approved to Motor Vehicle
Emissions Directive 70/220/ EEC and were first registered between 1 October 2001 and 31
December 2004."

The RSA was brought to its senses in October 2010, and reverted to the original test requirements, albeit with many many terms and conditions.

Someone may have whispered "You are not a legislative body" into the RSA's ear!!

I dont think I need to explain why the Vehicle Test Centres without reservation rigourously enforced and welcomed the RSA's 2008 bulletin/suggestion with open arms.

Going Forward

Unless the TalkToEU representative objects, I think its time to lock this thread now as the representative does not appear to be equipped to answer the questions asked.

Its up to them, and the Moderators.

BlitzKrieg

Going Forward wrote: »

Hi TalkToEu.

My question was specifically about the implementation of Directive 2002/85EC in Ireland.

This is the second time you have posted a reply citing Directive 92/6/EEC.

Is it possible to address the questions I posed regarding Directive 2002/85EC?

He is addressing directive 2002/85EC

The quote was:

Directive 92/6/EEC, (later amended by Directive 2002/85/EC)

The key word there is amended. Which means yes they were answering the question on the 2002/85/EC directive but someone on the other end was a stickler for accuracy and stated the original directive and added that it was amended in brackets after.

They are correct in a matter of accuracy. And I've seen it a few other times (in part it was one of the arguments for the European Constitution as it got rid of all these amendments).

But they are also being incredible anal to an unreasonable level as one could say The Maastricht treaty (as amended by the Nice Treaty [As amended by the Lisbon treaty]) and still be considered somewhat accurate thought unnecessary.

Aside from that is his response unhelpful?

Going Forward

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

He is addressing directive 2002/85EC

The quote was:



The key word there is amended. Which means yes they were answering the question on the 2002/85/EC directive but someone on the other end was a stickler for accuracy and stated the original directive and added that it was amended in brackets after.

They are correct in a matter of accuracy. And I've seen it a few other times (in part it was one of the arguments for the European Constitution as it got rid of all these amendments).

But they are also being incredible anal to an unreasonable level as one could say The Maastricht treaty (as amended by the Nice Treaty [As amended by the Lisbon treaty]) and still be considered somewhat accurate thought unnecessary.

Aside from that is his response unhelpful?

Hi-
I wont go into this at length, as it has been covered already, suffice to say that both statements from TalkToEu are absolutely correct; even though both read slightly differently.
(In one, to paraphrase, "Member States may......" and the other, "does not prevent Member States...")
Unfortunately, neither statement addresses what actually happened.

I am greatly concerned that both the European Commission and TalkToEu seem to be intent on ignoring the fact that Ireland (Member State) adopted the Directive in it's original form and did not (Constitutionally at least) avail of the options of imposing any more stringent requirements.

And I am also quite concerned that what has happened here may be "par for the course".
Are there other instances where state agencies have simply changed the requirements of Directives to suit there own ends, and is the Commission aware of it and simply standing back and allowing it to happen, and even facilitating it?