EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 15.7.2016

SWD(2016) 231 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Part II: Member States

Accompanying the document

Report from the Commission

Monitoring the application of European Union law
2015 Annual Report

{COM(2016) 463 final}
{SWD(2016) 230 final}

Austria    

Belgium    

Bulgaria    

Croatia    

Cyprus    

Czech Republic    

Denmark    

Estonia    

Finland    

France    

Germany    

Greece    

Hungary    

Ireland    

Austria

New complaints against Austria rose in 2015, reversing falls from the peak reached in 2012. The number of new EU Pilot files fell for the second consecutive year, to less than half their 2013 peak. Open infringement cases eased back down to their 2013 level, while the downward trend in new infringement cases for late transposition since 2011 continued.

I.COMPLAINTS

1.New complaints made against Austria by members of the public (2011- 2015)

2.Public complaints against Austria open at year-end

3.New complaints registered in 2015: main policy areas

II.EU PILOT

1.New EU Pilot files opened against Austria (2011-2015)

2.Files relating to Austria open in EU Pilot at year -end

3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2015: main policy areas

4.EU Pilot files: Austria’s average response time in 2011-2015 (in days)

5.EU Pilot files: Austria’s resolution rate in 2011- 2015

III.INFRINGEMENT CASES

1.Infringement cases against Austria open on 31 December (2011-2015)

2.New infringement cases opened in 2015: main policy areas

3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court

a)The Commission opened 21 new infringement cases against Austria in 2015. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

late transposition of the Directive on honey labelling; 1

late and incomplete transposition of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 2 and of the Energy Efficiency Directive; 3

bilateral investment treaties, signed before all state parties became members of the EU, which overlap and conflict with the EU single market law on cross-border investments; 4

excessive and unjustified obstacles in the area of professional services that run counter to the Services Directive; 5

hindrance of ski instructors' freedom to provide services in Austria;

non-compliance of national legislation with provisions of the Train Drivers’ Directive; 6

failure to connect the national electronic register of road transport undertakings to the registers of other Member States;

late transposition of the recast Reception Conditions Directive 7

incorrect implementation of the Directive on charging of heavy goods on a motorway (night tolls). 8

b)The Commission referred two cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They concern:

failure to comply with EU provisions on financial transparency in the rail transport sector; 9  

non-compliance with the EU-Turkey association law. The Austrian establishment and residence legislation does not fully reflect the rights of Turkish workers and their families. 10

c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.

IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES

1.Late transposition infringement cases against Austria open on 31 December (2011-2015)

2.New late transposition infringement cases against Austria (2011-2015)

3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2015: main policy areas

4.Referrals to the Court

The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.

V.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES

Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2015

These concerned:

incorrect transposition of the Health and Safety at Work Framework Directive at the level of the provinces of Salzburg and Lower Austria. Several acts correcting the errors identified were adopted at that level and have entered into force; 11

incomplete transposition of the Council Directive implementing the social partners Framework Agreement on the prevention from sharp injuries in the hospital and healthcare sector; 12

failure to fully transpose the Renewable Energy Directive; 13

non-respect of the PM10 14 limit values in the Air Quality Directive; 15

partial communication of national measures transposing the Capital Requirements Directive; 16

late transposition of the Directive combating trafficking in human beings; 17

non-conformity with the Railway Safety Directive; 18

incorrect implementation of EU legislation on the rights of bus and coach passengers 19 and passengers travelling by sea and inland waterways; 20

differentiation of toll rates at the Felbertauern crossing, in breach of the principle of non-discrimination.

VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

1.Court rulings 21

There were no major Court rulings in 2015.

2.Preliminary rulings

In preliminary rulings addressed to the Austrian judiciary, the Court:

provided clarification on ‘programme’ and ‘principal purpose’ as defined in the Audiovisual Media Services Directive.  22 23 The Court also stated that the Authorisation Directive 24 should be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking is ‘affected’ by a national regulatory authority decision and has the right of appeal against that decision under certain circumstances. 25 Changes in charges following a price adjustment clause contained in an undertaking’s standard terms and conditions and operating by reference to a consumer price index compiled by a public institution does not constitute a ‘modification to the contractual conditions’ under the Universal Service Directive 26 that would give the subscriber the right to withdraw from the contract without penalty; 27

ruled that exploratory drilling for natural gas, including trial production of natural gas to determine the commercial feasibility of the deposit, does not automatically require an environmental impact assessment. The competent national authorities must nevertheless carry out an evaluation to determine whether an environmental impact assessment is necessary. The cumulative impact of other projects must be considered and assessment must not be confined to municipal boundaries; 28

ruled that an administrative decision not to carry out an environmental impact assessment for a particular project cannot be binding on persons who were precluded from bringing an action against that decision, if they are members of the ‘public concerned’ who satisfy the criteria laid down by national law concerning ‘sufficient interest’ or ‘impairment of a right’; 29

ruled that provisions in national law made it excessively difficult to exercise the right to bring an action for damages under EU procurement rules; 30

provided answers to questions related to the definition of ‘passenger’ regarding legislation on insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators; 31

ruled that allowing the parent company to depreciate the goodwill embedded in the shares of the acquired firm only for domestic subsidiaries restricts the freedom of establishment. 32

Belgium

Belgium's application of EU law improved in 2015. New complaints fell from the peak of 2014, while the number of new EU Pilot files decreased sharply, to below the 2011 level. Open infringement cases continued the downward trend seen since 2011. New infringement cases for late transposition fell back to their 2013 level after a sudden spike in 2014.

I.COMPLAINTS

1.New complaints made against Belgium by members of the public (2011- 2015)

2.Public complaints against Belgium open at year-end

3.New complaints registered in 2015: main policy areas

II.EU PILOT

1.New EU Pilot files opened against Belgium (2011-2015)

2.Files relating to Belgium open in EU Pilot at year -end

3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2015: main policy areas

4.EU Pilot files: Belgium’s average response time in 2011-2015 (in days)

5.EU Pilot files: Belgium’s resolution rate in 2011- 2015

III.INFRINGEMENT CASES

1.Infringement cases against Belgium open on 31 December (2011-2015)

2.New infringement cases opened in 2015: main policy areas

3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court

a)The Commission opened 35 new infringement cases against Belgium in 2015. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

failure to notify the national measures transposing the Directive 33 on the alignment of several EU health and safety at work directives to the Regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures; 34

late transposition of the Directive on honey labelling; 35

late and incomplete transposition of the Energy Efficiency Directive; 36

bad application of the Habitats Directive as regards designating special areas of conservation and establishing the necessary conservation measures; 37

late transposition of the Seveso III Directive; 38

failure to communicate all national measures transposing the Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive. This is a precondition for the future use of the European Deposit Insurance Scheme proposed by the Commission; 39

the total ban under Belgian law on people simultaneously practising as accountants and

insurance brokers/agents, real estate agents or undertaking banking or financial activities, and the ban on mixing the practice of accountant with any craft, agricultural or trade activity. The bans could infringe Article 25 of the Services Directive; 40

late transposition of the recast Asylum Procedures and Reception Conditions Directives; 41

late transposition of the Directive on attacks against information systems; 42

late transposition of the Single Permit Directive; 43

failure to implement functional airspace blocks effectively. Under the 'single European sky' legislation, 44 national air traffic control organisations should work together in nine regional airspace blocks to improve efficiency, cut costs and reduce emissions; 45

late transposition of the Directive 46 on the alignment of several EU health and safety at work directives to the Regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures; 47

restrictions on the freedom of establishment regarding the provision of port services;

non-compliance with the Directive on inland waterway navigation due to restrictions on the freedom to conclude contracts and negotiate prices. 48

b)The Commission referred two cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They concern:

national rules which may subject a posted worker to Belgian social security legislation under certain circumstances. This is considered contrary to the EU Regulation on the coordination of social security systems; 49

tax legislation discriminating against foreign property investments by applying different methods for assessing property-related income depending on whether the real estate is in Belgium or elsewhere in the EU. 50

c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.

IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES

1.Late transposition infringement cases against Belgium open on 31 December (2011-2015)

2.New late transposition infringement cases against Belgium (2011-2015)

3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2015: main policy areas

4.Referrals to the Court

The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.

V.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES

Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2015

These concerned:

breach of the independence requirements for national regulatory authorities under the Framework Directive for electronic communications networks and services; 51

non-communication of national measures transposing the Directive 52 amending a number of other Directives to align them to the Regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures; 53

non-communication of national measures transposing the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive and the Financial Conglomerates Directive; 54

incomplete transposition of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive; 55

late transposition of the Directive 2011/51/EU extending the Long-Term Residents Directive 56 to beneficiaries of international protection;

failure to notify measures transposing the Directive on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings; 57

non-conformity with the Railway Safety Directive; 58

non-communication of national measures transposing the Directive on charging heavy goods vehicles for use of certain infrastructure; 59

bad application of the Directive on driving licences; 60

laws on the representation rights of customs agents. The relevant provisions were subsequently amended on the specific issues covered by the infringement.

VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

1.Court rulings 61

The Court ruled that:

requiring proof of language knowledge from candidates for local services posts by means of one particular type of certificate, issued only by one particular Belgian body following an examination conducted by that body, infringes workers’ right of free movement; 62

exempting the interest accrued on Belgian debt instruments from a withholding tax on condition that such instruments are deposited or credited to an account opened by a Belgian financial institution is incompatible with the free provision of services. 63

2.Preliminary rulings

In preliminary rulings addressed to the Belgian judiciary, the Court:

ruled that a tax imposed on owners of pylons or masts intended for a mobile telecoms network is not covered by the Authorisation Directive 64 . This is because the tax is not a fee imposed on undertakings providing electronic communications networks and services in return for the right to install facilities. 65 The Directive must be interpreted as not precluding:

1. a charge on mobile telephony antennae installed being imposed on any natural or legal persons who are proprietors of a 'right in rem' over, or of a right to operate, a mobile telephony antenna; 66 and

2. a charge being imposed on any natural or legal person operating mobile telephony network transmission and reception pylons and units,; 67

ruled that, regarding the term ‘fair compensation’ to be paid to right holders under the Copyright Directive, 68 the system has to ensure that the compensation paid corresponds to the actual harm caused; 69

ruled that the Universal Service Directive does not lay down a social pricing obligation for mobile communications and mobile internet subscriptions. 70 By contrast, social tariffs must be offered to certain categories of consumers for fixed telephone and internet subscriptions; 71

ruled that reducing or refusing a retirement pension to a retired EU official who has, prior to entering the service, pursued an activity in an employed capacity in the Member State in which she is posted is incompatible with the TFEU; 72

ruled that the office of legal secretary at the ‘Cour de cassation’ is not a ‘regulated profession’; 73

ruled that the Maternity Leave Directive precludes a Member State from making entitlement to maternity allowance subject to a prior period of employment; 74

reiterated the conditions set out in Article 19 of the Regulation on a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims 75 , including the necessary extensions of time limits for challenging judgments. It thus suggested that Belgian law does not meet the conditions of Article 19.

