# EUR-Lex - 52014DC0612 - EN

*|*

# 52014DC0612

**REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 31st ANNUAL REPORT ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW (2013) /* COM/2014/0612 final */**

			*

			*

Introduction

The Commission monitors whether Member
States respect EU law obligations, i.e. completely and correctly transpose
EU directives and properly apply the entire EU acquis. For this
purpose, the Commission can formally challenge the Member State implementation
of EU law on its own initiative but it also acts on petitions from the European
Parliament (EP) and on complaints it receives from citizens, businesses, NGOs
and other stakeholders that reveal potential violations of EU law, for instance
incorrect transposition or bad application of EU law.

Before resorting to formal legal actions, the
Commission tries to remedy problems and ensure the correct implementation of EU
law through a structured dialogue with Member States in EU Pilot. If this is
not successful, the Commission takes formal proceedings (a letter of formal
notice to the Member State under Article 258 TFEU).[1] Should a
Member State fail to align its laws or practices with EU law during the formal
infringement procedure, the Commission may refer the case to the Court of
Justice under Article 258 TFEU, with the possibility to request financial
sanctions (either under Article 260(2) or 260(3) TFEU).

The 31st Annual Report on
monitoring the application of EU law reviews the performance on key aspects of
the application of EU law and highlights strategic issues.[2]

1.      Transposition of directives
1.1.     Late transposition

Late
transposition of directives remains a persistent problem hindering delivery of
tangible benefits for citizens.

Reducing late transposition is a
long-established priority of the Commission's policy: "Priority should
be attached to those infringements which present the greatest risks, widespread
impact for citizens and businesses ... These categories cover: non-communication
of national measures transposing directives or other notification obligations;
..."[3]

There were more directives to transpose in
2013 compared to the previous year (i.e. 74 in contrast to 56 in 2012) but fewer
than in 2011 (131). However, there was only a slight increase in new late
transposition infringements in 2013 compared to the previous year (478 new late
transposition infringements were launched in 2013 compared to 447 procedures in
2012; there were 1,185 in 2011 and 855 in 2010). 390 late transposition cases
were open at the end of 2013, which represents a 6.7 % decrease when
compared to the 418 cases at the end of 2012. The Commission closed more late
transposition infringements in 2012 and 2013 than it opened, which resulted in
the number of open infringements of this kind reaching a 5-year low at the end
of 2013.

The following chart contains the key
figures[4]
on late transposition infringements (LTIs) initiated by the Commission during
2013:

The following table shows late
transposition infringements by Member States:[5]

The four policy areas where the most new late
transposition infringements were launched in 2013 were environment (168
procedures), health & consumers (58), internal market & services (47)
and transport (36).

Late transposition infringements were
launched against 20 Member States because of the late transposition of the
Directive on industrial emissions[6]
and the Directive introducing new rules for falsified products into the Community
code on human medicines.[7]
In addition, 19 Member States were involved in late transposition infringements
under the Directive that adapts a number of rules related to the right of
establishment and the right of the freedom to provide services due to the accession
of Croatia.[8]
17 procedures were launched concerning the Directive on minimum stocks of crude
oil and/or petroleum products.[9]
16 Member States failed to transpose and / or notify within the set
deadline their implementing rules under the Directive on alternative investment
fund managers[10]
and the Directive on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal
proceedings.[11]
15 Member States received a letter of formal notice due to the late
transposition of the Directive restricting the use of various hazardous substances
in electronic equipment.[12]

1.2.     Referrals to the Court under Articles 258 / 260(3)
TFEU

Under Article 260(3) TFEU, when referring a
late transposition infringement to the Court of Justice according to Article
258 TFEU, the Commission may propose financial penalties without having to wait
for a first judgment. The purpose of this innovation in the Lisbon Treaty is to
give a stronger incentive to Member States to transpose directives within the
deadlines laid down by the legislator. The Commission establishes the proposed
amounts of fines in line with its communication[13] on the implementation
of Article 260(3) TFEU.

