EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 4.7.2019 SWD(2019) 287 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Part III: Member States Accompanying the document Report from the Commission Monitoring the application of European Union law

2018 Annual Report {COM(2019) 319 final} - {SWD(2019) 285 final} - {SWD(2019) 286 final}



Belgium Bulgaria Czechia Denmark Germany Estonia Ireland Greece Spain France Croatia Italy Cyprus Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Belgium I.COMPLAINTS

1.New complaints made against Belgium by members of the public (2014-2018) 2.Public complaints against Belgium open at year-end 105 > Complaints open at end-2017 126 > New complaints registered in 2018 106 > Complaints handled in 2018 = 125 > Complaints open at end-2018 3.New complaints registered in 2018: main policy areas



II.EU PILOT 1.New EU Pilot files opened against Belgium (2014-2018) 2.Files relating to Belgium open in EU Pilot at year-end 3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2018: policy areas



4.EU Pilot files: Belgium’s resolution rate in 2014-2018 III.INFRINGEMENT CASES 1.Infringement cases against Belgium open on 31 December (2014-2018)

2.New infringement cases opened in 2018: main policy areas



3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court a)The Commission opened 31 new infringement cases against Belgium in 2018. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include: ·non-compliance with the Decision on the use of the 470-790 MHz frequency band in the Union; ·non-conformity of national transposition measures with the Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications; ·incorrect implementation of EU rules on chartering and pricing in inland waterways transport; ·failure to comply with the Court of Justice judgment on the evaluation of rental income from immovable property; ·failure to adopt a national programme for the implementation of spent fuel and radioactive waste management policy compliant with the requirements of the Radioactive Waste Directive; ·failure to comply with the nitrogen dioxide (NO2) limit values set by the Air Quality Directive; ·failure to adopt noise maps and action plans on environmental noise; ·non-communication of national measures transposing the oPayment Services Directive; oInsurance Distribution Directive; oNuclear Safety Directive; oDirective on security of network and information systems; oDirective on the accessibility of the websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies; oDirective on certain permitted uses of certain works and other subject matter protected by copyright and related rights for the benefit of persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print-disabled; oData Protection Law Enforcement Directive;

oDirective on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from medium combustion plants; oDirective on the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants. b)The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. It concerns ·a provision in the code for accountants prohibiting accounts from carrying out any other economic activity as an insurance broker/real estate agent and all banking and financial services activities, in breach of the Services Directive. c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU. IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES 1.Late transposition infringement cases against Belgium open on 31 December (2014-2018) 2.New late transposition infringement cases against Belgium (2014-2018)



3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2018: main policy areas 4.Referrals to the Court The Commission referred one case to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU. It concerns ·failure to transpose the Directive on the conditions of entry and stay of third country nationals for the purpose of employment as seasonal workers. V.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2018 These concerned: ·imposition of higher yearly tax rate on foreign professional investment funds, in breach of EU law;

·exceedance of the PM10 limit values set by the Air Quality Directive; ·non-communication of national measures transposing the oDirective concerning undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities; oDirective on radioactive substances in water intended for human consumption; oAntitrust Damages Directive; oDirective on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the EU.



VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS 1.Court rulings The Court gave the following rulings. ·Belgium has failed to comply with EU rules on the coordination of social security systems. The Court invalidated Belgian provisions granting national authorities the power to decide unilaterally on the existence of fraud or abuse in the case of posted workers without contacting the authorities of the Member State which had issued the portable document. ·Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under EU law in the way it calculates rental income. It calculates the rental income of Belgian taxpayers from immovable property located abroad on the basis of the actual value, while rental income on property located in Belgium is based on the cadastral value, i.e. calculated by reference to the property description and valuation. 2.Preliminary rulings The Court addressed the following preliminary rulings to the Belgian judiciary. ·On posting of workers, the Court of Justice confirmed the binding nature of the portable document delivered by the Member State of the sending company. Nevertheless, the receiving Member State can check the validity of that document and contact the issuing Member State in cases of doubt about its validity or the accuracy of the facts on which it is based. The latter is obliged to carry out a proper assessment of the facts and ensure that the information is correct, in accordance with the principle of cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) TEU. ·Ritual slaughter without stunning may take place only in an approved slaughterhouse. The obligation to carry out ritual slaughter in an approved slaughterhouse simply aims, from a technical point of view, to organise and manage the freedom to carry out slaughter without prior stunning for religious purposes. Such a technical framework is not in itself of such a nature as to restrict the right to freedom of religion of practising Muslims . ·The display of the energy label for vacuum cleaners without specifying the testing conditions that led to the energy classification indicated on the respective label does not constitute an unfair commercial practice. Supplementary labels reproducing or clarifying the information displayed on the energy label can be misleading in certain cases. ·Member States have to deliver and notify residence cards to non-EU family members of EU citizens within the deadline of 6 months stipulated in Article 10 of the Free Movement Directive. The judicial annulment of the decision does not reopen a new period of 6 months as referred to in that Article. ·Restrictions on the freedom of movement and residence of an EU citizen, or a family member of an EU citizen, who is suspected of having, in the past, participated in war crimes must also be assessed on a case-by-case basis, as required by the Free Movement Directive. That assessment requires the threat that the individual concerned represents to the fundamental interests of the host society to be weighed against the protection of the rights of EU citizens and their family members. ·Regional town planning regulations laying down certain requirements for the completion of building projects fall under the definition of ‘plans and programmes’ which are likely to have significant environmental effects, within the meaning of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive. Consequently, they must be subjected to an environmental impact assessment.

·On the Working Time Directive, the Court of Justice clarified that voluntary firefighters can be regarded as workers if they pursue real, genuine activities for and under direction of another person in return for which they receive remuneration. The stand-by time of a worker at home who is obliged to respond to calls from the employer within a short period must be regarded as ‘working time’. The obligation to remain physically present at the place determined by the employer and the requirement to reach the place of work within a short period very significantly restrict a worker’s opportunities for other activities. ·Member States are entitled to adopt a return decision as soon as an application for international protection is rejected, provided that the return procedure is suspended pending the outcome of an appeal against that rejection. ·Requests for family reunification must be examined even if the national of a non-EU country, who is a family member of an EU citizen who has never exercised his right of freedom of movement, is subject to an entry ban. Whether there is a relationship of dependency between the national of a non-EU country and the EU citizen and whether public policy grounds justify the entry ban must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Bulgaria I.COMPLAINTS 1.New complaints made against Bulgaria by members of the public (2014-2018) 2.Public complaints against Bulgaria open at year-end 108 > Complaints open at end-2017 142 > New complaints registered in 2018 134 > Complaints handled in 2018 = 116 > Complaints open at end-2018 3.New complaints registered in 2018: main policy areas



II.EU PILOT 1.New EU Pilot files opened against Bulgaria (2014-2018) 2.Files relating to Bulgaria open in EU Pilot at year-end 3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2018: main policy areas



4.EU Pilot files: Bulgaria’s resolution rate in 2014-2018 III.INFRINGEMENT CASES 1.Infringement cases against Bulgaria open on 31 December (2014-2018) 2.New infringement cases opened in 2018: main policy areas



3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court a)The Commission opened 27 new infringement cases against Bulgaria in 2018. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include: ·failure to comply with EU law on railway safety as regards the independence of the investigating body; ·incorrect implementation of the transparency, consultation and non-discrimination requirements of EU rules on airport charges; ·maintaining a national framework on geographical indications, which is not compatible with the EU rules on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs; ·non-compliance with the requirements of the Third Energy Package Directives (Electricity and Gas Directives); ·failure to adopt a national programme for the implementation of spent fuel and radioactive waste management policy compliant with the requirements of the Radioactive Waste Directive; ·non-compliant transposition of the Air Quality Directive; ·failure to comply with a Court judgment finding that the PM10 limit values set by the Air Quality Directive have been exceeded; ·systemic failures in the implementation of EU nature legislation in relation to the authorisation of plans and projects in special protected areas; ·non-conformity of national transposition measures with the Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications; ·incorrect implementation of EU asylum legislation;

