EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Brussels, 31.7.2020
SWD(2020) 147 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
Part I: General Statistical Overview
Accompanying the document
Report from the Commission
Monitoring the application of European Union law
2019 Annual Report
{COM(2020) 350 final}
I. Working with Member States to ensure proper implementation of EU law
1. Explanatory documents: state of play
2. Guidelines
3. Implementation plans: state of play
4. Meeting-based compliance tools
4.1. Committees, networks, expert groups and workshops
4.2. Package meetings
4.3. Other compliance tools
II. Infringement procedures
III. Before an infringement procedure is started
1. Complaints
2. Petitions
3. EU Pilot
IV. Stages in infringement procedures
1. Pre-litigation phase
2. Referrals and judgments of the Court of Justice under Articles 258 and 260(2) TFEU
V. Transposition of directives
1. EU directives to be transposed in 2015-2019
2. Transposition deadlines
3. Transparency
VI. Late transposition infringements
4. Referrals and judgments of the Court of Justice under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU
VII. Methodology and explanations
I.Working with Member States to ensure proper implementation of EU law
The Member States and the European Commission share responsibility for ensuring compliance with EU law. In line with the principle of sincere cooperation set out in Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, they should ‘in full mutual respect, assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from the Treaties’.
The ultimate purpose of the Commission’s enforcement actions is to ensure compliance with EU law, and in this sense infringement procedures are an option of last resort to achieve that purpose. In many cases, good cooperation and communication between the Commission and the Member States is more conducive to reaching compliance at an early stage than having to resort to infringement procedures. In its Communication ‘EU law: Better results through better application’ 1 , the Commission committed to strengthening its partnership with Member States.
In line with this approach, the Commission has developed a number of tools to help Member States transpose, apply and implement EU law correctly and on time. These include guidance documents, implementation plans, expert groups, explanatory documents, providing training, organising workshops and holding package meetings. Some of these tools are used to avoid (‘prevent’) breaches of EU law, while others are intended to be used in parallel with infringement procedures to resolve (‘correct’) breaches of EU law and to avoid having to refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Commission often uses a combination of these tools to address problems and promote compliance with EU law.
The Commission is committed to better explaining its role as guardian of the treaties and its work with Member States on issues concerning the application and implementation of EU law. Information provided in this section of the report goes beyond the dialogue engaged with the Member States during the formal infringement procedures. It gives a brief overview of other types of action taken by the Commission in 2019 to assist Member States in implementing and applying EU law.
1.Explanatory documents: state of play
The EU institutions and the Member States agreed in 2011 that Member States, when notifying national transposition measures to the Commission, may also have to provide documents explaining how they have transposed directives into their law 2 . The Commission can ask Member States to submit these ‘explanatory documents’ in justified cases 3 .
Explanatory documents play an essential role in allowing the Commission to understand how Member States transpose EU directives. They help to make monitoring compliance easier: without these documents, the Commission would need considerable resources and numerous contacts with national authorities to track the methods of transposition in all Member States. Often, transposing measures must fit into a complex legal framework. The resulting transposition exercise thus produces hundreds of measures that the Commission needs to examine.
In 2019, the Commission submitted only one proposal for a directive to the European Parliament and the Council. The proposal included a request for explanatory documents. The 66 directives that the Parliament and the Council adopted during this year included 26 directives for which the Commission had asked for explanatory documents. For all 26 directives, the agreed recital on the need for such documents was maintained in the final text.
During 2019, Member States had to transpose 42 directives. They undertook to submit explanatory documents for 36 directives 4 . In total, Member States notified 238 explanatory documents. The process of assessing the national transposition measures for these directives is under way.
Nine of the 36 directives for which the Member States undertook to provide explanatory documents in 2019 concerned the environment. Member States notified to the Commission the following numbers of explanatory documents:
·1 Member State notified 2 explanatory documents for the Directive on the restriction to use certain hazardous substances in electrical equipment 5 .
·3 Member States notified 3 explanatory documents for the Directive on exemption for certain electrical components containing lead in glass or ceramic 6 .
·3 Member States notified 3 explanatory documents for the Directive on exemption for lead in solders 7 .
·3 Member States notified 3 explanatory documents for the Directive on exemption for lead in cermet-based trimmer potentiometer elements 8 .
·3 Member States notified 3 explanatory documents for the Directive on exemption for lead as an alloying element in steel 9 .
·3 Member States notified 3 explanatory documents for the Directive on exemption for lead as an alloying element in aluminium 10 .
·3 Member States notified 3 explanatory documents for the Directive on exemption for lead as an alloying element in copper 11 .
·3 Member States notified 3 explanatory documents for the Directive on exemption for lead as an alloying element in high melting temperature solders 12 .
·3 Member States notified 3 explanatory documents for the Directive on exemption for lead in bearings and bushes 13 .
Another 4 of the 36 directives are in the field of justice and consumers. The Commission received:
·27 explanatory documents for the Directive on procedural safeguards for children who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings 14 , submitted by 13 Member States.
·12 explanatory documents for the Directive on legal aid for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings 15 , submitted by 7 Member States.
·23 explanatory documents for the Directive as regards the encouragement of long-term shareholder engagement 16 , submitted by 16 Member States.
·13 explanatory documents for the Directive on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interest by means of criminal law 17 , submitted by 11 Member States.
In addition, 6 of the 36 directives concern transport. Member States notified to the Commission the following numbers of explanatory documents:
·4 explanatory documents for the Directive on the interoperability of the rail system 18 , notified by 4 Member States;
·4 explanatory documents for the Directive on railway safety 19 provided by 4 Member States.
·2 explanatory documents for the Directive on safety rules and standards for passenger ships 20 , provided by 2 Member States.
·2 explanatory documents for the Directive on the registration of persons sailing on board passenger ships and on reporting formalities for ships 21 , provided by 2 Member States.
·4 explanatory documents for the Directive on a system of inspection for the safe operation of roll-on roll-off passenger ships and high-speed passenger craft in regular service 22 , provided by 3 Member States.
·4 explanatory documents for the Directive on the inland transport of dangerous goods 23 , provided by 3 Member States.
One of the 36 directives concerns financial services. The Commission received 21 explanatory documents from 18 Member States for the Directive on activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision.
Another 1 of the 36 directives is on climate. The Commission received 11 explanatory documents from 9 Member States for the Directive to enhance cost-effective emission reductions and low-carbon investments 24 .
In the field of employment, the Commission received 5 explanatory documents for the Directive implementing the Agreement concerning the implementation of the Work in Fishing Convention 25 , from 5 Member States.
In the field of energy, the Commission received 10 explanatory documents from 8 Member States for the Directive as regards the methods for calculating stockholding obligations 26 .
There were also 3 Directives in the field of health and safety for which the explanatory documents were submitted:
·6 explanatory documents for the Directive as regards minimum conditions for examining certain varieties of agricultural plant species and vegetable species 27 , notified by 6 Member States.
·1 explanatory document for the Directive as regards the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified organisms 2018/350/EU, notified by 1 Member States.
·1 explanatory document for the Directive on protective measures against the introduction of organisms harmful to plants or plant products 2019/523/EU, notified by 1 Member State.
In the area of the internal market, Member States submitted to the Commission explanatory documents for 4 Directives:
·4 explanatory documents for the Directive on electronic invoicing in public procurement 28 from 4 Member States.
·2 explanatory documents for the Directive on approximation of the laws of the Member States regarding trade marks 29 from 2 Member States.
·2 explanatory documents for the Directive on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons 30 from 2 Member States.
·14 explanatory documents for the Directive as regards the list of defence-related products 31 from 13 Member States.
There were also explanatory documents notified by Member States in the field of taxation for 6 Directives:
·17 explanatory documents notified for Directive as regards the treatment of vouchers 32 , by 16 Member States.
·8 explanatory documents notified for the Directive laying down the rules against tax avoidance practices 33 , by 5 Member States.
·4 explanatory documents notified for the Directive as regards hybrid mismatches with third countries 34 , by 4 Member States.
·5 explanatory documents notified for the Directive on tax dispute resolution mechanisms 35 by 4 Member States.
·2 explanatory documents notified for the Directive as regards mandatory automatic exchange on information 36 , by 2 Member States.
·4 explanatory documents notified for the Directive as regards the harmonisation and simplification of certain rules in the value added tax system for the taxation of trade between Member States 37 , by 4 Member States.
The Commission considers that the current framework gives sufficient flexibility on the use of explanatory documents. Unfortunately, in 2019 Member States did not deliver in all cases on their commitment to provide explanatory documents together with the national measures transposing the directives into their legal order. Moreover, the Commission’s initial assessment of the explanatory documents it received indicates that their quality is uneven.
In its judgment of 8 July 2019, 38 the Court of Justice clarified that, when notifying national transposition measures to the Commission, Member States must provide sufficiently clear and precise information, and identify, for each provision of the directive, the national provision(s) ensuring its transposition. If they fail to provide documents explaining the correlation between the provisions of a directive and the corresponding provisions of national law, the Commission will pursue the infringement procedures under Article 260(3) TFEU. This Treaty provision allows the Commission to request the Court to impose financial penalties if a Member State fails to fulfil its obligation to notify measures transposing a directive adopted under a legislative procedure.
The Court’s judgement does not impose an obligation on the Member States to notify explanatory documents to the Commission in the form of correlation tables. Member States remain free to choose the form of their explanatory documents. The Commission will continue to explore with Member States the benefit of providing guidance on how to draft and submit explanatory documents. This could include the need for a common template and clear rules on the presentation of the relevant information by the Member States.
The Commission will continue to report in its annual report on the explanatory documents received from the Member States.
2.Guidelines
The Commission often provides written guidance to Member States on how to implement and apply certain EU legal instruments.
In 2019, the Commission issued guidelines on interpreting and implementing EU law in the following policy areas.
Regarding the common agricultural policy, the Commission completed the guide on how to register a protected designation of origin or protected geographical indication for wine. Furthermore, the Commission provided guidance on additional controls on organic products from China, Russia, Ukraine, Moldova and Kazakhstan. The Commission updated the guidance on direct payments and rural development. Through the Expert Group on ESIF and platforms such as InfoRegio, the Commission provided guidance on issues related to the European Structural and Investments Funds.
In the area of employment and social affairs, the Commission published the Practical Guide on Posting of Workers in 2019. This document aims to assist workers, employers and national authorities in understanding the rules on posting of workers, as revised by the Directive on posting of workers 39 . This understanding is essential to ensure that workers are aware of their rights and that the rules are correctly and consistently applied by national authorities and employers throughout the EU.
In order to improve the application of consumer legislation, in July 2019, the Commission issued guidance 40 on applying the Unfair Contract Terms Directive 41 . It covers the rich case law of the Court of Justice, for instance, on the transparency of contract terms, the effect of finding contract terms unfair and requirements for procedures before national courts, such as the ex officio review of unfair contract terms.
In the field of energy, the Commission adopted three recommendations to help Member States to implement the different elements of the new amending Directive on Energy Efficiency 42 in national law. They cover the energy savings obligation, the revised metering and billing provisions for thermal energy and the revised provisions for efficiency in heating and cooling. The Commission has also published two recommendations 43 on both the building renovation and building modernisation aspects of the new rules in the amended Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 44 .
In the field of the environment, the Commission published guidance on the application of exemptions under the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 45 . It aims to help national administrative and judicial authorities apply the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. Furthermore, the Commission completed the first ever habitat action plan for the conservation of wild pollinators 46 in November 2019. The action plan provides comprehensive information on the status and trends of the relevant species and habitats, the pressures and threats acting on them and the measures needed to address them in order to achieve the Nature Directive’s objectives. The implementation of the Water Framework Directive raises a number of shared technical challenges, which are addressed at regular meetings of the Strategic Coordination Group and its sub-groups, gathering Member States and stakeholders. This has resulted in extensive guidance, which is regularly updated.
3.Implementation plans: state of play
The Commission prepares implementation plans for certain legislative proposals for directives and regulations. An implementation plan identifies the challenges that the Member States will face and which need to be taken into account when they prepare to transpose and implement the respective directive or regulation. The plans also provide for a wide range of tools to help Member States implement EU laws, such as guidance documents, expert groups and dedicated websites. Implementation plans could also include actions and monitoring arrangements by the Member States to track progress and report on their implementation.
The Commission prepared one implementation plan for the revised Capital Requirements Directive 47 later in the legislative process, as the Directive entered into force on 27 June 2019. The main objective of the Directive is to strengthen the current regulatory framework and to align it with international regulatory standards set by the Basel Committee.
Taking into account these findings, the Commission will continue to explore avenues for improving the effectiveness of the implementation plans together with the Member States.
4.Meeting-based compliance tools
The Commission deploys a wide range of meeting-based tools, such as committees, networks, expert groups and workshops, to promote the good implementation of EU law across policy areas.
4.1.Committees, networks, expert groups and workshops
The Commission regularly discussed the implementation of the energy legislation with Member States in various committee meetings. In the field of energy efficiency, the Commission held several meetings of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 48 .
In the field of nuclear safety and radiation protection, the Commission held several meetings of the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group (ENSREG).
In the area of climate change policy, the Commission organised four Technical Working Groups with experts from all Member States on the implementation of the Governance Regulation 49 and notably on the preparation of the national energy and climate plans.
In the area of financial services, the Commission organised meetings of an Expert Group on Payments to support Member States to ensure compliance with the Payment Services Directive 50 . This expert group advised the Commission on payments and assisted the Commission in preparing legislative acts and policy initiatives regarding payments, including fraud prevention issues related to the payment industry and users.
Since the introduction of the common agricultural policy, the Commission has made intensive use of committees and expert groups to ensure compliance. Apart from their institutional role in adopting implementing acts, the committees in the agricultural sector 51 provide an important forum for discussing, explaining, clarifying and interpreting the applicable rules. In 2019, the Commission services held nearly 160 committee and expert meetings. The discussions covered a broad range of topics with a particular focus on the correct application and implementation of EU law and the exchange of best practices between Member States. The Commission used the Committee for the common organisation of agricultural markets to discuss the requirements for the new regulation on market transparency 52 . The Expert Group for Agricultural Markets was a forum to share experience gained through Commission audits. The Expert Group for Animal Products discussed the outcome of the on-the-spot checks by the Union Inspection Committee on carcass classification, and management and control issues regarding the EU school fruit, vegetables and milk scheme. The technical clarifications provided in the context of the Rural Development Committee concerned the agri-environmental-climate measure, the annual implementation reports, the voluntary agricultural certification schemes, the financial instruments, the outcomes of the performance reserve, those provided in the context of quality policy concerned the control and practical implementation of rules on the protection of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications. Finally, following the adoption of the Unfair Trade Practices Directive 53 , expert group meetings provided several opportunities to assist Member States in transposing the Directive into national law.
In the area of the environment and in particular waste management, the Commission Directorate-General for Environment held 13 technical committee meetings and 10 expert group meetings as well as several other meetings (e.g. a stakeholders’ meeting under the Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive, an environmental directors’ meeting, a meeting of waste shipment correspondents under the Waste Shipment Regulation). These meetings concerned both the preparation of new legislation and the implementation of existing directives.
Under Action 6 of the EU action plan for nature, people and the economy 54 , the Commission has further supported the Natura 2000 biogeographical process. This is a process of cooperation between various stakeholders at the level of a biogeographical region. The Member States in which the region lies are involved in improving the implementation, management, monitoring, financing and reporting for the Natura 2000 network on the basis of agreed roadmaps. Two Natura 2000 biogeographical seminars were organised in 2019, for the Atlantic region and the Boreal region.
As regards the area of working conditions, the Commission has established a Member State expert group to facilitate the transposition of the Directive on Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions in the European Union 55 . In October 2019, in the Expert Group on European Works Councils, the Commission presented the results of its evaluation of the Directive 56 and discussed how to address weaknesses in the redress and sanctions regimes in Member States. The Commission also participates regularly in the sectoral Social Dialogue Committee on Temporary Agency Work, with frequent discussions on the enforcement of the Directive on Temporary Agency Work 57 , as well as in the Social Dialogue Committees on Maritime Transport and on Fishing.
In the field of occupational health and safety, in 2019 the Commission made regular use of committees and expert groups to discuss the appropriate implementation and application of EU labour legislation on the safety and health of workers. The Advisory Committee on Safety and Health met twice in plenary and several times in various working groups. It adopted several opinions, namely on future priorities in the field of occupational safety and health. The Technical Progress Committee met four times in 2019 to discuss possible technical updates to the annexes to three occupational safety and health directives (on biological agents, personal protective equipment and medical treatment on board vessels) and the adoption of a fifth list of indicative occupational exposure limit values. Following this work, the Commission adopted four directives in October 2019. The Senior Labour Inspectors’ Committee adopted guidance on addressing health risks from welding fumes and started discussion on future enforcement priorities in occupational safety and health.
The Commission had a first meeting with representatives of Member States responsible for the transposition of the Directive on accessibility of products and services 58 to support them in their efforts.
The Committee of Experts on Posting of Workers held several meetings in 2019 and established a working group for the transposition of the Directive on the Posting of Workers. 59
The Administrative Commission on the Coordination of Social Security Systems met four times in 2019, enabling national authorities to discuss topics linked to the application of the Regulation on the Coordination of Social Security Systems 60 . Moreover, the network of social security experts (MoveS network) contributed to the correct application of the Regulation via information tools, ad hoc analyses, reports on specific issues and seminars in Member States.
Following the adoption of the Unfair Trade Practices Directive 61 , two expert group meetings took place and provided answers to Member States on how to interpret the Directive. Moreover, the Commission set up a dedicated web space to allow for an exchange of information.
In the area of justice and consumers, the Commission continued its efforts to ensure proper application of the new data protection rules. It received feedback from stakeholders on implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation 62 through a dedicated multi-stakeholder group composed of representatives from industry, civil society, practitioners and academics. In parallel, the Commission is actively contributing to the work of the European Data Protection Board , composed of the national authorities who are the enforcers of data protection rules.
In February 2019, the Regulation simplifying the circulation of certain public documents between Member States 63 became applicable. The Commission and the Member States met within the Committee on Public Documents to discuss the Regulation’s application. Discussions showed that Member State authorities are not yet fully familiar with the new provisions and as a result further training for authorities at national level is planned.
In the area of free movement and Union citizenship, the Expert Group on Free Movement met once in 2019 to discuss several implementation issues and in particular compliance with the Coman judgement 64 . In 2019, the consular protection expert group discussed the Directive’s implementation and the collection of statistical data.
Regarding gender equality, following the adoption in June 2019 of the Directive on Work-Life Balance 65 , the Commission started the preparatory work on its implementation in the Member States. An informal kick-off general meeting with all Member States on 10 and 11 December 2019 discussed issues of interpretation of the Directive’s provisions. This was followed by several bilateral meetings in the days that followed.
The Commission regularly discussed implementation of the security and migration legislation with Member States in various committee meetings, and expert groups remained an essential framework for discussion and exchanging expertise, namely in the area of legal migration, prevention of radicalisation and information systems for borders and security.
4.2.Package meetings
On transport, the Commission organised 7 package meetings in 2019. These meetings have generally led to a swifter handling of a number of files and, in certain cases, to a substantial reduction of the number of infringements.
On environment, the Commission organised 9 package meetings in 2019 to discuss ongoing infringements and other issues related to the implementation of environmental legislation in the Member States. Before the meeting with the state authorities, the Commission usually meets with the local environmental non-governmental organisations.
In the area of migration and home affairs, 1 package meeting took place in 2019 to discuss pending infringement and EU Pilot procedures.
4.3.Other compliance tools
In enforcing the EU’s maritime affairs and fisheries legislation, the Commission relies heavily on a system of verifications, inspections and audits by Commission inspectors 66 . In addition, the control action plans adopted by the Commission in close cooperation with the Member State concerned are a strong tool to promote the correct enforcement of EU legislation and of the sanctioning system. In 2019, the Commission adopted new action plans for several Member States and actively monitored their implementation. On the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products, the Commission ensures that Member States carry out regular checks on the proper implementation of the relevant EU legislation 67 .
In the agricultural sector, the Commission uses audits and financial correction procedures to check whether the Member States have set up control systems ensuring that payments to beneficiaries from the EU funds are made correctly. In addition, the Commission verifies the fulfilment of the organic legislation through audits and the monitoring of the organic farming information system (OFIS) 68 . Furthermore, Member States regularly have to notify the Commission of their policy decisions as well as data on their annual implementation of direct payments, greening and cross-compliance. The Commission uses these notifications to guide Member States towards more uniform implementation. When the Commission detects systemic deficiencies in the control systems for direct payments, it requests that Member States set up remedial action plans. If a Member State fails to comply with the action plan, the Commission may decide to suspend or reduce payments. As a result of the above activities, compliance has improved in the domains concerned. For instance, notifications from Member States received in 2019 on the annual review of voluntary coupled support for 2020 and on the implementation of decoupled direct payments in 2018 showed general consistency with the relevant legal framework and required less clarifications and corrections compared to previous years.
In the field of energy, the Commission continued to use the Concerted Action Forum, which gathers representatives of Member States and other interested parties, to exchange best practices when applying specific EU instruments. Key discussion topics concerned the implementation of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 69 and the Energy Efficiency Directive 70 .
In the area of the environment and in particular waste management, three events were held in Athens, Lisbon and Budapest in 2019, building on the Virtuous Circles events organised in Malta, Romania and Bulgaria in 2018. These events are organised in Member States identified as being at risk of not reaching the new recycling targets and other requirements of the waste legislation, as revised in 2018. They emphasise the potential of good waste management in generating value from circular activities including remanufacturing, re-use, symbiosis, repair and recycling. In addition to recommendations on the way forward from top experts, these events are designed to offer and seek commitment on concrete financial and technical measures and assistance to implement EU waste policies.
In the area of urban waste water treatment, the Commission Directorate-General for Environment organised six country visits in 2019 in cooperation with the OECD. These allowed for in-depth dialogues on governance, financing possibilities and potential solutions to anticipate financing gaps and avoid infringements.
The Commission organises air quality dialogues to consult Member States on the main air quality challenges and to explore further action to address them. In 2019 the air quality dialogue was held in Italy.
Eleven Natura dialogues took place under the EU action plan for nature, people and the economy 71 in 2019 72 . These bilateral dialogues have been set up to promote discussions with individual Member States on key challenges in the implementation of the Nature Directives and involve the nature authorities as well as other relevant authorities and stakeholders. These meetings are being followed up through agreed implementation roadmaps, with milestones and actions to be delivered.
In the area of occupational safety and health, the Commission continued its cooperation with Member States and social partners to make the EU occupational safety and health legislative framework future-proof and ensure proper compliance and enforcement in line with its 2017 Communication 73 . In this context, the Commission supported two initiatives: i) a joint action between the Commission and other stakeholders on a ‘roadmap on carcinogens’ a voluntary action scheme to raise awareness about the risks arising from exposure to carcinogens in the workplace and ii) an exchange of good practices between companies and organisations as well as a peer review process with Member States on the legislation and practical management of psychosocial risks at work, which took place in Sweden.
In the area of justice and home affairs, Union law has created the Schengen Evaluation Mechanism as a specific monitoring mechanism designed to verify the application of the European Union's so-called Schengen acquis. This is a body of legislation spanning borders, visas, returns, police cooperation, information systems and data protection. It aims to ensure that high uniform standards are applied in practice by those European Union countries in the Schengen area - an area comprising 26 countries, 22 of which are EU countries 74 and 4 of which are non-EU countries associated to the Schengen area 75 . In this area, no internal border controls are applied. The Schengen evaluation mechanism is a multi-layered tool involving the Commission and the Member States (as well as the Schengen associated countries) and also engages the European Parliament. It is without prejudice to the Commission’s powers to initiate infringement procedures. Countries belonging to the Schengen area are subject to monitoring and evaluation according to an evaluation programme.
II.Infringement procedures
There are four main types of infringements of EU law:
a)failure to notify: a Member State does not notify the Commission on time of its measures to transpose a directive;
b)non-conformity/non-compliance: the Commission considers that a Member State’s legislation is not in line with the requirements of EU directives;
c)infringement of the Treaties, regulations or decisions: the Commission considers that a Member State’s legislation is not in line with the requirements of the Treaties, EU regulations or decisions;
d)incorrect application: EU law is not applied correctly, or not applied at all, by national authorities.
Infringements may be detected by the Commission’s own investigations or brought to its attention by complaints or petitions from members of the public, businesses, NGOs or other organisations.
The Commission actively informs complainants of the decisions taken throughout all stages of the procedure .
The infringement procedure under Article 258 TFEU is divided into a pre-litigation phase and a litigation phase.
In the pre-litigation phase, the Commission first sends a letter of formal notice to the Member State requesting an explanation within a given time limit. If the Member State’s reply is unsatisfactory or if the Member State does not reply at all, the Commission sends a reasoned opinion asking the Member State to comply within a given time limit.
Should the Member State not comply with the reasoned opinion, the Commission may open the litigation procedure by bringing the case to the Court of Justice under Article 258 TFEU.
When it brings a case before the Court against a Member State for failing to fulfil its obligations to notify measures transposing a directive adopted under a legislative procedure, the Commission may propose financial penalties under Article 260(3) TFEU.
The Court may agree with the Commission and rule that the Member State has breached its obligations under EU law. If the Court does so but the Member State still has not taken the steps needed to comply, the Commission may continue the infringement procedure under Article 260(2) TFEU. This involves referring the Member State to the Court again, after sending it a letter of formal notice under Article 260(2) TFEU. In such cases the Commission can propose, and the Court can impose, financial sanctions in the form of a lump sum and penalties per day or another specified period.
At the request of national courts, the Court of Justice may also issue preliminary rulings under Article 267 TFEU addressing issues of conformity of national laws with EU legislation. While preliminary rulings are distinct from infringement judgments, they give the Commission an additional opportunity to ensure that violations of EU law deriving from national legislation or its application are remedied. The Commission systematically follows up on preliminary rulings where the Court identifies situations of non-conformity of national legislation with EU law.
Over recent years, the Commission has taken concrete measures to improve the transparency of its monitoring activities and decisions on infringement procedures. It has set up a centralised platform for disseminating infringement-related information on the Europa portal . This provides detailed information on the decisions the Commission takes on infringement procedures, including press material on specific cases. Since 2017, the press material covers all formal steps of the infringement procedure.
In addition, every year the Commission provides information in its annual reports on monitoring the implementation of EU legislation, on the follow-up given to complaints and on parliamentary petitions and infringement procedures.
The Commission remains committed to improving the transparency of its enforcement action. At the same time, it has to give due account to the legitimate need for confidentiality with regard to the Member States in infringement procedures, as recognised by the Court of Justice.
III.Before an infringement procedure is started
1.Complaints
The Commission registered 3525 new complaints in 2019.
Public complaints open at year-end
|
3594 |
> |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
3525 |
> |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
3813 |
> |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 3306 |
> |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
The three Member States against which the Commission received the most complaints were Spain, Italy and Germany.
• Spain: 542 complaints, especially in connection with: justice and consumers (243 complaints); the environment (70 complaints); and employment (64 complaints);
• Italy: 375 complaints, mainly related to: industry, entrepreneurship and SMEs (90 complaints); employment (61 complaints); and taxation and customs (53 complaints); and
• Germany: 319 complaints, most of them related to: the environment (106 complaints); justice and consumers (63 complaints); and industry, entrepreneurship and SMEs (40 complaints).
The following chart shows the main policy areas for which new complaints were registered in 2019. Together they account for 88% of all complaints received in 2019.
The Commission handled 3813 complaints in 2019. Once it has assessed complaints, the Commission may launch an investigation using the EU Pilot mechanism or through formal infringement procedures to clarify whether EU rules have been breached. Not all complaints in 2019 led to such investigations, because either no EU laws were breached (2712 complaints) or the correspondence did not qualify as a complaint (829) 76 . The Commission did not pursue 112 cases as the complainants withdrew their complaint. It also transferred 10 complaints to other redress mechanisms, such as SOLVIT. The Commission therefore closed 3663 complaints.
In 2019, the Commission pursued 150 complaints further and launched investigations using the EU Pilot mechanism or the formal infringement procedure.
Complaints leading to investigations using the EU Pilot mechanism were most frequently related to taxation and the customs union; financial stability, financial services and the Capital Markets Union; agriculture and rural development; the environment; and mobility and transport. These complaints mainly concerned Italy, Bulgaria, Malta and Spain.
In 2019, complaints leading to formal infringement procedures were most frequently related to taxation and the customs union; the internal market, industry, entrepreneurship and SMEs; and employment. These new infringements mainly concerned Austria, Belgium and Germany.
2.Petitions
Through petitions and questions, the European Parliament alerted the Commission to shortcomings in the way some Member States were implementing and applying certain EU laws in 2019. The Commission systematically ensures follow-up to the petitions received. However, not all petitions lead to investigations about breaches of EU law, because either no EU laws were breached or the Commission had no power to act. In many cases, the situation presented in a petition is already being investigated by the Commission through EU Pilot or a formal infringement procedure.
This section provides an overview of the follow-up the Commission gave to petitions in 2019 in the policy areas most concerned.
With regard to the environment, the Commission received 58 petitions linked to complaints or infringements in 2019. While many of those petitions were linked to complaints or to structural infringements, no investigations were started as a direct result of a petition. This was often because a number of petitions raised individual grievances of incorrect application, which are no longer pursued as a matter of priority by the Commission in line with the Communication ‘EU law: Better results through better application’.
In the areas of financial services and the Capital Markets Union, the Commission received 5 petitions concerning the implementation and application of EU law. Of these, the subject matter of 1 petition is being dealt with by the Commission in the context of complaints about a possible breach of EU law and still being assessed. This relates to the free movement of capital, especially the administrative and judicial practice related to restitution of property in several Member States. In the other 4 cases in relation to financial services, the Commission did not pursue the petitions as investigations because either had no competence or no breach of EU law could be established.
In the area of the internal market, the Commission received 33 new petitions in 2019 concerning the implementation and application of EU law. The matters raised were not identified as a systemic and serious breach of the Union law falling under the criteria of the Commission’s infringement priorities. At the same time, the Commission has given follow up to some of the petitions by putting the issue forward for a discussion with the Member States at the working groups and also is considering a White paper to launch a debate on some other issues.
In the area of maritime affairs and fisheries, the Commission received 2 petitions concerning the implementation and application of EU law. The issues raised were already covered by ongoing investigations.
In the area of migration and home affairs, the Commission received 19 petitions and launched 1 investigation as a follow up to a petition from the European Parliament concerning the incorrect implementation of the Directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography 77 . The relevant infringement procedure is still pending.
In the customs and taxation field, the Commission received 27 petitions concerning the implementation and application of EU law. The petitions concerned cases already opened by the Commission.
3.EU Pilot
The EU Pilot dialogue between the Commission and Member States was set up to quickly resolve potential breaches of EU law at an early stage in appropriate cases. However, the recourse to EU Pilot should not add a lengthy step to the infringement process, which in itself is a means to enter into a problem-solving dialogue with a Member State. In line with the Communication EU law: Better results through better application , the Commission launches infringement procedures without relying on the EU Pilot mechanism, unless recourse to EU Pilot is seen as useful in a given case.
The Commission opened 190 new EU Pilot files in 2019. Of these, 37 were triggered by complaints and 153 were opened by the Commission on its own initiative (against 86 in 2018).
EU Pilot files open at year-end
|
553 |
> |
EU Pilot files open at end-2018 |
|
190 |
> |
New EU Pilot files registered in 2019 |
|
244 |
> |
EU Pilot files handled in 2019 |
|
= 499 |
> |
EU Pilot files open at end-2019 |
The following pie chart shows the policy areas in which the Commission opened the most new EU Pilot files in 2019:
The Commission handled 244 EU Pilot files in 2019. It closed 187 of these after receiving satisfactory answers from the Member States concerned. This gives a resolution rate of 77%, which is above the 2018 level.