In 2013, the Commission continued to refer
a number of late transposition infringements to the Court of Justice with a
request for daily penalties under Article 260(3) TFEU. Nine Member States were
involved in 14 such decisions in 2013: Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, Romania, the United Kingdom (two cases each) and Austria, Cyprus, Poland and Portugal (one each). The proposed daily penalty range from EUR 4 224 to EUR 148
177,92. Most of the penalty proposals for late transposition of directives have
been made in the policy area of energy. The Commission has not yet proposed the
Court to apply lump sum payments.[14]

Member States increased their efforts to
achieve complete transposition before the judgment of the Court of Justice
during 2013. However, taken together with the other cases based on Article 258
and 260(3) TFEU that were launched in the previous years, there remained a
total of twelve open late transposition infringement cases with a referral
decision[15]
proposing daily penalties: two cases each against Estonia, Romania and Slovenia
and one case each against Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Germany, Poland and
Portugal.[16]

2.      Pre-infringement
phase

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

2.1.     Detection of
problems
2.1.1.   Complaints and
petitions

Citizens,
businesses, NGOs and other organisations frequently file complaints with the
Commission. The Commission laid down its complaint handling rules in a
Communication issued in 2002 and updated them in 2012. [17]

In 2013, citizens, businesses and
organisations remained very active in reporting potential breaches of EU law. The
Commission received more new complaints (3 505) than in any of the previous
three years (3 141 complaints were submitted in 2012, 3 115 in 2011 and 3349 in
2010). As a result, the total number of open complaints increased by
approximately 19 % during 2013. The chart below shows the key data[18] on
complaints:

New complaints – The three Member States against which the most complaints were
filed were:

Italy: 472
  complaints, most of them related to employment (120 complaints), internal
  market & services (81) and environment (64); 
 Spain: 439
  complaints, especially in connection with employment (100 complaints), justice
  and environment (65 each); and
 Germany: 297
  complaints, mainly related to justice (64 complaints), internal market
  & services (57) and environment (53).

72% of new complaints were concentrated in
the following five policy areas: justice (590), environment (520), internal
market & services (494), employment (470) and taxation & customs union
(452).

Processed complaints – Following an initial assessment of more than 3 000 complaints in
2013, the Commission opened bilateral discussions with Member States in
relation to 487 complaints in order to clarify whether EU rules had been
breached.[19]
Complaints that led to bilateral discussions were most frequently related to environment,
taxation & customs union and internal market & services (82, 78 and 70
files opened under EU Pilot, respectively) and concerned particularly the
following Member States:

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

The European Parliament alerted the
Commission to shortcomings in the way Member States implement and apply EU law in
the following areas by way of petitions and questions:

Environment: 
  Formal infringement procedures have
  already been initiated against Italy due to its alleged failure to comply
  with EU rules on industrial emissions and to respect the polluter pays
  principle in the ILVA steel plant (located in Taranto)[20]
  and the potentially incorrect transposition of certain rules in the
  Environmental Impact Assessment Directive[21];
  and 
  Investigations within EU Pilot were
  launched due to other possible violations of rules relating to waste
  management, water management and nature protection in six other Member
  States; 
 Home affairs: the waiting times at Spain's border with Gibraltar[22],
  reported by the European Parliament and also in numerous citizens’
  complaints, was followed-up by an on-site visit of the Commission, and subsequent
  recommendations to both the Spanish and the UK authorities;[23]
 Justice:
  the Commission opened an investigation concerning the discrimination on
  grounds of religion and followed up, with an additional letter of formal
  notice, an infringement launched earlier against Belgium due to the misapplication of the Regulation on the European enforcement order;[24]
 Transport:
  the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to Austria regarding the possible violation of the non-discrimination principle in setting the
  toll rates at the Felbertauern crossing; 
 Health:
  the Commission opened six investigations on alleged infringement of EU
  rules on food safety, cosmetics and animal welfare;
 Taxation: European
  Parliament initiatives led the Commission to raise concerns in relation to
  tax rules applicable to mobile workers; and 
 Agriculture and rural development: a Commission investigation was commenced upon a European
  Parliament question claiming the violation of organic farming rules. 
2.1.2.   Own initiative cases

Apart from acting on complaints, the
Commission examines the correct implementation of EU law on its own initiative.
1023 investigations were launched during 2013 (in 2012, 791 were started).