·non-communication of national measures transposing the oPayment Services Directive; oInsurance Distribution Directive; orevised Markets in Financial Instruments Directive; oCommission Directive amending the Directive on quality system standards and specifications for blood establishments; oDirective on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants ; oDirective on 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 ; oDirective on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union; oDirective on security of network and information systems; oDirective on the accessibility of the websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies; oDirective on the presumption of innocence; oData Protection Law Enforcement 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. IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES 1.Late transposition infringement cases against Bulgaria open on 31 December (2014-2018) 2.New late transposition infringement cases against Bulgaria (2014-2018)





3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2018: main policy areas 4.Referrals to the Court The Commission referred two cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU. They concern: ·non-communication of national measures transposing the Directive on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market ; ·failure to communicate national measures transposing the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive. V.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2018 These concerned: ·incorrect application of the Nitrates Directive though insufficient designation of nitrates vulnerable zones and shortcomings in the action plans; ·unlawful use of aircraft in breach of noise restrictions set out in the EU legislation; ·non-communication of national measures transposing the oDirective on tobacco products ; oCommission Directive amending the Directive on quality system standards and specifications for blood establishments ; oDirective on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants ; oDirective concerning undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities; oPackage Travel Directive; oDirective on fuel quality reporting requirements and calculation methods. VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS 1.Court rulings

The Court ruled that: ·Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Birds Directive by not having classified as a Special Protection Area the entire Important Bird Area covering the Rila Mountains. 2.Preliminary rulings In a preliminary ruling addressed to the Bulgarian judiciary, the Court held that: ·An application for international protection cannot be granted on the ground that one of the applicant’s family members has a well-founded fear of being persecuted or faces a real risk of suffering serious harm. However, ,account must be taken of such threats in respect of one of the applicant’s family members for the purpose of determining whether the applicant is, because of his family tie to the person at risk, himself exposed to the threat of persecution or serious harm . ·An applicant for international protection claiming risk of persecution for religious reasons does not have to submit statements or produce documents concerning all components of the concept of ‘religion’. The applicant must however submit evidence allowing the competent authority to conclude that the claims are true. The prohibition, on pain of execution or imprisonment, of conduct which is contrary to the state religion of the applicant’s country of origin may constitute an ‘act of persecution’. Czechia I.COMPLAINTS 1.New complaints made against Czechia by members of the public (2014-2018) 2.Public complaints against Czechia open at year-end 85 > Complaints open at end-2017 68 > New complaints registered in 2018 102 > Complaints handled in 2018 = 51 > Complaints open at end-2018 3.New complaints registered in 2018: main policy areas

II.EU PILOT 1.New EU Pilot files opened against Czechia (2014-2018) 2.Files relating to Czechia open in EU Pilot at year-end

3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2018: main policy areas In 2018, the Commission opened two EU Pilot files against Czechia, one in the area of environment and one in the area of energy.



4.EU Pilot files: Czechia’s resolution rate in 2014-2018 III.INFRINGEMENT CASES 1.Infringement cases against Czechia open on 31 December (2014-2018) 2.New infringement cases opened in 2018: main policy areas



3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court a)The Commission opened 28 new infringement cases against Czechia in 2018. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include: ·failure to comply with EU legislation on Flag State requirements; ·failure to comply with the Air Quality Directive; ·failure to correctly transpose certain requirements of the Radioactive Waste Directive; ·failure to adopt a national programme for the implementation of spent fuel and radioactive waste management policy compliant with the requirements of the Radioactive Waste Directive; ·non-conformity of national transposition measures with the Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications ; ·non-communication of national measures transposing the oCommission Directive amending the Directive on quality system standards and specifications for blood establishments;

oDirective on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants ; oDirective on the accessibility of the websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies; oDirective on certain permitted uses of certain works and other subject matter protected by copyright and related rights for the benefit of persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print-disabled. 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 Czechia open on 31 December (2014-2018) 2.New late transposition infringement cases against Czechia (2014-2018) 3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2018: 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 2018 These concerned: ·non-compliance with the Security of Gas Supply Regulation; ·non-conformity with the Directive on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive);

·failure to designate competent authorities responsible for the application of the Regulation on compliance measures for the Nahoya Protocol on access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from their utilisation; ·non-communication of national measures transposing the oDirective on measures facilitating the exercise of rights conferred on workers in the context of freedom of movement for workers; oMortgage Credit Directive; oCommission Directive amending the Directive on quality system standards and specifications for blood establishments ; oDirective on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants ; oDirective on intra-corporate transfer ; oUnfair Commercial Practices Directive; oAntitrust Damages Directive. ·Directive on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime. VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS 1.Court rulings The Court ruled that: ·Czechia incorrectly implemented the definitions of categories of motor vehicles as set out in the Directive on driving licences ; ·Czechia failed to fulfil its obligations under EU law by imposing a condition of nationality for access to the profession of notary in the Czech legal system. 2.Preliminary rulings No major preliminary rulings were addressed to the Czech judiciary in 2018. Denmark I.COMPLAINTS 1.New complaints made against Denmark by members of the public (2014-2018)

2.Public complaints against Denmark open at year-end 51 > Complaints open at end-2017 56 > New complaints registered in 2018 68 > Complaints handled in 2018 = 39 > Complaints open at end-2018 3.New complaints registered in 2018: main policy areas



II.EU PILOT 1.New EU Pilot files opened against Denmark (2014-2018) 2.Files relating to Denmark open in EU Pilot at year-end 3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2018: main policy areas In 2018, the Commission opened three EU Pilot files against Denmark: two in the area of energy and one in the area of mobility and transport.



4.EU Pilot files: Denmark’s resolution rate in 2014-2018 III.INFRINGEMENT CASES 1.Infringement cases against Denmark open on 31 December (2014-2018) 2.New infringement cases opened in 2018: main policy areas

3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court a)The Commission opened 17 new infringement cases against Denmark in 2018. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include: ·discrimination against foreign hauliers and violation of the principle of freedom to provide transport services ; ·non-conformity of national transposition measures with the Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications; ·exceedances of the limit values for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) emissions; ·incorrect transposition of the Environmental Liability Directive; ·unjustified restriction on freedom to provide services for foreign self-employed persons; ·unjustified offset requirements demanding compensation from non-national suppliers when purchasing defence equipment from them; ·unlawful use of the protected designation of origin ‘Feta’, in violation of the EU rules on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs; ·failure to correctly transpose certain requirements of the Radioactive Waste Directive; ·failure to adopt a national programme for the implementation of spent fuel and radioactive waste management policy compliant with the requirements of the Radioactive Waste Directive;non-communication of national measures transposing the oCommission Directive amending the Directive on quality system standards and specifications for blood establishments ; oDirective on security of network and information systems. 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 (2014-2018)





2.New late transposition infringement cases against Denmark (2014-2018) 3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2018: 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 2018 These concerned: ·incorrect transposition of the Directive on the management of waste from the extractive industries; ·discrimination against foreign hauliers and violation of the principle of freedom to provide transport services; ·non-conformity of national legislation on annual leave entitlements with the Working Time Directive; ·a nut tax with equivalent effect to a customs duty; ·non-communication of national measures transposing the oDirective on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment; oCommission Directive amending the Directive on quality system standards and specifications for blood establishments ; oMortgage Credit Directive ; oNuclear Safety Directive. VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS 1.Court rulings