Altogether, 57 EU Pilot files were closed because the Commission rejected the responses provided by Member States. Of these, 42 were followed up by formal infringement procedures. While 8 of these procedures were based on complaints, the Commission launched the remaining 34 on its own initiative.
Most EU Pilot files which led to formal infringement procedures concerned the policy areas of environment (22 cases). Latvia and Poland had the highest number of files in EU Pilot which were pursued further through infringement procedures (4 files each), followed by Italy and Ireland (3 files each).
At the end of 2019, 499 EU Pilot files were open. The main Member States concerned were Italy (45), Spain (31) and France (31). The main policy area concerned continued to be the environment (128 open files), followed by justice and fundamental rights (61), migration and home affairs (60) and energy (50).
IV.Stages in infringement procedures
1.Pre-litigation phase
The Commission launched 797 new procedures by sending a letter of formal notice in 2019. Out of these, the Commission launched procedures on its own initiative in 397 cases.
The following chart gives the breakdown by Member State.
Most new infringement cases are for late transposition of EU directives.
The following chart shows the main policy areas in which new procedures were opened.
The Commission also sent 316 reasoned opinions to Member States in 2019. The main policy areas concerned were the internal market, industry, entrepreneurship and SMEs (83), the environment (45), justice and consumers (44) and taxation and customs (34).
The following chart gives the breakdown by Member State.
At the end of 2019, 1564 infringement cases remained open. This is a slight decrease from the previous year, as the following chart shows.
The following chart shows the number of open infringement cases by Member State at the end of 2019:
The following chart shows the breakdown of the infringement cases open at the end of 2019, by policy area:
Even after it has launched an infringement procedure, the Commission continues its dialogue with the Member State in order to seek compliance. Statistics confirm that Member States make serious efforts to settle their infringements before the Court hands down its ruling.
In 2019, the Commission closed:
·604 infringements after sending letters of formal notice 78 ;
·160 cases after sending reasoned opinions;
·13 cases after deciding to refer the case to the Court but before submitting the application and 19 cases following a Court judgment. In addition, the Commission withdrew 9 cases from the Court before the latter handed down its ruling. The Commission withdrew these cases as the Member States concerned took the necessary measures to comply with EU law.
2.Referrals and judgments of the Court of Justice under Articles 258 and 260(2) TFEU
In 2019, the Commission referred 31 cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU and 2 cases under Article 260(2) TFEU
In 2019, the Court issued 24 judgments under Article 258 TFEU, 1 judgment under Article 260(2) TFEU. Of these, 23 were in the Commission’s favour, 2 were in the Member State’s favour 79 .
Italy (6), Poland (3), and Germany, (Greece, and Spain (2 each) were the subject of the most Court judgments under Article 258 TFEU in 2019.
Member States frequently take the measures needed to comply with a Court judgment promptly. However, at the end of the year, 98 infringement procedures were still open after a Court ruling because the Commission considered that the Member States concerned had not yet complied with judgments under Article 258 TFEU. The main Member States concerned were Greece (16) Italy (11) and Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom (each 8) These cases mainly related to the environment (52), transport and mobility (12), taxation and customs (9), and the internal market, industry, entrepreneurship and SMEs (8).
Of these 98 cases, the Commission referred 2 cases to the Court for the second time. When the Court imposes financial penalties under Article 260(2) TFEU, the defaulting Member State must pay the lump sum immediately and continue to pay the periodic penalty until it complies fully with the first and second Court judgments. In 2019, the Court delivered one judgment under Article 260(2) TFEU. It imposed penalty payments on Ireland 80 . At the end of 2019, 9 infringement procedures were still open after a Court ruling under Article 260(2) TFEU.
In addition, the Court imposed penalties in 3 judgments handed down under Article 260(2) TFEU in the area of competition 81 .
V.Transposition of directives
1.EU directives to be transposed in 2015-2019
In 2019, the Parliament and the Council adopted 66 directives. Most of these directives modify existing laws; there were 4 new directives and 1 codifying directive (which does not impose a new transposition deadline). The main policy areas concerned were: the environment (13), justice (10) and employment (8). Explanatory documents were required for 26 directives.
At the same time, 42 directives had to be transposed in 2019, which is less than in 2018 (50). For these directives, Member States notified 3014 national transposition measures to the Commission by the end of 2019 82 . On average, Member States notified 71 measures per directive.
In 2019, the highest number of notifications was submitted by Hungary (259), Czechia (237) and Finland (209). The lowest number of notifications was submitted by Cyprus (28), Spain (42) and Ireland (44).
The transposition of the Directive on procedural safeguards for children who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings triggered the highest number of notifications (503 notifications) 83 . The two directives with the next highest number of notifications were the Directive on the fight against fraud to the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law (221 notifications) 84 and the Directive on legal aid for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings and for requested persons in European arrest warrant proceedings (206 notifications) 85 .
2.Transposition deadlines
Out of 42 directives to be transposed in 2019 there were 9 directives whose transposition deadline was shorter than 1 year from the time of their publication (same as in 2018).
The average period to transpose directives remained 19 months. The directive with the longest transposition period and deadline in 2019 (59 months) was the Directive on electronic invoicing in public procurement 86 . This Directive, however, had two different transposition deadlines 87 .
A short transposition period does not always result in an increased number of infringements for late transposition. Out of 4 directives with a transposition period of less than 5 months, 2 directives triggered a small number of infringements 88 , whereas 2 triggered a higher number of late transposition infringement cases (12 cases — Directive on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community 89 and 11 cases – Directive regarding the establishment of harmonised risk indicators 90 ).
3.Transparency
To further encourage Member States to be more transparent with the national measures transposing EU directives, the Commission invited Member States to agree to the publication of the text of these measures on EUR-Lex. To date, 12 Member States have agreed to do so: Austria, Czechia, Cyprus, Estonia, France, Greece, Malta, Latvia, Luxembourg, Slovakia, Spain and Poland. The Commission also invited Member States to make their declaration of transposition public on EUR-Lex 91 , which accompanies the national transposition measures notified to the Commission. Only Greece has so far agreed to do so.
In line with the commitments taken in the Inter-Institutional Agreement on Better Law-making, the Commission encouraged Member States to identify which provisions stem from an EU directive and which are in no way related to that Union legislation. Members of the public have an interest in knowing which national transposition measures go beyond the requirements of EU directives. Up to now, only 2 Member States provided this information to the Commission 92 .
VI.Late transposition infringements
Combatting late transposition is a long-established priority for the Commission. The Commission therefore proposes financial sanctions whenever it refers a Member State to the Court of Justice under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU for not having communicated on time its measures to transpose a directive adopted under a legislative procedure (see details in subsection V.5).
The number of new late transposition infringements decreased from 419 in 2018 to 406 in 2019 93 .
At the end of 2019, 599 late transposition infringement cases were still open, a 21% decrease from the 758 cases open at the end of 2018.
|
758 |
> |
Late transposition cases open at end-2018 |
|
406 |
> |
New late transposition cases registered in 2019 |
|
565 |
> |
Late transposition cases closed in 2019 |
|
= 599 |
> |
Late transposition cases open at end-2019 |
The following chart shows the number of late transposition infringement cases open at the end of 2019 (599 in total), by Member State, irrespective of the year in which the case was opened and new late transposition infringement cases (406 in total) opened in 2019, by Member State.
The policy areas in which the new cases were launched in 2019 are shown in the following chart:
4.Referrals and judgments of the Court of Justice under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU
Under Article 260(3) TFEU, the Commission may propose financial penalties even when it refers a case for the first time to the Court of Justice under Article 258 TFEU on the ground that a Member State has failed to transpose a legislative Directive. This innovation, introduced in the Treaty of Lisbon, aims to incentivise the Member States to transpose directives on time. The Commission proposes the level of financial penalty to the Court in line with the policy laid down in its Communications on the implementation of Article 260(3) TFEU and on the calculation method for lump sum payments and daily penalty payments 94 .
In 2019, the Commission continued to bring late transposition infringement cases to the Court of Justice with a request for daily penalties under Article 260(3) TFEU. It referred 1 Member State (Spain) to the Court 95 .
In its judgment of 8 July 2019, Commission v Belgium 96 , the Court of Justice applied for the first time the sanction scheme of Article 260(3) TFEU. It imposed a daily penalty on Belgium of EUR 5 000 from the date of the judgment for the Member State’s failure to adopt and communicate all the measures necessary for the transposition of the Directive on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic communications networks 97 . The Court upheld the Commission’s position and clarified that the sanction scheme of Article 260(3) TFEU may also be applied to cases of partial failure to adopt and communicate transposition measures. In addition, when notifying national transposition measures to the Commission, Member States must provide sufficiently clear and precise information, and identify, for each provision of the directive, the national provision(s) ensuring its transposition 98 .
VII.Methodology and explanations
Infringement procedures
First chart: Trends in complaints and investigations about potential breaches of EU law
This chart shows aggregated data over a five-year period covering new complaints registered, new EU Pilot files and new infringement cases.
Second chart: Time taken to investigate potential breaches of EU law
This shows the total number of files (complaints, EU Pilot and infringement cases) closed in a given year with the average time in weeks needed before taking a decision to close them. This means that certain files are potentially counted in all three categories, if the initial complaint becomes an infringement.
Before an infringement procedure is started
Complaints
First chart: Complaints open at year-end
This starts with the number of open complaints at the end of 2018 (first line) 99 . The second line shows the number of new complaints registered in 2019. The third line shows the number of complaints for which the Commission took a decision in 2019. The fourth line shows the number of complaints open at the end of 2019 (calculated by taking the first figure, adding the second and subtracting the third).
Second chart: New complaints registered in 2019 (main policy areas) 100
This shows the main policy areas for which new complaints were registered in 2019.
Third chart: Complaints leading to investigations
This shows the number of complaints which the Commission pursued further by launching an investigation about breaches of EU law (via the EU Pilot mechanism or launching a formal infringement procedure).
EU Pilot
First chart: EU Pilot files open at year-end
This starts with the number of open EU Pilot files at the end of 2018 (first line). The second line shows the number of new EU Pilot files opened in 2019. The third line shows the number of files on which the Commission took a decision in 2019. The fourth line shows the number of EU Pilot files open at the end of 2019 (calculated by taking the first figure, adding the second and subtracting the third).
Second chart: EU Pilot files opened in 2019 (main policy areas)
This shows the policy areas in which the new EU Pilot files were opened in 2019.
Third chart: EU Pilot files (2015-2019)
This shows the number of EU Pilot files processed in a given year and the resolution rate in that year. The resolution rate is the percentage of EU Pilot files handled for which the Commission accepted the Member States’ responses.
Fourth chart: EU Pilot files and infringement cases
This compares the number of new EU Pilot files and new infringement cases in an overlay with the total number of infringement cases open at the year-end.
Stages in infringement procedures
First chart: New infringement cases at 31 December 2019
This shows the number of new infringement cases opened in 2019, by Member State.
Second chart: Trends in new infringement procedures
This shows comparison — over a five-year period — between different types of infringement cases originating as late transposition cases, breaches of regulations and treaties and incorrect application or non-conformity with directives.
Third chart: New infringement cases opened in 2019 (main policy areas)
This shows the main policy areas in which the new infringement cases were opened in 2019.
Fourth chart: Reasoned opinions sent to Member States in 2019
This shows the number of reasoned opinions sent to Member States in 2019.
Fifth chart: Infringement cases open at year-end (2015-2019)
This shows the number of infringements that remained open on 31 December of each year from 2015 to 2019.
Sixth chart: Infringement cases open on 31 December 2019
These figures show all procedures that the Commission has started against each Member State by sending a letter of formal notice under Article 258 TFEU. It covers letters sent in 2019 or before, irrespective of the stages the cases have reached. Only cases which have not yet been closed by a formal decision are shown. For each Member State, the chart distinguishes between infringements for incorrect transposition and/or bad application of EU law, late transposition infringements and breaches of regulations and treaties.
Accordingly, the numbers include all cases that, on 31 December 2019:
·were in the pre-litigation phase (letter of formal notice, reasoned opinion or decision on referral to the Court under Article 258 TFEU);
·were pending before the Court under Article 258 TFEU or Article 260(3) TFEU;
·the Court had ruled on but where the Commission could not yet confirm that the Member State had implemented the judgment correctly;
·were in the second pre-litigation procedure (letter of formal notice or referral decision under Article 260(2) TFEU);
·were pending before the Court due to a second referral; or
·the Court had ruled on for the second time but where the Commission could not yet confirm that the Member State had implemented the second judgment correctly.
This figure does not include, for example, open EU Pilot files. It also does not include EU Pilot files for which the Commission rejected the Member State’s response but had not yet sent a letter of formal notice under Article 258 TFEU.
Seventh chart: Infringement cases open at end-2019: policy areas
This shows the breakdown, by policy area, of the infringement cases open on 31 December 2019.
Eighth chart: Court of Justice judgments under Article 258 and 260(2) TFEU in 2019
This shows the total number of Court of Justice judgments and the number of judgments in favour of the Commission and the Member States.
Transposition of directives
Late transposition infringements
First chart: National transposition measures notified per year
This shows the total number of national transposition measures submitted by Member States to the Commission in a given year.
Second chart: Directives and late transposition infringement cases
This shows how many directives had to be transposed in the years 2015-2019 and how many new infringement cases for late transposition were opened in that period.
Third chart: Late transposition infringement cases open at year-end
This starts with the number of late transposition infringements at the end of 2018 (first line). The second line shows the number of new late transposition infringements registered in 2019. The third line shows the number of infringement cases on which the Commission took a decision in 2019. The fourth line shows the number of late transposition infringements open at the end of 2019 (calculated by taking the first figure, adding the second and subtracting the third).
Fourth chart: Late transposition infringement cases in 2019
This shows the number of late transposition infringements open at year-end for each Member State, irrespective of the year in which the infringement was opened. In addition, it also shows new late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019 for each Member State.
Fifth chart: New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019 (main policy areas)
This shows the main policy areas in which the procedures for late transposition were launched in 2019.
Communication - An Action Plan for nature, people and the economy and the accompanying staff working document .
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Brussels, 31.7.2020
SWD(2020) 147 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
Part II: Policy areas
Accompanying the document
Report from the Commission
Monitoring the application of European Union law
2019 Annual Report
{COM(2020) 350 final}
Agriculture and rural development
Communications networks, content and technology
Employment, social affairs and inclusion
Energy
Environment
Financial stability, financial services and Capital Markets Union
Health and food safety
Internal market, industry, entrepreneurship and SMEs
Justice and consumers
Maritime affairs and fisheries
Migration and home affairs
Mobility and transport
Taxation and customs union
This document provides an overview of the policy areas in which the most significant developments related to infringements of EU law took place in 2019.
Agriculture and rural development
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints received from members of the public (2015-2019)
2.Public complaints open at year-end
|
38 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
42 |
► |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
67 |
► |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 13 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy sectors
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot files (2015-2019)
2.EU Pilot files open at year-end
At the end of 2019, 15 EU Pilot files remained open.
3.EU Pilot files: resolution rate for policies (2015-2019)
III.OWN-INITIATIVE CASES
New own-initiative infringement cases
In 2019, the Commission did not open own-initiative infringement cases in this area.
IV.INFRINGEMENT CASES
Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a)The Commission did not open new infringement cases in 2019 in this area.
Major ongoing infringement cases include the following:
·Bulgaria: maintaining a national framework on geographical indications, which is not compatible with the EU rules on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs 1 ;
·Denmark: unlawful use of the protected designation of origin ‘Feta’, in violation of the EU rules on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs 2 .
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.
V.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES
1.New late transposition infringement cases (2015-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy sectors
The Commission did not open any new late transposition infringement cases.
VI.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES
There were no major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2019 in this area.
VII.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court rulings
There were no major Court rulings in 2019 in this area.
2.Preliminary rulings
The Court gave the following preliminary rulings:
·Germany: Where EU customs regulations require providing a specific indication of the country of origin for a product (in the present case, cultivated mushrooms that had been relocated during the growing process), the country of origin is that where the product was harvested and that indication as such cannot be regarded as misleading consumers. In such circumstances, no obligations may be imposed on the food business operators to provide information additional to the indication of the country of origin in order to prevent any alleged risk of misleading consumers 3 .
·Germany: The protection of the name ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena (PGI)’, entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications, does not extend to the use of the individual non-geographical terms of that name, namely ‘aceto’ and ‘balsamico’ 4 .
·Lithuania: A national legislation aiming to combat unfair commercial practices may prohibit buyers of raw milk to pay a different purchase price to producers who, on the basis of the daily quantity of raw milk sold that is of identical composition and quality and delivered via the same method, must be regarded as belonging to the same group, in so far as those rules are appropriate to attain the objective pursued and do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective 5 .
·Spain: Figurative signs may trigger directly in the consumer’s mind the image of products whose designation of origin is protected, on account of their ‘conceptual proximity’ to such a designation. Consequently, a protected designation of origin, such as ‘queso manchego’, may be evoked through the use of figurative signs, including where such figurative signs are used by a producer established in the geographical area associated with the designation of origin, but whose products, similar or comparable to those protected by the designation of origin, are not covered by it 6 .
VIII.Outlook
Important implementation work in 2020 includes:
·focusing on infringements that challenge the application of important mechanisms of the common market organisation 7 or affect the correct application of the direct payments regime 8 or the implementation of the Organic and Quality Regulations 9 ;
·monitoring compliance with recent rulings of the Court of Justice;
·continuing to use the clearance of accounts procedure in the agricultural sector to convince Member States to adapt their management and control systems if an infringement is detected through conformity audit mechanisms.
·preparing the transposition of the Unfair Trading Practices Directive 10 .
Communications networks, content and technology
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints received from members of the public (2015-2019)
2.Public complaints open at year-end
|
127 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
68 |
► |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
94 |
► |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 101 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy sectors
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot files (2015-2019)
2.EU Pilot files open at year-end
At the end of 2019, 7 EU Pilot files remained open.
3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: main policy sectors
The Commission did not open new files in this area in 2019.
4.EU Pilot files: resolution rate for policies (2015-2019)
III.OWN-INITIATIVE CASES
New own-initiative infringement cases
In 2019, the Commission opened own-initiative infringement cases over:
·lack of compliance with the rules governing the European emergency number ‘112’ 11 ;
·the Geo-blocking Regulation 12 ,. ^
·failure to submit information about operators of essential services identified under the EU law on the security of network and information systems 13 .
IV.INFRINGEMENT CASES
1.Infringement cases open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.Infringement cases open on 31 December 2019: main policy sectors
3.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy sectors
4.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a)The Commission opened 17 new infringement cases in 2019. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include the following:
14 Czechia, Germany, Greece, Spain and Croatia for failure to effectively implement the rules on the 112 emergency number, in particular by not ensuring equivalent access for disabled users.
15 France, Spain, Cyprus, Poland, Romania and Slovakia for delays in the implementation of the Geo-blocking Regulation., by failing to provide for measures and mechanisms for consumer protection.
16 Belgium, Greece, Hungary, Austria, Romania and Slovenia: failure to submit information about operators of essential services identified under the EU law on the security of network and information systems.
b)The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. This concerns:
17 Portugal: failure to align its system of financing universal services to the Universal Service Directive.
c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU..
V.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES
1.New late transposition infringement cases (2015-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy sectors
The Commission did not open any new late transposition infringement cases.
3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
The Commission did not open any cases for late transposition in 2019 in this area.
The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3).
VI.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES
There were no major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2019.
VII.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court rulings
The Court gave the following ruling:
·Belgium did not fulfil its obligations under EU law by notifying to the Commission only partial transposition measures for the Directive on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic communications networks 18 with respect to the region of Bruxelles-Capitale. The Court applied for the first time the sanction mechanism of Article 260(3) TFEU. This Treaty provision allows the Commission to request the Court to impose financial penalties if Member States fail to fulfil their obligation to notify measures transposing a directive adopted under a legislative procedure. In addition to clarifying that the sanction scheme of Article 260(3) TFEU may also be applied to cases of partial failure to adopt and communicate transposition measures, the Court held that, when notifying national transposition measures to the Commission, Member States must provide sufficiently clear and precise information and state, for each provision of the directive, the national provision(s) ensuring its transposition 19 .
2.Preliminary rulings
The Court gave the following preliminary rulings:
·Belgium: SkypeOut service should be considered an electronic communications service. As a result, SkypeOut is subject to telecoms legislation, in particular to the general authorisation regime. Services offered via software, such as SkypeOut, which allow calling numbers in a national numbering plan, constitute electronic communication services 20 .
·Germany: freedom of information and freedom of the press cannot justify a derogation from the author’s exclusive rights of reproduction and of communication to the public going beyond the exceptions or limitations provided for in EU law 21 .
·Germany: a phonogram producer can prevent the use of a sound sample of his or her phonogram in another phonogram. However, such a sample can be used, if it is included in the phonogram in a modified form unrecognisable to the ear 22 .
·Germany: The Gmail service should not be considered as consisting wholly or mainly in the ‘conveyance of signals’. As a result, Gmail is not an electronic communications service, and is therefore not subject to the general authorisation regime under the current EU telecoms legislation 23 .
·France: Airbnb provides an information society service separate from accommodation services to which it relates. Such a service does not aim only at providing immediate accommodation services, but rather it consists essentially of providing a tool for presenting and finding accommodation for rent, thereby facilitating the conclusion of future rental agreements. Therefore, that type of service is not merely ancillary to an overall accommodation service. Second, an intermediation service, such as the one provided by Airbnb Ireland, is in no way indispensable to the provision of accommodation services, since the guests and hosts have a number of other channels in that respect, some of which are long-standing. Finally, there is no indication that Airbnb sets or caps the amount of the rents charged by the hosts using that platform 24 .
·Lithuania: A Member State may, on grounds of public policy, such as in the specific circumstances combating the incitement to hatred of the Baltic States based on nationality, impose a requirement to temporarily distribute or retransmit a television channel from another Member State only in pay-to-view packages 25 .
·Lithuania: Telecommunications companies are required to transmit location information for free to the 112 emergency call authorities, even if the call is received from a mobile phone which is not equipped with a SIM card. When determining accuracy and reliability criteria, Member States need to ensure that the location information is useful for emergency services to intervene 26 .
·The Netherlands: The sale of second-hand e-books through a website constitutes a communication to the public that is subject to authorisation by the author 27 .
·Portugal: Member States cannot add additional requirements (such as a specific, aesthetically significant visual effect) for granting copyright protection to designs, such as the clothing designs of jeans, which already meet the requirements for copyright protection under EU law 28 .
VIII.Outlook
Important implementation work in 2020 includes monitoring the complete and correct implementation of:
·the European Electronic Communications Code 29 ;
·the Decision on the use of the 470-790 MHz frequency band in the Union 30 and the timely allocation of the spectrum by Member States beforehand, which is a precondition for the roll-out of 5G in the EU;
·the Audio Video Media Services Directive 31 ;
·the Platforms-to-business Regulation 32 .
Employment, social affairs and inclusion
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints received from members of the public (2015-2019)
2.Public complaints open at year-end
|
287 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
|
390 |
► |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
|
442 |
► |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
|
= 235 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
|
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy sectors
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot cases (2015-2019)
2.EU Pilot files open at year-end
At the end of 2019, 12 EU Pilot files remained open.
3.EU Pilot files: resolution rate for policies (2015-2019)
III.OWN-INITIATIVE CASES
New own-initiative infringement cases
In 2019, the Commission opened an own-initiative infringement case concerning the indexation of family benefits 33 .
IV.INFRINGEMENT CASES
1.Infringement cases open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.Infringement cases open on 31 December 2019: main policy sectors
3.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy sectors
4.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
The Commission opened three new infringement cases in 2019.
These concerned the following:
·Austria: breach of the rules on the free movement of workers and social security by indexing the amount of eligible family allowances, child tax credit and family tax deduction for children who are not permanently resident in Austria 34 .
·Spain: incompatibility of national rules on paid annual leave with EU labour legislation 35 .
·Italy: insufficient protection of public sector workers against abusive successive fixed-term contracts and discrimination as required under EU rules 36 .
The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU.
The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU..
V.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES
1.New late transposition infringement cases (2015-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy sectors
The Commission did not open any new late transposition infringement cases in 2019.
3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
The Commission did not open any cases for late transposition in 2019 in this area.
The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.
VI.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES
1.Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2019
These concerned:
·Ireland, France, Cyprus and Romania: non-communication of measures on minimum requirements for enhancing worker mobility between Member States by improving the acquisition and preservation of supplementary pension rights 37 .
·Bulgaria, Czechia, Germany, Estonia, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania and Finland: non-communication of measures on working time in inland waterway transport 38 .
·Ireland, Greece, Croatia, Italy, Poland, Portugal and Romania: non-communication of measures on labour rights for seafarers 39 .
VII.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court rulings
There were no major Court rulings in 2019 in this area.
2.Preliminary rulings
The Court gave the following preliminary rulings:
·Italy: the Court of Justice confirmed that Member States are obliged, under the Fixed-Term Work Directive, to provide effective measures designed to prevent and punish the misuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts. 40
·Belgium: the Court of Justice ruled that the circumstance that the transferee has a choice whether to dismiss employees goes against the objective of the Directive on transfer of undertakings, which provides that dismissals due to the transfer are prohibited 41 .
·Slovenia: the Court of Justice clarified that a transfer of financial instruments and other client assets between stock exchange intermediaries may constitute a transfer within the meaning of the Directive on transfer of undertakings where there is a transfer of clients 42 .
·Greece: the Court of Justice concluded that the Directive on transfer of undertakings may, under certain conditions, apply in a situation where the transferor, the transferee or both envisage not only the pursuit of the activity transferred, but also the future liquidation of the transferee itself 43 .
·Germany: the Court of Justice stated that, in case of insolvency of the employer, a reduction in a former employee’s old-age benefits must be regarded as being manifestly disproportionate if that person is living, or would have to live, below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold determined by Eurostat for the Member State concerned 44 .
·Spain: the Court of Justice ruled that, on the basis of the Working Time Directive and in the light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, the Member States must require employers to set up an objective, reliable and accessible system enabling the duration of time worked each day by each worker to be measured 45 .
·Spain: calculating the length of service of a part-time worker whose working hours are ‘distributed vertically’ over the whole year (a vertical cyclical part-time worker) solely on the basis of periods actually worked when it comes to the right to pay rise and promotion, while not doing the same for comparable full-time workers, may be discriminatory and therefore breach the Framework Agreement on Part-Time Work and the Equal Treatment Directive 46 .
·Austria: the Court of Justice stated that the limitation on the recognition of previous periods of professionally relevant experience completed in another Member State for determining the entry salary for the migrant worker is possible only if the limitation applies equally to national and migrant workers and the work-related experience from another Member State is not fully comparable with the new employment position 47 .
·Austria: the fact that part-time workers, who would otherwise have been employed on open-ended contracts, could be employed on fixed-term contracts for longer periods of time than comparable full-time workers, could be contrary to the Framework Agreement on Part-Time Work (principle of non-discrimination). Such a situation may also constitute an indirect discrimination based on sex, to the extent that women are substantially overrepresented in the group of part-time workers on a fixed term contract under the Equal Treatment Directive 48 .
·The Netherlands: The Court of Justice concluded that third-country nationals legally staying (but not residing) and working in a Member State are to be issued A1 certificates for their posting in other Member States 49 .
·The Netherlands: the Court of Justice clarified in its judgment that a person residing in his/her own Member State, employed in another Member State but working in international waters falls under the applicable legislation of the Member State of residence of that person 50 .
·Ireland: The Court of Justice clarified that it is not necessary for a person to pursue an activity as an employed person in a Member State in order to be entitled to family benefits if his or her children are living in another Member State 51 .
VIII.Outlook
Important implementation work in 2020 includes:
·In relation to occupational safety and health legislation, monitoring the complete transposition of and performing conformity checks on the Directive on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens or mutagens at work 52 and performing conformity checks on the Directive establishing a fourth list of indicative occupational exposure limit values 53 .
·Finalising and adopting a report on the application of the Directive on minimum requirements for enhancing worker mobility between Member States by improving the acquisition and preservation of supplementary pension rights 54 .
·Monitoring the timely and complete transposition of the Directive concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services 55 .
·Monitoring the compliance of national legislation and administrative practices concerning the EU free movement of workers. 56
Energy
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints received from members of the public (2015-2019)
2.Public complaints open at year-end
|
82 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
58 |
► |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
43 |
► |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 97 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy sectors
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot files (2015-2019)
2.EU Pilot files open at year-end
At the end of 2019, 50 EU Pilot files remained open.
3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: main policy sectors
4.EU Pilot files: resolution rate for policies (2015-2019)
III.OWN-INITIATIVE CASES
New own-initiative infringement cases
In 2019, the Commission opened own-initiative infringement cases over:
·energy efficiency;
·energy performance of buildings;
·internal energy market and consumer protection;
·radioactive waste.
IV.INFRINGEMENT CASES
1.Infringement cases open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.Infringement cases open on 31 December 2019: main policy sectors
3.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy sectors
4.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a)The Commission opened 52 new infringement cases in 2019. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include the following:
57 Croatia, Italy, Greece, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechia, Estonia, France, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Poland, Denmark and Portugal: non-compliance with the requirements of the Energy Efficiency Directive;
58 Croatia, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal and Romania: failure to submit their second cost-optimal report required by the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive;
59 Romania: failure to correctly implement certain requirements of the Third Energy Package (the Gas Directive) and the Security of Gas Supply Regulation;
60 Romania: non-compliance of national measures restricting the export of natural gas with the requirements of the Third Energy Package (the Gas Directive) and Articles 35 and 36 TFEU;
61 Poland: failure to comply with the EU requirements on the security of gas supply;
62 Latvia: failure to correctly transpose certain requirements of the Radioactive Waste Directive;
63 Belgium and Spain: failure to adopt a national programme for the implementation of a spent fuel and radioactive waste management policy that is compliant with the requirements of the Radioactive Waste Directive.
b)The Commission referred five cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They concern:
64 Belgium: incorrect transposition of the Third Energy Package Directives (Electricity and Gas Directives);
65 Czechia and Slovenia: incorrect transposition and application of certain provisions of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive;
66 Spain: failure to comply with the requirements on individual metering in multi-apartment and multi-purpose buildings laid down in the Energy Efficiency Directive;
67 Italy: failure to notify transposition measures under the Basic Safety Standards Directive.
c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.
V.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES
1.New late transposition infringement cases (2015-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy sectors
3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
The Commission opened 31 cases for late transposition in 2019.
They concern the:
·Indirect Land Use Change Directive 68
·amendment to the Oil Stocks Directive as regards the methods for calculating stockholding obligations 69
·Basic Safety Standards Directive 70 .
·The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.
VI. EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES
Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2019.
These concerned:
·Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands and Slovenia: non-compliance with the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 71 ;
·Luxembourg and Romania: failure to submit their second cost-optimal report required by the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 72 ;
·Czechia, Ireland and Malta: failure to correctly transpose certain requirements of the Radioactive Waste Directive 73 ;
·Croatia: failure to notify the national programme for the implementation of a spent fuel and radioactive waste management policy 74 ;
·Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Spain and Sweden: incorrect transposition of the Third Energy Package Directives 75 ;
·Spain and Poland: non-communication of national measures transposing the Offshore Safety Directive 76 ;
·Romania: non-compliance with the Oil Stocks Directive 77 ;
·Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, France, Portugal and Romania: failure to adopt all transposition measures for the Indirect Land Use Change Directive 78 ;
·Finland and Malta: non-compliance with the Energy Efficiency Directive 79 ;
·Belgium, Poland and Spain: failure to adopt all transposition measures for the Nuclear Safety Directive 80 .
VII.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court rulings
The Court gave the following rulings:
·Italy has failed to comply with the Radioactive Waste Directive since it has not notified a final adopted national programme for radioactive waste and spent fuel management 81 .
·The General Court annulled a 2016 Commission decision amending the conditions for an exemption granted by an earlier decision to the gas pipeline Ostseepipeline-Anbindungsleitung from the rules on third-party access and unbundling set out in the Gas Directive. The Court found that the Commission had failed to examine the impact of the revised exemption conditions on energy solidarity to determine whether they could negatively impact the interests of other Member States or the Union 82 .
