Sg 31 infrigment a r eu law 150210 web by Stefano Mattei

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 31 S T A N N U A L R E P O R T O N M O N I TO R I N G T H E A P P L I C AT I O N O F E U L AW 2013

General Secretariat

The online version of this and previous years' Annual Reports are available at: http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/applying-eu-law/infringements-proceedings/annual-reports/index_en.htm Editor: Karl Von Kempis â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Secretariat General, European Commission More information on the application of EU law is available on the Internet: http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/applying-eu-law/index_en.htm Reproduction is authorized provided the source is acknowledged. Designed & Printed by OIB

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 31 S T A N N U A L R E P O R T O N M O N I TO R I N G T H E A P P L I C AT I O N O F E U L AW 2013

TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S INTRODUCTION 9 1. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES 1.1. LATE TRANSPOSITION 1.2. REFERRALS TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLES 258 / 260(3) TFEU 2. PRE-INFRINGEMENT PHASE 2.1. DETECTION OF PROBLEMS 2.1.1. COMPLAINTS AND PETITIONS 2.1.2. OWN INITIATIVE CASES 2.2. PROBLEM SOLVING 3. INFRINGEMENT PROCEDURES 4. POLICY DEVELOPMENTS 4.1. EU REGULATORY FITNESS 4.2. IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 4.3. EXPLANATORY DOCUMENTS 4.4. TRANSPARENCY – ACCESS TO INFRINGEMENT-RELATED DOCUMENTS 5. CONCLUSIONS

MEMBER STATES

10 10 12 13 13 13 15 15 16 18 18 18 19 19 20

AUSTRIA 22 BELGIUM 24 BULGARIA 26 CYPRUS 28 CZECH REPUBLIC 30 DENMARK 32 ESTONIA 34 FINLAND 36 FRANCE 38 GERMANY 40 GREECE 42 HUNGARY 44 IRELAND 46 ITALY 48 LATVIA 50 LITHUANIA 52 LUXEMBOURG 54 MALTA 56 THE NETHERLANDS 58 POLAND 60 PORTUGAL 62 ROMANIA 64 SLOVAKIA 66 SLOVENIA 68 SPAIN 70 SWEDEN 72 UNITED KINGDOM 74 CROATIA 76

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW INTRODUCTION

POLICIES

AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT 78 FINANCIAL PROGRAMMING AND BUDGET 80 COMPETITION 80 EDUCATION AND CULTURE 80 ENLARGEMENT 81 MARITIME AFFAIRS AND FISHERIES 81 REGIONAL POLICY 81 CLIMATE ACTION 82 COMMUNICATION NETWORKS, CONTENT AND TECHNOLOGY 84 EMPLOYMENT, SOCIAL AFFAIRS AND INCLUSION 86 ENERGY 88 ENTERPRISE AND INDUSTRY 90 ENVIRONMENT 92 HOME AFFAIRS 94 JUSTICE 96 INTERNAL MARKET AND SERVICES 98 MOBILITY AND TRANSPORT 100 HEALTH AND CONSUMERS 102 TAXATION AND CUSTOMS UNION 104

METHODOLOGY AND EXPLANATIONS ANNEX I – MEMBER STATES ANNEX II – DIRECTORATES GENERAL

106 106 108

INTRODUCTION

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION The Commission monitors whether Member States respect EU law obligations, i.e. completely and correctly transpose EU directives and properly apply the entire EU acquis. For this purpose, the Commission can formally challenge the Member State implementation of EU law on its own initiative but it also acts on petitions from the European Parliament (EP) and on complaints it receives from citizens, businesses, NGOs and other stakeholders that reveal potential violations of EU law, for instance incorrect transposition or bad application of EU law. Before resorting to formal legal actions, the Commission tries to remedy problems and ensure the correct implementation of EU law through a structured dialogue with Member States in EU Pilot. If this is not successful, the Commission takes formal proceedings (a letter of formal notice to the Member State under Article 258 TFEU).1 Should a Member State fail to align its laws or practices with EU law during the formal infringement procedure, the Commission may refer the case to the Court of Justice under Article 258 TFEU, with the possibility to request financial sanctions (either under Article 260(2) or 260(3) TFEU). The 31st Annual Report on monitoring the application of EU law reviews the performance on key aspects of the application of EU law and highlights strategic issues.2

1 2

It should be noted that infringement procedures can also be initiated under other provisions of EU law, for example Article 106 TFEU in combination with Articles 101 or 102 TFEU. Detailed information for each Member State and policy area is provided in a staff working document which will be published electronically on the Commissionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s dedicated website.

1.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES 1.1. LATE TRANSPOSITION Late transposition of directives remains a persistent problem hindering delivery of tangible benefits for citizens.

DIRECTIVES AND LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENTS Number of directives with transposition deadline in the given year New late transposition infringements 1185

855

531

71 2009

478

447

111 2010

131

2011

2012

2013

Reducing late transposition is a long-established priority of the Commission’s policy: “Priority should be attached to those infringements which present the greatest risks, widespread impact for citizens and businesses … These categories cover: non-communication of national measures transposing directives or other notification obligations; …”3 There were more directives to transpose in 2013 compared to the previous year (i.e. 74 in contrast to 56 in 2012) but fewer than in 2011 (131). However, there was only a slight increase in new late transposition infringements in 2013 compared to the previous year (478 new late transposition infringements were launched in 2013 compared to 447 procedures in 2012; there were 1,185 in 2011 and 855 in 2010). 390 late transposition cases were open at the end of 2013, which represents a 6.7 % decrease when compared to the 418 cases at the end of 2012. The Commission closed more late transposition infringements in 2012 and 2013 than it opened, which resulted in the number of open infringements of this kind reaching a 5-year low at the end of 2013.

Commission Communication on ‘A Europe of results – Applying Community law’, COM(2007)502 final, p. 9.

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES

The following chart contains the key figures4 on late transposition infringements (LTIs) initiated by the Commission during 2013: LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENTS IN 2013 600

478 new LTIs

418 open LTIs

390 open LTIs

300 During 2013 0

During 2013

End of 2012

End of 2013

300 506 closed LTIs 600

The following table shows late transposition infringements by Member States:5 LATE TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES IN THE EU-28 (31 DECEMBER 2013) 27 26 23 20

19 16

10 7

2 HR

The four policy areas where the most new late transposition infringements were launched in 2013 were environment (168 procedures), health & consumers (58), internal market & services (47) and transport (36). Late transposition infringements were launched against 20 Member States because of the late transposition of the Directive on industrial emissions6 and the Directive introducing new rules for falsified products into the Community code on human medicines.7 In addition, 19 Member States were involved in late transposition infringements under the Directive that adapts a number of rules related to the right of establishment and the right of the freedom to provide services due to the accession of Croatia.8 17 procedures were launched concerning the Directive on minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products.9 16 Member States failed to transpose and / or notify within the set deadline their implementing rules under the Directive on alternative investment fund managers10 and the Directive on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings.11 15 Member States received a letter of formal notice due to the late transposition of the Directive restricting the use of various hazardous substances in electronic equipment.12

4 5

From the sum of the 2012 open LTIs and the 2013 new LTIs (418+478=896), the number of closed LTIs is deducted (896-506=390). The table below indicates the number of late transposition infringements open on 31 December 2013, irrespective of the year when the infringement was opened. By contrast, the section “Transposition of directives” in the Member State pages of Part I of the Commission Staff Working Document will show how many new late transposition infringements were initiated against the Member States during 2013. 6 Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) 7 Directive 2011/62/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as regards the prevention of the entry into the legal supply chain of falsified medicinal products 8 Council Directive 2013/25/EU of 13 May 2013 adapting certain directives in the field of right of establishment and freedom to provide services, by reason of the accession of the Republic of Croatia 9 Council Directive 2009/119/EC of 14 September 2009 imposing an obligation on Member States to maintain minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products 10 Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on Alternative Investment Fund Managers and amending Directives 2003/41/EC and 2009/65/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009 and (EU) No 1095/2010 11 Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings 12 Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment

1.2. REFERRALS TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLES 258 / 260(3) TFEU Under Article 260(3) TFEU, when referring a late transposition infringement to the Court of Justice according to Article 258 TFEU, the Commission may propose financial penalties without having to wait for a first judgment. The purpose of this innovation in the Lisbon Treaty is to give a stronger incentive to Member States to transpose directives within the deadlines laid down by the legislator. The Commission establishes the proposed amounts of fines in line with its communication13 on the implementation of Article 260(3) TFEU. In 2013, the Commission continued to refer a number of late transposition infringements to the Court of Justice with a request for daily penalties under Article 260(3) TFEU. Nine Member States were involved in 14 such decisions in 2013: Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, Romania, the United Kingdom (two cases each) and Austria, Cyprus, Poland and Portugal (one each). The proposed daily penalty range from EUR 4 224 to EUR 148 177,92. Most of the penalty proposals for late transposition of directives have been made in the policy area of energy. The Commission has not yet proposed the Court to apply lump sum payments.14 Member States increased their efforts to achieve complete transposition before the judgment of the Court of Justice during 2013. However, taken together with the other cases based on Article 258 and 260(3) TFEU that were launched in the previous years, there remained a total of twelve open late transposition infringement cases with a referral decision15 proposing daily penalties: two cases each against Estonia, Romania and Slovenia and one case each against Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Germany, Poland and Portugal.16

13 14 15 16

Communication from the Commission - Implementation of Article 260(3) of the Treaty, OJEU C 12 of 15 January 2011. Communication from the Commission - Implementation of Article 260(3) of the Treaty, OJEU C 12 of 15 January 2011, point 21. Some of these twelve cases are already pending before the Court of Justice. As regards the other cases, their documentation is being finalized for submission to the Court of Justice. See the Staff Working Document for details on the directives which were not transposed by the Member State and related penalty proposals.

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW PRE-INFRINGEMENT PHASE

2. PRE-INFRINGEMENT PHASE Problems of transposition andÂ /Â or application of EU law are examined by the Commission on its own initiative or where shortcomings are reported to the Commission. Indeed, complaints by citizens, businesses and stakeholder organisations make a significant contribution to monitoring the respect of EU law obligations by reporting shortcomings by Member State authorities. Once detected, problems are followed up by a structured dialogue between the Commission and the Member State concerned via EU Pilot in order to remedy them.

2.1.

DETECTION OF PROBLEMS

2.1.1.

COMPLAINTS AND PETITIONS

Citizens, businesses, NGOs and other organisations frequently file complaints with the Commission. The Commission laid down its complaint handling rules in a Communication issued in 2002 and updated them in 2012. 17 In 2013, citizens, businesses and organisations remained very active in reporting potential breaches of EU law. The Commission received more new complaints (3 505) than in any of the previous three years (3 141 complaints were submitted in 2012, 3 115 in 2011 and 3349 in 2010). As a result, the total number of open complaints increased by approximately 19 % during 2013. The chart below shows the key data18 on complaints: SUBMITTED AND PROCESSED COMPLAINTS (2013) 3505 new LTIs

4000 3000

2992 open LTIs

2516 open LTIs

2000 1000 During 2013 0

End of 2012

End of 2013

During 2013

1000 2000 3000

3029 closed LTIs

4000

17 18

Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on updating the handling of relations with the complainant in respect of the application of Union law, COM(2012)154 final From the sum of the 2012 open complaints and the 2013 new complaints (2516+3505=6021), the number of processed complaints is deducted (60213029=2992).

14 NEW COMPLAINTS – The three Member States against which the most complaints were filed were: •

Italy: 472 complaints, most of them related to employment (120 complaints), internal market & services (81) and environment (64); • Spain: 439 complaints, especially in connection with employment (100 complaints), justice and environment (65 each); and • Germany: 297 complaints, mainly related to justice (64 complaints), internal market & services (57) and environment (53). 72% of new complaints were concentrated in the following five policy areas: justice (590), environment (520), internal market & services (494), employment (470) and taxation & customs union (452). PROCESSED COMPLAINTS – Following an initial assessment of more than 3 000 complaints in 2013, the Commission opened bilateral discussions with Member States in relation to 487 complaints in order to clarify whether EU rules had been breached.19 Complaints that led to bilateral discussions were most frequently related to environment, taxation & customs union and internal market & services (82, 78 and 70 files opened under EU Pilot, respectively) and concerned particularly the following Member States: • • •

Italy: 57 newly opened files in EU Pilot, most of them related to complaints on internal market & services (14 new EU Pilot files), environment (11) and taxation & customs union (6); France: 50 newly opened files in EU Pilot, mainly related to taxation & customs union (13), employment (7) and enterprise & industry (7) matters; and Spain: 42 newly opened files in EU Pilot, especially in connection with complaints addressing employment, enterprise & industry and environment complaints (9, 8 and 8 new EU Pilot files respectively).

The European Parliament alerted the Commission to shortcomings in the way Member States implement and apply EU law in the following areas by way of petitions and questions: ENVIRONMENT: • Formal infringement procedures have already been initiated against Italy due to its alleged failure to comply with EU rules on industrial emissions and to respect the polluter pays principle in the ILVA steel plant (located in Taranto)20 and the potentially incorrect transposition of certain rules in the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive21; and • Investigations within EU Pilot were launched due to other possible violations of rules relating to waste management, water management and nature protection in six other Member States; HOME AFFAIRS: • the waiting times at Spain’s border with Gibraltar22, reported by the European Parliament and also in numerous citizens’ complaints, was followed-up by an on-site visit of the Commission, and subsequent recommendations to both the Spanish and the UK authorities;23 JUSTICE: • the Commission opened an investigation concerning the discrimination on grounds of religion and followed up, with an additional letter of formal notice, an infringement launched earlier against Belgium due to the misapplication of the Regulation on the European enforcement order;24 TRANSPORT: • the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to Austria regarding the possible violation of the nondiscrimination principle in setting the toll rates at the Felbertauern crossing; HEALTH: • the Commission opened six investigations on alleged infringement of EU rules on food safety, cosmetics and animal welfare; TAXATION: • European Parliament initiatives led the Commission to raise concerns in relation to tax rules applicable to mobile workers; and AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT: • a Commission investigation was commenced upon a European Parliament question claiming the violation of organic farming rules.

The rest of the submissions have not been further processed because EU laws were not breached, the Commission lacked competence or the correspondence did not qualify as complaint. It is also noted that in urgent and exceptional cases, the Commission may decide to address a letter of formal notice (Article 258 TFEU) to the Member State without prior bilateral discussion. 20 IP/13/866 21 Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment 22 Official Journal 2013/C 246/07 23 Official Journal 2013/C 357/04 24 Regulation (EC) No 804/2005 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW PRE-INFRINGEMENT PHASE

2.1.2 OWN INITIATIVE CASES Apart from acting on complaints, the Commission examines the correct implementation of EU law on its own initiative. 1023 investigations were launched during 2013 (in 2012, 791 were started). Transport, environment and justice were the three policy areas where the most potential infringements were identified (256, 199 and 144 new EU Pilot files, respectively). The Member States primarily concerned were Italy, Greece and Spain (67, 61 and 58 new EU Pilot files, respectively).

2.2. PROBLEM SOLVING The purpose of the Commission’s infringements policy is to promote the correct application of EU law as quickly as possible. EU Pilot is a Commission initiative aimed at resolving problems related to the application of EU law in compliance with EU law and responding to questions. Supported by an on-line database and communication tool, EU Pilot provides the opportunity to resolve problems rapidly as, in principle, the process should be completed within 20 weeks. EU Pilot dialogue facilitates achieving compliance with EU law obligations through speedy resolution of problems for the benefit of citizens and businesses. The number of new EU Pilot files has increased gradually during the past three years (1201 new files were opened in 2011 and 1405 in 2012). Therefore, despite the fact that the Commission solved 16% more EU Pilot files in 2013 (1366 as compared to 1175), the number of open files is 10% higher than the previous year. The following chart contains the main EU Pilot figures for 2013:25 NEWLY OPENED AND PROCESSED EU PILOT FILES (2013) 2000 1500

1326 open LTIs

1502 new LTIs

1462 open LTIs

1000 500 During 2013 0

End of 2012

End of 2013

During 2013

500 1000 1500

1366 closed LTIs

2000

1502 new files during 2013 – This figure is composed of 479 files triggered by complaints and 1023 new own initiative files. 1366 closed files during 2013 – Of the 1 330 processed EU Pilot files in 2013, the Commission closed 934 files because the Member State provided a satisfactory response. This is a 70.22 % resolution rate for the Member States, a slight increase from the 2012 rate (68.34 %).26 In 2013, 396 EU Pilot files were followed up by formal infringement procedures (there were 334 such files in 2012). These include 79 transport, 71 environment and 50 taxation & customs union cases. Spain, Italy and France had the highest number of such files in EU Pilot followed by infringement proceedings (34, 33 and 32 files, respectively). 1462 pending EU Pilot files – By the end of 2013, most of the open EU Pilot files concerned Italy (147), followed by France (112) and Spain (107). From the point of view of policy areas, environment remained the leading field with 396 open dossiers, followed by justice (210) and transport (200).

25 26

From the sum of the 2012 open EU Pilot files and the 2013 new EU Pilot files (1326+1502=2828), the number of processed files is deducted (28281366=1462). Report from the Commission – 30th Annual Report on monitoring the application of EU law (2012), COM(2013) 726 final, p. 7.

3. INFRINGEMENT PROCEDURES If a Member State does not resolve the alleged breach of EU law and if the Commission considers there is a violation of EU law obligations, the Commission may launch infringement procedures under Article 258 TFEU27 and eventually refer the dispute to the Court of Justice. In 2013, the Commission launched 761 new infringement procedures. Italy received the most letters of formal notice from the Commission (58), followed by France (44) and Spain (41). As regards policy fields, most new procedures related to environment, transport and health issues (223, 94 and 69 letters of formal notice, respectively). In addition, the Commission sent 217 reasoned opinions to Member States during 2013. Italy, Romania and Belgium received the most (20, 15 and 14 reasoned opinions, respectively). Environment, energy and taxation & customs union were the policy areas where the Commission addressed the most reasoned opinions to Member States (52, 38 and 29, respectively). At the end of last year, 1 300 infringement cases remained open.28 The number of open infringement cases has continued to fall – from nearly 2 100 cases in 2010 to 1 775 cases in 2011 and to 1 343 cases in 2012. The following charts break down the total number of open infringement cases between late transposition infringements and incorrect transposition / bad application cases according to Member States and policy areas: NUMBER OF INFRINGEMENTS IN THE EU-28 (31 DECEMBER 2013) 120 104 100

68 63 60

20 20 2 0

Blue part of the bars: late transposition infringements Red part of the bars: infringements for incorrect transposition and / or bad application of EU laws Black figures: total number of open infringement cases against the Member State

The dialogue between the Member State and the Commission continues during the formal procedure, in order to promote compliance as quickly as possible. Statistics confirm that Member States make serious efforts to settle their infringements before the Court of Justice hands down its ruling.29 During 2013: • • •

the Commission closed 484 infringements after sending the letter of formal notice; 200 cases were solved after reasoned opinions were sent to the Member State; and 47 infringements were closed (or withdrawn from the Court) after the Commission decided to refer the case to the Court of Justice.

27 28 29

Or under other provisions of the TFEU, see footnote 2 above. This figure includes all procedures where the Member State has received at least a letter of formal notice from the Commission under Article 258 TFEU. The following figures were calculated for all infringement cases irrespective of their type (i.e., complaint, own initiative of the Commission or late transposition of directives by Member States).

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW INFRINGEMENT PROCEDURES

In total, 731 infringement cases were closed before the Court of Justice delivered its judgment under Article 258 TFEU because the relevant Member States had demonstrated their compliance. The Court of Justice delivered 52 judgments under Article 258 TFEU in 2013, out of which 31 judgments (59.6 %) were in favour of the Commission. The Court of Justice passed most of its judgments against France (8, of which 2 were in favour of the Member State), Poland (6/2), Spain (5/0), Italy, Ireland and the Netherlands (4/1, 4/1 and 4/2 respectively). Taxation (24), transport (11) and environment (7) were the three policy areas with the most judgments delivered by the Court of Justice during 2013. Member States frequently take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in a timely manner. However, at the end of 2013, the Commission considered that 113 judgments passed under Article 258 TFEU had still not been fully complied with by the Member States concerned. Most of these cases concerned Spain (14), Greece (13) and Italy (12) and were related to environment (40), transport (18) and taxation & customs union (17). Out of these 113 cases, nine had already been referred to the Court of Justice for the second time under Article 260 (2) TFEU. In principle, a Court judgment under Article 260(2) TFEU can impose a lump sum and / or a (daily or other periodic) penalty payment on the defaulting Member State, which must pay immediately the lump sum while paying the periodic penalty until it reaches full compliance with the first and second Court judgments. In 2013, five Court judgments were delivered under Article 260(2) TFEU. The Court imposed penalty payments against Belgium,30 the Czech Republic,31 Luxembourg32 and Sweden33 but it dismissed the claim of the Commission against Germany.34

30 31 32 33 34

Commission v Belgium, C-533/11 (lump sum payment: € 10,000,000; penalty: € 859,404 for each six-month period of non-compliance with the judgment under Article 258 TFEU) Commission v the Czech Republic,C-241/11 (lump sum payment: € 250,000; no daily penalty) Commission v Luxembourg, C-576/11 (lump sum payment: € 2,000,000; penalty: € 2,800 for each day of non-compliance with the judgment under Article 258 TFEU) Commission v Sweden, C-270/11 (lump sum payment: € 3,000,000; no daily penalty) Commission v Germany, C-95/12 (no penalties)

4 . P O L I C Y D E V E LO P M E N T S Accurate and timely transposition and application of EU law is an element of the Commission’s broader Smart Regulation Agenda.

4.1. EU REGULATORY FITNESS To follow up on its 2012 Communication on Regulatory Fitness35, the Commission implemented the Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT) in 2013. REFIT involves mapping and screening of the acquis with a view to ensuring that legislation is ‘fit for purpose’ and that unnecessary red tape and burdens are removed while still maintaining the benefits of EU legislation. REFIT identifies areas where the Commission will propose to simplify legislation and reduce regulatory burdens; will not take action; will withdraw or repeal proposals and where it will undertake analysis to see where burdens can be reduced. Initial results were published in the form of a staff working document36, followed by a Communication37 which identified specific actions for legislative amendment, repeal, withdrawal and evaluation. The Communication confirmed that recurring problems in the application of law should also be followed up in the context of REFIT.

35 36 37

Communication from the Commission on EU Regulatory Fitness (COM(2012) 746 final). This Communication has been followed up by another Communication on the REFIT’s results and next steps (COM(2013) 685 final) REFIT: mapping the acquis, initial results – SWD(2013)401 final Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Regulatory Fitness and Performance (REFIT): Results and Next Steps, COM(2013)685 final

4.2. IMPLEMENTATION PLANS In order support to the competent national authorities in ensuring the correct transposition and application of EU rules, the Commission has increasingly cooperated with Member States on implementation plans. These plans identify the main risks for timely and correct implementation of new (or amended) pieces of EU legislation and suggest actions to national authorities to mitigate those risks. Implementation plans accompanied Commission proposals on, inter alia: • The reduction of national emissions for certain atmospheric pollutants;38 • The amendment of the directive39 establishing a Community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations;40 • The regulation of payment services in the internal market;41 • Strengthening the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at trial in criminal proceedings;42 • Procedural safeguards for children suspected or accused in criminal proceedings43 • Provisional legal aid for suspects or accused persons deprived of liberty and legal aid in European arrest warrant proceedings44 • Package travel and assisted travel arrangements45 and • Certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition provisions.46

38 COM(2013)920 39 Directive 2009/71/EURATOM establishing a Community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations 40 COM(2013)343 41 COM(2013)547 42 COM(2013)821 and SWD(2013) 500 43 COM(2013) 822 and SWD(2013) 492 44 COM(2013) 824 and SWD(2013) 499 45 COM(2013) 512 and SWD(2013) 266 46 COM(2013)404

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW POLICY DEVELOPMENTS

4.3. EXPLANATORY DOCUMENTS While Member States are responsible for transposing directives accurately and on time, it is the Commission’s role as guardian of the Treaties to check that this is done. For this purpose, the information that Member States give the Commission must be clear and precise. In 2011 the European Institutions and Member States established a new framework under which Member States provide supporting information about how they have transposed directives into their law. It was agreed that such supporting information (“explanatory documents”) will be submitted in justified cases together with the measures to transpose directives. In November 2013 the Commission submitted a report on the implementation of the new framework,47 which showed that since 1 November 2011, 29 explanatory documents had been requested at the point of making a proposal. Another 19 requests were made relating to proposals pending before the co-legislators on 1 November 2011. A full assessment of the new framework was not possible in 2013, as the first directive, adopted in December 2011, had to be transposed by the Member States only by the end of 2013.48 A fuller assessment will therefore only be possible once the Commission has received explanatory documents for a more representative number of directives. The Commission will report to the European Parliament and the Council on developments in upcoming Annual Reports.

47 COM(2013)788 final 48 Directive 2011/98/EU

4.4. TRANSPARENCY – ACCESS TO INFRINGEMENT-RELATED DOCUMENTS The Court has handed down its judgment in a case that involved a request of an organisation to have access to Commission documents relating to the investigation of a potential infringement of EU law by a Member State.49 The Court confirmed that from the point of view of public access to documents, the Commission could treat the entire content of its administrative file as belonging to a single category of documents during the investigation phase of the infringement procedure (including EU Pilot). The Commission is entitled to apply a general presumption that disclosing any document in this phase would undermine the protection of the purpose of the investigations, namely, to give the Member State an opportunity to comply with its obligations and to exercise its right to defend itself. Accordingly, the Commission did not infringe the Regulation on access to documents held by the institutions of the EU50 when it refused to grant access to the entire documentation during the investigation period. In addition, the Court confirmed its earlier case law51 as regards the Commission’s discretionary right in relation to the infringement procedures under Article 258 TFEU. More precisely, the complainant does not have the right in the context of this procedure to require the Commission to take a specific position or to bring an action against the Member State. It is also for the Commission to assess the appropriateness of acting against the Member State, to identify the infringed EU rules and to establish the timing of its procedural steps.

49 50 51

Joined cases C-514/11 P and C-605/11 P Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents Star Fruit v Commission, C-247/87 (paragraph 11); Sonito and Others v Commission, C-87/89 (paragraph 6) and P Ruipérez Aguirre and ATC Petition v Commission, C-111/11 (the order of 14 July 2011, paragraphs 11 and 12)

5. CONCLUSIONS The high and rising number of complaints indicates that citizens are more and more aware of the benefits that flow from the full and correct application of EU rules. At the same time, this is an indication of the expectation that the implementation of EU law requires increased efforts from the Member States and on-going monitoring from the Commission. The timely transposition of directives remains a top priority within the Commissionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s EU law policy and transposition deadlines will be vigorously enforced. Although the timely transposition of directives continues to be a challenge in many Member States, Denmark, Latvia and Malta maintained a very low number of late transposition infringement cases over the past three years. Greece and the Czech Republic made good progress in reducing their late transposition infringements during the same period. The overall decrease of formal infringement procedures during the past five years (from nearly 2900 to 1300) reflects in part that problems have been solved with the use of EU Pilot. The structured dialogue via EU Pilot has proven effective in the early resolution of potential infringements, to the benefit of citizens and business alike. The situation varies across Member States. The Czech Republic and Portugal have managed to halve the number of their infringement cases during this period and the Netherlands and Luxembourg have also significantly improved their results. Slovenia, Cyprus and Romania saw their number of infringement cases rise over the past five years, although their total cases are at average level. The Commission will continue its active monitoring of the application of EU law. This includes proactive assistance to the Member States and, if necessary, the launch of formal infringement proceedings, with a view to ensure full respect of EU law obligations across the Union.

M E M B E R S TAT E S

AUSTRIA I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S ▶▶

OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST AUSTRIA (2009-13, ON 31 DECEMBER) 66

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP TOTAL (INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER) NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES (OPENED IN 2013)

2010

2011

2012

2013 14TH

8TH

ENVIRONMENT 16 TRANSPORT 8 INTERNAL MARKET 7 OTHER POLICIES 18

▶▶

2009

▶▶

18TH

INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST AUSTRIA

REFERRALS TO THE COURT AND KEY INFRINGEMENT CASES

(a) There were 31 new infringement procedures launched against Austria in 2013. They and other major ongoing infringement cases relate to: • limited access for non-Austrian residents to certain courses of higher education in medicine (the procedure has been suspended until the end of 2016 to allow Austria to prove that the restrictive measures are necessary and proportionate to protect the Austrian healthcare system);1 • Austrian residency law and its compatibility with the rights of Turkish nationals and their families under the EU–Turkey association agreement and its standstill clauses; • measures transposing the directive on preventing sharp injuries in the hospital and healthcare sector;2 • failure to comply with the Working Time Directive as regards the working conditions of hospital doctors;

• •

failure to notify the Commission in good time of measures transposing the directive on combating human trafficking3 and the directive on alternative investment fund managers;4 toll charges on the Felbertauern crossing, which are based on the place of registration of the vehicles using the tunnel.

(b) One case was referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. It relates to: • Austria's failure to apply EU working time rules5 to self-employed drivers.6 (c) Cases referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU: • none in 2013

3 Directive 2011/36/EU 4 Directive 2011/61/EU 5 Directive 2002/15/EC 6 IP/13/142. The case had been subsequently withdrawn from the Court due to Austria’s compliance.

1 IP/12/1388 2 Directive 2010/32/EU

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP

(BASED ON THE NUMBER OF LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

Policy areas in

ENVIRONMENT 7 which most new ENERGY 3 late transposition OTHER POLICIES 9 infringement

46 26

2009 ▶▶

•

2010

2011

2012

cases were opened

8TH

21ST

2013

COURT REFERRALS UNDER ARTICLES 258/260(3) TFEU: partial transposition of the Renewable Energy Directive, which had to be transposed by 5 December 2010.7

7 Directive 2009/28/EC; IP/13/1113 and Commission v Austria, C-663/13

1ST

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX I - MEMBER STATES

III. COMPLAINTS ▶▶

COMPLAINTS MADE AGAINST AUSTRIA 97 COMPLAINTS IN 2011

116 COMPLAINTS IN 2012

COMPLAINTS IN 2013

23 INTERNAL MARKET

(free provision of services, free movement of professionals and public procurement)

17 ENVIRONMENT

(nature protection, environmental impact assessment, access to justice)

TAXATION (customs tariff classification)

OTHER AREAS (Schengen Borders Code, data protection and free movement of people, free movement of workers in public service, distance sale of tobacco products and discriminatory road tolls)

I V. E U P I LO T ▶▶

PROGRESS OF FILES RELATING TO AUSTRIA OPEN IN EU PILOT

10 15

IN 2011

70 DAYS

TARGET

60 35 40

55 45

TRANSPORT 12 ENVIRONMENT 10 INTERNAL MARKET 7 OTHER POLICIES 25

46 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

49 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

54 NEW EU PILOT FILES

IN 2013

51 PROCESSED EU PILOT FILES

IN 2012

END 2012

DURING 2013

70 DAYS / 10 WEEKS TARGET

END 2013

DURING 2013

V. E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S implementing two directives on health and safety at work;9 the construction of an emergency escape route for the Pitztaler Gletscher ski resort without environmental impact assessment; Austria's failure to ratify the 2001 International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage.