The Court ruled that: ·the European Commission failed to establish that Denmark had failed to comply with EU rules on access to the international road haulage market. 2.Preliminary rulings The Court addressed the following preliminary rulings to the Danish judiciary. ·A resident company which has not opted for an international joint taxation scheme may deduct from its taxable profits losses incurred by a permanent establishment in another Member State. This is subject to two conditions: i) the company has exhausted the possibilities for deducting those losses available under the law of the Member State in which the establishment is situated; and ii) it has ceased to receive any income from that establishment, so that there is no longer any possibility of the losses being taken into account in that Member State. ·EU citizens have the right to be accompanied or joined by their non-EU national family members when returning to their home Member State after having exercised free movement rights in another Member State. EU citizens must have exercised free movement rights genuinely and effectively in another Member State, and must have created or strengthened family life there, before they can invoke similar rights of entry and residence for their family members. Germany I.COMPLAINTS 1.New complaints made against Germany by members of the public (2014-2018) 2.Public complaints against Germany open at year-end 299 > Complaints open at end-2017 250 > New complaints registered in 2018 272 > Complaints handled in 2018 = 277 > Complaints open at end-2018 3.New complaints registered in 2018: main policy areas



II.EU PILOT 1.New EU Pilot files opened against Germany (2014-2018) 2.Files relating to Germany open in EU Pilot at year-end

3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2018: main policy areas



4.EU Pilot files: Germany’s resolution rate in 2014-2018 III.INFRINGEMENT CASES 1.Infringement cases against Germany open on 31 December (2014-2018) 2.New infringement cases opened in 2018: main policy areas



3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court a)The Commission opened 20 new infringement cases against Germany in 2018. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include: ·failure to ensure that regional transport networks are subject to the safety requirements set by EU rules on railway safety; ·application of a flat-rate scheme for farmers, in breach of EU rules; ·non-compliance with the requirements of the Energy Efficiency Directive; ·failure to adopt a national programme for the implementation of spent fuel and radioactive waste management policy compliant with the requirements of the Radioactive Waste Directive; ·incorrect transposition of the Directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes; ·non-conformity of national transposition measures with the Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications;

·non-communication of national measures transposing the oInsurance Distribution Directive; oDirective on the accessibility of the websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies; oDirective on certain permitted uses of certain works and other subject matter protected by copyright and related rights for the benefit of persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print-disabled; oData Protection Law Enforcement Directive; b)The Commission referred two cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They concern ·non-compliance with the requirements of the Third Energy Package Directives (Electricity and Gas Directives); ·exceedance of the nitrogen dioxide (NO2) limit values set by the Air Quality Directive. 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 (2014-2018) 2.New late transposition infringement cases against Germany (2014-2018) 3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2018: 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 2018 These concerned: ·non-compliance with the principle of mutual recognition of ‘old authorisations’ for plant protection products ; ·incorrect transposition of the Directive on railway safety; ·parallel imports of medicines; ·non-communication of national measures transposing the oDirective on intra-corporate transfer ; oDirective on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime; oDirective on fuel quality reporting requirements and calculation methods; oAntitrust Damages Directive. VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS 1.Court rulings The Court gave the following rulings: ·Germany has failed to comply with the Nitrates Directive by not having taken additional measures or reinforced action as soon as it became apparent that the action programme was not sufficient to achieve the objectives set by the Directive. These are to reduce water pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources and prevent further such pollution. ·Germany failed to take the necessary measures to re-establish conformity to their approved types of 133 713 vehicles of types 246, 176 and 117, sold by Daimler between 1 January and 26 June 2013. The vehicles were fitted not with the refrigerant R1234yf declared for those approved types but a different refrigerant with a global warming potential of over 150. ·Germany excludes sales of travel services to taxable undertakings from the special scheme for travel agents. Moreover, when applying the special scheme, Germany allows an overall taxable amount to be calculated either for groups of services or for all services provided within a tax period. The Court decided that both measures are incompatible with the VAT Directive.



2.Preliminary rulings The Court addressed the following preliminary rulings to the German judiciary:

·The Court clarified further the consequences for the right to annual leave of terminating a contract and ruled that Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on the right to a period of paid annual leave has horizontal direct effect and that it can be invoked in disputes between a worker and his or her private sector employer .. ·During their minimum period of annual leave guaranteed by EU law, workers are entitled to their normal remuneration, in spite of periods of short-time work during the reference period for that leave. A worker who carried out lower-paid short-time work during that period may not receive a lower remuneration for the corresponding annual leave . ·Churches or other organisations whose ethos is based on religion may impose on their employees different requirements on the basis of religion only if those requirements are genuine, legitimate and justified in the light of the organisation’s ethos as well as the nature and context of the specific job . ·An administrator of a fan page must be regarded as a controller jointly responsible, within the EU, with Facebook Ireland for the processing of personal data through that kind of page. ·Approval granted to chewing tobacco can only cover products that release their essential ingredients by being chewed . ·An arbitration clause included in a bilateral agreement between Member States which allows EU investors to bring claims against Member States before arbitral tribunals is not compatibile with EU law. ·An airline which operated only the first leg of a connecting flight in one Member State can be sued before the courts of the final destination in another Member State for compensation for delays. ·A ‘wildcat’ strike by flight staff after the surprise announcement by an operating air carrier of a restructuring is not an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ as restructuring is part of normal business management measures. and the risks arising from the social consequences of such measures must be regarded as inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the airline. Further, in such circumstances, a spontaneous strike by flight staff cannot be regarded as beyond the carrier’s actual control. ·The common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers apply to passenger transport, from a Member State to a third State, effected under a single booking and comprising a scheduled stopover outside the EU with a change of aircraft . ·Compensation rights apply in the event of a flight cancellation less than 7 days before the scheduled time of departure where the passenger is subject to a loss of time of less than 3 hours but more than 2 hours as a result of re-routing. This is the case if the actual arrival time is between 2 and 3 hours later than the scheduled arrival . ·In the case of a long delay, the air company which must pay the compensation owed to passengers is the one which performed the flight (and not the company which leased the aircraft and its crew) . ·When a flight is cancelled, the air carrier must reimburse commissions paid to intermediaries provided that the carrier had prior knowledge of those commissions . ·Airfares for flights within the EU are to be indicated by carriers in euros or in a local currency objectively linked to the service offered . ·Certain cross-border transactions need to be carried out at ‘arm’s length’, whereas identical domestic transactions are considered to be without any tax effect (i.e. they could also be made not at arm’s length). In fact, the tax authorities responsible for enforcing the legislation at stake afford the resident tax payer the opportunity to prove that the terms were agreed on for commercial reasons which could result from its status as a shareholder in the non-resident company. ·The German anti-abuse measures concerning dividend payments to foreign companies without genuine activity were incompatible, as of 2012, with both the Parent-Subsidiary Directive and the freedom of establishment. ·The case concerns the requirement to package a product covered by a protected geographical indication, such as ‘Schwarzwälder Schinken’ ham, only in its geographical area of production. The Court ruled that this requirement is compatible with EU law, despite its restrictive effects on trade, if it is shown to be necessary and proportionate to safeguard the quality of the product at issue, guarantee its origin or ensure the control of the specification of that protected geographical indication . ·The EU has exclusive competence for fisheries measures taken to implement specific environmental directives (the Habitats Directive and the Environmental Liability Directive). ·The case concerns a situation where a third country national who, having lodged a first asylum application in one Member State (Member State ‘A’) and a second asylum application in another Member State (Member State ‘B’), was transferred back to Member State ‘A’ following which he immediately returned illegally to the second Member State ‘B’. The Court ruled that in such a situation a return procedure may be undertaken in respect of that person, but it is not possible to transfer them again to Member State ‘A’ without following this procedure. · ·The imposition of a requirement on coach transport companies providing a regular cross-border service within the Schengen area to check the passports and residence permits of passengers before they cross an internal border in order to prevent the transport of third-country nationals not in possession of those travel documents to the national territory has an effect equivalent to border checks and is therefore prohibited .