Transport, environment and justice were the
three policy areas where the most potential infringements were identified (256,
199 and 144 new EU Pilot files, respectively). The Member States primarily
concerned were Italy, Greece and Spain (67, 61 and 58 new EU Pilot files,
respectively).

2.2.     Problem solving

The purpose of the Commission's
infringements policy is to promote the correct application of EU law as quickly
as possible. EU Pilot is a Commission initiative aimed at resolving problems related
to the application of EU law in compliance with EU law and responding to
questions. Supported by an on-line database and communication tool, EU Pilot
provides the opportunity to resolve problems rapidly as, in principle, the
process should be completed within 20 weeks. EU Pilot dialogue facilitates
achieving compliance with EU law obligations through speedy resolution of
problems for the benefit of citizens and businesses.

The number of new EU Pilot files has
increased gradually during the past three years (1 201 new files were opened in
2011 and 1 405 in 2012). Therefore, despite the fact that the Commission solved
16% more EU Pilot files in 2013 (1366 as compared to 1175), the number of open
files is 10% higher than the previous year.  The following chart contains the
main EU Pilot figures for 2013:[25]

1 502 new files during 2013 – This figure is composed of 479 files triggered by complaints and 1023
new own initiative files.

1 366 closed files during 2013 – Of the 1 330 processed EU Pilot files in 2013, the Commission
closed 934 files because the Member State provided a satisfactory response.
This is a 70.22 % resolution rate for the Member States, a slight increase
from the 2012 rate (68.34 %).[26]

In 2013, 396 EU Pilot files were followed
up by formal infringement procedures (there were 334 such files in 2012). These
include 79 transport, 71 environment and 50 taxation & customs union cases.
 Spain, Italy and France had the highest number of such files in EU Pilot
followed by infringement proceedings (34, 33 and 32 files, respectively).

1 462 pending EU Pilot files – By the end of 2013, most of the open EU Pilot files concerned Italy
(147), followed by France (112) and Spain (107). From the point of view of
policy areas, environment remained the leading field with 396 open dossiers, followed
by justice (210) and transport (200).

3.      Infringement procedures

If a Member State does not resolve the
alleged breach of EU law and if the Commission considers there is a violation
of EU law obligations, the Commission may launch infringement procedures under
Article 258 TFEU[27]
and eventually refer the dispute to the Court of Justice. In 2013, the
Commission launched 761 new infringement procedures. Italy received the most
letters of formal notice from the Commission (58), followed by France (44) and Spain (41). As regards policy fields, most new procedures related to environment,
transport and health issues (223, 94 and 69 letters of formal notice,
respectively). In addition, the Commission sent 217 reasoned opinions to Member
States during 2013. Italy, Romania and Belgium received the most (20, 15 and 14
reasoned opinions, respectively). Environment, energy and taxation &
customs union were the policy areas where the Commission addressed the most
reasoned opinions to Member States (52, 38 and 29, respectively).

At the end of last year, 1 300 infringement
cases remained open.[28]
The number of open infringement cases has continued to fall – from nearly 2 100
cases in 2010 to 1 775 cases in 2011 and to 1 343 cases in 2012. The following
charts break down the total number of open infringement cases between late
transposition infringements and incorrect transposition / bad
application cases according to Member States and policy areas:

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

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

• 
the Commission closed 484 infringements after
sending the letter of formal notice;

• 
200 cases were solved after reasoned opinions
were sent to the Member State; and

47 infringements were closed (or
  withdrawn from the Court) after the Commission decided to refer the case
  to the Court of Justice.

In total, 731 infringement cases were closed
before the Court of Justice delivered its judgment under Article 258 TFEU because
the relevant Member States had demonstrated their compliance. The Court of
Justice delivered 52 judgments under Article 258 TFEU in 2013, out of which 31
judgments (59.6 %) were in favour of the Commission. The Court of Justice passed
most of its judgments against France (8, of which 2 were in favour of the Member State), Poland (6/2), Spain (5/0), Italy, Ireland and the Netherlands (4/1, 4/1 and 4/2
respectively). Taxation (24), transport (11) and environment (7) were the three
policy areas with the most judgments delivered by the Court of Justice during
2013.