The cases closed without a Court judgment in 2013 related to: • differences in the payment frequency of family benefit top-up for EU workers residing in another Member States compared to the payment of national family benefits; • the transposition of the directive on occupational exposure limit values for certain chemical agents;8 • parts of the education sector that were excluded from the scope of national measures

•

8 Directive 2009/161/EU

9 Directives 89/391/EEC and 89/654/EEC

•

V I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S • In a case concerning the First Railway Package10, the Court ruled that: • Austria complied with existing rail legislation as regards the level of independence required for an infrastructure manager in a holding company structure11. • In preliminary rulings addressed to the Austrian judiciary, the Court ruled that: • the free movement of workers prohibits employee promotion rules that take full account of service periods completed with the promoting organisation, but only partial account of the service periods complete elsewhere; 12 • asylum applications should be handled by the Member State through which the asylum seeker first enters the EU, as provided for in the Dublin II Regulation,13 except where systemic flaws in asylum procedures and the reception conditions in that Member State would put the applicant at real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, as defined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights;14 • national legislation cannot automatically bar (i.e. without examining the burden to the national social assistance system and the claimant's personal circumstances) the granting of a social benefit to a national of another Member State, even if this person is not economically active and not legally entitled to reside in the host Member State owing their claim for that social benefit;15 10 A brief description may be found here. 11 Directive 91/440/EEC, Commission v Austria, C-555/10 and IP/13/176 12 Zentralbetriebsrat der gemeinnützigen Salzburger Landeskliniken Betriebs GmbH, C-514/12 13 Regulation (EC) No 343/2003, repealed by Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 14 Abdullahi, C-394/12 15 Brey, C-140/12

•

the indiscriminate collection of a private copying levy on the first sale of recording media (such as blank CDs) may be compatible with the Copyright Directive16 provided that, where the end use does not justify such a levy, the refund procedure is effective and not overly complex;17 the environmental impact assessment (EIA) does not assess the effects of a project on material assets, but does financial damage, does fall within the EIA Directive's18 protection remit if it is the direct result of the project’s environmental effects. While failure to carry out an EIA does not give an individual the right to claim financial damages based on a decrease in value of property, , a national court can still establish a link between the failure and the damage, making a claim possible under EU compensation law;19 Member States' discretion is limited when defining whether certain projects should be subject to an EIA. Thus, even if overly high national thresholds mean that certain projects are effectively exempt from the EIA, national authorities must still ensure it is carried out as certain provisions in the EIA Directive have direct effect in all Member States.20

16 Directive 2001/29/EC 17 Amazon.com International Sales and Others, C-521/11 18 Directive 2011/92/EU 19 Leth, C-420/11 20 Salzburger Flughafen, C-244/12

BELGIUM I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S ▶▶

OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST BELGIUM (2009-13, ON 31 DECEMBER) 128

126

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP TOTAL (INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER) NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES (OPENED IN 2013)

117 92

2010

2011

2012

23TH

25TH

2013 6TH

TAXATION 19 TRANSPORT 11 ENVIRONMENT 9 OTHER POLICIES 36

▶▶

37 31 40

31 24

2009

9TH

▶▶

13TH

16TH

20TTH

INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST THE BELGIUM

REFERRALS TO THE COURT AND KEY INFRINGEMENT CASES

(a) 40 new infringement procedures were launched against Belgium in 2013. They and other major ongoing infringement cases relate to: • the independence of the national regulatory authority under the Framework Directive on Electronic Communications;1 • limited access for non-Belgian residents to certain courses of higher education in medicine (the procedure has been suspended until the end of 2016 to allow Belgium to prove that the restrictive measures are necessary and proportionate to protect the Belgian healthcare system);2 • the non-respect of EU air quality (Particulate Matter10) limit values in several zones and agglomerations;3 • the issue of visas and residence cards for non-EU family members of EU citizens and safeguards against the expulsion of EU citizens;4 • the lack of transparency of the Belgian legal framework for gambling, especially the restrictions on the provision of online gambling (e.g. requiring a physical presence);5 • deficiencies in implementing the directive on protecting pigs,6 which requires keeping sows in groups during part of their pregnancy;7 • the tax reduction for loans from residents of Flanders to businesses established in the region (not available to non-residents who receive their income in Belgium).8 1 Directive 2002/21/EC 2 IP/12/1388 3 IP/13/47 4 MEMO/13/122 5 IP/13/1101 6 Directive 2008/120/EC 7 IP/13/135 8 MEMO/13/122

(b) Six cases were referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They relate to: • the lack of adequate urban waste water treatment in small agglomerations;9 • failure to bring Belgian law into line with EU rules on customs opening hours and administrative fees;10 • discriminatory inheritance tax provisions in Walloon law (discouraging Belgian residents from investing in foreign shares because their inheritance might be more heavily taxed);11 • proof of language knowledge for access to employment in local administration: only certificates issued by the Belgian government recruitment service are accepted as proof of language knowledge; 12 • higher taxation of interests paid to foreign investment funds; 13 • refusal by Belgium to apply tax exemptions granted to Union institutions. 14 (c) Cases referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU • none in 2013

9 10 11 12 13 14

IP/13/251 IP/13/1104 IP/13/871, IP/12/408 IP/13/868 IP/13/1105 IP/13/952

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP

(BASED ON THE NUMBER OF LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

ENVIRONMENT 4 ENERGY 4 OTHER POLICIES 15

45 17

2009 ▶▶

• • •

2010

2011

2012

2013

1ST

11TH

18TH

22ND

24TH

COURT REFERRALS UNDER ARTICLES 258/260(3) TFEU partial transposition of the directive on investigating maritime accidents,15 which had to be transposed by 17 June 2011; failure to transpose the directive on intelligent transport systems,16 which had to be transposed by 27 February 2012; failure to transpose the directive adapting the legislation17 on inland transport of dangerous goods to scientific and technical progress, which had to be transposed by 30 June 2014; 18

15 Directive 2009/18/EC, IP/13/560 16 Directive 2010/40/EU, IP/13/561 17 Directive 2008/68/EC 18 IP/13/256

7TH

Policy areas in which most new late transposition infringement cases were opened

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX I - MEMBER STATES

III. COMPLAINTS ▶▶

COMPLAINTS MADE AGAINST BELGIUM 82 COMPLAINTS IN 2011

108 COMPLAINTS IN 2012

COMPLAINTS

IN 2013

26 TAXATION

(customs representation)

21 JUSTICE

(free movement of persons)

ENTERPRISE & INDUSTRY (Especially for registration)

OTHER AREAS (airport charges, posting of workers, waste management, nitrates' pollution)

I V. E U P I LO T ▶▶

PROGRESS OF FILES RELATING TO BELGIUM OPEN IN EU PILOT

10 15

80 75

TARGET

60 35 40

75 71

IN 2012

70 DAYS

TRANSPORT 11 JUSTICE 10 EMPLOYMENT 7 INTERNAL MARKET 7 OTHER 26

IN 2011

49 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

61 NEW EU PILOT FILES

IN 2013

62 PROCESSED EU PILOT FILES

55 45

48 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

END 2012

END 2013

DURING 2013

70 DAYS / 10 WEEKS TARGET DURING 2013

V. E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S transporting dangerous goods,21 investigating maritime accidents22 and state control of ports;23 bad application of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive;24 the non-ratification by Belgium of the EU-Western Balkans Aviation Agreement.

The cases closed without a Court judgment in 2013 related to: • the partial transposition of the directives on transferring defence products,19 minimum sanctions and measures against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals,20

• •

19 Directive 2009/43/EC 20 Directive 2009/52/EC

21 Directive 2010/61/EU 22 Directive 2009/18/EC 23 Directive 2009/16/EC 24 Directive 95/377/ECC as amended, now codified in Directive 2011/92/EU

V I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S The Court ruled that: • Belgium failed to comply with a previous judgment25 that Belgium had infringed several provisions of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. It has ordered Belgium to pay a lump sum of € 10 million and a penalty payment of € 4 722 euro per day .26 In preliminary rulings addressed to the Belgian judiciary, the Court ruled that: • EU rules on the free movement of workers preclude the obligatory use of Dutch in crossborder employment contracts;27 • under the Data Protection Directive,28 Member States are not obliged to transpose into national law one or more of the exceptions the directive makes to the obligation to inform data subjects of the use of their personal data. They can do so if they wish however.29 25 Commission v Belgium, C-27/03 26 Commission v Belgium, C-533/11 and Court press release No 133/13 27 Las, C-202/11 28 Directive 95/046/EC 29 IPI, C-473/12

BULGARIA I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST BULGARIA (2009-13, ON 31 DECEMBER)

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP TOTAL (INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER) NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES (OPENED IN 2013)

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013 8TH

ENVIRONMENT 16 INTERNAL MARKET 6 ENERGY 4 TRANSPORT 4 OTHER POLICIES 12

▶▶

14TH

18TH

INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST BULGARIA

REFERRALS TO THE COURT AND KEY INFRINGEMENT CASES

(a) 19 new infringement procedures were launched against Bulgaria in 2013. They and other major ongoing infringement cases relate to: • the compatibility of the working conditions of employees at the Ministry of the Interior with the Working Time Directive;1 • Bulgaria’s failure to notify the Commission of measures to transpose the directive on alternative investment fund managers;2 • values for the PM103 exceeding the limit in certain zones and agglomerations (air quality);4 • transposition of the Railway Safety Directive5, including the definition of ‘railway undertaking’, the rules relating to the safety authority and safety management systems. (b) Three cases were referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They relate to: • the assignment of digital terrestrial broadcast spectrum. The Commission argues that in Bulgaria the reallocation of radio spectrums in the transition from analogue to digital broadcasting was disproportionately restrictive;6 1 Directive 2003/88/EC 2 Directive 2011/61/EU 3 PM10 is ‘an air pollutant consisting of small particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometer. Their small size allows them to make their way to the air passages deep within the lungs where they may be deposited and result in adverse health effects’ (Source: the European Environmental Agency). 4 IP/13/47 5 Directive 2004/49/EC 6 IP/13/46

•

the insufficient designation of a large part of the Important Bird Area ‘Kaliakra’ as a special protection area under the Birds Directive.7 Numerous economic projects (including wind turbines and golf courses) were authorized in the Kaliakra region which has allowed the destruction or deterioration of priority natural habitat (Habitats Directive8) and endangered bird species under the Birds Directive (the region being an important migratory route and resting, feeding and nesting place for those species), without adequate assessments of their cumulative environmental effects (the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive9);10 a technical assistance agreement between Bulgaria and the US which goes beyond the permissible privileges that may be afforded to commodities imported by organisations that are set up in the framework of international cultural, scientific or technical cooperation agreements with third countries.11

7 Directive 2009/147/EC 8 Directive 92/43/EEC 9 Directive 2011/92/EC 10 IP/13/966 11 IP/13/573

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP

(BASED ON THE NUMBER OF LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

▶▶

•

ENERGY 2 ENVIRONMENT 2 INTERNAL MARKET 2 HEALTH & CONSUMERS 2 OTHER POLICIES 3

36 13

1ST

8TH

Policy areas in which most new late transposition infringement cases were opened

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 COURT REFERRALS UNDER ARTICLES 258/260(3) TFEU: Bulgaria’s s failure to fully transpose the EU internal energy market rules. Bulgaria has only partially transposed the Electricity and Gas Directives.12 The Commission asked the Court to impose a daily penalty in respect of each partially transposed directive.13

12 Directive 2009/72/EC and Directive 2009/73/EC 13 IP/13/42. The Commission withdrew the Court application in 2013, following Bulgaria’s compliance with the directives’ requirements.

21ST

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX I - MEMBER STATES

III. COMPLAINTS ▶▶

COMPLAINTS MADE AGAINST BULGARIA 97 COMPLAINTS IN 2011

133 COMPLAINTS IN 2012

133 COMPLAINTS

IN 2013

24 INTERNAL MARKET

21 JUSTICE

TAXATION (free movement (deduction of value of people and fundamental rights) added tax)

(online gambling, public procurement and free movement of services)

OTHER AREAS (rural development, renewable energy, energy metering and billing, asylum and food safety)

I V. E U P I LO T ▶▶

PROGRESS OF FILES RELATING TO BULGARIA OPEN IN EU PILOT

10 15

TRANSPORT 12 ENVIRONMENT 10 INTERNAL MARKET 7 OTHER 25

85 80

62 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

IN 2012

DAYS TARGET

68 67

IN 2011

60 35 40

55 45

54 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

44 NEW EU PILOT FILES

52 PROCESSED EU PILOT FILES

END 2012

IN 2013

END 2013

DURING 2013

70 DAYS / 10 WEEKS TARGET

DURING 2013

V. E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S The cases closed without a Court judgment in 2013 related to: • EU rules governing citizens’ participation (as voters or candidates) in the European Parliament or municipal elections;14 • full transposition of the Electricity and Gas Directives;15

• • •

the mandatory customs declaration requirement for jewels, precious stones and metals; the marketing rules for hearing devices; manufacturing practices for medicinal products for veterinary use.

•

the national court must assess if a project can objectively achieve one of the aims of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and if artificially creating conditions exclusively for the purposes of receiving payment from the EAFRD would compromise the achievement of this goal. However, an applicant cannot be rejected merely on the grounds that applicants for an investment project are not functionally independent from each other or that they are legally linked.17

14 IP/13/874 15 Directive 2009/72/EC and Directive 2009/73/EC

V I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T In preliminary rulings addressed to the Bulgarian judiciary concerning rural development , the Court ruled that: • there is no contradiction with EU law if all disputes arising from decisions made by the national authority dealing with agricultural support under the Common Agricultural Policy are heard by a single court, and if the procedures that safeguard individuals’ rights under EU law are conducted at least under the same conditions as those available under national aid schemes, and that such procedural rules do not make exercising these rights under EU law excessively difficult;16

16 Agrokonsulting-04, C-93/12

Slancheva sila, C-434/12

CYPRUS I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S ▶▶

OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST CYPRUS (2009-13, ON 31 DECEMBER)

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP TOTAL (INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER) NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES (OPENED IN 2013)

44 20

2009

2010

2011

2012

25 21 21 17 16

47 33

2013 1ST

ENVIRONMENT 14 INTERNAL MARKET 6 ENERGY 4 OTHER POLICIES 20

▶▶

32 27

2ND

▶▶

3RD

7TH

15TH

16TH

INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST CYPRUS

REFERRALS TO THE COURT AND KEY INFRINGEMENT CASES

(a) 33 new infringement procedures were launched against Cyprus in 2013. These and other major ongoing infringement cases relate to: • Cyprus’ failure to notify the Commission of measures to transpose: three directives in the automotive sector;1 the directive on preventing trafficking in human beings;2 and the Postal Services Directive;3 • the incorrect application of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive4 and the directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts5 in relation to the purchase of immovable property; • restrictions on the provision of online gambling services (which were made subject to physical presence in the recipient Member State) and the failure to ensure equal treatment of gambling service providers;6 • non-compliance with the Single European Sky provisions that require full implementation of Functional Airspace Blocks (FABs);7 • the incorrect implementation of EU legislation concerning the welfare of animals, which requires that sows are kept in groups during part of their pregnancy;8 1 Directives 2011/87/EU, 2012/24/EU and 2013/15/EU 2 Directive 2011/36/EU and MEMO/13/1005 3 Directive 2008/6/EC 4 Directive 2005/29/EC 5 Directive 93/13/EEC 6 IP/13/1101 7 IP/13/860 8 Directive 2008/120/EC and IP/13/135

• •

delays in VAT refunding; the refusal to take into account periods that Cypriot teachers spent working in Greece when calculating and granting pension entitlements, and the refusal to grant partial pensions to teachers who have worked in Greece and Cyprus;9 the insufficient designation of special protection areas for birds;10 the violation of the rules on free movement of persons as regards registration of EU citizens, fees for obtaining permanent residence certificates, and deadlines for issuing residence cards for third-country family members of EU citizens.11

(b) One case was referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. It relates to: • the application of discriminatory conditions to the pension rights and unpaid leave rights of Cypriot civil servants working in another Member State – this is in breach of EU rules on the free movement of workers.12 (c) Cases referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU: • none in 2013

9 10 11 12

MEMO/13/375 MEMO/13/122 MEMO/13/583 IP/13/869

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP

(BASED ON THE NUMBER OF LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

ENVIRONMENT 8 INTERNAL MARKET 5 OTHER POLICIES 14 44 26

2009 ▶▶

•

2010

2011

2012

2013

COURT REFERRALS UNDER ARTICLES 258/260(3) TFEU failure to transpose the Renewable Energy Directive, which had to be transposed by 5 December 2010.13

13 Directive 2009/28/EC and IP/13/259. Subsequently Cyprus achieved full transposition and the Commission withdrew the Court application.

1ST

5TH

11TH

16TH

26TH

27TH

Policy areas in which most new late transposition infringement cases were opened

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX I - MEMBER STATES

III. COMPLAINTS ▶▶

COMPLAINTS MADE AGAINST CYPRUS 79 COMPLAINTS IN 2011

83 COMPLAINTS IN 2012

COMPLAINTS

IN 2013

26 JUSTICE

14 INTERNAL MARKET

(free movement of people)

ENVIRONMENT (nature protection, environmental impact assessment and waste management)

(professional qualifications, public procurement, gambling and patents & industrial property)

OTHER AREAS (residence requirement for jobseekers, fees for long-term residence permits, asylum and car taxation)

I V. E U P I LO T ▶▶

PROGRESS OF FILES RELATING TO CYPRUS OPEN IN EU PILOT

10 15

TRANSPORT 11 ENVIRONMENT 9 INTERNAL MARKET 5 OTHER POLICIES 18

85 80

70 DAYS

20 25

IN 2011

TARGET

60 35 40

55 45

32 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

44 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

43 NEW EU PILOT FILES 31 PROCESSED EU PILOT FILES

IN 2013

END 2012

IN 2012

END 2013

DURING 2013 DURING 2013

70 DAYS / 10 WEEKS TARGET

V. E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S access to justice for certain NGOs);16 failure to implement the ban on using unenriched cages for laying hens;17 discriminatory taxation rules applied to the registration of second-hand cars brought into Cyprus from other EU Member States.

The cases closed without a Court judgment in 2013 related to: • Cyprus’ failure to notify the Commission of measures to transpose the directives on road intelligent transport systems14 and driving licences;15 • the incorrect transposition of the directive on public participation in the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment (national legislation restricts

• •

14 Directive 2010/40/EU 15 Directive 2006/126/EC

16 Directive 2003/35/EC and MEMO/13/375 17 In accordance with Directive 1999/74/EC

V I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S The Court ruled that: • Cyprus failed to fulfil its obligations under the Landfill Directive.18 Not all sites of uncontrolled landfill of waste operating on its territory have been decommissioned or rendered compliant with the directive’s requirements.19

18 Directive 1999/31/EC 19 Commission v Cyprus, C-412/12

CZECH REPUBLIC I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S ▶▶

OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST THE CZECH REPUBLIC

▶▶

(2009-13, ON 31 DECEMBER)

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP TOTAL (INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER) NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES (OPENED IN 2013)

2009

2010

2011

2012

40 15

23RD

25TH

2013 9TH

6TH

ENVIRONMENT 7 ENERGY 5 TRANSPORT 5 OTHER POLICIES 14

▶▶

13TH

16TH

19TH

INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST CZECH REPUBLIC

REFERRALS TO THE COURT AND KEY INFRINGEMENT CASES

(a) 24 new infringement procedures were launched against the Czech Republic in 2013. They and other major ongoing infringements relate to: • the requirement that bottles of wine produced for domestic consumption be labelled with a list of ingredients in Czech; • the Czech Republic’s failure to apply the mutual recognition of hallmarks issued in other Member States;1 • the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive2 and the limit values for PM103 laid down in EU air quality legislation;4

• • • •

the extension of air carriers’ liability relating to intra-Schengen flights; the right to appeal against a decision taken on the refusal, annulment and revocation under the Visa Code;5 online gambling services;6 aviation security.

(b) Cases referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU: • none in 2013 (c) Cases referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU: • none in 2013

1 MEMO/13/470 2 Directive 2011/92/EU 3 PM10 is ‘an air pollutant consisting of small particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometer. Their small size allows them to make their way to the air passages deep within the lungs where they may be deposited and result in adverse health effects’ (Source: the European Environmental Agency). 4 IP/13/47

5 6

Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 IP/13/1101

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP

(BASED ON THE NUMBER OF LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

Policy areas in

ENERGY 3 which most new ENVIRONMENT 2 late transposition OTHER POLICIES infringement 41

cases were opened

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

▶▶

COURT REFERRALS UNDER ARTICLES 258/260(3) TFEU:

•

none in 2013

1ST

7TH

11TH

18TH

22RD

24TH

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX I - MEMBER STATES

III. COMPLAINTS ▶▶

COMPLAINTS MADE AGAINST THE CZECH REPUBLIC 81 COMPLAINTS IN 2011

57 COMPLAINTS IN 2012

COMPLAINTS

IN 2013

14 JUSTICE

12 ENVIRONMENT

(fundamental rights)

(environmental impact assessment and waste management)

REGIONAL POLICY (cohesion policy)

OTHER AREAS (wines' product labelling, authorisations and establishment requirements in electronic communications, support schemes for renewable energy, carriers' liability on intra-Schengen flights)

I V. E U P I LO T ▶▶

PROGRESS OF FILES RELATING TO THE CZECH REPUBLIC OPEN IN EU PILOT TRANSPORT 11 ENVIRONMENT 9 INTERNAL MARKET 8 OTHER POLICIES 12

10 15

IN 2013

85 80

70 DAYS

20 25

72 71 IN 2011

TARGET

28 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

IN 2012

40 NEW EU PILOT FILES 34 PROCESSED EU PILOT FILES

60 35 40

55 45

END 2012

34 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

END 2013

DURING 2013 DURING 2013

70 DAYS / 10 WEEKS TARGET

V. E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S The cases closed without a Court judgment in 2013 related to: • the directive on preventing sharp injuries in the hospital and healthcare sector;7 • the directive on combating late payment in commercial transactions;8 • Sumava National Park’s visitor code (it is a Natura 2000 site);

7 8

Directive 2010/32/EU Directive 2011/7/EU

• •

the Czech Republic’s failure to ratify the 2001 International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage; the Czech Republic’s failure to apply the Drivers’ Working Time Directive9 to self-employed drivers.

Directive 2002/15/EC

V I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S • Court rulings made against the Czech Republic related to: • the Czech Republic’s failure to comply with the Court’s earlier judgement10 on transposing the directive on the institutions for occupational retirement,11 where a lump sum payment of € 250,000 was ordered;12 • the incorrect implementation of one of the directive in the EU’s First Railway Package.13 The Czech Republic restricted the independence of the railway infrastructure manager; continued to operate a funding system that does not provide an incentive to the reduce infrastructure costs and access charges; and put in place incoherent and non-transparent rules that do not encourage fewer disruptions and better performance.14

Commission v Czech Republic, C-343/08; the Court ordered only a lump sum payment as the Czech Republic complied with the first judgment during the second Court procedure. 11 Directive 2003/41/EC 12 Commission v Czech Republic, C-241/11 13 Directive 2001/14/EC 14 Commission v Czech Republic, C‑545/10

In preliminary rulings to the Czech judiciary, the Court ruled that: • Czech national rules were incompatible with EU law in defining “normal retirement age” for receiving support from the EAGGF15, as the Czech retirement age differs depending on gender and, for women, on the number children raised;16 • asylum seekers cannot be considered as staying illegally in the territory of a Member State so they should benefit from the right to move freely. However, their detention may be maintained if the asylum application was made solely in order to delay or jeopardise an earlier decision to return that person to a third country.17

15 The European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund 16 Soukupová, C-401/11 17 Arslan, C-534/11

DENMARK I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S ▶▶

OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST DENMARK (2009-13, ON 31 DECEMBER)

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP TOTAL (INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER) NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES (OPENED IN 2013)

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

▶▶

5TH

3RD

ENVIRONMENT 8 TAXATION 6 TRANSPORT 5 HEALTH AND CONSUMERS 5 OTHER POLICIES 6

38 15

10TH

39 23

12TH

INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST DENMARK

REFERRALS TO THE COURT AND KEY INFRINGEMENT CASES

(a) 21 new infringement procedures were launched against Denmark in 2013. They and other major ongoing infringement cases relate to: • the compatibility of Danish national law with the directive on competition in the markets for electronic communications, networks and services;1 Denmark had introduced mandatory membership for households to local Danish cable associations; • the incompatibility of the National Holiday Act with the Working Time Directive; the National Holiday Act makes it possible to defer annual leave by one year; • Denmark’s failure to correctly implement the regulation concerning the rights of bus and coach passengers;2 • Denmark’s incorrect application of the directive laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs,3 which requires that sows are kept in groups during a part of their pregnancy;4 • a case in which public school teachers working part-time were excluded from a number of benefits that full-time employees received.5 The directive on part-time work6 requires the equal treatment of part-time staff and permanent staff doing similar work;

1 Directive 2002/77/EC 2 Regulation (EU) No 181/2011 3 Directive 2008/120/EC 4 IP/13/135 5 MEMO/13/583 6 Directive 97/81/EC

•

Denmark’s lack of river basin management plans, which are required under the Water Framework Directive;7 • the compatibility of Danish taxation rules for foreign investment funds with the freedom to provide services and the free movement of capital as set out in the EU Treaties.8 In Denmark, dividends distributed to funds registered as ‘investment institutes with minimum taxation’ are exempt from tax, but only if the institute is Danish. The Danish tax rules discriminate against ‘investment institutes with minimum taxation’ from other Member States. (b) Cases referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU: • none in 2013 (c) Cases referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU: • none in 2013

7 8

MEMO/13/907 MEMO/13/375

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU AND REFERENCE GROUP

(BASED ON THE NUMBER OF LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

ENVIRONMENT 3 INTERNAL MARKET 3 OTHER POLICIES 3 28 11

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

▶▶

COURT REFERRALS UNDER ARTICLES 258/260(3) TFEU:

•

none in 2013

Policy areas in which most new late transposition infringement cases were opened

6TH

8TH

11TH

16TH

19TH

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX I - MEMBER STATES

III. COMPLAINTS ▶▶

COMPLAINTS MADE AGAINST DENMARK 77 COMPLAINTS IN 2011

60 COMPLAINTS IN 2012

COMPLAINTS

IN 2013

12 TAXATION

(charges having an equivalent effect to customs, discriminatory taxation of selfemployed businesses registered in other Member States)

11 EMPLOYMENT

(social security coverage, posted workers and family benefits to migrant workers)

ENVIRONMENT (water protection and nature protection)

OTHER AREAS (transport fares for students and access to education)

I V. E U P I LO T ▶▶

PROGRESS OF FILES RELATING TO DENMARK IN EU PILOT

IN 2011

10 15

70 DAYS

20 25

85 75

TARGET

60 35 40

TRANSPORT 17 TAXATION 6 JUSTICE 5 OTHER POLICIES 19

IN 2012

IN 2013

26 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

47 NEW EU PILOT FILES 31 PROCESSED EU PILOT FILES

55 45

END 2012

V. E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S

9 Directive 92/43/EEC 10 Directive 2006/7/EC

V I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S In preliminary rulings addressed to the Danish judiciary, the Court ruled that: • an EU citizen working while studying in a Member State is entitled to receive the same amount of financial aid for studies that is granted to the nationals of that Member State;11 • in certain circumstances, a disability can include incurable or curable long-term illnesses caused by a psychical, mental or psychological limitation. In such cases, the employer must offer a reduction in working hours to enable the person with a disability to work.12

11 N., C-46/12 12 HK Denmark, C-335/11 and C-337/11

END 2013

DURING 2013

70 DAYS / 10 WEEKS TARGET

The cases closed without a Court judgment in 2013 covered: • the incorrect transposition of the Habitats Directive;9 • the incorrect transposition of the Bathing Water Directive.10

42 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

DURING 2013

ESTONIA I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S ▶▶

OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST ESTONIA (2009-13, ON 31 DECEMBER)

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP TOTAL (INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER) NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES (OPENED IN 2013)

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

ENVIRONMENT 8 ENERGY 4 TRANSPORT 4 OTHER POLICIES 9

▶▶

20 21

21 17

1ST

2ND

▶▶

3RD

7TH

47 33

32 27

15TH

16TH

INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST ESTONIA

REFERRALS TO THE COURT AND KEY INFRINGEMENT CASES

(a) 16 new infringement procedures were launched against Estonia in 2013. They and other major ongoing infringement cases relate to: • the incorrect transposition of the INSPIRE Directive;1 • failure to correctly implement the right to appeal against a visa refusal, annulment or revocation in accordance with the provisions of the Visa Code;2 • failure to transpose the Directive on Alternative Investment Fund Managers within the timeframe allowed;3 • incorrect transposition of the Railway Safety Directive;4 • failure to grant tax-exempt allowances in respect of the pension income of non-residents with very low worldwide total taxable income.5 1 Directive 2007/2/EC 2 Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 3 Directive 2011/61/EU 4 Directive 2004/49/EC 5 IP/09/1636; IP/08/1532

(b) One case was referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. It relates to: • the independence of the national telecoms regulator. Estonian law is not in line with EU legislation on telecoms, which stipulates that national authorities acting as regulators cannot at the same time be involved in the ownership or control of telecoms companies. 6 (c) Cases referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU: • none in 2013

IP/13/480

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP

(BASED ON THE NUMBER OF LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

▶▶

•

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Policy areas in

ENERGY 4 which most new ENVIRONMENT 4 late transposition OTHER POLICIES 6 infringement cases were opened

COURT REFERRALS UNDER ARTICLES 258/260(3) TFEU: Estonia’s failure to fully transpose the EU internal energy market rules. Estonia has only partially transposed the Electricity and Gas Directives.7 Some provisions, for example relating to consumer protection and the independence of the regulatory authority, have not been transposed. The Commission asked the Court to impose daily penalties in respect of each partially transposed directive.8

7 Directive 2009/72/EC and Directive 2009/73/EC 8 IP/13/42. Subsequently, Estionia achieved full transposition and the Commission withdrew the Court applications.

1ST

5TH

11TH

16TH

26TH

27TH

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX I - MEMBER STATES

III. COMPLAINTS ▶▶

COMPLAINTS MADE AGAINST ESTONIA 19 COMPLAINTS IN 2011

11 COMPLAINTS IN 2012

COMPLAINTS

IN 2013

3 TAXATION

2 HEALTH AND

CONSUMERS (e.g. stud-books for horses)

(rules on VAT and property taxation)

HOME AFFAIRS (Schengen Borders Code)

OTHER AREAS (waste management, end-of-life vehicles and packaging)

I V. E U P I LO T ▶▶

PROGRESS OF FILES RELATING TO ESTONIA OPEN IN EU PILOT

10 15

70 DAYS

20 25

IN 2011

TARGET

60 35 40

55 45

TRANSPORT 7 ENVIRONMENT 4 JUSTICE 4 OTHER POLICIES 12

IN 2013

18 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

27 NEW EU PILOT FILES

IN 2012

END 2012

27 PROCESSED EU PILOT FILES

END 2013

DURING 2013 DURING 2013

70 DAYS / 10 WEEKS TARGET

V. E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S The cases closed without a Court judgment in 2013 related to: • the incorrect transposition of the Batteries Directive9 and of the directives in the First Railway Package.10 9 Directive 2006/66/EC 10 Directive 91/440/EEC, amended by Directives 1995/18/EC and 2001/14/EC

V I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S In preliminary rulings addressed to the Estonian judiciary, the Court ruled that: • the concept of proximity and self-sufficiency in relation to the management of municipal waste.11 A local authority can require the authority responsible for the collection of waste on its territory to transport mixed municipal waste collected from private households to the nearest appropriate treatment facility. The local authority cannot however impose similar obligations on the authority in respect of industrial and building waste if the producers of that waste are themselves required to deliver the waste either to the authority or directly to the facility.