Bulgaria

New complaints against Bulgaria jumped in 2015 after holding steady for three years. However, fewer new EU Pilot files were opened than in the previous four years. The number of open infringement cases also fell sharply to the lowest level since 2011. In addition, significantly fewer new infringement cases for late transposition were launched than in 2014.

I.COMPLAINTS

1.New complaints made against Bulgaria by members of the public (2011- 2015)

2.Public complaints against Bulgaria open at year-end

3.New complaints registered in 2015: main policy areas

II.EU PILOT

1.New EU Pilot files opened against Bulgaria (2011-2015)

2.Files relating to Bulgaria open in EU Pilot at year -end

3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2015: main policy areas

4.EU Pilot files: Bulgaria’s average response time in 2011-2015 (in days)

5.EU Pilot files: Bulgaria’s resolution rate in 2011- 2015

III.INFRINGEMENT CASES

1.Infringement cases against Bulgaria open on 31 December (2011-2015)

2.New infringement cases opened in 2015: main policy areas

3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court

a)The Commission opened 25 new infringement cases against Bulgaria in 2015. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

failure to communicate all national measures transposing the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive, a centrepiece of the EU banking union. 76

national restrictions on the acquisition of agricultural land which limit the free movement of capital and freedom of establishment by being discriminatory and/or disproportionate; 77

failure to notify national measures transposing the Qualifications Directive; 78

non-communication of national measures transposing the recast Asylum Procedures Directive and Reception Conditions Directive; 79

late transposition of the Directive on attacks against information systems; 80

late and incomplete transposition of the Energy Efficiency Directive; 81

failure to communicate all national measures transposing the Solvency II Directive and the Omnibus II Directive. These create a harmonised prudential framework for insurance firms in the EU to facilitate development of a single market in insurance services. 82

b)The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. It concerns non-respect of the PM10 83 limit values in the Air Quality Directive. 84  

c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.

IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES

1.Late transposition infringement cases against Bulgaria open on 31 December (2011-2015)

2.New late transposition infringement cases against Bulgaria (2011-2015)

3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2015: main policy areas

4.Referrals to the Court

The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.

V.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES

Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2015

These concerned:

certain aspects of the organisation of working time of employees of the Bulgarian Ministry of Interior;

incorrect transposition of the former Directive on deposit-guarantee schemes, in parallel with a disproportionate restriction on free movement of capital relating to the conservatorship and moratorium over Corporate Commercial Bank; 85

non-communication of national measures transposing the Directive on avoiding over-reliance on credit rating agencies; 86

failure to notify national measures transposing the Directive on the European protection order; 87

non-compliance with the requirement to ensure direct electronic exchange of fisheries-related data with other Member States;

non-conformity of national legislation with the Directive on driving licences, as amended; 88

bad application of the 'single European sky' legislation;

incorrect implementation of the Danube functional airspace block.

VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

1.Court rulings 89

The Court ruled that:

the procedure followed by Bulgaria in assigning rights of use for digital terrestrial (‘DTT’) frequencies was based on disproportionately restrictive award conditions. These led to the exclusion of potential candidates and hampered competition; 90

Bulgaria has failed to comply with the Landfill Directive. It has not adopted the measures needed to ensure that its landfills for non-hazardous waste do not continue to function unless they satisfy the requirements of the Directive. 91

2.Preliminary ruling

In a preliminary ruling addressed to the Bulgarian judiciary, the Court ruled that the principle of equal treatment applies not only to people of a certain ethnic origin but also to those who suffer, together with the former, less favourable treatment or a particular disadvantage on account of a discriminatory measure.

The case concerned the installation of electricity meters at a height of 6 metres in a district densely populated by Roma people. The meters are installed in other districts at normal height. According to the electricity company the installation of meters at 6 metres height was justified by their being increasingly tampered with and damaged, and by the numerous unlawful connections to the network in the district concerned. The Court observed that the company's practice seemed disproportionate to the aims of ensuring the security of the electricity network and the due recording of electricity consumption, and to the legitimate interests of the residents of the district concerned. 92

Croatia

New complaints against Croatia fell in 2015 after increasing sharply in 2014, its first full year as an EU Member State. The number of new EU Pilot files against Croatia moved in parallel with new complaints. However, twice as many infringement cases were open at the end of 2015 as a year earlier. In contrast, the number of new infringement cases for late transposition halved in 2015.

I.COMPLAINTS

1.New complaints made against Croatia by members of the public (2011- 2015) 93

2.Public complaints against Croatia open at year-end

3.New complaints registered in 2015: main policy areas

II.EU PILOT

1.New EU Pilot files opened against Croatia (2011-2015)

2.Files relating to Croatia open in EU Pilot at year -end

3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2015: main policy areas

4.EU Pilot files: Croatia’s average response time in 2011-2015 (in days) 94

5.EU Pilot files: Croatia’s resolution rate in 2011- 2015 95

III.INFRINGEMENT CASES

1.Infringement cases against Croatia open on 31 December (2011-2015)

There were 21 infringement cases open against Croatia at the end of 2015, just over double the 10 cases open a year earlier.

2.New infringement cases opened in 2015: main policy areas

3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court

a)The Commission opened 18 new infringement cases against Croatia in 2015. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

failure to notify the national measures transposing the Directive 96 on the alignment of several EU health and safety at work directives to the Regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures; 97

late and incomplete transposition of the Energy Efficiency Directive; 98

lack of waste management plans and waste prevention programmes required under the Waste Framework Directive; 99

bad application of the Waste Framework Directive in the Biljane Donje site; 100

failure to communicate all national measures transposing the first amendment of the Financial Conglomerates Directive. This aims to remedy gaps in supplementary supervision revealed during the financial crisis; 101

failure to correctly implement the 'Eurodac' Regulation; 102

incorrect transposition of the Directive on driving licences, as amended; 103

non-ratification and non-deposition of the ratification instrument of the Protocol of Accession to the Eurocontrol International Convention relating to the Safety of Air Navigation.

b)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU.

c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.

IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES

1.Late transposition infringement cases against Croatia open on 31 December (2011-2015)

2.New late transposition infringement cases against Croatia (2011-2015)

Six new late transposition infringement cases were opened against Croatia in 2015, just under half the thirteen cases opened a year earlier.

3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2015: policy areas

4.Referrals to the Court

The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.

V.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES

Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2015

These concerned non-communication of national measures transposing the Directives on control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, 104  patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare 105 , and consumer rights. 106

VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

1.Court rulings 107

There were no major Court rulings in 2015.

2.Preliminary rulings

No major preliminary rulings were addressed to the Croatian judiciary in 2015.

Cyprus

New complaints against Cyprus continued to drop in 2015, reaching the lowest level in the last five years. The number of new EU Pilot files was unchanged from 2014. Open infringement cases increased slightly to their highest level since 2012, though they were still below the 2011 peak. The rising trend in the number of new infringement cases for late transposition continued but the 2015 figure remained well below the 2011 level.

I.COMPLAINTS

1.New complaints made against Cyprus by members of the public (2011- 2015)

2.Public complaints against Cyprus open at year-end

3.New complaints registered in 2015: main policy areas

II.EU PILOT

1.New EU Pilot files opened against Cyprus (2011-2015)

2.Files relating to Cyprus open in EU Pilot at year -end

3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2015: main policy areas

4.EU Pilot files: Cyprus’s average response time in 2011-2015 (in days)

5.EU Pilot files: Cyprus’s resolution rate in 2011- 2015

III.INFRINGEMENT CASES

1.Infringement cases against Cyprus open on 31 December (2011-2015)

2.New infringement cases opened in 2015: main policy areas

3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court

a)The Commission opened 47 new infringement cases against Cyprus in 2015. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

late transposition of the Directive 108 on the alignment of several EU health and safety at work directives to the Regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures; 109

non-communication of national measures transposing the Directive on honey labelling; 110

breach of the EU provisions on free movement of workers, by not taking into account, for employment in the public sector, previous professional experience in another Member State;

late and incomplete transposition of the Energy Efficiency Directive; 111

lack of waste management plans and waste prevention programmes required under the Waste Framework Directive; 112

failure to fulfil obligations under the Habitats Directive in relation to a development project in the area of Limni; 113

failure to communicate all national measures transposing the Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive. This is a precondition for the future use of the European Deposit Insurance Scheme proposed by the Commission; 114

failure to communicate all national measures transposing the Solvency II Directive, which creates a harmonised prudential framework for insurance firms in the EU to facilitate development of a single market in insurance services; 115

excessive and unjustified obstacles in the area of professional services that run counter to the Services Directive; 116

failure to give full effect to provisions on the free movement of lawyers;

incorrect application of the Long-Term Residents Directive 117 due to the excessive and disproportionate charges levied;

failure to correctly implement the 'Eurodac' Regulation; 118

non-communication of national measures transposing the recast Asylum Procedures and Reception Conditions Directives; 119

failure to inform buyers about pre-existing mortgages on properties offered for sale. As a result, buyers who had paid for their property were unable to obtain their title deed;

failure to implement functional airspace blocks effectively. Under the 'single European sky' legislation, 120 national air traffic control organisations should work together in nine regional airspace blocks to increase efficiency, cut costs and reduce emissions; 121

incorrect transposition of the Directive on driving licences, as amended; 122

failure to fulfil the ‘port state control’ inspection commitment, as fixed by the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control.

b)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU.

c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.

IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES

1.Late transposition infringement cases against Cyprus open on 31 December (2011-2015)

2.New late transposition infringement cases against Cyprus (2011-2015)

3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2015: main policy areas

4.Referrals to the Court

The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.

V.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES

Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2015

These concerned:

failure to recognise professional experience gained in the public health system of another Member State;

failure to transpose the Directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment; 123

failure to notify complete national measures transposing the Capital Requirements Directive; 124

late transposition of the Directive combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography; 125

failure to notify national transposition measures for the Directive on the right to information in criminal proceedings; 126

failure to apply correctly the Directive on the protection of pigs as regards group housing of sows; 127

bad application of the Directive on driving licences; 128

non-conformity of national legislation with EU rules on investigation and prevention of accidents and incidents in civil aviation;

failure to connect the national electronic register of road transport undertakings with the registers of other Member States.

VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

1.Court rulings 129

There were no major Court rulings in 2015.

2.Preliminary rulings

No major preliminary rulings were addressed to the Cyprus judiciary in 2015.

Czech Republic

New complaints against the Czech Republic have slightly increased from the low reached in 2013 but are still below the level of 2011. In 2015 the number of new EU Pilot files continued falling from its 2013 peak, hitting its lowest point since 2011. However, open infringement cases have been rising steadily since 2013. New infringement cases for late transposition have been relatively stable since 2012.

I.COMPLAINTS

1.New complaints made against Czech Republic by members of the public (2011- 2015)

2.Public complaints against Czech Republic open at year-end

3.New complaints registered in 2015: main policy areas

II.EU PILOT

1.New EU Pilot files opened against Czech Republic (2011-2015)

2.Files relating to Czech Republic open in EU Pilot at year -end

3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2015: main policy areas

4.EU Pilot files: Czech Republic’s average response time in 2011-2015 (in days)

5.EU Pilot files: Czech Republic’s resolution rate in 2011- 2015

III.INFRINGEMENT CASES

1.Infringement cases against Czech Republic open on 31 December (2011-2015)

2.New infringement cases opened in 2015: main policy areas

3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court

a)The Commission opened 21 new infringement cases against the Czech Republic in 2015. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

late transposition of the Directive 130 on the alignment of several EU health and safety at work directives to the Regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures; 131

non-conformity of the general authorisation regime for electronic communications with the provisions of the Authorisation Directive, 132 in particular the requirement to establish legal residence; 133

non-communication of national measures transposing the recast Asylum Procedures and Reception Conditions Directives; 134

failure to communicate all national measures transposing the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive, a centrepiece of the EU banking union. 135

failure to communicate all national measures transposing the first amendment of the Financial Conglomerates Directive. This aims to remedy gaps in supplementary supervision revealed during the financial crisis; 136

late and incomplete transposition of the Energy Efficiency Directive; 137

non-respect of the PM10 138 limit values in the Air Quality Directive. 139

b)The Commission referred two cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They concern:

incorrect transposition and implementation of EU railway safety rules; 140

failure to establish a national electronic register of road transport undertakings and/or to connect it with the national electronic registers of the other EU Member States. 141

c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.

IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES

1.Late transposition infringement cases against Czech Republic open on 31 December (2011-2015)

2.New late transposition infringement cases against Czech Republic (2011-2015)

3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2015: policy areas

4.Referrals to the Court

The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.

V.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES

Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2015

These concerned:

incomplete transposition measures of the Capital Requirements Directive; 142

failure to notify national transposition measures for the Directive on the right to information in criminal proceedings; 143

failure to notify national transposition measures for the Directive on the European protection order. 144

VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

1.Court rulings 145

There were no major Court rulings in 2015.

2.Preliminary ruling

In a preliminary ruling addressed to the Czech judiciary, the Court ruled that Articles 12 and 13 of the Universal Service Directive 146 are unconditional and sufficiently precise to be recognised as having direct effect. 147

Denmark

New complaints against Denmark have remained relatively stable since 2012. In 2015 the number of new EU Pilot files continued the sharp fall from its 2013 peak, reaching its lowest level for five years. Open infringement cases also continued the overall downward trend seen for the last two years. The number of new late transposition cases rose slightly but held below the 2013 level.

I.COMPLAINTS

1.New complaints made against Denmark by members of the public (2011- 2015)

2.Public complaints against Denmark open at year-end

3.New complaints registered in 2015: main policy areas

II.EU PILOT

1.New EU Pilot files opened against Denmark (2011-2015)

2.Files relating to Denmark open in EU Pilot at year -end

3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2015: main policy areas

4.EU Pilot files: Denmark’s average response time in 2011-2015 (in days)

5.EU Pilot files: Denmark’s resolution rate in 2011- 2015

III.INFRINGEMENT CASES

1.Infringement cases against Denmark open on 31 December (2011-2015)

2.New infringement cases opened in 2015: main policy areas

3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court

a)The Commission opened 18 new infringement cases against Denmark in 2015. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

non-communication of national measures transposing the Directive on honey labelling; 148

national rules which prevent certain workers, such as those newly entering the Danish labour market and those with fixed-term contracts, from taking annual leave in the first year of employment or at all while employed. This is contrary to the fundamental EU social right to minimum paid annual leave and the Working Time Directive, 149 which entitles workers to minimum paid annual leave of four weeks; 150

incorrect transposition of the Directive on driving licences as amended; 151

restrictions and sanctions on non-resident hauliers (cabotage); 152

non-communication of national measures transposing the Directive on requirements applicable to the testing of human tissues and cells. 153

b)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU.

c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.

IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES

1.Late transposition infringement cases against Denmark open on 31 December (2011-2015)

2.New late transposition infringement cases against Denmark (2011-2015)

3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2015: main policy areas

4.Referrals to the Court

The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.

V.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES

Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2015

These concerned:

non-conformity of the national legislation implementing the Marine Strategy Framework Directive; 154

non-communication of national measures transposing the Directive on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures; 155

alleged discriminatory treatment against Dutch traditional sailing vessels over compliance with the safety rules for passenger ships;

non-compliance of national legislation with the Railway Safety Directive. 156

VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

1.Court ruling 157

The Court ruled that Denmark failed to fulfil its obligations by having continued to authorise the sale of loose snus (oral tobacco). EU legislation 158  prohibits the sale of snus except in Sweden. Snus is finely ground or cut tobacco sold either loose or in small sachet portions and intended to be consumed by placing between the gum and the lip, without being chewed or smoked. Danish law prohibited the sale of snus packed in porous sachets but allowed the sale of loose snus. 159

2.Preliminary rulings

In preliminary rulings addressed to the Danish judiciary, the Court ruled that:

the Copyright Directive 160  does not preclude national legislation which provides for fair compensation under the exception to the reproduction right for copies made for private use for multi-functional media, such as mobile phone memory cards.  161

Estonia

New complaints against Estonia fell slightly in 2015 and the number of new EU Pilot files dropped for the second consecutive year, reaching its lowest level since 2011. Open infringement cases rose again after being on a downward trend since 2011. Similarly, new infringement cases for late transposition increased but were still below the 2011 level.

I.COMPLAINTS

1.New complaints made against Estonia by members of the public (2011- 2015)

2.Public complaints against Estonia open at year-end

3.New complaints registered in 2015: main policy areas

II.EU PILOT

1.New EU Pilot files opened against Estonia (2011-2015)

2.Files relating to Estonia open in EU Pilot at year -end

3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2015: main policy areas

4.EU Pilot files: Estonia’s average response time in 2011-2015 (in days)

5.EU Pilot files: Estonia’s resolution rate in 2011- 2015

III.INFRINGEMENT CASES

1.Infringement cases against Estonia open on 31 December (2011-2015)

2.New infringement cases opened in 2015: main policy areas

3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court

a)The Commission opened 16 new infringement cases against Estonia in 2015. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

non-communication of national measures transposing the recast Asylum Procedures and Reception Conditions Directives; 162

late and incomplete transposition of the Energy Efficiency Directive; 163

failure to communicate all national measures transposing the Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive. This is a precondition for the future use of the European Deposit Insurance Scheme proposed by the Commission; 164

failure to communicate all national measures transposing the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive. This lays down the regulatory and supervisory framework for managers of alternative investment schemes that are addressed to professional investors; 165

non-communication of measures transposing the Directive establishing a single European railway area; 166

failure to communicate national measures transposing the information procedures for the exchange of human organs and transposing the Directive on requirements applicable to the testing of human tissues and cells. 167

b)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU.

c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.

IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES

1.Late transposition infringement cases against Estonia open on 31 December (2011-2015)

2.New late transposition infringement cases against Estonia (2011-2015)

3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2015: main policy areas

4.Referrals to the Court

The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.

V.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES

Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2015

These concerned:

lack of timely transposition of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive; 168

non-conformity of national legislation with the Railway Safety Directive;  169

obstacles to the parallel imports of medicinal products.

VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

1.Court rulings 170

There were no major Court rulings in 2015.

2.Preliminary rulings

No major preliminary rulings were addressed to the Estonian judiciary in 2015.

Finland

New complaints against Finland almost halved in 2015, falling back to their 2012 level, the lowest in the past five years. The number of new EU Pilot files held steady at less than half the levels seen in 2012 and 2013. The downward trend in open infringement cases since 2011 came to an end with a slight rise in 2015. New infringement cases for late transposition remained at less than one third of their 2011 peak level.

I.COMPLAINTS

1.New complaints made against Finland by members of the public (2011- 2015)

2.Public complaints against Finland open at year-end

3.New complaints registered in 2015: main policy areas

II.EU PILOT

1.New EU Pilot files opened against Finland (2011-2015)

2.Files relating to Finland open in EU Pilot at year -end

3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2015: main policy areas

4.EU Pilot files: Finland’s average response time in 2011-2015 (in days)

5.EU Pilot files: Finland’s resolution rate in 2011- 2015

III.INFRINGEMENT CASES

1.Infringement cases against Finland open on 31 December (2011-2015)

2.New infringement cases opened in 2015: main policy areas

3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court

a)The Commission opened 21 new infringement cases against Finland in 2015. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

non-communication of national measures transposing the Directive on honey labelling; 171

late and incomplete transposition of the Energy Efficiency Directive; 172

spring hunting of eider ducks in the province of Åland and summer hunting of eiders on the Finnish mainland in breach of the Wild Birds Directive; 173

non-compliance with the EU rules on cabotage due to discrimination against non-resident hauliers; 174

non-communication of measures transposing the Directive establishing a single European railway area; 175

non-conformity of national legislation with the Directive on patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare. The case relates to the level of costs reimbursed by the Member State of affiliation to an insured person who receives cross-border healthcare; 176

disproportionate vehicle taxes on cars leased or rented from other Member States.

b)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU.

c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.

IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES

1.Late transposition infringement cases against Finland open on 31 December (2011-2015)

2.New late transposition infringement cases against Finland (2011-2015)

3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2015: main policy areas

4.Referrals to the Court

The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.

V.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES

Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2015

These concerned:

lack of measures to protect pensions financed through book reserves in case of insolvency of the employer; 177

incomplete transposition of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive; 178

failure to transpose the Directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment; 179

non-communication of national measures transposing the Industrial Emissions Directive; 180

non-communication of national measures transposing the Alternative Investment Fund Managers and Financial Conglomerates Directives; 181

failure to notify national measures transposing the Directive on the European protection order. 182

VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

1.Court rulings 183

There were no major Court rulings in 2015.

2.Preliminary rulings

In preliminary rulings addressed to the Finnish judiciary, the Court ruled that:

the Posted Workers Directive does not preclude a calculation of the minimum wage for hourly work and/or for piecework which is based on categorising employees into pay groups, provided that the calculation and categorisation are carried out in accordance with rules that are binding and transparent. It is for the national court to verify whether this the case; 184

discriminatory measures on distance selling and transport of alcoholic beverages can be justified if they are appropriate and cannot be achieved by less restrictive measures; 185

complex contractual arrangements can be classified as service proceedings so long as the relevant contracting authority has transferred to the concession holder all, or a significant share of, the risk which it faces. 186

France

The upward trend since 2011 in new complaints against France continued in 2015, though they did not quite reach the peak seen in 2013. However, new EU Pilot files have been falling since 2012 and reached their lowest level of the past five years. Continuing the trend since 2012, the number of open infringement cases rose slightly, while new infringement cases showed a more marked increase but remained below the 2011 level.

I.COMPLAINTS

1.New complaints made against France by members of the public (2011- 2015)

2.Public complaints against France open at year-end

3.New complaints registered in 2015: main policy areas

II.EU PILOT

1.New EU Pilot files opened against France (2011-2015)

2.Files relating to France open in EU Pilot at year -end

3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2015: main policy areas

4.EU Pilot files: France’s average response time in 2011-2015 (in days)

5.EU Pilot files: France’s resolution rate in 2011- 2015 187

III.INFRINGEMENT CASES

1.Infringement cases against France open on 31 December (2011-2015)

2.New infringement cases opened in 2015: main policy areas

3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court

a)The Commission opened 35 new infringement cases against France in 2015. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

late transposition of the Directive 188 on the alignment of several EU health and safety at work directives to the Regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures; 189

non-communication of national measures transposing the recast Asylum Procedures and Reception Conditions Directives; 190

late transposition of the Directive on honey labelling; 191

privileged rights granted to a publicly owned company to operate the vast majority of the country’s hydropower concessions;

excluding workers with assisted contracts (‘contrats aidés’) from the calculation of the headcount of companies. This is considered contrary to the Directive on information and consultation of employees,  192 as it makes it less likely that staff representation bodies can be set up; 

failure to ensure the principle of unity in applying the social security contribution on income from real estate of EU officials outside the French social security system;

late and incomplete transposition of the Energy Efficiency Directive; 193

late and incomplete transposition of the Radioactive Waste Directive; 194

lack of waste management plans and waste prevention programmes required under the Waste Framework Directive; 195

non-respect of the PM10 196 limit values in the Air Quality Directive; 197

non-respect of the NO2 limit values in the Air Quality Directive; 198

discrimination against insurance providers from other Member States by requiring construction companies to buy insurance against potential damage from insurers established in France; 199

failure to communicate all national measures transposing the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive, a centrepiece of the EU banking union.; 200

unjustified restrictions on trade in ‘handmade’ shoes manufactured and labelled in another Member State;

failure to implement functional airspace blocks effectively. Under the 'single European sky' legislation, 201 national air traffic control organisations should work together in nine regional airspace blocks to increase efficiency, cut costs and reduce emissions; 202

follow-up to an earlier judgment of the Court, 203 whereby the national court reduces applicants' entitlement to reimbursement. The case involves a failure to take into account the tax paid by some subsidiaries and restrictions on the right to get the amount of the dividend reimbursed;

incorrect application of case law 204 by limiting the personal and family benefits of a French resident if she receives income sourced in the EU/European Economic Area;

the requirements of proof of payment of withholding tax by the paying agent to the French tax authorities and limitation periods for reimbursement of the withholding tax on securities investments in France (two years for non-residents, three years for residents);

the 3 % dividend tax. This seems to be contrary to the Parents-Subsidiary Directive 205 and the freedom of establishment because this tax should not be paid in case of obligation to pay tax in France. As only permanent establishments are exempted from the tax, the freedom to choose the legal form of establishment appears to be restricted as well.

b)The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. It concerns inadequate urban waste water treatment in smaller agglomerations. 206

c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.

IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES

1.Late transposition infringement cases against France open on 31 December (2011-2015)

2.New late transposition infringement cases against France (2011-2015)

3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2015: main policy areas

4.Referrals to the Court

The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.

V.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES

Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2015

These concerned:

failure to transpose the Directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment; 207

incorrect application of the Water Framework Directive in relation to the Sivens dam project; 208

non-communication of measures transposing the Directive on over-reliance on credit ratings; 209

the obligation for French breathalyser kits in cars to conform to a specific French standard;

obstacles to the importation of antique firearms;

late transposition of the Directive against trafficking in human beings; 210

incorrect transposition of the Directive on unfair commercial practices; 211

failure to notify national measures transposing the Directive on the European protection order; 212

non-conformity of national legislation with the Directive on driving licences as amended; 213

failure to ensure compliance with the Regulation on animal welfare during transport; 214

failure to apply correctly the Directive on the protection of pigs as regards group housing of sows; 215

the requirement to designate a fiscal representative for various capital transactions, which is considered in case law as a restriction on the freedom of establishment. The requirement was removed;

the rules on corporate group taxation. These were changed to put French-owned and non-French-owned groups on the same tax footing.

VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

1.Court rulings 216

The Court ruled that:

the reduced VAT rate for digital books did not comply with the VAT Directive; 217

exempting donations and bequests to public bodies from inheritance tax only if the beneficiary is established in France or in another Member State with which France has concluded a bilateral agreement is incompatible with the free movement of capital. 218

2.Preliminary rulings

In preliminary rulings addressed to the French judiciary, the Court ruled that:

depriving a French citizen who had been convicted of a serious crime of the right to vote in European elections represents a limitation on the exercise of EU citizens' right to vote in elections to the European Parliament. This right is guaranteed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. However, in the case at hand the ban is proportionate as it takes into account the seriousness of the crime and gives the person the possibility to apply for reinstatement of their voting right; 219

the income of migrant workers, from professional activity or from assets in the Member State of employment, cannot be made subject to social contributions in the Member State of residence if social contributions were paid in the former Member State; 220

people admitted to a work rehabilitation centre and carrying out activities there must be considered as workers. They are therefore entitled to minimum paid annual leave under the Working Time Directive and the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights; 221

permanently excluding blood donations from men who have had sexual relations with other men may be justified, depending on the situation in the Member State concerned. Under French law, men who have had sexual relations with other men are permanently excluded from donating blood in France, given the high prevalence of HIV. The French measure may discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation. The permanent exclusion should therefore be assessed in the light of the situation in that Member State and of the proportionality principle. Permanent exclusion from blood donation for men who have had sexual relations with other men may be justified by medical and scientific knowledge and the epidemiological situation prevailing in a Member State and where no effective techniques or less onerous methods exist to address the situation. It is for the national court to determine whether those conditions are met in France. 222

Germany

New complaints against Germany in 2015 remained at the previous year's level while the number of new EU Pilot files significantly decreased from its 2014 peak. However, there was a marked increase from 2014 in infringement cases pending at the end of the year. New infringement cases for late transposition fell but were still above the 2012-2013 levels.

I.COMPLAINTS

1.New complaints made against Germany by members of the public (2011- 2015)

2.Public complaints against Germany open at year-end

3.New complaints registered in 2015: main policy areas

II.EU PILOT

1.New EU Pilot files opened against Germany (2011-2015)

2.Files relating to Germany open in EU Pilot at year -end

3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2015: main policy areas

4.EU Pilot files: Germany’s average response time in 2011-2015 (in days)

5.EU Pilot files: Germany’s resolution rate in 2011- 2015

III.INFRINGEMENT CASES

1.Infringement cases against Germany open on 31 December (2011-2015)

2.New infringement cases opened in 2015: main policy areas

3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court

a)The Commission opened 37 new infringement cases against Germany in 2015. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

failure to notify the national measures transposing the Directive 223 on the alignment of several EU health and safety at work directives to the Regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures; 224

non-conformity with the Working Time Directive 225 by applying a 12-month reference period for limiting average weekly working time to 48 hours for civil servants. The Directive provides for a 4-month reference period;

late and incomplete transposition of the Energy Efficiency Directive; 226

bad application of the Habitats Directive as regards designating special areas of conservation and establishing the necessary conservation measures; 227

non-respect of the NO2 limit values in the Air Quality Directive; 228

excessive and unjustified obstacles in the area of professional services that run counter to the Services Directive; 229

the right to family reunification of non-EU nationals residing lawfully in a Member State;

non-communication of national measures transposing the recast Asylum Procedures and Reception Conditions Directives; 230

incorrect transposition of the Directive ensuring equal access between men and women to goods and services; 231

failure to implement functional airspace blocks effectively. Under the 'single European sky' legislation, 232 national air traffic control organisations should work together in nine regional airspace blocks to increase efficiency, cut costs and reduce emissions; 233

discriminatory user charges for passenger cars (introduced by a new road charging scheme known as the Pkw-Maut). These hinder the free movement of persons and goods and the provision of services; 234

restrictions on the provision of transport services and free movement of goods deriving from the German minimum wage law;

failure to meet air safety oversight obligations regarding initial and continuous airworthiness; 235

systematic confiscation and subsequent destruction of non-commercial gifts containing tobacco sent by private individuals, without any differentiation based on the circumstances of the case. This is contrary to the principle of proportionality under EU law. 236

b)The Commission referred three cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They concern:

the German Explosives Act. This is not compatible with the ‘free movement clause’ laid down in the Directive on the placing on the market of pyrotechnic articles. 237 The Act provides for a mandatory notification procedure before pyrotechnic articles can be placed on the German market, even where the articles satisfy the requirements of the Directive; 238

inadequate monitoring of security controls at some airports. Such monitoring is required by EU legislation; 239

application only to the health and medical sector of the VAT exemption granted to cost-sharing associations (taxpayers’ groups purchasing services from third parties jointly). This is despite the VAT Directive 240 containing no sector-specific limitations.

c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.

IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES

1.Late transposition infringement cases against Germany open on 31 December (2011-2015)

2.New late transposition infringement cases against Germany (2011-2015)

3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2015: main policy areas

4.Referrals to the Court

The Commission referred one case to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU. It concerns Germany's failure to transpose the Directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment. 241

V.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES

Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2015

These concerned:

the award of a waste disposal service contract by the city of Rostock on the basis of discriminatory award criteria;

non-ratification of the Air Transport Agreement between Germany and the US;

failure to apply correctly the Directive on the protection of pigs as regards group housing of sows. 242

VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

1.Court rulings 243

The Court ruled that:

Germany has incorrectly transposed the requirements of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and of the Industrial Emissions Directive with regard to access to justice; 244

making a tax benefit (a deferral of capital gains tax due on the sale of assets located in Germany) subject to the condition that such gains are reinvested in Germany is incompatible with the right of establishment. 245

2.Preliminary rulings

In preliminary rulings addressed to the German judiciary, the Court ruled that:

where an infringement of a provision of EU law is discovered only after the prejudice has occurred, the limitation period (after which the case is time-barred) begins to run from the time when both the economic operator’s act or omission that infringed EU law and the prejudice caused to the budget of the EU or budgets managed by it occurred; 246

under the Directive on collective redundancies, a person who performs services for and under the direction of another person and receives remuneration in return must be considered as a ‘worker’. Consequently, certain managing directors and certain trainees may also count as ‘workers’; 247

Member States can exclude jobseekers from social assistance benefits who are either first-time jobseekers or who, after having worked for less than one year in the host Member State, no longer retain the status of a worker; 248

a migrant worker who is subject to the legislation of the Member State of employment by virtue of the national legislation of the Member State of residence may receive an old-age pension and family benefits from the state of residence; 249

entitlement to family benefits can be granted to a person not resident in the territory of the Member State responsible for paying those benefits, when all other conditions for the granting of those benefits provided by national law are met; 250

the German nuclear fuel tax is compatible with EU law (Energy Taxation Directive, Euratom Treaty, State aid rules); 251

garage-door operating devices depending on electric current of approximately 220 to 240 volts to work properly, designed to be incorporated into the building structure and apt at any time to be dismantled, re-installed or added to that structure, fall within the scope of the Directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment; 252

the requirements imposed by the Water Framework Directive on the Member States to avoid deterioration in and achieve good status of their water bodies are binding objectives. Individual projects must therefore be assessed against these obligations. A fall by one class in the status of at least one quality element for a body of surface water is enough to determine the conclusion that there is a deterioration in the body's status; 253

architects whose qualifications cannot be automatically recognised under the Directive on professional qualifications can still benefit from the general system of recognition set out by the Directive; 254

European public procurement legislation does not preclude national legislation that requires tenderers to pay a predetermined minimum wage to staff; 255

non-corrective colour contact lenses featuring designs are not cosmetics under the Cosmetic Products Regulation; 256

under the Qualifications Directive, an act of persecution can take the form of ‘prosecution or punishment for refusal to perform military service in a conflict, where performing military service would include crimes’. The judgment of the Court clarified the conditions in which a non-EU national who has deserted may be granted asylum in the EU; 257

the Free Movement Directive allows Member States to set limits on the entitlements to social assistance of economically inactive EU citizens moving to another EU Member State, as well as for EU citizens seeking a job. Previously the Court had found that a Member State could, under the Free Movement Directive, deny the benefit to an economically non-active person who never had sufficient resources of their own to enjoy right of residence and who, in addition, had never worked in the host Member State and had no intention of looking for a job there; 258

a computerised booking system must indicate the final price to be paid, not only for the air service selected by the customer but also for each service for which the price is displayed, including when the prices are indicated for the first time; 259

a Member State is not precluded from refusing to recognise the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State when the holder has engaged in unlawful conduct resulting in unfitness to drive; 260

e-book readers with translation or dictionary functions are classified as ‘electronic apparatus having an individual function not specified elsewhere’ — and are thus subject to a conventional rate of duty amounting to 3.7 % — instead of ‘electrical machine with dictionary function,’ which are duty free; 261

the penalty tax for holding units in investment funds established in certain non-EU countries (such as the Cayman Islands) can result in less favourable treatment, even by restricting the free movement of capital, including the provision of financial services, if the provision already existed on 31 December 1993; 262

the staggered taxation of the hidden reserves of assets used for professional purposes over a period of five years, in the event of them being transferred from a German to a Dutch permanent establishment of the same undertaking, is compatible with the freedom of establishment; 263

as a general rule, final losses of a foreign subsidiary cannot be taken into account at the level of the parent company. 264

Greece

In 2015 new complaints and new EU Pilot files opened against Greece both declined to the lowest level of the last five years. The number of open infringement cases has remained relatively stable since 2012. After the increase registered in 2014, new infringement cases for late transposition dropped slightly in 2015.

I.COMPLAINTS

1.New complaints made against Greece by members of the public (2011- 2015)

2.Public complaints against Greece open at year-end

3.New complaints registered in 2015: main policy areas

II.EU PILOT

1.New EU Pilot files opened against Greece (2011-2015)

2.Files relating to Greece open in EU Pilot at year -end

3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2015: main policy areas

4.EU Pilot files: Greece’s average response time in 2011-2015 (in days)

5.EU Pilot files: Greece’s resolution rate in 2011- 2015

III.INFRINGEMENT CASES

1.Infringement cases against Greece open on 31 December (2011-2015)

2.New infringement cases opened in 2015: main policy areas

3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court

a)The Commission opened 40 new infringement cases against Greece in 2015. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

failure to notify the national measures transposing the Directive 265 on the alignment of several EU health and safety at work directives to the Regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures; 266

late transposition of the Directive on attacks against information systems; 267

bad application of the Habitats Directive as regards designating special areas of conservation and establishing the necessary conservation measures; 268

failure to submit a cost-optimal report for the energy performance requirements for buildings; 269

failure to implement the EU Timber Regulation and the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Regulation; 270

failure to communicate all national measures transposing the Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive. This is a precondition for the future use of the European Deposit Insurance Scheme proposed by the Commission; 271

failure to communicate all national measures transposing the Solvency II Directive and the Omnibus II Directive. These create a harmonised prudential framework for insurance firms in the EU to facilitate development of a single market in insurance services; 272

excessive and unjustified obstacles in the area of professional services that run counter to the Services Directive; 273

failure to correctly implement the 'Eurodac' Regulation; 274

serious deficiencies in the Greek asylum system. These concern in particular:

the material conditions for receiving applicants for international protection, especially those with special reception needs and vulnerable persons; and

structural flaws in the functioning of the guardianship system or legal representation of all unaccompanied minors during the asylum procedure; 275

failure to notify national measures ensuring full transposition of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive 276 and the Reception Conditions Directive; 277

failure to notify national measures ensuring full transposition of the Directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography; 278

lack of implementation of certain obligations under EU document-security legislation; 279

non-compliance with the Mediterranean Regulation 280 regarding the obligation to adopt a national management plan for fisheries conducted by boat seines within territorial waters; 281

incorrect transposition of the Directive on driving licences, as amended; 282

failure to establish a registration procedure for the European Electronic Toll Service providers and a toll domain statement;

discriminatory airport charges; 283

failure to connect the national electronic register of road transport undertakings to the registers of other Member States; 284

reduced excise duty rate applied to the spirit drinks ‘Tsipouro’ and ‘Tsikoudià', in breach of EU rules. 285

b)The Commission referred three cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They concern:

inadequate urban waste water treatment in smaller agglomerations; 286

car registration rules which levy the total registration tax on Greek residents even if they only rent or lease vehicles from non-Greek lessors, instead of requiring proportionate amounts; 287

rules granting a tax exemption to people inheriting property in Greece only if they are considered a Greek resident. 288

The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU. It concerns Greece's failure to implement a judgment of the Court of Justice finding that it was failing to ensure adequate management of hazardous waste. The Commission proposed the Court should impose a lump sum payment of EUR 14 904 736 and a daily penalty payment of EUR 72 864 until the obligations are fulfilled. 289

IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES

1.Late transposition infringement cases against Greece open on 31 December (2011-2015)

2.New late transposition infringement cases against Greece (2011-2015)

3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2015: main policy areas

4.Referrals to the Court

The Commission referred one case to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU. It concerns non-communication of national measures transposing the Energy Efficiency Directive. 290

V.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES

Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2015

These concerned:

failure of a waste landfill in Karvounari (Thesprotie) to comply with EU requirements;

non-notification of complete national measures transposing the Capital Requirements Directive; 291

non-compliance of Greek law with the Late Payment Directive regarding late payment rules for public hospitals and other public bodies;

late transposition of the Single Permit Directive; 292

late transposition of the Directive against trafficking in human beings; 293

non-compliance with the requirement to ensure direct electronic exchange of fisheries-related data with other Member States;

non-conformity with the Railway Safety Directive; 294

incorrect implementation of EU legislation on the rights of bus and coach passengers; 295

bad application of the 'single European sky' legislation;

non-ratification of the European Common Aviation Area Agreement.

VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

1.Court rulings 296

The Court ruled that:

Greece failed to comply with the Working Time Directive by making it possible for the working week of doctors to exceed the 48-hour limit, without properly taking into account their on-call hours. The possibility of postponing doctors’ 24-hour rest period until a week after their on-call period also failed to comply with the Directive; 297

Greece has failed to ensure full compliance with the 2007 judgment of the Court of Justice finding that Greece was not ensuring adequate collection and treatment of urban waste water in a number of agglomerations. The Court ordered Greece to pay a lump sum of EUR 10 million and a sliding-scale penalty payment of EUR 20 000 per day, corresponding to EUR 3.64 million per half-year of delay; 298

Greece has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Nitrates Directive by not designating enough zones vulnerable to nitrate pollution and not establishing action programmes to address them. 299

2.Preliminary rulings

In preliminary rulings addressed to the Greek judiciary, the Court ruled that:

only people who have previously produced agricultural products could benefit under the long-term set-aside scheme for agricultural land; 300

a measure containing a plan or programme which falls within the scope of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive and modifies an existing plan or programme may not be exempted from the obligation to carry out an environmental assessment on the ground that it is intended to give more specific expression to and implement a master plan established by a hierarchically superior measure which has not itself been the subject of such an environmental assessment; 301

parental leave is an individual right which cannot depend on the employment status of the spouse. National legislation which prohibits a male civil servant from taking parental leave when his wife does not work is therefore not compatible with EU law. 302

Hungary

New complaints against Hungary increased strongly in 2015 while the number of new EU Pilot files held steady. Open infringement cases fell slightly but remained within the relatively narrow range seen since 2012. New infringement cases for late transposition declined to a five-year low.

I.COMPLAINTS

1.New complaints made against Hungary by members of the public (2011- 2015)

2.Public complaints against Hungary open at year-end

3.New complaints registered in 2015: main policy areas

II.EU PILOT

1.New EU Pilot files opened against Hungary (2011-2015)

2.Files relating to Hungary open in EU Pilot at year -end

3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2015: main policy areas

4.EU Pilot files: Hungary’s average response time in 2011-2015 (in days)

5.EU Pilot files: Hungary’s resolution rate in 2011- 2015

III.INFRINGEMENT CASES

1.Infringement cases against Hungary open on 31 December (2011-2015)

2.New infringement cases opened in 2015: main policy areas

3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court

a)The Commission opened 27 new infringement cases against Hungary in 2015. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

failure to notify the national measures transposing the Directive 303 on the alignment of several EU health and safety at work directives to the Regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures; 304

failure to comply with the Working Time Directive as regards so-called ‘stand-by jobs’ such as security guards or workers in the private security sector. Such workers may be required to work hours that exceed the average weekly working time established in the Directive. 305 Such workers may in addition serve 24-hour continuous work shifts without receiving their daily rest period or the equivalent compensatory rest immediately afterwards;

failure to comply with the Working Time Directive as workers in ‘school cooperatives’ do not receive any entitlement to paid annual leave. Such leave is required by Article 7 of the Directive;

late and incomplete transposition of the Energy Efficiency Directive; 306

failure to submit a national energy efficiency action plan and building renovation strategy under the Energy Efficiency Directive; 307

failure to implement the EU Timber Regulation and the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Regulation; 308

national restrictions on the acquisition of agricultural land which limit the free movement of capital and freedom of establishment by being discriminatory and/or disproportionate; 309

national restrictions on the rights of cross-border investors to use agricultural land (usufruct rights), which limit the free movement of capital and freedom of establishment, as well as the right to property as enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights; 310

failure to communicate all national measures transposing the first amendment of the Financial Conglomerates Directive. This aims to remedy gaps in supplementary supervision revealed during the financial crisis; 311

the direct award of a contract to construct two new reactors and refurbish two others at the Paks II nuclear power plant without a transparent procedure. This is not in compliance with EU public procurement legislation; 312

incorrect implementation of the Directives on asylum procedures and on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings; 313

failure to comply with the judgment of the Court 314 declaring that exempting fruit distillates (‘pálinka’) from excise duties, whether produced under contract or by private distillation, is incompatible with EU law;

b)The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. It concerns the rule that only Hungarian nationals are allowed to take up and practice the profession of notary in Hungary. This excludes nationals from other Member States from doing so. 315

c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.

IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES

1.Late transposition infringement cases against Hungary open on 31 December (2011-2015)

2.New late transposition infringement cases against Hungary (2011-2015)

3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2015: main policy areas

4.Referrals to the Court

The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.

V.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES

Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2015

These concerned:

non-communication of measures transposing the Directive 316 amending a number of other Directives to align them to the Regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures; 317

non-communication of national measures transposing the Industrial Emissions Directive; 318

non-communication of national measures transposing the Capital Requirements Directive and the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive; 319

national measures which considerably limited the scope of persons to whom foreign exchange mortgage loans could be granted, resulting in restrictions similar to a total ban. The contested provision was abolished and replaced by a proportionate restriction;

late transposition of the Directive combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography; 320

non-conformity with the Railway Safety Directive; 321

failure to connect to the driving licence network;

measures establishing different excise duty rates for ethyl alcohol, in breach of the Excise Duty Directive on alcohol and alcoholic beverages. The measures were repealed.

VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

1.Court rulings 322

There were no major Court rulings in 2015.

2.Preliminary rulings

In preliminary rulings addressed to the Hungarian judiciary, the Court ruled that:

the Second Energy Package, interpreted in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, requires national authorities to allow certain market operators to challenge decisions by the national regulatory authorities; 323

the shipment of waste in the country of transit at a different border crossing point than the one provided for in the notification document and consented to by the competent authorities represents an essential change to the shipment conditions. If not notified to the competent authorities, the change results in the shipment of waste being illegal. A fine imposed for such an illegal shipment, the basic amount of which is the same as the fine imposed for a breach of the requirement to obtain consent and to give prior notification in writing, can be seen as proportionate only if equally serious infringements are involved; 324

legislation which prohibits the operation of slot machines outside casinos may be contrary to the principle of freedom to provide services; 325

the system of fines laid down in Hungarian law to sanction undeclared cash was disproportionate. 326

Ireland

New complaints against Ireland fell sharply in 2015. The number of new EU Pilot files held around the same level as the year before but open infringement cases dropped to a five-year low. Although the Commission opened more new infringement cases for late transposition of directives, they remained well below the 2011 peak.

I.COMPLAINTS

1.New complaints made against Ireland by members of the public (2011- 2015)

2.Public complaints against Ireland open at year-end

3.New complaints registered in 2015: main policy areas

II.EU PILOT

1.New EU Pilot files opened against Ireland (2011-2015)

2.Files relating to Ireland open in EU Pilot at year -end

3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2015: main policy areas

4.EU Pilot files: Ireland’s average response time in 2011-2015 (in days)

5.EU Pilot files: Ireland’s resolution rate in 2011- 2015

III.INFRINGEMENT CASES

1.Infringement cases against Ireland open on 31 December (2011-2015)

2.New infringement cases opened in 2015: main policy areas

3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court

a)The Commission opened 17 new infringement cases against Ireland in 2015. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

failure to notify the national measures transposing the Directive 327 which protects workers' in the area of health and safety at work to the Regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures; 328

late and incorrect transposition of the Energy Efficiency Directive; 329

bad application of the Habitats Directive as regards designating special areas of conservation and establishing the necessary conservation measures; 330

late transposition of the Directive on attacks against information systems; 331

failure to implement functional airspace blocks effectively. Under the 'single European sky' legislation, 332 national air traffic control organisations should work together in nine regional airspace blocks to increase efficiency, cut costs and reduce emissions. 333

b)The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. It concerns the rule that the total registration tax is levied for cars rented or leased by Irish residents from lessors in other Member States and that the conditions for a partial refund of this tax at the end of the lease or rental period are unnecessarily harsh (i.e. disproportionate). 334

c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.

IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES

1.Late transposition infringement cases against Ireland open on 31 December (2011-2015)

2.New late transposition infringement cases against Ireland (2011-2015)

3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2015: main policy areas

4.Referrals to the Court

The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.

V.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES

Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2015

These concerned:

non-conformity with the Working Time Directive regarding annual leave which was not accrued when employees were on sick leave. The annual leave was lost if not taken due to illness; 335

non-conformity with the Working Time Directive regarding the practice of ‘rolled-up holiday pay’. Under national rules, a percentage in lieu of holiday pay was included in the hourly rate of part-time and fixed-term teachers. This was not in line with the Directive;

incomplete transposition of the Electricity Directive; 336

the requirement that the Voluntary Health Insurance (VHI) Board meet the same regulatory requirements which apply to all companies under the Non-Life Insurance Directives as the conditions for exempting VHI were no longer met; 337

non-communication of national measures transposing the Financial Conglomerates Directive; 338

failure to notify national measures transposing the Directive on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings;  339

non-conformity with the Railway Safety Directive; 340

non-conformity of national legislation with the Directive on driving licences as amended; 341

failure to connect the national register of road transport undertakings to the national registers of the other Member States;

failure to ensure compliance with the Regulation on animal welfare during transport; 342

failure to apply correctly the Directive on the protection of pigs as regards group housing of sows. 343

VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

1.Court ruling 344

The Court ruled that the Commission did not provide sufficient evidence that Ireland had failed to respect the Working Time Directive over non-consultant hospital doctors’ minimum rest periods and weekly working time. The case concerned their collective agreement and the standard contract of employment. 345

2.Preliminary rulings

In preliminary rulings addressed to the Irish judiciary, the Court ruled that:

the expiry of the time-limits for taking a decision on the execution of a European arrest warrant does not free the competent court of its obligation to adopt a decision in that regard. In addition, the expiry of the time-limits does not preclude, in itself, the continued holding of the requested person in custody. However, the Court noted that, in accordance with the fundamental right to liberty and security, the requested person must be released, and the measures necessary to prevent him from absconding ordered, if the duration of the custody is excessive; 346

the Commission’s Safe Harbour Decision 347 is not valid as it did not contain sufficient findings by the Commission that U.S. public authorities' access to data transferred under the decision was limited or that effective legal protection against such interference existed. 348

(1)  Directive 2014/63/EU.

(2)  Directive 2010/31/EU , MEMO/15/5162 .

(3)  Directive 2012/27/EU , MEMO/15/4871 .