·This case concerns voluntary remedial measures taken in case where an exclusion ground from participating in public procurement applies. The Court has established that it is compatible with EU law to require cooperation with both investigative and contracting authorities, each in their particular roles, to demonstrate reliability of a tenderer despite the existence of a relevant ground for exclusion as long as the cooperation with the latter is limited to what is necessary in the framework of the examination of re-establishing reliability. Furthermore, the Court has ruled that the maximum period for exclusion by reason of a competition infringement which had been penalised by a competent authority is to be calculated from the date of the decision of that authority. ·Discrimination in education under the Racial Equality Directive also covers conditions for access to education. Estonia I.COMPLAINTS 1.New complaints made against Estonia by members of the public (2014-2018) 2.Public complaints against Estonia open at year-end 18 > Complaints open at end-2017 14 > New complaints registered in 2018 16 > Complaints handled in 2018 = 16 > Complaints open at end-2018 3.New complaints registered in 2018: main policy areas



II.EU PILOT 1.New EU Pilot files opened against Estonia (2014-2018) 2.Files relating to Estonia open in EU Pilot at year-end 3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2018: main policy areas In 2018, the Commission opened three EU Pilot files against Estonia in the area of energy. 4.EU Pilot files: Estonia’s resolution rate in 2014-2018

III.INFRINGEMENT CASES 1.Infringement cases against Estonia open on 31 December (2014-2018) 2.New infringement cases opened in 2018: main policy areas



3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court a)The Commission opened 11 new infringement cases against Estonia in 2018. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include: ·failure to correctly transpose certain requirements of the Radioactive Waste Directive; ·failure to adopt a national programme for the implementation of spent fuel and radioactive waste management policy compliant with the requirements of the Radioactive Waste Directive; ·incorrect transposition of the Directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes; ·failure to ensure that urban waste water is adequately treated; ·non-conformity of national transposition measures with the Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications; ·non-communication of national measures transposing the oDirective on certain permitted uses of certain works and other subject matter protected by copyright and related rights for the benefit of persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print-disabled; oData Protection Law Enforcement 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. IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES

1.Late transposition infringement cases against Estonia open on 31 December (2014-2018)



2.New late transposition infringement cases against Estonia (2014-2018) 3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2018: 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 2018 These concerned: ·non-communication of national measures transposing the oDirective on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime ; oAntitrust Damages Directive.



VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS 1.Court rulings There were no major Court rulings in 2018. 2.Preliminary rulings

No major preliminary rulings were addressed to the Estonian judiciary in 2018. Ireland i.COMPLAINTS 1.New complaints made against Ireland by members of the public (2014-2018) 3.Public complaints against Ireland open at year-end 279 > Complaints open at end-2017 99 > New complaints registered in 2018 198 > Complaints handled in 2018 = 180 > Complaints open at end-2018 4.New complaints registered in 2018: main policy areas



II. EU PILOT 1.New EU Pilot files opened against Ireland (2014-2018) 2.Files relating to Ireland open in EU Pilot at year-end 3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2018: main policy areas In 2018, the Commission opened three EU Pilot files against Ireland: one in the area of environment and two in the area of energy. 4.EU Pilot files: Ireland’s resolution rate in 2014-2018

III.INFRINGEMENT CASES 1.Infringement cases against Ireland open on 31 December (2014-2018) 2.New infringement cases opened in 2018: main policy areas



3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court a)The Commission opened 21 new infringement cases against Ireland in 2018. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include: ·incorrect application of the Directive on the investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector; ·failure to implement a points system for fisheries as required under the EU Control Regulation; ·non-compliance with the requirements of the Energy Efficiency Directive; ·failure to correctly transpose certain requirements of the Radioactive Waste Directive; ·failure to adopt a national programme for the implementation of spent fuel and radioactive waste management policy compliant with the requirements of the Radioactive Waste Directive; ·failure to establish Special Areas of Conservation, as well as conservation objectives and measures to maintain or restore the species and habitats to a favourable condition, as required by the Habitats Directive; ·non-conformity of national transposition measures with the Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications; ·excessive amounts of trihalomethanes in drinking water; ·non-communication of national measures transposing the oCommission Directive amending the Directive on quality system standards and specifications for blood establishments; oDirective on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants ; oDirective on 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 ;

oBasic Safety Standards Directive; oDirective on security of network and information systems; oDirective on the accessibility of the websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies; oCouncil Framework Decision on the exchange of criminal records; oPackage Travel Directive; b)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. 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 Ireland had failed to apply correctly the EU provisions on environmental impact assessments in relation to the Derrybrien windfarm. IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES 1.Late transposition infringement cases against Ireland open on 31 December (2014-2018) 2.New late transposition infringement cases against Ireland (2014-2018)



3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2018: main policy areas 4.Referrals to the Court The Commission referred one case to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU. It concerns ·incomplete transposition of the fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive. V.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES

Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2018 These concerned: ·incorrect application of EU rules on the mutual recognition of seafarers certificates issued by the Member States; ·late adoption of the second round of river basin management plans under the Water Framework Directive; ·failure to establish and notify flood risk management plans under the Floods Directive; ·bad application of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive in the area of air transport; ·non-communication of national measures transposing the oSolvency II Directive; oDirective on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime; oAntitrust Damages Directive; oCommission Directive amending the Directive on quality system standards and specifications for blood establishments ; oDirective on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants . VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS 1.Court ruling The Court ruled that: ·Ireland does not properly apply the EU rules on fiscal marking of fuels. The Court found that Ireland has failed to ensure that the minimum levels of taxation applicable to motor fuels are applied and that fuel is marked only when it is subject to an exemption from or reduction in excise duty. 2.Preliminary rulings The Court addressed the following preliminary rulings to the Irish judiciary. ·When a company intends to acquire the shares of another company in order provide management services subject to VAT to that other company, input VAT paid on consultancy services received in the context of the takeover bid can be deducted, even if ultimately that economic activity was not carried out. ·If a project to be carried out on a site designated for the protection and conservation of certain species includes measures aiming to ensure that the part of the site likely to provide a suitable habitat for the species will not be reduced and could even be enhanced, those measures do not constitute mitigation measures. Therefore, they may not be taken into account for the purpose of the appropriate assessment of the implications of the project for the site. Such measures may be seen as compensatory measures, necessary to protect the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network.

·An ‘appropriate assessment’ required under the Habitats Directive must i) catalogue all habitat types and species for which the Natura 2000 site is protected, and ii) examine the implications of the proposed project for the species present on the site (other than those for which the site has been listed) and the implications for habitat types and species outside the boundaries of that site, provided that those implications are liable to affect the conservation objectives of the site. The developer of the project is free to determine later, after the development consent has been granted, certain parameters relating to the construction phase only if those parameters will not adversely affect the integrity of the site. If a scientific expert opinion recommends obtaining additional information and the authority competent to issue the environmental permit rejects these findings, the ‘appropriate assessment’ must present explicity and in detail the reasons which led the permitting authority to conclude that there is no reasonable scientific doubt over the effects of the work envisaged on the site concerned. The Environmental Impact Assessment Directive requires that the project developer supplies information that expressly addresses the significant effects of the project on all species identified in the environmental impact statement. Studying the ‘main alternatives’ means that the developer must indicate the reasons for his choice, taking into account at least the environmental effects, whether those alternatives were initially envisaged by him or by the competent authority or whether they were recommended by some stakeholders. ·The Habitats Directive does not allow mitigation measures (aiming to avoid or reduce the significant effects of a plan or project) to be taken into account already at the stage when screening is carried out in order to determine whether or not it is necessary to carry out an assessment of the implications of the plan or project on a special area of conservation. ·The requirement that certain judicial procedures should not be prohibitively expensive applies to a procedure before a court of a Member State in which it is determined whether leave may be granted to bring a challenge in the course of a development consent process concerning a plan or a project. The requirement applies only to the costs relating to the part of the challenge alleging infringement of the rules on public participation. The Aarhus Convention however sets a wider obligation for the Member States in relation to the requirement that certain judicial procedures should not be prohibitively expensive. ·The rule that legal challenges by a member of the public to an environmental impact assessment procedure should not be prohibitively expensive must be broadly interpreted so that it also applies to the costs arising in a case which was ongoing at the time the deadline for transposing the Directive which introduced this rule had elapsed. ·The Court found that the notification by a Member State of its intention to leave the EU (Article 50 TEU) does not have as a consequence that another Member State must refuse to execute a European Arrest Warrant issued by the leaving Member State, neither must it postpone its execution pending clarification of the law that will be applicable after the withdrawal. ·A judicial authority called upon to execute a European Arrest Warrant must refrain from giving effect to it if it considers that there is a real risk that the individual concerned would suffer a breach of his fundamental right to an independent tribunal and, therefore, of the essence of his fundamental right to a fair trial on account of deficiencies liable to affect the independence of the judiciary in the issuing Member State. Greece I.COMPLAINTS 1.New complaints made against Greece by members of the public (2014-2018) 2.Public complaints against Greece open at year-end 109 > Complaints open at end-2017 172 > New complaints registered in 2018 163 > Complaints handled in 2018 = 118 > Complaints open at end-2018 3.New complaints registered in 2018: main policy areas