11 Ragn-Sells, C-292/12

18 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

FINLAND I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST FINLAND (2009-13, ON 31 DECEMBER)

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP TOTAL (INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER) NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES (OPENED IN 2013)

2009

2010

2011

2012

38 15

39 23

2013

ENVIRONMENT 14 TRANSPORT 5 OTHER POLICIES 20

▶▶

10TH

5TH

3RD

▶▶

10TH

12TH

INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST FINLAND (ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

REFERRALS TO THE COURT AND KEY INFRINGEMENT CASES

(a) There were 23 new infringement procedures launched against Finland in 2013. They and other major ongoing infringement cases relate to: • the conditions for receiving unemployment benefits in Finland;1 • the protection of pensions financed through book reserves in case of the insolvency of the employer; • the lack of timely transposition of the Laboratory Animals Directive within the allowed timeframe;2 • the lack of timely transposition of the Industrial Emissions Directive within the allowed timeframe;3 • the national equality body, which provides assistance to victims of discrimination. This body has not been designated as competent for all of the tasks set out in the Racial Equility Directive;4 1 MEMO/13/470 2 MEMO/13/820 3 Directive 2010/75/EU and MEMO/13/907 4 Directive 2000/43/EC and MEMO/13/1005

•

the lack of timely transposition of the Directive on Alternative Investment Fund Managers which expired on 22 July 2013.

(b) Two cases were referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They relate to: • the discriminatory conditions applied in determining unemployment benefits;5 • transposition of requirements relating to maximum working hours for self-employed drivers.6 (c) Cases referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU: • none in 2013

5 6

IP/13/1107 IP/13/142

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP

(BASED ON THE NUMBER OF LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

ENVIRONMENT 7 Policy areas in which most new OTHER POLICIES 10

late transposition infringement cases were opened

62 49 27

2009

2010

2011

2012

▶▶

COURT REFERRALS UNDER ARTICLES 258/260(3) TFEU:

•

none in 2013

6TH

8TH

11TH

16TH

19TH

2013

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX I - MEMBER STATES

III. COMPLAINTS ▶▶

COMPLAINTS MADE AGAINST FINLAND 46 COMPLAINTS IN 2011

34 COMPLAINTS IN 2012

COMPLAINTS

IN 2013

15 TAXATION

12 INTERNAL MARKET

(e.g. access household tax credit)

(professional qualifications, free movement of capital)

ENVIRONMENT (nature protection and waste management)

OTHER AREAS (marketing of spirits, language of instruction in education institutions)

I V. E U P I LO T ▶▶

PROGRESS OF FILES RELATING TO FINLAND OPEN IN EU PILOT TRANSPORT 8 TAXATION 8 JUSTICE 5 OTHER POLICIES 17

IN 2011

10 15

85 80

DAYS TARGET

60 35 40

55 45

IN 2012

28 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

38 NEW EU PILOT FILES 41 PROCESSED EU PILOT FILES

IN 2013 END 2012

V. E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S The cases closed without a Court judgement in 2013 related to: • gambling services and the compliance with Union law of the national provisions establishing exclusive rights to provide gambling services;7 • failure to transpose the directives on road intelligent transport systems, on organisation of the working time of self-employed drivers, on roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles, on insurance of ship-owners and on maritime traffic monitoring and on minimum standards on sanctions and measures against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals; • full transposition of the Electricity and Gas Directives.8

7 Directive 2009/52/EC and IP/13/1101 8 Directive 2009/72/EC and Directive 2009/73/EC

V I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S The Court ruled that: • Finland had restricted the free movement of capital in a case concerning capital gains arising from the sale of real estate. Finnish law does not allow losses made from the sale of real estate in another Member State to be offset against gains taxable in Finland. Nonetheless, this restriction was deemed to be justified, in particular in order to ensure a balanced allocation of taxing rights between Member States.9 In preliminary rulings addressed to the Finnish judiciary, the Court ruled that: • in the area of chemical substances, Member States cannot, in principle, subject the manufacture, placing on the market or use of a substance referred to in Annex XVII to the REACH Regulation to conditions other than those laid down by the this regulation. If a Member State intends to impose stricter conditions for a substance restricted in Annex XVII to REACH, it may do so only in order to respond to an urgent situation to protect human health or the environment in accordance with the relevant safeguared clause given in Article 129 of the REACH Regulation, or on the basis of new scientific evidence in accordance with Article 114(5) of the TFEU.10 9 K, C-322/11 10 Lapin luonnonsuojelupiiri, C-358/11

END 2013

DURING 2013

70 DAYS / 10 WEEKS TARGET

25 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

DURING 2013

FRANCE I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S ▶▶

OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST FRANCE (2009-13, ON 31 DECEMBER)

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP TOTAL (INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER) NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES (OPENED IN 2013)

2010

2011

2012

63 28

2009

104

2013

TAXATION 19 ENVIRONMENT 16 TRANSPORT 10 OTHER POLICIES 32

▶▶

22ND

21ST

20 TH

26TH

24TH

27TH

INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST FRANCE (ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

REFERRALS TO THE COURT AND KEY INFRINGEMENT CASES

▶▶

(a) 44 new infringement procedures were launched against France in 2013. They and other major ongoing infringement cases relate to: • France’s refusal to grant welfare benefits to unemployed and under-employed workers from other Member States; • failure to comply with the Working Time Directive as regards the working conditions of hospital doctors and trainee doctors; • failure to comply with the Working Time Directive as regards the working conditions of police officers; • restrictions placed on imports of ambulances complying with standard EN 1789;1 • the French authorities’ refusal to register some kit cars previously registered in other Member States;2 • barriers placed on trade for alcohol test kits in cars;3 • breach of EU air quality minimum standards in a number of areas and agglomerations;4 • inadequate implementation of the directive on minimum standards for the reception conditions of asylum seekers5 and of the bad implementation of directive on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings;6 • national legislation governing cabotage to Corsica, which does not comply with Union

1 MEMO/13/22 2 MEMO/13/1005 3 MEMO/14/36 4 IP/13/47 5 Directive 2003/9/EC 6 Directive 2011/36/EU

• • • •

law on the freedom to provide services; failure to comply with EU legislation on animal welfare, specifically the requirement that sows are kept in groups during part of their pregnancy;7 failure to transpose the directive on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation;8 discriminatory taxation of futures markets operations on foreign stock exchanges; the incorrect implementation of the First Railway Package: France failed to comply with EU rules against excessive track access charges for passenger and freight trains in the Channel Tunnel.

(b) Two cases were referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They relate to: • reduced rates of VAT to e-books;9 • discriminatory rules governing the tax paid on investments in new residential property.10 (c) Cases referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU: • none in 2013

7 Directive 2008/120/EC and IP/13/135 8 Directive 2011/16/EU and MEMO/13/1005 9 IP/13/137 10 IP/13/473

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP

(BASED ON THE NUMBER OF LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

Policy areas in which most new

ENVIRONMENT 4 late transposition OTHER POLICIES 9 infringement cases were opened

42 22

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

▶▶

COURT REFERRALS UNDER ARTICLES 258/260(3) TFEU:

•

none in 2013

8TH

14TH

20TH

22ND

25TH

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX I - MEMBER STATES

III. COMPLAINTS ▶▶

COMPLAINTS MADE AGAINST FRANCE 233 COMPLAINTS IN 2011

242 COMPLAINTS IN 2012

277 COMPLAINTS

IN 2013

EMPLOYMENT (discriminatory national pension rights against former French soldiers holding Moroccan nationality, 'prélèvements sociaux' on the real estate income of non-residents and quota of Home Grown Players for professional basketball league clubs)

50 TAXATION

(value added tax and taxation of activities and assets situated abroad)

INTERNAL MARKET (regulated professions especially in the area of sport and insurance)

126

OTHER AREAS (car registration, access to education, environmental impact assessment, waste management, maritime transport services in Corsica, international railway transport and food safety)

I V. E U P I LO T

93 84

PROGRESS OF FILES RELATING TO FRANCE OPEN IN EU PILOT ▶▶

IN 2013

IN 2011

TRANSPORT 19 ENVIRONMENT 18 TAXATION 18 OTHER POLICIES 55

IN 2012

110 NEW EU PILOT FILES 10 15

78 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

70 DAYS

TARGET

60 35 40

81 PROCESSED EU PILOT FILES

55 45

107 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

END 2012

END 2013

DURING 2013

70 DAYS / 10 WEEKS TARGET DURING 2013

V. E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S •

The cases closed without a Court judgment in 2013 related to: • a tax imposed on milk producers who exceeded their individual milk quotas set under the single Common Market Organisation (although the national quota had not been exceeded); • national legislation on the marketing of certain products obtained by distilling lees and marcs (by-products of wine production) as ‘eaux-de-vie de vin’;11

• •

the free movement of building materials and the refusal to award subsidies incentivising the purchase of environmentally friendly cars to imported demonstration motor vehicles, in breach of the principle of the free movement of goods. France has amended its legislation to conform to Union law; failure to transpose the directive on railway interoperability and the directive on railway safety indicators; the identification of horses.

11 IP/12/179

V I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S The Court ruled that: • a special charge imposed on electronic communications operators, set according to the amount of subscription charges and other sums they receive from users for the provision of services, does not constitute an administrative charge within the meaning of the 2002 directive12 and does therefore not fall within the scope of this directive. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Commission’s action;13 • a measure introduced by France concerning the import of tobacco products was found to be contrary to the directive on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty.14 The Court dismissed the Commission’s complaint in so far as it related to a breach of free movement of goods. The Court highlighted that, where a topic has been the subject of exhaustive harmonisation at EU level, any national measure in this area must be assessed in the light of the provisions of the harmonising measure and not those of the Treaty;15

•

France had fail to the designate a number of areas at risk of having an excessively high concentration of nitrate in the water as such,16 and the urban wastewater treatment in large agglomerations was inadequate;17 • France did not respect the provisions of the VAT Directive by affording VAT exemption to vessels that did not navigate in the high seas, which is a condition to such exemption;18 • France complied with existing rail legislation as regards the level of independence required for an infrastructure manager in a holding company.19 In preliminary rulings addressed to the French judiciary, the Court ruled that: • the French system for compensating businesses for the additional costs imposed on them by the obligation to purchase wind-generated energy must be qualified as State aid;20 • the jurisdiction clause in a contract concluded between the manufacturer and the initial buyer of goods cannot be used to bring a case against the sub-buyer of the goods, even if the contract formed part of a chain of contracts transferring ownership.21

12 Directive 2002/20/EC 13 Commission v France, C-485/11 14 Directive 92/12/EEC 15 Commission v France, C-216/11

16 Commission v France, C-193/12, IP/12/170 17 Commission v France, C-23/13 18 Commission v France, C-197/12 19 Directive 91/440/EC, Commission v France, C-625/10 20 Vent De Colère and Others, C-262/12 21 Refcomp, C-543/10

GERMANY I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S ▶▶

OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST GERMANY (2009-13, ON 31 DECEMBER)

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP TOTAL (INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER) NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES (OPENED IN 2013)

2010

2011

2012

63 34

2009

104

2013 20 TH

TAXATION 15 ENVIRONMENT 10 INTERNAL MARKET 8 OTHER POLICIES 30

▶▶

21ST

22ND

26TH

24TH

27TH

INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST GERMANY (ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

REFERRALS TO THE COURT AND KEY INFRINGEMENT CASES

▶▶

(a) 34 new infringement procedures were launched against Germany in 2013. They and other major ongoing infringement cases relate to: • the incompatibility with the Working Time Directive of the reference period used by Germany to calculate average weekly working hours; • Germany’s failure to notify the Commission of national measures transposing the directive on combating late payment in commercial transactions;1 • a ban on ‘off the shell’ chemical mixtures containing methylenediphenyl diisocyanate, the selling of which is in breach of the REACH regulation;2 • the incorrect application of the directive on mobile air conditioning3; • the application of German pricing rules to pharmacies located in other Member States, in breach of the principle of free movement of goods; • the separation of accounts of railway undertakings from those of railway infrastructure managers;4 • the non-ratification of the EU-US Air Transport Agreement; • animal welfare and specifically the requirement that sows are kept in groups during part of their pregnancy;5 • the discriminatory taxation of outbound dividends.6

1 Directive 2011/7/EC and MEMO/13/1005 2 Directive 2006/40/EC and MEMO/13/820 3 MEMO/14/50 4 IP/13/1097 5 Directive 2008/120/EC and IP/13/135 6 IP/09/435 – IP/07/1152

(b) Two cases were referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They relate to: • the inadequate implementation of Union law on access to justice in relation to environmental matters;7 • the separation of accounts in the German rail sector.8 (c) Cases referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU: • none in 2013

7 8

IP/13/967 IP/13/1067

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP

(BASED ON THE NUMBER OF LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

HOME AFFAIRS 3 ENERGY 2 TAXATION 2 OTHER POLICIES 4

31 12

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

▶▶

COURT REFERRALS UNDER ARTICLES 258/260(3) TFEU:

•

none in 2013

Policy areas in which most new late transposition infringement cases were opened

8TH

14TH

20TH

22ND

25TH

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX I - MEMBER STATES

III. COMPLAINTS ▶▶

COMPLAINTS MADE AGAINST GERMANY 263 COMPLAINTS IN 2011

242 COMPLAINTS IN 2012

297 COMPLAINTS

IN 2013

57 INTERNAL MARKET

JUSTICE (fundamental rights, civil justice and data protection)

123

(regulated professions, mainly health professionals and teachers, and public procurement)

OTHER AREAS (students' travel costs, Schengen Borders Code, Visa Code, asylum, taxation of non-resident German pensioners, posting of workers, levying pensions already subject to deductions in the paying Member State and family benefits for non-resident child)

ENVIRONMENT (nature protection and environmental impact assessment)

I V. E U P I LO T ▶▶

PROGRESS OF FILES RELATING TO GERMANY OPEN IN EU PILOT TRANSPORT 14 ENVIRONMENT 11 INTERNAL MARKET 11 OTHER POLICIES 37 10 15

85 80

DAYS TARGET

60 35 40

55 45

65 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

65 61

73 NEW EU PILOT FILES

IN 2011

IN 2012

62 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

76 PROCESSED EU PILOT FILES

END 2012

END 2013

DURING 2013

IN 2013

70 DAYS / 10 WEEKS TARGET DURING 2013

V. E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S The cases closed without a Court judgment in 2013 related to: • the rules adopted in all German Länder to allow benefits to be exported for the blind, the deaf and the disabled non-resident workers and their family members; • the manufacturer’s rebate on some medicines which an enquiry found does not breach the principle of free movement;

• •

the flawed application of the Habitats Directive9 in relation to the proposed sites of Community importance in the Lower and Outer Ems area; the failure to transpose directives on insurance of ship-owners, on road intelligent transport systems and on railway interoperability.

9 Directive 92/43/EEC

V I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S The Court ruled: • in a case concerning a directive of the First Railway Package, following its Advocate General’s opinion, that Germany had complied with existing rail legislation as regards the level of independence required for an infrastructure manager in a holding company structure.10 In preliminary rulings addressed to the German judiciary, the Court ruled that: • a Member State can only refuse to issue a uniform visa if one of the grounds for refusal listed in the Visa Code applies to the applicant in question;11 • the notion of ‘freedom to provide services’ in Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol to the EU-Turkey Association Agreement must be interpreted as not encompassing freedom for Turkish nationals who are the recipients of services to visit a Member State in order to obtain services;12 • where the Member State is aware that systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in reception conditions for asylum seekers in the Member State initially identified as being responsible for examining an asylum application would lead to the asylum seeker being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, the Member State determining the

10 IP/13/176 11 Koushkaki, C-84/12 12 Demirkan, C-221/11

•

13 14 15 16

Member State responsible is required not to transfer the asylum seeker to the Member State initially identified as responsible;13 an entry ban handed down more than five years before the date of the entry into force of national legislation implementing the Return directive cannot lead to impunishment under criminal law unless the person constitutes a serious threat to public order, public security or national security;14 EU law does not allow the national courts of the place where a harmful event occurred, which is attributed to one of the presumed perpetrators of damage who is not a party to the dispute, to take jurisdiction over another presumed perpetrator of that damage who has not acted within the jurisdiction of the court hearing the dispute;15 in preliminary rulings on waste, environmental impact assessment, strategic environmental assessment, nature protection and access to justice in environmental matters, case Altrip C-72/12 was referred to.16

Puid, C-4/11 Filev and Osmani, C-297/12 Melzer, C-228/11 Brady, C-113/12; Ragn-Sells, C-292/12; Leth, C-420/11; Salzburger Flughafen, C-244/12; L v M, C-463/11; Sweetman and Others, C-258/11; Edwards and Pallikaropoulos, C-260/11; Gemeinde Altrip and Others, C-72/12

GREECE I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S ▶▶

OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST GREECE (2009-13, ON 31 DECEMBER) 137

125

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP TOTAL (INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER) NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES (OPENED IN 2013)

123

2009

2010

2011

2012

23RD

25TH

2013 9TH

6TH

ENVIRONMENT 21 TAXATION 10 INTERNAL MARKET 9 TRANSPORT 9 OTHER POLICIES 30

▶▶

13TH

16TH

19TH

INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST GREECE (ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

REFERRALS TO THE COURT AND KEY INFRINGEMENT CASES

(a) 40 new infringement procedures were launched against Greece in 2013. They and other major ongoing infringement cases relate to: • the incompatibility with Union law of national legislation from 1934 obliging all wine producers of Samos to be members of the local cooperative and give it their entire production; • failure to comply with the Working Time Directive as regards the working conditions of hospital doctors;1 • the obstacles to exports of pharmaceuticals;2 • inadequate hazardous waste management and planning (failure to comply with Court judgment of 10 September 2009 in case C-286/08); • the implementation of the directive on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings3 and a case regarding the implementation of the directive to extend its scope to beneficiaries of international protection;4 • the violation of the right of EU citizens to stand as candidates in local and European elections in their Member State of residence due to restrictions in their involvement in political parties; • non-compliance with the fisheries data collection obligation; Greece has since complied with the obligations under the EU data collection framework and put in place the necessary administrative measures to ensure compliance with data collection obligations in the future, enabling the Commission to close the case in October 2013; • the lack of timely transposition for the Directive on Alternative Investment Fund Managers;5 • a breach of the First and the Third Non-life Insurance Directives as regards the organisation 1 IP/13/1108 2 MEMO/13/470 3 Directive 2011/36/EU 4 Directive 2011/51/EU 5 Directive 2011/61/EU

and operation of roadside assistance in Greece;6 failure to comply with EU legislation on animal welfare, specifically the requirement that sows are kept in groups during part of their pregnancy;7 • restrictions on the marketing of plant-propagating material; • income tax exemption for companies that operate vessels; • the non-compliance with the Single European Sky provisions requiring full implementation of Functional Airspace Blocks (FABs).8 (b) Four cases were referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They relate to: • non-compliance with EU rules on limits to working time limits (the Working Time Directive) for doctors in public health services, with Greece failing to ensure that they work no more than 48 hours per week on average, including any overtime;9 • a landfill site in Peloponnese;10 • nitrate pollution;11 • failure to enforce the ban on battery cages for laying hens.12 •

(c) Cases referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU: • Greece was referred twice to the Court for two long-standing cases, both for not respecting EU law in environmental matters (illegal landfills and urban waste water).13 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

MEMO/13/470 Directive 2008/120/EC, IP/13/135 IP/13/860 IP/13/1108 IP/13/483 IP/13/576 IP/13/366 IP/13/143, IP/13/1102, Commission v Greece, C-378/13 and Commission v Greece, C-167/14

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP

(BASED ON THE NUMBER OF LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

Policy areas in

ENERGY 2 which most new HOME AFFAIRS 2 late transposition OTHER POLICIES 3 infringement cases

55 29

2009

2010

were opened

2011

2012

▶▶

COURT REFERRALS UNDER ARTICLES 258/260(3) TFEU

•

none in 2013

1ST

11TH

18TH

22RD

24TH

2013 7TH

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX I - MEMBER STATES

III. COMPLAINTS ▶▶

COMPLAINTS MADE AGAINST GREECE 193 COMPLAINTS IN 2011

188 COMPLAINTS IN 2012

177 COMPLAINTS

IN 2013

27 ENVIRONMENT

INTERNAL MARKET (regulated professions and public procurement)

EMPLOYMENT (recognition of foreign postgraduate diploma of public sector workers in their promotion)

(natureprotection,environmental impact assessment and waste management)

OTHER AREAS (e.g. parallel import of pharmaceuticals, discriminatory airport taxes, push-back practices at the borders, food safety and customs fees)

I V. E U P I LO T ▶▶

PROGRESS OF FILES RELATING TO GREECE OPEN IN EU PILOT

82 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

84 NEW EU PILOT FILES

81 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

70 DAYS

20 25

ENVIRONMENT 28 TRANSPORT 9 ENTERPRISE & INDUSTRY 6 TAXATION 6 OTHER POLICIES 35

TARGET

60 35 40

55 45

IN 2013

85 PROCESSED EU PILOT FILES

63 65

IN 2012

END 2012

IN 2011

DURING 2013

END 2013

70 DAYS / 10 WEEKS TARGET DURING 2013

V. E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S The cases closed without a Court judgment in 2013 related to: • the adoption by the Greek authorities of legislative measures regarding fire safety; • the procedure for fixing the price of parallel imported pharmaceuticals that created obstacles to these imports, where Greece has changed its legislation on the contested issues; • Greece's exceeding the ceilings for sulphur dioxide under the National Emissions Reduction Plan;

• • •

the non-conformity of the transposition of the Bathing Water Directive;14 fisheries data collection; the recognition of degrees obtained in another Member State in Greece.

Directive 2006/7/EC

V I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S The Court ruled that: • Greece failed to protect Lake Koroneia (a wetland in the region of Thessaloniki) from pollution.15

In a preliminary ruling addressed to the Greek judiciary, the Court ruled that: • EU law precludes national legislation giving a single entity the exclusive right to offer games of chance, if it does not reduce the number of opportunities for gambling and ensure strict control of the expansion of the sector of games in order to combat criminality.16

Commission v Greece, C-517/11, IP/11/89

Stanleybet International and Others, C-186/11 and C-209/11

HUNGARY I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S ▶▶

OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST HUNGARY (2009-13, ON 31 DECEMBER)

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP TOTAL (INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER) NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES (OPENED IN 2013)

2009

2010

2011

2012

40 15

23RD

25TH

2013 9TH

6TH

INTERNAL MARKET 8 ENVIRONMENT 7 TAXATION 6 OTHER POLICIES 16

▶▶

13TH

16TH

19TH

37 INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST HUNGARY (ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

REFERRALS TO THE COURT AND KEY INFRINGEMENT CASES (a) 31 new infringement procedures were launched against Hungary in 2013. They and other major ongoing infringements cases relate to: • the limit values for PM101 in air being exceeded(air quality);2 and the transposition measures for the Industrial Emissions Directive;3 • the right to appeal against visa decisions;4 non-compliance with certain provisions of the Asylum Procedures and the Reception Conditions Directives5 and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; • transposition of the Directive on Alternative Investment Fund Managers.6

1 PM10 is ‘an air pollutant consisting of small particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometer. Their small size allows them to make their way to the air passages deep within the lungs where they may be deposited and result in adverse health effects’ (Source: the European Environmental Agency). 2 IP/13/47 3 Directive 2010/75/EU and MEMO/13/583 4 This case was closed later in 2013 due to compliance. 5 Directives 2005/85/EC and 2003/9/EC 6 Directive 2011/61/EU

(b) Two cases that were referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU relate to: • new restrictions on the issuing of meal vouchers and other benefits in-kind;7 • tax exemption granted for fruit distillates (‘pálinka’) produced for personal use (harmonised EU rules only allow tax reductions).8 (c) Cases referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU: • none in 2013

7 8

IP/13/578 IP/13/138

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP

(BASED ON THE NUMBER OF LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

ENVIRONMENT 4 INTERNAL MARKET 3 OTHER POLICIES 9 57

2009

2010

2011

2012

Policy areas in which most new late transposition infringement cases were opened

1ST

7TH

11TH

18TH

22RD

24TH

2013

▶▶

COURT REFERRALS UNDER ARTICLES 258/260(3) TFEU:

•

none in 2013

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX I - MEMBER STATES

III. COMPLAINTS ▶▶

COMPLAINTS MADE AGAINST HUNGARY 83 COMPLAINTS IN 2011

79 COMPLAINTS IN 2012

COMPLAINTS

IN 2013

12 REGIONAL POLICY

INTERNAL MARKET (public procurement, online gambling, financial services and free movement of services)

OTHER AREAS (rural development, academic tuition fees, authorisation of electronic communication, posting of workers, asylum-seekers' integration measures and work obligation of students in state-funded studies)

TAXATION (excise duties)

(cohesion policy)

I V. E U P I LO T ▶▶

PROGRESS OF FILES RELATING TO HUNGARY OPEN IN EU PILOT

10 15

85 80

70 DAYS

20 25

TARGET

60 35 40

55 45

ENVIRONMENT 9 JUSTICE 8 TRANSPORT 8 OTHER POLICIES 22

46 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

IN 2013

47 NEW EU PILOT FILES

IN 2011

43 OPEN EU PILOT FILES 50 PROCESSED EU PILOT FILES

END 2012

IN 2012

END 2013

DURING 2013

70 DAYS / 10 WEEKS TARGET

V. E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S The cases closed without a Court judgment related to: • late transposition of the Directive on preventing sharp injuries in the hospital and healthcare sector;9 • late transposition of the Directive establishing minimum standards on sanctions and measures against employers of illegal third-country nationals;10

9 Directive 2010/32/EU 10 Directive 2009/52/EC

•

the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive,11 and more specifically the incorrect interpretation of 'development consent' and the exclusion of sewerage projects from the scope of urban development projects.

11 Directive 2011/92/EU

V I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S The Court ruled against Hungary in the area of railway transport because of: • failing to lay down conditions to ensure that the accounts of railway infrastructure managers were balanced and to ensure that these managers were provided with incentives to reduce their management costs and network access charges. In addition, Hungary failed to ensure that the charges for the minimum access package and track access to service facilities were set at the cost that was directly incurred as a result of operating the service.12

In a preliminary ruling on local border traffic at the EU's external borders of the Member States addressed to the Hungarian judiciary, the Court ruled that: • the limitation of stays in the Schengen area (a maximum of three months over a sixmonth period) does not apply to those foreign nationals who benefit from the local border traffic system and who are not subject to visa requirements. The holders of a local border traffic permit are entitled to move freely within the border area for a continuous period up to three months; in addition, they have a new right to a three-month stay each time such a stay is interrupted.13

13 Shomodi, C-254/11 (Court press release No 35/13)

Commission v Hungary, C-473/10

IRELAND I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S ▶▶

OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST IRELAND (2009-13, ON 31 DECEMBER)

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP TOTAL (INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER) NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES (OPENED IN 2013)

98 58

42 39

2009

2010

2011

2012

38 21

38 15

39 25

2013 5TH

3RD

ENVIRONMENT 8 TAXATION 7 INTERNAL MARKET 5 OTHER POLICIES 18

▶▶

10TH

12TH

INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST IRELAND (ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

REFERRALS TO THE COURT AND KEY INFRINGEMENT CASES

(a) 15 new infringement procedures were launched during 2013. These and other important on-going infringement cases cover: • non-exportability of long-term care benefit (Carer’s allowance) to insured persons residing outside of Ireland; • inadequate urban waste water treatment in several agglomerations; • non-transposition of the directive preventing and combating trafficking in human beings;1 • unjustified restrictions imposed on operators and travel agents established in other Member States who intend to provide travel agency services cross-border in Ireland;2 • violation of the directive for the protection of pigs,3 which requires that sows be kept in groups during part of their pregnancy.4

1 Directive 2011/36/EU 2 MEMO-13-820 - Case closed in 2014 due to compliance. 3 Directive 2008/120/EC 4 IP/13/135

(b) One case has been referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU covering: • the failure to apply the Working Time Directive5 rules to doctors in training or other non-consultant hospital doctors.6 (c) Cases referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU • none in 2013

5 Directive 2003/88/EC 6 IP/13/1109

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP

(BASED ON THE NUMBER OF LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

ENERGY 3 HEALTH & CONSUMERS 2 OTHER POLICIES 7

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

▶▶

COURT REFERRALS UNDER ARTICLES 258/260(3) TFEU

•

none in 2013

6TH

8TH

11TH

Policy areas in which most new late transposition infringement cases were opened

16TH

19TH

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX I - MEMBER STATES

III. COMPLAINTS ▶▶

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST IRELAND 90 COMPLAINTS IN 2011

110 COMPLAINTS IN 2012

125 COMPLAINTS

IN 2013

25 JUSTICE

ENVIRONMENT (environmental impact assessment and nature protection)

INTERNAL MARKET (regulated professions, mostly architects)

(free movement of people, then data protection and equality)

OTHER AREAS (recognition of public service undertaken in other Member State when calculating seniority, excessive delays in asylum procedures)

I V. E U P I LO T ▶▶

PROGRESS OF FILES RELATING TO IRELAND OPEN IN EU PILOT ENVIRONMENT 15 TRANSPORT 11 TAXATION 11 OTHER POLICIES 21

78 75 IN 2012

IN 2011

10 15

85 80

34 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

IN 2013

DAYS TARGET

58 NEW EU PILOT FILES

44 PROCESSED EU PILOT FILES

60 35 40

55 45

48 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

END 2012

END 2013

DURING 2013

70 DAYS / 10 WEEKS TARGET

V. E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S Cases closed without judgment without judgment in 2013 covered: • minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile constructions sites;7 • obligations under the Electricity Regulation8 (i.a. lack of congestion management and transparency concerning access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity); 7 Directive 92/57/EEC 8 Regulation 1228/2003/EC (replaced by Regulation 714/2009/EC as of 3 March 2011)

• •

transparency of conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks, under the Gas Regulation;9 the application of harmonized standards, including technical specifications, under the Machinery Directive.10

9 Regulation 1775/2005/EC (replaced by Regulation 715/2009/EC as of 3 March 2011) 10 Directive 98/37/EC (replaced by Directive 2006/42/EC as of 29 December 2009)

V I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S The Court ruled that Ireland: • let pig-rearing and poultry-rearing installations operating without or with outdated permits, in breach of the Directive on integration pollution prevention and control;11 • failed to fulfil its obligations under the VAT Directive,12 by applying a reduced rate of value added tax of 4.8% to supplies of greyhounds and horses and to the hire of horses and certain insemination services;13 • failed to correctly implement EU rules on excise duties on fuel by granting an exemption from excise duty on fuel used by disabled persons for motor vehicles without respecting the minimum levels of taxation.14

In preliminary rulings addressed to the Irish judiciary, the Court: • clarified the meaning of a number of provisions of the directive on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer;15 • clarified the concept of waste, among others in a situation where slurry produced and held by a pig farm is to be classified as ‘waste’16 under the EU Waste Legislation.17

11 Directive 2008/1/EC; Commission v Ireland, C-158/12 12 Directive 2006/112/EC 13 Commission v Ireland, C-108/11 14 Directive 2003/96/EC as amended by Directive 2004/74/EC; Commission v Ireland, C-55/12

15 16 17

Directive 2008/94/EC; Thomas Hogan and Others v Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Ireland and Attorney General, C-398/11 Donal Brady v Environmental Protection Agency, C-113/12 Directive 75/442/EEC as amended by Decision 96/350/EC.