·The General Court annulled on procedural grounds the decision of the European Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) on the capacity calculation regions which led to the split of the German-Austrian bidding zone, based on the reason that the Austrian regulatory authority had asked for an amendment of the proposal for the capacity calculation regions before the expiry of the six-month period during which the national regulatory authorities may approve the proposal 83 .
2.Preliminary rulings
The Court gave the following preliminary rulings:
·Bulgaria: National legislation obliging apartment owners in buildings in co-ownership to pay for the thermal energy used by the common parts and the internal installation of the building is compatible with EU law, even though the owners do not use that thermal energy in their own apartments. In such buildings, the bills for thermal energy consumption by the internal installation are calculated for each property owner in the building in proportion to the heated volume of their apartment 84 .
·Bulgaria: The Court gave guidance as to the relevant criteria under the Electricity Directive to distinguish between transmission and distribution systems 85 .
·Finland: The Energy Efficiency Directive does not prevent energy companies from giving customers discounts to encourage the uptake of electronic billing delivery methods 86 .
·France: The Gas Directive allows a regulatory authority settling a dispute between energy companies to extend the effects of its decision to the situation of the parties before the emergence of that dispute, by requiring one party to bring a contract for the transmission of natural gas in line with EU law for the entire contractual period 87 .
·Italy: National legislation under which the amount of royalties payable by holders of licences for the extraction of natural gas is calculated on the basis of an index based on the prices of oil and other fuels in the medium and long term and not an index that reflects the short-term market price of natural gas is not incompatible with EU law 88 .
·Spain: A financial contribution imposed on certain electricity generating undertakings to finance savings and energy efficiency plans managed by a public authority does not constitute a public service obligation under the Electricity Directive 89 .
·Spain: National legislation may set taxes on the production and storage of nuclear fuel and waste which apply only to electricity-generating undertakings using nuclear energy and whose main objective is to increase the amount of revenue for the electricity financial system. Such legislation does not violate the principle of non-discrimination provided for by the Electricity Directive 90 .
·Spain: EU law does not prohibit a tax on the use of inland waters for the production of electricity which does not incentivise the efficient use of water, nor establish mechanisms for the preservation and protection of public water resources, as it is focused solely and exclusively on the income-generating capacity of hydroelectricity producers. A tax on the use of inland waters to produce electricity which exclusively affects hydroelectricity generators operating in river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community and not those operating in river basins encompassing a single autonomous community is not considered discriminatory 91 .
VIII.Outlook
Important implementation work in 2020 includes:
·assessing the national energy and climate plans adopted by the Member States pursuant to the Governance Regulation 92 ;
·taking legal action to ensure correct and complete transposition of the Electricity and Gas Directives 93 , the Indirect Land Use Change Directive 94 , the Energy Efficiency Directive 95 , the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 96 , the Oil Stocks Directive 97 , the Radioactive Waste Directive 98 , the Nuclear Safety Directive 99 , the Basic Safety Standards Directive 100 , the Euratom Drinking Water Directive 101 ;
·assessing the Member States reports on the implementation of the Nuclear Safety Directive, due to be submitted to the Commission by 22 July 2020;
·taking legal action to ensure the correct application of the Governance Regulation 102 , the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling Regulations, the Risk Preparedness Regulation 103 , the Electricity Regulation 104 , the Network Codes 105 and the Security of Gas Supply Regulation 106 .
Environment
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints received from members of the public (2015-2019)
2.Public complaints open at year-end
|
546 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
443 |
► |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
422 |
► |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 567 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy sectors
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot files (2015-2019)
2.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: main policy sectors
3.EU Pilot files open at year-end
At the end of 2019, 128 EU Pilot files remained open.
4.EU Pilot files: resolution rate for policies (2015-2019)
III.OWN-INITIATIVE CASES
New own-initiative infringement cases
In 2019, the Commission opened own-initiative infringement cases over:
·incorrect transposition of the revised Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 107 ;
·failure to complete the Natura 2000 network and to ensure protection of this network;
·incorrect transposition of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive 108 ;
·incorrect transposition of the SEVESO III Directive 109 ;
·failure to share spatial information, in line with the INSPIRE Directive 110 ;
·non-compliance with the Industrial Emissions Directive 111 ;
·incorrect transposition of the Directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes 112 ;
·failure to ensure adequate protection of certain bird species and of certain natural habitats;
·bad application of the Birds Directive in relation to the hunting of certain bird species 113 ;
·failure to set dissuasive penalties and to adopt specific lists of invasive alien species for outermost regions, in breach of the Invasive Alien Species Regulation 114 ;
·non-compliance with reporting obligations under EU waste legislation.
IV.INFRINGEMENT CASES
1.Infringement cases open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.Infringement cases open on 31 December 2019: main policy sectors
3.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy sectors
4.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a)The Commission opened 175 new infringement cases in 2019. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include the following:
115 United Kingdom: failure to comply with a Court judgment finding that the United Kingdom had breached its obligations under EU law as regards collection and treatment of urban waste water in London and Whitburn;
116 Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia and Spain: failure to ensure that urban waste water is adequately collected and treated;
·
117 Poland and Slovakia: failure to comply with EU rules on landfills;
118 Greece: lack of measures to address waste problems on the island of Corfu;
119 Germany: failure to comply with a Court judgment finding that Germany was in breach of its obligations under the Nitrates Directive by failing to revise an action programme whose measures had proved insufficient;
120 Belgium: failure to protect waters from nitrates pollution;
121 Belgium and Poland: non-compliance with key provisions of the Noise Directive;
122 Czechia, Latvia, Slovakia, Poland, Portugal and Romania: failure to ensure adequate protection of habitats and species of EU interest by designating nature protection areas to complete the NATURA 2000 network;
123 Slovenia: incorrect transposition of the Habitats and Birds Directives;
124 Cyprus: general and persistent failure to ensure that plans and projects undergo an appropriate assessment of their implications on Natura 2000 sites, as required by the Habitats Directive;
125 Slovakia: failure to provide for an appropriate assessment of the effects that projects within Natura 2000 sites, such as forest logging activities, may have on the protected areas, which resulted in a significant fall in bird numbers;
126 Bulgaria, Italy and Germany: failure to establish Special Areas of Conservation, as well as conservation objectives and measures to maintain or restore the protected species and habitats to a favourable condition, as required by the Habitats Directive;
127 France: authorisation of non-selective hunting practices which are not in line with the Birds Directive;
128 France and Spain: failure to take the necessary measures to enhance protection of the species of the Turtle dove as required by the Birds Directive;
129 Germany and Slovenia: failure to ensure adequate protection of grasslands, as required by the Habitats Directive;
130 Poland: failure to establish adequate safeguards to protect forests and its plant and animal species, as required under the Birds and Habitats Directives. Also, failure to provide access to justice with regard to forest management plans;
131 Austria, Denmark, Finland, Latvia, Germany, Slovenia and Poland: incorrect transposition of the Directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes;
132 Greece: incorrect transposition of the Industrial Emissions Directive and failure to protect citizens from noxious air pollution from several power plants, as required by the said Directive;
133 Romania: failure to ensure that installations under the Industrial Emissions Directive operate with appropriate permits;
134 Poland: failure to comply with a Court judgment finding that Poland had breached its obligations under the Ambient Air Quality Directive;
135 Greece: failure to comply with the nitrogen dioxide (NO2) limit values set by the Air Quality Directive, failure to put in place adequate sampling points to properly monitor NO2 concentrations and failure to make available a complete air quality report;
Romania: systemic failure to monitor air pollution as required by EU legislation on ambient air quality 136 ;
France: non-conformity of national legislation with the Directive on public access to environmental information 137 ;
138 Croatia: non-conformity of the Croatian Water Act with the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, the Habitats Directive and the Water Framework Directive;
139 Austria: failure to provide for a strategic environmental assessment of plans in the energy sector as required by the Strategic Environmental Assessments Directive;
140 Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia and Sweden: incorrect transposition of the revised Environmental Impact Assessment Directive;
141 Austria: restrictions regarding access to justice in environmental procedures, not in line with the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive;
142 Poland: failure to fully comply with the EU rules on reviewing environmental decisions ;
143 Ireland: failure to apply the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive to peat extraction operations;
144 Croatia: non-conformity of national legislation with the Groundwater Directive;
145 Croatia: non-conformity of national legislation with the Drinking Water Directive;
146 Luxembourg: incorrect transposition of the Environmental Quality Standards Directive;
147 France: failure to comply with the Water Framework Directive concerning the ecological continuity of the Rhine River;
148 Bulgaria, Cyprus, Ireland, Lithuania and Malta: late reporting on the environmental status of marine waters under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive;
149 Ireland: incorrect transposition of the Water Framework Directive.
b)The Commission referred nine cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They concern:
150 Bulgaria: exceedance of sulphur dioxide (SO2) limit values set by the Air Quality Directive;
151 Greece: failure to establish the necessary conservation measures and objectives for all sites designated as Special Areas of Conservation under the Habitats Directive;
152 Spain: failure to take adequate measures to protect the groundwater bodies that feed the Doñana wetlands and to prevent the deterioration of protected habitats in these wetlands, in violation of the Water Framework Directive and the Habitats Directive;
153 Spain: absence of flood risk management plans, required under the Floods Directive, for all seven river basin districts in the Canary Islands;
154 Italy: failure to ensure that all agglomerations with a population of more than 2,000 are provided with collecting systems for urban waste water and that urban waste water entering collecting systems is adequately treated before discharge, as required by the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive;
155 Cyprus: lack of proper collection and treatment of urban waste waters of various agglomerations in breach of the Urban Waste Water Directive;
156 Italy: exceedance of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) limit values set by the Air Quality Directive;
157 Finland: illegal spring hunting of male eiders in the province of Åland, in violation of the Birds Directive;
158 Austria: hunting of woodcock during its reproductive period in the Land of Lower Austria, in breach of the Birds Directive.
c)The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU. It concerns
159 Greece: failure to comply with a Court judgment establishing that Greece had failed to protect its waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources.
V.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES
1.New late transposition infringement cases (2015-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy sectors
3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a)The Commission opened 59 cases for late transposition in 2019. They included the:
160 Directive concerning the indicative lists of elements to be taken into account for the preparation of marine strategies
161 Directive establishing common noise assessment methods.
b)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.
VI.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES
Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2019
These concerned mainly:
·Belgium: bad application of the Timber Regulation 162 by not carrying out a significant number of verifications;
·Denmark: exceedances of the nitrogen dioxide (NO2) limit values set by the Air Quality Directive 163 ;
·Greece: failure to establish a general system for the protection of wild birds, prohibiting, in particular, their deliberate killing through poison baits;
·Spain: trapping of five species of wild finches beyond the strict conditions set by EU rules on the conservation of wild birds 164 ;
·Croatia: incorrect transposition of the Habitats Directive 165 ;
·Croatia: incorrect transposition of the Birds Directive 166 ;
·Estonia, Hungary and Spain: incorrect transposition of the Directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes 167 ;
·Austria: incomplete Natura 2000 network;
·Poland: incorrect application of the Habitats Directive by authorising and commencing the construction of a coal mine near Natura 2000 sites 168 ;
·Slovenia: incorrect transposition of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive 169 ;
·Slovakia: incorrect transposition and implementation of the Nitrates Directive 170 .
VII.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court rulings
The Court gave the following rulings:
·Ireland has failed to comply with an earlier Court judgment 171 requiring a remedial environmental impact assessment to be carried out for a large windfarm development in Derrybrien. The Court ordered Ireland to pay a lump sum of €5,000,000 and a periodic penalty payment of €15,000 for every day of delay until compliance is achieved 172 .
·Ireland has not complied with the requirements of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive in multiple agglomerations as it had failed to put in place compliant waste water collecting systems to tackle excessive spills from storm water overflows and failed to provide adequate treatment of urban waste waters 173 .
·Spain has not adopted on time, as required by the Water Framework Directive, the second round of river basin management plans for Lanzarote, Fuerteventura, Gran Canaria, Tenerife, La Gomera, La Palma and El Hierro 174 .
·France has systematically and persistently exceeded the limit values for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) since 2010 in 12 agglomerations and air quality zones. It has also failed to take the appropriate measures to keep the exceedance period as short as possible 175 .
·Croatia has breached the Waste Framework Directive as it did not classify as waste a large amount of stone-like material deposited in Biljane Donje, it did not take the necessary measures to ensure that waste management is carried out without endangering human health and harming the environment, and it did not ensure that the waste is properly treated by the waste holder 176 .
·Italy has not fulfilled its obligations under the Landfill Directive as regards 44 landfills, by having failed to adopt all measures necessary to close or to bring those landfill sites into line with the Directive 177 .
·Portugal has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Habitats Directive as it had not designated its Sites of Community Interest as Special Areas of Conservation and it had not established the necessary conservation measures for these zones 178 .
·The Court dismissed the Commission’s action against Czechia concerning its refusal to ensure the take-back of 20,000 tonnes of a mixture called TPS-NOLO (Geobal) shipped from Czechia to Poland. The Court found that the Commission did not provide sufficient evidence that the respective mixture constitutes waste and, thus, that its shipment constitutes a shipment of waste 179 .
·The Court dismissed the Commission’s action against Spain concerning the adoption and/or revision of waste management plans. The Court found that the Commission had prematurely opened the pre-litigation stage of the infringement procedure and, consequently, dismissed the action as inadmissible 180 .
2.Preliminary rulings
The Court gave the following preliminary rulings:
·Belgium: A decree by which a body of a Member State establishes, at regional level for its Natura 2000 network, conservation objectives which have an indicative value whereas the conservation objectives at site level have a statutory value is not a ‘plan or programme’, within the meaning of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive, for which an assessment under this Directive is mandatory 181 .
·Belgium: A decree whereby a Member State designates a Special Area of Conservation and makes provision for conservation objectives and certain preventive measures is not a ‘plan or programme’, within the meaning of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive, for which an assessment under this Directive is required 182 .
·Belgium: National courts have jurisdiction to review the choice of location of air quality measuring stations and to take all necessary measures against the national authority concerned. In assessing whether limit values have been complied with, the pollution level at each sampling point must be taken into account individually 183 .
·Belgium: The Belgian law extending the operating life of nuclear power stations Doel 1 and Doel 2 was adopted without the required environmental assessments being carried out first. However, it is not excluded that the effects of the law on extension may provisionally be maintained where there is a genuine and serious threat of an interruption to electricity supply 184 .
·Estonia: In the absence of criteria set at EU level to determine end-of-waste status for a specific type of waste, such end status depends on the existence of criteria laid down in a generally applicable national legal act concerning that type of waste 185 .
·Germany: The coercive detention of a person at the head of the Land of Bavaria for the purpose of enjoining them to adopt measures to improve ambient air quality in Munich can be ordered only if a national legal basis, which is sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable in its application, exists and if the detention is proportionate 186 .
·Germany: Residues in the form of scrap metal and fire-extinguishing water mixed with sludge and cargo residues, attributable to damage occurring on board a ship at sea, must be regarded as waste generated on board ships, within the meaning of the Regulation on shipments of waste. Such waste is, therefore, excluded from the said Regulation’s scope until it is offloaded in order to be recovered or disposed of 187 .
·Greece: When the public is not put in a position to actually participate in the environmental impact assessment for a project, a time limit cannot be imposed on the public to bring proceedings against the decision granting consent for the project 188 .
·Italy: The Waste Framework Directive 189 and the Directive on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources 190 do not prevent national legislation which refuses the replacement of methane, as a power source for an electric power plant producing atmospheric emissions, with a substance derived from the chemical treatment of used vegetable oils, on the ground that the respective substance is not included in the list of categories of biomass fuels authorised for that purpose 191 .
·Italy: National legislation which classifies waste incineration facilities as ‘strategic infrastructure and installations of major national importance’ is compatible with the ’waste hierarchy’ principle under the Waste Framework Directive 192 as long as that legislation is compatible with the other provisions of that Directive which lay down more specific obligations. National legislation which revises upwards the capacity of existing waste incineration facilities and provides for the construction of new installations of that kind constitutes, within the meaning of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive 193 , a ‘plan or programme’ likely to have significant environmental effects and must, consequently, be subject to a prior environmental assessment 194 .
·The Netherlands: The shipment to a third country of a consignment of electrical and electronic appliances, initially intended for retail sale but returned by the consumer or sent back by the retailer to its supplier, constitutes a ‘shipment of waste’ within the meaning of the Regulation on shipments of waste read in conjunction with the Waste Framework Directive, where that consignment contains appliances whose good working condition has not been previously ascertained or which are not adequately protected from transport damage. Such goods, which have become redundant in the seller’s product range and which are in their unopened original packaging, must not, unless otherwise indicated, be regarded as waste 195 .
·Austria: Natural and legal persons directly concerned by the pollution of groundwaters can rely, before national courts, on certain provisions of the Nitrates Directive 196 .
·Finland: Wolf hunting for population management purposes, the objective of which is to combat poaching, is not compliant with the Habitats Directive where the strict conditions for derogations from the protection system are not fulfilled. There are very strict limitations to the use of derogations for the hunting of wolves and other large carnivores, and the possibility to use hunting as a management tool for wolf conservation is very limited 197 .
VIII.Outlook
Important implementation work in 2020 includes:
198 199 continuing enforcement action to ensure full compliance with the Air Quality Directive as regards PM10 and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) limit values, addressing non-compliance in relation to other pollutants, especially fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and benzo(a)pyrene, and continuing to address shortcomings in monitoring and reporting under the Ambient Air Quality Directives.
200 enhancing enforcement action addressing non-conformity with and bad application of the National Emission Ceilings Directive;
201 giving follow up to the assessment of the second river basin management plans under the Water Framework Directive to ensure good status for all water bodies by 2027 at the latest;
action to ensure finalisation of the Natura 2000 network, by designating new protected areas and adopting the necessary conservation objectives and measures;
202 legal action to ensure that strategic noise maps and action plans pursuant to the Noise Directive cover all agglomerations, major roads, major railways and major airports;
203 continuing action to ensure correct transposition of the revised Environmental Impact Assessment;
pursuing cases concerning illegal landfills of waste;
204 205 legal action to address incorrect transposition of the SEVESO III Directive and the Industrial Emissions Directive.
Financial stability, financial services and Capital Markets Union
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints received from members of the public (2015-2019)
2.Public complaints open at year-end
|
110 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
86 |
► |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
86 |
► |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 110 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy sectors
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot files (2015-2019)
2.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: main policy sectors
3.EU Pilot files open at year-end
There were 10 EU Pilot files open at end-2019.
4.EU Pilot files: policies’ combined resolution rate in 2015-2019
III.OWN-INITIATIVE CASES
New own-initiative infringement cases
206 In 2019, the Commission opened own-initiative infringement cases over the incorrect transposition of the Solvency II Directive.
IV.INFRINGEMENT CASES
1.Infringement cases open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.Infringement cases open on 31 December 2019: main policy sectors
3.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy sectors
4.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a)The Commission opened 41 new infringement cases in 2019. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include the following:
207 Bulgaria, Czechia, Germany, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Cyprus, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sweden and Slovenia: non-communication of national measures transposing the Directive on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (IORPs II Directive);
208 Bulgaria, Ireland, Spain, France, Croatia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Slovenia: non-communication of national measures transposing the Bank Creditors Hierarchy Directive;
209 Belgium, Croatia, Poland, Estonia and Sweden: the incorrect transposition of the Solvency II Directive;
210 Poland, Greece and Latvia: incorrect implementation of the SEPA Regulation;
211 Cyprus: incorrect application of the Investor Compensation Scheme Directive;
212 Romania: A national law sets limitations for the distribution of insurance products in Romania by insurance distributors from other Member States, which is contrary to the freedom to provide services.
213 Hungary: non-communication of transposition measures for the Mortgage Credit Directive;
214 Greece: non-conformity of certain provisions with the third Motor Insurance Directive.
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.
V.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES
1.New late transposition infringement cases (2015-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy sectors
3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a)The Commission opened 30 cases for late transposition in 2019. Most of these concern the:
215 Bank Creditors Hierarchy Directive
216 IORPs II Directive.
b)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.
VI.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES
217 Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2019
Some of the most important cases concerned:
·Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece, Spain, France, Croatia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Romania, Sweden and Slovakia: failure to communicate national measures transposing the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II) 218 ;
·Croatia: national law on the privatisation of Industrija Nafte d.d. (INA): A law granting special powers to the Croatian State in INA 219 .
·Slovakia and Lithuania: national legislation on the acquisition of agricultural land that violated the free movement of capital and freedom of establishment 220 .
·Belgium, Spain, Cyprus, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal and Slovenia: failure to communicate national measures transposing the Mortgage Credit Directive 221 ;
·Austria, Belgium, Czechia and Croatia: incorrect transposition of the Solvency II Directive 222 .
VII.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court rulings
The Court gave the following ruling:
223 Hungary: The Court ruled that by cancelling the rights of usufruct over agricultural land in its territory that are held, directly or indirectly, by nationals of other Member States, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from the principle of the free movement of capital and the right to property guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights. A Member State seeking to justify a restriction of a fundamental freedom under the TFEU must also ensure compliance with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
2.Preliminary rulings
There were no major preliminary rulings in 2019 in this area.
VIII.Outlook
Important implementation work in 2020 includes:
·Monitoring the timely implementation of the fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive 224 .
·Assessing the conformity of national transposition measures (or implementing measures in case of Regulations) with a number of financial services directives and regulations. These include the IORPs 2 Directive 225 , the Bank Creditors Hierarchy Directive 226 ; the Payment Services Directive 227 , the Insurance Distribution Directive 228 , the 4th Anti-Money Laundering Directive 229 , the Prospectus Regulation 230 and the Securitisation Regulation 231 .
·Ensuring that Member States take appropriate measures to implement the Achmea ruling 232 . In 2020, the Member States are expected to terminate all their intra-EU bilateral investment treaties, either by signing the plurilateral treaty for the termination of intra-EU bilateral investment treaties or by terminating those treaties bilaterally.
Health and food safety
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints received from members of the public (2015-2019)
2.Public complaints open at year-end
|
73 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
120 |
► |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
107 |
► |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 86 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy sectors
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot files (2015-2019)
2.EU Pilot open at year-end
At the end of 2019, 10 EU Pilot files remained open.
3.EU Pilot files: resolution rate for policies (2015-2019)
III.OWN-INITIATIVE CASES
New own-initiative infringement cases
In 2019 the Commission opened own-initiative infringement cases over:
·patient rights under the Cross-border Health Directive 233 .
IV.INFRINGEMENT CASES
1.Infringement cases open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.Infringement cases open on 31 December 2019: main policy sectors
3.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy sectors
4.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a)The Commission opened 60 new infringement cases in 2019. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include the following:
234 235 The Netherlands and Austria: incorrect transposition of the Cross-border Health Directive; as these countries do not appear to reimburse patients who seek healthcare in another Member State to the same level of the costs, if the healthcare had been provided in these countries;
236 Czechia: systematic official controls targeting certain foodstuffs coming from another Member State each time such foodstuffs enter Czechia, in breach of EU rules on ensuring compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules;
237 Ireland: non-communication of national measures transposing the Directives on human tissues and cells;
238 Romania: failure to adopt fees for the processing of applications on biocidal products, as required by EU rules. As a result, applications for the national authorisation of biocidal products could not be processed. [
b)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU and under Article 260(2) TFEU.
V.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES
1.New late transposition infringement cases (2015-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy sectors
There are 56 new late transposition cases, all concerning directives on food safety.
3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
The Commission opened 56 cases for late transposition in 2019. Most concern the:
·Directive on the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified organisms 239
·Directive on the establishment of harmonised risk indicators on sustainable use of pesticides 240
·Directive on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants 241
·Directive setting out implementing measures as regards the characteristics to be covered as a minimum by the examination and the minimum conditions for examining certain varieties of agricultural plant species and vegetable species 242 .
The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.
VI.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES
Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2019
These concerned:
·Belgium and the United Kingdom: non-communication of national measures transposing the Directive on extraction solvents used in the production of foodstuffs 243 ;
·Belgium, Cyprus, Latvia, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovakia and the United Kingdom: non-communication of national measures transposing the Commission Implementing Directive as regards isolation distances for Sorghum spp. 244 ;
·Bulgaria, Ireland, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Romania; Slovakia and the United Kingdom: non-communication of national measures transposing the Commission Implementing Directive on minimum conditions for examining certain varieties of agricultural plant species 245 ;
·Czechia, Croatia, Spain and Sweden: non-communication of national measures transposing the Directive on tobacco products 246 ;
·Czechia, Denmark, Ireland, Hungary, Malta and Portugal: non-communication of national measures transposing the Commission Implementing Directive on characteristics to be covered as a minimum by the examination and the minimum conditions for examining certain varieties of agricultural plant species 247 ;
·Czechia, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta and Portugal: non-communication of national measures transposing the Commission Implementing Directive on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants 248 ;
·Ireland: non-communication of national measures transposing the Directives on human tissues and cells 249 ;
·Greece: shortage of staff assigned to the services responsible for veterinary controls;
·Portugal: measures to prevent the spread within the Union of the pine wood nematode.
VII.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court rulings
The Court gave the following rulings:
·Italy failed to fulfil its obligations under the EU Directive on testing of human tissues and cells by failing to adopt the required national transposition measures 250 ;
·Italy failed to adequately prevent further spread of the quarantined harmful organism Xylella fastidiosa in Apulia 251 ;
2.Preliminary rulings
The Court gave the following preliminary rulings:
·France: the Court held that the procedural rules applicable to the authorisation of plant protection products, in particular products containing glyphosate, are valid; therefore, there are no grounds to question the validity of the regulation on the placing of plant protection products on the market 252 ;
·France: The organic production logo of the EU cannot be placed on products derived from animals that have been slaughtered in accordance with religious rites without first being stunned. The organic logo of the EU aims to reassure consumers that products bearing it have been obtained in observance of the highest standards, in particular in the area of animal welfare 253 .
·Germany: the EU Regulation on shipments of waste 254 does not apply to shipment mixtures of animal by-products and other substances transported between Member States 255 ;
·The Netherlands: the meat after slaughter must be chilled in the slaughterhouse until it has reached a temperature throughout of 7 °C before being loaded into a refrigerated truck 256
·United Kingdom: the marketing authorisation relied on in support of an application for a supplementary protection certificate concerning a new formulation of an old active ingredient, cannot be regarded as being the first marketing authorisation for the product concerned as a medicinal product. This is the case where that active ingredient has already been the subject of a marketing authorisation as an active ingredient. 257
VIII.Outlook
Important implementation work in 2020 includes:
a)Monitoring the timely and correct implementation of Directives on:
-the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products 258 ;
-the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare 259 ;
b)Following up on enforcement by national authorities of EU rules in the plant health sector, in particular the monitoring of cases of Xylella fastidiosa;
c)Following up on enforcement by national authorities of EU rules on pesticides and their sustainable use 260 and on animal welfare issues.
Internal market, industry, entrepreneurship and SMEs
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints received from members of the public (2015-2019)
The Commission received 382 complaints from members of the public concerning the internal market, industry, entrepreneurship and SMEs in 2019, compared with 627 in 2018 and 476 in 2017.
2.Public complaints open at year-end
|
733 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
382 |
► |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
682 |
► |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 433 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
3.New complaints register in 2019: main policy sectors
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot files (2015-2019)
2.EU Pilot files open at year-end
At the end of 2019, 34 EU Pilot files remained open.
3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: main policy sectors
In 2019, the Commission opened one EU Pilot file in the area of services.
4.EU Pilot files: resolution rate for policies (2015-2019)
III.OWN-INITIATIVE CASES
New own-initiative infringement cases
In 2019 the Commission opened own-initiative infringement cases over:
·points of single contact in services 261 .
·recognition of professional qualifications 262 .
·public procurement and concessions 263 .
·Penalty systems for industry sectors
264
.
IV.INFRINGEMENT CASES
1.Infringement cases open on 31 December 2019
2.Infringement cases open on 31 December 2019: main policy sectors
3.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy sectors
4.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a)The Commission opened 147 new infringement cases in 2019. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include the following:
265 Bulgaria, Czechia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Sweden: non-conformity of national legislation with EU rules on public procurement and concessions;
266 Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Portugal: non-conformity of national legislation with EU rules on public procurement and concessions;
267 Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Austria, Sweden and the United Kingdom: failure to award authorisations and concessions in the hydroelectric power sector in line with the Services Directive and public procurement rules;
268 Bulgaria: a national law provision that defines the duration for the temporary cross-border provision of services;
269 Bulgaria: restrictions on the temporary cross-border provision of private security services;
270 Germany: rules on fixed prices for prescription medicines negatively affect the sale of products by pharmacies established in other EU Member States in violation of Articles 34 and 36 TFEU ;
271 Germany: restrictions on the import of coffee in violation of the principle of the free movement of goods;
272 Germany: non-conformity of national law with EU public procurement rules, forbidding health insurance funds to use procurement procedures to obtain assistive medical devices;
273 Germany: Application of the Directive on Mobile Air-Conditioning;
274 Greece: national legislation and administrative practice not complying with EU rules on recognition of professional qualifications .
275 Greece: the duration of the process for recognition of qualifications from other Member States.
276 Croatia: restrictions for lawyers to provide multidisciplinary services, advertising restrictions and limitations on the right to practice;
277 France: unjustified restrictions on providers of services related to energy efficiency, in breach of the Services Directive;
278 Cyprus: specific rules concerning the access to activities of engineers and architects;
279 The Netherlands: Dutch housing authorities are in breach of EU public procurement rules, as they are not considered as contracting authorities;
280 Hungary: failure to comply with a judgment of the Court of Justice, in which the Court ruled that Hungarian legislation on the provision of mobile payment services did not comply with the principles of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services;
b)Portugal: non-conformity of rules concerning the acquired rights of engineers 281 ;The Commission referred 2 cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They concern:
282 Hungary: obstacles to retailers of imported agricultural and food products in breach of EU law on the free movement of goods;
283 Austria: breach of EU public procurement rules due to construction without prior competition.
c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.
V.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES
1.New late transposition infringement cases (2016-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy sectors
3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
The Commission opened 34 cases for late transposition in 2019. They included the:
·Directive on electronic invoicing in public procurement 284
·Directive on Trademarks 285
·Directive on the list of defence-related products 286 .
The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.
VI.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES
Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2019
These concerned mainly:
·Belgium: incorrect application of EU rules concerning quantitative restrictions, by refusing German commercial plates for trucks transiting via Belgium to other Member States 287 .
·Belgium: incompatibility of Belgian advertising legislation in the health sector with EU advertising rules 288 .
·Germany: incorrect application of the freedom of establishment and of the free provision of services of other service providers due to reservation of certain approval services for some types of motor vehicles in favour of certain technical testing centres 289 .
·Germany: incompatibility of national legislation with EU rules on national accreditation bodies 290 ;
·Spain: obstacles to the free movement of food supplements 291 .
·Croatia: unjustified requirements imposed on the activities of driving schools 292
·Latvia: restrictions to registration of right hand drive cars 293 .
·Czechia: non-conformity of national legislation with the Professional Qualifications Directive 294 ;
·Austria: incompatibility of the national legislation with the Remedies Directive 295 ;
·Poland: application of EU defence procurement rules 296 ;
·Portugal: application of EU defence procurement rules 297 .
VII.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court rulings
·Germany: the Court ruled against Germany, which was in breach of EU law by maintaining fixed tariffs for the planning services of architects and engineers 298 .
·Germany: restricted the free movement of goods by introducing both an infrastructure-use charge and relief from a motor vehicle tax for vehicles registered in Germany 299 .
·Greece introduced illegal additional requirements to the training of mediators, in breach of EU rules 300 .
·Italy: failed to publish a notice on the extension of a motorway concession, thus breaching public procurement legislation 301 .