(4)   IP/15/5198 and MEMO/15/5162 .

(5)  Directive 2006/123/EC and IP/15/5199 .

(6)  Directive 2007/59/EC .

(7)  Directive 2013/33/EU , IP/15/5699 .

(8)  Directive 1999/62/EC .

(9)  Directive 2012/34/EU , Commission v Austria, C-347/15 , and IP/14/2132 .

(10)  Commission v Austria, C-1/15 , MEMO/14/589 and IP/14/1143 .

(11)  Directive 89/391/EEC .

(12)  Directive 2010/32/EU .

(13)  Directive 2009/28/EC .

(14)  PM10 is an air pollutant consisting of small particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometres. The particles’ small size allows them to penetrate deep into the lungs where they may be deposited and cause adverse health effects. (Source: European Environment Agency ).

(15)  Directive 2008/50/EC .

(16)  Directive 2013/36/EU .

(17)  Directive 2011/36/EU .

(18)  Directive 2004/49/EC .

(19)  Regulation (EU) No 181/2011 .

(20)  Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010 .

(21)  These rulings are almost exclusively handed down on infringement procedures.

(22)  Directive 2010/13/EU .

(23)  Walcher Messtechnik v OHIM, C-374/14 .

(24)  Directive 2002/20/EC .

(25)  T-Mobile Austria, C-282/13 .

(26)  Directive 2002/22/EC .

(27)  Verein für Konsumenteninformation v A1 Telekom Austria AG, C-326/14 and Court press release No 142/15 .

(28)  Marktgemeinde Straßwalchen and Others, C-531/13 .

(29)  Gruber, C-570/13 .

(30)  MedEval, C-166/14 .

(31)  Regulation (EC) No 785/2004 , Wucher Helicopter and Euro-Aviation Versicherungs, C-6/14 .

(32)  Finanzamt Linz, C-66/14 .

(33)  Directive 2014/27/EU .

(34)  Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008

(35)  Directive 2014/63/EU .

(36)  Directive 2012/27/EU , MEMO/15/5826 .

(37)  Directive 92/43/EEC .

(38)   Directive 2012/18/EU and MEMO/15/6223 .

(39)  Directive 2014/49/EU ; IP/15/6253 and MEMO/15/6223 .

(40)  Directive 2006/113/EC .

(41)  Directives 2013/32/EU and 2013/33/EU , IP/15/5699 .

(42)  Directive 2013/40/EU .

(43)  Directive 2011/98/EU , MEMO/15/4871 .

(44)  Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 .

(45)  FABEC (the functional airspace block between Germany, Belgium, France, Netherlands, Luxembourg and Switzerland) — MEMO/15/5356 .

(46)  Directive 2014/27/EU .

(47)  Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 .

(48)  Directive 96/75/EC .

(49)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 ; Commission v Belgium, C-356/15 .

(50)  Commission v Belgium, C-589/14 and IP/15/5201 .

(51)  Directive 2002/21/EC .

(52)  Directive 2014/27/EU .

(53)  Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 .

(54)  Directives 2011/61/EU and 2011/89/EU .

(55)  Directive  2010/31/EU .

(56)  Directive 2003/109/EC .

(57)  Directive 2010/64/EU .

(58)  Directive 2004/49/EC .

(59)  Directive 2011/76/EU .

(60)  Directive 2006/126/EC .

(61)  These rulings are almost exclusively handed down on infringement procedures.

(62)  Commission v Belgium, C-317/14 .

(63)  Commission v Belgium, C-589/14 .

(64)  Directive 2002/20/EC .

(65)  Base, C-346/13 .

(66)  Proximus, C-454/13 .

(67)  Proximus, C-517/13 .

(68)  Directive 2001/29/EC .

(69)  Hewlett-Packard Belgium, C-572/13 .

(70)  Directive 2002/22/EC .

(71)  Base Company and Mobistar, C-1/14 and Court press release No 68/15 .

(72)  Wojciechowski, C-408/14 .

(73)  Brouillard, C-298/14 .

(74)  Rosselle, C-65/14 .

(75)  Regulation No 805/2004 , Imtech Marine Belgium, C‑300/14 .

(76)  Directive 2014/59/EU ; IP/15/5057 .

(77)   IP/15/4673 .

(78)  Directive 2011/95/EU and IP/15/5699 .

(79)  Directives 2013/32/EU and 2013/33/EU ; IP/15/5699 .

(80)  Directive 2013/40/EU .

(81)  Directive 2012/27/EU , MEMO/15/5826 .

(82)  Directives 2009/138/EC and 2014/51/EU , MEMO/15/6223 .

(83)  PM10 is an air pollutant consisting of small particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometres. The particles’ small size allows them to penetrate deep into the lungs where they may be deposited and cause adverse health effects. (Source: European Environment Agency ).

(84)  Directive 2008/50/EC .

(85)  Directive 1994/19/EC .

(86)  Directive 2013/14/EU .

(87)  Directive 2011/99/EU .

(88)  Directive 2006/126/EC .

(89)  These rulings are almost exclusively handed down on infringement procedures.

(90)  Commission v Bulgaria, C-376/13 .

(91)  Directive No 1999/31/EC , Commission v Bulgaria, C-145/14 .

(92)  CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria, C-83/14 .

(93)  Croatia joined the EU on 1 July 2013.

(94)  Croatia joined the EU Pilot system in July 2013.

(95)  Croatia joined the EU Pilot system in July 2013.

(96)  Directive 2014/27/EU .

(97)  Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008

(98)  Directive 2012/27/EU ; MEMO/15/4871 .

(99)  Directive 2008/98/EC .

(100)  Directive 2008/98/EC .

(101)  Directive 2011/89/EU .

(102)  Regulation (EU) No 603/2013 ; IP/15/6276 .

(103)  Directive 2006/126/EC .

(104)  Directive No 2012/18/EU .

(105)  Directive 2011/24/EU .

(106)  Directive 2011/83/EU .

(107)  These rulings are almost exclusively handed down on infringement procedures.

(108)  Directive 2014/27/EU .

(109)  Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008

(110)  Directive 2014/63/EU ; MEMO/15/6223 .

(111)  Directive 2012/27/EU ; MEMO/15/5826 .

(112)  Directive 2008/98/EC .

(113)   Directive 92/43/EEC ; MEMO/15/4871 .

(114)  Directive 2014/49/EU ; MEMO/15/6223 and IP/15/6253 .

(115)  Directive 2009/138/EC ; MEMO/15/6223 .

(116)  Directive 2006/123/EC ; IP/15/5199 .

(117)  Directive 2003/109/EC .

(118)  Regulation (EU) No 603/2013 ; MEMO/15/6006 .

(119)  Directives 2013/32/EU and 2013/33/EU ; IP/15/5699 .

(120)  Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 .

(121)  BLUEMED (the functional airspace block between Italy, Greece, Cyprus, and Malta).

(122)  Directive 2006/126/EC .

(123)  Directive No 2012/19/EU .

(124)  Directive 2013/36/EU .

(125)  Directive 2011/93/EU .

(126)  Directive 2012/13/EU .

(127)  Directive 2008/120/EC .

(128)  Directive 2006/126/EC .

(129)  These rulings are almost exclusively handed down on infringement procedures.

(130)  Directive 2014/27/EU .

(131)  Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008

(132)  Directive 2002/20/EC .

(133)   MEMO/15/4871 .

(134)  Directives 2013/32/EU and 2013/33/EU ; IP/15/5699 .

(135)  Directive 2014/59/EU ; IP/15/5057 .

(136)  Directive 2011/89/EU .

(137)  Directive 2012/27/EU , MEMO/15/5826 .

(138)  PM10 is an air pollutant consisting of small particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometres. The particles’ small size allows them to penetrate deep into the lungs where they may be deposited and cause adverse health effects. (Source: European Environment Agency ).

(139)  Directive 2008/50/EC and MEMO/15/4666 .

(140)  Directive 2004/49/EC , Commission v Czech Republic, C-606/15 and IP/15/5828 .

(141)  Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 , Commission v Czech Republic, C-581/15 and IP/15/5829 .

(142)  Directive 2013/36/EU .

(143)  Directive 2012/13/EU .

(144)  Directive 2011/99/EU .

(145)  These rulings are almost exclusively handed down on infringement procedures.

(146)  Directive 2002/22/EC .

(147)  T-Mobile Czech Republic and Vodafone Czech Republic, C- 508/14 .

(148)  Directive 2014/63/EU .

(149)  Directive 2003/88/EC .

(150)   MEMO/15/4871 .

(151)  Directive 2012/36/EU .

(152)   MEMO/15/5657 .

(153)  Directive 2012/39/EU and MEMO/15/4489 .

(154)  Directive 2008/56/EC .

(155)  Directive 2011/76EU .

(156)  Directive 2004/49/EC .

(157)  These rulings are almost exclusively handed down on infringement procedures.

(158)  Directive 2001/37/EC .

(159)  Commission v Denmark, C-468/14 .

(160)  Directive 2001/29/EC .

(161)   Copydan Båndkopi, C-463/12.

(162)  Directives 2013/32/EU and 2013/33/EU ; IP/15/5699 .

(163)   MEMO/15/5657 .

(164)  Directive 2014/49/EU ; IP/15/6253 and MEMO/15/6223 .

(165)  Directive 2011/61/EU ; MEMO/15/4666 .

(166)  Directive 2012/34/EU .

(167)   MEMO/15/4489 .

(168)  Directive 2008/56/EC .

(169)  Directive 2004/49/EC .

(170)  These rulings are almost exclusively handed down on infringement procedures.

(171)  Directive 2014/63/EU .

(172)  Directive 2012/27/EU , MEMO/15/5826 .

(173)   MEMO/15/4871 .

(174)   MEMO/15/4871 .

(175)  Directive 2012/34/EU .

(176)  Directive 2011/24/EU .

(177)  Directive 2008/94/EC .

(178)  Directive  2010/31/EU .

(179)  Directive No 2012/19/EU .

(180)  Directive No 2010/75/EU .

(181)  Directives 2011/61/EU and 2011/89/EU .

(182)  Directive 2011/99/EU .

(183)  These rulings are almost exclusively handed down on infringement procedures.

(184)  Sähköalojen ammattiliitto, C-396/13 and Court press release No 17/15 .