ITALY I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S ▶▶

OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST ITALY (2009-13, ON 31 DECEMBER)

▶▶

TOTAL (INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER) NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES (OPENED IN 2013)

151 128

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP

135 99

104

2010

2011

2012

2009

104

2013 20 TH

ENVIRONMENT 24 INTERNAL MARKET 14 TAXATION 13 OTHER POLICIES 53

104

▶▶

21ST

22ND

24TH

26TH

27TH

INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST ITALY (ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

REFERRALS TO THE COURT AND KEY INFRINGEMENT CASES (a) 58 new infringement procedures were launched against Italy in 2013. They and other major ongoing infringement cases relate to: • the environmental impact of the ILVA steel plant in Taranto, Europe’s largest iron and steel works;1 • shortcomings in the recovery of surplus levies owed by dairy producers who exceeded their individual quotas when Italy overran its national dairy quota. An estimated EUR 1.42 billion needs to be returned to the Italian budget;2 • different pension conditions for men and women taking early retirement, in breach of the directive on equality between men and women at work;3 • Italy’s failure to adopt measures to comply with EU law on human trafficking;4 • the non-compliance with the Single European Sky provisions requiring full implementation of Functional Airspace Blocks (FABs).5

(b) Two cases have been referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They relate to: • Italy’s failure to comply with EU waste legislation owing to its narrow interpretation of ‘sufficient treatment of waste’, which means the Malagrotta landfill site in Rome and other landfill sites in the Lazio region are being filled with waste that has not undergone the treatment required under EU law, posing a serious threat to human health and the environment; 6 • the failure to correctly implement the Laying Hens Directive7 banning battery cages.8 (c) Two cases were referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU. They relate to: • waste management9 in the Campania region where new waste crises are still possible and systemic problems have not been fully addressed;10 • the failure to recover illegal State aid given to Venice and Chioggia in the form of relief on social security contributions.11 6 IP/13/250 7 Directive 1999/74/EC 8 IP/13/366 9 Directive 2008/98/EC 10 IP/11/1102 11 IP 13/1103

1 IP /13/866 2 IP/ 13/577 3 Directive 2006/54/EC (recast) 4 Directive 2011/36/EU 5 IP/13/860

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP

(BASED ON THE NUMBER OF LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

ENVIRONMENT 8 ENERGY 3 OTHER POLICIES 13

73 55 36

2009

2010

2011

2012

28 11

8TH

14TH

20TH

22ND

2013

▶▶

COURT REFERRALS UNDER ARTICLES 258/260(3) TFEU:

•

none in 2013

25TH

Policy areas in which most new late transposition infringement cases were opened

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX I - MEMBER STATES

III. COMPLAINTS ▶▶

COMPLAINTS MADE AGAINST ITALY 386 COMPLAINTS IN 2011

438 COMPLAINTS IN 2012

472 COMPLAINTS

IN 2013

120

EMPLOYMENT (recognition of professional experience acquired abroad, assessment of occupational accidents and health & safety at temporary or mobile construction sites)

207

81 INTERNAL MARKET

ENVIRONMENT (nature protection, environmental impact assessment and waste management)

(regulated professions, mainly teachers and engineers, and public procurement)

OTHER AREAS taxation of immovable property, air passengers' rights, Late Payment Directive, equal treatment of third country nationals, funding conditions for studies abroad, rural development and Schengen Borders Code)

I V. E U P I LO T ▶▶

ENVIRONMENT 35 INTERNAL MARKET 17 TRANSPORT 17 OTHER POLICIES 53

PROGRESS OF FILES RELATING TO ITALY OPEN IN EU PILOT

135 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

10 15

80 75

DAYS TARGET

122 NEW EU PILOT FILES

IN 2013

149 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

72 69

IN 2011

IN 2012

60 35 40

108 PROCESSED EU PILOT FILES

55 45

END 2012

END 2013

DURING 2013

70 DAYS / 10 WEEKS TARGET

DURING 2013

V. E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S directive on the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents; the non-recognition of certain diplomas obtained in other EU Member States for placement on reserve lists of teachers; the legislation relating to pyrotechnics products, which imposed additional requirements to those in the directive concerned.13

The cases closed without a Court judgment in 2013 related to: • the transposition of the directive concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents12 by the province of Verona and the region of Friuli-Venezia Giulia; • the breach of the equal treatment principle in relation to access to public housing under the

•

12 Directive 2003/109/EC

13 Directive 2007/23/EC

•

V I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S The Court ruled that Italy had: • breached the directive on equal treatment in employment14 by failing to oblige employers to adopt practical and effective measures covering different aspects of work for all persons with disabilities, enabling them to participate in employment; • failed to make the provision of an energy performance certificate obligatory when a building is being sold or rented out, in breach of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive;15 • not ensured the independence of the railway infrastructure manager as part of steps taken to liberalise the EU rail sector.16

14 Directive 2000/78/EC, Commission v Italy, C-312/11; Court press release No 82/13 15 Directive 2002/91/EC, Commission v Italy, C-345/12 16 Commission v Italy, C-369/11, Court press release No 127/13

In a preliminary ruling addressed to the Italian judiciary, the Court ruled that: • Member States must take account of any period of work in an international organisation located in another Member State when establishing entitlement to an old-age pension.17

17 Gardella, C-233/12

LATVIA I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S ▶▶

OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST LATVIA (2009-13, ON 31 DECEMBER)

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP TOTAL (INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER) NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES (OPENED IN 2013)

20 21 21 17 25 16

2ND

1TH

ENVIRONMENT 5 ENERGY 3 INTERNAL MARKET 3 OTHER POLICIES 9

▶▶

32 27

3RD

7TH

15TH

16TH

INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST LATVIA

REFERRALS TO THE COURT AND KEY INFRINGEMENT CASES (a) 21 new infringement procedures were launched against Latvia in 2013. They and other major ongoing infringement cases relate to: • inadequate transposition and implementation of the Nitrates Directive;1 • breach of EU air quality standards (maximum PM10 values) in one agglomeration;2 • alleged violation of the Local Border Traffic Regulation;3 • failure to implement the provisions of the directive amending the directive on the status of non-EU nationals who are long-term residents4 to extend its scope to beneficiaries of international protection; • violation of EU citizens’ right to stand as candidates in local and European elections in their Member State of residence, this being prevented by restrictions placed on their involvement in political parties;

1 Directive 91/676/EEC 2 IP/13/47 3 Regulation (EC) No 1931/2006 4 Directive 2003/109/EC

•

restrictions placed on the freedom of establishment in relation to the provision of towage services in the port of Riga; late transposition of the provisions contained in the Directive on Alternative Investment Fund Managers5 and the directive on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation.6

•

(b) Cases referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU: • none in 2013 (c) Cases referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU: • none in 2013

5 Directive 2011/61/EU 6 Directive 2011/16/EU; MEMO/13/1005

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP

(BASED ON THE NUMBER OF LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

Policy areas in

ENERGY 3 which most new INTERNAL MARKET 2 late transposition infringement cases OTHER POLICIES 3 were opened

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

▶▶

COURT REFERRALS UNDER ARTICLES 258/260(3) TFEU:

•

none in 2013

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX I - MEMBER STATES

III. COMPLAINTS ▶▶

COMPLAINTS MADE AGAINST LATVIA 21 COMPLAINTS IN 2011

17 COMPLAINTS IN 2012

COMPLAINTS

IN 2013

5 ENERGY

INTERNAL MARKET (public procurement and regulated professions)

(not respecting the obligations vis-á-vis the consumers in the internal market of electricity)

JUSTICE (consumer protection )

OTHER AREAS (protection of animals, requirements going beyond the rules of the Local Border Traffic Regulation, provision of towage services in the port of Riga)

I V. E U P I LO T PROGRESS OF FILES RELATING TO LATVIA OPEN IN EU PILOT

▶▶

IN 2012

10 15

70 DAYS

20 25

80 75

IN 2013

TARGET

60 35 40

55 45

JUSTICE 6 TRANSPORT 6 ENERGY 5 OTHER POLICIES 9

28 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

26 NEW EU PILOT FILES

IN 2011

V. E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S • •

•

The cases closed without a Court judgment in 2013 related to: failure to notify the Commission of measures taken to transpose the directive on late payment7 and the directive on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of highly qualified employment;8 incorrect transposition of rules on hunting laid down in the Wild Birds Directive.9

7 Directive 2011/7/EU 8 Directive 2009/50/EC 9 Directive 2009/147/EC

V I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S In preliminary rulings addressed to the Latvian judiciary, the Court ruled that: • Article 13(3) of the Regulation establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders10 obliges Member States to establish a means of obtaining redress only against decisions to refuse entry.11

10 Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 11 Zakaria, C-23/12

29 PROCESSED EU PILOT FILES

25 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

LITHUANIA I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST LITHUANIA (2009-13, ON 31 DECEMBER)

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP TOTAL (INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER) NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES (OPENED IN 2013)

2009

2010

2011

2012

25 19

38 21

38 15

39 25

2013 3RD

ENERGY 6 TRANSPORT 5 INTERNAL MARKET 4 OTHER POLICIES 10

▶▶

5TH

10TH

12TH

10TH

INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST LITHUANIA

REFERRALS TO THE COURT AND KEY INFRINGEMENT CASES

(a) 19 new infringement procedures were launched against Lithuania in 2013. They and other major ongoing infringement cases relate to: • obstructions created by Lithuanian legislation impeding the sale of precious metals imported from other Member States. Hallmarks granted by other Member States are not recognised and the goods therefore have to be re-checked and stamped again in Lithuania; • failure to transpose the Industrial Emissions Directive1 and the Directive on Alternative Investment Fund Managers within the timeframes allowed;2 • violation of EU citizens’ right to stand as candidates in local and European elections in their Member State of residence, this being prevented by restrictions placed on their involvement in political parties; • failure to implement the provisions contained in the Postal Services Directive;3 • restrictions placed on the supply of gambling services. National law obliges businesses

1 Directive 2010/75/EU 2 Directive 2011/61/EU 3 Directive 2008/6/EC

• •

providing online gambling services in Lithuania to establish a physical presence in the country and prescribes a specific legal form for them;4 a breach of EU rules on the free movement of persons, specifically in relation to the safeguards preventing expulsion of EU citizens and their families5; the incompatibility with EU law of national legislation that continues to favour incumbent cargo-handling operators by giving them a ‘priority right’ when issuing new contracts.6

(b) Cases referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU: • none in 2013 (c) Cases referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU: • none in 2013

4 5 6

IP/13/1101 MEMO 13/470 MEMO/13/375

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP

(BASED ON THE NUMBER OF LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

Policy areas in

ENERGY 5 which most new INTERNAL MARKET 3 late transposition OTHER 6 infringement cases were opened

34 14

2009

2010

2011

2012

▶▶

COURT REFERRALS UNDER ARTICLES 258/260(3) TFEU:

•

none in 2013

6ST

8TH

11TH

16TH

19TH

2013

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX I - MEMBER STATES

III. COMPLAINTS ▶▶

COMPLAINTS MADE AGAINST LITHUANIA 25 COMPLAINTS IN 2011

36 COMPLAINTS IN 2012

COMPLAINTS

IN 2013

7 INTERNAL MARKET

4 JUSTICE

(public procurement and regulated professions)

(residence permits)

ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS (implementation of EU rules on emergency number 112)

OTHER AREAS (alcohol law, nature protection, provision of port services in Klaipėda)

I V. E U P I LO T PROGRESS OF FILES RELATING TO LITHUANIA OPEN IN EU PILOT

▶▶

10 15

85 80

70 DAYS

20 25

TRANSPORT 8 ENVIRONMENT 5 JUSTICE 4 OTHER POLICIES 18

TARGET

60 35 40

55 45

IN 2012

30 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

35 NEW EU PILOT FILES

IN 2011

END 2012

36 PROCESSED EU PILOT FILES

END 2013

DURING 2013

IN 2013

70 DAYS / 10 WEEKS TARGET

V. E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S The cases closed without a Court judgment in 2013 related to: • directives providing minimum standards on sanctions and measures against employers of illegal third-country nationals,7 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of highly qualified employment,8 on driving licences9 and on roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles.10

7 Directive 2009/52/EC 8 Directive 2009/50/EC 9 Directive 2006/126/EC 10 Directive 2010/48/EU

V I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S •

There were no cases involving Lithuania in which the Court issued major judgments.

29 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

DURING 2013

LUXEMBOURG I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S

▶▶

OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST LUXEMBOURG

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 TOTAL (INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER) NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES (OPENED IN 2013)

(2009-13, ON 31 DECEMBER)

2009

2010

2011

2012

20 21 21 17 25 16

47 31

2013 2ND

1TH

TAXATION 8 ENVIRONMENT 5 TRANSPORT 5 OTHER POLICIES 14

▶▶

32 27

▶▶

3RD

7TH

15TH

16TH

INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST LUXEMBOURG

REFERRALS TO THE COURT AND KEY INFRINGEMENT CASES

(a) 27 new infringement procedures were launched against Luxembourg in 2013. They and other major ongoing infringement cases relate to: • the incompatibility of Luxembourg’s Labour Code with the Fixed Term Work Directive:1 staff at the University of Luxembourg and in the entertainment sector are not directly informed by their employer when permanent vacancies are made available; • the National Regulatory Authority’s failure to notify the Commission of the results of its market analysis carried out over the last five to seven year period, which is in breach of the Framework Directive on Electronic Communications Networks and Services;2 • the late transposition of the Industrial Emissions Directive3 and of the directive preventing and combating trafficking in human beings;4 • the incorrect transposition of the Railway Interoperability Directive.5

1 Directive 1990/70/EC 2 Directive 2002/21/EC 3 Directive 2010/75/EU 4 Directive 2011/36/EU 5 Directive 2004/49/EC

(b) One case was referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. It relates to: • failure to comply with the VAT Directive,6 by applying reduced VAT rates to e‑books. The reduced rate seriously distorts competition, to the detriment of traders from other EU Member States.7 (c) Cases referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU: • none in 2013

6 Directive 2006/112/EC 7 IP/13/137

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP

(BASED ON THE NUMBER OF LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

ENVIRONMENT 3 ENERGY 2 OTHER POLICIES 7 25

2009

were opened

2010

Policy areas in which most new late transposition infringement cases

2011

2012

2013

▶▶

COURT REFERRALS UNDER ARTICLES 258/260(3) TFEU:

•

none in 2013

1ST

5TH

11TH

16TH

26TH

27TH

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX I - MEMBER STATES

III. COMPLAINTS ▶▶

COMPLAINTS MADE AGAINST LUXEMBOURG 31 COMPLAINTS IN 2011

20 COMPLAINTS IN 2012

COMPLAINTS

IN 2013

5 TAXATION

(financial advantages to highly qualified employees and dividends paid between parent and subsidiary companies)

EMPLOYMENT (family benefit designed to support children of nonresident workers)

JUSTICE (discrimination on the basis of religion, right to access to justice)

OTHER AREAS (discriminatory rules in sport and protection of Natura 2000 sites)

I V. E U P I LO T PROGRESS OF FILES RELATING TO LUXEMBOURG OPEN IN EU PILOT

▶▶

10 15

85 80

DAYS TARGET

60 35 40

ENVIRONMENT 11 TRANSPORT 9 JUSTICE 7 OTHER POLICIES 19

IN 2013

46 NEW EU PILOT FILES

IN 2012

55 45

50 No data for 2011 as it was not yet an EU Pilot Member

32 PROCESSED EU PILOT FILES

12 OPEN EU PILOT FILES END 2012

END 2013

DURING 2013

70 DAYS / 10 WEEKS TARGET

26 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

DURING 2013

V. E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S The cases closed without a Court judgment in 2013 related to: • the requirement that lawyers must have working knowledge of German and Luxembourgish to establish themselves in Luxembourg; • late transposition of the directive providing minimum standards on sanctions and measures against the employers of illegally staying third-country nationals.8 8 Directive 2009/52/EC

V I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S The Court ruled that: • under Article 260(2) TFEU, Luxembourg had to pay financial penalties for failing to comply with the Court’s judgment of 2006, which stated that Luxembourg had infringed the Urban Waste Water Directive (due to inadequate urban wastewater treatment);9 • Luxembourg complied with existing rail legislation as regards the level of independence required for an infrastructure manager in a holding company structure.10

In preliminary rulings addressed to the Luxembourgish judiciary, the Court ruled that: • the system excluding the children of frontier workers from financial aid for higher education pursues a legitimate objective, that is increasing the number of people in the Luxembourg population with a higher education degree, but it goes beyond what is necessary to attain that objective;11 • an air carrier must provide care to passengers whose flight has been cancelled due to extraordinary circumstances, such as the closure of airspace following the eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano.12

9 10

11 Giersch and Others, C-20/12, Court press release No 74/13 12 McDonagh, C-12/11

Commission v Luxembourg, C-576/11, Court press release No 152/13 Directive 91/440/EC, Commission v Luxembourg, C-412/11

MALTA I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S ▶▶

OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST MALTA (2009-13, ON 31 DECEMBER)

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP TOTAL (INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER) NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES (OPENED IN 2013)

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

20 21 21 17 25 16

2ND

1TH

ENVIRONMENT 5 HOME AFFAIRS 3 TRANSPORT 3 OTHER POLICIES 10

▶▶

3RD

32 27

7TH

15TH

16TH

INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST MALTA

REFERRALS TO THE COURT AND KEY INFRINGEMENT CASES

(a) 17 new infringement procedures were launched against Malta in 2013. They and other major ongoing infringement cases relate to: • the inadequate transposition and implementation of EU rules on access to justice in environmental matters;1 • non-compliance with the directive on long term residents2 in relation to the conditions a third-country national must fulfil when applying for an EU long-term residence permit; • the failure to notify the Commission of measures to transpose the directive on preventing trafficking in human beings3 and the directive extending the scope of the Long-term Residents Directive to cover beneficiaries of international protection;4 • discriminatory bus fares for non-residents compared to those for residents.

1 Directive 2003/35/EC 2 Directive 2003/109/EC 3 Directive 2011/36/EU 4 Directive 2011/51/EU

(b) One case was referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. It relates to: • the reduction of the Maltese old-age pension if the beneficiary receives a pension from another Member State from having worked in the public service of that State.5 (c) Cases referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU: • none in 2013

IP/13/249

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES

2009

2010

2011

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP (BASED ON THE NUMBER OF LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

ENERGY 2 HOME AFFAIRS 2 INTERNAL MARKET 2 JUSTICE 1

40 19

▶▶

2012

▶▶

COURT REFERRALS UNDER ARTICLES 258/260(3) TFEU:

•

none in 2013

Policy areas in which most new late transposition infringement cases were opened

1ST

5TH

11TH

16TH

26TH

27TH

2013

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX I - MEMBER STATES

III. COMPLAINTS ▶▶

COMPLAINTS MADE AGAINST MALTA 38 COMPLAINTS IN 2011

35 COMPLAINTS IN 2012

COMPLAINTS

IN 2013

8 JUSTICE

(free movement of people, especially in relation to water and energy tariffs)

EMPLOYMENT (refusal to grant invalidity pension to non-Maltese citizen, refusal to issue employment certificate to request pension in other Member State)

OTHER AREAS (tuition fees in adult education and training, birds hunting and trapping, discriminatory bus fees and car taxation)

I V. E U P I LO T PROGRESS OF FILES RELATING TO MALTA OPEN IN EU PILOT

▶▶

JUSTICE 9 TRANSPORT 8 ENVIRONMENT 6 OTHER POLICIES 22

IN 2012

10 15

85 80

DAYS TARGET

No data for 2011 as it was not yet an EU Pilot Member

60 35 40

55 45

27 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

IN 2013

END 2012

36 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

45 NEW EU PILOT FILES 36 PROCESSED EU PILOT FILES

END 2013

DURING 2013

70 DAYS / 10 WEEKS TARGET DURING 2013

V. E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S The cases closed without a Court judgment in 2013 related to: • the failure to transpose certain provisions of the directive on public access to environmental information;6 • the incorrect transposition of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive;7

6 Directive 2003/4/EC 7 Directive 94/62/EC

V I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S •

none in 2013

•

the non-conformity of Maltese legislation with the Free Movement Directive,8 with regard to the entry and residence of the partner with whom the EU citizen has a duly attested stable relationship.

8 Directive 2004/38/EC

THE NETHERLANDS I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S ▶▶

OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST THE NETHERLANDS

(2009-13, ON 31 DECEMBER)

2010

2011

2012

40 15

23RD

25TH

2013 9TH

6TH

TAXATION 8 EMPLOYMENT 4 ENERGY 4 ENVIRONMENT 4 OTHER POLICIES 20

▶▶

75 41

2009

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP TOTAL (INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER) NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES (OPENED IN 2013)

▶▶

13TH

16TH

19TH

INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST THE NETHERLANDS

REFERRALS TO THE COURT AND KEY INFRINGEMENT CASES

(a) 15 new infringement procedures were launched against the Netherlands in 2013. They and other major ongoing infringement cases relate to: • the Framework Directive,1 which established a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services. In the Netherlands, access to broadcasting transmission networks — a means of regulating the market in specific situations — is granted by law, rather than via independent market-analysis procedures; • violation of the Toy Safety Directive2 – Dutch legislation gives too broad a definition of the category of toy guns to which the ban applies; • incorrect implementation of the requirements for issuing Energy Performance Certificates;3 • discriminatory taxation of outbound dividends received by insurance companies. Only dividends paid on shares held by Dutch insurance companies are actually tax exempt; • late transposition of the directive on protecting animals used for scientific purposes4 and of the directive on preventing and combatting trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims.5 1 Directive 2002/21/EC 2 Directive 2009/48/EC 3 Directive 2010/31/EU, MEMO/13/1005 4 Directive 2010/63/EU, MEMO/13/583 5 Directive 2011/36/EU

(b) Three cases were referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They relate to: • discount fares on public transport being restricted to Dutch students, with students from other EU countries not considered eligible; 6 • discrimination against pensioners who live abroad in the payment of an allowance for elderly taxpayers;7 • the breach of the Gender Equality Directive.8 Dutch legislation does not include express provisions to protect employees returning from maternity, paternity or adoption leave (such as entitlement to return to their job or to an equivalent post).9 (c) Cases referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU: • none in 2013

6 IP/13/574 7 IP/13/140 8 Directive 2006/54/EC 9 IP/13/45

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP

(BASED ON THE NUMBER OF LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

Policy areas in

ENERGY 3 which most new late transposition OTHER POLICIES 7 infringement cases were opened

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

▶▶

COURT REFERRALS UNDER ARTICLES 258/260(3) TFEU:

•

none in 2013

1ST

1TH

7TH

11TH

18TH

22ND

24TH

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX I - MEMBER STATES

III. COMPLAINTS ▶▶

COMPLAINTS MADE AGAINST THE NETHERLANDS 71 COMPLAINTS IN 2011

100 COMPLAINTS IN 2012

COMPLAINTS

IN 2013

20 INTERNAL MARKET

16 ENVIRONMENT

(public procurement and recognition of professional qualifications)

(protection of Natura 2000 sites)

TAXATION (VAT exemption for medical services, discriminatory treatment of investment funds and dividend taxation)

OTHER AREAS (students' transport fares, asylum, calculation of health care contributions and the application of the EU-Turkey Association Agreement)

I V. E U P I LO T ▶▶

PROGRESS OF FILES RELATING TO THE NETHERLANDS OPEN IN EU PILOT

10 15

85 80

70 DAYS

20 25

60 35

55 45

51 NEW EU PILOT FILES

IN 2011

TARGET 40

TRANSPORT 12 ENVIRONMENT 10 TAXATION 8 OTHER POLICIES 21

38 OPEN EU PILOT FILES 33 PROCESSED EU PILOT FILES

IN 2013

END 2012

IN 2012

DURING 2013

25 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

END 2013

DURING 2013

70 DAYS / 10 WEEKS TARGET

V. E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S The cases closed without a Court judgment in 2013 related to: • the non-conformity of national legislation with the directive on employment equality.10

10 Directive 2000/78/EC

V I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S The Court ruled that: • the Netherlands failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies.11 Employees employed in the Netherlands enjoy broader participation rights than employees of establishments in other countries set up by companies formed through cross-border mergers whose registered offices are in the Netherlands.12 In preliminary rulings addressed to the Dutch judiciary, the Court ruled that: • the protection of consumers by maintaining undistorted competition in the field of energy supply may justify restrictions on the free movement of capital;13 • under the Asylum Qualification Directive,14 homosexual asylum applicants can constitute a particular social group who may be persecuted on account of their sexual orientation;15 11 Directive 2005/56/EC 12 Commission v Netherlands, C-635/11 13 Essent and Others, C-105/12, C-106/12 and C-107/12, Court press release No 137/13 14 Directive 2004/83/EC 15 X and Others, C-199/12, C-200/12, C-201/12, Court press release No 145/13

• •

•

under the Return Directive,16 a violation of the right to defence in the case of a decision extending detention does not automatically bring about the lifting of the detention;17 the Data Protection Directive does not preclude the levying of fees in respect of the communication of personal data by a public authority, but the level of those fees must not exceed the cost of communicating such data;18 the Member State in which a person was last employed can refuse to grant unemployment benefit to a wholly unemployed frontier worker whose prospects of reintegration into working life are best in that Member State, on the grounds that he does not reside in its territory.19

16 Directive 2008/115/EC 17 G. and R., C-383/13, Court press release No 100/13 18 X, C-486/12 19 Jeltes and Others, C-443/11

POLAND I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S ▶▶

OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST POLAND (2009-13, ON 31 DECEMBER)

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP TOTAL (INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER) NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES (OPENED IN 2013)

68 53 28

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

ENVIRONMENT 20 HEALTH & CONSUMERS 9 ENERGY 7 INTERNAL MARKET 7 TAXATION 7 OTHER POLICIES 18

▶▶

22ND

21TH

20TH

▶▶

104

24TH

26TH

27TH

INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST POLAND

REFERRALS TO THE COURT AND KEY INFRINGEMENT CASES

(a) 28 new infringement procedures were launched against Poland in 2013. They and other major ongoing infringement cases relate to: • certain provisions of the Polish Gambling Act which raise concerns as to their compatibility with the Single Market freedoms enshrined in the Treaties, as well as the lack of notification of technical regulations contained in this Act, prior to their adoption;1 • the limit values of PM102 being exceeded in certain areas and agglomerations3 (air quality) and the alleged lack of impact assessment for the Upper Vistula flood prevention scheme;4 • the Polish authorities’ request made based on a bilateral agreement, that holders of local border traffic permits must present proof of travel medical insurance;5 • the potentially incorrect implementation of the EU Visa Code6 as regards the right to appeal against decisions on visa refusal, annulment and revocation; • the possible incompatibility of election rules with the TFEU by restricting the founding of membership in political parties to Polish nationals; • the requirement for online gambling service providers to have a physical presence in Poland, and for, prior approval of changes to their shareholder structure;7 • the rules governing the mandatory collective management of broadcasting firms’ cable transmission rights;

1 Directive 98/34/EC allows the Commission to raise objections against such rules if they restrict the free movement of goods. 2 PM10 is ‘an air pollutant consisting of small particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometer. Their small size allows them to make their way to the air passages deep within the lungs where they may be deposited and result in adverse health effects’ (Source: the European Environmental Agency).. 3 IP/13/47 4 MEMO/13/375 5 Regulation (EC) No 1931/2006 6 Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 7 IP/13/1101

• •

the correct implementation of animal welfare rule concerning pregnant sows;8 the discriminatory nature of Polish rules granting tax deductions only for pension contributions paid to Polish financial institutions. (b) Nine cases have been referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They relate to: • the incompatibility with the Gas Directive9 of the Polish system of regulated gas prices for non-household consumers;10 • Poland’s alleged failure to designate sufficient nitrate vulnerable zones11 and shortcomings in its water legislation;12 • the discriminatory nature of a number of exclusion criteria in public procurement rules;13 • the non-application of EU quality and safety rules14 to reproductive cells, embryonic tissues and foetal tissues;15 • GMO cultivation notifications;16 • VAT exemption granted to a broader scope of medical equipment than provided for in the VAT Directive; and VAT exemption on fire-fighting protection goods.17 (c) Cases referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU: • none in 2013

8 IP/13/135 9 Directive 2009/73/EC 10 IP/13/580 11 IP/13/48 12 IP/13/144 13 IP/13/965 14 Directive 2004/23/CE 15 IP/13/873 16 IP/13/571 17 Directive 2006/112/EC and IP/13/870

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP

(BASED ON THE NUMBER OF LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

ENVIRONMENT 5 ENERGY 4 OTHER POLICIES 11 32

2009 ▶▶

•

2010

2011

2012

2013

COURT REFERRALS UNDER ARTICLES 258/260(3) TFEU: the non-transposition of the Renewable Energy Directive,18 which had to be transposed by the Member States by 5 December 2010.19

18 Directive 2009/28/EC 19 IP/13/259

Policy areas in which most new late transposition infringement cases were opened

8ST

14ST

14TH

20TH

22ND

25TH

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX I - MEMBER STATES

III. COMPLAINTS ▶▶

COMPLAINTS MADE AGAINST POLAND 206 COMPLAINTS IN 2011

209

156 COMPLAINTS IN 2012

COMPLAINTS

IN 2013

33 REGIONAL POLICY (cohesion policy)

31 AGRICULTURE

28 JUSTICE

(direct payments, rural development and organic farming)

(equal treatment and civil justice)

ENVIRONMENT (water protection and management, nature protection, environmental impact assessment and landfills' waste management)

OTHER AREAS (students' train fares, equal treatment in education, gambling services, requirements beyond those in Local Border Traffic Regulation and excise duties)

I V. E U P I LO T ▶▶

PROGRESS OF FILES RELATING TO POLAND OPEN IN EU PILOT

10 15

IN 2013

70 DAYS

TARGET

60 35 40

55 45

TRANSPORT 11 ENVIRONMENT 9 INTERNAL MARKET 6 OTHER POLICIES 31

64 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

69 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

57 NEW EU PILOT FILES

IN 2012

52 PROCESSED EU PILOT FILES

IN 2011

END 2012

DURING 2013

70 DAYS / 10 WEEKS TARGET

END 2013

DURING 2013

V. E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S The cases closed without a Court judgment in 2013 related to: • the late transposition of the Energy and Gas Directives,20 the Marine Strategy Directive21 and the Waste Framework Directive;22 • non-residents’ obligation to appoint a resident proxy to receive documents in civil and commercial proceedings and the rule that only the date of a court document is delivered to the Polish postal service operator can serve as the document’s date of service; • the nationality requirement for public notaries; 20 Directive 2009/72/EC and Directive 2009/73/EC 21 Directive 2008/56/EC 22 Directive 2008/98/EC

• • •

the narrow scope of the rules transposing the Drivers’ Working Time Directive was not extended to self-employed drivers;23 the practice of keeping laying hens in non-enriched cages; the discriminatory corporate tax of foreign pension and investment funds compared to the exemption of similar Polish funds.