·Austria 302 failed to fulfil its obligations under EU law by setting restrictions on the location of seat, legal form and shareholding requirements for professional companies of architects, engineers, patent attorneys, veterinarians 303 .
2.Preliminary rulings
The Court gave the following preliminary rulings:
·Germany breached EU law by prohibiting commercial providers of search engines and commercial service providers which edit content of online press products, from making press products or parts of them available to the public 304 .
·Greece: Greek legislation prohibiting a monk who has the status of lawyer in another Member State from registering at the bar, on account of the incompatibility between the status of monk and the profession of lawyer, is contrary to EU law 305 .
·Lithuania: the Court clarified the conditions upon which in-house transactions concluded by public authorities are compatible with EU public procurement legislation 306 .
·Hungary 307 : EU law does not require a national court to set aside domestic rules of procedure conferring finality on a judgment, even if to do so would make it possible to remedy a domestic situation which is incompatible with EU law.
·Hungary: Minor restrictive effects, provided they are neither too indirect nor too uncertain, suffice to show the existence of a measure having equivalent effect within Article 35 TFEU. Such a measure needs to be justified on grounds relating to the protection of public health, and dispensing medicinal products on the basis of order forms other than nominative medical prescriptions may undermine public health 308 .
·Poland: National legislation cannot exempt commercial transactions financed with EU funds from the scope of the Late Payments Directive 309 .
·Poland: The issuance of a parallel import license cannot be conditional upon the imported medicine and domestic reference products sharing the same ‘registration status’, whether as reference or generic medicinal products. If the Member State of import can establish that the imported medicine and domestic reference product, ‘without being totally identical’, are manufactured with the same formulation, using the same active substance and have the same therapeutic effects, then the imported product may be granted a parallel import license on the basis of existing national marketing authorisation 310 .
VIII.Outlook
Important implementation work in 2020 includes:
·The Commission will continue to monitor the implementation of EU rules in the hydropower sector.
·Building on the work already launched in 2019, the Commission will keep assessing compliance of the measures adopted by the Member States to transpose the 2014 Public Procurement and Concessions Directives. It should be noted that Spain still has to complete transposition for both the Concessions and Utilities Directives (cases still pending before the Court) and that the compliance check for the Concessions Directive for Slovenia, which was delayed due to late transposition, still has to be completed.
Justice and consumers
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints received from members of the public (2015-2019)
2.Public complaints open at year-end
|
689 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
986 |
► |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
932 |
► |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 743 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy sectors
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot files (2015-2019)
2.EU Pilot files open at year-end
At the end of 2019, 61 EU Pilot files remained open.
3.EU Pilot files: resolution rate for policies (2015-2019)
III.OWN-INITIATIVE CASES
New own-initiative infringement cases
In 2019, the Commission opened own-initiative infringement cases over:
·The incorrect transposition of the Directive on criminal sanctions for market abuse 311 ;
·The violation of rule of law by the new disciplinary regime for judges in Poland;
·The non-compliance with obligations set by the Regulation establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure 312 ;
·The violation of free movement rights as regards the delivery of residence documents and the rights of family members;
·Partial non-communication of the national measures of transposition of the 4th Anti-Money Laundering Directive 313 .
IV.INFRINGEMENT CASES
1.Infringement cases open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.Infringement cases open on 31 December 2019: main policy sectors
3.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy sectors
4.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
The Commission opened 28 new infringement cases in 2019.
These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include the following:
·Bulgaria: inadequate protection of consumers against unfair terms in contracts, in particular in payment order proceedings; certain creditors can obtain orders for immediate enforcement quasi automatically, with very limited possibilities for the consumers to prevent or challenge the enforcement based on unfair contract terms 314 ;
·France: the incorrect transposition of the free movement Directive 315 as regards the delivery of residence documents 316 ;
·Austria, Bulgaria, Greece, Spain, Italy and France: incorrect transposition of the Directive on criminal sanctions for market abuse 317 ;
·Poland: the new disciplinary regime for judges in Poland, which undermines the judicial independence of Polish judges by not offering necessary guarantees to protect them from political control 318 ;
·Slovakia: Racial discrimination against Roma children in education 319 .
The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 258 TFEU.
320 The case concerned the violation of the rule of law principles and Article 19 TFEU by the new disciplinary regime for judges in Poland.
The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.
V.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES
1.New late transposition infringement cases (2015-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy sectors
3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
The Commission opened 66 cases for late transposition in 2019. Among the directives concerned were the:
·Directive on shareholders’ rights 321 ;
·Directive on the fight against fraud to the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law 322 ;
·Directive on victims’ rights 323 ;
·Directive on procedural safeguards for children who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings 324 ;
·Data Protection Law Enforcement Directive 325 .
The Commission referred one case to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.
The case concerned the failure to transpose the Data Protection Law Enforcement Directive 326 by Spain.
VI.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES
Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2019
These concerned:
·Croatia, Italy, Portugal, Slovakia and Sweden: incorrect transposition of the Directive on unfair commercial practices 327 ;
·Spain: incompatibility of the Spanish procedural law with the Directive on unfair contract terms and breach of Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (NIF 2015/2200) 328 ;
·Austria and Poland: incorrect transposition of the Consumer Rights Directive 329 ;
·Belgium: incorrect application of EU rules concerning civil judicial cooperation and requiring review procedures for the recognition of other Member States’ executive measures 330 .;
·Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, and Spain: partial non-communication of the national measures of transposition of the 4th Anti-Money Laundering Directive 331 .
VII.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court rulings
The Court gave the following rulings:
·Poland failed to fulfil its obligations under EU law, first, by establishing a different retirement age for men and women who were judges or public prosecutors in Poland and, second, by lowering the retirement age of judges of the ordinary courts while conferring on the Minister for Justice the power to extend the period of active service of those judges 332 .
·Poland failed to fulfil its obligations under EU law by lowering the retirement age of judges of the Supreme Court 333 .
2.Preliminary rulings
The Court gave the following preliminary rulings:
·Bulgaria: the Procedural Rights Directives 334 apply to judicial proceedings leading to compulsory medical internment of persons having committed acts representing a danger to society. Because of their mental state, these persons are to be considered vulnerable persons for the purpose of the Directives. Persons suspected of having committed a criminal offence must be informed of their rights as soon as possible upon deprivation of liberty and, at the latest, before their first questioning by the police. A Member State’s national legislation cannot prevent the exercise of the right to an effective remedy in case of violation of the procedural rights protected by the Directives 335 .
·Germany: the Austrian system of issuing a European arrest warrant, in which both the public prosecutor’s offices and the courts are involved, is compatible with EU law 336 .
·Germany: EU law does not designate directly, or by analogy, the law applicable to the third-party effects of the assignment of claims 337 .
·Germany: the operator of a website that features a Facebook ‘Like’ button can be a controller jointly with Facebook in respect of the collection and transmission to Facebook of the personal data of visitors to its website 338 .
·Germany: a pre-ticked box cannot be considered valid consent to the processing of personal data. The information that the service provider must give to a user includes the duration of the operation of cookies and whether or not third parties may have access to those cookies 339 .
·Ireland: although a third-country national who is married to a Union citizen may lose a right of residence in a Member State following the departure of the Union citizen from the host Member State, the procedural safeguards laid down in the Free Movement Directive apply to the expulsion of that third-country national from the host Member State 340 .
·Ireland: an EU citizen who acquired in another Member State the status of worker for the activity he pursued there for a period of 2 weeks before becoming involuntarily unemployed retains this status for a further period of no less than 6 months. The citizen must register as a jobseeker with the relevant employment office. Any entitlement under national law to social security benefits or social assistance may be conditional upon a specified period of employment, if the same condition is applicable to nationals of the Member State concerned 341 .
·Ireland: the public prosecutor’s offices of a Member State, such as those of Germany, which may be subject, directly or indirectly, to directions or instructions from the executive, such as a Minister for Justice, in the issuing a European arrest warrant cannot be regarded as an ‘issuing judicial authority’ 342 .
·Ireland: the Prosecutor General of a Member State, such as that of Lithuania, whose legal position affords him or her a guarantee of independence from the executive when issuing a European arrest warrant, is an ‘issuing judicial authority’. When the competent issuing judicial authority under national law is not itself a court, the decision to issue such a European arrest warrant must be subject to court proceedings, which meet the requirements of effective judicial protection 343 .
·Spain: the requirements stemming from the principles of effectiveness and ex officio review of unfair contract terms apply also to proceedings for a European payment order. Therefore, the courts seized with a request to issue a European order for payment must request from the creditor additional information on the contract terms in order to assess the possible unfairness of such terms 344 .
·Spain: immunity implies lifting the pre-trial detention measure imposed prior to the election of the person concerned as member of the European Parliament, allowing him or her to take part in the inaugural session of the European Parliament. However, if the competent national court considers that the detention measure should be maintained after that person has become member of the European Parliament, it must, as soon as possible, request that the European Parliament waive that immunity 345 .
·France: mortgage loans reserved for employees of an undertaking and granted for private purposes fall within the scope of the Directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts 346 . The Court confirmed that the notion of ‘seller or supplier’ has to be interpreted broadly, and it is not necessary that the contract reflect a person’s main activity 347 .
·France: the prohibition on processing certain categories of sensitive personal data applies also to operators of search engines. The search engine operator has in principle the obligation to de-reference, if asked by the person concerned. To this end, the search engine operator must carry out a case-by-case assessment to verify if the publication of the ‘sensitive’ data and personal data on criminal convictions is strictly necessary to protect the freedom of information of internet users potentially interested in accessing this web page by means of such a search 348 .
·France: the right to be forgotten applies within the EU. Search engine operators have to take sufficiently effective measures to ensure the effective protection of this right, which does not necessarily apply outside the EU 349 .
·Latvia: the recording of a video of police officers in a police station while a statement is being made, and the publication of that video on a video website on which users can send, watch and share videos, are covered by the EU rules on data protection. Further, such recording and such publication on a video website may constitute a processing of personal data solely for journalistic purposes 350 .
·Luxembourg and the Netherlands: the French public prosecutor’s office is regarded as an ‘issuing judicial authority’, since the independence of French public prosecutors is not called into question 351 .
·Poland: In a case concerning loan contracts concluded in Poland and indexed to a foreign currency, the unfair contract terms relating to the difference in exchange rates cannot be replaced by general provisions of Polish civil law in order to preserve the validity of the contract 352 .
·Poland: the lack of transparency of a contract term is an important element in the assessment of its unfairness. The national courts must examine the unfairness of contract terms. Thus, in payment order proceedings based on a promissory note, national courts need to assess the promissory note agreement, even where national law or case law does not permit this 353 .
·Poland: a notary who draws up a certificate of succession at the unanimous request of all the parties to the procedure conducted by the notary does not constitute a ‘court’, and consequently, such a deed does not constitute a ‘decision’ but an ‘authentic instrument’ 354 .
·Slovenia: when enforcing mortgages based on a directly enforceable notarial instrument, the preventive checks by notaries cannot replace effective judicial protection. Obstacles for effective remedies against such enforcement can be, for instance, costs for legal representation, the absence of legal aid or strict conditions for suspending the enforcement 355 .
·The United Kingdom: In assessing whether a Union citizen who is a minor has sufficient resources not to become an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during his period of residence account is to be taken of resources placed at his or her disposal stemming from income obtained from the employment of his third-country national parent following the expiry of his residence or work permit 356 .
·The United Kingdom: the concept of a ‘direct descendant’ of a citizen of the Union does not include a minor who has been placed in permanent legal guardianship under the Algerian kafala system, because that placement does not create any parent-child relationship between them. However, where the EU citizen has exercised his/her right to free movement to a Member State other than the one of which he/ she is a national, the citizen’s Member State of residence must facilitate the minor’s entry to and residence in its territory as one of the ‘other family members’ pursuant to the Free Movement Directive 357 .
VIII.Outlook
Important implementation work in 2020 includes:
·closely monitoring the application of the:
oGeneral Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 358 and evaluation of the application of the GDPR (Article 97 GDPR);
oRule of law, notably Article 19(1) second subparagraph TEU and Article 267(2) and (3) TFEU;
oFramework Decision on European arrest warrant 359 .
·closely monitoring that Member States complete transposition of the:
oDirective on victims’ rights 360 ;
oDirectives related to procedural rights in the context of criminal justice 361 ;
oDirective on shareholders’ rights 362 .
·assessing that Member States correctly transpose the:
oDirective on criminal sanctions for market abuse 363 ;
oDirective on the fight against fraud to the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law 364 ;
oDirective on the coordination and cooperation measures to facilitate consular protection for unrepresented citizens of the Union in third countries 365 ;
oData Protection Law Enforcement Directive 366 ;
oDirectives on procedural rights in the context of criminal procedures 367 ;
oDirective on the interconnection of central, commercial and companies registers and the Implementing Regulation 368 ;
oDirective on package travel and linked travel arrangements 369 .
·ensuring appropriate follow-up to the Court’s preliminary rulings on the:
oDirective on unfair terms in consumer contracts 370 .
Maritime affairs and fisheries
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints received from members of the public (2015-2019)
2.Public complaints open at year-end
|
8 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
12 |
► |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
14 |
► |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 6 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy sectors
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU-Pilot files (2017-2019)
2.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: main policy sectors
3.EU Pilot files open at year-end
At the end of 2019, 36 EU Pilot files remained open.
4.EU Pilot files: policies’ combined resolution rate in 2015-2019
III.OWN-INITIATIVE CASES
New own-initiative infringement cases.
In 2019, the Commission did not open own-initiative infringement cases in this area.
IV.INFRINGEMENT CASES
Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
The Commission did not open new infringement cases in 2019 in this area.
Major ongoing infringement cases include the following:
·Denmark: failure to enforce several important provisions of the EU Control Regulation 371 . The Commission considers that Denmark fails to ensure that all fishery products are weighed at landing and that mandatory catch registration documents record the quantities of each species present, including industrial by-catches. The most serious issues concern fisheries for industrial purposes. These deficiencies significantly undermine the accuracy of catch registration documents, which are necessary for quota deduction purposes and to prevent overfishing. In addition, Denmark does not ensure that the Commission is notified of the quantities of stocks actually landed, with a consequent risk to the sustainability objectives of the common fisheries policy 372 .
The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU.
The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.
V.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES
They were no major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2019 in this area.
VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court rulings
There were no major Court rulings in 2019 in this area.
2.Preliminary rulings
There were no major Court preliminary rulings in 2019 in this area.
VII.Outlook
Important implementation work in 2020 includes:
·following up on EU Pilot dialogues;
·following up on audits and investigations performed under the EU Control Regulation 373 , including addressing through action plans certain systemic irregularities in Member States’ fisheries control systems, where appropriate; monitoring the implementation of existing action plans;
·following up on the implementation of the constituent components of the common fisheries policy, such as the application of the landing obligation set out in the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation 374 ;
·taking action to ensure the correct transposition by the Member States of the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive 375 .
Migration and home affairs
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints received from members of the public (2015-2019)
2.Public complaints open at year-end
|
156 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
151 |
► |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
196 |
► |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 111 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy sectors
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot files (2015-2019)
2.EU Pilot files open at year-end
At the end of 2019, 60 EU Pilot files remained open.
3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: main policy sectors
4.EU Pilot files: resolution rate for policies (2015-2019)
III.OWN-INITIATIVE CASES
New own-initiative infringement cases
In 2019, the Commission opened own-initiative infringement cases regarding the:
·Directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children 376 ;
·Directive on attacks against information systems 377 ;
·Single Permit Directive 378 ;
·Violation of the EU external exclusive competence;
·Return Directive 379 ;
·Asylum Procedures Directive 380 ;
·Accreditation of forensic service providers 381 .
IV.INFRINGEMENT CASES
1.Infringement cases open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.Infringement cases open on 31 December 2019: main policy sector
3.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy sectors
4.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a)The Commission opened 58 new infringement cases in 2019. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include the following:
382 Hungary: non-provision of food to persons held in the Hungarian transit zones at the border with Serbia, in breach of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
383 Estonia: imposition of additional obligations on persons crossing the external EU border, in breach of the Schengen Borders Code;
384 Romania: incorrect implementation of provisions relating to the rejection of applications for residence permits and the obligation to justify the reasons for refusal under the EU Directives on legal migration;
385 Portugal: excessive and disproportionate fees for issuing residence permits;
386 387 Sweden: incorrect transposition of several directives in the field of legal migration, in particular as regards the processing applications for permits, as well as restrictions to equal treatment of certain categories of non-EU nationals;
388 389 390 Spain, Finland and the Netherlands: non-communication of national measures transposing the Directive on the use of passenger name records;
391 392 393 Greece, Belgium, France, Sweden and Slovenia: non-communication of national measures transposing the Directive on conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for research and studies;
394 Greece and Luxembourg: non-communication of national measures transposing the Directive on combating terrorism;
395 Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania: breach of the EU’s exclusive competence in the automated exchange of DNA, fingerprint and vehicle registration data;
396 397 398 Italy, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Portugal: incorrect implementation of the Directive on Attacks against Information Systems;
399 Hungary, Poland and Slovenia: non-communication of national measures transposing the Directive on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals as beneficiaries of international protection;
400 Bulgaria and Spain: non-communication of national measures transposing the Asylum Procedures Directive;
401 402 403 Lithuania and Slovenia: non-communication of national measures transposing the Reception Conditions Directive;
404 Bulgaria, Belgium, Czechia, France, Croatia, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Malta, Lithuania, Sweden, Slovakia, Romania, Austria, Estonia, Greece, Finland, Hungary, Luxembourg, Latvia, Poland and Slovenia: incorrect transposition of the Directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children.
b)The Commission referred two cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They concern:
405 Hungary: exclusion of non-EU nationals with long-term resident status from exercising the veterinary profession, in breach of EU legislation on long-term residence ;
406 Hungary: incorrect implementation of EU asylum rules by adopting legislation that criminalises activities in support of asylum applications and further restricts the right to request asylum.
c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.
V.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES
1.New late transposition infringement cases (2015-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: policy sectors
3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a)The Commission opened 23 cases for late transposition in 2019. They concern the:
407 Psychoactive Substances Directive (EU);
408 Illicit Drugs Directive;
409 Directive on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals as beneficiaries of international protection;
410 Asylum Procedures Directive;
411 Accreditation of Forensic Laboratories Framework Decision.
b)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.
VI.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES
Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2019
These concerned:
·Belgium, Czechia, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and Slovakia: non-communication of national measures transposing the Seasonal Workers Directive 412 ;
·Greece and the Netherlands: disproportionate charges for the issuance of residence permits;
·Poland and Slovenia: non-communication of national measures transposing the Directive on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals as beneficiaries of international protection 413 ;
·Cyprus, Spain and Poland: non-communication of national measures transposing the Directive on conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for research and studies 414 ;
·Greece, Slovenia and Austria: non-communication of national measures transposing the Long-Term Residents Directive 415 ;
·Bulgaria, Spain, France, Poland and Slovenia: non-communication of national measures transposing the Directive on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals as beneficiaries of international protection 416 ;
·Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Spain, France, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta, Poland, Romania and Sweden: non-communication of national measures transposing the Reception Conditions Directive 417 ;
·Belgium, Cyprus, Czechia, Germany, Estonia, Greece, France, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta, Poland, Romania, Sweden, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Germany and Latvia: non-communication of national measures transposing the Asylum Procedures Directive 418 ;
·Portugal and Croatia: failure to meet EU obligations on stepping up cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime 419 .
VII.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court rulings 420
There were no major Court rulings in 2019 in this area.
2.Preliminary rulings
The Court gave the following preliminary rulings:
·Belgium: if within 6 months the national authorities have not decided on the application for family reunification, they cannot automatically issue a residence permit to the applicant as they have to establish whether the applicant meets the requirements for residence in the host Member State in accordance with EU law 421 .
·Belgium: in case of serious breaches of the rules of the accommodation centres, as well as violent behaviour by an applicant, a Member State cannot provide for a sanction consisting in the withdrawal, even temporary, of material reception conditions relating to housing, food or clothing in so far as it would have the effect of depriving the applicant of the possibility of meeting his or her most basic needs 422 .
·Czechia and Belgium: The formal recognition of the status of refugee implies that the refugee concerned is a beneficiary of international protection for the purpose of the Qualification Directive so that he is entitled to all the rights and benefits provided for in this Directive. This Directive contains both rights equivalent to those set out in the Geneva Convention and rights providing greater protection which have no equivalent in that Convention 423 .
·Germany: an applicant ‘absconds’ within the meaning of the Dublin Regulation if he deliberately evades the reach of the national authorities in order to prevent the transfer. It may be presumed that that is the case if the transfer cannot be carried out due to the fact that the applicant has left the accommodation allocated to him without informing the competent national authorities, provided that he has been informed of his obligations in that regard 424 .
·Ireland: the fact that a Member State, designated as responsible for the examination of an application for international protection pursuant to the rules set out in the Dublin Regulation, has notified its intention to withdraw from the European Union in accordance with Article 50 TEU does not oblige the Member State with which the application was lodged to itself examine the application. 425 .
·Hungary: Member States may authorise the family reunification of a refugee’s sister only if she is, on account of her state of health, unable to provide for her own needs, provided that that inability is assessed having regard to the special situation of refugees and at the end of a case-by-case examination taking into account all the relevant factors, and that the refugee is providing the material support required 426 .
·The Netherlands: the Member State can withdraw residence permits from family members of a third-country national who have obtained their permits further to submitting falsified documents. The fact that the beneficiaries of those permits were unaware of the fraud is irrelevant 427 .
·The Netherlands: an EU country may withdraw the supplementary benefit to a Turkish national who returns to Turkey and who holds, at the date of his departure from the host EU country, long-term resident status 428 .
·The Netherlands: applications for family reunification by a beneficiary of international protection cannot be rejected solely on the ground of the fact that the sponsor has not provided official documentary evidence of the death of the minor’s biological parents and, consequently, that the sponsor has an actual family relationship with the minor, without taking into consideration the specific circumstances of the sponsor and the minor and the particular difficulties they have encountered before and after fleeing their country of origin 429 .
·The Netherlands: the competent authorities may, on grounds of public policy, reject an application for entry and residence on the basis of a criminal conviction imposed during a previous stay on the territory of that Member State concerned; in addition, they could withdraw a residence permit or refuse to renew it where a sentence sufficiently severe in comparison with the duration of the stay has been imposed on the applicant provided that the offence which warranted the criminal conviction is sufficiently serious to establish that it is necessary to rule out residence of that applicant and that those authorities carry out an individual assessment 430 .
·The Netherlands: national authorities may issue a return decision to a third-country national not subject to a visa requirement, who is present on the territory of the Member States for a short stay; such a decision could be justified if that national is considered to be a threat to public policy because he or she is suspected of having committed a criminal offence, provided that the offence is sufficiently serious in the light of its nature and of the punishment which may be imposed, to justify that national’s stay on the territory of the Member States being brought to an immediate end and, second, those authorities have consistent, objective and specific evidence to support their suspicions 431 .
·Austria: a Member State which granted subsidiary protection status when the conditions for granting it were not met based on incorrect facts must revoke it; the fact that the person concerned cannot be accused of having misled the Member State is irrelevant 432 .
·The United Kingdom: a third-country national who in the past has been tortured by the authorities of his or her country of origin but no longer faces a risk of being tortured if returned to that country, but whose physical and psychological health could, if so returned, seriously deteriorate, leading to a serious risk of him committing suicide on account of trauma resulting from the torture he was subjected to, is eligible for subsidiary protection. This is the case if there is a real risk of this person being intentionally deprived, in his or her country of origin, of appropriate care for the physical and mental after-effects of that torture 433 .
VIII.Outlook
Important implementation work in 2020 includes:
·closely monitoring that Member States transpose on time the:
·Directive on combating money laundering by criminal law 434 ;
·assessing that Member States correctly and completely transpose and implement the:
oDirectives on seasonal workers and on intra-corporate transfer 435 ;
oDirectives on asylum procedures and on reception conditions 436 ;
oDirective against trafficking in human beings 437 ;
oDirective on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals as beneficiaries of international protection 438 ;
oDirective on the freezing of proceeds of crime and confiscation of assets 439 ;
oDirective against sexual exploitation of children 440 ;
oDirective on attacks against information systems 441 ;
oDirective on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing 442 ;
oDirective on the use of passenger name record data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime 443 ;
oDirective on combating terrorism 444 ;
oDirective on new psychoactive substances 445 .
·ensuring appropriate follow-up to the Court’s preliminary rulings on, among other things, data retention 446 .
Mobility and transport
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints received from members of the public (2015-2019)
2.Public complaints open at year-end
|
93 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
161 |
► |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
86 |
► |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 168 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy sectors
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot files (2015-2019)
2.EU Pilot files open at year-end
At the end of 2019, 18 EU Pilot files remained open.
3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: main policy sectors
4.EU Pilot files: resolution rate for policies (2015-2019)
III.OWN-INITIATIVE CASES
New own-initiative infringement cases
In 2019, the Commission opened own-initiative infringement cases over:
·Sustainable transport:
oDeployment of the interoperable EU-wide e-Call service 447 ;
oInformation services for safe and secure parking places for trucks and commercial vehicles 448 .
·Road sector:
oInterconnection of the national electronic registers to the European Registers of Road Transport Undertakings (ERRU) messaging system 449 ;
oTachographs in road transport 450 ;
oEuropean Electronic Toll Service (EETS) and its technical elements 451 ;
oMinimum requirements for controlling compliance by drivers and road transport operators regarding driving and resting times and on the use of tachographs 452 .
·Road safety:
oIncorrect implementation of the Directive on minimum safety requirements for tunnels in the trans-European road network 453 ;
oFailure to submit the comprehensive report as provided by the Directive on cross-border exchange of information on road safety-related traffic offences 454 .
·Rail sector:
oNon-compliance with the Directive establishing a single European railway area 455 ;
oIncorrect implementation of EU legislation on railway safety 456 ;
oLack of submission of national implementation plans on the technical specifications for interoperability of the rail system 457 .
·Maritime sector:
oTraining of seafarers 458 ;
oMarine equipment 459 .
IV.INFRINGEMENT CASES
1.Infringement cases open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.Infringement cases open on 31 December 2019: main policy sectors
3.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy sectors
4.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a)The Commission opened 83 new infringement cases in 2019. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include the following:
460 Belgium, Cyprus, Czechia, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and the United Kingdom: failure to upgrade the connection of their national electronic registers on road hauliers to the new version of European Registers of Road Transport Undertakings (ERRU);
461 Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Italy and Spain: failure to comply with minimum safety requirements for tunnels in the trans-European road network;
462 Bulgaria and Malta: incorrect application of the Directive on marine equipment;
463 Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain: failure to fulfil the obligations under the EU rules establishing a single European railway area;
464 Belgium: failure to comply with the Directive on the minimum level of training of seafarers;
465 Belgium: incorrect implementation of the Airspace Regulation and the Regulation on common rules for the flexible use of airspace;
466 Belgium: incorrect implementation of the Directive on driving licences;
467 Germany: failure to comply with the principles of fair and non-discriminatory remuneration for European Electronic Toll Service providers;
468 Greece: failure to comply with the minimum requirements of control on driving and resting times, and on the use of tachographs;
469 Spain: incorrect implementation of EU legislation on railway safety;
470 Hungary: failure to put in place effective penalties for infringements related to the use of tachographs in road transport;
471 Hungary: non-implementation of technical requirements and administrative procedures related to air operations.
472 Poland: incorrect application of common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services;
b)The Commission referred three cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They concern:
473 Bulgaria: failure to transpose and comply with EU rules on railway safety as regards the independence of the investigating body;
474 Austria: failure to comply with several provisions of the Train Drivers Directive;
475 Ireland: failure to correctly implement EU law establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector.
c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.
V.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES
1.New late transposition infringement cases (2015-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy sectors
3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a)The Commission opened 45 cases for late transposition in 2019. They concerned the:
476 amending Directive concerning the opening of the market for domestic passenger transport services by rail and the governance of the railway infrastructure
477 Single European Railway Area Directive
478 Directive on the interoperability of the rail system within the European Union
479 Railway Safety Directive
480 directives amending the Directive on inland transport of dangerous goods.
b)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.
VI.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES
Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2019
These included the following:
·Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia and the United Kingdom: failure to provide the required quality management system for operational parts of the flag State-related activities 481 ;
·Germany and the Netherlands: incorrect transposition of the Driving Licences Directive 482 ;
·Belgium and Sweden: incorrect application of the provisions on access to the groundhandling market at EU airports 483 .
·Italy and Malta: incorrect application of the Directive on the minimum level of training of seafarers 484 ;
·Czechia: non-compliance of national legislation with the provisions of the Train Drivers Directive 485 ;
·Denmark: incorrect implementation of the Combined Transport Directive 486 ;
·Greece: incorrect implementation of EU rules on civil aviation security 487 ;
·Hungary: failure to submit the national implementation plans required by EU legislation on the technical specifications concerning accessibility of the Union's rail system for persons with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility, and the operation and traffic management of rail systems 488 ;
·Portugal: incorrect implementation of EU legislation on the investigation of accidents in the maritime sector 489 ;
VII.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court rulings
The Court gave the following rulings:
·Germany: failed to fulfil its obligations under EU law, at the 25th session of the Revision Committee of the Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail, by having voted against the position of the EU, and having publicly opposed that position and the arrangements for the exercise of voting rights 490 .
·Poland: failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive on weights and dimensions in national and international traffic. The restrictions set on access to the Polish road network for vehicles complying with the maximum axle weights laid down in the Directive are not justified 491 .
2.Preliminary rulings
The Court gave the following preliminary rulings:
·Belgium: The closure of an airport runway due to petrol spillage constitutes an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ when the petrol in question does not originate from an aircraft of the carrier operating that flight. It is a circumstance that could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken 492 .
·Belgium: When a passenger boards a train without a ticket, he concludes a contract with the carrier. This covers the situation where access to the train is free 493 .
·Czechia: Connecting flights that are the subject of a single reservation departing from a Member State to a non-Member State via another non-Member State: the air carrier of the first flight is, in principle, liable to pay compensation to passengers who suffered a long delay in the arrival of the second flight performed by a non-Community air carrier 494 .
·Germany: An exception from the use of tachographs does not apply to vehicles used for the carriage of live animals directly from farms to local slaughterhouses 495 .
·Germany: A Member State may refuse to recognise a driving licence which has been issued by another Member State, without a test of fitness to drive, on the basis of a driving licence issued by another Member State based on the exchange of a driving licence issued by a third country 496 .
·Germany: The direct award of contracts for public passenger transport services by bus that do not take the form of service concessions is not subject to the Regulation on public passenger transport services by rail and road 497 .
·Germany: An air carrier is only required to compensate passengers for a long delay caused by damage to an aircraft tyre if it fails to prove that it deployed all means at its disposal for limiting the delay of the flight 498 .
·Germany: The system of airport charges is to be approved by an independent supervisory authority and must be mandatory for all airport users 499 .
·Germany: Exception from the application of certain social legislation covers only vehicles that are used exclusively, during a particular transport operation, for the purpose of delivering items as part of the universal postal service 500 .
·Italy: The provisions of the Regulation on public passenger transport services by rail and road, which govern the award of public service contracts, do not apply to award procedures carried out before 3 December 2019 501 .
·Italy: The jurisdiction of a Member State court with respect to rights of passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or a long delay of flights must be assessed in light of the Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters 502 .
·Italy: National legislation providing for the automatic termination of the employment relationship at the age of 60 for aircraft pilots engaged in activities associated with protecting the national security of a Member State is compatible with EU law if it is necessary for public security and does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve this objective 503 .
·Italy: National authorities which intend directly to award a public service contract for the transport of passengers by rail are not required to publish or communicate to any interested economic operators all the information necessary in order to enable them to submit a sufficiently detailed offer which may be subject to a comparative assessment, or to carry out such an assessment of all bids that may have been received following publication of that information 504 .