II.EU PILOT 1.New EU Pilot files opened against Greece (2014-2018) 2.Files relating to Greece open in EU Pilot at year-end

3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2018: main policy areas



4.EU Pilot files: Greece’s resolution rate in 2014-2018 III.INFRINGEMENT CASES 1.Infringement cases against Greece open on 31 December (2014-2018) 2.New infringement cases opened in 2018: main policy areas



3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court a)The Commission opened 26 new infringement cases against Greece in 2018. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include: ·incorrect application of the VAT rules on the lease of yachts; ·delays in processing applications for recognition of diplomas from other Member States; ·non-conformity of national transposition measures with the Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications; ·insufficient monitoring of the entities responsible for the implementation of aviation security standards; ·failure to adopt and notify the long-term renovation strategy in commercial and residential buildings, as required by the Energy Efficiency Directive; ·failure to adopt a national programme for the implementation of spent fuel and radioactive waste management policy compliant with the requirements of the Radioactive Waste Directive;

·failure to establish Special Areas of Conservation, as well as conservation objectives and measures to maintain or restore the species and habitats to a favourable condition, as required by the Habitats Directive; ·non-communication of national measures transposing the oPayment Services Directive; oInsurance Distribution Directive; orevised Markets in Financial Instruments Directive; oBasic Safety Standards Directive; oDirective on security of network and information systems; oDirective on the accessibility of the websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies; oDirective on certain permitted uses of certain works and other subject matter protected by copyright and related rights for the benefit of persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print-disabled; oDirective on the presumption of innocence; oDirective on the consular protection of unrepresented EU citizens in third countries.



b)The Commission referred two cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They concern: ·obstacles to the freedom of establishment for training bodies for professional mediators contrary to the Services Directive and restrictions on recognising the professional qualifications of mediators; ·wrong imposition of a reduced rate of 50% of the standard rate of excise duty on the spirit drinks Tsipouro and Tsikoudia, in breach of EU law. 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 Greece open on 31 December (2014-2018) 2.New late transposition infringement cases against Greece (2014-2018)





3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2018: main policy areas 4.Referrals to the Court The Commission referred one case to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU. It concerns: ·failure to communicate national measures transposing the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive. V.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2018 These concerned: ·late adoption of the second round of river basin management plans under the Water Framework Directive; ·non-conformity of the provisions of national legislation on average weekly working time and minimium periods of daily rest or of compensatory rest with the Working Time Directive in the healthcare sector; ·failure to communicate national measures transposing the oMortgage Credit Directive; oDirective concerning undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities; oDirective on intra-corporate transfer ; oDirective on reducing the consumption of lightweight plastic carrier bags; orevised Environmental Impact Assessment Directive; oDirective on fuel quality reporting requirements and calculation methods. VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

1.Court rulings The Court gave the following rulings. ·Greece has failed to comply with an earlier Court judgment that it had failed to fulfil its obligations under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive by not taking the measures necessary for the installation of a collection system for urban waste water from the Thriasio Pedio area and by not subjecting the area’s waste water to more stringent treatment before its discharge into the sensitive area of the Gulf of Elefsina, Greece. The Court ordered Greece to pay a lump sum of EUR 5 million and a sliding-scale periodic penalty payment of EUR 3 276 000 for each six-month period of delay until full compliance is achieved. ·The Greek rules allowing the sale of tax-exempt fuel by filling stations located in certain border posts at frontiers with third countries are contrary to the EU provisions on general arrangements for excise duty. ·Greece has failed to comply with an earlier Court judgment finding that it had failed to implement a Commission decision ordering the recovery of State aid granted to Hellenic Shipyards. The Court ordered Greece to pay a lump sum of EUR 10 million and a penalty payment of EUR 7 294 000 for each 6 months of delay until full compliance is achieved. 2.Preliminary rulings No major preliminary rulings were addressed to the Greek judiciary in 2018. Spain I.COMPLAINTS 1.New complaints made against Spain by members of the public (2014-2018) 2.Public complaints against Spain open at year-end 367 > Complaints open at end-2017 486 > New complaints registered in 2018 462 > Complaints handled in 2018 = 391 > Complaints open at end-2018 3.New complaints registered in 2018: main policy areas



II.EU PILOT 1.New EU Pilot files opened against Spain (2011-2018)

2.Files relating to Spain open in EU Pilot at year-end 3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2018: main policy areas



4.EU Pilot files: Spain’s resolution rate in 2014-2018 III.INFRINGEMENT CASES 1.Infringement cases against Spain open on 31 December (2014-2018) 2.New infringement cases opened in 2018: main policy areas



3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court a)The Commission opened 27 new infringement cases against in 2018. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include: ·failure to comply with EU rules on the minimum level of training of seafarers; ·non-compliance with the requirements of the Energy Efficiency Directive; ·non-conformity with the Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications; ·failure to ensure individual metering and billing for heat energy in multi-apartment buildings, as required under the Energy Efficiency Directive; ·failure to adopt a national programme for the implementation of spent fuel and radioactive waste management policy compliant with the requirements of the Radioactive Waste Directive;

·non-communication of flood risk management plans; ·non-conformity of national transposition measures with the Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications; ·incorrect transposition of the Directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes; ·insufficient protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources; ·non-communication of national measures transposing the oPayment Services Directive; oInsurance Distribution Directive; orevised Markets in Financial Instruments Directive; oCommission Directive amending the Directive on quality system standards and specifications for blood establishments; oNuclear Safety Directive; oDirective on security of network and information systems. b)The Commission referred two cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They concern ·failure to adopt waste management plans and to revise these plans in accordance with the Waste Framework Directive; ·failure to adopt and review the river basin management plans for the Canary Islands. 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 (2014-2018) 2.New late transposition infringement cases against Spain (2014-2018)

3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2018: main policy areas 4..Referrals to the Court The Commission referred four cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU. They concern non-communication of national measures transposing the: oDirective on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market ; oDirective on the award of concession contracts; oDirective on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors; oPayments Account Directive; V.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2018 These concerned: ·non-compliance with the Regulation on the marketing and use of explosives precursors ; ·delays in conducting market reviews, in breach of the Directive on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services; ·non-conformity with the Directive on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property; ·discriminatory and excessive requirements for participation in public procurement of ambulance services; ·a project to upgrade maritime access to the Port of Seville by dredging the Guadalquivir River, in breach of the Habitats Directive;non-communication of national measures transposing the: oDirective on fuel quality reporting requirements and calculation methods; oCommission Directive amending the Directive on quality system standards and specifications for blood establishments ; oDirective on alternative dispute resolution for consumers disputes; oAntitrust Damages Directive;

oDirective on reducing the consumption of lightweight plastic carrier bags.



VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS 1.Court rulings The Court gave the following rulings: ·Spain has not fulfilled its obligations as it failed to take the necessary measures to implement the ‘Whistleblowing’ Directive into national legislation on time. ·Spain discriminated against small hauliers, excluding them from the road transport market, by requiring hauliers to own a minimum number of vehicles in order to obtain a public transport authorisation. ·Spain has failed to comply with an earlier Court judgment as 17 of the 43 agglomerations of over 15 000 population equivalent concerned by the first judgment had still not been equipped with systems for collecting or treating urban waste water. The Court ordered Spain to pay a lump sum of EUR 12 million and a penalty payment of EUR 10 950 000 per six-month period of delay until full compliance is achieved. 2.Preliminary rulings The Court addressed the following preliminary rulings to the Spanish judiciary. ·Access, by the police, to data for the purpose of identifying the owners of SIM cards activated with a stolen mobile telephone cannot be defined as ‘serious’ interference with the fundamental rights. Such data do not allow precise conclusions to be drawn about their private lives and such interference may be justified by the objective of preventing, investigating, detecting and prosecuting ‘criminal offences’. ·The two types of termination of the employment relationship (dismissal under objective reasons and termination of fixed-term contract) are not comparable and, therefore, different levels of compensation can be granted. ·EU directives apply to a female security agent who does shift work, including night shifts which entail a risk for the agent to breastfeed her baby . ·National legislation may allow an employer to dismiss a pregnant worker in the context of a collective redundancy, on condition that the employer provides the dismissed pregnant worker with the reasons justifying the redundancy. ·A fine for not declaring cash upon entering or leaving the EU which may be up to double the undeclared amount is contrary to EU law, including the Cash Control Regulation ·Spain’s national legislation may limit the sales designation ‘ibérico de cebo’ to pork products complying with certain conditions imposed by that legislation. This is because it permits the importation and marketing of products from other Member States under the designations they bear pursuant to the rules of the Member State of origin, even if they are similar, comparable or identical to the designations provided for in the respective national legislation . ·Member States may require a contribution to an energy efficiency fund from energy undertakings designated on the basis of explicitly stated, objective and non-discriminatory criteria. This obligation, which substitutes an energy efficiency obligation scheme, should nonetheless comply with all the requirements of the Energy Efficiency Directive and reach the same level of savings. France I.COMPLAINTS

1.New complaints made against France by members of the public (2014-2018) 2.Public complaints against France open at year-end 313 > Complaints open at end-2017 316 > New complaints registered in 2018 347 > Complaints handled in 2018 = 282 > Complaints open at end-2018 3.New complaints registered in 2018: main policy areas



II.EU PILOT 1.New EU Pilot files opened against France (2014-2018) 2.Files relating to France open in EU Pilot at year-end 3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2018: main policy areas



4.EU Pilot files: France’s resolution rate in 2014-2018 III.INFRINGEMENT CASES 1.Infringement cases against France open on 31 December (2014-2018)

2.New infringement cases opened in 2018: main policy areas



3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court a)The Commission opened 20 new infringement cases against France in 2018. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include: ·exceedances of PM10 emission limits, in breach of the Directive on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe; ·failure to adopt and update waste management plans, in breach of the Waste Framework Directive; ·failure to adopt noise maps and action plans as required by the Noise Directive;noise directive; ·failure to comply with the obligations regarding treatment of waste water as regards 373 agglomerations;; ·non-conformity of national transposition measures with the Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications; ·non-communication of national measures transposing the oDirective on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from medium combustion plants; oCommission Directive amending the Directive on quality system standards and specifications for blood establishments ; oInsurance Distribution Directive ; oDirective on security of network and information systems; oDirective on the accessibility of the websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies; oDirective on certain permitted uses of certain works and other subject matter protected by copyright and related rights for the benefit of persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print-disabled; ofourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive; oDirective establishing a fourth list of indicative occupational exposure limit values to protect workers from risks arising from exposure to hazardous chemicals. b)The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. It concerns:

·exceedance of the nitrogen dioxide (NO2) limit values set by the Air Quality Directive. 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 (2014-2018) 2.New late transposition infringement cases against France (2014-2018) 3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2018: 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 2018 These concerned: ·incorrect application of VAT rules on aesthetic medicine and surgery procedures; ·incorrect implementation of the Directive on the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants; ·incorrect transposition of the Third Energy Package Directives; ·import of second-hand cars which were previously registered in another Member State;

·non-communication of national measures transposing the oAntitrust Damages Directive; oDirective on collective management of copyright and related rights; oDirective on fuel quality reporting requirements and calculation methods; oDirective on tobacco products ; oCommission Directive amending the Directive on quality system standards and specifications for blood establishments. . VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS 1.Court rulings The Court ruled that: ·France has failed to fulfil its obligations under EU law over the way it applied the mechanism for the avoidance of economic double taxation of distributed foreign dividends. 2.Preliminary rulings The Court addressed the following preliminary rulings to the French judiciary. ·Only part of the French public electricity service tax (CSPE) may be considered as another indirect tax for specific purposes, namely its environmental objective (and in the proportion in which revenue raised from the tax was allocated to this objective). The taxable persons concerned are entitled to a reimbursement of the other part of the tax, provided that they did not directly pass on that tax to their own consumers. ·French withholding tax on dividends received by loss-making non-resident companies is incompatible with free movement of capital. The Court ruled that different ways to collect taxes between resident and non-resident taxpayers are allowed only if they do not result in heavier taxation of the latter. ·Member States may prohibit and punish as a matter of criminal law the illegal exercise of transport activities by the UberPop service, without notifying the Commission in advance of the draft legislation laying down criminal penalties for the exercise of such activities; ·An applicant for international protetion who moves to another Member State after lodging their application cannot be returned to the first Member State before the second Member State has agreed to the request to take that person back, explicitly or implicitly. ·Under the EU rules on the common organisation of the market in wine, the fact that an on-the-spot check can be carried out unannounced means at the very most that it can take place at any time, without the control official having given notice of his visit. However, officials carrying out on-the-spot checks cannot enter agricultural land without having obtained the vine grower’s permission; . ·Organisms obtained by mutagenesis are genetically modified organisms and are, in principle, subject to the obligations laid down by the GMO Directive. However, organisms obtained by mutagenesis techniques that have conventionally been used in a number of applications and have a long safety record are exempt from those obligations. Member States are neverthless free to subject them, in compliance with EU law, to the obligations laid down by the Directive or to other obligations . Croatia

I.COMPLAINTS 1.New complaints made against Croatia by members of the public (2014-2018) 2.Public complaints against Croatia open at year-end 69 > Complaints open at end-2017 60 > New complaints registered in 2018 75 > Complaints handled in 2018 = 54 > Complaints open at end-2018 3.New complaints registered in 2018: main policy areas



II.EU PILOT 1.New EU Pilot files opened against Croatia (2014-2018) 2.Files relating to Croatia open in EU Pilot at year-end 3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2018: main policy areas 4.EU Pilot files: Croatia’s resolution rate in 2014-2018 III.INFRINGEMENT CASES 1.Infringement cases against Croatia open on 31 December (2014-2018)

2.New infringement cases opened in 2018: main policy areas 3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court a)The Commission opened 14 new infringement cases against Croatia in 2018. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include: ·non-conformity with the Habitats Directive, the Birds Directive and the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive; ·failure to comply with EU legislation on Flag State requirements; ·failure to correctly transpose certain requirements of the Radioactive Waste Directive; ·non-compliance with EU rules on the spectrum Decision; ·non-conformity of national transposition measures with the Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications ; ·non-communication of national measures transposing the oPayment Services Directive ; oInsurance Distribution Directive ; orevised Markets in Financial Instruments Directive; oDirective on security of network and information systems; oDirective on the accessibility of the websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies; oData Protection Law Enforcement Directive; oDirective on the presumption of innocence. b)The Commission referred two cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They concern ·failure to ensure adequate protection of human health and the environment from industrial waste in Biljane Donje; ·failure to notify the national programme for the implementation of a spent fuel and radioactive waste management policy.