23 Directive 2002/15/EC and IP/13/142 on the earlier referral decision

V I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S The Court ruled that: • Poland failed to comply with the Hydrocarbons Licensing Directive24 by maintaining discriminatory conditions with regard to the access to the prospection, exploration and extraction of hydrocarbons and by not following the procedure that must precede the granting of authorisations for these activities;25 • imbalances between the income and expenditure accounts of the railway infrastructure manager do not violate EU railway laws26 as long as the necessary measures to balance out these accounts put in place, under normal business conditions and over a reasonable period of time. However, Poland failed to adopt incentive measures to reduce infrastructure costs and access charges;27

24 Directive 94/22/EC 25 Commission v Poland, C-569/10 26 Directive 91/440/EEC 27 Commission v Poland, C-512/10 and Court press release No 64/13

• •

Poland failed to lay down transparent and non-discriminatory procedures for allocating air traffic rights in certain cases;28 some of the Polish rules implementing the directive on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms (GMMs)29 are incorrect.30

Among the preliminary rulings addressed to the Polish judiciary, the Court ruled that: • working time records (the beginning and end of working hours and breaks) are considered to be ‘personal data’ for the purposes of the Data Protection Directive;31 however, national legislation obliging employers to make such records available to the authorities that monitor working conditions is not contrary to this directive.32

28 Commission v Poland, C-90/12 29 Directive 2009/41/EC 30 Commission v Poland, C-281/11 31 Directive 95/46/EC 32 Worten, C-342/12

PORTUGAL I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S ▶▶

OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST PORTUGAL (2009-13, ON 31 DECEMBER) 100

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP TOTAL (INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER) NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES (OPENED IN 2013)

51 31

2009

2010

2011

2012

40 15

23RD

25TH

2013 9TH

6TH

ENVIRONMENT 13 TRANSPORT 13 TAXATION 7 OTHER POLICIES 18

▶▶

13TH

16TH

19TH

INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST PORTUGAL

REFERRALS TO THE COURT AND KEY INFRINGEMENT CASES •

(a) 33 new infringement procedures were launched against Portugal in 2013. They and other major ongoing infringement cases relate to: • the non-respect of EU air quality standards (PM101 limit values) in several zones and agglomerations; • the late transposition of the directives on preventing trafficking in human beings2 and alternative investment fund managers;3 • the incorrect implementation of EU legislation on the welfare of animals, which requires that sows are kept in groups during part of their pregnancy;4 • Portugal’s failure to fully apply the framework directive on health and safety at work5 to workers in the public sector; • the discriminatory treatment of teachers employed in public schools on fixed-term contracts, which is in breach of the Fixed-Term Work Directive;6

•

the illegal dumping of hazardous waste in the decommissioned mines of São Pedro da Cova in Gondomar;7 Portugal’s failure to comply with Court judgments8 on the lack of river basin management plans required under the Water Framework Directive9 and the incorrect transposition of the directives in the First Railway Package.10

(b) Two cases were referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They relate to: • Portugal’s failure to guarantee functional and financial independence of airport slot coordinator, as required by EU rules on allocating slots at Community airports;11 • incorrect application of the rules on airport ground handling (baggage handling, ramp handling and freight-and-mail handling) at Lisbon, Porto and Faro airports.12 (c) One case was referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU: • Portugal’s non-respect of the Universal Service Directive with regard to the designation of a universal service provider.13

1 PM10 is ‘an air pollutant consisting of small particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometer. Their small size allows them to make their way to the air passages deep within the lungs where they may be deposited and result in adverse health effects’ (Source: the European Environmental Agency). 2 Directive 2011/36/EU 3 Directive 2011/61/EU 4 Directive 2008/120/EC and IP/13/135 5 Directive 89/391/EEC and MEMO/13/1005 6 Directive 99/70/EC and MEMO/13/1005

7 MEMO/13/1005 8 Commission v Portugal, cases C-223/11 and C-557/10 9 Directive 2000/60/EC and IP/11/438 on the earlier referral decision under Article 258 TFEU 10 Directives 91/440/EEC and 2001/14/EU 11 Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 and IP/13/1100 12 Directive 96/67/EC and IP/13/255 13 IP/13/44 and Commission v Portugal, C-154/09

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP

(BASED ON THE NUMBER OF LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

Policy areas in

▶▶

•

2010

were opened

50 34

2009

INTERNAL MARKET 5 which most new TRANSPORT 3 late transposition OTHER POLICIES 4 infringement cases

2011

2012

1ST

1TH

7TH

11TH

18TH

22ND

2013

COURT REFERRALS UNDER ARTICLES 258/260(3) TFEU: Portugal’s failure to transpose the Energy Efficiency of Buildings Directive, which had to be transposed by 9 July 2012.14

14 Directive 2010/31/EU and IP/13/579. The case was subsequently closed, following Portugal’s compliance.

24TH

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX I - MEMBER STATES

III. COMPLAINTS ▶▶

COMPLAINTS MADE AGAINST PORTUGAL 92 COMPLAINTS IN 2011

67 COMPLAINTS IN 2012

COMPLAINTS

IN 2013

17 EMPLOYMENT

(recognition of professional experience acquired abroad, workers' exposure to asbestos and Fixed Term Work Directive)

15 TAXATION

(vehicles' taxation, VAT refunds and direct taxation)

ENVIRONMENT (nature protection, environmental impact assessment and waste management)

OTHER AREAS (authorisation requirements for electronic communication, access to scholarships, Late Payment Directive, heavy goods vehicles' toll and airport ground handling services)

I V. E U P I LO T PROGRESS OF FILES RELATING TO PORTUGAL OPEN IN EU PILOT

▶▶

IN 2013

70 DAYS

20 25

TARGET

60 35 40

55 45

JUSTICE 7 TRANSPORT 11 ENVIRONMENT 10 OTHER POLICIES 14 52 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

IN 2012

42 NEW EU PILOT FILES 58 PROCESSED EU PILOT FILES

IN 2011

END 2012

V. E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S The cases closed without a Court judgment in 2013 related to: • late transposition of the directives on implementing the Framework Agreement on preventing sharp injuries in the hospital and healthcare sector15 and on defence procurement;16 • non-compliance with EU rules on charging heavy goods vehicles — the Eurovignette Directive17 (the Portuguese legislation contained a provision leaving concession toll systems entirely outside of the directive’s scope and, moreover, Portugal did not communicate to the Commission information on calculating the tolls for newly introduced tolling arrangements).

Directive 2010/32/EU Directive 2009/81/EC Directive 1999/62/EC

V I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S In preliminary rulings addressed to the Portuguese judiciary, the Court ruled that: • EU law does not prevent national legislation from limiting the guarantee of wage claims to the period of six months before the commencement of an action that seeks a declaration of insolvency for an employer. This applies even if workers initiated legal proceedings against their employer prior to the start of that period, with a view to obtaining a determination of the amount of those claims and an enforcement order to recover these amounts.18

Gomes Viana Novo and others, C-309/12

END 2013

DURING 2013

70 DAYS / 10 WEEKS TARGET

15 16 17

36 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

DURING 2013

ROMANIA I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S ▶▶

OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST ROMANIA (2009-13, ON 31 DECEMBER)

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP TOTAL (INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER) NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES (OPENED IN 2013)

75 47

2009

2010

2011

2012

40 15

23RD

25TH

2013 9TH

6TH ENVIRONMENT 12 ENERGY 7 INTERNAL MARKET 6 TAXATION 6 OTHER POLICIES 16

▶▶

13TH

19TH

16TH

INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST ROMANIA

REFERRALS TO THE COURT AND KEY INFRINGEMENT CASES

(a) 30 new infringement procedures were launched against Romania in 2013. They and other major ongoing infringement cases relate to: • Romania’s failure to align national law on annual leave for government employees with the Working Time Directive;1 • non-compliance with the principle of equal access to EU waters and resources as laid down in the Common Fisheries Policy; • restrictions placed on the supply of gambling services. National law obliges businesses providing online gambling services in Romania to establish a physical presence in the country and prescribes a specific legal form for them;2 • failure to notify the Commission of measures taken to transpose the Directive on Alternative Investment Fund Managers,3 the third Postal Services Directive4 and the Industrial Emissions Directive;5 • incorrect implementation of the directive on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification;6 • national legislation on the valuation of purchased debt claims for accounting purposes, which stipulates that transferred debt claims should be reported at their nominal value in the transferee’s accounts and financial records. EU law does not provide for any

1 Directive 2003/88/EC 2 IP/13/1101 3 Directive 2011/61/EU 4 Directive 2008/6/EC 5 MEMO/13/820 6 Directive 2001/14/EC

derogation permitting the use of the nominal value of purchased debt claims for accounting purposes;7 • unreasonable delays in refunding VAT, in breach of EU legislation on VAT, which specifies that VAT should be refunded swiftly so that taxpayers are not bearing the burden for an unreasonably long period of time;8 • restrictions placed on the importing of salt from non-EU countries such as Ukraine and Belarus. Imports of salt from these countries are subject to systematic physical checks (on 100 % of imports) and require a certificate of analysis on radioactivity contamination levels (confirming that radioactivity is within certain limits). No risk assessment has been carried out to justify this level of controls;9 • the refusal to pay pensions to Greek nationals who have worked in Romania. (b) Cases referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU: • none in 2013 (c) Cases referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU: • none in 2013

7 8 9

MEMO/13/820 MEMO/13/820 MEMO/13/1005

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP

(BASED ON THE NUMBER OF LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

2009 ▶▶

•

2010

2011

2012

2013

ENERGY 5 ENVIRONMENT 5 OTHER POLICIES 10

COURT REFERRALS UNDER ARTICLES 258/260(3) TFEU: Romania’s failure to fully transpose EU internal energy market rules.10 In particular, national legislation has not been aligned with the provisions relating to the protection of consumers and to certain of the energy regulator’s duties. The Commission asked the Court to impose a daily penalty in respect of each of the partially transposed directives.11

10 Directive 2009/72/EC and 2009/73/EC 11 IP/13/260. Subsequently, Romania achieved full transposition and the Commission withdrew the Court applications

1ST

1TH

7TH

11TH

18TH

22ND

Policy areas in which most new late transposition infringement cases were opened

24TH

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX I - MEMBER STATES

III. COMPLAINTS ▶▶

COMPLAINTS MADE AGAINST ROMANIA 130 COMPLAINTS IN 2011

105 COMPLAINTS IN 2012

154 COMPLAINTS

IN 2013

32 ENVIRONMENT

(environmental impact assessment, nature protection and industrial emissions)

25 JUSTICE

(protection of personal data and rights of persons with disability)

TAXATION (excise duties and customs representation)

OTHER AREAS (direct payments, rural development and organic farming, administrative obstacles in universities and animal welfare)

I V. E U P I LO T ▶▶

PROGRESS OF FILES RELATING TO ROMANIA OPEN IN EU PILOT

ENVIRONMENT 10 INTERNAL MARKET 9 TRANSPORT 7 OTHER POLICIES 27

10 15

IN 2013

85 80

DAYS TARGET

IN 2012

51 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

IN 2011

60 35 40

47 PROCESSED EU PILOT FILES

55 45

57 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

53 NEW EU PILOT FILES

END 2012

END 2013

DURING 2013

70 DAYS / 10 WEEKS TARGET

DURING 2013

V. E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S The cases closed without a Court judgment in 2013 related to: • late transposition of the directive on transfer of defence products.12 Romania informed the Commission of the measures taken to implement this directive; • failure to correctly apply the sulphur dioxide limit values specified in EU legislation on air quality;13 • incorrect transposition of the directives in the First Railway Package;14

12 Directive 2009/43/EC 13 Directive 1999/30/EC and Directive 96/62/EC 14 Directive 91/440/EEC, amended by Directives 95/18/EC and 2001/14/EC

V I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S In preliminary rulings addressed to the Romanian judiciary, the Court ruled that: • the judicial authorities cannot refuse to execute a European arrest warrant for a criminal prosecution on the grounds that the requested person had not been tried in the Member State issuing the warrant before that arrest warrant was issued;16 • homophobic statements made by the owner of a professional football club may shift the burden of proof on to the club to prove that it does not have a discriminatory recruitment policy. The modified burden of proof laid down in the Equal Treatment Directive would not require evidence that is impossible to provide without infringing on the right to privacy. The appearance of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation may be refuted by the club on the basis of consistent evidence to the contrary. This may involve, in particular, distancing itself from discriminatory public statements and making sure that there are provisions in its recruitment policy expressly designed to ensure compliance with the principle of equal treatment.17

16 Radu, C-396/11 17 Asociatia Accept, C-81/12

•

restrictions placed on access to excise warehouses. In Romania, licences to run excise warehouses for storage of energy products are only granted to warehouse keepers authorised to produce energy products in Romania and who own equipment and machines for petroleum refining and processing. This requirement is contrary to EU law;15 the tax treatment of the profits or losses of a foreign legal entity that has several permanent establishments in Romania. These establishments are not allowed to combine (i.e. to consolidate or offset) their profits and losses.

15 Directive 2008/118/EC

SLOVAKIA I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S ▶▶

OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST SLOVAKIA (2009-13, ON 31 DECEMBER)

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP TOTAL (INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER) NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES (OPENED IN 2013)

25 19

2009

2010

2011

2012

38 21

38 15

39 25

2013 3RD

ENVIRONMENT 16 TRANSPORT 5 INTERNAL MARKET 4 OTHER POLICIES 13

▶▶

5TH

10TH

12TH

INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST SLOVAKIA

REFERRALS TO THE COURT AND KEY INFRINGEMENT CASES

(a) 25 new infringement procedures were launched against Slovakia in 2013. They and other major ongoing infringements cases relate to: • Employees working in areas deemed not dangerous by the authorities being denied their right to health checks. This may constitute a breach of the directive on health and safety at work;1 • Application of EU legislation determining which projects are subject to an environmental impact assessment2 and breaches of the maximum allowed level of PM10 particles (a measure of air quality) in certain areas and agglomerations;3 • individuals being denied the right to appeal against decisions taken on the refusal, annulment and revocation under the Visa Code;4 • inadequate protection offered against unfair contract terms in consumer contracts; weak legislation on the use of injunctions allowing consumer law to be circumvented; and limited scope for arbitration in consumer disputes; • national legislation that gives only Slovak nationals the right to become a member of a political party.

(b) Two cases were referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU.. They relate to: • welfare benefits for disabled people5 which should be available to all those insured under Slovak laws irrespective of whether they are resident in Slovakia or in another Member State;6 • state benefit for retired people whose statutory pension is below 60 % of the average wage7 is only paid to pensioners resident in Slovakia.8 (c) Cases referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU • none in 2013

5 1 Directive 89/391/EEC 2 Directive 2011/92/EU 3 IP/13/47 4 Regulation (EC) No 810/2009

6 7 8

The carer's allowance (peňažný príspevok na opatrovanie), the disability allowance (peňažný príspevok na osobnú asistenciu) and the cash allowance for compensation of increased costs for severely disabled persons (peňažný príspevok na kompenzáciu zvýšených výdavkov). IP/13/476 The ‘Christmas allowance’ (‘vianočný príspevok’) IP/13/364

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP

(BASED ON THE NUMBER OF LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

ENVIRONMENT 5 TRANSPORT 2 OTHER POLICIES 4

36 14

2009

2010

2011

2012

▶▶

COURT REFERRALS UNDER ARTICLES 258/260(3) TFEU:

•

none in 2013

Policy areas in which most new late transposition infringement cases were opened

6ST

8TH

11TH

16TH

19TH

2013

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX I - MEMBER STATES

III. COMPLAINTS ▶▶

COMPLAINTS MADE AGAINST SLOVAKIA 63 COMPLAINTS IN 2011

55 COMPLAINTS IN 2012

COMPLAINTS

IN 2013

9 EMPLOYMENT

8 ENVIRONMENT

(posting of workers, workers' exposure to asbestos)

(water and waste management)

JUSTICE (unfair terms and practices in consumer contracts, protection of personal data and discrimination based on ethnical origin)

OTHER AREAS (authorisation requirements for electronic communication, public procurement, railway contracts, car registration and air transport)

I V. E U P I LO T ▶▶

PROGRESS OF FILES RELATING TO SLOVAKIA OPEN IN EU PILOT

10 15

85 80

70 DAYS

20 25

ENVIRONMENT 6 JUSTICE 6 TRANSPORT 5 OTHER POLICIES 15

TARGET

60 35 40

33 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

32 NEW EU PILOT FILES

END 2012

DURING 2013

55 45

IN 2011

70 DAYS / 10 WEEKS TARGET

IN 2012

36 OPEN EU PILOT FILES 29 PROCESSED EU PILOT FILES END 2013 DURING 2013

IN 2013

V. E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S The cases closed before a Court judgment in 2013 related to: • failure to fully transpose the directive on preventing sharp injuries in the hospital and healthcare sector;9 • national legislation that required dangerous waste to be treated primarily at Slovak locations. Such waste could only be exported to other Member States if it was impossible to treat it in Slovakia;

9 Directive 2010/32/EU

• •

failure to ratify the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage; definition of the term “genetically modified micro-organism” used in transposing the directive on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms.10

•

10 Directive 2009/41/EC

V I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S The Court ruled that : • Slovakia had breached the Landfill Directive11 in the case relating to the use of the landfill site Zilina – Povazsky Chlmec. The landfille site did not meet the requirements of this directive and, in particular, Sloviakia had failed to submit to the authorities a conditioning plan addressing environmental concerns (such as water control, leachate management, protection of soil and water, gas control and hazards). In addition, it had not indicated the corrective measures that would need to be taken in order to comply with the directive.12

In preliminary rulings addressed to the Slovak judiciary, the Court ruled that: • the directive concerning integrated pollution prevention and control13 should be interpreted as granting the public access to an urban planning decision from the start of the project’s authorisation procedure. This right to access cannot be denied on the basis of commercial or industrial confidentiality, even if a legitimate economic interest needs to be protected. If a request for access to the planning decision is refused without justification during the administrative procedure, it should be possible to rectify this decision at a second instance in the administrative procedure (and not only in the court procedure), providing that such rectification will still allow the public to effectively influence the outcome of the decision-making.14

11 Directive 1999/31/EC 12 Commission v Slovakia, C-331/11

13 Directive 96/61/EC 14 Križan and Others, C-416/10

SLOVENIA I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S ▶▶

OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST SLOVENIA (2009-13, ON 31 DECEMBER)

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP TOTAL (INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER) NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES (OPENED IN 2013)

2009

20 21 21 17 25 16

2010

2011

2012

ENVIRONMENT 17 TRANSPORT 7 INTERNAL MARKET 5 OTHER POLICIES 18

47 31

2ND

▶▶

3RD

7TH

15TH

16TH

INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST SLOVENIA

REFERRALS TO THE COURT AND KEY INFRINGEMENT CASES

(a) 31 new infringement procedures were launched against Slovenia in 2013. They and other major important ongoing infringement cases relate to: • the waste management practices for a landfill site close to the centre of Celje, where soil heavily polluted by heavy metals has been illegally dumped;1 • the lack of special administrative rules governing the operation of higher education institutions from other Member States (such as for the establishment of a university branch or a subsidiary, or for franchise agreements);2 • the accounts of the Slovenske Železnice group (the national railway company), which do not seem to be sufficiently detailed for the purposes of tracing financial flows between the group’s subsidiaries. 1 2

2013 1TH

▶▶

32 27

(b) One case was referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. It relates to: • Slovenia’s failure to notify the Commission of its transposing measures for the directive3 modifying the Railway Interoperability Directive.4 (c) Cases referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU: • none in 2013

3 Directive 2011/18/EU 4 Directive 2008/57/EC and IP/13/141. As Directive 2011/18/EU was not adopted in a legislative procedure the Commission was not entitled to propose a financial penalty to the Court under Article 260(3) TFEU. Finally, the case has been withdrawn from the Court later in 2013 due to Slovenia’s compliance.

MEMO/13/583 MEMO/13/583

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP

(BASED ON THE NUMBER OF LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

ENVIRONMENT 5 ENERGY 4 HEALTH & CONSUMERS 4 OTHER POLICIES 13 30

2009

2010

2011

2012

▶▶

CASES REFERRALS UNDER ARTICLES 258/260(3) TFEU:

•

none in 2013

27 7

1ST

5TH

11TH

16TH

Policy areas in which most new late transposition infringement cases were opened

26TH

27TH

2013

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX I - MEMBER STATES

III. COMPLAINTS ▶▶

COMPLAINTS MADE AGAINST SLOVENIA 33 COMPLAINTS IN 2011

35 COMPLAINTS IN 2012

COMPLAINTS

IN 2013

11 ENVIRONMENT

5 ENTERPRISE AND

INDUSTRY (ban on fur farming, conformity certificate of new equipment and registration of second hand vehicles)

(environmental impact assessment and waste management)

INTERNAL MARKET (recognition of professional qualifications and public procurement)

JUSTICE (judicial cooperation in civil matters)

OTHER AREAS (access to scholarships, Schengen Borders Code, real estate taxation, air passengers' rights and nationality condition to access energy & gas market jobs)

I V. E U P I LO T ▶▶

PROGRESS OF FILES RELATING TO SLOVENIA OPEN IN EU PILOT

10 15

85 80

70 DAYS

20 25

TRANSPORT 8 JUSTICE 7 ENVIRONMENT 6 OTHER POLICIES 16 75

IN 2011

TARGET

60 35 40

55 45

IN 2013

33 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

43 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

37 NEW EU PILOT FILES 27 PROCESSED EU PILOT FILES

IN 2012

END 2012

DURING 2013

70 DAYS / 10 WEEKS TARGET

END 2013 DURING 2013

V. E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S The cases closed without a Court judgment in 2013 related to: • the public financing of postgraduate studies abroad in return for working in Slovenia for a period equal to the duration of the scholarship, a possibility that was initially only available to Slovene nationals;

• •

the incomplete notification of national measures transposing the Employers’ Sanctions Directive;5 the lack of transposition measures for the directive on preventing sharp injuries in the hospital and healthcare sector.6

5 Directive 2009/52/EC 6 Directive 2010/32/EU

V I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S The Court ruled against Slovenia because: • decisions on the allocation of train tracks for railway undertakings were made by the national railway company, whereas the Railway Directive7 requires that they are made by entities not involved in rail transport. Other claims included: no incentives to reduce infrastructure costs and access charges, no performance scheme for railway companies and the infrastructure manager, and the incorrect calculation method of minimum access charges. However, the Slovene authorities resolved these issues by the time the judgment was delivered.8

7 Directive 91/440/EEC (repealed by Directive 2012/34/EU) 8 Commission v Slovenia, C‑627/10 and Court press release No 88/13

SPAIN I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S ▶▶

OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST SPAIN (2009-13, ON 31 DECEMBER)

▶▶

129

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP TOTAL (INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER) NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES (OPENED IN 2013)

109

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

ENVIRONMENT 27 TAXATION 16 TRANSPORT 12 OTHER POLICIES 35

▶▶

22ND

21TH

20TH

▶▶

104

26TH

24TH

27TH

INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST SPAIN

REFERRALS TO THE COURT AND KEY INFRINGEMENT CASES

(a) 41 new infringement procedures were launched against Spain in 2013. They and other major ongoing infringement cases relate to: • Spanish public hospitals refusing to recognise the European Health Insurance Card;1 • violation of the framework directive on health and safety at work2 by the Regional Administration of Andalucía; • violation of EU citizens’ right to stand as candidates in local and European elections in their Member State of residence, this being prevented by restrictions placed on their involvement in political parties; • failure to correctly implement the Regulation on public passenger transport services by rail and by road;3 • incorrect implementation of the directive on airport charges,4 specifically in relation to the obligation to consult airport users; • failure to notify the Commission of measures adopted to transpose the Directive on Alternative Investment Fund Managers5 and the directive on preventing trafficking in human beings;6 • discriminatory taxation of foreign dividends;7

• •

the operation of sub-standard landfills sites, in breach of the Landfill Directive;8 Spain’s failure to comply with Court judgments9 on the lack of river basin management plans required under the Water Framework Directive,10 and the inadequate urban wastewater treatment in certain areas.11

1 IP/13/474 2 Directive 89/391/EEC 3 Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 4 Directive 2009/12/EC 5 Directive 2011/61/EU 6 Directive 2011/36/EU and MEMO/13/1005 7 MEMO/13/583

8 Directive 1999/31/EC and MEMO/13/22 9 Commission v Spain, cases C-403/11 and C-343/10 10 Directive 2000/60/EC 11 IP/10/528 on earlier referral decision under Article 258 TFEU 12 IP/13/963 13 IP/13/559 14 IP/13/365

(b) Three cases were referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They relate to: • failure to implement correctly the provisions of the Framework Directive on health and safety at work in respect of workers of the Civil Guard;12 • the restrictive nature of Spanish rules governing the recruitment of port workers (dockers), which could discourage cargo-handling companies from other Member States from establishing themselves in Spanish ports;13 • the discriminatory taxation of non-residents on their reinvesting of capital gains in the acquisition of a new permanent residence.14 (c) Cases referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU: • none in 2013

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP

(BASED ON THE NUMBER OF LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

2009

2010

ENERGY 4 ENVIRONMENT 3 INTERNAL MARKET 3 OTHER POLICIES 3

2011

2012

2013

▶▶

COURT REFERRALS UNDER ARTICLES 258/260(3) TFEU

•

none in 2013

8ST

14ST

14TH

Policy areas in which most new late transposition infringement cases were opened

20TH

22ND

25TH

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX I - MEMBER STATES

III. COMPLAINTS ▶▶

COMPLAINTS MADE AGAINST SPAIN 306 COMPLAINTS IN 2011

306 COMPLAINTS IN 2012

439 COMPLAINTS

IN 2013

100 EMPLOYMENT

65 JUSTICE

ENVIRONMENT (issuing of the European Health Insurance Card to some categories of (free movement of people (environmental impact assessment, citizens, transitional arrangements for workers from new Member States and and fundamental rights) nature protection, waste management restrictions on free movement of frontier workers at the border between Spain and water protection) and Gibraltar)

209

OTHER AREAS (access to education, exploration of hydrocarbons, support schemes for renewable energy, Late Payment Directive, Schengen Borders Code, GMOs and regulated professions)

I V. E U P I LO T ▶▶

107 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

PROGRESS OF FILES RELATING TO SPAIN OPEN IN EU PILOT

103 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

99 NEW EU PILOT FILES

IN 2011

10 15

DAYS TARGET

IN 2012

103 PROCESSED EU PILOT FILES

IN 2013

END 2012

DURING 2013

END 2013

60 35 40

55 45

70 DAYS / 10 WEEKS TARGET

ENVIRONMENT 28 TRANSPORT 12 ENTERPRISE & INDUSTRY 10 OTHER POLICIES 49 DURING 2013

V. E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S The cases closed without a Court judgment in 2013 related to: • discrimination of pensioners from other EU countries, by refusing them access to free medication during a temporary stay in Spain; • transposition of the directive on minimum safety and health requirements for work on board fishing vessels,15 which did not conform with EU requirements (due to the definition of the term ‘owner’ in relation to a fishing vessel); • non-conformity of Spain’s provisions on protective and preventive services with the framework directive on health and safety at work; • failure to notify the Commission of the measures adopted to transpose the directive implementing the Framework Agreement on preventing sharp injuries in the hospital and healthcare sector;16 15 Directive 93/103/EC 16 Directive 2010/32/EU

• • • • •

restrictions placed on importing electricity into the Iberian electricity market; failure to notify the Commission of a new programme for the renovation of tyres, a breach of Member States’ obligations in respect of technical regulations;17 failure to take the measures needed to apply the provisions of the Drivers’ Working Time Directive18 to self-employed drivers; failure to implement the ban on using unenriched cages for laying hens;19 deficiencies in the implementation of EU legislation on the welfare of animals at the time of slaughter.20

17 Directive 2010/32/EU 18 Directive 2002/15/EC 19 In accordance with Directive 1999/74/EC 20 Directive 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 882/2004

V I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S capital gains on the transfer of the place of residence or of the assets of a company established in Spain to another Member State.25

The Court ruled that Spain: • failed to transpose a number of provisions contained in the Water Framework Directive21 in the intra-communal river basins outside Catalonia and in Catalonia; • has not complied with the provisions contained in the First Railway Package,22 in so far as: it has reserved the right to determine the charge to be paid for use of the rail network; it has not satisfied the requirement to set up a performance scheme to minimise disruption and improve the performance of the railway network; it has given public authorities the right to establish allocation priorities for the different types of service on each line; it has used the criterion of actual use of the network as a criterion for the allocation of infrastructure capacity;23 • failed to correctly implement the provisions of the VAT Directive for travel agents;24 • restricted the freedom of establishment by applying immediate taxation of unrealised

In preliminary rulings addressed to the Spanish judiciary, the Court ruled that: • a national legislation on the method of calculating retirement pensions is not in line with EU law, if this method does not take sufficient account of the applicant’s work history in another Member State;26 • the surrender of a person to the judicial authorities of another Member State following the issue of a European arrest warrant cannot be made conditional upon the conviction rendered in absentia being open to review in the Member State issuing the arrest warrant;27 • the court which has jurisdiction to declare a unfair term in a loan agreement relating to immovable property must be allowed to adopt interim measures, in particular the staying of the enforcement proceedings, where they are necessary in order to guarantee the full effectiveness of its final decision.28

21 Commission v Spain, C-151/12 22 Directive 2001/14/EC 23 Commission v Spain, C-483/10; and Court press release No 20/13 24 Commission v Spain, C-189/11

25 Commission v Spain, C-64/11; and Court press release No 53/13 26 Salgado González, C-282/11; and Court press release No 15/13 27 Melloni, C-399/11; and Court press release No 17/13 28 Aziz, C-415/11; and Court press release No 30/13

SWEDEN I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST SWEDEN (2009-13, ON 31 DECEMBER)

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP TOTAL (INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER) NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES (OPENED IN 2013)

2009

2010

2011

2013

2012

8TH

ENVIRONMENT 11 INTERNAL MARKET 5 OTHER POLICIES 17

▶▶

14TH

18TH

INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST SWEDEN

REFERRALS TO THE COURT AND KEY INFRINGEMENT CASES

▶▶

(a) 13 new infringement procedures were launched against Sweden in 2013. They and other major ongoing infringement cases relate to: • the non-respect of EU air quality standards (maximum PM10 values ) in several zones and agglomerations;1 • the delay in transposing the provisions of the directive amending the directive on the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents,2 to extend its scope to the beneficiaries of international protection; • failure to timely notify measures to transpose the directives on alternative investment fund managers;3 the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for highly qualified employment;4 and minimum standards on sanctions and measures against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals;5 • the Fixed-Term Work Directive in national law: there is no provision for protection against abusive successive fixed-term employment contracts;6 • the inconsistent application of restrictions on the cross-border provision of online sports betting services and online poker services and not subjecting the holder of the exclusive right to strict state control;7 • failure to comply with EU law on the proper treatment of urban wastewater in large agglomerations.8

1 IP/13/47 2 Directive 2003/109/EC 3 Directive 2011/61/EU 4 Directive 2009/50/EC 5 Directive 2009/52/EC 6 MEMO/13/122 7 IP/13/1101 8 Commission v Sweden, C-438/07, IP/06/1769

(b) Two cases were referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They relate to: • failure to correctly implement the directive on animal health problems affecting intraEU trade in bovine animals and swine.9 The uniform animal health conditions for trade in bovine animals set out in the directive do not include any health requirements for paratuberculosis. Sweden has continued testing bovine animals imported from other Member States for this disease;10 • VAT postal exemption11: the EU VAT Directive states that services supplied by ‘public postal services’, and the sale of stamps, should be exempt from VAT. Supplies of services for which the terms have been individually negotiated are not allowed to benefit from the VAT exemption. (c) One case was referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU. It relates to: • failure to license industrial plants operating without permits.12 Under the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive,13 industrial and agricultural activities with a high pollution potential must be licensed. Permits can only be issued if certain environmental conditions are met, making the companies themselves responsible for preventing and reducing any pollution they may cause. Despite an earlier Court judgment on this matter, Sweden has still not licensed two major industrial plants.

9 Directive 64/432/EEC 10 IP/13/570 11 IP/13/1111 12 IP/13/145 13 Directive 2008/1/EC

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP

(BASED ON THE NUMBER OF LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

Policy areas in

2009

2010

ENERGY 2 which most new OTHER POLICIES 5 late transposition

2011

2012

2013

▶▶

COURT REFERRALS UNDER ARTICLES 258/260(3) TFEU:

•

none in 2013

infringement cases were opened

1ST

8ST

21TH

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX I - MEMBER STATES

III. COMPLAINTS ▶▶

COMPLAINTS MADE AGAINST SWEDEN 91 COMPLAINTS IN 2011

111 COMPLAINTS IN 2012

101 COMPLAINTS

IN 2013

25 TAXATION

(excise duties and VAT exemptions)

22 JUSTICE

(free movement of persons)

OTHER AREAS (access to education, environmental impact assessment, long-term resident permits and marketing of medical devices)

EMPLOYMENT (obstacles to register with healthcare institution, posting of workers and classification of a family benefit as sickness benefit)

I V. E U P I LO T PROGRESS OF FILES RELATING TO SWEDEN OPEN IN EU PILOT

▶▶

TRANSPORT 14 EMPLOYMENT 5 JUSTICE 5 TAXATION 5 OTHER POLICIES 24

IN 2011

10 15

85 80

DAYS TARGET

60 40

55 45

34 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

30 35

IN 2013

54 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

53 NEW EU PILOT FILES 33 PROCESSED EU PILOT FILES

IN 2012

END 2012

END 2013

DURING 2013 DURING 2013

70 DAYS / 10 WEEKS TARGET

V. E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S The cases closed without a Court judgment in 2013 related to: • the total ban on the use of metal detectors in breach of the free movement of goods principle. Sweden changed its legislation to allow the conditional use of such devices; • the incorrect transposition of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive14 and the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive;15 • failure to ratify the Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution; 14 Directive 2012/19/EU 15 Directive 2001/42/EC

V I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S •

There were no major judgments in 2013.