·Hungary: A Member State is acting in breach of EU law if it imposes lesser penalties to resident road transport enterprises than to non-resident road transport enterprises for infringements to the rules on the use of tachographs that have the same degree of gravity 505 .
·The Netherlands: Passengers who have the right to hold their tour organiser liable for reimbursement of the cost of their air tickets cannot also claim reimbursement of the cost of those tickets from the air carrier 506 .
·Austria: An airline is liable for the harm caused by a spilt cup of hot coffee. It is not necessary for that accident to relate to a hazard typically associated with flight 507 .
·Austria: Workers providing services on board international trains, pursuant to a contract concluded between their employer and an undertaking established in another Member State, are not posted workers if they carry out a significant part of the work inherent to those services in the Member State where their employer is established and if they begin or end their shifts there 508 .
·Austria: The use of passenger platforms is part of the ‘minimum access package’ under the Single European Railway Directive, and infrastructure managers are required to make them available to all train operators 509 .
·Romania: The amount of the compensation provided by EU rules for cases of denied boarding or cancellation of a flight is not intended to compensate for damage such as loss of earnings, and that damage may be the subject of further compensation. In case of denied boarding, it is the responsibility of the operating air carrier to provide complete information to passengers on their right to reimbursement or re-routing. The passengers have no obligation to actively contribute to the search for information to that effect 510 .
VIII.Outlook
Important implementation work in 2020 includes:
·Monitoring and assessing national measures transposing the Directives on:
orailway safety 511 ;
othe opening of the market for domestic passenger transport services by rail and the governance of the railway infrastructure 512 ;
othe rail sector 513 ;
osafety rules and standards for passenger ships 514 ;
oregistration of persons sailing on board passenger ships and reporting formalities for ships 515 ;
oinspections for the safe operation of roll-on roll-off passenger ships and high-speed passenger craft 516 .
·Closely monitoring restrictions to market access and development of sustainable transport and safety and security in all modes of transport.
Taxation and customs union
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints received from members of the public (2015-2019)
2.Public complaints open at year-end
|
331 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
350 |
► |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
321 |
► |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 360 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy sectors
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot files (2015-2019)
2.EU Pilot files open at year-end
At the end of 2019, 35 EU Pilot files remained open.
3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: main policy sectors
4.EU Pilot files: resolution rate for policies (2015-2019)
III.OWN-INITIATIVE CASES
New own-initiative infringement cases
In 2019, the Commission opened own-initiative infringement cases on the:
·Directive on tax dispute resolution mechanisms in the European Union 517 ;
·Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD1) 518 ;
·Directive on value-added tax obligations for supplies of services and distance sales of goods 519 ;
·Directive on the treatment of vouchers 520 .
IV.INFRINGEMENT CASES
1.Infringement cases open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.Infringement cases open on 31 December 2019: main policy sectors
3.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy sectors
4.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a)The Commission opened 65 new infringement cases in 2019. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include the following:
521 Germany: national rules on VAT for distance sales of goods sold through digital marketplaces;
522 Germany: Impossibility to fulfil formal requirements for qualifying as a group company for German tax consolidation purposes;
Greece: Payment of a fee by importers of medical devices, which has an equivalent effect to a customs duty pursuant to Article 30 TFEU;
523 Spain: Obligation to appoint a fiscal representative in Spain;
524 Spain: Incorrect application of the Merger Directive;
525 Italy: Preferential taxation on property for Italians abroad;
526 Hungary: Discriminatory tax treatment of foreign foundations;
527 Portugal: heavier taxation on used cars imported from other Member States than on used cars purchased on the national market in breach of TFEU;
Romania: time limit for the notification of customs debts;
528 Finland: legislation on tax deductibility of group contributions between affiliated domestic companies in breach of freedom of establishment.
b)The Commission referred six cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU, namely the following:
529 Spain: failure to fulfil obligations under Articles 21, 45, 56 and 63 TFEU, and Articles 28, 31, 36 and 40 of the EEA Agreement as regards certain features of the obligation to provide information on assets located abroad (Modelo 720);
530 Germany: rejecting certain applications for VAT refunds for businesses in other Member States.
531 Italy: failure to comply with the rules on the taxation of energy products and electricity by applying in regional legislation a reduction to excise duty for petrol and gas oil used as motor fuel.
532 Hungary: failure to apply an excise duty on cigarettes below the minimum EU threshold of 60% of the applicable weighted average retail price, despite the end of the transitional period allowed for the gradual increase of that duty;
533 Austria: failure to correctly apply the special VAT scheme for travel agents;
534 United Kingdom: extending the scope of a VAT derogation for certain commodity markets;
c)The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.
535 Belgium: failure to comply with a judgment of the Court of Justice in which the Court had found that Belgian provisions for rental income are in breach of EU law.
V.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES
1.New late transposition infringement cases (2015-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy sectors
3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
The Commission opened 47 cases for late transposition in 2019. They included the:
·Directive on value-added tax obligations for supplies of services and distance sales of goods 536 ;
·Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD1) 537 ;
·Directive on tax dispute resolution mechanisms in the European Union 538 ;
·Directive on the treatment of vouchers 539 .
The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.
VI.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES
Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2019
These concerned the following:
·Belgium, Czechia, Greece, France, Cyprus, Latvia, Portugal and the United Kingdom: Non-communication of national measures transposing the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD1) 540 ;
·Czechia, Greece, Poland and Romania: Non-communication of national measures transposing the Directive as regards access to anti-money laundering information (DAC5) 541 ;
·Belgium: Taxation of redistributed income in the form of dividends;
·Bulgaria: Customs duty relief for certain US goods in breach of the Community system of reliefs from customs duty 542 ;
·Bulgaria: Proportionality of sanctions for not declaring the movement of cash in breach of controls of cash entering or leaving the Community 543 ;
·Czechia: Non-conform implementation of the Directive as regards mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation (DAC2) 544 ;
·Estonia: Non-conform implementation of the Directive on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation (DAC1) 545 ;
·Italy: Fast Customs Corridors regarding compliance with Articles 139, 144 and 148(5) of the Union Customs Code 546 ;
·Latvia: Discriminatory taxation of real estate in Riga City;
·Lithuania: Non-communication of national measures transposing the Directive on tax dispute resolution mechanisms in the European Union 547 .
·Hungary: Discriminatory taxation of spirit drinks in violation of Article 110 TFEU by exempting from the public health tax fruit distillates and herbal drinks produced predominantly on its territory;
VII.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court rulings
The Court gave the following ruling:
548 Greece: The Court of Justice ruled that Greece’s application of a reduced excise duty rate on the spirit drinks, Tsipouro and Tsikoudia, produced by systematic distilleries, as well as the application of a super-reduced rate to those spirits produced by small occasional distillers, are both incompatible with EU law.
2.Preliminary rulings
The Court gave the following preliminary rulings:
·Denmark: The Court of Justice clarified that EU law cannot be relied on for abusive or fraudulent objectives. In such cases, national authorities and courts must refuse a taxpayer the exemption from withholding tax on profits distributed by a subsidiary to its parent company, even if there are no domestic or agreement-based provisions providing for such a refusal 549 .
·Germany: the Court of Justice clarified that the VAT exemption for school and university education does not cover driving school tuition provided by a driving school for the purpose of acquiring driving licences for vehicles in categories B and C1, even if the objective of such tuition is not purely recreational, since possession of such licences is liable to meet, among other things, professional needs 550 .
·Germany: The Court of Justice clarified that customs authorities may require that an applicant for the status of an ‘authorised economic operator’ provide them with the tax identification numbers concerning solely the natural persons who are in charge of the applicant or who exercise control over its management and those who are in charge of the applicant’s customs matters, and the details of the tax offices responsible for the taxation of all those persons 551 .
·Germany: The Court of Justice clarified that legislation of a Member State which effectively taxes dividends paid to foreign pension funds at a higher rate than dividends paid to domestic pension funds is contrary to the free movement of capital as established by Article 63 TFEU 552 .
·Germany: Where EU customs regulations require providing a specific indication of the country of origin for a product (in this case, cultivated mushrooms that had been relocated during the growing process), the country of origin is that where the product was harvested and that indication as such cannot be regarded as misleading consumers. In such circumstances, no obligations may be imposed on the food business operators to provide information additional to the indication of the country of origin in order to prevent any alleged risk of misleading consumers 553 .
·Latvia: The Court of Justice clarified that where the customs value of goods, such as the medicinal products at issue in the dispute in the main proceedings, is calculated by applying the deductive method (this is one of the methods used for calculating the customs value), the competent national customs administration must, in order to identify ‘similar goods’, take into account any relevant element. 554 .
·Lithuania: The Court of Justice clarified that the exemption from excise duty applies to denatured ethyl alcohol contained in cosmetics or mouthwashes which are nevertheless consumed as alcoholic beverages, although not intended for human consumption, even if the importer of products from another Member State labelled them with a view to increasing the sales 555 .
·Lithuania: The Court of Justice held that Member States should tax as cigars or cigarillos tobacco products with an outer wrapper of natural tobacco partially covered, at the filter, by an additional paper layer, which may make them visually similar to cigarettes 556 .
VIII.Outlook
Important implementation work in 2020 includes:
Indirect taxation:
·focus on infringements with a strong impact on ensuring fair and effective taxation and the climate and health objectives of the EU;
·monitoring cases affecting the economic situation of businesses or aiming at removing distortions of competition in the internal market.
Direct taxation:
·assess the conformity of national measures with EU rules on exchange of information on taxation. This will concern in particular the Directives on:
othe automatic exchange within the EU of information relative to financial income, including dividends and capital gains, and account balances 557 ;
othe mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation 558 ;
ocountry-by-country reporting of information by multinationals to tax authorities 559 ;
oaccess to anti-money laundering information 560 ;
omandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation in relation to reportable cross-border arrangements 561 .
·assess the conformity of national rules against tax avoidance and practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market 562 ;
·assess the conformity of national rules on tax dispute resolution mechanisms in the EU 563 .
Customs:
·carry out a series of monitoring activities in cooperation with the Member States to help them implement the Union Customs Code, which now has been applicable for more than 3 years;
·focus on cases and subject matters where there is a significant financial impact and where it is considered that our exclusive competence in the area of customs needs to be defended.
I.Methodology and explanations
Annex I — POLICY AREAS
1.Complaints
First chart: New complaints received from members of the public (2015-2019)
This shows the number of public complaints the Commission registered in the given policy field in 2015-2019.
Second chart: Public complaints open at year-end
This starts with the number of open complaints at the end of 2018 (first line) 564 . The second line shows the number of new complaints registered in 2019. The third line shows the number of complaints on which the Commission took a decision in 2019. The fourth line shows the number of complaints open at the end of 2019 (calculated by taking the first figure, adding the second and subtracting the third).
Third chart: New complaints registered in 2019: main policy sectors
The number of registered complaints for the current reporting year is broken down by policy sector. In general, this breakdown shows the three policy sectors in which the most complaints were received in 2019. Four (or more) policy sectors are mentioned if two (or more) policy sectors attracted the third highest number of complaints. The number of sectors covered varies according to the breadth of each policy area.
2.EU PILOT
First chart: New EU Pilot files (2015-2019)
This shows the number of EU Pilot files the Commission opened in the given policy area in 2015-2019.
Second chart: New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: main policy sectors
The number of new EU Pilot files opened in the current reporting year is broken down by policy sector. This breakdown shows the three policy sectors in which the most EU Pilot files were opened in 2019.
Third chart: EU Pilot files: resolution rate for policies in 2015-2019
The resolution rate in the given policy field is the percentage of EU Pilot files handled in that field for which the Commission accepted the Member States’ responses. The chart shows the resolution rate for the last 5 years.
3.OWN-INITIATIVE CASES
New own-initiative cases
This section contains a list of the most important infringement cases the Commission launched in the given policy area in 2019. The list is not exhaustive.
4.INFRINGEMENT CASES
First chart: Infringement cases opened on 31 December (2015-2019)
These figures include all procedures the Commission initiated in the policy area by sending a letter of formal notice under Article 258 TFEU. It covers letters sent in 2019 or before, irrespective of the stages the cases have reached. Only cases which have not yet been closed by a formal decision are shown.
Accordingly, this number includes all cases that, on 31 December of the years 2014 to 2019:
·were in the pre-litigation phase (letter of formal notice, reasoned opinion or decision on referral to the Court under Article 258 TFEU);
·were pending before the Court under Article 258 TFEU and Article 260(3) TFEU;
·the Court had ruled on but where the Commission could not yet confirm that the Member State had implemented the judgment correctly:
·were in the second pre-litigation procedure (letter of formal notice or referral decision under Article 260(2) TFEU);
·were pending before the Court due to a second referral; and
·the Court had ruled on for the second time but where the Commission could not yet confirm that the Member State had implemented the second judgment correctly.
This figure does not include, for example, open EU Pilot files in the policy area. It also does not include EU Pilot files for which the Commission had already rejected a Member State’s response but had not yet sent a letter of formal notice under Article 258 TFEU.
Second chart: Infringement cases open on 31 December 2019: main policy sectors
This shows, for the given policy area, the sectors in which the most infringement cases were still open on 31 December 2019. The number of sectors shown varies according to the breadth of each policy area.
Third chart: New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy sectors
This shows, for the given policy area, the sectors in which the most infringement cases were launched in 2019.
Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
This section has three parts:
Part a) shows the number of new infringement cases launched in the policy area in 2019 and lists the most important new cases under Article 258 TFEU.
Part b) lists the cases which the Commission referred to the Court solely under Article 258 TFEU by 31 December 2019. The cases submitted to the Court under Article 258 and 260(3) TFEU are discussed in the ‘transposition of directives’ section (see below).
Part c) contains the cases which the Commission referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU by 31 December 2019.
5.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES
First chart: New late transposition infringement cases (2015-2019)
This shows the number of letters of formal notice sent to Member States under Article 258 TFEU for missing or partial notification of national measures transposing directives in the given policy area. This figure is already included in the total number of new infringement cases initiated in the policy area in 2019, so it should not be added to the figure shown in the first chart of the general statistics section.
Please note that not all of these new infringement cases for late transposition were necessarily still open on 31 December 2019. For example, if the Commission opened a late transposition infringement procedure in March 2019 by sending a letter of formal notice, this would be added to the new infringement cases even if the Commission closed the case in October 2019 as a result of the Member State notifying complete transposition.
Second chart: New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy sectors
This shows the policy sectors in which the most late transposition procedures were launched in 2019.
Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
This section has two parts:
Part a) lists, for the given policy area, the most important directive(s) over which the Commission had to launch infringement procedures against a relatively high number of Member States.
Part b) lists the cases which the Commission referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU and Article 260(3) by 31 December 2019.
6.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES
Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2019
This section contains a list of the most important infringement cases the Commission closed in the given policy area in 2019 without a Court judgment. The list is not exhaustive.
7.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
This section contains two lists:
·The first list contains the Court’s most important judgments in the given policy area in 2019. These judgments are almost exclusively handed down under Article 258 or Articles 260(2) TFEU.
·The second list contains the most important preliminary rulings that the Court issued to the Member State’s judiciary in the given policy area.
These lists are not necessarily exhaustive.
Directive (EU) 2002/22 .
Directives 92/43/EEC and 2009/147/EC , INF/19/4251 .
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Brussels, 31.7.2020
SWD(2020) 147 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
Part III: Member States
Accompanying the document
Report from the Commission
Monitoring the application of European Union law
2019 Annual Report
{COM(2020) 350 final}
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czechia
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Croatia
Italy
Cyprus
Latvia
Belgium
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints made against Belgium by members of the public (2015-2019)
2.Public complaints against Belgium open at year-end
|
125 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
92 |
► |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
116 |
► |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 101 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy areas
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot files opened against Belgium (2015-2019)
2.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: policy areas
3.Files relating to Belgium open in EU Pilot at year-end
4.EU Pilot files: Belgium’s resolution rate in 2015-2019
III.INFRINGEMENT CASES
1.Infringement cases against Belgium open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy areas
3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a.The Commission opened 33 new infringement cases against Belgium in 2019. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:
·incorrect transposition of the:
oDirective on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children 1
oSolvency II Directive 2
oDirective on driving licences 3
oAirspace Regulation and the Regulation on common rules for the flexible use of airspace 4
oDirective on the minimum level of training of seafarers 5 ;
·non-compliance with key provisions of the Noise Directive 6 ;
·failure to protect waters from nitrates pollution 7 ;
·failure to submit information about operators of essential services identified under the EU law on the security of network and information systems 8 ;
·non-compliance with the requirements of the Energy Efficiency Directive 9 ;
·failure to adopt a national programme for the implementation of spent fuel and radioactive waste management policy that is compliant with the requirements of the Radioactive Waste Directive 10 ;
·failure to upgrade the connection of their national electronic registers on road hauliers to the new version of European Registers of Road Transport Undertakings (ERRU) 11 ;
·failure to comply with minimum safety requirements for tunnels in the trans-European road network 12 ;
·non-communication of national measures transposing the
oDirective on conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for research and studies 13
oIndirect Land Use Change Directive 14
oDirective amending the Oil Stocks Directive as regards the methods for calculating stockholding obligations 15
oBasic Safety Standards Directive 16 .
b.The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. It concerns
·incorrect transposition of the Third Energy Package Directives (Electricity and Gas Directives) 17 .
c.The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU. It concerns:
·Failure to comply with a judgment of the Court of Justice, which found that Belgian provisions for rental income are in breach of EU law 18 .
IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES
1.Late transposition infringement cases against Belgium open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases against Belgium (2015-2019)
3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy areas
V.Referrals to the Court
The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.
VI.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES
Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2019
These concerned:
·incorrect transposition of the Solvency II Directive 19
·incorrect application of EU rules concerning civil judicial cooperation and requiring review procedures for the recognition of other Member States’ executive measures 20 ;
·incorrect application of the Timber Regulation 21 by not carrying out a significant number of verifications;
·taxation of redistributed income in the form of dividends;
·incorrect application of the provisions on access to the groundhandling market at EU airports 22 .
·non-communication of national measures transposing the:
23 Seasonal Workers Directive
24 Reception Conditions Directive
25 Asylum Procedures Directive
26 Directive on extraction solvents used in the production of foodstuffs
27 Commission Implementing Directive as regards isolation distances for Sorghum spp.
28 Mortgage Credit Directive
29 Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD1)
30 Single Permit Directive
31 Nuclear Safety Directive.
VII.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court rulings
The Court ruled that:
·Belgium did not fulfil its obligations under EU law by notifying to the Commission only partial transposition measures for the Directive on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic communications networks 32 with respect to the region of Bruxelles-Capitale. The Court applied for the first time the sanction mechanism of Article 260(3) TFEU. This Treaty provision allows the Commission to request the Court to impose financial penalties if Member States fail to fulfil their obligation to notify measures transposing a directive adopted under a legislative procedure. In addition to clarifying that the sanction scheme of Article 260(3) TFEU may also be applied to cases of partial failure to adopt and communicate transposition measures, the Court held that, when notifying national transposition measures to the Commission, Member States must provide sufficiently clear and precise information and state, for each provision of the directive, the national provision(s) ensuring its transposition 33 .
2.Preliminary rulings
The Court addressed the following preliminary rulings to the Belgian judiciary:
·SkypeOut service should be considered an electronic communications service. As a result, SkypeOut is subject to telecoms legislation, in particular to the general authorisation regime. Services offered via software, such as SkypeOut, which allow calling numbers in a national numbering plan, constitute electronic communication services 34 .
·If, within 6 months, national authorities have not decided on the application for family reunification, they cannot automatically issue a residence permit to the applicant as it must be established whether the applicant meets the requirements for residence in the host Member State in accordance with EU law 35 .
·In case of serious breaches of the rules of the accommodation centres, as well as violent behaviour by an applicant, a Member State cannot provide for a sanction consisting in the withdrawal, even temporary, of material reception conditions, relating to housing, food or clothing in so far as it would have the effect of depriving the applicant of the possibility of meeting his or her most basic needs 36 .
·The formal recognition of the status of refugee implies that the refugee concerned is a beneficiary of international protection for the purpose of the Qualification Directive so that he is entitled to all the rights and benefits provided for in this Directive. This Directive contains both rights equivalent to those set out in the Geneva Convention and rights providing greater protection which have no equivalent in that Convention 37 .
·The closure of an airport runway due to petrol spillage constitutes an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ when the petrol in question does not originate from an aircraft of the carrier operating that flight. It is a circumstance that could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken 38 .
·When a passenger boards a train without a ticket, he concludes a contract with the carrier. This covers the situation where access to the train is free 39 .
·The circumstance that the transferee has a choice whether to dismiss employees goes against the objective of the Directive on transfer of undertakings, which provides that dismissals due to the transfer are prohibited 40 .
·A decree by which a body of a Member State establishes, at regional level for its Natura 2000 network, conservation objectives which have an indicative value, whereas the conservation objectives at site level have a statutory value, is not a ‘plan or programme’, within the meaning of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive, for which an assessment under this Directive is mandatory 41 .
·A decree whereby a Member State designates a Special Area of Conservation and makes provision for conservation objectives and certain preventive measures is not a ‘plan or programme’, within the meaning of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive, for which an assessment under this Directive is required 42 .
·National courts have jurisdiction to review the choice of location of air quality measuring stations and to take all necessary measures against the national authority concerned. In assessing whether limit values have been complied with, the pollution level at each sampling point must be taken into account individually 43 .
·The Belgian law extending the operating life of nuclear power stations Doel 1 and Doel 2 was adopted without the required environmental assessments being carried out first. It is not, however, excluded that the effects of the law on extension may provisionally be maintained where there is a genuine and serious threat of an interruption to electricity supply
44
.
Bulgaria
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints made against Bulgaria by members of the public (2015-2019)
2.Public complaints against Bulgaria open at year-end
|
114 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
126 |
► |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
141 |
► |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 99 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy areas
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot files opened against Bulgaria (2015-2019)
2.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: main policy areas
3.Files relating to Bulgaria open in EU Pilot at year-end
4.EU Pilot files: Bulgaria’s resolution rate in 2015-2019
III.INFRINGEMENT CASES
5.Infringement cases against Bulgaria open on 31 December (2015-2019)
6.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy areas
7.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a.The Commission opened 39 new infringement cases against Bulgaria in 2019. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:
·inadequate protection of consumers against unfair terms in contracts, in particular in payment order proceedings; certain creditors can obtain orders for immediate enforcement quasi automatically, with very limited possibilities for the consumers to prevent or challenge the enforcement based on unfair contract terms 45 ;
·incorrect transposition of the Directive on criminal sanctions for market abuse 46 ;
·breach of the EU’s exclusive competence in the area of automated DNA, fingerprint and vehicle registration data exchange 47 ;
·non-conformity of national legislation with EU rules on public procurement and concessions 48 ;
·incorrect implementation of the Directive on Attacks against Information Systems 49 ;
·incorrect transposition of the Directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children 50 ;
·a national law provision that defines the duration for the temporary cross-border provision of services 51 ;
·restrictions on the temporary cross-border provision of private security services 52
·non communication of national measures transposing the:
oAsylum Procedures Directive 53
oDirective on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union 54
oDirective on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (IORPs II Directive) 55
oBank Creditors Hierarchy Directive 56
oDirective amending the Oil Stocks Directive as regards the methods for calculating stockholding obligations 57 ;
·maintaining a national framework on geographical indications, which is not compatible with the EU rules on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs 58 ;
·incorrect transposition of the revised Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 59 ;
·late reporting on the environmental status of marine waters under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive 60 ;
·non-conform transposition of the Industrial Emissions Directive 61 ;
·incorrect implementation of the INSPIRE Directive 62 ;
·failure to establish Special Areas of Conservation, as well as conservation objectives and measures to maintain or restore the protected species and habitats to a favourable condition, as required by the Habitats Directive 63 ;
·non-compliance with the requirements of the Energy Efficiency Directive 64 ;
·incorrect application of the Directive on Marine Equipment 65 ;
·failure to comply with minimum safety requirements for tunnels in the trans-European road network 66 ;
·incorrect application of the Directive on Marine Equipment 67 .
b.The Commission referred two case(s) to the Court under Article 258 TFEU.
They involve the following infringements:
·failure to transpose and comply with EU rules on railway safety as regards the independence of the investigating body 68 ;
·exceedance of sulphur dioxide (SO2) limit values set by the Air Quality Directive 69 .
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 (2015-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases against Bulgaria (2015-2019)
3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: 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 2019
These concerned:
·non-communication of national measures transposing the:
70 Reception Conditions Directive
71 Commission Implementing Directive on minimum conditions for examining certain varieties of agricultural plant species
72 Directive on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals as beneficiaries of international protection
73 Reception Conditions Directive
74 Asylum Procedures Directive
75 Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II)
76 Directive on antitrust damages actions;
77 Directive on certain aspects of the organisation of working time in inland waterway transport.
·customs duty relief for certain US goods in breach of the Community system of reliefs from customs duty 78 ;
·Proportionality of sanctions for not declaring the movement of cash in breach of controls of cash entering or leaving the Community 79 ;
·incorrect transposition of the Third Energy Package Directives 80 ;
·failure to adopt all transposition measures for the Indirect Land Use Change Directive 81 .
VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court rulings
There were no major Court rulings in 2019.
2.Preliminary rulings
The Court addressed the following preliminary rulings to the Bulgarian judiciary:
·The Procedural Rights Directives 82 apply to judicial proceedings leading to compulsory medical internment of persons having committed acts representing a danger to society. Because of their mental state, these persons are to be considered vulnerable persons for the purpose of these Directives 83 .
·National legislation obliging apartment owners in buildings in co-ownership to pay for the thermal energy used by the common parts and the internal installation of the building is compatible with EU law, even if the owners do not use that thermal energy in their own apartments. In such buildings, the bills for thermal energy consumption by the internal installation are calculated for each property owner in the building in proportion to the heated volume of their apartment 84 .
·The Court gave guidance as to the relevant criteria under the Electricity Directive to distinguish between transmission and distribution systems 85 .
Czechia
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints made against Czechia by members of the public (2015-2019)
2.Public complaints against Czechia open at year-end
|
49 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
58 |
► |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
50 |
► |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 57 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy areas
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot files opened against Czechia (2015-2019)
2.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: main policy areas
3.Files relating to Czechia open in EU Pilot at year-end
4.EU Pilot files: Czechia’s resolution rate in 2015-2019
III.INFRINGEMENT CASES
1.Infringement cases against Czechia open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy areas
3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a.The Commission opened 31 new infringement cases against Czechia in 2019. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:
·non communication of national measures transposing the:
oDirective on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (IORPs II Directive) 86
oIndirect Land Use Change Directive 87
oDirective amending the Oil Stocks Directive as regards the methods for calculating stockholding obligations 88 ;
·failure to effectively implement the rules on the 112 emergency number, in particular by not ensuring equivalent access for disabled users 89 ;
·non-conformity of national legislation with EU rules on public procurement and concessions 90 ;
·systematic official controls targeting certain foodstuffs coming from another Member State each time such foodstuffs enter Czechia, in breach of EU rules on ensuring compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules 91 ;
·incorrect transposition of the Directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children 92 ;
·failure to ensure adequate protection of habitats and species of EU interest by designating nature protection areas to complete the NATURA 2000 network 93 ;
·failure to upgrade the connection of their national electronic registers on road hauliers to the new version of European Registers of Road Transport Undertakings (ERRU) 94 ;
·failure to establish penalties in accordance with the Invasive Alien Species Regulation 95 ;
·non-compliance with the requirements of the Energy Efficiency Directive 96 .
b.The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. It involves the following infringement:
·incorrect transposition and application of certain provisions of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 97 ;
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 Czechia open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases against Czechia (2015-2019)
3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: 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 2019
These concerned:
·non-communication of national measures transposing the:
98 Reception Conditions Directive
99 Commission Implementing Directive on minimum conditions for examining certain varieties of agricultural plant species
100 Commission Implementing Directive on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants
101 Directive on tobacco products
102 the Seasonal Workers Directive
103 Asylum Procedures Directive
104 Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD1)
105 Directive on certain aspects of the organisation of working time in inland waterway transport.
·Directive as regards access to anti-money laundering information (DAC5) 106 ;
·non-conform implementation of the Directive as regards the mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation (DAC2) 107 ;
·failure to correctly transpose certain requirements of the Radioactive Waste Directive 108 ;
·non-compliance of national legislation with the provisions of the Train Drivers Directive 109 ;
·non-conformity of national legislation with the Professional Qualifications Directive 110 ;
·failure to provide the required quality management system for operational parts of the flag State-related activities 111 .
VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court rulings 112
The Court:
·dismissed the Commission’s action against Czechia concerning its refusal to ensure the take-back of 20 000 tonnes of a mixture called TPS-NOLO (Geobal) shipped from Czechia to Poland. The Court found that the Commission did not provide sufficient evidence that the respective mixture constitutes waste and, thus, that its shipment constitutes a shipment of waste 113 .
2.Preliminary rulings
The Court addressed the following preliminary rulings to the Czech judiciary:
·The formal recognition of the status of refugee implies that the refugee concerned is a beneficiary of international protection for the purpose of the Qualification Directive so that he is entitled to all the rights and benefits provided for in this Directive. This Directive contains both rights equivalent to those set out in the Geneva Convention and rights providing greater protection which have no equivalent in that Convention 114 ;
·Connecting flights that are the subject of a single reservation departing from a Member State to a non-Member State via another non-Member State: the air carrier of the first flight is, in principle, liable to pay compensation to passengers who suffered a long delay in the arrival of the second flight performed by a non-Community air carrier 115 .
Denmark
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints made against Denmark by members of the public (2015-2019)
2.Public complaints against Denmark open at year-end
|
40 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
61 |
► |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
58 |
► |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 43 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy areas
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot files opened against Denmark (2015-2019)
2.Files relating to Denmark open in EU Pilot at year-end
3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: main policy areas
4.EU Pilot files: Denmark’s resolution rate in 2015-2019
III.INFRINGEMENT CASES
1.Infringement cases against Denmark open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy areas
3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a.The Commission opened 20 new infringement cases against Denmark in 2019. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:
·unlawful use of the protected designation of origin ‘Feta’, in violation of the EU rules on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs 116 ;
·failure to enforce several provisions of the EU Control Regulation 117 .
·non-conformity of national legislation with EU rules on public procurement and concessions 118 ;
·incorrect transposition of the:
oDirective on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes 119
orevised Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 120
oEnergy Efficiency Directive 121 ;
·failure to upgrade the connection of their national electronic registers on road hauliers to the new version of European Registers of Road Transport Undertakings (ERRU) 122 ;
·failure to fulfil the obligations under the EU rules establishing a single European railway area 123 .
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 (2015-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases against Denmark (2015-2019)
3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy areas
4.Referrals to the Court
The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court concerning Denmark under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.
V.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES
Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2019
These concerned:
·non-communication of national measures transposing the:
124 Commission Implementing Directive on characteristics to be covered as a minimum by the examination and the minimum conditions for examining certain varieties of agricultural plant species
125 Commission Implementing Directive on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants
126 Indirect Land Use Change Directive;
·exceedances of the nitrogen dioxide (NO2) limit values set by the Air Quality Directive 127 ;
·incorrect implementation of the Combined Transport Directive 128 .
VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court rulings 129
There were no major Court rulings in 2019.
2.Preliminary rulings
The Court addressed the following preliminary ruling to the Danish judiciary:
·EU law cannot be relied on for abusive or fraudulent objectives. In such cases, national authorities and courts must refuse a taxpayer the exemption from withholding tax on profits distributed by a subsidiary to its parent company, even if there are no domestic or agreement-based provisions providing for such a refusal 130 .