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 (2014-2018) 2.New late transposition infringement cases against Croatia (2014-2018) 3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2018: 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 2018 These concerned: ·incorrect implementation of EU common rules on civil aviation security ; ·discriminatory prices of fishing licences for non-residents; ·failure to designate competent authorities responsible for the application of EU rules for users from the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources; ·non-conformity with the Directive on waste; ·failure to adopt and communicate noise maps and action plans;

·failure to report the programmes of measures under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive; ·non-communication of national measures transposing the oAntitrust Damages Directive; oMortgage Credit Directive ; oOffshore Safety Directive; oDirective on alternative dispute resolution for consumers disputes; oDirective on intra-corporate transfer ; oDirective on reducing the consumption of lightweight plastic carrier bags. VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS 1.Court rulings There were no major Court rulings in 2018. 2.Preliminary rulings No major preliminary rulings were addressed to the Croatian judiciary in 2018. Italy I.COMPLAINTS 1.New complaints made against Italy by members of the public (2014-2018) 2.Public complaints against Italy open at year-end 582 > Complaints open at end-2017 633 > New complaints registered in 2018 488 > Complaints handled in 2018 = 727 > Complaints open at end-2018

3.New complaints registered in 2018: main policy areas



II.EU PILOT 1.New EU Pilot files opened against Italy (2014-2018) 2.Files relating to Italy open in EU Pilot at year-end 3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2018: main policy areas



4.EU Pilot files: Italy’s resolution rate in 2014-2018 III.INFRINGEMENT CASES 1.Infringement cases against Italy open on 31 December (2014-2018) 2.New infringement cases opened in 2018: main policy areas

3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court a)The Commission opened 26 new infringement cases against Italy in 2018. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:

·incorrect application of the VAT rules on the lease of yachts; ·illegal excise duty exemption for fuel used by private pleasure craft; ·use of ‘fast corridors’ to move goods long distances without presentation to customs authorities upon arrival and assigning the goods to a customs procedure at the customs office of entry; ·failure to comply with EU rules on the minimum level of training of seafarers ; ·direct award of a number of defence contracts to national suppliers in breach of the Defence Procurement Directive; ·non-conformity of national transposition measures with the Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications; ·failure to correctly transpose certain requirements of the Radioactive Waste Directive; ·failure to submit reports on time under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive; ·insufficient protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources; ·failure to ensure that urban waste water is adequately treated; ·failure to comply with a Court judgment finding that urban waste water is not adequately collected and treated; ·non-communication of national measures transposing the oDirective on end-of-life vehicles; oCommission Directive amending the Directive on quality system standards and specifications for blood establishments ; oDirective on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants ; oBasic Safety Standards Directive ; oDirective on certain permitted uses of certain works and other subject matter protected by copyright and related rights for the benefit of persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print-disabled; oDirective on working conditions of seafarers; oPackage Travel Directive; oDirective establishing a fourth list of indicative occupational exposure limit values to protect workers from risks arising from exposure to hazardous chemicals

b)The Commission referred six cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They concern ·failure to notify the national programme for the implementation of a spent fuel and radioactive waste management policy; ·exceedance of the PM10 limit values set by the Air Quality Directive; ·non-communication of national measures transposing certain technical requirements on testing of human tissues and cells; ·failure to adequately prevent further spread of the quarantine harmful organism Xylella fastidiosa in Apulia; ·delays in payments made by the Italian public authorities to their suppliers, in breach of theDirective on late payment in commercial transactions; ·refusal to compensate the loss of traditional own resources resulting from failure to properly enforce an amount of customs duties c)The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU. It concerns ·failure to implement the Commission’s decision requiring Italy to recover illegal State aid granted to the hotel industry in Sardinia. IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES 1.Late transposition infringement cases against Italy open on 31 December (2014-2018)



2.New late transposition infringement cases against Italy (2014-2018) 3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2018: 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 2018 These concerned: ·non-compliance with the provisions of the Directive on waste; ·unjustified restrictions on VAT reimbursement; ·non-communication of national measures transposing the oAntitrust Damages Directive; oCommission Directive amending the Directive on quality system standards and specifications for blood establishments ; oDirective on caseins and caseinates; oDirective on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants . VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS 1.Court rulings The Court made the following rulings. ·Italy failed to recover milk surplus levies from Italian milk producers which exceeded their production quotas for the marketing years from 1995/1996 to 2008/2009. ·Italy has failed to comply in full with an earlier Court judgment since no proof has been provided of the existence of appropriate urban waste water collection and treatment systems in 74 of the 109 agglomerations concerned by the first judgment. The Court found that Italy’s failure to fulfil its obligations is particularly serious in so far as the lack of, or inadequacy of urban waste water collection or treatment systems could harm the environment. The Court ordered Italy to pay a lump sum of EUR 25 million and a penalty payment of EUR 30 112 500 for every 6 months of delay until full compliance is achieved. 2.Preliminary rulings The Court addressed the following preliminary rulings to the Italian judiciary. ·The ne bis in idem principle may be limited for the purpose of protecting the financial interests of the EU. The objective of ensuring the collection of all the VAT due in the territories of Member States can justify a duplication of proceedings and penalties of a criminal nature. However, such a limitation on the principle must not exceed what is strictly necessary to achieve those objectives. ·Workers who have been on abusive successive fixed-term contracts are entitled to two types of compensation for the past abuse they have faced: (a) a lump sum compensation and (b) an additional possibility to obtain full compensation for the harm suffered. This harm is presumed to have occurred unless the employer can prove otherwiseNational legislation which excludes certain sectors from effective sanction in case of misuse of successive fixed-term contracts is not compliant with the EU rules on the framework agreement on fixed-term work . ·Any period of full-time or part-time specialist medical training begun in 1982 and continued up to 1990 must be subject to appropriate remuneration . ·Member States whose legislation creates a requirement to pursue full-time training and a prohibition on being enrolled in two courses at the same time, must automatically, recognise qualifications issued by another Member State on the completion of partially concurrent training .

·The organisation and management of health services are the responsibility of the Member States, as regards setting the prices of medicinal products and their inclusion in the scope of the national healthcare insurance system. In exercising those powers the Member States must comply with EU law . ·The Court ruled on the compatibility with the freedom to provide services, the freedom of establishment and the principles of non-discrimination, transparency and proportionality of certain national rules imposing limits as regards the concession granted for the management of the national lottery Lotto. The Court establishes that imposing a sole concessionaire model, a high basic contract value, as well as providing for the withdrawal of the concession in case of certain criminal or fraudulent activities can be justified on public policy grounds if they fulfil the principles of proportionality and transparency. Cyprus I.COMPLAINTS 1.New complaints made against Cyprus by members of the public (2014-2018) 2.Public complaints against Cyprus open at year-end 58 > Complaints open at end-2017 57 > New complaints registered in 2018 60 > Complaints handled in 2018 = 55 > Complaints open at end-2018 3.New complaints registered in 2018: main policy areas



II.EU PILOT 1.New EU Pilot files opened against Cyprus (2014-2018) 2.Files relating to Cyprus open in EU Pilot at year-end 3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2018: policy areas





4.EU Pilot files: Cyprus’s resolution rate in 2014-2018 III.INFRINGEMENT CASES 1.Infringement cases against Cyprus open on 31 December (2014-2018) 2.New infringement cases opened in 2018: main policy areas 3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court a)The Commission opened 37 new infringement cases against Cyprus in 2018. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include: ·incorrect application of the Investor Compensation Schemes Directive; ·non-conformity of national transposition measures with the Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications; ·failure to comply with EU legislation on Flag State requirements; ·incorrect application of the VAT rules on the lease of yachts and the incorrect taxation of purchases of yachts; ·non-compliance with the requirements of the Energy Efficiency Directive; ·failure to ensure adequate protection of indigenous habitats and species by designating Sites of Community Importance under the Habitats Directive; ·failure to ensure that urban waste water is adequately treated; ·non-communication of national measures transposing the oPayment Services Directive; oInsurance Distribution Directive; oCommission Directive amending the Directive on quality system standards and specifications for blood establishments ;

oDirective concerning 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 ; oBasic Safety Standards Directive; oDirective on the accessibility of the websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies; oDirective on certain permitted uses of certain works and other subject matter protected by copyright and related rights for the benefit of persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print-disabled; oDirective on the presumption of innocence; oData Protection Law Enforcement 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. IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES 1.Late transposition infringement cases against Cyprus open on 31 December (2014-2018) 2.New late transposition infringement cases against Cyprus (2014-2018) 3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2018: 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 2018 These concerned:

·operation of the Port State Control system; ·insufficient designation of Akamas as a Site of Community Importance under the Habitats Directive; ·failure to communicate national measures transposing the oSolvency II Directive; oCommission Directive amending the Directive on quality system standards and specifications for blood establishments ; oDirective on caseins and caseinates; oAntitrust Damages Directive; oDirective on seasonal workers; oDirective on reducing the consumption of lightweight plastic carrier bags; oDirective on fuel quality reporting requirements and calculation methods. VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS 1.Court rulings There were no major Court rulings in 2018. 2.Preliminary rulings No major preliminary rulings were addressed to the Cyprus judiciary in 2018. Latvia I.COMPLAINTS 1.New complaints made against Latvia by members of the public (2014-2018)

2.Public complaints against Latvia open at year-end 23 > Complaints open at end-2017 20 > New complaints registered in 2018 24 > Complaints handled in 2018 = 19 > Complaints open at end-2018 3.New complaints registered in 2018: main policy areas



II.EU PILOT 1.New EU Pilot files opened against Latvia (2014-2018) 2.Files relating to Latvia open in EU Pilot at year-end 3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2018: main policy areas In 2018, the Commission opened two EU Pilot files against Latvia: one in the area of energy and one in the area of taxation and customs. 4.EU Pilot files: Latvia’s resolution rate in 2014-2018 III.INFRINGEMENT CASES 1.Infringement cases against Latvia open on 31 December (2014-2018) 2.New infringement cases opened in 2018: main policy areas 3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court

a)The Commission opened 19 new infringement cases against Latvia in 2018. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include: ·failure to comply with EU rules on the minimum level of training of seafarers ; ·application of a VAT reverse-charge mechanism in breach of EU rules; ·failure to correctly transpose certain requirements of the Radioactive Waste Directive; ·non-communication of national measures transposing the: oPayment Services Directive; oInsurance Distribution Directive; orevised Markets in Financial Instruments Directive; oDirective on security of network and information systems; oDirective on certain permitted uses of certain works and other subject matter protected by copyright and related rights for the benefit of persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print-disabled; oDirective on end-of life vehicles. 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 Latvia open on 31 December (2014-2018) 2.New late transposition infringement cases against Latvia (2014-2018)



3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2018: 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 2018 These concerned: ·failure to communicate national measures transposing the oSolvency II Directive; oDirective concerning undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities; oDirective on tobacco products; oRadioactive Waste Directive; oAntitrust Damages Directive. VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS 1.Court ruling There were no major Court rulings in 2018. 2.Preliminary ruling No major preliminary rulings were addressed to the Latvian judiciary in 2018. Lithuania I.COMPLAINTS 1.New complaints made against Lithuania by members of the public (2014-2018)

2.Public complaints against Lithuania open at year-end 36 > Complaints open at end-2017 32 > New complaints registered in 2018 35 > Complaints handled in 2018 = 33 > Complaints open at end-2018 3.New complaints registered in 2018: main policy areas



II.EU PILOT 1.New EU Pilot files opened against Lithuania (2014-2018) 2.Files relating to Lithuania open in EU Pilot at year-end 3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2018: main policy areas In 2018, the Commission opened two EU Pilot files against Lithuania in the area of energy. 4.EU Pilot files: Lithuania’s resolution rate in 2014-2018 III.INFRINGEMENT CASES 1.Infringement cases against Lithuania open on 31 December (2014-2018) 2.New infringement cases opened in 2018: main policy areas

3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court a)The Commission opened 18 new infringement cases against Lithuania in 2018. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include: ·failure to adopt a national programme for the implementation of spent fuel and radioactive waste management policy compliant with the requirements of the Radioactive Waste Directive; ·failure to ensure adequate protection of indigenous habitats and species by designating Sites of Community Importance under the Habitats Directive; ·non-conformity of national transposition measures with the Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications; ·breach of the right of EU citizens to become members of a political party or to form one in the Member State of residence; ·non-communication of national measures transposing the oPayment Services Directive; orevised Markets in Financial Instruments Directive; oDirective on security of network and information systems; oDirective on the accessibility of the websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies; oDirective on certain permitted uses of certain works and other subject matter protected by copyright and related rights for the benefit of persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print-disabled; oData Protection Law Enforcement Directive; oPackage Travel 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. IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES 1.Late transposition infringement cases against Lithuania open on 31 December (2014-2018)





2.New late transposition infringement cases against Lithuania (2014-2018) 3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2018: 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 2018 These concerned: ·incorrect application of the EU rules on the investigation of maritime accidents relating to the independent investigation body; ·non-respect of the EU rules on freedom to provide port services; ·non-communication of national measures transposing the oDirectives on the quality and safety of reproductive cells ; oDirective on intra-corporate transfer ; oDirective on seasonal workers; oProcedural Rights Directives (right to interpretation and right to information); oNuclear Safety Directive. VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS 1.Court rulings There were no major Court rulings in 2018.

2.Preliminary rulings The Court addressed the following preliminary rulings to the Lithuanian judiciary. ·Member States can decide to base the allocation of fishing quotas under the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation in connection with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, on the criterion of historic catches, but not exclusively on that criterion. Such an allocation method is permitted if it pursues one or more general interests recognised by the EU and respects the principle of proportionality. ·The ruling concerns the handling of potential collusion within a public procurement procedure. Although contracting authorities observing indications of potential collusion are obliged to verify them sufficiently, the related tenderers submitting offers in the same procedure are not obliged to spontaneously disclose details of their links. ·Technical specifications in public procurement cannot be tailored to an individual provider. It is up to contracting authorities/entities to assure fair competition, either through a detailed technical description or functional specification, or by defining an outcome, or through a combination of them. Luxembourg I.COMPLAINTS 1.New complaints made against Luxembourg by members of the public (2014-2018) 2.Public complaints against Luxembourg open at year-end 48 > Complaints open at end-2017 20 > New complaints registered in 2018 22 > Complaints handled in 2018 = 46 > Complaints open at end-2018 3.New complaints registered in 2018: main policy areas



II.EU PILOT 1.New EU Pilot files opened against Luxembourg (2014-2018) 2.Files relating to Luxembourg open in EU Pilot at year-end

3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2018: main policy areas In 2018, the Commission opened two EU Pilot files against Luxembourg in the area of energy. 4.EU Pilot files: Luxembourg’s resolution rate in 2014-2018 III.INFRINGEMENT CASES 1.Infringement cases against Luxembourg open on 31 December (2014-2018) 2.New infringement cases opened in 2018: main policy areas 3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court a)The Commission opened 32 new infringement cases against Luxembourg in 2018. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include: ·non-conformity of national transposition measures with the Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications; ·non-communication of national measures transposing the oCommision Directive amending the Directive on quality system standards and specifications for blood establishments ; oDirective on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants ; oPayment Services Directive ; oInsurance Distribution Directive ; orevised Markets in Financial Instruments Directive; oBasic Safety Standards Directive ; oDirective on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from medium combustion plants;

oDirective on security of network and information systems; oDirective on the accessibility of the websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies; oDirective on certain permitted uses of certain works and other subject matter protected by copyright and related rights for the benefit of persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print-disabled; oPackage Travel Directive; oDirective on the European Investigation Order. 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 Luxembourg open on 31 December (2014-2018)



2.New late transposition infringement cases against Luxembourg (2014-2018) 3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2018: main policy areas 4.Referrals to the Court The Commission referred four cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU. They concern failure to communicate national measures transposing the Directives on ocollective management of copyright and related rights; othe award of concession contracts; opublic procurement;