•

restrictions on imports of syringes and hypodermic needles from another Member State. Veterinary surgeons, medical practitioners and dentists who import such products for their own practice must apply for a permit to do so and pay a fee. Sweden changed its legislation on this matter; the incorrect application of the definition of an economic activity. Sweden’s definition of ‘economic activity’ does not fulfil the criteria under the VAT Directive, but to those under national income tax law.

UNITED KINGDOM I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S

▶▶

OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP TOTAL (INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER) NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES (OPENED IN 2013)

(2009-13, ON 31 DECEMBER)

98 76

53 28

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013 21TH

20TH ENVIRONMENT 17 TAXATION 7 TRANSPORT 6 OTHER POLICIES 23

▶▶

104

▶▶

22ND

24TH

26TH

27TH

INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM

REFERRALS TO THE COURT AND KEY INFRINGEMENT CASES

(a) 28 infringement procedures were launched against the United Kingdom in 2013. They and other major ongoing infringement cases relate to: • the Working Time Directive,1 regarding annual leave entitlements for low-hour contracts; • the refusal to pay sickness benefits in cash to UK pensioners resident abroad (to benefit, pensioners have to be in the UK for 26 weeks out of 52 before the date of the claim);2 • the incorrect implementation of the First Railway Package:3 the UK failed to comply with EU rules on excessive track access charges for passenger and freight trains using the Channel Tunnel;4 • failure to correctly apply waste legislation with regard to waste oils and end-of-waste criteria (i.e. the criteria that specify when certain waste ceases to be waste and becomes

1 Directive 2003/88/EC 2 Regulation (EC) No 1408/71 and Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 3 First Railway Package (Directives 91/440/EEC and 2001/14/EC, replaced by the Rail Recast Directive 2012/34/EU) 4 IP/13/557

a product or a secondary raw material);5 the breach of EU rules on fiscal marking for fuels:6 private pleasure boat users, such as those of luxury yachts, can no longer buy lower taxed fuel intended for fishing boats.7 (b) Two cases were referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They relate to: • the application of a discriminatory ’right to reside’ condition for EU nationals to be granted social security benefits (such as child benefit or a state pension credit);8 • the application of VAT-reduced rate for supplies of enery-efficient products in houses, as there is no provision on the VAT Directive9 to allow a reduce VAT rate on these products.10 •

5 MEMO/13/375 6 Directive 95/60/EC 7 MEMO/13/470 8 IP/13/475 9 Directive 2006/112/EC 10 IP/13/139

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES

▶▶

RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP

(BASED ON THE NUMBER OF LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES OPEN ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

ENTERPRISE & INDUSTRY 4 ENVIRONMENT 4 INTERNAL MARKET 4 OTHER POLICIES 6

57 25

2009 ▶▶

•

2010

2011

2012

2013

COURT REFERRALS UNDER ARTICLES 258/260(3) TFEU: the UK’s failure to fully transpose the EU internal energy market rules.11 The Commission asked the Court to impose daily penalties in respect of each partially transposed directive.12

11 Directive 2009/72/EC and Directive 2009/73/EC 12 IP/13/42. In September 2013, however, the UK fully transposed the directives, and both cases were closed.

Policy areas in which most new late transposition infringement cases were opened

8ST

14ST

14TH

20TH

22ND

25TH

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX I - MEMBER STATES

III. COMPLAINTS ▶▶

COMPLAINTS MADE AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM 192 COMPLAINTS IN 2011

197 COMPLAINTS IN 2012

224 COMPLAINTS

IN 2013

99 JUSTICE

(free movement of persons and protection of personal data)

28 ENVIRONMENT

(nature protection, air quality, waste and water management)

EMPLOYMENT (fees required for European Health Insurance Card by private entities, recognition of child raising periods spent abroad for pension calculation and discriminatory child benefits)

OTHER AREAS (organic farming, tuition fees in education, minimum alcohol pricing, very long asylum procedures and marketing of medicinal products)

I V. E U P I LO T ▶▶

PROGRESS OF FILES RELATING TO THE UNITED KINGDOM OPEN IN EU PILOT

10 15

85 80

70 DAYS

TARGET

60 35 40

55 45

JUSTICE 11 TRANSPORT 11 EMPLOYMENT 6 TAXATION 6 OTHER 26

IN 2013

67 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

89 OPEN EU PILOT FILES

60 NEW EU PILOT FILES

IN 2012

38 PROCESSED EU PILOT FILES

IN 2011

END 2012

DURING 2013

END 2013

DURING 2013

70 DAYS / 10 WEEKS TARGET

V. E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S • • •

•

The cases closed without a Court judgment in 2013 related to: transparency of conditions for getting access to the natural gas transmission networks; the putting into service of CE-marked gas appliances (hot water boilers) in line with the requirements of the directive on gas appliances13 and the directive on the approximation of Member State laws on pressure equipment;14 the late transposition of directives on reporting formalities for ships entering or leav-

13 Directive 2009/142/EC 14 Directive 97/23/EC

V I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S In preliminary rulings addressed to the judiciary of the United Kingdom, the Court ruled that: • the Member State responsible for considering an asylum application that an unaccompanied minor has made in more than one Member State is that in which the minor is present after lodging an application there;23 • the term ‘not prohibitively expensive’ in relation to access to justice in environmental matters24 means that the financial burden of access to justice should not prevent the people concerned from making or pursuing a claim or seeking a review by the courts;25 • if, under national law, taxpayers can choose between two possible courses of action to recover tax levied in breach of EU law, one of which has a longer limitation period, national law cannot curtail that limitation period without notice and retroactively.26

23 MA and Others, C-648/11, Court press release No 71/13 24 Directive 2003/35/EC 25 Edwards and Pallikarapoulos, C-260/11 26 Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation, C-362/12

ing Member State ports;15 roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles;16 railway safety indicators;17 railway interoperability;18 passenger ships;19 driving licences, 20 maritime traffic monitoring21 and the Electricity and Gas Directives.22

15 Directive 2010/65/EU 16 Directive 2010/48/EU and Directive 2010/47/EU 17 Directive 2009/149/EC 18 Directive 2008/57/EC 19 Directive 2010/36/EU 20 Directive 2006/126/EC 21 Directive 2009/17/EC 22 Directive 2009/72/EC and Directive 2009/73/EC

CROATIA I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S There were four infringement procedures launched against Croatia in 2013, all of them for late transposition of directives relating to: • the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste;1 • the restriction on using certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment;2 • the lead and cadmium content of electrical and electronic equipment.3

1 Directive 2011/70/EURATOM 2 Directive 2011/65/EU 3 Directives 2012/50/EU (on lead) and 2012/51/EU (on cadmium), both amending Directive 2011/65/EU. These two cases were closed in 2013 following Croatia’s transposition.

II. COMPLAINTS •

Complaints made against Croatia in 2013 related to alleged discrimination on grounds of residence as regards access to recreational fisheries.

I I I . E U P I LO T •

At the end of 2013, the Commission and Croatia were working on 13 open files in EU Pilot (18 new EU Pilot files were opened since 1 July 2013). The Commission processed five EU Pilot files on Croatian issues in 2013. Croatia’s average response time (61 days) met the 10-week target.

POLICIES

AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S ▶▶

OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES (ON 31 DECEMBER)

▶▶

RANKING BETWEEN THE POLICY AREAS (NUMBER OF OPEN CASES ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

2011

2012

2013

HEALTH AND CONSUMERS 60 ENTERPRISE AND INDUSTRY 52 HOME AFFAIRS 44 AGRICULTURE 29 COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES 20 CLIMATE ACTION 19

2010

EU EXTERNAL COMPETENCE 20 MARKET POLICY (LABELLING, PRODUCT DESIGNATIONS) 8 DIRECT PAYMENTS 1

8TH 9TH 10TH 11TH 12TH 13TH

This chart is an excerpt from the pie chart under point 3 of the 31st Annual Report (p. 17.) The pie chart contains the full ranking of the EU policy areas according to the number of open infringement cases.

▶▶

BREAKDOWN PER SECTORS

Six new infringement cases were launched in 2013. In particular, a procedure was launched against: • Italy, due to the slow recovery of milk quota levies. Cases referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU: • none in 2013 Cases referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU: • none in 2013

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES FOR THE LATE TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES One directive in the area of agriculture with transposition deadline in 2013

2010

2011

2012

2013

All four infringement cases had to be launched due to the late transposition of: • the Fruit Juices Directive,1 which sets out new labelling rules for fruit juices and fruit nectars (the Member States concerned were Belgium, Italy, Cyprus and France). Cases referred to the Court under Article 260(3) TFEU: • none in 2013” 1 Directive 2012/12/EU

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX II - P O L I C I E S

III. COMPLAINTS ▶▶

MAIN COMPLAINT AREAS IN 2013 There were 92 complaints processed in the area of agriculture and rural development in 2013. The Commission opened EU Pilot investigations in 14 cases.

86 complaints in 2011 59 complaints in 2012

98 complaints

in 2013

Direct payments and rural development granted by the national authorities

Rural Development

Organic

One EU Pilot file was opened in response to a European Parliament question on organic farming.

15 9 CMO rules

Others

I V. E U P I LO T

17 open EU Pilot files at the end of 2012

23 new EU Pilot files during 2013

18 Processed Eu Pilot files during 2013

The Member States’ combined resolution rate for files in EU Pilot in the area of agriculture and rural development was 89 %.

22 open EU Pilot files at the end of 2013

Accepted Member State response

2 Rejected Member State response

V. O W N I N I T I AT I V E C A S E S Own initiative cases were opened in the following areas: • wine (compulsory language use in labelling); • quality, for non-compliance with rules on the protected designation of origin/the protected geographical indication.

V I . E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S The cases closed without a Court judgment in 2013 related to: • a case against France, imposing a tax on milk producers who exceeded their individual milk quotas even though the national quota had not been exceeded. The tax significantly interfered with the functioning of the system of milk quotas and surplus levies, as established by the Single Common Market Organisation;

•

a case against France concerning the ‘Eaux-de-vie de vin’ (rules concerning the production and marketing of certain products obtained by distilling lees and marcs).2

IP/12/179

V I I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S In preliminary rulings, the Court ruled that: • EU law, in particular the principles of equivalence and effectiveness and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, does not preclude a national rule of jurisdiction. For this, actions intended to safeguard the rights individuals derive from EU law must not be carried out in less advantageous conditions than those stipulated for actions intended to protect the rights derived from any aid schemes for farmers set up under national law;3 • Early retirement support in the agricultural sector is an instrument of the Common Agricultural Policy which is designed to ensure the viability of agricultural holdings, and not a social security benefit. In the context of early retirement support for elderly farmers, Member States are required to ensure equal treatment between women and men, and therefore, to 3 Agrokonsulting-04, C-93/12

•

prohibit any discrimination on the ground of gender. Defining the ‘normal retirement age’ (in the context of the regulation on support for rural development4) differently depending on gender and number of children is incompatible with the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination for the purposes of the early retirement measure.5 There are important indications for the reform of the Common Agriculture Policy, following a request made during proceedings in Greece concerning additional payments in the tobacco sector, in particular to give Member States flexibility in implementing the Common Agriculture Policy and the limitations relating to such flexibility.6

4 Regulation (EC) No 1999/1257 5 Soukupová, C-401/11 and Court press release No 41/13 6 Panellinios Syndesmos Viomichanion Metapoiisis Kapnou, C-373/11

FINANCIAL PROGRAMMING AND BUDGET I . O W N I N I T I AT I V E C A S E S There were 6 infringement cases open in the area of financial programming and budget at the end of 2013.

compensation for loss of traditional own resources that had occurred as a result of export certificates issued by their overseas countries and territories.

Letters of formal notice were sent to the Netherlands and the United Kingdom requesting the

I I . E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S The Commission detected 102 anomalies in the area of traditional own resources in 2013 (compared to 138 in 2012) and set 32 Value Added Tax (VAT) and 56 Gross National Income (GNI) reservations.1 In connection with these, it launched 421 accounting actions for traditional own resources (compared to 680 in 2012) and 285 for VAT and GNI cases (465 in 2012) with a

view to requesting corrective payments (principal amounts and belated interest) from Member States. Most of the newly detected anomalies were solved at an early stage, either through bilateral discussions with Member States or in the Advisory Committee on Own Resources.2

Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1553/89 and Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) 1150/2000

The two above-mentioned Regulations establish a conciliation mechanism, whose function is similar to that of EU Pilot.

COMPETITION I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S Two new infringement cases were launched in 2013. They relate to: • Hungary: the limitation of the sanctioning powers of the national competition authority; • Denmark: a requirement imposed by local authorities that property owners become paying subscribers of a particular local cable TV provider.1 One infringement case was referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. It relates to: • Bulgaria: the procedure followed in assigning digital broadcast spectrum, which excluded potential candidates due to the disproportionately restrictive conditions imposed.2

II. COMPLAINTS There were 40 complaints processed in the competition area in 2013. The Commission opened EU Pilot investigations in three cases.

I I I . E U P I LO T FOUR new EU Pilot competition-related were opened in 2013. Of the ten EU Pilot files processed in 2013, the Commission opened formal infringement procedures in two cases.

One infringement case was referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU. It relates to: • 1 2 3

Italy: failure to recover illegal and incompatible state aid.3 The case was, however, closed as Denmark complied with EU legislation in February 2014. In breach of Directive 2002/77/EC on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services, the Authorisation Directive 2002/20/EC and directive 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and service. IP/13/1103

EDUCATION AND CULTURE I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S No new infringement cases were launched in 2013. The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. It relates to: • the Netherlands: refusal to allow Erasmus students and students from other Member States who are not economically active in the Netherlands or have not obtained a permanent right of residence to benefit from the reduced transport fares granted to Dutch students.1 1

II. COMPLAINTS There were 52 complaints processed in the area of culture and education in 2013. The Commission opened EU Pilot investigations in 11 cases.

IP/13/574

I I I . E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S The cases closed without a Court judgment in 2013 related to: • Austria: discriminatory public transport fare reductions (which mostly benefited Austrian students).2 2

Commission v Austria, C-75/11

I V. I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S In preliminary rulings, the Court ruled that: • Luxembourgish legislation excluding children of frontier workers from entitlement to financial aid for higher education studies goes beyond what is necessary in order to achieve the

•

3 4

objective pursued, of increasing the proportion of residents with a higher education degree;3 Germany cannot make the receipt of a grant for a course of studies in another Member State subject to the sole condition of three years of uninterrupted residence in Germany.4 Giersch and Others, C-20/12 and Court press release No 74/13 Prinz and Seeberger, C-523/11 and Court press release No 94/13

ENLARGEMENT I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S 1 new infringement case was launched in 2013. It relates to: • Austria: the compatibility of Austrian establishment and residence law with the rights of Turkish nationals under the EU-Turkey Association Agreement.

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX II - P O L I C I E S

II. COMPLAINTS The Commission opened EU Pilot investigations in 2 cases both based on complaints received.

I I I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S In a preliminary ruling, the Court ruled that: • Turkish nationals’ personal scope of application of the freedom to provide services does not imply the right to visit a Member State in order to obtain services.1 1 Demirkan, C-221/11 and Court press release No 114/13

MARITIME AFFAIRS AND FISHERIES I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S A N D K E Y I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S During 2013, more than 70 cases (infringements, EU Pilot files and complaints taken together) were dealt with in the fisheries field.

•

8 new formal infringement proceedings were launched in 2013, all on the Commission’s own initiative. In particular, they relate to: • Greece because of its failure to submit the data necessary for the Commission in order to monitor the proper conservation and management of fisheries stocks; and • Romania due to the bad application of the equal access principle as regards access to waters.. 1

II. COMPLAINTS There were 13 new complaints registered in the area of fisheries matters in 2013. In total 16 complaints were treated. The Commission opened EU Pilot investigations in 14 cases.

The Commission continued the monitoring of the implementation of the Court’s judgment1 against Italy in relation to the lack of control of the illegal use of driftnets. Upon the receipt of Italy’s proposed measures in its response to the letter of formal notice under Article 260 TFEU, the Commission carried out an extensive verification work, including inspections on the spot. Although the inspections did not detect illegal driftnets activities, some deficiencies had still been identified in the fisheries control system. To tackle these remaining problems, an action plan has been agreed with Italy.

Commission v Italy, C-249/08

I I I . E U P I LO T In 2013, the Commission opened 21 new EU Pilot files on matters of relevance for the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), bringing the number of EU Pilot cases in this field to 48. Out of the 48 dossiers treated in EU Pilot during 2013, 25 were closed. 17 files were assessed positively. The Member States’ combined resolution rate for files in EU Pilot in the field of fisheries was 68%.

I V. E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S •

The cases closed without a Court judgment in 2013 related to the issue of non-compliance by Greece with the Fisheries Data collection obligations. Following the letter of formal notice mentioned above in section I, Greece has put in place the necessary administrative

measures to ensure compliance with data collection obligations in the future and the case has been therefore closed in October 2013.

REGIONAL POLICY I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK Although the Commission is entitled to launch infringement proceedings against Member States in the area of regional policy, it instead employs the financial corrections procedure provided for under the regulations governing the Structural Funds. This procedure, which may be initiated by either a Member State or the Commission, allows the recovery of all or part of the EU contribution to a particular project or programme.

II. COMPLAINTS Complaints are typically related to the rejection of applications to the EU’s co-financing programmes for funding projects or to non-compliance of individual projects with the provisions on public procurement and the rules set out in EU law. An increasing number of complaints invoke violations of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. In 2013, the Commission opened EU Pilot investigations in three cases as a result of complaints.

I I I . E U P I LO T The Member States’ combined resolution rate for files in EU Pilot in the area of regional policy was 82 %

I V. I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S The Court ruled that: the Commission had lawfully suspended interim payments from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the regional operational programme in Campania for the 2000-06 programming period. The suspension was the result of an infringement procedure launched by the Commission against Italy in particular in response to Italy’s failure to establish a proper network of waste disposal facilities in Campania and the subsequent inadequate implementation of the Court’s judgment;1 France’s appeal against an earlier judgment should be rejected as the Commission had lawfully cancelled the payment due to be made from the European Regional Development Fund for developing the infrastructure of ClubMed in Martinique. The Court therefore confirmed the Commission’s view that France had interpreted the notion of ‘subsidised contract’ as referred to in the Public Procurement Directive2 too broadly.3 1

Italy v Commission, joined cases T-99/09 and T-308/09 (the case concerning waste disposal is Commission v Italy, C-297/08) 2 Directive 93/37/EC 3 France v Commission, C-115/12 P

CLIMATE ACTION I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S ▶▶

OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES (ON 31 DECEMBER)

▶▶

RANKING BETWEEN THE POLICY AREAS

(NUMBER OF OPEN CASES ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

DG HEALTH AND CONSUMERS 60 ENTERPRISE AND INDUSTRY 52 HOME AFFAIRS 44 AGRICULTURE 29 COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES 20 CLIMATE ACTION 19

61 35

19 2010

2011

2012

2013

CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE 7 EMISSION TRADING SCHEME 7 FLUORINATED GASES 3 OTHER CASES 2

13 new infringement cases were launched in 2013. They relate to: • Germany: omitting to include the production of polypropylene and other polymers in national measures implementing the directive on greenhouse gas emission trading;1 • France: notifying the Commission of the certification and attestation bodies designated for companies and personnel recovering certain fluorinated greenhouse gas-based solvents • Portugal: notifying the Commission of the rules applicable in Portugal on penalties for infringing the provisions of the Regulation on substances that deplete the ozone layer.2

8TH 9TH 10TH 11TH 11TH 13TH

▶▶

BREAKDOWN PER SECTORS

Cases referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU: • none in 2013 Cases referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU: • none in 2013

1 Directive 2003/87/EC 2 Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES FOR THE LATE TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES 39

No directives in the area of climate change with transposition deadline in 2013

35 11

2010

2011

2012

2013

All infringement cases had to be launched due to the late transposition of: • the directive improving and extending the EU’s greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme3 (ten Member States). Cases referred to the Court under Articles 258/260(3) TFEU: • none in 2013 0 clima directives with a transposition deadline in 2013 3 Directive 2009/29/EC

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX II - P O L I C I E S

III. COMPLAINTS ▶▶

MAIN COMPLAINT AREAS IN 2013 There were 7 complaints processed in the area of climate action in 2013. The Commission opened EU Pilot investigations in 2 cases.

6 complaints in 2011 6 complaints in 2012

complaints in 2013

Fuel Quality Directive

Other

I V. E U P I LO T

5 open EU Pilot files at the end of 2012

6 new EU Pilot files during 2013

9 Processed Eu Pilot files during 2013

2 open EU Pilot files at the end of 2013

The Member States’ combined resolution rate for files in EU Pilot in the area of climate action was 22%.

Accepted Member State response

7 Rejected Member State response

V. O W N I N I T I AT I V E C A S E S No own initiative cases were opened in 2013.

V I . E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S The cases closed without a Court judgement in 2013 related to: measures to transpose the directive on geological storage of carbon dioxide4 into national legislation (notifications were made by Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Luxemburg and the United Kingdom). 4 Directive 2009/31/EC

V I I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S There were no major judgements in the area of climate action in 2013.

COMMUNICATION NETWORKS, CONTENT AND TECHNOLOGY I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S ▶▶

OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES (ON 31 DECEMBER)

▶▶

RANKING BETWEEN THE POLICY AREAS DG HEALTH AND CONSUMERS 60 ENTERPRISE AND INDUSTRY 52 HOME AFFAIRS 44 AGRICULTURE 29 COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES 20 CLIMATE ACTION 19

(NUMBER OF OPEN CASES ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

2010

2011

2012

2013

ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS 13 AUDIOVISUAL AND MEDIA SERVICES 6 ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES 1

8TH 9TH 10TH 11TH 11TH 13TH

▶▶

BREAKDOWN PER SECTORS

12 new infringement cases were launched in 2013. They relate to: • Belgium: the independence of the telecoms regulator; • Luxembourg: unjustified delays on the part of the national authorities in complying with their obligations under the Electronic Communications Framework Directive;1 • Slovakia: establishment requirements concerning the provision of electronic communication services; • Luxembourg, Malta, the United Kingdom and Belgium: the incorrect transposition of a number of provisions of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD).2

One infringement case was referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. It relates to: • Estonia: failure to prevent the national telecoms regulator from owning or running telecoms companies.3

1 Directive 2002/21/EC 2 Directive 2007/65/EC

3 4

One infringement case was referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU. It relates to: • Portugal: failure to designate a universal provider of basic telecoms services.4

IP/13/480 IP/13/44

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES FOR THE LATE TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES 32

No infringement cases had to be launched due to late transposition of directives in the area of communication networks, content and technology.

39 0

2010

2011

2012

0 2013

Cases referred to the Court under Articles 258/260(3) TFEU: • none in 2013

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX II - P O L I C I E S

III. COMPLAINTS ▶▶

MAIN COMPLAINT AREAS IN 2013 There were 4 complaints processed in the area of communication networks, content and technology in 2013. The Commission opened EU Pilot investigations in all 4 cases.

32 complaints in 2011 28 complaints in 2012

complaints in 2013

Electronic communications (authorisations and establishments requirements)

Audiovisual and media services (public service broadcasting and financing of public service broadcasting)

23 Other

I V. E U P I LO T 54 open EU Pilot files at the end of 2012

79 open EU Pilot files at the end of 2013

52 new EU Pilot files during 2013

The Member States’ combined resolution rate for files in EU Pilot in the area of communication networks, content and technology was 52%.

27 Processed Eu Pilot files during 2013

Accepted Member State response

13 Rejected Member State response

V. O W N I N I T I AT I V E C A S E S A number of files have been opened in EU Pilot in the electronic communication sector. These mainly relate to Member States not meeting the requirements of the multiannual Radio Spectrum Policy Programme 5 within the time allowed. In particular, they missed the deadline for allocating frequencies to wireless broadband services across all EU harmonised bands. 5

Decision No 243/2012/EU

V I . E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S The cases closed without a Court judgement in 2013 related to: • the late transposition of the EU telecoms framework, specifically the Directives on citizens’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services6 (Belgium, Poland and Slovenia) and the common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services7 (Poland and Slovenia).

6 Directive 2009/136/EC 7 Directive 2009/140/EC

• • •

the late transposition of directives on audio-visual media services8 (Belgium and Poland) and the re-use of public sector information9 (Estonia and Slovakia); retail prices for high-speed access being set without first carrying out a market survey (Poland); 10 the awarding of ‘must-carry’ status to content broadcast in the Brussels region (Belgium).11

8 Directive 2007/65/EC 9 Directive 2003/98/EC 10 Commission v Poland, C-545/08 11 Commission v Belgium, C-134/10

V I I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S The Court ruled that: • a special charge imposed by France on electronic telecoms operators (such as mobile phone networks) complied with the Authorisation Directive.12 Although this directive stipulates how “administrative charge” should be calculated, the Court found that the charge in question was not an “administrative charge” as it did not relate to the general authorisation procedure for accessing the electronic telecoms market or the allocation of numbers or radio frequencies, and was borne by the end users;13 • under the Audiovisual Media Services Directive14, Member States are entitled to determine the events they consider to be of ‘major importance’. The Commission may only monitor whether the Member States complied with Union law in exercising their discretion. Accordingly, the appeals15 of the UEFA and FIFA against the Commission were rejected in cases relating to the qualification of the matches in the final stages of UEFA and FIFA tournaments as ‘events of major importance’. 12 Directive 2002/20/EC 13 Commission v France, C-485/11. The Court took essentially the same line in Vodafone Malta and Mobisle Communications, C-71/12. 14 Directive 2010/13/EU 15 FIFA v Commission and UEFA v Commission, C-205/11 P, C-204/11 P, C-201/11 P

In preliminary rulings, the Court ruled that: • the supply of a package of primarily television programmes via cable for which the price paid by the consumers transmission costs, broadcasters’ fees and royalties, constitutes an ‘electronic communications service’ as defined under the Framework Directive for electronic communications16 and other directives establishing the EU’s new regulatory framework in this area. Thus, only the national regulatory authority can be directly involved in the setting of retail tariffs, even if another body was granted the right to do so in an agreement concluded prior to the adoption of the EU’s new regulatory framework; 17 • the limitation of costs for broadcasting short news events of high interest to the public such as football matches, is valid. The Charter of Fundamental Rights does not preclude the compensation which holders of exclusive broadcasting rights may seek from other channels for short news reports from being limited to technical costs.18

16 Directive 2002/21/EC 17 UPC Nederland, C-518/11 18 Sky Österreich, C-283/11

EMPLOYMENT, SOCIAL AFFAIRS AND INCLUSION I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S ▶▶

OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES (ON 31 DECEMBER)

▶▶

RANKING BETWEEN THE POLICY AREAS

(NUMBER OF OPEN CASES ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

2010

2011

DG ENERGY 95 JUSTICE 67 EMPLOYMENT 60 HEALTH AND CONSUMERS 60 ENTERPRISE AND INDUSTRY 52 HOME AFFAIRS 44

2012

2013

SOCIAL SECURITY COORDINATION 23 LABOUR LAW 21 HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK 10 FREE MOVEMENT OF WORKERS 6

5TH 6TH 7TH 8TH 9TH 10TH

33 new infringement cases were launched in 2013. They all relate to the coordination of social security systems, and more specifically to: • Belgium: the binding effect of Portable Document A1 and E101 forms issued by the authorities of other Member States to individuals paying into their social security system while working in Belgium; • Ireland: failure to pay long-term care benefits to residents abroad; • The Netherlands: amendments to legislation reducing the benefits paid to residents of Turkey.

▶▶

BREAKDOWN PER SECTORS

Eleven infringement cases were referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They relate to: • Coordination of social security systems • United Kingdom: use of the ’right to reside’ test, instead of the ‘habitual residence’ test set out in EU law, in determining entitlement to social security benefits;1 • the Working Time Directive • Spain: failure to adopt adequate measures to ensure the protection of the health and safety of staff of the Civil Guard (referral to the Court has been decided but not yet executed in this case);2 • Greece: working conditions for hospital doctors;3 • Ireland: working conditions for trainee doctors.4 Cases referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU: • none in 2013 1 2 3 4

IP/13/475 IP/13/963 IP/13/1108 IP/13/1109

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES FOR THE LATE TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES One directive in the area of employment with transposition deadline in 2013

13 2010

2011

2012

Most of the 13 infringement cases had to be launched due to the late transposition of: • the directive implementing the Framework Agreement on preventing sharp injuries in the hospital and healthcare sector concluded by HOSPEEM (European Hospital & Healthcare Employers’ Association) and EPSU (European Federation of Public Services Unions).5

2013 Cases referred to the Court under Articles 258/260(3) TFEU: • none in 2013

5 Directive 2010/32/EU

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX II - P O L I C I E S

III. COMPLAINTS ▶▶

There were 376 complaints processed in the area of employment, social affairs and inclusion in 2013. The Commission opened EU Pilot investigations in 60 cases.

MAIN COMPLAINT AREAS IN 2013 269 complaints in 2011 309 complaints in 2012

470

complaints in 2013

178

Free movement of workers (e.g. employment in the public sector, study grants and mutual recognition of professional qualifications and experience)

Social security (e.g. determining the applicable laws and levying of social security contributions in cross-border situations, entitlement and calculation of pensions)

232

Other (labour law and health and safety at work Directives)

I V. E U P I LO T 42 open EU Pilot files at the end of 2012

62 new EU Pilot files during 2013 63 Processed Eu Pilot files during 2013

41 open EU Pilot files at the end of 2013

The Member States’ combined resolution rate for files in EU Pilot in the area of employment, social affairs and inclusion was 59 %.

Accepted Member State response

26 Rejected Member State response

V. O W N I N I T I AT I V E C A S E S •

No own initiative cases were opened in 2013.

V I . E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S The cases closed without a Court judgement in 2013 related to: • Spain: recognition of the European Health Insurance Card (EHIC), equal treatment and the cost of prescription medicines. The Spanish authorities agreed to introduce a simple system of self-certification, allowing EU pensioners using the EHIC to obtain prescriptions on the same terms as Spanish pensioners; • Slovenia: the conditions of the ‘ad futura’ scholarships. It will no longer be a requirement that graduates awarded the scholarship are obliged to return to employment in Slovenia at the end of the programme;

• • •

Greece: the adoption of legislation on fire safety; Ireland: the adoption of legislation necessary to comply with the Construction Site Directive;6 Austria: the adoption of legislation extending the scope of application to the education sector of the implementation measures relating to two directives7 on health and safety at work..