Germany
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints made against Germany by members of the public (2015-2019)
2.Public complaints against Germany open at year-end
|
274 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
319 |
► |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
227 |
► |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 366 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy areas
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot files opened against Germany (2015-2019)
2.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: main policy areas
3.Files relating to Germany open in EU Pilot at year-end
4.EU Pilot files: Germany’s resolution rate in 2015-2019
III.INFRINGEMENT CASES
1.Infringement cases against Germany open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy areas
3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a.The Commission opened 25 new infringement cases against Germany in 2019. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:
·non communication of national measures transposing the:
oDirective on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (IORPs II Directive) 131
oDirective amending the Oil Stocks Directive as regards the methods for calculating stockholding obligations 132 ;
·rules on fixed prices for prescription medicines negatively affecting the sale of products by pharmacies established in other EU Member States in violation of Articles 34 and 36 TFEU 133 ;
·failure to award authorisations and concessions in the hydroelectric power sector in line with the Services Directive and public procurement rules 134 ;
·restrictions on the import of coffee in violation of the principle of the free movement of goods 135 ;
·non-conformity of national legislation with EU rules on public procurement and concessions 136 ;
·non-conformity of national law with EU public procurement rules, forbidding health insurance funds to use procurement procedures to obtain assistive medical devices 137 ;
·failure to effectively implement the rules on the 112 emergency number, in particular by not ensuring equivalent access for disabled users 138 ;
·incorrect transposition of the Directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children 139 ;
·Germany’s national rules on VAT for distance sales of goods sold through digital marketplaces 140 ;
·impossibility to fulfil formal requirements for qualifying as a group company for German tax consolidation purposes 141 ;
·failure to ensure adequate protection of grasslands, as required by the Habitats Directive 142 ;
·incorrect transposition of the Directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes 143 ;
·application of the Directive on Mobile Air-Conditioning; 144
·failure to comply with the principles of fair and non-discriminatory remuneration for European Electronic Toll Service providers 145 ;
·failure to upgrade the connection of their national electronic registers on road hauliers to the new version of European Registers of Road Transport Undertakings (ERRU) 146 ;
·failure to fulfil the obligations under the EU rules establishing a single European railway area 147 ;
·failure to comply with a Court judgment finding that Germany was in breach of its obligations under the Nitrates Directive by failing to revise an action programme whose measures had proved insufficient 148 ;
·failure to establish Special Areas of Conservation, as well as conservation objectives and measures to maintain or restore the protected species and habitats to a favourable condition, as required by the Habitats Directive 149 ;
·non-compliance with the requirements of the Energy Efficiency Directive 150 .
b.The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. It involves the following infringement:
·Rejections of certain applications for VAT refunds for businesses in other Member States 151 .
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 (2015-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases against Germany (2015-2019)
3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy areas
4.Referrals to the Court
The Commission did not refer any case to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.
V.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES
Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2019
These concerned:
·non-communication of national measures transposing the:
152 Seasonal Workers Directive
153 Reception Conditions Directive
154 Asylum Procedures Directive;
155 Directive on certain aspects of the organisation of working time in inland waterway transport.
·incorrect application of the freedom of establishment due to the reservation of certain approval services for some types of motor vehicles in favour of certain technical testing centres 156
·failure to adopt all transposition measures for the Indirect Land Use Change Directive 157 ;
·incorrect transposition of the Driving Licences Directive 158 ;
VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court rulings 159
The Court ruled that:
·Germany breached EU law by maintaining fixed tariffs for the planning services of architects and engineers 160 ;
·Germany restricted the free movement of goods by introducing an infrastructure use charge and simultaneous relief from motor vehicle tax for vehicles registered in Germany 161 ;
·Germany failed to fulfil its obligations under EU law, at the 25th session of the Revision Committee of the Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail, by having voted against the position of the EU, and having publicly opposed that position and the arrangements for the exercise of voting rights 162 ;
2.Preliminary rulings
The Court addressed the following preliminary rulings to the German judiciary:
·prohibiting commercial providers of search engines and commercial service providers, which edit content of online press products, from making press products or parts of them available to the public is a breach of EU law 163 ;
·freedom of information and freedom of the press cannot justify a derogation from the author’s exclusive rights of reproduction and of communication to the public going beyond the exceptions or limitations provided for in EU law 164 ;
·a phonogram producer can prevent the use of a sound sample of his or her phonogram in another phonogram. However, such sample can be used if it is included in the phonogram in a modified form unrecognisable to the ear 165 ;
·the Gmail service should not be considered as consisting wholly or mainly in the “conveyance of signals”. As a result, Gmail is not an electronic communications service, and is therefore not subject to the general authorisation regime under the current EU telecoms legislation 166 ;
·the EU Regulation on shipments of waste 167 does not apply to shipment mixtures of animal by-products and other substances transported between Member States 168 ;
·the Austrian system of issuing an European arrest warrant, in which both public prosecutor’s offices and courts are involved, is compatible with EU law 169 ;
·EU law does not designate directly, or by analogy, the law applicable to the third-party effects of the assignment of claims 170 ;
·the operator of a website that features a Facebook ‘Like’ button can be a controller jointly with Facebook in respect of the collection and transmission to Facebook of the personal data of visitors to its website 171 ;
·a pre-ticked box cannot be considered as valid consent to the processing of personal data. The information that the service provider must give to a user includes the duration of the operation of cookies and whether or not third parties may have access to those cookies 172 ;
·in case of insolvency of the employer, a reduction in a former employee’s old-age benefits must be regarded as being manifestly disproportionate if that person is living, or would have to live, below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold determined by Eurostat for the Member State concerned 173 ;
·an applicant ‘absconds’ within the meaning of the Dublin Regulation if he deliberately evades the reach of the national authorities in order to prevent the transfer. It may be presumed that that is the case if the transfer cannot be carried out due to the fact that the applicant has left the accommodation allocated to him without informing the competent national authorities, provided that he has been informed of his obligations in that regard 174 ;
·the VAT exemption for school and university education does not cover driving school tuition provided by a driving school for the purpose of acquiring driving licences for vehicles in categories B and C1, even if the objective of such tuition is not purely recreational, since possession of such licences is liable to meet, among other things, professional needs 175 ;
·the customs authorities may require that an applicant for the status of an ‘authorised economic operator’ provide them with the tax identification numbers concerning solely the natural persons who are in charge of the applicant or who exercise control over its management and those who are in charge of the applicant’s customs matters, and the details of the tax offices responsible for the taxation of all those persons 176 ;
·the legislation of a Member State which effectively taxes dividends paid to foreign pension funds at a higher rate than dividends paid to domestic pension funds is contrary to the free movement of capital as established by Article 63 TFEU 177 ;
·where EU customs regulations require providing a specific indication of the country of origin for a product (in this case, cultivated mushrooms that had been relocated during the growing process), the country of origin is that where the product was harvested, and that indication as such cannot be regarded as misleading consumers. In such circumstances, no obligations may be imposed on the food business operators to provide information additional to the indication of the country of origin in order to prevent any alleged risk of misleading consumers 178 ;
·the protection of the name ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena (PGI)’, entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications, does not extend to the use of the individual non-geographical terms of that name, namely ‘aceto’ and ‘balsamico’ 179 ;
·in relation to the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading system (EU ETS), the Court of Justice confirmed the literal interpretation of an ‘electricity generator’, which includes an industrial plant even if the main activity of that plant does not fall under the scope of the EU ETS, the plant produces electricity mainly for its own use, and the amount of electricity sold to third parties is minimal 180 ;
·an exception from the use of tachographs does not apply to vehicles used for the carriage of live animals directly from farms to local slaughterhouses 181 ;
·A Member State may refuse to recognise a driving licence which has been issued by another Member State, without a test of fitness to drive, on the basis of a driving licence issued by another Member State based on the exchange of a driving licence issued by a third country 182 ;
·the direct award of contracts for public passenger transport services by bus that do not take the form of service concessions is not subject to the Regulation on public passenger transport services by rail and road 183 ;
·an air carrier is only required to compensate passengers for a long delay caused by damage to an aircraft tyre if it fails to prove that it deployed all means at its disposal for limiting the delay of the flight 184 ;
·the system of airport charges is to be approved by an independent supervisory authority and must be mandatory for all airport users 185 ;
·exception from the application of certain social legislation covers only vehicles that are used exclusively, during a particular transport operation, for the purpose of delivering items as part of the universal postal service 186 ;
·the coercive detention of a person at the head of the Land of Bavaria for the purpose of enjoining them to adopt measures to improve ambient air quality in Munich can be ordered only if a national legal basis, which is sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable in its application, exists and if the detention is proportionate 187 ;.
·residues in the form of scrap metal and fire-extinguishing water mixed with sludge and cargo residues, attributable to damage occurring on board a ship at sea, must be regarded as waste generated on board ships, within the meaning of the Regulation on shipments of waste. Such waste is, therefore, excluded from the said Regulation’s scope until it is offloaded in order to be recovered or disposed of 188 .
Estonia
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints made against Estonia by members of the public (2015-2019)
2.Public complaints against Estonia open at year-end
|
16 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
|
28 |
► |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
|
20 |
► |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
|
= 24 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy areas
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot files opened against Estonia (2015-2019)
2.Files relating to Estonia open in EU Pilot at year-end
3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: main policy areas
4.EU Pilot files: Estonia’s resolution rate in 2015-2019
III.INFRINGEMENT CASES
1.Infringement cases against Estonia open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy areas
3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a.The Commission opened 25 new infringement cases against Estonia in 2019. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:
·imposition of additional obligations on persons crossing the external EU border, in breach of the Schengen Borders Code 189 :
·incorrect transposition of the :
oDirective on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children 190
oEU rules on public procurement and concessions 191
oSolvency II Directive 192
orevised Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 193
oEnergy Efficiency Directive 194 ;
·failure to upgrade the connection of their national electronic registers on road hauliers to the new version of European Registers of Road Transport Undertakings (ERRU) 195 ;
·non-compliance with the requirements of the Energy Efficiency Directive 196 ;
·non-communication of national measures transposing the:
oIndirect Land Use Change Directive 197
oDirective amending the Oil Stocks Directive as regards the methods for calculating stockholding obligations 198
oBasic Safety Standards Directive 199 .
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 (2015-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases against Estonia (2015-2019)
3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: 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 2019
These concerned:
·failure to communicate national measures transposing the:
200 Reception Conditions Directive
201 Asylum Procedures Directive
202 Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II);
203 Directive on certain aspects of the organisation of working time in inland waterway transport.
·incorrect transposition of the:
204 Third Energy Package Directives
205 Directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes
206 Directive on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation (DAC1).
VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court rulings
There were no major Court rulings in 2019.
2.Preliminary rulings
The Court addressed the following preliminary ruling to the Estonian judiciary:
·In the absence of criteria set at EU level to determine the end-of-waste status of a specific type of waste, such end status depends on the existence of criteria laid down in a generally applicable national legal act concerning that type of waste 207 .
Ireland
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints made against Ireland by members of the public (2015-2019)
2.Public complaints against Ireland open at year-end
|
178 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
79 |
► |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
100 |
► |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 157 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy areas
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot files opened against Ireland (2015-2019)
2.Files relating to Ireland open in EU Pilot at year-end
3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: policy areas
4.EU Pilot files: Ireland’s resolution rate in 2015-2019
III.INFRINGEMENT CASES
1.Infringement cases against Ireland open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy areas
3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a.The Commission opened 38 new infringement cases against Ireland in 2019. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:
·failure to apply the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive to peat extraction operations 208 ;
·incorrect transposition of the Water Framework Directive 209 ;
·late reporting on the environmental status of marine waters under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive 210 ;
·failure to fulfil the obligations under the EU rules establishing a single European railway area 211 ;
·failure to establish penalties in accordance with the Invasive Alien Species Regulation 212 ;
·non-communication of national measures transposing the:
oDirectives on human tissues and cells 213
oBasic Safety Standards Directive 214
oDirective on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (IORPs II Directive) 215
oBank Creditors Hierarchy Directive 216 .
b.[The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. It concerns:
·failure to correctly implement EU law establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector 217 .
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 (2015-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases against Ireland (2015-2019)
3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: 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 2019
These concerned:
·non-compliance with the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 218 ;
·failure to correctly transpose certain requirements of the Radioactive Waste Directive 219 ;
·non-communication of national measures transposing the:
220 Commission Implementing Directive on minimum conditions for examining certain varieties of agricultural plant species
221 Commission Implementing Directive on characteristics to be covered as a minimum by the examination and the minimum conditions for examining certain varieties of agricultural plant species
222 Commission Implementing Directive on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants
223 Directives on human tissues and cells
224 minimum requirements for enhancing worker mobility between Member States by improving the acquisition and preservation of supplementary pension rights
225 labour rights for seafarers
226 Indirect Land Use Change Directive.
VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court rulings
The Court ruled that:
·Ireland has failed to comply with an earlier Court judgment 227 , which required that a remedial environmental impact assessment be carried out for a large windfarm development in Derrybrien. The Court ordered Ireland to pay a lump sum of EUR 5 000 000 and a periodic penalty payment of EUR 15 000 for every day of delay until compliance is achieved 228 .
·Ireland has not complied with the requirements of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive in multiple agglomerations as it had failed to put in place compliant waste water collecting systems to tackle excessive spills from storm water overflows and failed to provide adequate treatment of urban waste waters 229 .
2.Preliminary rulings
The Court addressed the following preliminary rulings to the Irish judiciary:
·Although a third-country national who is married to a Union citizen may lose a right of residence in a Member State following the departure of the Union citizen from the host Member State, the procedural safeguards laid down in the Free Movement Directive apply to the expulsion of that third-country national from the host Member State 230 .
·An EU citizen who acquired in another Member State the status of worker for the activity he pursued there for a period of 2 weeks before becoming involuntarily unemployed retains this status for a further period of no less than 6 months. The citizen must register as a jobseeker with the relevant employment office. Any entitlement under national law to social security benefits or social assistance may be conditional upon a specified period of employment if the same condition is applicable to nationals of the Member State concerned 231 .
·The public prosecutor’s offices of a Member State, such as those of Germany, which may be subject, directly or indirectly, to directions or instructions from the executive, such as a Minister for Justice, in the issuing a European arrest warrant cannot be regarded as an ‘issuing judicial authority’ 232 .
·The Prosecutor General of a Member State, such as that of Lithuania, whose legal position affords him a guarantee of independence from the executive when issuing a European arrest warrant is an ‘issuing judicial authority’. When the competent issuing judicial authority under national law is not itself a court, the decision to issue such a European arrest warrant must be subject to court proceedings, which meet the requirements of effective judicial protection 233 .
·The fact that a Member State, designated as responsible for the examination of an application for international protection pursuant to the rules set out in the Dublin Regulation, has notified its intention to withdraw from the European Union in accordance with Article 50 TEU does not oblige the Member State with which the application was lodged to itself examine the application 234 .
·It is not necessary for a person to pursue an activity as an employed person in a Member State in order to be entitled to family benefits if his or her children are living in another Member State 235 .
Greece
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints made against Greece by members of the public (2015-2019)
2.Public complaints against Greece open at year-end
|
121 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
121 |
► |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
139 |
► |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 103 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy areas
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot files opened against Greece (2015-2019)
2.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: policy areas
3.Files relating to Greece open in EU Pilot at year-end
4.EU Pilot files: Greece’s resolution rate in 2015-2019
III.INFRINGEMENT CASES
1.Infringement cases against Greece open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New infringement cases opened in 2019: policy areas
3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a.The Commission opened 39 new infringement cases against Greece in 2019. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:
·non-communication of national measures transposing the:
oDirective on conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for research and studies 236
oDirective on combating terrorism 237
oDirective on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (IORPs II Directive) 238
oBasic Safety Standards Directive 239
oDirective amending the Oil Stocks Directive as regards the methods for calculating stockholding obligations 240 ;
·failure to effectively implement the rules on the 112 emergency number, in particular by not ensuring equivalent access for disabled users 241 ;
·failure to submit information about operators of essential services identified under the EU law on the security of network and information systems 242 ;
·incorrect transposition of the Directive on criminal sanctions for market abuse 243 ;
·incorrect transposition of the Directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children 244 ;
·obstacles to the recognition of professional qualifications 245 ;
·incorrect implementation of the SEPA Regulation 246 ;
·non-conformity of certain provisions with the third Motor Insurance Directive 247 ;
·lack of measures to address waste problems in Corfu Island 248 ;
·incorrect transposition of the Industrial Emissions Directive and failure to protect citizens from noxious air pollution from several power plants, as required by the said Directive 249 ;
·failure to comply with the nitrogen dioxide (NO2) limit values set by the Air Quality Directive, to put in place adequate sampling points to properly monitor NO2 concentrations and to make available a complete air quality report 250 ;
·incorrect transposition of the revised Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 251 ;
·failure to comply with the minimum requirements of control on driving and resting times, and on the use of tachographs 252 ;
·non-compliance with the requirements of the Energy Efficiency Directive 253 ;
·failure to establish penalties in accordance with the Invasive Alien Species Regulation 254 .
b.[The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. It concerns:
·failure to establish the necessary conservation measures and objectives for all sites designated as Special Areas of Conservation under the Habitats Directive 255 .
c.[The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU. It concerns:
·failure to comply with a Court judgment establishing that Greece had failed to protect its waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources 256 .
IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES
1.Late transposition infringement cases against Greece open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases against Greece (2015-2019)
3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: 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 2019
These concerned:
·non-communication of national measures transposing the:
257 Long Term Residents Directive
258 Reception Conditions Directive
259 Asylum Procedures Directive
260 labour rights for seafarers
261 Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II)
262 Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD1)
263 Directive as regards access to anti-money laundering information (DAC5)
264 Directive on antitrust damages actions
265 Indirect Land Use Change Directive;
·disproportionate charges for issuance of residence permits;
·failure to establish a general system for the protection of wild birds, prohibiting, in particular, their deliberate killing through poison baits;
·shortage of staff assigned to the services responsible for veterinary controls;
·non-compliance with the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 266 ;
·incorrect implementation of EU rules on civil aviation security 267 ..
VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court rulings
The Court ruled that:
·Greece introduced illegal additional requirements to the training of mediators, in breach of EU rules 268 .
·Greece’s application of a reduced excise duty rate on the spirit drinks, Tsipouro and Tsikoudia, produced by systematic distilleries, and the application of a super-reduced rate to those spirits produced by small occasional distillers are both incompatible with EU law 269 .
2.Preliminary rulings
The Court addressed the following preliminary rulings to the Greek judiciary:
·The Directive on the transfer of undertakings may, under certain conditions, apply in a situation where the transferor, the transferee or both envisage not only the pursuit of the activity transferred, but also the future liquidation of the transferee itself 270 .
·When the public is not put in a position to actually participate in the environmental impact assessment for a project, a time limit cannot be imposed on the public to bring proceedings against the decision granting consent for the project 271 .
·Greek legislation prohibiting a monk who has the status of lawyer in another Member State from registering at the bar, on account of the incompatibility between the status of monk and
272 the profession of lawyer, is contrary to EU law.
Spain
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints made against Spain by members of the public (2015-2019)
2.Public complaints against Spain open at year-end
|
395 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
542 |
► |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
537 |
► |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 400 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy areas
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot files opened against Spain (2015-2019)
2.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: main policy areas
3.Files relating to Spain open in EU Pilot at year-end
4.EU Pilot files: Spain’s resolution rate in 2015-2019
III.INFRINGEMENT CASES
1.Infringement cases against Spain open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy areas
3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a.The Commission opened 31 new infringement cases against Spain in 2019.
These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:
·incorrect transposition of the:
oDirective on criminal sanctions for market abuse 273
oDirective on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children 274
oEnergy Efficiency Directive 275
oEU legislation on railway safety 276
oDirective on minimum safety requirements for tunnels in the trans-European road network 277
oUniversal Service Directive, in particular by not ensuring equivalent access for disabled users to the 112 emergency number 278 ;
·incompatibility of national rules on paid annual leave with EU labour legislation 279 ;
·delays in the implementation of the Geo-blocking Regulation, by failing to provide for measures and mechanisms for consumer protection 280 ;
·failure to ensure that urban waste water is adequately collected and treated 281 ;
·incorrect application of the Merger Directive 282 ;
·failure to take the necessary measures to enhance protection of the species of the turtle dove as required by the Birds Directive 283 ;
·failure to adopt a national programme for the implementation of a spent fuel and radioactive waste management policy that is compliant with the requirements of the Radioactive Waste Directive 284 ;
·discrimination on the taxation of rental income of non-resident individuals in breach of Article 63 TFEU 285 ;
·obligation to appoint a fiscal representative in Spain in violation of Articles 45, 49 and 56 of TFEU 286 ;
·failure to upgrade the connection of their national electronic registers on road hauliers to the new version of European Registers of Road Transport Undertakings (ERRU) 287 ;
·failure to fulfil the obligations under the EU rules establishing a single European railway area 288 ;
·non-communication of national measures transposing the:
oDirective on the use of passenger name records 289
oAsylum Procedures Directive 290
oDirective on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (IORPs II Directive) 291
oBank Creditors Hierarchy Directive 292
othe Basic Safety Standards Directive 293 .
b.The Commission referred four case(s) to the Court under Article 258 TFEU.
They involve the following infringements:
·failure to take adequate measures to protect the groundwater bodies that feed the Doñana wetlands and to prevent the deterioration of protected habitats in these wetlands, in violation of the Water Framework Directive and the Habitats Directive 294 ;
·absence of flood risk management plans, required under the Floods Directive, for all seven river basin districts in the Canary Islands 295 ;
·failure to comply with the requirements on individual metering in multi-apartment and multi-purpose buildings laid down in the Energy Efficiency Directive 296 ;
·failure to fulfil obligations under Articles 21, 45, 56 and 63 TFEU, and Articles 28, 31, 36 and 40 of the EEA Agreement as regards certain features of the obligation to provide information on assets located abroad (Modelo 720) 297 .
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 Spain open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases against Spain (2015-2019)
3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy areas
V.Referrals to the Court
The Commission referred one case to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.
·concerned a failure to transpose the Data Protection Law Enforcement Directive 298 .
VI.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES
Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2019
These concerned:
·incorrect transposition of the Third Energy Package Directives 299 ;
·incompatibility of the Spanish procedural law with the Directive on unfair contract terms and breach of Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights 300 ;
·obstacles to the free movement of food supplements 301 ;
·trapping of five species of wild finches beyond the strict conditions set by the Directive on the conservation of wild birds 302 ;
·incorrect transposition of the Directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes 303 ;
·failure to communicate national measures transposing the:
304 Directive on tobacco products
305 Directive on conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for research and studies
306 Directive on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals as beneficiaries of international protection
307 Reception Conditions Directive
308 Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II)
309 Mortgage Credit Directive
310 Offshore Safety Directive
311 Nuclear Safety Directive.
VII.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court rulings 312
The Court ruled the following:
·Spain has not adopted on time, as required by the Water Framework Directive, the second round of river basin management plans for Lanzarote, Fuerteventura, Gran Canaria, Tenerife, La Gomera, La Palma and El Hierro 313 .
·The Court dismissed the Commission’s action against Spain concerning the adoption and/or revision of waste management plans. The Court found that the Commission had prematurely opened the pre-litigation stage of the infringement procedure and, consequently, dismissed the action as inadmissible 314 .
2.Preliminary rulings
The Court addressed the following preliminary rulings to the Spanish judiciary:
·The requirements stemming from the principles of effectiveness and ex officio review of unfair contract terms apply also to proceedings for a European payment order. Therefore, the courts seized with a request to issue a European order for payment must be able to request from the creditor additional information on contract terms, in order to assess the possible unfairness of such terms 315 .
·Figurative signs may trigger directly in the consumer’s mind the image of products whose designation of origin is protected, on account of their ‘conceptual proximity’ to such a designation. Consequently, a protected designation of origin, such as ‘queso manchego’, may be evoked through the use of figurative signs, including where such figurative signs are used by a producer established in the geographical area associated with the designation of origin, but whose products, similar or comparable to those protected by the designation of origin, are not covered by it 316 .
·On the basis of the Working Time Directive and in light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, the Member States must require employers to set up an objective, reliable and accessible system enabling the duration of time worked each day by each worker to be measured 317 .
·A financial contribution imposed on certain electricity generating undertakings to finance savings and energy efficiency plans managed by a public authority does not constitute a public service obligation under the Electricity Directive 318 .
·National legislation may set taxes on the production and storage of nuclear fuel and waste which apply only to electricity-generating undertakings using nuclear energy and whose main objective is to increase the amount of revenue for the electricity financial system. Such legislation does not violate the principle of non-discrimination provided for by the Electricity Directive 319 .
·EU law does not prohibit a tax on the use of inland waters for the production of electricity which does not incentivise the efficient use of water, nor establish mechanisms for the preservation and protection of public water resources, as it is focused solely and exclusively on the income-generating capacity of hydroelectricity producers. A tax on the use of inland waters to produce electricity which exclusively affects hydroelectricity generators operating in river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community and not those operating in river basins encompassing a single autonomous community is not considered discriminatory 320 .
·Immunity implies lifting the pre-trial detention measure imposed prior to the election of the person concerned as member of the European Parliament, allowing him or her to take part in the inaugural session of the European Parliament. However, if the competent national court considers that the detention measure should be maintained after that person has become member of the European Parliament, it must, as soon as possible, request that the European Parliament waive
321 that immunity.
·Calculating the length of service of a part-time worker whose working hours are ‘distributed vertically’ over the whole year (a vertical cyclical part-time worker) solely on the basis of periods actually worked when it comes to the right to pay rise and promotion, while not doing the same for comparable full-time workers, may be discriminatory and therefore breach the Framework Agreement on Part-Time Work and the Equal Treatment Directive 322 .
France
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints made against France by members of the public (2015-2019)
2.Public complaints against France open at year-end
|
280 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
291 |
► |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
331 |
► |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 240 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy areas
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot files opened against France (2015-2019)
2.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: main policy areas
3.Files relating to France open in EU Pilot at year-end
4.EU Pilot files: France’s resolution rate in 2015-2019
III.INFRINGEMENT CASES
1.Infringement cases against France open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy areas
3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a.The Commission opened 32 new infringement cases against France in 2019. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:
·failure to award authorisations and concessions in the hydroelectric power sector in line with the Services Directive and public procurement rules 323 ;
·unjustified restrictions on providers of services related to energy efficiency, in breach of the Services Directive 324 ;
·delays in the implementation of the Geo-blocking Regulation, by failing to provide for measures and mechanisms for consumer protection 325 ;
·incorrect transposition of the Free movement Directive 326 as regards the delivery of residence documents 327 ;
·authorisation of non-selective hunting practices which are not in line with the Birds Directive 328 ;
·failure to take the necessary measures to enhance protection of the species of the turtle dove as required by the Birds Directive 329 ;
·failure to comply with the Water Framework Directive concerning the ecological continuity of the Rhine River 330 ;
·failure to fulfil the obligations under the EU rules establishing a single European railway area 331 ;
·tax disadvantages related to personal care and ‘help at home' services concerning some resident and non-resident taxpayers 332 ;
·incorrect transposition of the:
oDirective on criminal sanctions for market abuse 333
oDirective on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children 334
oDirective on public access to environmental information 335
orevised Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 336 ;
·non-communication of national measures transposing the:
oDirective on conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for research and studies 337
oDirective on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (IORPs II Directive) 338
oBank Creditors Hierarchy Directive 339
oEnergy Efficiency Directive 340 .
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 France open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases against France (2015-2019)
3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: 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 2019
These concerned:
·failure to communicate national measures transposing the:
341 Directive on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals as beneficiaries of international protection
342 Reception Conditions Directive
343 Asylum Procedures Directive
344 minimum requirements for enhancing worker mobility between Member States by improving the acquisition and preservation of supplementary pension rights
345 Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II)
346 Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD1)
347 Indirect Land Use Change Directive.
VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court rulings 348
The Court ruled that:
·France has systematically and persistently exceeded the limit values for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) since 2010 in 12 agglomerations and air quality zones. It has also failed to take the appropriate measures to keep the exceedance period as short as possible 349 .
2.Preliminary rulings
The Court addressed the following preliminary rulings to the French judiciary:
·Airbnb provides an information society service separate from accommodation services to which it relates. Such a service does not aim only at providing immediate accommodation services, but rather it consists essentially of providing a tool for presenting and finding accommodation for rent, thereby facilitating the conclusion of future rental agreements. Therefore, that type of service is not merely ancillary to an overall accommodation service. Second, an intermediation service, such as the one provided by Airbnb Ireland, is in no way indispensable to the provision of accommodation services, since the guests and hosts have a number of other channels in that respect, some of which are long-standing. Finally, there is no indication that Airbnb sets or caps the amount of the rents charged by the hosts using that platform 350 .
·The procedural rules applicable to the authorisation of plant protection products, in particular products containing glyphosate, are valid; therefore, there are no grounds to question the validity of the regulation on placing plant protection products on the market. 351 .
·The organic production logo of the EU cannot be placed on products derived from animals that have been slaughtered in accordance with religious rites without first being stunned. The organic logo of the EU aims to reassure consumers that products bearing it have been obtained in observance of the highest standards, in particular in the area of animal welfare 352 .
·Mortgage loans reserved for employees of an undertaking and granted for private purposes fall within the scope of the Directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts 353 . The Court confirmed that the notion of ‘seller or supplier’ has to be interpreted broadly, and it is not necessary that the contract reflect a person’s main activity 354 .
·The prohibition on processing certain categories of sensitive personal data applies also to operators of search engines. The search engine operator has, in principle, the obligation to de-reference, if asked by the person concerned. To this end, the search engine operator must carry out a case-by-case assessment to verify if the publication of the ‘sensitive’ data and personal data on criminal convictions is strictly necessary to protect the freedom of information of internet users potentially interested in accessing this web page by means of such a search 355 .
·The right to be forgotten applies within the EU. Search engine operators have to take sufficiently effective measures to ensure the effective protection of this right, which does not necessarily apply outside of the EU 356 .
·The Gas Directive allows a decision of a regulatory authority settling a dispute between energy companies to extend its effects to the situation of the parties before the emergence of that dispute, by requiring one party to bring a contract for the transmission of natural gas in line with EU law for the entire contractual period 357 .
Croatia
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints made against Croatia by members of the public (2015-2019) 358
2.Public complaints against Croatia open at year-end
|
51 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
70 |
► |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
64 |
► |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 57 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy areas
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot files opened against Croatia (2015-2019)
2.Files relating to Croatia open in EU Pilot at year-end
3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: policy areas
4.EU Pilot files: Croatia’s resolution rate in 2015-2019 359
III.INFRINGEMENT CASES
1.Infringement cases against Croatia open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New infringement cases opened in 2019: policy areas
v
3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a.The Commission opened 26 new infringement cases against Croatia in 2019. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:
·failure to effectively implement the rules on the 112 emergency number, in particular by not ensuring equivalent access for disabled users 360 ;
·incorrect transposition of the Directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children 361 ;
·non-communication of national measures transposing the Bank Creditors Hierarchy Directive 362 ;
·the incorrect transposition of the Solvency II Directive 363 ;
·non-compliance with the requirements of the Energy Efficiency Directive 364 ;
·failure to submit Croatia’s second cost-optimal report required by the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 365 ;
·non-conformity of the Croatian Water Act with the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, the Habitats Directive and the Water Framework Directive 366 ;
·incorrect transposition of the revised Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 367 ;
·non-conformity of national legislation with the Groundwater Directive 368 ;
·non-conformity of national legislation with the Drinking Water Directive 369 ;
·non-conformity of Croatian legislation with the amended Ambient Air Quality Directive 370 ;
·non-conformity of national legislation with EU rules on public procurement and concessions 371 ;
incorrect transposition of the SEVESO III Directive 372 ;
·late reporting on the environmental status of marine waters under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive 373 ;
·failure to fulfil obligations under the Ship Recycling Regulation 374 ;
·restrictions for lawyers to provide multidisciplinary services, advertising restrictions and limitations on the right to practice 375 ;
·failure to comply with minimum safety requirements for tunnels in the trans-European road network 376 .