(185)  Visnapuu, C-198/14 .

(186)  Kansaneläkelaitos, C-269/14 .

(187)  No data on the resolution rate for 2011 are available since France joined the EU Pilot system only in September 2011.

(188)  Directive 2014/27/EU .

(189)  Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008

(190)  Directives 2013/32/EU and 2013/33/EU ; IP/15/5699 .

(191)  Directive 2014/63/EU .

(192)  Directive 2002/14/EC .

(193)  Directive 2012/27/EU , MEMO/15/6006 .

(194)  Directive 2011/70/Euratom and MEMO/15/6006 .

(195)  Directive 2008/98/EC .

(196)  PM10 is an air pollutant consisting of small particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometres. The particles’ small size allows them to penetrate deep into the lungs where they may be deposited and cause adverse health effects. (Source: European Environment Agency ).

(197)  Directive 2008/50/EC and MEMO/15/4871 .

(198)  Directive 2008/50/EC .

(199)   MEMO/15/5162 .

(200)  Directive 2014/59/EU ; IP/15/5057 .

(201)  Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 .

(202)  FABEC (the functional airspace block between Germany, Belgium, France, Netherlands, Luxembourg and Switzerland) — MEMO/15/5356 .

(203)  Accor, C-310/09 .

(204)  de Groot, C-385/00 .

(205)  Directive 2003/123/EC .

(206)  Commission v France, C-314/15 ; IP/15/4873 .

(207)  Directive No 2012/19/EU .

(208)  Directive No 2000/60/EC .

(209)  Directive 2013/14/EU .

(210)  Directive 2011/36/EU .

(211)  Directive 2005/29/EC .

(212)  Directive 2011/99/EU .

(213)  Directive 2006/126/EC .

(214)  Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 .

(215)  Directive 2008/120/EC .

(216)  These rulings are almost exclusively handed down on infringement procedures.

(217)  Commission v France, C-479/13 , and Court press release No 30/15.

(218)  Commission v France, C-485/14 .

(219)  Delvigne, C-650/13 and Court press release No 118/15 .

(220)  de Ruyter, C-623/13 and Court press release No 22/15.

(221)  Fenoll, C-316/13 .

(222)  Léger, C-528/13 and Court press release No 46/15 .

(223)  Directive 2014/27/EU .

(224)  Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008

(225)  Directive 2003/88/EC .

(226)  Directive 2012/27/EU , MEMO/15/5162 and IP/15/5196 .

(227)  Directive 92/43/EEC .

(228)  Directive No 2008/50/EC .

(229)  Directive 2006/123/EC and IP/15/5199 .

(230)  Directives 2013/32/EU and 2013/33/EU ; IP/15/5699 .

(231)  Directive 2004/113/EC .

(232)  Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 .

(233)  FABEC (the functional airspace block between Germany, Belgium, France, Netherlands, Luxembourg and Switzerland) — MEMO/15/5356 .

(234)   MEMO/15/5162 and IP/15/5200 .

(235)  Regulation (EU) No 748/2012  and Regulation (EC) No 1321/2014 .

(236)   MEMO/15/6223 .

(237)  Directive 2007/23/EC .

(238)  Commission v Germany, C-220/15 , and IP/15/4444 .

(239)  Commission v Germany, C-481/15 and IP/15/5056.

(240)  Commission v Germany, C-616/15 .

(241)  Directive No 2012/19/EU , Commission v Germany, C-546/15 , IP/15/5054 . Germany subsequently adopted the necessary legislative measures and the Commission has therefore withdrawn this case from the Court.

(242)  Directive 2008/120/EC .

(243)  These rulings are almost exclusively handed down on infringement procedures.

(244)  Directives No 2011/92/EU and 2010/75/EU , Commission v Germany, C-137/14.

(245)  Commission v Germany, C-591/13 .

(246)  Firma Ernst Kollmer Fleischimport und –export, C-59/14 .

(247)  Balkaya, C-229/14 .

(248)  Alimanovic, C-67/14 .

(249)  Franzen and Others, C-382/13 .

(250)  Trapkowski, C-378/14 .

(251)  Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems GmbH v Hauptzollamt Osnabrück, C-5/14 and Court press release No 62/15 .

(252)  Directives No 2002/96/EC and 2012/19/EU , Sommer Antriebs- und Funktechnik, C-369/14 .

(253)  Directive No 2000/60/EC , Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland, C-461/13 .

(254)  Eintragungsausschuss bei der Bayerischen Architektenkammer v Hans Angerer, C-477/13 .

(255)  Regiopost, C-115/14 , and Court press release no. 139/15 .

(256)  Colena, C-321/14 .

(257)  Shepherd, C-472/13 and Court press release No 20/15 .

(258)  Alimanovic, C-67/14 and Court press release No 101/15 .

(259)  Air Berlin plc, C-573/13 and Court press release No 4/15 .

(260)  Aykul, C-260/13 and Court press release No 40/15 .

(261)  Amazon EU, C-58/14 .

(262)  Wagner-Raith, C-560/13 .

(263)  Verder LabTec, C-657/13 .

(264)  Timac Agro Deutschland, C-388/14 .

(265)  Directive 2014/27/EU .

(266)  Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008

(267)  Directive 2013/40/EU .

(268)   Directive 92/43/EEC .

(269)   IP/15/6007 .

(270)  Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 and Regulation (EC) No 2173/2005 ; MEMO/15/5826 .

(271)  Directive 2014/49/EU ; MEMO/15/6223 .

(272)  Directives 2009/138/EC and 2014/51/EU ; MEMO/15/6006 .

(273)  Directive 2006/123/EC ; IP/15/5199 .

(274)   Regulation (EU) No 603/2013 ; IP/15/6276 .

(275)   IP/15/5699 .

(276)  Directive 2013/32/EU ; IP/15/6276 .

(277)  Directive 2013/33/EU ; IP/15/6276 .

(278)  Directive 2011/92/EU ; MEMO/15/5356 .

(279)   MEMO/15/4871 .

(280) Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 .

(281)   MEMO/15/5162 .

(282)  Directive 2006/126/EC .

(283)   MEMO/15/5053 .

(284)   MEMO/15/5053 .

(285)   MEMO/15/5657 .

(286)  Commission v Greece, C-320/15 ; IP/15/4491 .

(287)  Commission v Greece, C-66/15 .

(288)  Commission v Greece, C-244/15 ; IP/15/4675 .

(289)  Commission v Greece,  C-584/14 ; IP/14/1037 .

(290)  Directive 2012/27/EU , Commission v Greece, C-540/15 ; IP/15/5196.

(291)  Directive 2013/36/EU .

(292)  Directive 2011/98/EU .

(293)  Directive 2011/36/EU .

(294)  Directive 2004/49/EC .

(295)  Regulation (EU) No 181/2011 .

(296)  These rulings are almost exclusively handed down on infringement procedures.

(297)  Commission v Greece, C-180/14 and Court press release No 152/15 .

(298)  Directive No 91/271/EEC , Commission v Greece, C-167/14 and Court press release No 126/15.

(299)  Directive No 91/676/ΕEC , Commission v Greece, C-149/14 .

(300)  Agrooikosystimata, C-498/13 .

(301)  Directive 2001/42/EC , Dimos Kropias Attikis, C-473/14 .

(302)  Maïstrellis, C-222/14 and Court press release No 89/15 .

(303)  Directive 2014/27/EU .

(304)  Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008

(305)  Directive 2003/88/EC .

(306)  Directive 2012/27/EU , MEMO/15/5826 .

(307)   MEMO/15/4666 , Directive 2012/27/EU .

(308)  Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 and Regulation (EC) No 2173/2005 , MEMO/15/5826 .

(309)   IP/15/4673 , MEMO/15/5162.

(310)   MEMO/15/5162.

(311)  Directive 2011/89/EU .

(312)  Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC , MEMO/15/6006 .

(313)  Directive 2011/95/EU and Directive 2010/64/EU ; IP/15/6228 .

(314)  Commission v Hungary, C-115/13 .

(315) C-392/15 IP/15/4876 Commission v Hungary, . and .

(316)  Directive 2014/27/EU .

(317)  Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 .

(318)  Directive No 2010/75/EU .

(319)  Directives 2013/36/EU and 2011/61/EU .

(320)  Directive 2011/93/EU .

(321)  Directive 2004/49/EC .

(322)  These rulings are almost exclusively handed down on infringement procedures.

(323)  E.ON Földgáz Trade, C-510/13 .

(324)  Regulation (EC) No  1013/2006 , Total Waste Recycling, C487/14 .

(325)  Berlington Hungary and Others, C-98/14 and Court press release No 69/15.

(326)  Chmielewski, C-255/14 and Court press release No 90/15 .

(327)  Directive 2014/27/EU .

(328)  Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008

(329)  Directive 2012/27/EU .

(330)  Directive 92/43/EEC .

(331)  Directive 2013/40/EU .

(332)  Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 .

(333)  The UK/Ireland functional airspace block.

(334)  Commission v Ireland, C-552/15 .

(335)  Directive 2003/88/EC .

(336)  Directive 2009/72/EC .

(337)  Directives 73/239/EEC and 92/49/EEC .

(338)  Directive 2011/89/EU .

(339)  Directive 2010/64/EU .

(340)  Directive 2004/49/EC .

(341)  Directive 2006/126/EC .

(342)  Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 .

(343)  Directive 2008/120/EC .

(344)  These rulings are almost exclusively handed down on infringement procedures.

(345)  Commission v Ireland, C-87/14 and Court press release No 80/15.

(346)  PPU — Lanigan, C-237/15 and Court press release No 91/15 .

(347)  Commission Decision 2000/520/EC .

(348)  Schrems, C-362/14 .

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 15.7.2016

SWD(2016) 231 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Part II: Member States

Accompanying the document

Report from the Commission

Monitoring the application of European Union law
2015 Annual Report

{COM(2016) 463 final}
{SWD(2016) 230 final}

Italy

New complaints against Italy jumped by more than 30 % in 2015 but the number of new EU Pilot files fell by almost half. Open infringement cases held steady at the end-2014 level. New infringement cases for late transposition decreased to a five-year low.

I.COMPLAINTS

1.New complaints made against Italy by members of the public (2011- 2015)

2.Public complaints against Italy open at year-end