6 Directive 92/57/EEC 7 Directives 89/391/EEC and 89/654/EEC

V I I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S The Court ruled on: • the implications of the directive on cross-border mergers.8

• •

In preliminary rulings, the Court ruled: • on Austria’s use of the concept of habitual residence for determining EU citizens’ entitlement to a supplementary pension payment;9 • that Luxembourgish legislation excluding children of frontier workers from entitlement to financial aid for higher education studies goes beyond what is necessary in order to achieve the objective pursued, of increasing the proportion of residents with a higher education degree;10 • on unemployment benefits paid to frontier workers under the regulation on the coordination of social security systems 11 in the light of the Miethe ruling;12

• • • •

8 Commission v the Netherlands, C-635/11 9 Brey, C-140/12 10 Giersch and Others, C-20/12 11 Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 12 Jeltes and Others, C-443/11

on the application of a bilateral social security agreement;13 on the calculation of old-age pensions payable to migrant workers and the application of overlapping national provisions;14 on the obligatory use of Dutch in employment contracts;15 on fixed term work;16 on the implications of insolvency;17 on the posting of workers.18

13 Wencel, C-589/10 14 Mulders, C-548/11 15 Las, C-202/11 16 Papalia, C-50/13 17 Gomes Viana Novo and Others, C-309/12; Hogan and Others, C-398/11 18 Isbir, C-522/12

ENERGY I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S ▶▶

OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES (ON 31 DECEMBER)

▶▶

149

2011

2012

DG TRANSPORT 165 INTERNAL MARKET 140 ENERGY 95 JUSTICE 67 EMPLOYMENT 60 HEALTH AND CONSUMERS 60

2010

RANKING BETWEEN THE POLICY AREAS

(NUMBER OF OPEN CASES ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

2013

ENERGY EFFICIENCY 34 OIL 18 INTERNAL MARKET FOR ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS 18 NUCLEAR ENERGY & WASTE 13 ELECTRICITY FROM RENEWABLE ENERGY 12

40 new infringement cases were launched in 2013. They relate to: • Spain: restrictions imposed on the import of electricity, which is incompatible with the Electricity Regulation;1 • Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Lithuania: breach of the Energy Efficiency and Services Directive;2 • The Czech Republic: a case concerning conditions for getting access to the electricity distribution system, incompatible with the Renewable Energy Directive3 and the Electricity Directive;4 • Romania: failure to fulfil notification obligations under security of the Gas Supply Regulation;5 • The UK: a case concerning the issue of energy performance certificates for holiday lets, based on the directive on energy performance of buildings.6

1 Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 2 Directive 2006/32/EC 3 Directive 2009/28/EC 4 Directive 2009/72/EC 5 Regulation (EU) No 994/2010 6 Directive 2010/31/EU

4TH

3RD

5TH 6TH 7TH 8TH

▶▶

BREAKDOWN PER SECTORS

One infringement case was referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. It relates to: • Poland: the Polish system of regulated gas prices for business customers, which impeded the new gas suppliers from entering the gas market.7 Cases referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU: • none in 2013

IP/13/580; Commission v Poland, C-55/13

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES FOR THE LATE TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES 121

Most of the infringement cases had to be launched due to the late transposition of: • the Oil Stocks Directive8 (17 Member States); • the Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Directive9 (13 Member States). 12 infringement cases were referred to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.

2010

2011

2012

2013

Two directives in the area of energy with a transposition deadline in 2013

They relate to: • Bulgaria, Estonia, the UK10 and Romania: partial transposition of the two directives in the Third Energy Electricity and Gas Package;11 • Poland, Cyprus12 and Austria13: failure to transpose or to fully transpose the Renewable Energy Directive;14 • Portugal15: non-transposition of the directive on the energy performance of buildings.16 8 Directive 2009/119/EC 9 Directive 2011/70/EURATOM 10 IP/13/42 11 Directives 2009/72/EC and 2009/73/EC; Commission v Romania, C-405/13 and C-406/13 12 IP/13/259 13 IP/13/1113 14 Directive 2009/28/EC 15 IP/13/579 16 Directive 2010/31/EU

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX II - P O L I C I E S

III. COMPLAINTS ▶▶

There were 72 complaints processed in the energy area in 2013. The Commission opened EU Pilot investigations in 10 cases.

MAIN COMPLAINT AREAS IN 2013 57 complaints in 2011 71 complaints in 2012

complaints in 2013

Internal market for electricity and gas (such as the rights of the national regulatory authority, tariff provisions and consumer protection)

Legislation on energy Renewable energy (especially support schemes efficiency for wind and solar energy)

Other (incl. exploration of hydrocarbons oil stocks and nuclear energy)

I V. E U P I LOT 105 new EU Pilot files during 2013

29 open EU Pilot files at the end of 2012

52 open EU Pilot files at the end of 2013

The Member States’ combined resolution rate for files in EU Pilot in the area of energy was 90%.

82 Processed Eu Pilot files during 2013

Accepted Member State response

8 Rejected Member State response

V. O W N I N I T I AT I V E C A S E S The Commission launched most energy infringement cases and referred others to the Court on its own initiative (see the ‘General statistics’ section above). In 2013, the Commission also took the next procedural steps (reasoned opinion, referral to the Court or closure) in a number of ongoing own initiative cases concerning the non-transposition

of the Electricity and Gas Directives, the Renewable Energy Directive, the Building Energy Performance Directive and the Energy Labelling Directive.17 17 Directives 2009/72/EC; 2009/73/EC; 2009/28/EC, 2010/31/EU and 2010/30/EU

V I . E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S The cases closed without a Court judgment in 2013 related to: • the fulfilment of the obligations relating to the internal energy market in gas and electricity (Spain abolished electricity import restrictions, Poland, Finland, Bulgaria, and the UK

passed legislation fully transposing the Electricity and Gas Directives;18 Ireland and the UK passed legislation complying with obligations under the Electricity and Gas Regulations19). 18 Directive 2009/72/EC and Directive 2009/73/EC 19 Regulation (EC) No 714/2009

V I I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S The Court ruled that: • Italy failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive on energy performance of buildings. When buildings are constructed, sold or rented out, the owner or prospective buyer or tenant are given energy performance certificates. Italian law did not fulfil this requirement for all buildings. The Italian authorities also failed to inform the Commission of any implementing measures regarding inspections of air-conditioning systems;20 • Poland failed to ensure non-discriminatory access to activities relating to the prospection, exploration and extraction of hydrocarbons, and by not following the procedure that must precede the granting of authorisations for these activities.21

20 21

Commission v Italy, C-345/12 Commission v Poland, C-569/10

In preliminary rulings, the Court ruled that: • when transposing the unbundling requirements for distribution system operators in the EU energy law , national law could impose stricter rules than at EU level;22 • a standard term in consumer contracts allowing a gas supplier to unilaterally alter the price remains subject to review by national courts for lack of transparency as regards the reasons for adjusting the costs of the supply of gas and the method of doing so; 23 • Member States are implementing EU law in the sense of Article 51 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights when setting up support schemes. However, they have a broad margin of discretion when deciding which energy sources to support; 24 • the French feed in system for the support of renewable energy constitutes state aid. 25

22 23 24 25

Essent and Others, C-105/12 RWE Vertrieb, C-92/11 and Court press release No 36/13 IBV & Cie, C-195/12 Vent de Colère and Others, C-262/12

ENTERPRISE AND INDUSTRY I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S ▶▶

OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES (ON 31 DECEMBER)

▶▶

RANKING BETWEEN THE POLICY AREAS

(NUMBER OF OPEN CASES ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

111

DG EMPLOYMENT 60 HEALTH AND CONSUMERS 60 ENTERPRISE AND INDUSTRY 52 HOME AFFAIRS 44 AGRICULTURE 29 COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES 20

2010

2011

2012

2013

FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS 19 AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY 14 DEFENSE SECTOR 5 LATE PAYMENT DIRECTIVE 4 OTHER CASES 10

7th 8TH 9TH 10TH 11TH 11TH

▶▶

BREAKDOWN PER SECTORS

48 new infringement cases were launched in 2013. They relate to: • • • •

France: national legislation restricting the registration of vehicles; Germany: imposition of national pricing rules on pharmacies in other Member States issuing prescription medicines to customers in Germany; Lithuania: national legislation on precious metal imported from other Member States that requires imports to be re-checked and stamped again on entry; Poland: failure to notify the Commission on the projects in the field of technical regulations, as required under the directive on technical standards and regulations.1

Cases referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU: • none in 2013 Cases referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU: • none in 2013

1 Directive 98/34/EC

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES FOR THE LATE TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES Seven directives in the area of enterprise and industry with a transposition deadline in 2013

117

Most of these infringement cases had to be launched due to the late transposition of: • the directive adapting certain directives in the field of the free movement of goods, by reason of the accession of the Republic of Croatia 2 (nine Member States); • the directive on the list of defence-related products3 (five Member States).

54 19

2010

2011

2012

2013

Cases referred to the Court under Articles 258/260(3) TFEU: • none in 2013 2 Directive 2013/15/EU 3 Directive 2012/47/EU

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX II - P O L I C I E S

III. COMPLAINTS ▶▶

There were 128 complaints processed in the area of enterprise and industry processed in 2013. The Commission opened EU Pilot investigations in 50 cases.

MAIN COMPLAINT AREAS IN 2013 124 complaints in 2011 152 complaints in 2012

174

complaints in 2013

Free movement of goods (in particular, vehicles’ registration)

Rules governing the automotive sector

Other (e.g. the new Late Payment Directive and failures to notify technical rules, which might qualify as barriers to the free movement of goods)

I V. E U P I LO T 60 open EU Pilot files at the end of 2012

74 open EU Pilot files at the end of 2013

81 new EU Pilot files during 2013

The Member States’ combined resolution rate for files in EU in the area of enterprise and industry was 72%.

67 Processed Eu Pilot files during 2013

Accepted Member State response

19 Rejected Member State response

V. O W N I N I T I AT I V E C A S E S Member States were required to transpose the new Late Payment Directive by 16 March 2013. The Commission considered the full and correct application of this directive to be a priority, as it is included in the 91 key legislative acts listed in the Communication on Better Governance for the single market.4 Tackling late payment has therefore been one of the main areas where own initiative investigations have been launched. The Commission’s analysis of Member

State’s national measures transposing the Late Payment Directive highlighted issues in the case of 25 Member States. The Commission has therefore contacted these Member States regarding their implementation of this directive through the EU Pilot system. In addition, it has also launched an own initiative investigation into the application of the directive on mobile air conditioning in Germany.5

5 MEMO/14/50

COM/2012/259 final

V I . E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S The cases closed without a Court judgment in 2013 relate to: • Austria: the ban on distant sales of contact lenses; • Greece: the procedure for fixing the price of parallel imported pharmaceuticals which created obstacles to their import; • Italy: legislation on pyrotechnics articles that imposed additional requirements beyond the requirements set out in the directive on pyrotechnic articles;6 6

•

France: refusal to award subsidies incentivising the purchase of environmentally friendly cars to imported demonstration motor vehicles in breach of the principle of the free movement of goods.

•

Member States are not required to notify the Commission of a draft national legislation if they had already notified the Commission of a draft version, as required under the directive laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of the rules on Information Society services, and had then amended the draft to take account of the Commission s observations on it and sent the amended draft to the Commission.10

Directive 2007/23/EC

V I I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S The Court ruled that: • French national laws restricting the import of tobacco products were contrary to the provisions of the directive on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty.7 The Court highlighted that, where a topic has been the subject of exhaustive harmonisation at EU level, any national measure in this area must be assessed in the light of the provisions of the harmonising measure and not those of the Treaty.8

In preliminary rulings, the Court ruled that: • Member States may subject the manufacture, placing on the market or use of a substance referred to in Annex XVII to the REACH Regulation to conditions stricter than those laid down by this Regulation, only in order to respond to a situation where urgent action is necessary to protect human health or the environment, or on the basis of new scientific evidence relevant specifically to that Member State;9 7 Directive 92/12/EEC 8 Commission v France, C-216/11 9 Lapin luonnonsuojelupiiri, C-358/11

Belgische Petroleum Unie and others, C-26/11

ENVIRONMENT I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S ▶▶

OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES (ON 31 DECEMBER)

▶▶

RANKING BETWEEN THE POLICY AREAS

(NUMBER OF OPEN CASES ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

394 299

2010

2011

DG ENVIRONMENT 334 TAXATION 174 TRANSPORT 165 INTERNAL MARKET 140 ENERGY 95 JUSTICE 67

334 272

2012

334

223 new infringement cases were launched in 2013. They relate to: • The Czech Republic and Slovakia: inadequate transposition of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive;1 • Greece, Spain and Austria: failure to ensure adequate protection of species2 and/or habitats3. Austria has not fulfilled its obligations to propose an exhaustive list of sites to be included in the Natura 2000 network); Greece has failed to take adequate measures to combat the use of poison baits; and Spain has engaged in a project to upgrade the maritime access to the port of Seville involving dredging of the Guadalquivir River, which may have implications on Natura 2000 sites; • Italy: the operation of the ILVA steel plant in Taranto, in breach of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (IPPC Directive). The claims are based on the Industrial Emissions Directive, which replaced the IPPC Directive;4 • Austria: the planned construction of a hydro-power plant on the Schwarze Sulm river, which threatens to cause serious deterioration in the quality of the river; • Slovakia: application of EU legislation determining which projects are subject to an environmental impact assessment. 5

1 Directive 2011/92/EU 2 Directive 2009/147/EC 3 Directive 92/43/EEC 4 Directive 2008/1/EC, IP/13/866 5 Directive 2011/92/EU

2 3RD 4TH 5

6TH

2013

WASTE MANAGEMENT 97 WATER MANAGEMENT 73 NATURE PROTECTION 65 AIR QUALITY 44 IMPACT ASSESSMENTS 27 OTHER CASES 28

1ST ND

▶▶

BREAKDOWN PER SECTORS

Eight cases were referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They relate to: • Italy: inadequate treatment of waste at Malagrotta and other Lazio landfills sites;6 • Greece: operation of the landfill site in Peloponnese in breach of EU waste legislation;7 • Belgium: inadequate urban waste water treatment in a number of small agglomerations;8 • Bulgaria: failure to protect unique habitats and endangered species in the Kaliakra region;9 • Germany: inadequate transposition of EU legislation on access to justice in environmental matters (including the scope of national provisions and the burden of proof).10 Four cases were referred to the Court under Article 260(2)

TFEU

They relate to: • Greece: the operation of several landfill sites which do not comply with EU law;11 • Italy: inadequate waste management in Campania;12 • Greece: inadequate urban waste water treatment in several agglomerations;13 • Sweden: industrial installations operating without permits.14 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

IP/13/250 IP/13/483 IP/13/251 IP/13/966 IP/13/967 IP/13/143 IP/13/575 IP/13/1102 IP/13/145

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES FOR THE LATE TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES Ten directives in the area of environment with a transposition deadline in 2013

168

169

2010

2011

Cases referred to the Court under Articles 258/260(3) TFEU: • none in 2013

2012

Most of these infringement cases had to be launched due to the late transposition of: • the Industrial Emissions Directive15 (20 Member States); • the directive on the restriction of hazardous substances16 (15 Member States).

2013

15 Directive 2010/75/EU 16 Directive 2011/65/EU

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX II - P O L I C I E S

III. COMPLAINTS ▶▶

There were 400 complaints processed in the environment area in 2013. The Commission opened EU Pilot investigations in 82 cases.

MAIN COMPLAINT AREAS IN 2013 604 complaints in 2011 588 complaints in 2012

520

complaints in 2013

149

Nature protection

Waste management

Water protection and management

261 Other

Following petitions and questions received from the European Parliament, the Commission opened two infringements cases and 18 files in EU Pilot in 2013. The infringement cases were both opened against Italy, for, respectively, the non-compliance of the ILVA steel plant with EU environmental standards and the incorrect transposition of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. The files opened in EU Pilot mainly related to waste management, water management and nature protection.

I V. E U P I LO T 400 open EU Pilot files at the end of 2012

408 open EU Pilot files at the end of 2013

279 new EU Pilot files during 2013

The Member States’ combined resolution rate for files in EU Pilot in the environment area was 74%.

271 Processed Eu Pilot files during 2013

200 Accepted Member State response 71 Rejected Member State response

V. O W N I N I T I AT I V E C A S E S The Commission opened a number of own initiative cases in 2013: • It launched infringement procedures against Ireland and the United Kingdom as part of a horizontal action addressing the inadequate application of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive;17 • EU Pilot files were initiated with 13 Member States in connection with the designation of Special Areas of Conservation under the Habitats Directive;18 17 Directive 91/271/EEC 18 Directive 92/43/EEC

•

It continued infringement proceedings against 17 Member States that had exceeded the PM1019 limit values laid down in the Air Quality Directive.20

19 PM10 is ‘an air pollutant consisting of small particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometer. Their small size allows them to make their way to the air passages deep within the lungs where they may be deposited and result in adverse health effects’ (Source: the European Environmental Agency). 20 Directive 2008/50/EC

V I . E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S The cases closed without a Court judgment in 2013 related to: • Belgium: incorrect application of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (in relation to the exception covering projects adopted by a specific national act); • Hungary: inadequate transposition of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (in particular in relation to its scope); • Denmark, Latvia and Austria: incorrect transposition of certain provisions contained in the Birds Directive21 and/or of the Habitats Directive; 21

Directive 2009/147/EC

• • •

Germany, Estonia, Italy and Latvia: inappropriate transposition of various provisions contained in the Floods Directive;22 Latvia: inadequate transposition of the Groundwater Directive;23 The Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia, Greece and Spain: failure to notify the Commission of measures to transpose the Industrial Emissions Directive.

22 Directive 2007/60/EC 23 Directive 2006/118/EC

V I I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S The Court ruled that: • France had failed to fulfil its obligations under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, as it had not ensured the collection and the treatment of urban wastewaters in several agglomerations;24 • Greece had violated both the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive and the Habitats Directive in failing to protect Lake Koroneia, an important wetland and part of the Natura 2000 network;25 • France had not fully met the requirements of the Nitrates Directive in relation to the designation of zones vulnerable to nitrates; 26 • Ireland had not ensured that all existing pig-rearing and poultry-rearing facilities were operating in accordance with the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive;27 24 25 26 27

Commission v France, C-23/13 Commission v Greece, C-517/11 Commission v France, C-193/12 and Directive 91/676/EEC Commission v Ireland, C-158/12

•

Belgium and Luxembourg had failed to take the measures necessary to ensure compliance with earlier Court judgments on urban wastewaters treatment,28 and financial sanctions were therefore imposed. In preliminary rulings, the Court clarified the interpretation of EU law provisions on: • waste, environmental impact assessment, strategic environmental assessment, nature protection and access to justice in environmental matters.29

28 Commission v Belgium, C-533/11; Commission v Luxembourg, C-576/11 29 Brady, C-113/12; Ragn-Sells, C-292/12; Leth, C-420/11; Salzburger Flughafen, C-244/12; L, C-463/11; Sweetman and others, C-258/11; Edwards and Pallikaropoulos, C-260/11; Gemeinde Altrip and others, C-72/12

HOME AFFAIRS I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S ▶▶

OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES (ON 31 DECEMBER)

▶▶

RANKING BETWEEN THE POLICY AREAS

(NUMBER OF OPEN CASES ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

44 22

2010

DG HEALTH AND CONSUMERS 60 ENTERPRISE AND INDUSTRY 52 HOME AFFAIRS 44 AGRICULTURE 29 COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES 20 CLIMATE ACTION 19

2011

2012

11TH 11TH 13TH

2013

ASYLUM 14 TRAFFICKING IN HUMAN BEINGS 13 VISA POLICY 6 SCHENGEN BORDERS CODE 5 MIGRATION 4 POLICE CO-OPERATION AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION 2

8TH 9TH 10TH

▶▶

BREAKDOWN PER SECTORS

37 new infringement cases were launched in 2013. They relate to: •

migration cases: 1. Germany: on the requirement to pass a language test abroad before being admitted to the country for family reunification; 2. Italy: breach of the principle of equal treatment between Italian and third country nationals in relation to access to welfare benefits; and 3. Malta: on the conditions to be fulfilled by third country nationals when applying for long-term residence permits; • non-compliance with the Asylum directives:1 1. France: minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers; 2. Hungary: the processing of asylum applications and the poor treatment of asylum applicants during that process;

•

implementation of the right to appeal against a visa refusal, annulment or revocation (Six cases were opened against the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Finland; the case against Hungary has now been closed).

Cases referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU: • none in 2013 Cases referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU: • none in 2013

1 Directive 2005/85/EC and Directive 2003/9/EC

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES FOR THE LATE TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES Five directives in the area of home affairs with a transposition deadline in 2013 Most of the 23 infringement cases had to be launched due to the late transposition of: • the directive on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings2 (13 Member States); • the directive extending the long-term residents directive to beneficiaries of international protection3 (10 Member States);

23 1

2010

2011

2012

2013

Cases referred to the Court under Articles 258/260(3) TFEU: • none in 2013 2 Directive 2011/36/EU 3 Directive 2011/51/EU

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX II - P O L I C I E S

III. COMPLAINTS There were 107 complaints processed in the area of home affairs in 2013. The Commission opened EU Pilot investigations in 9 cases.

MAIN COMPLAINT AREAS IN 2013

▶▶

123 complaints in 2011 132 complaints in 2012

120

complaints in 2013

28 21 Asylum

Convention on Schengen the prevention of corruption

Other

I V. E U P I LO T 40 open EU Pilot files at the end of 2012

61 new EU Pilot files during 2013

43 open EU Pilot files at the end of 2013

58 Processed Eu Pilot files during 2013

The Member States’ combined resolution rate for files in EU Pilot files in the area of home affairs was 60%.

Accepted Member State response

23 Rejected Member State response

V. O W N I N I T I AT I V E C A S E S •

Own initiative cases have mainly concerned the area of migration and local border traffic regulation.

V I . E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S The cases closed without a Court judgment in 2013 related to: • an Italian law that discriminated against long term residents in determining access to public housing; • failure to inform the Commission of national measures taken to transpose the directive concerning sanctions against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals4 and the EU Blue Card Directive.5 4 Directive 2009/52/EC 5 Directive 2009/50/EC

V I I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S The Court ruled that: • Sweden had failed to transpose the Data Retention Directive6 into national law, despite a first judgment of 20107 in which the Court had already found that Sweden failed to transpose the Directive within the prescribed period.8 In preliminary rulings, the Court ruled that: • the limitation of stays in the Schengen area to a maximum of three months within a sixmonth period for foreign nationals who are not subject to visa requirements does not apply to those who benefit from the local border traffic regime;9 • asylum seekers may, on the basis of national law, be imprisoned for the purposes of removal on the grounds of illegal stay if the application for asylum has been made with the sole 6 7 8 9

Directive 2006/24/EC Commission v Sweden, C-185/09. As the Data Retention Directive was declared invalid by the Court later on (Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger and Others, joined cases C-293/12 and C-594/12), this is expected to have consequences on the payment of the lump sum paid by Sweden as a result of the previous judgment. Commission v Sweden, C‑270/11 and Court press release No 66/13 Shomodi, C-254/11 and Court press release No 35/11

•

• •

aim of delaying or jeopardising enforcement of the return decision;10 Turkish nationals do not have the right to enter the territory of an EU Member State without a visa in order to obtain services (i.e. in order to be the passive beneficiaries of the freedom to provide services);11 homosexual asylum applicants can be considered to constitute a particular social group who may be subject to persecution on account of their sexual orientation;12 A Schengen Visa may be refused only on the grounds expressly provided for in the EU Visa Code Regulation. However, Member States authorities have a wide discretion for determining whether one of those grounds for refusal can be applied to the applicant. 13

10 Arslan, C-534/11 11 Demirkan, C-221/11 and Court press release No 114/13 12 X and others, joined cases C-199/12, C-200/12 and C-201/12, and Court press release No 145/13 13 Koushkaki, C-84/12 and Court press release No 162/13

JUSTICE I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S ▶▶

OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES (ON 31 DECEMBER)

▶▶

RANKING BETWEEN THE POLICY AREAS

(NUMBER OF OPEN CASES ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

2010

2011

2012

DG INTERNAL MARKET 140 ENERGY 95 JUSTICE 67 EMPLOYMENT 60 HEALTH AND CONSUMERS 60 ENTERPRISE AND INDUSTRY 52

6 ST 7TH 8TH 9TH

2013

CITIZENSHIP AND FREE MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE 21 CRIMINAL LAW AND JUSTICE 17 EQUAL TREATMENT 12 CONTRACT AND CONSUMERS' LAW 9 DATA PROTECTION 6 CIVIL LAW AND JUSTICE 2

4TH 5TH

▶▶

BREAKDOWN PER SECTORS

35 new infringement cases were launched in 2013. They relate to: • five cases (Poland, Greece, Spain, Lithuania, Latvia and Slovakia) relating to EU citizens’ rights to participate in elections under the same conditions as nationals of that Member State; • two cases in the area of consumer rights: 1. Cyprus: the purchase of immovable property; 2. Slovakia: a lack of effective consumer protection against unfair contract terms and other violations of consumer law; • two cases regarding equality issues: 1. Italy: different conditions for men and women with regard to early retirement pensions; 2. Finland: deficiencies in the powers granted to the national race equality body, which provides assistance to victims of discrimination.1

One infringement case was referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. It relates to: • The Netherlands: failure to adequately protect rights relating to the return to work for employees on maternity, adoption or parental leave.2

2 Directive 2006/54/EC and IP/13/45

MEMO/13/1005

Cases referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU: • none in 2013

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES FOR THE LATE TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES

Four directives in the area of justice with a transposition deadline in 2013

2010

2011

2012

2013

Many of the 19 infringement cases had to be launched due to the late transposition of: • the directive on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings3 (16 Member States), which is the very first directive adopted in the field of procedural criminal law. Cases referred to the Court under Articles 258/260(3) TFEU: • none in 2013 3 Directive 2010/64/EU

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX II - P O L I C I E S

III. COMPLAINTS ▶▶

There were 518 complaints processed in the area of justice in 2013. The Commission opened EU Pilot investigations in 32 cases.

MAIN COMPLAINT AREAS IN 2013 433 complaints in 2011 491 complaints in 2012

590

complaints in 2013

72 68 Free movement of persons

Protection of personal data

Consumer law and businessto-business marketing

397

Other (including complaints invoking rights in the Charter of Fundamental Rights)

A parliamentary question in the area of justice led to an EU Pilot case being opened relating to the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion in the context of employment and occupation.4

Directive 2000/78/EC

I V. E U P I LO T

125 open EU Pilot files at the end of 2012

215 open EU Pilot files at the end of 2013

176 new EU Pilot files during 2013

The Member States’ combined resolution rate for files in EU Pilot in the area of justice was 64%.

86 Processed Eu Pilot files during 2013

Accepted Member State response

31 Rejected Member State response

V. O W N I N I T I AT I V E C A S E S Own initiative cases in the area of justice mostly relate to consumers protection law, the free movement of people and equality.

V I . E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S The cases closed without a Court judgment in 2013 related to: • Bulgaria: the additional requirement imposed on every non-Bulgarian EU citizen wishing to vote or stand as a candidate in European Parliament or municipal elections;5 5

•

Sweden, Slovakia, Czech Republic and Austria: cases relating to the incomplete ratification of the Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage.

•

a refusal to provide a pension supplement for an economically inactive EU citizen from another Member State can only be justified if granting of such a benefit is likely to place an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system in the host Member State. However, a social benefit cannot be refused automatically (without examining the burden to the national social assistance system and the personal circumstances);8 EU law does not prevent Member States from making provisions for an appeal to suspend execution of a decision that extends the effects of a European arrest warrant.9

IP/13/874

V I I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S The Court ruled that: • Italy had failed to require all employers to adopt practical and effective measures to support all people with disabilities.6 In preliminary rulings, the Court ruled that: • the public announcements made by the owner of a football club in Romania that he would never employ a homosexual player were in breach of the Employment Equality Framework Directive;7 6 7

Commission v Italy, C-312/11 and Court press release No 82/13 Asociaţia Accept, C-81/12, Court press release No 52/13 and Directive 2000/78/EC

•

8 Brey, C-140/12 9 PPU - F., C-168/13 and Court press release No 69/13

INTERNAL MARKET AND SERVICES I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S ▶▶

OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES (ON 31 DECEMBER)

▶▶

RANKING BETWEEN THE POLICY AREAS

(NUMBER OF OPEN CASES ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

273

262

167

2010

2011

2012

140

2013

PUBLIC PROCUREMENT 16 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 5 FREEDOM TO PROVIDE SERVICES 34 REGULATED PROFESSIONS 31 FINANCIAL SERVICES 54

68 new infringement cases were launched in 2013. They relate to: • Hungary: national legislation allowing natural persons to take out mortgage loans in foreign currency only if their income exceeds fifteen times the minimum wage; • Austria: national legislation restricting the use and establishment of holiday homes on grounds of nationality; • Belgium, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Lithuania, Poland and Romania: national legislation restricting the supply of gambling services;1 • Germany: discriminatory requirements in waste management contracts; • Italy: restrictions on lawyers from other Member States exercising the legal profession in Italy; • Sweden: the lack of means of legal redress in respect of the awarding of contracts for catering concessions; • Spain: national legislation restricting the access of non-Spanish nationals to the profession of technical designer.

DG TAXATION 174 TRANSPORT 165 INTERNAL MARKET 140 ENERGY 95 JUSTICE 67 EMPLOYMENT 60

1ST 2ND 3RD 4TH 5 TH 6TH

140

▶▶

BREAKDOWN PER SECTORS

Two infringement cases were referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They relate to: • Poland: national legislation specifying grounds for exclusion from tenders that are not provided for by the Public Procurement Directive.2 Firms that have previously been awarded a contract and have failed to perform that contract correctly, or have had the contract terminated due to circumstances for which they were responsible;3 • the restrictive issuing conditions of meal and holiday vouchers under the new Hungarian legal framework. Cases referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU: • none in 2013

2 Directive 2004/18/EC 3 IP/13/965

IP/13/1101

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES FOR THE LATE TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES 198

112

Ten directives in the area of internal market and services with a transposition deadline in 2013

2010

2011

2012

2013

Most of these infringement cases had to be launched due to the late transposition of: • the directive adapting certain directives in the field of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services, following the accession of the Republic of Croatia4 (19 Member States); • the Directive on Alternative Investment Fund Managers5 (16 Member States). Cases referred to the Court under Articles 258/260(3) TFEU: • none in 2013 4 5

Directive 2013/25/EU Directive 2011/61/EU

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX II - P O L I C I E S

III. COMPLAINTS There were 458 complaints processed in the area of internal market and services in 2013.

MAIN COMPLAINT AREAS IN 2013

▶▶

530 complaints in 2011 462 complaints in 2012

494

complaints in 2013

151

Free movement of capital (in relation to e.g. energy, financial services and agricultural land)

Public procurement (e.g. non-discrimination, equal treatment, and transparency, wrong definition of award criteria and choice of the wrong procurement regime)

Cross-border e-commerce

254

Other (including gambling services and regulated professions)

The Commission opened EU Pilot investigations in 70 cases

I V. E U P I LO T 176 open EU Pilot files at the end of 2012

136 open EU Pilot files at the end of 2013

122 new EU Pilot files during 2013

The Member States’ combined resolution rate for files in EU Pilot in the area of internal market and services was 75%.

162 Processed Eu Pilot files during 2013

121 Accepted Member

State response

41 Rejected Member State response

V. O W N I N I T I AT I V E C A S E S Own initiative cases have mainly been launched in the area of regulated professions.

V I . E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S The cases closed without a Court judgment in 2013 related to: • Portugal: failure to implement the provisions contained in the directive on award procedures of public contracts in the fields of defence and security;6 • Finland: national legislation that created a monopoly right for the provision of gambling services;7 6 Directive 2009/81/EC 7 IP/13/1101

• • •

Greece: refusal to recognise qualifications awarded by educational establishments operating under franchise arrangements with universities in other Member States; Poland: requirement that notaries are of Polish nationality; Luxembourg: the linguistic requirements for lawyers wishing to practise under the Luxembourg professional title after practicing for three years under the professional title of the Member State in which they qualified.