Member States frequently take the necessary
measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in a timely manner.
However, at the end of 2013, the Commission considered that 113 judgments
passed under Article 258 TFEU had still not been fully complied with by the Member
States concerned. Most of these cases concerned Spain (14), Greece (13) and Italy (12) and were related to environment (40), transport (18) and taxation &
customs union (17).

Out of these 113 cases, nine had already
been referred to the Court of Justice for the second time under Article 260 (2)
TFEU. In principle, a Court judgment under Article 260(2) TFEU can impose a lump
sum and / or a (daily or other periodic) penalty payment on the
defaulting Member State, which must pay immediately the lump sum while paying
the periodic penalty until it reaches full compliance with the first and second
Court judgments. In 2013, five Court judgments were delivered under Article
260(2) TFEU. The Court imposed penalty payments against Belgium,[30] the Czech Republic,[31] Luxembourg[32] and Sweden[33] but it dismissed
the claim of the Commission against Germany.[34]

4.      Policy developments

Accurate and timely transposition and
application of EU law is an element of the Commission's broader Smart
Regulation Agenda.

4.1.     EU Regulatory Fitness

To follow up on
its 2012 Communication on Regulatory Fitness[35],
the Commission implemented the Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme
(REFIT) in 2013. REFIT involves
mapping and screening of the acquis with a view to ensuring that
legislation is 'fit for purpose' and that unnecessary red tape and burdens are
removed while still maintaining the benefits of EU legislation. REFIT
identifies areas where the Commission will propose to simplify legislation and
reduce regulatory burdens; will not take action; will withdraw or repeal
proposals and where it will undertake analysis to see where burdens can be
reduced. Initial results were published in the form of
a staff working document[36],
followed by a Communication[37]
which identified  specific actions for legislative amendment, repeal,
withdrawal and evaluation. The Communication confirmed that recurring problems
in the application of law should also be followed up in the context of REFIT.

4.2.     Implementation plans

In order  support to the competent national
authorities in ensuring the correct transposition and application of EU rules,
the Commission has increasingly cooperated with Member States on implementation
plans. These plans identify the main risks for timely and correct
implementation of new (or amended) pieces of EU legislation and suggest actions
to national authorities to mitigate those risks.

Implementation plans accompanied Commission
proposals on, inter alia:

• 
The reduction of national emissions for certain
atmospheric pollutants;[38]

• 
The amendment of the directive[39] establishing
a Community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations;[40]

• 
The regulation of payment services in the
internal market;[41]

• 
Strengthening the presumption of innocence and
of the right to be present at trial in criminal proceedings;[42]

• 
Procedural safeguards for children suspected or accused
in criminal proceedings[43]

• 
Provisional legal aid for suspects or accused
persons deprived of liberty and legal aid in European arrest warrant
proceedings[44]

• 
Package travel and assisted travel arrangements[45] and

• 
Certain rules governing actions for damages
under national law for infringements of the competition provisions.[46]

4.3.     Explanatory
documents

While Member
States are responsible for transposing directives accurately and on time, it is
the Commission's role as guardian of the Treaties to check that this is done.
For this purpose, the information that Member States give the Commission must
be clear and precise. In 2011 the European Institutions and Member States established a new framework under which Member States provide supporting
information about how they have transposed directives into their law. It was
agreed that such supporting information ("explanatory documents") will
be submitted in justified cases together with the measures to transpose
directives.

In November 2013 the Commission submitted a
report on the implementation of the new framework,[47] which
showed that since 1 November 2011, 29 explanatory documents had been requested
at the point of making a proposal. Another 19 requests were made relating to
proposals pending before the co-legislators on 1 November 2011.

A full assessment of the new framework was not
possible in 2013, as the first directive, adopted in December 2011, had to be
transposed by the Member States only by the end of 2013.[48] A
fuller assessment will therefore only be possible once the Commission has
received explanatory documents for a more representative number of directives.
The Commission will report to the European Parliament and the Council on developments
in upcoming Annual Reports.

