This shows the main policy areas in which the procedures for late transposition were launched in 2019.

This shows the number of late transposition infringements open at year-end for each Member State, irrespective of the year in which the infringement was opened. In addition, it also shows new late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019 for each Member State.

This starts with the number of late transposition infringements at the end of 2018 (first line). The second line shows the number of new late transposition infringements registered in 2019. The third line shows the number of infringement cases on which the Commission took a decision in 2019. The fourth line shows the number of late transposition infringements open at the end of 2019 (calculated by taking the first figure, adding the second and subtracting the third).

This shows how many directives had to be transposed in the years 2015-2019 and how many new infringement cases for late transposition were opened in that period.

This shows the total number of national transposition measures submitted by Member States to the Commission in a given year.

This shows the total number of Court of Justice judgments and the number of judgments in favour of the Commission and the Member States.

Eighth chart: Court of Justice judgments under Article 258 and 260(2) TFEU in 2019

This shows the breakdown, by policy area, of the infringement cases open on 31 December 2019.

This figure does not include, for example, open EU Pilot files. It also does not include EU Pilot files for which the Commission rejected the Member State’s response but had not yet sent a letter of formal notice under Article 258 TFEU.

·the Court had ruled on for the second time but where the Commission could not yet confirm that the Member State had implemented the second judgment correctly.

·were pending before the Court due to a second referral; or

·were in the second pre-litigation procedure (letter of formal notice or referral decision under Article 260(2) TFEU);

·the Court had ruled on but where the Commission could not yet confirm that the Member State had implemented the judgment correctly;

·were pending before the Court under Article 258 TFEU or Article 260(3) TFEU;

·were in the pre-litigation phase (letter of formal notice, reasoned opinion or decision on referral to the Court under Article 258 TFEU);

Accordingly, the numbers include all cases that, on 31 December 2019:

These figures show all procedures that the Commission has started against each Member State by sending a letter of formal notice under Article 258 TFEU. It covers letters sent in 2019 or before, irrespective of the stages the cases have reached. Only cases which have not yet been closed by a formal decision are shown. For each Member State, the chart distinguishes between infringements for incorrect transposition and/or bad application of EU law, late transposition infringements and breaches of regulations and treaties.

This shows the number of infringements that remained open on 31 December of each year from 2015 to 2019.

This shows the number of reasoned opinions sent to Member States in 2019.

This shows the main policy areas in which the new infringement cases were opened in 2019.

This shows comparison — over a five-year period — between different types of infringement cases originating as late transposition cases, breaches of regulations and treaties and incorrect application or non-conformity with directives.

This shows the number of new infringement cases opened in 2019, by Member State.

This compares the number of new EU Pilot files and new infringement cases in an overlay with the total number of infringement cases open at the year-end.

This shows the number of EU Pilot files processed in a given year and the resolution rate in that year. The resolution rate is the percentage of EU Pilot files handled for which the Commission accepted the Member States’ responses.

This shows the policy areas in which the new EU Pilot files were opened in 2019.

This starts with the number of open EU Pilot files at the end of 2018 (first line). The second line shows the number of new EU Pilot files opened in 2019. The third line shows the number of files on which the Commission took a decision in 2019. The fourth line shows the number of EU Pilot files open at the end of 2019 (calculated by taking the first figure, adding the second and subtracting the third).

This shows the number of complaints which the Commission pursued further by launching an investigation about breaches of EU law (via the EU Pilot mechanism or launching a formal infringement procedure).

This shows the main policy areas for which new complaints were registered in 2019.

This starts with the number of open complaints at the end of 2018 (first line). The second line shows the number of new complaints registered in 2019. The third line shows the number of complaints for which the Commission took a decision in 2019. The fourth line shows the number of complaints open at the end of 2019 (calculated by taking the first figure, adding the second and subtracting the third).

This shows the total number of files (complaints, EU Pilot and infringement cases) closed in a given year with the average time in weeks needed before taking a decision to close them. This means that certain files are potentially counted in all three categories, if the initial complaint becomes an infringement.

Second chart: Time taken to investigate potential breaches of EU law

This chart shows aggregated data over a five-year period covering new complaints registered, new EU Pilot files and new infringement cases.

First chart: Trends in complaints and investigations about potential breaches of EU law

In its judgment of 8 July 2019, Commission v Belgium, the Court of Justice applied for the first time the sanction scheme of Article 260(3) TFEU. It imposed a daily penalty on Belgium of EUR 5 000 from the date of the judgment for the Member State’s failure to adopt and communicate all the measures necessary for the transposition of the Directive on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic communications networks. The Court upheld the Commission’s position and clarified that the sanction scheme of Article 260(3) TFEU may also be applied to cases of partial failure to adopt and communicate transposition measures. In addition, when notifying national transposition measures to the Commission, Member States must provide sufficiently clear and precise information, and identify, for each provision of the directive, the national provision(s) ensuring its transposition.

