92003E0312

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0312/03

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 February 2003)

Subject: Delay by Greece in transposing directives

According to data from the Internal Market Scoreboard (November 2002 issue, number 11), the Commission publication, there are significant delays in some countries in the European Union in the transposition of directives on the EU's internal market, while in some of these Member States the rate of transposition has slowed further in recent years.

On page 1 of the publication, the Commission states that the transposition deficit at EU level dropped from 21,4 % in 1992 to 2,1 % in November 2002, but that the deficit of three Member States (France, Portugal and Greece) is more than double the European Council's target (i.e. that by spring 2003 the deficit should not exceed 1,5 %). The report's figure 4 shows that Greece must transpose 86 directives in total by next spring if it wishes to eliminate the current transposition deficit.

What will be the consequences for the countries which do not manage to achieve the target of 1,5 % by spring 2003? What justifications have been put forward by the authorities of the countries which are lagging behind? Has the cost to undertakings in the EU of the delay in transposing directives relating to the EU internal market been calculated? Are there, perhaps, plans to refer to the Court of the European Communities, during the course of 2003, those countries which are delaying in transposing the above directives? Which countries are involved and which directives or sectors are affected?

Answer given by M. Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2003)

The Honourable Member is right in expressing concern about Member States failing to implement Internal Market Directives on time. Last November 2002, disappointingly, only five Member States (Denmark, The Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, United Kingdom) met the European Council's target of having a transposition deficit of 1,5 % or less. Greece, France and Portugal had transposition deficits at least double that of the European Council's target. The Internal Market Scoreboard will, of course, continue to report on Member States' performance. The next edition will be issued in May 2003.

The Commission launches infringement procedures under Article 226 of the EC Treaty every time a Member State misses a transposition deadline. When cases are not resolved, they are referred to the European Court of Justice. While the threat of legal action is, of course, critical to ensuring compliance, the Commission also seeks to generate peer pressure to get Member States to speed up matters. The name and shame approach pursued by the Internal Market Scoreboard has been effective in helping to improve the transposition performance of Member States, as witnessed by the fact that the average transposition deficit has been reduced from 21,4 % a decade ago to close to 2 % at present. The Commission has also begun to organise so-called package meetings with Member States with a view to preventing problems as well as discussing ways of ensuring high-quality transpositions. The Commission is confident that such meetings not only contribute to speedier transposition, but also to fewer cases of incorrect transposition.

The reasons for non- or late transposition are not always clear, but can vary from case to case. From information available to the Commission, it seems that in most cases delays stem from inadequate planning and lack of co-ordination within national administrations. Administrations often start the national transposition process too late. In the case of longer delays, the reasons often go deeper in that it may be a symptom of serious political difficulties or even unwillingness to transpose.

The Commission is not in a position to quantify the costs of non-transposition to business other than on the basis of anecdotal evidence in individual cases. However, it is clear that these costs can be considerable. Following a recent request from the Parliament (the Harbour Report on the 2002 Internal Market Strategy Review adopted on 13 February 2003) the Commission will examine this question again. However, it should be noted that the measures which represent the deficit for each Member State change constantly, as outstanding directives are transposed and deadlines on new directives are missed. Furthermore, non-transposition creates legal insecurity whose impact on the behaviour of businesses and citizens is always difficult to estimate. Both aspects pose considerable challenges to the possibility of quantifying the costs of non-transposition.