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 (2015-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases against Croatia (2015-2019)
3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: 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 2019
These concerned:
·non-communication of national measures transposing the:
377 Directive on tobacco products
378 labour rights for seafarers
379 Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II);
·unjustified requirements imposed on the activities of driving schools 380 ;
·incorrect transposition of the Directive on unfair commercial practices 381 ;
·failure to meet EU obligations on stepping up cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime 382 ;
·the national law on the privatisation of Industrija Nafte d.d. (INA), which granted special powers to the Croatian State in INA in violation of Art.icles 49 and 63 TFEU 383 ;
·incorrect transposition of the Solvency II Directive 384 ;
·incorrect transposition of the Habitats Directive 385 ;
·incorrect transposition of the Birds Directive 386 ;
·failure to notify the national programme for the implementation of a spent fuel and radioactive waste management policy 387 ;
·failure to provide the required quality management system for operational parts of the flag State-related activities 388 .
VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court rulings
The Court ruled that:
·Croatia has breached the Waste Framework Directive as it did not classify as waste a large amount of stone-like material deposited in Biljane Donje, it did not take the necessary measures to ensure that waste management is carried out without endangering human health and harming the environment, and it did not ensure that the waste is properly treated by the waste holder 389 .
2.Preliminary rulings
No major preliminary rulings were addressed to the Croatian judiciary in 2019.
Italy
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints made against Italy by members of the public (2015-2019)
2.Public complaints against Italy open at year-end
|
732 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
375 |
► |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
679 |
► |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 428 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy areas
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot files opened against Italy (2015-2019)
2.Files relating to Italy open in EU Pilot at year-end
3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: main policy areas
4.EU Pilot files: Italy’s resolution rate in 2015-2019
III.INFRINGEMENT CASES
1.Infringement cases against Italy open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy areas
3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a.The Commission opened 28 new infringement cases against Italy in 2019. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:
·incorrect transposition of the:
oDirective on criminal sanctions for market abuse 390
oDirective on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children 391
oDirective on Attacks against Information Systems 392
oEU rules on public procurement and concessions 393
oEnergy Efficiency Directive 394
oFixed-term Work Directive 395
oRoad Tunnel Safety Directive 396 ;
·failure to award authorisations and concessions in the hydroelectric power sector in line with the Services Directive and public procurement rules 397 ;
·failure to establish Special Areas of Conservation, as well as conservation objectives and measures to maintain or restore the protected species and habitats to a favourable condition, as required by the Habitats Directive 398 ;
·failure to upgrade the connection of national electronic registers on road hauliers to the new version of European Registers of Road Transport Undertakings (ERRU) 399 ;
·preferential taxation on property on Italian soil for Italians living abroad 400 ;
·failure to adopt measures on penalties for infringements of the Regulation on fluorinated greenhouse gases 401 ;
·failure to ensure that urban waste water is adequately collected and treated 402 ;
·Non-communication of the:
oSeafarers Directive 403
oBasic Safety Standards Directive 404 .
b.The Commission referred four cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They involve the following infringements:
·failure to ensure that all agglomerations with a population of more than 2 000 are provided with collecting systems for urban waste water and that urban waste water entering collecting systems is adequately treated before discharge, as required by the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive 405 ;
·exceedance of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) limit values set by the Air Quality Directive 406 ;
·failure to comply with the rules on the taxation of energy products and electricity by applying a reduction to excise duty for petrol and gas oil used as motor fuel in regional legislation 407 ;
·failure to notify transposition measures under the Basic Safety Standards Directive 408 .
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 Italy open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases against Italy (2015-2019)
3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: 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 2019
These concerned:
·failure to adopt all transposition measures for the Indirect Land Use Change Directive 409 ;
·failure to comply with Articles 139, 144 and 148(5) of the Union Customs Code regarding Fast Customs Corridors 410 ;
·incorrect transposition of the Directive on unfair commercial practices 411 :
·incorrect application of the Directive on the minimum level of training of seafarers 412 ;
·Non-communication of national measures transposing the:
413 Commission Implementing Directive on protective measures against the introduction of organisms harmful to plants
414 Seafarers Directive.
VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court rulings 415
The Court ruled that Italy:
·failed to fulfill its obligations under the Directive on testing of human tissues and cells by failing to adopt the required national transposition measures 416 ;
·failed to adequately prevent further spread of the quarantine harmful organism Xylella fastidiosa in Apulia 417 ;
·failed to comply with the Radioactive Waste Directive, since it has not notified a final adopted national programme for radioactive waste and spent fuel management 418 ;
·had not fulfilled its obligations under the Landfill Directive as regards 44 landfills, by having failed to adopt all measures necessary to close or to bring those landfill sites into line with the Directive 419 ;
·failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of the Decision on the system of own resources and Articles 6, 10, 12 and 13 of the Regulation on making own resources available 420 ;
·failed to publish a notice on the extension of a motorway concession, thus breaching public procurement legislation 421 .
2.Preliminary rulings
The Court addressed the following preliminary rulings to the Italian judiciary:
·Member States are obliged, under the Fixed-Term Work Directive, to provide effective measures designed to prevent and punish the misuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts 422 .
·National legislation under which the amount of royalties payable by holders of licences for the extraction of natural gas is calculated on the basis of an index based on the long- and medium-term market prices of oil and other fuels rather than short-term market prices is not incompatible with EU law 423 .
·The Waste Framework Directive 424 and the Renewable Energy Directive 425 do not prevent national legislation from refusing the replacement of methane with a substance derived from the chemical treatment of used vegetable oils, as a power source for an electric power plant producing atmospheric emissions, on the ground that the respective substance is not included in the list of categories of biomass fuels authorised for that purpose 426 .
·National legislation which classifies waste incineration facilities as ‘strategic infrastructure and installations of major national importance’ is compatible with the ’waste hierarchy’ principle under the Waste Framework Directive 427 as long as that legislation is compatible with the other provisions of that Directive which lay down more specific obligations. National legislation which revises upwards the capacity of existing waste incineration facilities and provides for the construction of new installations of that kind constitutes a ‘plan or programme’, within the meaning of the Strategic Environmental Assesment Directive 428 , likely to have significant environmental effects and must, consequently, be subject to a prior environmental assessment 429 .
·The provisions of the Regulation on public passenger transport services by rail and road which govern the award of public service contracts do not apply to award procedures carried out before 3 December 2019 430 .
·The jurisdiction of a Member State court with respect to passenger rights in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights must be assessed in light of the Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters 431 .
·National legislation providing for the automatic termination of employment at the age of 60 for aircraft pilots engaged in activities associated with protecting the national security of a Member State is compatible with EU law if it is necessary for public security and does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve this objective 432 .
·National authorities which intend directly to award a public service contract for the transport of passengers by rail are not required to publish or communicate to any interested economic operators all the information necessary 433 .
Cyprus
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints made against Cyprus by members of the public (2015-2019)
2.Public complaints against Cyprus open at year-end
|
54 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
51 |
► |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
40 |
► |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 65 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy areas
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot files opened against Cyprus (2015-2019)
2.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: policy areas
One new EU Pilot file opened in 2019, in the area of energy.
3.Files relating to Cyprus open in EU Pilot at year-end
4.EU Pilot files: Cyprus’s resolution rate in 2015-2019
III.INFRINGEMENT CASES
1.Infringement cases against Cyprus open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy areas
3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a.The Commission opened 43 new infringement cases against Cyprus in 2019. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:
·delays in the implementation of the Geo-blocking Regulation., by failing to provide for measures and mechanisms for consumer protection 434 ;
·incorrect application of the Investor Compensation Scheme Directive 435 ;
·general and persistent failure to ensure that plans and projects undergo an appropriate assessment of their implications on Natura 2000 sites, as required by the Habitats Directive 436 ;
·late reporting on the environmental status of marine waters under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive 437 ;
·failure to upgrade the connection of their national electronic registers on road hauliers to the new version of European Registers of Road Transport Undertakings (ERRU) 438 ;
·non-compliance with the requirements of the Energy Efficiency Directive 439 ;
·incorrect application of the VAT rules on the lease of yachts 440 ;
·non-conformity of national legislation with EU rules on public procurement and concessions 441 ;
·specific rules concerning the access to activities of engineers and architects 442 ;
·non-communication of national measures transposing the:
oDirective on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (IORPs II Directive) 443
oBank Creditors Hierarchy Directive 444
oDirective amending the Oil Stocks Directive as regards the methods for calculating stockholding obligations 445
oBasic Safety Standards Directive 446 .
b.[The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. It concerns:
·lack of proper collection and treatment of urban waste waters of various agglomerations in breach of the Urban Waste Water Directive 447 .
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 (2015-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases against Cyprus (2015-2019)
3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: 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 2019
These concerned:
·non-communication of national measures transposing the:
448 Commission Implementing Directive as regards isolation distances for Sorghum spp.
449 Commission Implementing Directive on minimum conditions for examining certain varieties of agricultural plant species
450 Directive on conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for research and studies
451 Reception Conditions Directive
452 Asylum Procedures Directive
453 minimum requirements for enhancing worker mobility between Member States by improving the acquisition and preservation of supplementary pension rights
454 Indirect Land Use Change Directive
455 Mortgage Credit Directive
456 Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD1);
·incorrect transposition of the Third Energy Package Directives 457 ;
·failure to provide the required quality management system for operational parts of the flag State-related activities 458 .
VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court rulings
There were no major Court rulings in 2019.
2.Preliminary rulings
No major preliminary rulings were addressed to the Cyprus judiciary in 2019.
Latvia
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints made against Latvia by members of the public (2015-2019)
2.Public complaints against Latvia open at year-end
|
20 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
31 |
► |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
27 |
► |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 24 |
► |
Complaints open at end 2019 |
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy areas
I.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot files opened against Latvia (2015-2019)
2.Files relating to Latvia open in EU Pilot at year-end
3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: policy areas
4.EU Pilot files: Latvia’s resolution rate in 2015-2019
II.INFRINGEMENT CASES
1.Infringement cases against Latvia open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy areas
3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a.The Commission opened 22 new infringement cases against Latvia in 2019. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:
·failure to ensure adequate protection of habitats and species of EU interest by designating nature protection areas to complete the NATURA 2000 network 459
·failure to ensure that urban waste water is adequately collected and treated 460
·incorrect implementation of the SEPA Regulation 461 ;
·incorrect transposition of the:
oDirective on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children 462
oEU rules on public procurement and concessions 463
oDirective on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes 464
oEnergy Efficiency Directive 465
oRadioactive Waste Directive 466 ;
·non-communication of national measures transposing the:
oDirective on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (IORPs II Directive) 467
oBank Creditors Hierarchy Directive 468 .
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.]
III.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES
1.Late transposition infringement cases against Latvia open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases against Latvia (2015-2019)
3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: 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.
IV.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES
Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2019
These concerned:
·restrictions to registration of right hand drive cars 469 ;
·discriminatory taxation of real estate in Riga City;
·non-compliance with the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 470 ;
·non-communication of national measures transposing the:
471 Commission Implementing Directive as regards isolation distances for Sorghum spp.
472 Reception Conditions Directive
473 Asylum Procedures Directive
474 Anti-tax avoidance Directive.
V.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court rulings 475
There were no major Court rulings in 2019.
2.Preliminary rulings
The Court addressed the following preliminary rulings to the Latvian judiciary:
·recording of a video of police officers in a police station, while a statement is being made, and the publication of that video on a video website, on which users can send, watch and share videos, are covered by the EU rules on data protection. Further, such recording and such publication on a video website may constitute a processing of personal data solely for journalistic purposes 476 .
·where the customs value of goods such as medicinal products is calculated by applying the deductive method (this is one of the methods used for calculating the customs value), the competent national customs administration must, in order to identify ‘similar goods’, take into account any relevant element. Such elements could be the respective composition of these goods, their substitutability with regard to their effects and their commercial interchangeability 477 .
Directive 2014/24/EU , INF/19/4251 .
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Brussels, 31.7.2020
SWD(2020) 147 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
Part III: Member States
Accompanying the document
Report from the Commission
Monitoring the application of European Union law
2019 Annual Report
{COM(2020) 350 final}
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Sweden
United Kingdom
Methodology and explanations
Lithuania
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints made against Lithuania by members of the public (2015-2019)
2.Public complaints against Lithuania open at year-end
|
30 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
32 |
► |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
33 |
► |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 29 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy areas
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot files opened against Lithuania (2015-2019)
2.Files relating to Lithuania open in EU Pilot at year-end
3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: main policy areas
4.EU Pilot files: Lithuania’s resolution rate in 2015-2019
III.INFRINGEMENT CASES
1.Infringement cases against Lithuania open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy areas
3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a.The Commission opened 13 new infringement cases against Lithuania in 2019. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:
·failure to ensure that urban waste water is adequately collected and treated 1 ;
·late reporting on the environmental status of marine waters under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive 2 ;
·incorrect transposition of the:
oDirective on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children 3
oEU rules on public procurement and concessions 4
oEnergy Efficiency Directive 5 ;
·non-communication of national measures transposing the:
oReception Conditions Directive 6
oBank Creditors Hierarchy Directive 7 .
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 Lithuania open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases against Lithuania (2015-2019)
3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: 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 2019
These concerned:
·restrictions to the acquisition of agricultural land;
·failure to communicate national measures transposing the:
Asylum Procedures Directive 8
Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II) 9
Council Directive on tax dispute resolution mechanisms in the European Union 10 .
VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court rulings 11
There were no major Court rulings in 2019.
2.Preliminary rulings
The Court addressed the following preliminary rulings to the Lithuanian judiciary:
·The Court clarified the conditions upon which in-house transactions concluded by public authorities are compatible with EU public procurement legislation 12 .
·A Member State may, on grounds of public policy such as in the specific circumstances combating the incitement to hatred of the Baltic States based on nationality, impose a requirement to temporarily distribute or retransmit a television channel from another Member State only in pay-to-view packages 13 .
·Telecommunications companies are required to transmit location information for free to the 112 emergency call authorities, even if the call is received from a mobile phone which is not equipped with a SIM card. When determining accuracy and reliability criteria, Member States need to ensure that the location information is useful for emergency services to intervene 14 .
·National legislation to combat unfair commercial practices may prohibit buyers of raw milk to pay a different purchase price to producers who, on the basis of the daily quantity of raw milk sold that is of identical composition and quality and delivered via the same method, must be regarded as belonging to the same group 15 .
·Member States should tax as cigars or cigarillos tobacco products with an outer wrapper of natural tobacco partially covered, at the filter, by an additional paper layer, which may make them visually similar to cigarettes 16 .
·The exemption from excise duty applies to denatured ethyl alcohol contained in cosmetics or mouthwashes which are nevertheless consumed as alcoholic beverages, although not intended for human consumption, even if the importer of products from another Member State labelled them with a view to increasing the sales 17 .
Luxembourg
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints made against Luxembourg by members of the public (2015-2019)
2.Public complaints against Luxembourg open at year-end
|
47 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
28 |
► |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
34 |
► |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 41 |
► |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy areas
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot files opened against Luxembourg (2015-2019)
2.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: main policy areas
3.Files relating to Luxembourg open in EU Pilot at year-end
4.EU Pilot files: Luxembourg’s resolution rate in 2015-2019
III.INFRINGEMENT CASES
1.Infringement cases against Luxembourg open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy areas
3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a.The Commission opened 32 new infringement cases against Luxembourg in 2019. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:
·incorrect transposition of the:
oDirective on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children 18
oEnvironmental Quality Standards Directive 19
orevised Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 20 ;
·non-compliance with the requirements of the Energy Efficiency Directive 21 ;
·non-communication of national measures transposing the:
oDirective on combating terrorism 22
oDirective on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (IORPs II Directive) 23
oDirective amending the Oil Stocks Directive as regards the methods for calculating stockholding obligations 24 .
b.The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU and Article 260(2) TFEU.
IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES
1.Late transposition infringement cases against Luxembourg open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases against Luxembourg (2015-2019)
3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: 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 2019
These concerned:
·failure to submit their second cost-optimal report required by the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 25 ;
·failure to communicate national measures transposing the:
Commission Implementing Directive as regards isolation distances for Sorghum spp. 26
Commission Implementing Directive on minimum conditions for examining certain varieties of agricultural plant species 27
Commission Implementing Directive on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants
Reception Conditions Directive 28
Asylum Procedures Directive 29
Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II) 30 ;
Directive on certain aspects of the organisation of working time in inland waterway transport 31 .
VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court rulings 32
There were no major Court rulings in 2019.
2.Preliminary rulings
The Court addressed the following preliminary ruling to the Luxembourgish judiciary:
the French public prosecutor’s office is regarded as an ‘issuing judicial authority’, since the independence of French public prosecutors is not called into question 33 .
Hungary
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints made against Hungary by members of the public (2015-2019)
2.Public complaints against Hungary open at year-end
|
40 |
> |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
33 |
> |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
36 |
> |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 37 |
> |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy areas
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot files opened against Hungary (2015-2019)
2.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: policy areas
3.Files relating to Hungary open in EU Pilot at year-end
4.EU Pilot files: Hungary’s resolution rate in 2015-2019
III.INFRINGEMENT CASES
1.Infringement cases against Hungary open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy areas
3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a.The Commission opened 33 new infringement cases against Hungary in 2019. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:
·non-communication of national measures transposing the:
oIndirect Land Use Change Directive 34
oDirective amending the Oil Stocks Directive as regards the methods for calculating stockholding obligations 35
oBasic Safety Standards Directive 36
oDirective on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals as beneficiaries of international protection 37
oMortgage Credit Directive 38 ;
·failure to submit information about operators of essential services identified under the EU law on the security of network and information systems 39 ;
·non-provision of food to persons held in the Hungarian transit zones at the border with Serbia, in breach of the Return Directive and the Charter of fundamental rights 40 ;
·breach of the EU exclusive competence in the area of automated DNA, fingerprint and vehicle registration data exchange 41 ;
·incorrect transposition of the Directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children 42 ;
·failure to comply with a judgment of the Court of Justice, in which the Court ruled that Hungarian legislation on the provision of mobile payment services did not comply with the principles of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services 43
·incorrect transposition of the revised Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 44 ;
·failure to put in place effective penalties for infringements related to the use of tachographs in road transport 45 ;
·non-implementation of technical requirements and administrative procedures related to air operations 46 ;
·non-conformity of national legislation with EU rules on public procurement and concessions 47
·failure to upgrade the connection of their national electronic registers on road hauliers to the new version of European Registers of Road Transport Undertakings (ERRU) 48 ;
·discriminatory tax treatment of foreign foundations 49 .
b.The Commission referred four cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. These concern:
·obstacles to retailers of imported agricultural and food products in breach of EU law on the free movement of goods 50 ;
·exclusion of non-EU nationals with long-term resident status from exercising the veterinary profession, in breach of EU legislation on long-term residence 51 ;
·incorrect implementation of EU asylum rules by adopting legislation that criminalises activities in support of asylum applications and further restricts the right to request asylum 52 ;
·failure to apply an excise duty on cigarettes below the minimum EU threshold of 60% of the applicable weighted average retail price, despite the end of the transitional period allowed for the gradual increase of that duty 53 .
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 (2015-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases against Hungary (2015-2019)
3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: 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 2019
These concerned:
·non-communication of national measures transposing the:
Commission Implementing Directive on characteristics to be covered as a minimum by the examination and the minimum conditions for examining certain varieties of agricultural plant species 54
Commission Implementing Directive on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants 55 ;
·discriminatory taxation of spirit drinks in violation of Article 110 of the Treaty by exempting from the public health tax fruit distillates (such as the national drink pálinka) and herbal drinks produced predominantly on its territory;
·inorrect transposition of the Directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes 56 ;
·failure to submit the national implementation plans required by EU legislation on the technical specifications concerning accessibility of the Union's rail system for persons with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility, and the operation and traffic management of the rail system 57 .
VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court rulings 58
The Court ruled that:
·EU law does not require a national court to set aside domestic rules of procedure conferring finality on a judgment, even if to do so would make it possible to remedy a domestic situation which is incompatible with EU law 59 .
·The Court concluded that by cancelling the rights of usufruct over agricultural land in its territory that are held, directly or indirectly, by nationals of other Member States, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from the principle of the free movement of capital and the right to property guaranteed by the Charter. A Member State seeking to justify a restriction of a fundamental freedom under the TFEU Treaty must also ensure compliance with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights 60 .
2.Preliminary rulings
The Court addressed the following preliminary rulings to the Hungarian judiciary:
·Hungary: Member States may authorise the family reunification of a refugee’s sister only if she is, on account of her state of health, unable to provide for her own needs, provided that that inability is assessed having regard to the special situation of refugees and at the end of a case-by-case examination taking into account all the relevant factors, and that the refugee is providing the material support required 61 .
·Minor restrictive effects, provided they are neither too indirect nor too uncertain, suffice to show the existence of a measure having equivalent effect within Article 35 TFEU. Such a measure needs to be justified on grounds relating to the protection of public health, and dispensing medicinal products on the basis of order forms other than nominative medical prescriptions may undermine public health 62 .
·A Member State is acting in breach of EU law if it imposes lesser penalties to resident road transport enterprises than to non-resident road transport enterprises for infringements to the rules on the use of tachographs that have the same degree of gravity 63 .
Malta
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints made against Malta by members of the public (2015-2019)
2.Public complaints against Malta open at year-end
|
24 |
> |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
34 |
> |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
29 |
> |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 29 |
> |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy areas
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot files opened against Malta (2015-2019)
2.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: main policy areas
3.Files relating to Malta open in EU Pilot at year-end
4.EU Pilot files: Malta’s resolution rate in 2015-2019
III.INFRINGEMENT CASES
1.Infringement cases against Malta open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy areas
3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a.The Commission opened 28 new infringement cases against Malta in 2019. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:
·incorrect transposition of the Directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children 64 ;
·incorrect transposition of the SEVESO III Directive 65 ;
·failure to comply with reporting obligations under EU waste legislation 66 ;
·failure to submit their second cost-optimal report required by the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 67 ;
·incorrect transposition of the revised Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 68 ;
·late reporting on the environmental status of marine waters under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive 69 ;
·failure to upgrade the connection of their national electronic registers on road hauliers to the new version of European Registers of Road Transport Undertakings (ERRU) 70 ;
·incorrect application of the Directive on marine equipment 71 ;
·non-communication of national measures transposing the:
oDirective on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (IORPs II Directive) 72
oIndirect Land Use Change Directive 73
oBasic Safety Standards Directive 74 .
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 Malta open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases against Malta (2015-2019)
3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: 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 2019
These concerned:
·non-communication of national measures transposing the:
Mortgage Credit Directive 75
Commission Implementing Directive on minimum conditions for examining certain varieties of agricultural plant species 76
Commission Implementing Directive on characteristics to be covered as a minimum by the examination and the minimum conditions for examining certain varieties of agricultural plant species 77
Commission Implementing Directive on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants 78
Reception Conditions Directive 79
Asylum Procedures Directive 80 ;
·non-compliance with the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 81 ;
·failure to correctly transpose certain requirements of the Radioactive Waste Directive 82 ;
·non-compliance with the Energy Efficiency Directive 83 ;
·incorrect application of the Directive on the minimum level of training of seafarers 84 .
VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court ruling
[There were no major Court rulings in 2019.]
2.Preliminary rulings
[No major preliminary rulings were addressed to the Maltese judiciary in 2019.]
Netherlands
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints made against the Netherlands by members of the public (2015-2019)
2.Public complaints against the Netherlands open at year-end
|
64 |
> |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
152 |
> |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
97 |
> |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 119 |
> |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy area
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot files opened against the Netherlands (2015-2019)
2.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: policy areas
3.Files relating to the Netherlands open in EU Pilot at year-end
4.EU Pilot files: Netherlands’ resolution rate in 2015-2019
III.INFRINGEMENT CASES
1.Infringement cases against the Netherlands open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy areas
3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a.The Commission opened 16 new infringement cases against the Netherlands in 2019. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:
·incorrect transposition of the:
oCross-border Health Directive 85
orevised Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 86
oobligations under the EU rules establishing a single European railway area 87 ;
·Dutch housing authorities are in breach of EU public procurement rules, as they are not considered as contracting authorities 88 ;
·failure to upgrade the connection of their national electronic registers on road hauliers to the new version of European Registers of Road Transport Undertakings (ERRU) 89 ;
·non-communication of national measures transposing the:
oDirective on the use of passenger name records 90
oDirective on the activities and supervision of institutions for the occupational retirement provision (IORPs II Directive) 91
oDirective amending the Oil Stocks Directive as regards the methods for calculating stockholding obligations 92 .
b.The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU and Article 260(2) TFEU.
IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES
1.Late transposition infringement cases against the Netherlands open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases against the Netherlands (2015-2019)
3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: 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 2019
These concerned:
·Incorrect transposition of the:
Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 93
Driving Licences Directive 94 ;
·disproportionate charges for the issuance of residence permits;
·non-communication of national measures transposing the:
Commission Implementing Directive on minimum conditions for examining certain varieties of agricultural plant species 95
Seasonal Workers Directive 96
Mortgage Credit Directive 97 .
VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court rulings 98
There were no major Court rulings in 2019.
2.Preliminary rulings
[The Court addressed the following preliminary rulings to the Dutch judiciary:
·The sale of second-hand e-books through a website constitutes communication to the public that is subject to authorisation by the author 99 .
·Meat after slaughter must be chilled in the slaughterhouse until it has reached a temperature throughout of 7 °C before being loaded into a refrigerated truck 100 .
·The French public prosecutor’s office is regarded as an ‘issuing judicial authority’, since the independence of French public prosecutors is not called into question 101 .
·Applications for family reunification by a beneficiary of international protection cannot be rejected solely on the ground of the fact that the sponsor has not provided official documentary evidence of the death of the minor’s biological parents and, consequently, that the sponsor has an actual family relationship with the minor, without taking into consideration the specific circumstances of the sponsor and the minor and the particular difficulties they have encountered before and after fleeing their country of origin 102 .
·The Member State can withdraw residence permits from family members of a third-country national who have obtained their permits further to submitting falsified documents. The fact that the beneficiaries of those permits were unaware of the fraud is irrelevant 103 .
·An EU country may withdraw the supplementary benefit to a Turkish national who returns to Turkey and who holds, at the date of his departure from the host EU country, long-term resident status 104 .
·National authorities may issue a return decision to a third-country national not subject to a visa requirement, who is present on the territory of the Member States for a short stay; such a decision could be justified if that national is considered to be a threat to public policy because he or she is suspected of having committed a criminal offence, provided that the offence is sufficiently serious in the light of its nature and of the punishment which may be imposed, to justify that national’s stay on the territory of the Member States being brought to an immediate end and, second, those authorities have consistent, objective and specific evidence to support their suspicions 105 .
·The competent authorities may, on grounds of public policy, reject an application for entry and residence on the basis of a criminal conviction imposed during a previous stay on the territory of that Member State concerned; in addition, they could withdraw a residence permit or refuse to renew it where a sentence sufficiently severe in comparison with the duration of the stay has been imposed on the applicant provided that the offence which warranted the criminal conviction is sufficiently serious to establish that it is necessary to rule out residence of that applicant and that those authorities carry out an individual assessment 106 .
·Third-country nationals legally staying (but not residing) and working in a Member State are to be issued A1 certificates for their posting in other Member States 107 .
·A person residing in his/her own Member State, employed in another Member State but working in international waters falls under the applicable legislation of the Member State of residence of that person 108 .
·The shipment to a third country of a consignment of electrical and electronic appliances constitutes a ‘shipment of waste’ within the meaning of the Regulation on shipments of waste read in conjunction with the Waste Framework Directive, where that consignment contains appliances whose good working condition has not been previously ascertained or which are not adequately protected from transport damage 109 .
·Passengers who have the right to hold their tour organiser liable for reimbursement of the cost of their air tickets cannot also claim reimbursement of the cost of those tickets from the air carrier 110 .
Austria
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints made against Austria by members of the public (2015-2019)
2.Public complaints against Austria open at year-end
|
103 |
> |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
104 |
> |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
107 |
> |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 100 |
> |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy areas
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot files opened against Austria (2015-2019)
2.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: policy areas
3.Files relating to Austria open in EU Pilot at year-end
4.EU Pilot files: Austria’s resolution rate in 2015-2019
III.INFRINGEMENT CASES
1.Infringement cases against Austria open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy areas
3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a.The Commission opened 28 new infringement cases against Austria in 2019. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:
·non communication of national measures transposing the:
oDirective amending the Oil Stocks Directive as regards the methods for calculating stockholding obligations 111
oBasic Safety Standards Directive 112 ;
·failure to submit information about operators of essential services identified under the EU law on the security of network and information systems 113 ;
·failure to award authorisations and concessions in the hydroelectric power sector in line with the Services Directive and public procurement rules 114 ;
·incorrect transposition of the Cross-border Health Directive 115 ;
·incorrect transposition of the Directive on criminal sanctions for market abuse 116 ;
·breach of the EU’s exclusive competence in the automated exchange of DNA, fingerprint and vehicle registration data 117 ;
·incorrect transposition of the Directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children 118 ;
·breach of the rules on the free movement of workers and social security by indexing the calculation of eligible family allowances, child tax credit and family tax deduction for children who are not permanently resident in Austria 119 ;
·incorrect transposition of the Directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes 120 ;
·failure to provide for a strategic environmental assessment of plans in the energy sector as required by the Strategic Environmental Assessments Directive 121 ;
·restrictions regarding access to justice in environmental procedures, not in line with the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 122 ;
·incorrect transposition of the revised Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 123 ;
·non-compliance with the requirements of the Energy Efficiency Directive 124 .
b.The Commission referred four cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They involve the following infringements:
·breach of EU public procurement rules due to construction without prior competition 125 ;
·failure to correctly apply the special VAT scheme for travel agents 126 ;
·hunting of woodcock during its reproductive period in the Land of Lower Austria, in breach of the Birds Directive 127 ;
·failure to comply with several provisions of the Train Drivers' Directive 128 .
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 (2015-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases against Austria (2015-2019)
3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: 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 2019
These concerned:
·incorrect transposition of the Consumer Rights Directive 129 ;
·non communication of national measures transposing the:
Long Term Residents Directive 130
Reception Conditions Directive 131 ;
·incorrect transposition of the Solvency II Directive 132 ;
·incompatibility of the national legislation with the Remedies Directive 133
·failure to adopt all transposition measures for the Indirect Land Use Change Directive 134 ;
·incomplete Natura 2000 network;
VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court rulings 135
The Court gave the following rulings:
·Austria failed to fulfil its obligations under EU law by setting restrictions on the location of the seat, legal form and shareholding requirements for professional companies of architects, engineers, patent attorneys, veterinarians 136 .
2.Preliminary rulings
The Court addressed the following preliminary rulings to the Austrian judiciary:
·A Member State which granted subsidiary protection status when the conditions for granting it were not met based on incorrect facts must revoke it; the fact that the person concerned cannot be accused of having misled the Member State is irrelevant 137 .
·The limitation on the recognition of previous periods of professionally relevant experience completed in another Member State for determining the entry salary for the migrant worker is possible only if the limitation applies equally to national and migrant workers and the work-related experience from another Member State is not fully comparable with the new employment position 138 .
·Natural and legal persons directly concerned by the pollution of groundwaters can rely, before national courts, on certain provisions of the Nitrates Directive 139 .
·An airline is liable for the harm caused by a spilt cup of hot coffee. It is not necessary for that accident to relate to a hazard typically associated with flight 140 .
·Workers providing services on board international trains, pursuant to a contract concluded between their employer and an undertaking established in another Member State, are not posted workers if they carry out a significant part of the work inherent to those services in the Member State where their employer is established and if they begin or end their shifts there 141 .
·The use of passenger platforms is part of the ‘minimum access package’ under the Single European Railway Directive, and infrastructure managers are required to make them available to all train operators 142 .
·The fact that part-time workers, who would otherwise have been employed on open-ended contracts, could be employed on fixed-term contracts for longer periods of time than comparable full-time workers, could be contrary to the Framework Agreement on Part-Time Work (principle of non-discrimination). Such a situation may also constitute an indirect discrimination based on sex, to the extent that women are substantially overrepresented in the group of part-time workers on a fixed term contract under the Equal Treatment Directive 143 .