4.4.     Transparency – access to infringement-related
documents

The Court has handed down its judgment in a
case that involved a request of an organisation to have access to Commission
documents relating to the investigation of a potential infringement of EU law
by a Member State.[49]

The Court confirmed that from the point of
view of public access to documents, the Commission could treat the entire
content of its administrative file as belonging to a single category of
documents during the investigation phase of the infringement procedure (including
EU Pilot). The Commission is entitled to apply a general presumption that
disclosing any document in this phase would undermine the protection of the
purpose of the investigations, namely, to give the Member State an opportunity
to comply with its obligations and to exercise its right to defend itself. Accordingly,
the Commission did not infringe the Regulation on access to documents held by
the institutions of the EU[50]
when it refused to grant access to the entire documentation during the
investigation period.

In addition, the Court confirmed its
earlier case law[51]
as regards the Commission's discretionary right in relation to the infringement
procedures under Article 258 TFEU. More precisely, the complainant does not
have the right in the context of this procedure to require the Commission to
take a specific position or to bring an action against the Member State. It is also for the Commission to assess the appropriateness of acting against the
  Member State, to identify the infringed EU rules and to establish the timing
of its procedural steps.

5.      Conclusions

The high and rising number of complaints indicates
that citizens are more and more aware of the benefits that flow from the full and
correct application of EU rules. At the same time, this is an indication of the
expectation that the implementation of EU law requires increased efforts from
the Member States and on-going monitoring from the Commission.

The timely transposition of directives remains
a top priority within the Commission's EU law policy and transposition
deadlines will be vigorously enforced. Although the timely transposition of
directives continues to be a challenge in many Member States, Denmark, Latvia and Malta maintained a very low number of late transposition infringement cases over
the past three years. Greece and the Czech Republic made good progress in
reducing their late transposition infringements during the same period.

The overall decrease of formal infringement
procedures during the past five years (from nearly 2900 to 1300) reflects in
part that problems have been solved with the use of EU Pilot. The structured
dialogue via EU Pilot has proven effective in the early resolution of potential
infringements, to the benefit of citizens and business alike. The situation
varies across Member States. The Czech Republic and Portugal have managed to
halve the number of their infringement cases during this period and the Netherlands and Luxembourg have also significantly improved their results. Slovenia, Cyprus and Romania saw their number of infringement cases rise over the past five years,
although their total cases are at average level.

The Commission will continue its active
monitoring of the application of EU law. This includes proactive assistance to
the Member States and, if necessary, the launch of formal infringement
proceedings, with a view to ensure full respect of EU law obligations across
the Union.

[1]               It should be
noted that infringement procedures can also be initiated under other provisions
of EU law, for example Article 106 TFEU in combination with Articles 101 or 102
TFEU.

[2]              Detailed information for each Member State and policy area is
provided in a staff working document which will be published electronically on
the Commission's dedicated website.

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

[4]               From the sum
of the 2012 open LTIs and the 2013 new LTIs (418+478=896), the number of closed
LTIs is deducted (896-506=390).

[5]               The table
below indicates the number of late transposition infringements open on 31
December 2013, irrespective of the year when the infringement was opened. By
contrast, the section “Transposition of directives” in the Member State pages of Part I of the Commission Staff Working Document will show how many new
late transposition infringements were initiated against the Member States during
2013.

[6]               Directive 2010/75/EU
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial
emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control)

[7]               Directive 2011/62/EU
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 amending Directive
2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use,
as regards the prevention of the entry into the legal supply chain of falsified
medicinal products

[8]               Council
Directive 2013/25/EU
of 13 May 2013 adapting certain directives in the field of right of
establishment and freedom to provide services, by reason of the accession of
the Republic of Croatia

[9]               Council
Directive 2009/119/EC
of 14 September 2009 imposing an obligation on Member States to maintain
minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products

[10]             Directive 2011/61/EU
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on Alternative
Investment Fund Managers and amending Directives 2003/41/EC and 2009/65/EC and
Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009 and (EU) No 1095/2010

[11]             Directive 2010/64/EU
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right
to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings

[12]             Directive 2011/65/EU
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on the restriction
of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic
equipment

[13]             Communication
from the Commission - Implementation of Article 260(3) of the Treaty, OJEU
C 12 of 15 January 2011.

