9 32. The MFHR maintains that even when the courts and higher authorities consider that the law has not been applied to the detriment of public health, the Government fails to implement their decisions. In particular, it cites the case brought by the inhabitants of Mavropigi and the municipality of Ptomelaida in connection with the Dytiko Pedio mine, on which the Supreme Administrative Court ruled in 20051. Although the Court ordered the setting aside or suspension of the joint ministerial decrees approving the environmental conditions, the authorities used various manoeuvres to ensure that they remained in force and that the mine could continue to operate on the basis of a previous environmental permit. It also refers to a case that it submitted to the Ombudsman on the environmental impact of the Kokkari power station on the island of Samos. One of the points raised was the failure to execute the Supreme Administrative Court's Judgment 4577/1998 2, when the DEH continued to divert a river against the Court's orders. After examining the various cases brought before him, the Ombudsman referred in his May 20003 conclusions to the comments in his annual report on the inertia of the administration, the arbitrary nature of its decisions and the lack of transparency of its procedures. Environmental policy in the energy sector 33. The MFHR does not deny the vital importance of the energy sector in general, and more specifically that of lignite-fired electricity production, for Greece's energy independence. 34. It criticises the continued massive use of lignite as being quite incompatible with the Kyoto Protocol objectives and the associated lack of tangible progress towards fulfilling these objectives. It considers that the European Commission's approval for Greece's first national allocation plan (NAP1), adopted in 2004, and the emissions allowance distribution is not significant and simply means that the formal aspects of the plan comply with requirements and that if the energy scenarios announced in the plan (forecast production levels and assessed changes in emission levels) actually materialised, the country would probably achieve its target. However, the MFHR thinks it unlikely that these forecasts will be borne out in practice and that Greece will achieve its objectives. It bases these allegations on Greek performance in controlling emissions. Under the BaU (business as usual) scenario in NAP1, greenhouse gas emissions for the whole country and all sectors combined are set to increase by 39.2% by 2010, whereas the binding target for Greece, under the Kyoto Protocol, is an increase in these gases of just 25% in 2010, compared with the reference year (1990 for CO2, CH4 and N2O, and 1995 for fluorinated gases). This represents a first indication that the country will not be honouring its undertakings. According to the MFHR, its doubts were confirmed by the detailed analysis of the third Greek national communication to the UNFCCC secretariat on 14 February 2003 and in the European Environment Agency’s 2005 report on the state of the environment in Europe. It notes that these two assessments were sceptical about Greece's capacity to achieve these objectives. They concluded, respectively, that meeting the Kyoto target would be challenging and that at best Greece would come close to meeting its target. 1 Supreme Administrative Court Decision 998/2005 of 1 April 2005; Supreme Administrative Court, Commission des suspensions, Decision 519/2005 of 14 July 2005 2 Judgment 4577/1998 of 18 January 1998 of the Supreme Administrative Court 3 Findings in Cases No. 1114/1998 and 894/1999