V I I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S The Court ruled that: • by repealing both the provisions of the Volkswagen Law relating to the appointment of members of the supervisory board and those relating to the cap on voting rights, Germany fulfilled the obligations resulting from the Court’s 2007 judgment. The Court therefore dismissed the action brought by the Commission seeking to impose financial penalties for non-compliance;8 • the Czech Republic was obliged to pay a lump sum of EUR 250, 000 for non-compliance with the Court’s initial judgment relating to incomplete transposition of the directive on the activity and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision. The Commission had withdrawn its request to ask for a daily penalty.9

8 9

Commission v Germany, C-95/12 and Court press release No 138/13 Commission v Czech Republic, C-241/11

In preliminary rulings, the Court ruled that: • the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property falls within the exclusive competence of the European Union;10 • a Member State may rely on the provisions of a directive which has not been transposed into national law when taking a case against a body holding a public service concession;11 • a contract in which one public entity assigns to another a task in return for financial compensation intended to cover the costs incurred in the performance of the task in public contract12 at least when: (a) it does not establish a cooperation in carrying out a task they both have to perform; (b) the public entity assigning the task keeps the power to supervise its proper execution, and (c) the entity to whom the tasks is assigned is authorised to use third parties that might be capable of competing on the market for the accomplishment of that task. • the exclusion from partial access (i.e. authorisation to carry out some of the activities in a professional field) to the physiotherapy profession in Greece constitutes an obstacle to the freedom of establishment.13

10 Daiichi Sankyo and Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland, C-414/11 and Court press release No 95/13 11 Portgás, C-425/12 12 Piepenbrock, C-386/11 13 Nasiopoulos, C-575/11 and Court press release No 79/13

100

MOBILITY AND TRANSPORT I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S ▶▶

OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES (ON 31 DECEMBER)

▶▶

287 205

194

2011

2010

RANKING BETWEEN THE POLICY AREAS

(NUMBER OF OPEN CASES ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

DG ENVIRONMENT 334 TAXATION 174 TRANSPORT 165 INTERNAL MARKET 140 ENERGY 95 JUSTICE 67

165

1ST 2ND 3TH 4 5TH 6TH

2013

2012

AIR 62 RAIL 42 ROAD 17 MARITIME 15 OTHER CASES 29

165

94 new infringement cases were launched in 2013. They relate to: • Spain, Italy, Latvia, Austria and Spain: failure to comply with the requirement to keep separate financial accounts for railway undertakings and for railway infrastructure managers;1 • France2 and Latvia3: failure to implement the principle of free provision of port services; • Belgium, Greece, Italy and Cyprus: failure to put in place the legal structure for establishing functional airspace blocks, as required under the Single European Sky legislation;4 • Greece and Italy: discriminatory airport charges; • Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria and Portugal: breach of passenger rights in relation to various modes of transport.

▶▶

BREAKDOWN PER SECTORS

Nine infringement cases have been referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They relate to: • Austria, Poland and Finland: failure to apply EU working time rules to self-employed drivers;5 • Portugal: incorrect application of the rules on airport ground handling at Lisbon, Porto and Faro airports;6 • Spain: restrictive rules on the recruitment of port workers;7 • Germany: failure to comply with EU rules on financial transparency in the rail sector, by allowing public funds intended for services provided under public service obligations to be used to cross subsidise passenger and freight train services open to competition;8 • Portugal: failure to guarantee independence of airport slot coordinators;9 • Slovenia: failure to apply the directive on the operability of the rail system within the Community;10 • Belgium: failing to apply the directive on inland transport of dangerous goods to scientific and technical progress.11 Cases referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU: • none in 2013

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Directive 91/440/EEC Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 Article 56 TFEU IP/13/860

IP/13/142 IP/13/255 IP/13/559 IP/13/1097 IP/13/1100 IP/13/141 IP/13/256

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES FOR THE LATE TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES 240

Most of these infringement cases had to be launched due to the late transposition of: • the directive adapting certain directives in the field of transport policy, by reason of the accession of the Republic of Croatia12 (12 Member States); • the directive adapting for the second time the annexes to Directive 2008/68/EC on the inland transport of dangerous goods to scientific and technical progress13 (ten Member States).

140

2010

2011

115

2012

2013

Eight directives in the area of transport with a transposition deadline in 2013

Two infringement Cases referred to the Court under Articles 258/260(3) TFEU relate to: • Belgium: failure to implement the directive on intelligent transport systems14 and failure to fully implement the directive on the investigation of maritime accidents.15 12 Directive 2013/22/EU 13 Directive 2012/45/EU 14 IP/13/561 15 IP/13/560

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX II - P O L I C I E S

III. COMPLAINTS ▶▶

There were 92 complaints processed in the area of mobility and transport in 2013. The Commission opened EU Pilot investigations in 31 cases.

MAIN COMPLAINT AREAS IN 2013 65 complaints in 2011 68 complaints in 2012

102

complaints in 2013

Passenger rights, in particular air and rail and discriminatory bus fares;

Road safety, in particular issues on driving licenses;

Discriminatory airport charges

60 Other

I V. E U P I LO T 286 new EU Pilot files during 2013

193 open EU Pilot files at the end of 2013

117 open EU Pilot files at the end of 2012

The Member States’ combined resolution rate for files in EU Pilot in the area of transport was 62%.

210 Processed Eu Pilot files during 2013

130 Accepted Member State response 80 Rejected Member State response

V. O W N I N I T I AT I V E C A S E S •

The own initiative infringement cases opened by the Commission mainly relate to the railway sector (e.g. the separation of accounts of railway undertakings, and railway infrastructure managers and railway safety and interoperability), the air sector (implementation of the Single European Sky legislation, in particular the requirement to establish functional airspace

blocks) and breaches of passengers rights (e.g. designation and operation of national bodies, responsible for handling passenger complaints, in particular as relates to travel by sea and inland waterways, by bus and by-coach passengers).

V I . E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S The cases closed without Court a judgment in 2013 related to: • Estonia and Romania: implementation of the First Railway Package; • The Czech Republic, Spain, Austria and Poland: failure to apply EU working time rules to self-employed drivers;

•

Portugal: discriminatory charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain parts of transport infrastructure.

V I I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S The Court ruled that: • Germany, Luxembourg and Austria have complied with the obligations set out in the First Railway Package concerning the independence of infrastructure managers vis-à-vis other rail operators;16 • The Czech Republic, Spain, France, Italy, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia17 have failed to correctly implement the First Railway Package. The shortcomings in their implementation measures mainly relate to: the lack of independence of the infrastructure manager vis-à-vis 16 Commission v Austria, C-555/10; Commission v Germany, C-556/10 and Commission v Luxembourg, C-412/11 (with Court press release No 88/13) 17 Commission v Czech Republic, C‑545/10; Commission v France, C-625/10; Commission v Hungary, C-473/10; Commission v Italy, C-369/11; Commission v Poland, C-512/10; Commission v Spain, C-483/10 and Commission v Slovenia, C‑627/10

railway undertakings; insufficient implementation of the provisions of the directive on track access charging, e.g. the absence of a ‘performance scheme’ to incentivise railway undertakings and the infrastructure manager to improve the performance of the railway network; the lack of incentives for the infrastructure manager to reduce costs and charges and the fact that systems for setting tariffs do not take into account of the direct costs of rail services.

101

102

HEALTH AND CONSUMERS I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S ▶▶

OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES (ON 31 DECEMBER)

▶▶

RANKING BETWEEN THE POLICY AREAS

(NUMBER OF OPEN CASES ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

107

2010

DG JUSTICE 67 EMPLOYMENT 60 HEALTH AND CONSUMERS 60 ENTERPRISE AND INDUSTRY 52 HOME AFFAIRS 44 AGRICULTURE 29

2011

2012

2013

MEDICINAL PRODUCTS 22 ANIMAL WELFARE / ANIMAL HEALTH 16 FOOD SAFETY 12 PUBLIC HEALTH 9 CONSUMER POLICY 1

Five infringement cases were referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They relate to: • Greece and Italy: failure to take the necessary measures to ensure that laying hens are kept in «enriched cages»;2 IP/13/135 IP/13/366

8TH 9 10TH 11TH

60 new infringement cases were launched in 2013.They relate to: • failure to ensure that pregnant sows are kept in groups (nine Member States).1

1 2

6TH 7TH

•

▶▶

BREAKDOWN PER SECTORS

Poland: incomplete transposition of EU laws on the quality and safety of human tissues and cells used in healthcare. The provisions made in Polish law are such that three categories of tissues and cells–reproductive cells, embryonic tissues and foetal tissues – are not made subject to quality and safety rules.3

Cases referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU: • none in 2013 3

Directive 2004/23/EC and IP/13/873. It is national legislation, rather than this directive, that determines whether or not the tissues and cells may be used for transplantation.

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES FOR THE LATE TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES Nine directives in the area of health and consumers with a transposition deadline in 2013

254

Most of the 58 infringement cases had to be launched due to the late transposition of: • the directive on falsified medicinal products (16 Member States);4 • the Pharmacovigilance Directive5 (eleven Member States) Cases referred to the Court under Articles 258/260(3) TFEU: • none in 2013

164

4 5

108

2010

2011

2012

2013

Directive 2011/62/EU Directive 2012/26/EU

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX II - P O L I C I E S

III. COMPLAINTS ▶▶

MAIN COMPLAINT AREAS IN 2013 99 complaints in 2011

There were 106 complaints processed in the area of health and consumers in 2013. The Commission opened EU Pilot investigations in 23 cases. Petitions from the European Parliament revealed potential infringements of EU law in the cosmetic products, animal welfare and food safety sectors.

125 complaints in 2012

102

complaints in 2013

Health protection (including medicinal products and medical devices)

Consumer protection

Food and plant safety (including GMOs)

Animal welfare (Professional qualifications and experience)

Other (e.g. zootechnics)

I V. E U P I LO T 66 open EU Pilot files at the end of 2012

42 new EU Pilot files during 2013

46 open EU Pilot files at the end of 2013

The Member States’ combined resolution rate for files in EU Pilot in the area of health and consumers was 71%.

62 Processed Eu Pilot files during 2013

44 Accepted Member State response 18 Rejected Member State response

V. O W N I N I T I AT I V E C A S E S The Commission has carried out a detailed assessment of the measures taken by Member States to transpose the Consumer Credit Directive.6

•

Directive 2008/48/EC

The Commission urged Member States to implement EU legislation on the quality and safety of blood and blood components more effectively.7 Directives 2002/98/EC, 2004/33/EC and 2005/61/EC)

V I I . E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S The cases closed in 2013 without a Court judgment related to: • Spain, Cyprus and Poland: the requirement to keep laying hens in enriched cages; • Spain: the protection of animals in slaughterhouses; • France: laws preventing the national equestrian institute having a monopoly in the issuing of identification documents for horses;

V I I I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S The Court ruled that: • France failed to respect Article 288 TFEU (according to which a decision is binding in its entirety and to whom it is addressed) and Article 4(3) TEU (the principle of sincere cooperation) by failing to implement the Commission Decision9 ordering it to suspend (until a judgment is made in an on-going Court case10) certain measures it has taken in order to prohibit the import of milk and milk products intended for human consumption from holdings where a case of classical scrapie has been confirmed.11

9 Commission Decision 2009/726/EC 10 France v Commission, T-257/07 11 Commission v France, C-520/11

•

Slovakia: the compliance of the national definition of “genetically modified micro-organism” with EU law.8

Directive 2009/41/EC

103

104

TAXATION AND CUSTOMS UNION I . G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S ▶▶

OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES (ON 31 DECEMBER)

▶▶

258 215

2010

2011

193

2012

DG ENVIRONMENT 334 TAXATION 174 TRANSPORT 165 INTERNAL MARKET 140 ENERGY 95 JUSTICE 67

174

2013

CUSTOMS 6 VALUE ADDED TAX 54 EXCISE DUTIES 13 OTHER INDIRECT TAXES (CARS, CAPITAL) 13 DIRECT TAXATION 88

174

4TH 5TH 6TH

▶▶

BREAKDOWN PER SECTORS

15 infringement cases were referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They relate to: • Bulgaria: the duty and tax relief given to certain imports from the US under a technical assistance agreement between the two countries go beyond what is allowed under EU law, as they do not meet the conditions under which Member States are allowed to give duty relief, e.g. to commodities imported by organisations set up under international law or in connection with cultural, scientific or technical cooperation agreements concluded with non-EU countries;2 • France and Luxembourg: a VAT reduction granted for e-book downloads;3 • Hungary: tax exemptions for distillates (pálinka) produced for personal use (maximum of 50 litres per annum);4 • France: tax laws that appear to discriminate against rented properties located outside France by allowing faster depreciation for comparable properties located in France, thereby easing the tax burden on investments in France compared to elsewhere;5 • Spain: tax laws allowing only residents to benefit from the tax exemption granted for capital gains realised from the sale of a permanent residence and being reinvested into another permanent residence.6 Cases referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU: • none in 2013

2 3 4 5 6

Directive 2010/45/EU

1ST 2ND 3TH

67 new infringement cases were launched in 2013. They relate to: • Italy: rules on VAT refunds that appear to be disproportionately strict, and delays in paying refunds; • Cyprus: failure to transpose the new, simpler and more modern EU rules on VAT invoicing;1 • France: the reduced VAT rate applied to some agricultural products seems to go beyond the scope of the VAT Directive; • Italy: rules governing inheritance tax benefits that appear to discriminate against non-Italian public securities and foreign non-profit organisations based in Member States that do not have reciprocity agreements with Italy; • Germany: exempting foreign non-profit entities from inheritance tax only if equivalent benefits are granted to German non-profit organisations and maintenance allowances paid to the spouse and children of deceased people being conditional on that person having been resident in Germany.

RANKING BETWEEN THE POLICY AREAS

(NUMBER OF OPEN CASES ON 31 DECEMBER 2013)

IP/13/573 Directive 2006/112/EC and IP/13/137 IP/13/138 IP/13/473 IP/13/365

II. TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES FOR THE LATE TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES Two directives in the area of taxation and customs union with a transposition deadline in 2013

34 18

2010

2011

2012

2013

Most of the 34 infringement cases had to be launched due to the late transposition of: • the directive on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation7 (13 Member States); • the directive adapting certain directives in the field of taxation, by reason of the accession of the Republic of Croatia8 (nine Member States). Cases referred to the Court under Articles 258/260(3) TFEU: • none in 2013 7 8

Directive 2011/16/EU Directive 2013/13/EU

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW ● ANNEX II - P O L I C I E S

III. COMPLAINTS ▶▶

MAIN COMPLAINT AREAS IN 2013 411 complaints in 2011

There were 378 complaints processed in the area of taxation and customs union in 2013. The Commission opened EU Pilot investigations in 77 cases. In response to petitions from the European Parliament, the Commission opened EU Pilot investigations in relation to tax rules applied to mobile workers.

384 complaints in 2012

452

complaints in 2013

237

180

Indirect taxation (including VAT)

Other (e.g. customs)

Direct taxation

I V. E U P I LO T 119 open EU Pilot files at the end of 2012

130 new EU Pilot files during 2013

123 open EU Pilot files at the end of 2013

The Member States’ combined resolution rate for files in EU Pilot in the area of taxation and customs union was 60 %.

126 Processed Eu Pilot files during 2013

76 Accepted Member State response 50 Rejected Member State response

V. O W N I N I T I AT I V E C A S E S The Commission opened own initiative cases in 2013 in relation to: • customs fees and duties, specifically the simplified customs procedure and customs guarantees; • rules that might create obstacles to awarding VAT refunds to taxable individuals not established in the EU;

• • 9

procedures for verifying the validity of tax markings on tobacco products and the restricted access to excise duty warehouses in some Member States; national tax legislation relating to cross-border workers9 and cross-border inheritance. This EU-wide initiative examines the tax treatment of cross-border workers and was broadened to tackle tax discrimination against both economically active and non-active individuals including workers, selfemployed and retired persons (IP/12/340 and IP/14/31)

V I . E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S • The cases closed without a Court judgment in 2013 related to: • Cyprus: discriminatory taxation of cars imported from other Member States; • France: less advantageous tax treatment of remuneration paid in respect of overtime for cross-border workers;

Romania: legislation prohibiting the consolidation of losses and profits of foreign companies’ permanent local establishments, whilst allowing this for Romanian companies.

V I I . I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S The Court ruled that: • France had not respected the provisions of the VAT Directive,10 as it had not made the awarding of VAT exemptions to vessels subject to the condition stipulated in EU law that these vessels navigate in the high seas;11 • Ireland had failed to comply with the VAT Directive, as it had applied a reduced VAT rate to the sale of greyhounds and horses, to the hire of horses and to certain insemination services;12 • Ireland had failed to comply with the Energy Taxation Directive,13 as it had granted duty-free fuel for disabled people’s motor vehicles after the transition period;14 • Spain had failed to respect the VAT Directive, as it had excluded the sale of travel services sold by a retail agent in its own name but organised by a wholesale agent from the travel agents’ special VAT scheme.15 In preliminary rulings, the Court ruled that: • under the Community Customs Code, imported goods in temporary storage cannot be deemed as ready for transport within the Community transport solely on the basis of the fact that the customs declaration has been accepted. For goods to be given this status, the consignment must be considered as ‘released’ as defined in the Code, which implies the fulfilment of certain other conditions;16 10 Directive 2006/112/EC 11 Commission v France, C-197/12 12 Commission v Ireland, C-108/11 13 Directive 2003/96/EC 14 Commission v Ireland, C-55/12 15 Commission v Spain, C-189/11 16 Codirex Expeditie, C-542/11

•

the Bulgarian integrated customs information system was considered adequate for the purposes of charging retroactively an anti-dumping duty on steel fasteners of Chinese origin. Consequently, the Bulgarian authorities did not violate EU law by not creating a specific registration system for this purpose;17 when recovering of a tax levied in breach of Union law, if the UK rules allow taxpayers to choose between two possible causes of action and one of those benefits from a longer limitation period, national rules cannot curtail this period retroactively and without notice;18 Finnish income tax rules allowing the deduction of losses resulting from the sale of real estate in Finland, but not those resulting from the sale of real estate in another country, from the gains earned on the sale of securities are compatible with the TFEU;19 spouses with German nationality and subject to German income tax rules cannot be refused the benefit of joint taxation through the ‘splitting method’ solely on the basis that they reside in Switzerland.20

17 Paltrade, C-667/11 18 Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation, C-362/12 19 K, C-322/11 20 Ettwein, C-425/11

105

106

METHODOLOGY AND EXPLANATIONS ANNEX I – MEMBER STATES G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S ▶▶

FIRST CHART: OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES

The figures for the years 2009-13 include all procedures that the Commission initiated against the Member State by sending a letter of formal notice under Article 258 TFEU in the reporting year or before and that the Commission has not yet closed by a formal decision, irrespective of the actual procedural phase. Accordingly, this number includes all cases that, on 31 December of the above years: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi)

are in the pre-litigation phase (letter of formal notice, reasoned opinion or decision on referral to the Court under Article 258 TFEU), are pending before the Court under Article 258 TFEU or Article 260(3) TFEU, the Court had ruled on but the Commission could not yet confirm that the Member State has implemented the judgment correctly, are in the second pre-litigation procedure (letter of formal notice or referral decision under Article 260(2) TFEU) are pending before the Court due to a second referral and the Court had ruled on for the second time but the Commission could not yet confirm that the Member State has implemented the second judgment correctly.

This figure does not include, for example, open EU Pilot files or EU Pilot files where the Commission already rejected the Member State’s response in EU Pilot but has not yet sent the letter of formal notice under Article 258 TFEU. ▶▶

SECOND CHART: RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP

Each Member State belongs to a particular reference group. On the basis of the Member States’ voting weights in the Council, the following reference groups were created: 1 (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

Germany, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain and Poland Romania, the Netherlands, Greece, Czech Republic, Belgium, Hungary and Portugal Sweden, Austria and Bulgaria Slovakia, Denmark, Finland, Lithuania and Ireland Latvia, Slovenia, Estonia, Cyprus, Luxembourg, and Malta.

Three sets of data are shown for each Member State in a given reference group: • The first is the number of infringements that stood open against these Member States on 31 December in the reporting year (first columns). • The second is their ranking position in the EU-28 (without Croatia). In case two or more Member States have equal number of open infringements their ranking will be the same i.e., there is no secondary ranking criteria. • The third set is the number of letters of formal notice addressed by the Commission to the Member State under Article 258 TFEU (letters of formal notice under Article 260(2) TFEU are not included) from 1 January until 31 December of the reporting year. To be noted that not all of these new infringement cases were necessarily open on 31 December of the reporting year. For example, if the Commission had opened a late transposition infringement in March 2013 by sending a letter of formal notice, the case will be added to the new infringement cases irrespective of the fact that the case was closed in October 2013 due to the Member State’s full notification. 1 ▶▶

This categorisation may change in future Annual Reports.

THIRD CHART: BREAKDOWN ACCORDING TO POLICY AREAS

As a principal rule, this chart indicates the three policy areas where the most infringements were open on 31 December in the reporting year. Four (or more) policies are mentioned, if two (or more) policies have the third highest number of open infringements. Only two policies are highlighted, if there are too many policies with the third highest number or if this would make the chart very fragmented (might occur in Member States with relatively few infringements).

R E F E R R A L S TO T H E C O U R T A N D K E Y I N F R I N G E M E N T C A S E S ▶▶

THIS SECTION HAS THREE PARTS:

1. The first part starts with the number of new infringement procedures in the reporting year and lists the most important new and on-going procedures in the stage of letter of formal notice or reasoned opinion (under Article 258 TFEU). 2. The second part list contains the referral decisions that the Commission made under solely Article 258 TFEU against the Member State in the reporting year (or a negative confirmation). To be noted that referrals made under Article 258 and 260(3) TFEU are discussed in the “Transposition of directives” section (see below). To be noted also that the referral decision does not necessarily mean in all cases that the Commission had already submitted its claim to the Court by 31 December of the reporting year. Even if there is a negative confirmation, there might be on-going proceedings against the Member State under this Article due to earlier Commission decisions. 3. The third part includes all referral decisions that the Commission made under Article 260(2) TFEU against the Member State in the reporting year (or a negative confirmation). This does not mean in all cases that the Commission had already submitted its claim to the Court by 31 December of the reporting year. Even if there is a negative confirmation, there might be on-going proceedings against the Member State under this Article due to earlier Commission decisions.

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW M E T H O D O L O G Y A N D E X P L A N A T I O N S ● ANNEX I

TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

FIRST CHART: NEW LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES

This figure shows the number of letters of formal notice addressed to the Member State under Article 258 TFEU due to missing or partial notifications of directives’ national transposition measures. This figure is already included into the total number of new infringement cases initiated against the Member State in the reporting year. (So it should not be added to the figure shown in the first chart of the general statistics section.) To be noted that not all of these new late transposition infringement cases were necessarily open on 31 December of the reporting year. For example, if the Commission had opened a late transposition infringement procedure in March 2013 by sending a letter of formal notice it will be added to the new infringement cases even if the case was closed in October 2013 due to the Member State’s full notification. The figure for the current reporting year is further broken down according to policy areas. Generally, this break-down indicates the two policy areas where the most late transposition procedures were launched during the reporting year. Three (or more) policies are mentioned, if two (or more) policies have the second highest number of open infringements. Only one policy is highlighted, if there are too many policies with the second highest number or if this would make the chart very fragmented (might occur in Member States with relatively few infringements).

▶▶

SECOND CHART: RANKING IN THE EU-28 AND REFERENCE GROUP

Two sets of data are shown for each Member State in a given reference group: 1. The first is the number of late transposition infringements that were launched against the Member State during the years 2009-13. 2. The second is their ranking position in the EU-28 (without Croatia). The ranking is based upon the number of open late transposition cases on 31 December of the reporting year. In case two or more Member States have equal number of open infringements their ranking will be the same i.e., there is no secondary ranking criteria.

▶▶

REFERRALS AGAINST THE MEMBER STATE UNDER ARTICLES 258 / 260(3) TFEU:

The directive(s) that the Member State failed to transpose on time is mentioned (or a negative statement). This does not mean in all cases that the Commission had already submitted its claim to the Court by 31 December of the reporting year. In addition to these referrals, there might be other cases pending before the Court based on earlier Commission decisions. Even if there is a negative statement, there might be on-going proceedings under these Articles against the Member State due to earlier Commission decisions.

COMPLAINTS This section analyses the number of complaints that the Commission received in relation to the Member State. The figure on the number of incoming complaints for the current reporting year is broken down according to policy areas and sectors. Generally, this break-down indicates the three policy areas (as well as their most targeted sectors) where the most complaints were received during the reporting year.

E U P I LO T ▶▶

FIRST CHART: AVERAGE RESPONSE TIME IN EU PILOT

The pie chart indicates how the Member State’s average response time in EU Pilot has changed over the past three years.

▶▶

SECOND CHART: NEW AND PROCESSED EU PILOT FILES

This chart starts from the Member State’s “balance” of EU Pilot files at the end of the previous reporting year (first column). The second column indicates the number of new EU Pilot files received during the reporting year. This column is further broken down according to policy areas, which indicates the three policy areas where the most EU Pilot files were addressed to the Member State. Similarly to the previous break-downs, more or less policies might be mentioned, depending on the actual nuber of new EU Pilot files. The third column that shows the number of processed EU Pilot files indicates the number of dossiers where the Commission decided on the Member State’s responses in EU Pilot. Finally, the fourth column indicates the “balance” of the Member State’s EU Pilot files at the end of the reporting year (i.e. first figure plus the second less the third shall be equal to the fourth figure).

E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T S This section contains a list of the most important infringement procedures that the Commission had closed during the reporting year. The list should not be considered exhaustive.

I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S ▶▶

1. 2.

THIS SECTION CONTAINS TWO LISTS; The first contains the most important judgments of the Court against Member States. These judgments are almost exclusively passed under Article 258 or Articles 260(2) TFEU. The second list refers to the most important preliminary rulings that the Court has issued to the Member State’s judiciary. These lists are not necessarily exhaustive.

107

108

ANNEX II – DIRECTORATES GENERAL2 2

Depending on the infringement workload of the Commission's various policy areas, a full review (detailed statistics and case summaries) was prepared for certain fields. By contrast, only case summaries were prepared for other policy areas, where the preparation of statistical parts would be less useful due to the limited number of procedures. *

G E N E R A L S TAT I S T I C S ▶▶

FIRST CHART: OPEN INFRINGEMENT CASES

The figures for the years 2010-13 include all procedures that the Commission initiated in the policy area by sending a letter of formal notice under Article 258 TFEU in the reporting year or before and that the Commission has not yet closed by a formal decision, irrespective of the actual procedural phase. Accordingly, this number includes all cases that, on 31 December of the above years: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi)

This figure does not include, for example, open EU Pilot files in the policy area or EU Pilot files where the Commission already rejected a Member State’s response in EU Pilot but has not yet sent the letter of formal notice under Article 258 TFEU.

▶▶

SECOND CHART: RANKING BETWEEN THE POLICY AREAS

The Commission’s policy areas are ranked according to the number of open infringements they had on 31 December in the reporting year. In case two or more DGs have equal number of open infringements their ranking will be the same i.e., there is no secondary ranking criteria. The full ranking may be found in Annual Report which these Staff Working Documents follow.

▶▶

THIRD CHART: BREAK-DOWN PER SECTORS

The chart indicates the main sectors within the policy areas and the number of infringements open on 31 December in the reporting year. The number of sectors varies according to the portfolio of each policy area.

▶▶

LIST OF NEW INFRINGEMENT CASES:

This item contains the number of new infringement procedures launched in the policy area during reporting year and lists the most important new procedures under Article 258 TFEU.

▶▶

LIST OF FIRST REFERRALS:

This list contains the most important referral decisions (or all, if there were not many) that the Commission made under solely Article 258 TFEU in the policy area during the reporting year (or a negative confirmation). To be noted that referrals made under Article 258 and 260(3) TFEU are discussed in the “Transposition of directives” section (see below). To be noted also that the referral decision does not necessarily mean in all cases that the Commission had already submitted its claim to the Court by 31 December of the reporting year. Even if there is a negative confirmation, there might be open cases with referral decisions or on-going proceedings before the Court under this Article due to earlier Commission decisions.

▶▶

LIST OF SECOND REFERRALS:

The third part includes all referral decisions that the Commission made under Article 260(2) TFEU in the policy area during the reporting year (or a negative confirmation). This does not mean in all cases that the Commission had already submitted its claim to the Court by 31 December of the reporting year. Even if there is a negative confirmation, there might be on-going proceedings (cases with referral decisions or pending before the Court) under this Article due to earlier Commission decisions.

TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ▶▶

CHART: NEW LATE TRANSPOSITION INFRINGEMENT CASES

This figure shows the number of letters of formal notice sent to all Member States in the given policy area under Article 258 TFEU due to missing or partial notifications of directives’ national transposition measures. This figure is already included into the total number of new infringement cases initiated in the policy area during the reporting year. (So it should not be added to the figure shown in the first chart of the general statistics section.) To be noted that not all of these new late transposition infringement cases were necessarily open on 31 December of the reporting year. For example, if the Commission had opened a late transposition infringement procedure in March 2013 by sending a letter of formal notice it will be added to the new infringement cases even if the case was closed in October 2013 due to the Member State’s full notification. The figure for the reporting year is further broken down in a list next to the chart. This list contains those directive(s) in the given policy field where the Commission had to launch infringement procedures against a relatively high number of Member States. It is also mentioned how many directives’ transposition deadline expired in the given policy area during the reporting year. ▶▶

REFERRALS AGAINST THE MEMBER STATE UNDER ARTICLES 258 / 260(3) TFEU:

This item is a list of decisions to refer late transposition cases to the Court, with the indication of Member States involved and the directive(s) that they failed to transpose on time (or a negative statement). This does not mean in all cases that the Commission had already submitted its claim to the Court by 31 December of the reporting year. In addition to these referrals, there might be other cases pending before the Court based on earlier Commission decisions. Even if there is a negative statement, there might be on-going proceedings under these Articles against the Member State due to earlier Commission decisions.

R E P O R T F R O M T H E C O M M I S S I O N 3 1 ST A N N U A L R E P O R T ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW M E T H O D O L O G Y A N D E X P L A N A T I O N S ● ANNEX I

COMPLAINTS This section analyses the number of complaints that the Commission received in relation to the given policy field during the past years. The figure on the number of incoming complaints for the current reporting year is broken down according to sectors. The number of sectors identified varies according to the portfolio of each policy area. It is also indicated how many complaints had been processed during the reporting year and how many out of these processed complaints had resulted in the Commission’s opening of investigations in EU Pilot. In case the Commission launched EU Pilot investigations or formal infringement procedures at the initiative of the European Parliament, the subject-matters of such cases are mentioned in a blue text box (not applicable for all the policy areas).

E U P I LO T ▶▶

CHART: NEW AND PROCESSED EU PILOT FILES

This chart starts from the policy area’s “balance” of EU Pilot files at the end of the previous reporting year (first column). The second column indicates the number of new EU Pilot files received during the reporting year. The third column shows the number of processed EU Pilot files. This column is further broken down according to whether the Member States’ responses in EU Pilot were accepted or rejected by the Commission. From the ratio of the accepted Member State responses and the total processed files the Member States’ combined resolution rate in the given policy field is calculated as a percentage. Finally, the fourth column indicates the “balance” of the policy area’s EU Pilot files at the end of the reporting year (i.e. first figure plus the second less the third shall be equal to the fourth figure).

O W N I N I T I AT I V E C A S E S This section contains a list of the most important infringement procedures that the Commission had launched or moved forward in the given policy area during the reporting year. The list should not be considered exhaustive.

E A R LY R E S O L U T I O N O F I N F R I N G E M E N T S This section contains a list of the most important infringement procedures that the Commission had closed in the given policy area during the reporting year. The list should not be considered exhaustive.

I M P O R TA N T J U D G M E N T S This section contains two lists; 1. the first contains the most important judgments of the Court in the given policy area. These judgments are almost exclusively passed under Article 258 or Articles 260(2) TFEU. 2. the second list refers to the most important preliminary rulings that the Court has issued to the Member State’s judiciary in the given policy area. These lists are not necessarily exhaustive.

109

The Commission welcomes feedbacks on this Annual Report and appreciates suggestions for future reports. Please address your questions and comments to: Ms Catherine Day Secretary General European Commission B-1049 Brussels BELGIUM or write to the following email address: infractions@ec.europa.eu