[14]             Communication
from the Commission - Implementation of Article 260(3) of the Treaty, OJEU
C 12 of 15 January 2011, point 21.

[15]             Some of these
twelve cases are already pending before the Court of Justice. As regards the
other cases, their documentation is being finalized for submission to the Court
of Justice.

[16]             See the Staff
Working Document for details on the directives which were not transposed by the
  Member State and related penalty proposals.

[17]             Communication
from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on updating the
handling of relations with the complainant in respect of the application of
Union law, COM(2012)154
final

[18]             From the sum
of the 2012 open complaints and the 2013 new complaints (2516+3505=6021), the
number of processed complaints is deducted (6021-3029=2992).

[19]             The rest of
the submissions have not been further processed because EU laws were not
breached, the Commission lacked competence or the correspondence did not
qualify as complaint. It is also noted that in urgent and exceptional cases,
the Commission may decide to address a letter of formal notice (Article 258
TFEU) to the Member State without prior bilateral discussion.

[20]             IP/13/866

[21]             Directive 2011/92/EU
on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment

[22]             Official
Journal 2013/C
246/07

[23]             Official
Journal 2013/C
357/04

[24]             Regulation
(EC) No 805/2004
creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims

[25]             From the sum
of the 2012 open EU Pilot files and the 2013 new EU Pilot files (1326+1502=2828),
the number of processed files is deducted (2828-1366=1462).

[26]             Report from
the Commission – 30th Annual Report on monitoring the application of
EU law (2012), COM(2013)
726 final, p. 7.

[27]             Or under other
provisions of the TFEU, see footnote 2 above.

[28]             This figure
includes all procedures where the Member State has received at least a letter
of formal notice from the Commission under Article 258 TFEU.

[29]             The following
figures were calculated for all infringement cases irrespective of their type (i.e.,
complaint, own initiative of the Commission or late transposition of directives
by Member States).

[30]             Commission v Belgium, C-533/11
(lump sum payment: € 10,000,000; penalty: € 859,404 for each
six-month period of non-compliance with the judgment under Article 258 TFEU)

[31]             Commission v
the Czech Republic, C-241/11
(lump sum payment: € 250,000; no daily penalty)

[32]             Commission v Luxembourg, C-576/11
(lump sum payment: € 2,000,000; penalty: € 2,800 for each day of
non-compliance with the judgment under Article 258 TFEU)

[33]             Commission v Sweden, C-270/11
(lump sum payment: € 3,000,000; no daily penalty)

[34]             Commission v Germany, C-95/12
(no penalties)

[35]             Communication
from the Commission on EU Regulatory Fitness (COM(2012)
746 final). This Communication has been followed up by another
Communication on the REFIT's results and next steps (COM(2013)
685 final)

[36]             REFIT: mapping
the acquis, initial results – SWD(2013)401
final

[37]             Communication
from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Regulatory
Fitness and Performance (REFIT): Results and Next Steps, COM(2013)685
final

[38]             COM(2013)920

[39]             Directive 2009/71/EURATOM
establishing a Community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear
installations

[40]             COM(2013)343

[41]             COM(2013)547

[42]             COM(2013)821
and SWD(2013)
500

[43]             COM(2013)
822 and SWD(2013)
492

[44]             COM(2013)
824 and SWD(2013)
499

[45]             COM(2013)
512 and SWD(2013)
266

[46]             COM(2013)404

[47]             COM(2013)788
final

[48]             Directive 2011/98/EU

[49]             Joined cases C-514/11 P
and C-605/11 P

[50]             Regulation (EC)
No 1049/2001
regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission
documents

[51]             Star Fruit v
Commission, C-247/87
(paragraph 11); Sonito and Others v Commission, C-87/89
(paragraph 6) and P Ruipérez Aguirre and ATC Petition v Commission, C-111/11
(the order
of 14 July 2011, paragraphs 11 and 12)