·
Poland
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints made against Poland by members of the public (2015-2019)
2.Public complaints against Poland open at year-end
|
169 |
> |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
203 |
> |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
214 |
> |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 158 |
> |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy areas
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot files opened against Poland (2015-2019)
2.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: policy areas
3.Files relating to Poland open in EU Pilot at year-end
4.EU Pilot files: Poland’s resolution rate in 2015-2019
III.INFRINGEMENT CASES
1.Infringement cases against Poland open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy areas
3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a.The Commission opened 37 new infringement cases against Poland in 2019. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:
·incorrect transposition of the:
oDirective on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children 144
oEU rules on public procurement and concessions 145
oSolvency II Directive 146
oSEPA Regulation 147
ocommon rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services 148
orevised Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 149
oDirective on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes 150
oobligations establishing a single European railway area 151
oEnergy Efficiency Directive 152 ;
·delays in the implementation of the Geo-blocking Regulation, by failing to provide for measures and mechanisms for consumer protection 153 ;
·the new disciplinary regime for judges in Poland which undermines the judicial independence of Polish judges by not offering necessary guarantees to protect them from political control, as required by the Court of Justice of the European Union 154 ;
·failure to award authorisations and concessions in the hydroelectric power sector in line with the Services Directive and public procurement rules 155
·failure to comply with EU rules on landfills 156 ;
·bad application of the Inspire Directive 157 ;
·failure to establish penalties in accordance with the Invasive Alien Species Regulation 158 ;
·failure to ensure adequate protection of habitats and species of EU interest by designating nature protection areas to complete the NATURA 2000 network 159 ;
·failure to establish adequate safeguards to protect forests and its plant and animal species, as required under the Birds and Habitats Directives. Also, failure to provide access to justice with regard to forest management plans 160 ;
·failure to comply with a Court judgment finding that Poland had breached its obligations under the Ambient Air Quality Directive 161 ;
·failure to fully comply with EU rules on reviewing environmental decisions 162 ;
·non-compliance with key provisions of the Noise Directive 163 ;
·failure to comply with EU requirements on the security of gas supply 164 ;
·non-communication of national measures transposing the:
oDirective on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals as beneficiaries of international protection 165
oDirective on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (IORPs II Directive) 166
oIndirect Land Use Change Directive 167
oBank Creditors Hierarchy Directive 168 .
b.[The Commission referred two cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They involve the following infringements:
·exemption from energy taxes for highly polluting industries on the ground that they are covered by the European Emission Trading Scheme;
·violation of the Rule of Law principles and Article 19 TFEU by the new disciplinary regime for judges in Poland 169 .
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 Poland open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases against Poland (2015-2019)
3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: 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 2019
These concerned:
·incorrect transposition of the Consumer Rights Directive 170 ;
·incorrect application of the Habitats Directive by authorisation and commencing the construction of a coal mine near Natura 2000 sites 171 ;
·failure to ensure the effective application of obligations under the Directive on end-of-life vehicles 172 ;
· application of EU defence procurement rules 173
·.non-communication of national measures transposing the:
Seasonal Workers Directive 174
Directive on conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for research and studies 175
Directive on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals as beneficiaries of international protection 176
Reception Conditions Directive 177
Asylum Procedures Directive 178
labour rights for seafarers 179
Directive on Antitrust Damages Actions 180
Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD1) 181
Directive as regards access to anti-money laundering information (DAC5) 182
Offshore Safety Directive 183
Nuclear Safety Directive 184
Directive on certain aspects of the organisation of working time in inland waterway transport 185 .
VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court rulings 186
The Court ruled that/gave the following rulings:
·Poland failed to fulfil its obligations under EU law, first, by establishing a different retirement age for men and women who were judges or public prosecutors in Poland and, second, by lowering the retirement age of judges of the ordinary courts while conferring on the Minister for Justice the power to extend the period of active service of those judges 187 .
·Poland failed to fulfil its obligations under EU law by lowering the retirement age of judges of the Supreme Court 188 .
·Poland failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive on weights and dimensions in national and international traffic. The restrictions set on access to the Polish road network for vehicles complying with the maximum axle weights laid down in the Directive are not justified 189 .
2.Preliminary rulings
[The Court addressed the following preliminary rulings to the Polish judiciary:
·National legislation cannot exempt commercial transactions financed with EU funds from the scope of the Late Payments Directive 190 .
·The issuance of a parallel import license cannot be conditional upon the imported medicine and domestic reference products sharing the same ‘registration status’. If the Member State of import can establish that the imported medicine and domestic reference product, ‘without being totally identical’, are manufactured with the same formulation, then the imported product may be granted a parallel import license 191 .
·In a case concerning loan contracts concluded in Poland and indexed to a foreign currency, the unfair contract terms relating to the difference in exchange rates cannot be replaced by general provisions of Polish civil law in order to preserve the validity of the contract 192 .
·The lack of transparency of a contract term is an important element in assessing its unfairness. The national courts must examine the unfairness of contract terms. Thus, in payment order proceedings based on a promissory note, national courts need to assess the promissory note agreement, even where national law or case law does not permit this 193 .
·A notary who draws up a certificate of succession at the unanimous request of all the parties to the procedure conducted by the notary does not constitute a ‘court’ and, consequently, such a
deed does not constitute a ‘decision’ but an ‘authentic instrument’
194
.
Portugal
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints made against Portugal by members of the public (2015-2019)
2.Public complaints against Portugal open at year-end
|
76 |
> |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
102 |
> |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
100 |
> |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 78 |
> |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy areas
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot files opened against Portugal (2015-2019)
2.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: main policy areas
3.Files relating to Portugal open in EU Pilot at year-end
4.EU Pilot files: Portugal’s resolution rate in 2015-2019
III.INFRINGEMENT CASES
1.Infringement cases against Portugal open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy areas
3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a.The Commission opened 35 new infringement cases against Portugal in 2019. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:
·incorrect transposition of the:
oDirective on Attacks against Information Systems 195
oDirective on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children 196
oEU rules on public procurement and concessions 197
orevised Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 198
oEnergy Efficiency Directive 199 ;
·failure to upgrade the connection of their national electronic registers on road hauliers to the new version of European Registers of Road Transport Undertakings (ERRU) 200 ;
·failure to submit their second cost-optimal report required by the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 201 ;
·failure to ensure adequate protection of habitats and species of EU interest by designating nature protection areas to complete the NATURA 2000 network 202 ;
·failure to award authorisations and concessions in the hydroelectric power sector in line with the Services Directive and public procurement rules 203 .
·failure to comply with Article 63 of TFEU and the EEA as regards tax rules for the sale of real estate by non-residents 204 ;
·non-conformity of rules concerning the acquired rights of engineers 205
·excessive and disproportionate fees for issuing residence permits 206 ;
·Non-communication of national measures transposing the:
oBasic Safety Standards Directive 207
oDirective on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (IORPs II Directive) 208
oBank Creditors Hierarchy Directive 209 .
b.The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. This concerns a failure to align the system of financing universal services to the Universal Service Directive 210 .
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 Portugal open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases against Portugal (2015-2019)
3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: 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 2019
These concerned:
·incorrect transposition of the:
Directive on unfair commercial practices 211
Indirect Land Use Change Directive 212
EU legislation on the investigation of accidents in the maritime sector 213 ;
·measures to prevent the spread of the pine wood nematode;
·failure to meet the EU obligations on stepping up cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime 214 ;
·application of EU defence procurement rules 215
·failure to communicate national measures transposing the:
Commission Implementing Directive as regards isolation distances for Sorghum spp. 216
Commission Implementing Directive on minimum conditions for examining certain varieties of agricultural plant species 217
Commission Implementing Directive on characteristics to be covered as a minimum by the examination and minimum conditions for examining certain varieties of agricultural plant species 218
Commission Implementing Directive on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants 219
Seasonal Workers Directive 220
Seafarers Directive 221
Mortgage Credit Directive 222
Anti-tax avoidance Directive.
VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court rulings
[The Court ruled that/gave the following rulings:
·Portugal has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Habitats Directive as it had not designated its Sites of Community Interest as Special Areas of Conservation and it had not established the necessary conservation measures for these zones 223 .]
2.Preliminary rulings
[The Court addressed the following preliminary rulings to the Portuguese judiciary:
·Member States cannot add additional requirements for granting copyright protection to designs, such as the clothing designs of jeans, which already meet the requirements for copyright protection under EU law 224
Romania
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints made against Romania by members of the public (2015-2019)
2.Public complaints against Romania open at year-end
|
139 |
> |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
157 |
> |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
203 |
> |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 93 |
> |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy areas
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot files opened against Romania (2015-2019)
2.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: policy areas
3.Files relating to Romania open in EU Pilot at year-end
4.EU Pilot files: Romania’s resolution rate in 2015-2019
III.INFRINGEMENT CASES
1.Infringement cases against Romania open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy areas
3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a.The Commission opened 38 new infringement cases against Romania in 2019. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:
·delays in the implementation of the Geo-blocking Regulation, by failing to provide for measures and mechanisms for consumer protection 225 ;
·failure to submit information about operators of essential services identified under the EU law on the security of network and information systems 226 ;
·failure to adopt fees for the processing of applications on biocidal products, as required by EU rules. As a result, applications for national authorisation of biocidal products could not be processed 227 ;
·incorrect implementation of provisions relating to the rejection of applications for residence permits and the obligation to justify the reasons for refusal under the EU Directives on legal migration 228 ;
·non-conformity of national legislation with EU rules on public procurement and concessions 229
·breach of the EU’s exclusive competence in the automated exchange of DNA, fingerprint and vehicle registration data 230 ;
·incorrect transposition of the Directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children 231 ;
·failure to ensure adequate protection of habitats and species of EU interest by designating nature protection areas to complete the NATURA 2000 network 232 ;
·failure to ensure that installations under the Industrial Emissions Directive operate with appropriate permits 233 ;
·systemic failure to monitor air pollution as required by EU legislation on ambient air quality 234 ;
·a national law setting limitations for the distribution of insurance products in Romania by insurance distributors from other Member States, in breach of the freedom to provide services 235 ;
·failure to correctly implement certain requirements of the Third Energy Package (the Gas Directive) and the Security of Gas Supply Regulation 236 ;
·non-compliance of national measures restricting the export of natural gas with the requirements of the Third Energy Package (the Gas Directive) and Articles 35 and 36 TFEU 237 ;
·failure to submit their second cost-optimal report required by the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 238 ;
·failure to upgrade the connection of their national electronic registers on road hauliers to the new version of European Registers of Road Transport Undertakings (ERRU) 239 ;
·failure to adopt measures on penalties for infringements of the Regulation on fluorinated greenhouse gases 240 ;
·time limit for the notification of customs debts;
·non-communication of national measures transposing the:
oDirective on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (IORPs II Directive) 241
oBank Creditors Hierarchy Directive 242
oDirective on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union 243
oDirective on certain aspects of the organisation of working time in inland waterway transport 244 .
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 Romania open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases against Romania (2015-2019)
3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: 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 2019
These concerned:
·non-compliance with the Oil Stocks Directive 245 ;
·failure to submit their second cost-optimal report required by the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 246 ;
·non-communication of national measures transposing the:
Commission Implementing Directive on minimum conditions for examining certain varieties of agricultural plant species 247
Reception Conditions Directive 248
Asylum Procedures Directive 249
labour rights for seafarers 250
minimum requirements for enhancing worker mobility between Member States by improving the acquisition and preservation of supplementary pension rights 251
Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II) 252
Indirect Land Use Change Directive 253
Directive on administrative cooperation in tax matters 254 .
VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court rulings 255
There were no major Court rulings in 2019.
2.Preliminary rulings
[The Court addressed the following preliminary ruling to the Romanian judiciary:
·The amount of the compensation provided by EU rules for cases of denied boarding or cancellation of a flight is not intended to compensate for damage such as loss of earnings, and that damage may be the subject of further compensation. In case of denied boarding, it is the responsibility of the operating air carrier to provide complete information to passengers on their right to reimbursement or re-routing. The passengers have no obligation to actively contribute to the search for information to that effect 256 .
Slovenia
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints made against Slovenia by members of the public (2015-2019)
2.Public complaints against Slovenia open at year-end
|
45 |
> |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
35 |
> |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
37 |
> |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 43 |
> |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy areas
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot files opened against Slovenia (2015-2019)
2.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: policy areas
3.Files relating to Slovenia open in EU Pilot at year-end
4.EU Pilot files: Slovenia’s resolution rate in 2015-2019
III.INFRINGEMENT CASES
1.Infringement cases against Slovenia open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy areas
3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a.The Commission opened 26 new infringement cases against Slovenia in 2019. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:
·failure to submit information about operators of essential services identified under the EU law on the security of network and information systems 257 ;
·incorrect implementation of the Directive on Attacks against Information Systems 258 ;
·incorrect transposition of the Directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children 259 ;
·non-communication of national measures transposing the:
oDirective on conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for research and studies 260
oDirective on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals as beneficiaries of international protection 261
oReception Conditions Directive 262
oDirective on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (IORPs II Directive) 263
oBank Creditors Hierarchy Directive 264
oDirective establishing common noise assessment methods 265 ;
·failure to ensure adequate protection of grasslands, as required by the Habitats Directive 266 ;
·incorrect transposition of the revised Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 267 ;
·late reporting on updates under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive 268 ;
·failure to fulfil obligations under the Ship Recycling Regulation 269 ;
·incorrect application of the Directive on urban waste water treatment (UWWT) 270 ;
·incorrect transposition of the Habitats and Birds Directives 271 .
·incorrect transposition of the Directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes 272 .
b.The Commission referred two cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They involve the following infringements:
·violation of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities as regards the documents of the European Central Bank 273
·incorrect transposition and application of certain provisions of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 274 .
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 Slovenia open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases against Slovenia (2015-2019)
3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy areas
4.Referral 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 2019
[These concerned:
·failure to communicate national measures transposing the:
Seasonal Workers Directive 275
Directive on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals as beneficiaries of international protection 276
Long Term Residents Directive 277
Asylum Procedures Directive 278
Mortgage Credit Directive 279 ;
·incorrect transposition of the EIA Directive 280 ;
·non-compliance with the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 281 .
VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court ruling 282
There were no major Court rulings in 2019.
2.Preliminary rulings
[The Court addressed the following preliminary rulings to the Slovenian judiciary:
·When enforcing mortgages based on a directly enforceable notarial instrument, the preventive checks by notaries cannot replace effective judicial protection. Obstacles for effective remedies against such enforcement can be, for instance, costs for legal representation, the absence of legal aid or strict conditions for the suspension of the enforcement 283 .
·A transfer of financial instruments and other client assets between stock exchange intermediaries may constitute a transfer within the meaning of the Directive on transfer of undertakings where there is a transfer of clients 284 .]
Slovakia
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints made against Slovakia by members of the public (2015-2019)
2.Public complaints against Slovakia open at year-end
|
45 |
> |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
49 |
> |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
46 |
> |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 48 |
> |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy areas
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot files opened against Slovakia (2015-2019)
2.Files relating to Slovakia open in EU Pilot at year-end
3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: main policy areas
4.EU Pilot files: Slovakia’s resolution rate in 2015-2019
III.INFRINGEMENT CASES
1.Infringement cases against Slovakia open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy areas
3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a.The Commission opened 20 new infringement cases against Slovakia in 2019. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:
·delays in the implementation of the Geo-blocking Regulation, by failing to provide for measures and mechanisms for consumer protection 285 ;
·Racial discrimination against Roma children in education in violation of the Racial Equality Directive 286 ;
·incorrect transposition of the Directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children 287 ;
·failure to ensure adequate protection of habitats and species of EU interest by designating nature protection areas to complete the NATURA 2000 network 288 ;
·Designation of Special Areas of Conservation in Slovakia 289 ;
·failure to provide for an appropriate assessment of the effects that projects within Natura 2000 sites, such as forest logging activities, may have on the protected areas, which resulted in a significant fall in bird numbers 290 ;
·incorrect transposition of the revised Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 291 ;
·failure to ensure that urban waste water is adequately collected and treated 292 ;
·failure to comply with EU rules on landfills 293 ;
·non-compliance with the requirements of the Energy Efficiency Directive 294 ;
·failure to upgrade the connection of their national electronic registers on road hauliers to the new version of European Registers of Road Transport Undertakings (ERRU) 295 ;
·Non-communication of national measures transposing the Indirect Land Use Change Directive 296 .
b.The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU.
IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES
1.Late transposition infringement cases against Slovakia open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases against Slovakia (2015-2019)
3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: 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 2019
These concerned:
·failure to communicate national measures transposing the:
Commission Implementing Directive as regards isolation distances for Sorghum spp 297
Commission Implementing Directive on minimum conditions for examining certain varieties of agricultural plant species 298
Seasonal Workers Directive 299
Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II) 300 ;
·incorrect transposition of the Directive on unfair commercial practices 301 ;
·incorrect transposition and implementation of the Nitrates Directive 302 ;
·National legislation on the acquisition of agricultural land in violation of the free movement of capital and freedom of establishment 303 .
VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court rulings 304
[There were no major Court rulings in 2019.
2.Preliminary rulings
No major preliminary rulings were addressed to the Slovak judiciary in 2019
Finland
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints made against Finland by members of the public (2015-2019)
2.Public complaints against Finland open at year-end
|
40 |
> |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
63 |
> |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
53 |
> |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 50 |
> |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy areas
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot files opened against Finland (2015-2019)
2.Files relating to Finland open in EU Pilot at year-end
3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: policy areas
4.EU Pilot files: Finland’s resolution rate in 2015-2019
III.INFRINGEMENT CASES
1.Infringement cases against Finland open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy areas
3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a.The Commission opened 17 new infringement cases against Finland in 2019. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:
·legislation on the tax deductibility of group contributions between affiliated domestic companies in breach of freedom of establishment 305 ;
·non-conformity of national legislation with EU rules on public procurement and concessions 306 ;
·failure to upgrade the connection of their national electronic registers on road hauliers to the new version of European Registers of Road Transport Undertakings (ERRU) 307 ;
·incorrect transposition of the:
Directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children 308
Directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes 309
revised Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 310
Marine Strategy Framework Directive 311
·non-communication of national measures transposing the Directive on the use of passenger name records 312 .
b. [The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They involve the following infringements:
·illegal spring hunting of male eiders in the province of Åland, in violation of the Birds Directive 313 .
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 (2015-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases against Finland (2015-2019)
3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: 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 2019
These concerned:
·Non-conform transposition of the Waste Framework Directive (case 2016/2139)
·non-communication of national measures transposing the:
Indirect Land Use Change Directive 314
Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain private and public projects on the environment 315
Directive on certain aspects of the organisation of working time in inland waterway transport 316 .
·non-compliance with the Energy Efficiency Directive 317 .
VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court rulings
[There were no major Court rulings in 2019.
2.Preliminary rulings
[The Court addressed the following preliminary rulings to the Finnish judiciary:
·Wolf hunting for population management purposes, the objective of which is to combat poaching, is not compliant with the Habitats Directive where the strict conditions for derogations from the protection system are not fulfilled. There are very strict limitations to the use of derogations for the hunting of wolves and other large carnivores, and the possibility to use hunting as a management tool for wolf conservation is very limited 318 .
·The Energy Efficiency Directive does not prevent energy companies from giving customers discounts to encourage the uptake of electronic billing delivery methods 319 .
Sweden
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints made against Sweden by members of the public (2015-2019)
2.Public complaints against Sweden open at year-end
|
139 |
> |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
144 |
> |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
163 |
> |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 120 |
> |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy areas
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot files opened against Sweden (2015-2019)
2.Files relating to Sweden open in EU Pilot at year-end
3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: policy areas
4.EU Pilot files: Sweden’s resolution rate in 2015-2019
III.INFRINGEMENT CASES
1.Infringement cases against Sweden open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy areas
4.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a.The Commission opened 25 new infringement cases against Sweden in 2019. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:
·failure to award authorisations and concessions in the hydroelectric power sector in line with the Services Directive and public procurement rules 320 ;
·incorrect transposition of several directives in the field of legal migration 321 , in particular as regards the processing applications for permits, as well as restrictions to equal treatment of certain categories of non-EU nationals 322 ;
·non-conformity of national legislation with EU rules on public procurement and concessions 323
·incorrect transposition of the:
oDirective on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children 324
oSolvency II Directive 325
orevised Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 326
oEnergy Efficiency Directive 327 ;
·non-communication of national measures transposing the:
oDirective on conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for research and studies 328
oDirective on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (IORPs II Directive) 329 ;
b.[The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. This concerns:
·urban waste water treatment in certain large and small agglomerations in Sweden (2009/2310) 330 .
IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES
1.Late transposition infringement cases against Sweden open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases against Sweden (2015-2019)
3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: 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 2019
These concerned:
·failure to communicate national measures transposing the:
Directive on tobacco products 331
Reception Conditions Directive 332
Asylum Procedures Directive 333
Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II) 334 ;
·incorrect transposition of the:
Directive on unfair commercial practices 335
Third Energy Package Directives 336 ;
·incorrect application of the provisions on access to the groundhandling market at EU airports 337 .
VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court rulings 338
[There were no major Court rulings in 2019.
2.Preliminary rulings
[No major preliminary rulings were addressed to the Swedish judiciary in 2019.
United Kingdom
I.COMPLAINTS
1.New complaints made against the United Kingdom by members of the public (2015-2019)
2.Public complaints against the United Kingdom open at year-end
|
184 |
> |
Complaints open at end-2018 |
|
145 |
> |
New complaints registered in 2019 |
|
132 |
> |
Complaints handled in 2019 |
|
= 197 |
> |
Complaints open at end-2019 |
3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy areas
II.EU PILOT
1.New EU Pilot files opened against the United Kingdom (2015-2019)
2.Files relating to the United Kingdom open in EU Pilot at year-end
3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: policy areas
4.EU Pilot files: United Kingdom’s resolution rate in 2015-2019
III.INFRINGEMENT CASES
1.Infringement cases against the United Kingdom open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy areas
3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
a.The Commission opened 30 new infringement cases against the United Kingdomin in 2019. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:
·failure to award authorisations and concessions in the hydroelectric power sector in line with the Services Directive and public procurement rules 339 ;
·failure to comply with a Court judgment finding that the United Kingdom had breached its obligations under EU law as regards collection and treatment of urban waste water in London and Whitburn 340 ;
·failure to upgrade the connection of their national electronic registers on road hauliers to the new version of European Registers of Road Transport Undertakings (ERRU) 341 ;
·United Kingdom (2017/2109)( IP/19/470 ): VAT - Derogations related to certain terminal markets;
·United Kingdom (2018/4046) ( IP/19/462 ): Income tax relief for losses on disposal of shares;
·United Kingdom (2018/4047) ( IP/19/462 ): Relief for loans for traders;
·Late reporting under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive 342 .
·non-compliance with the requirements of the Energy Efficiency Directive 343 ;
b.[The Commission referred two cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They concern:
·extending the scope of a VAT derogations for certain commodity markets 344 ;
·losses to the Union budget caused by failure to enter into the accounts the correct amounts of customs duties and to make available the correct amount of traditional own resources and VAT-based own resources in respect of certain imports of goods 345 .
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 the United Kingdom open on 31 December (2015-2019)
2.New late transposition infringement cases against the United Kingdom (2015-2019)
3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: 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 2019
These concerned:
·non-communication of national measures transposing the:
Directive on extraction solvents used in the production of foodstuffs 346
Commission Implementing Directive as regards isolation distances for Sorghum spp. 347
Directive on minimum conditions for examining certain varieties of agricultural plant species 348
Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD1) 349 .
·failure to provide the required quality management system for operational parts of the flag State-related activities 350 .
VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
1.Court rulings
The Court ruled that:
·Member States which have special relations with the overseas countries and territories (OCT) are obliged to compensate the loss of EU own resources caused by the wrongful issue of export certificates by the local authorities of those OCTs based on the principle of sincere cooperation as laid down in Article 4(3) TEU (2013/2103 and 2013/2165) 351 .
2.Preliminary rulings
The Court addressed the following preliminary rulings to the United Kingdom judiciary:
·The concept of a ‘direct descendant’ of a citizen of the Union does not include a minor who has been placed in permanent legal guardianship under the Algerian kafala system, because that placement does not create any parent-child relationship between them. However, where the EU citizen has exercised his/her right to free movement to a Member State other than the one of which he/ she is a national, the citizen’s Member State of residence must facilitate the minor’s entry to and residence in its territory as one of the ‘other family members’ pursuant to the Free Movement Directive 352 .
·In assessing whether a Union citizen who is a minor has sufficient resources not to become an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during his period of residence account is to be taken of resources placed at his or her disposal stemming from income obtained from the employment of his third-country national parent following the expiry of his residence or work permit 353 .
·A third-country national who in the past has been tortured by the authorities of his or her country of origin but no longer faces a risk of being tortured if returned to that country, but whose physical and psychological health could, if so returned, seriously deteriorate, leading to a serious risk of him committing suicide on account of trauma resulting from the torture he was subjected to,is eligible for subsidiary protection. This is the case if there is a real risk of this person being intentionally deprived, in his or her country of origin, of appropriate care for the physical and mental after-effects of that torture 354 .
·The marketing authorisation relied on in support of an application for a supplementary protection certificate concerning a new formulation of an old active ingredient, cannot be regarded as being the first marketing authorisation for the product concerned as a medicinal product. This is the case where that active ingredient has already been the subject of a marketing authorisation as an active ingredient. 355
·The court clarified that, when adopting a tariff classification regulation, the Commission cannot be bound by a judgment of a court of a Member State, including a supreme court. It is settled case law that such a regulation is adopted by the Commission, following the opinion of the Customs Code Committee, when the classification in the combined nomenclature of a particular product is such as to give rise to difficulty or to be a matter for dispute, since such a situation of legal uncertainty may in particular exist in the event of case law or administrative divergences between the Member States concerning the tariff classification of the same product. 356
Methodology and explanations
Annex II — MEMBER STATES
COMPLAINTS
First chart: New complaints made against the Member State by members of the public (2015-2019)
This shows the number of public complaints the Commission registered against the Member State for the years 2015-2019.
Second chart: Public complaints against the Member State open at year-end
This starts with the number of open complaints against the Member State at the end of 2018 (first column) 357 . The second column shows the number of new complaints registered in 2019. The third column shows the number of complaints on which the Commission took a decision in 2019. The fourth column shows the number of complaints against the Member State that were open at the end of 2019 (calculated by taking the first figure, adding the second and subtracting the third).
Third chart: New complaints registered in 2019: main policy areas
The number of complaints registered in 2019 is broken down by policy area. Generally, this breakdown shows the three policy areas which attracted the most complaints. However, four (or more) policy areas are mentioned if two (or more) policy areas tied for the third highest number of complaints.
EU PILOT
First chart: New EU Pilot files opened against the Member State (2015-2019)
This analyses the number of EU Pilot files the Commission opened against the Member State for the years 2015-2019.
Second chart: EU Pilot files relating to the Member State open at year-end
This analyses the number of EU Pilot files still pending at year-end against the Member State for the years 2015-2019.
Third chart: New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: main policy areas
The figure for the number of new EU Pilot files opened against the Member State in 2019 is broken down by policy area. Generally, this breakdown shows the three policy areas in which the most EU Pilot files were opened in 2019.
Fourth chart: EU Pilot files: Member State’s resolution rate in 2015-2019
The resolution rate per Member State is the percentage of EU Pilot files handled for which the Commission accepted that Member State’s response. The chart shows the resolution rate for the last 5 years.
INFRINGEMENT CASES
First chart: Infringement cases against the Member State open on 31 December (2015-2019)
These figures include all procedures the Commission initiated against the Member State by sending a letter of formal notice under Article 258 TFEU. It covers letters sent in 2019 or before, irrespective of the stages the cases have reached. Only cases which have not yet been closed by a formal decision are shown.
Accordingly, these numbers include all cases that, on 31 December of the years 2015 to 2019:
·were in the pre-litigation phase (letter of formal notice, reasoned opinion or decision on referral to the Court under Article 258 TFEU);
·were pending before the Court under Article 258 TFEU and Article 260(3) TFEU;
·the Court had ruled on but where the Commission could not yet confirm that the Member State had implemented the judgment correctly;
·were in the second pre-litigation procedure (letter of formal notice or referral decision under Article 260(2) TFEU);
·were pending before the Court due to a second referral; and
·the Court had ruled on for the second time but where the Commission could not yet confirm that the Member State had implemented the second judgment correctly.
These figures do not include, for example, open EU Pilot files in the policy area. They also do not include EU Pilot files for which the Commission had already rejected a Member State’s response but had not yet sent a letter of formal notice under Article 258 TFEU.
Second chart: New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy areas
As a rule, this chart shows the three policy areas in which the most infringements were open on 31 December 2019. Four (or more) policies are mentioned if two (or more) policies tied for the third highest number of open infringements. Only two policies are highlighted if too many policies tied for the third highest number, or if this would make the chart very fragmented (this might occur in Member States with relatively few infringements).
Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court
This section has three parts:
Part a) shows the number of new infringement cases opened against the Member State in 2019 and lists the major new and ongoing infringement cases at the stage of letters of formal notice or reasoned opinions (under Article 258 TFEU).
Part b) lists the cases which the Commission referred to the Court solely under Article 258 TFEU by 31 December 2019. The cases submitted to the Court under Article 258 and 260(3) TFEU are discussed in the ‘Transposition of directives’ section (see below).
Part c) lists the cases which the Commission referred to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU by 31 December 2019.
TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES
First chart: Late transposition infringement cases against the Member State open on 31 December (2015-2019)
This shows the number of letters of formal notice sent to the Member State under Article 258 TFEU for missing or partial notification of national transposition measures. It covers letters sent in 2019 or before, irrespective of the stages the cases have reached. Only cases which have not yet been closed by a formal decision are shown.
Accordingly, the number includes all cases that, on 31 December of the years 2015 to 2019:
·were in the pre-litigation phase (letter of formal notice, reasoned opinion or decision on referral to the Court under Article 258 TFEU and Article 260(3) TFEU);
·were pending before the Court under Article 258 TFEU and Article 260(3) TFEU.
This figure is already included in the total number of infringement cases open against the Member State in 2019. It should therefore not be added to the figure shown in the first chart of the general statistics section.
Second chart: New late transposition infringement cases against the Member State (2015-2019)
This shows the number of new letters of formal notice sent in 2019 to the Member State under Article 258 TFEU for missing or partial notifications of national transposition measures. This figure is already included in the total number of new infringement cases initiated against the Member State in 2019. It should therefore not be added to the figure shown in the second chart of the general statistics section.
Please note that not all of these new infringement cases for late transposition were necessarily still open on 31 December 2019. For example, if the Commission opened a late transposition infringement procedure in March 2019 by sending a letter of formal notice, this would be added to the new infringement cases even if the Commission closed the case in October 2019 as a result of the Member State notifying complete transposition.
Third chart: New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy areas
As a rule, this chart shows the three policy areas in which the most infringement procedures for late transposition were launched in 2019. Four (or more) policies are mentioned if two (or more) policies tied for the third highest number of open infringements. Only two policy areas are highlighted if too many policy areas tied for the third highest number, or if this would make the chart very fragmented (this might occur in Member States with relatively few infringements).
Referrals to the Court
This section contains the cases which the Commission referred to the Court under Article 258 TFEU and Article 260(3) by 31 December 2019.
EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES
Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2019
This section contains a list of the major infringement cases the Commission closed in 2019 without a Court judgment. The list is not exhaustive.
IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS
This section contains two lists:
The first list contains the Court’s most important judgments against the Member State in 2019. These judgments are almost exclusively handed down under Article 258 or Article 260(2) TFEU.
The second list contains the most important preliminary rulings the Court has issued to the Member State’s judiciary. These lists are not necessarily exhaustive.