In 2019, the Commission continued to bring late transposition infringement cases to the Court of Justice with a request for daily penalties under Article 260(3) TFEU. It referred 1 Member State (Spain) to the Court.

Under Article 260(3) TFEU, the Commission may propose financial penalties even when it refers a case for the first time to the Court of Justice under Article 258 TFEU on the ground that a Member State has failed to transpose a legislative Directive. This innovation, introduced in the Treaty of Lisbon, aims to incentivise the Member States to transpose directives on time. The Commission proposes the level of financial penalty to the Court in line with the policy laid down in its Communications on the implementation of Article 260(3) TFEU and on the calculation method for lump sum payments and daily penalty payments.

4.Referrals and judgments of the Court of Justice under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU

The policy areas in which the new cases were launched in 2019 are shown in the following chart:

The following chart shows the number of late transposition infringement cases open at the end of 2019 (599 in total), by Member State, irrespective of the year in which the case was opened and new late transposition infringement cases (406 in total) opened in 2019, by Member State.

At the end of 2019, 599 late transposition infringement cases were still open, a 21% decrease from the 758 cases open at the end of 2018.

The number of new late transposition infringements decreased from 419 in 2018 to 406 in 2019.

Combatting late transposition is a long-established priority for the Commission. The Commission therefore proposes financial sanctions whenever it refers a Member State to the Court of Justice under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU for not having communicated on time its measures to transpose a directive adopted under a legislative procedure (see details in subsection V.5).

In line with the commitments taken in the Inter-Institutional Agreement on Better Law-making, the Commission encouraged Member States to identify which provisions stem from an EU directive and which are in no way related to that Union legislation. Members of the public have an interest in knowing which national transposition measures go beyond the requirements of EU directives. Up to now, only 2 Member States provided this information to the Commission.

To further encourage Member States to be more transparent with the national measures transposing EU directives, the Commission invited Member States to agree to the publication of the text of these measures on EUR-Lex. To date, 12 Member States have agreed to do so: Austria, Czechia, Cyprus, Estonia, France, Greece, Malta, Latvia, Luxembourg, Slovakia, Spain and Poland. The Commission also invited Member States to make their declaration of transposition public on EUR-Lex, which accompanies the national transposition measures notified to the Commission. Only Greece has so far agreed to do so.

A short transposition period does not always result in an increased number of infringements for late transposition. Out of 4 directives with a transposition period of less than 5 months, 2 directives triggered a small number of infringements, whereas 2 triggered a higher number of late transposition infringement cases (12 cases — Directive on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community and 11 cases – Directive regarding the establishment of harmonised risk indicators).

The average period to transpose directives remained 19 months. The directive with the longest transposition period and deadline in 2019 (59 months) was the Directive on electronic invoicing in public procurement. This Directive, however, had two different transposition deadlines.

Out of 42 directives to be transposed in 2019 there were 9 directives whose transposition deadline was shorter than 1 year from the time of their publication (same as in 2018).

The transposition of the Directive on procedural safeguards for children who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings triggered the highest number of notifications (503 notifications) . The two directives with the next highest number of notifications were the Directive on the fight against fraud to the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law (221 notifications) and the Directive on legal aid for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings and for requested persons in European arrest warrant proceedings (206 notifications) .

In 2019, the highest number of notifications was submitted by Hungary (259), Czechia (237) and Finland (209). The lowest number of notifications was submitted by Cyprus (28), Spain (42) and Ireland (44).

At the same time, 42 directives had to be transposed in 2019, which is less than in 2018 (50). For these directives, Member States notified 3014 national transposition measures to the Commission by the end of 2019. On average, Member States notified 71 measures per directive.

In 2019, the Parliament and the Council adopted 66 directives. Most of these directives modify existing laws; there were 4 new directives and 1 codifying directive (which does not impose a new transposition deadline). The main policy areas concerned were: the environment (13), justice (10) and employment (8). Explanatory documents were required for 26 directives.

In addition, the Court imposed penalties in 3 judgments handed down under Article 260(2) TFEU in the area of competition.

Of these 98 cases, the Commission referred 2 cases to the Court for the second time. When the Court imposes financial penalties under Article 260(2) TFEU, the defaulting Member State must pay the lump sum immediately and continue to pay the periodic penalty until it complies fully with the first and second Court judgments. In 2019, the Court delivered one judgment under Article 260(2) TFEU. It imposed penalty payments on Ireland. At the end of 2019, 9 infringement procedures were still open after a Court ruling under Article 260(2) TFEU.

Member States frequently take the measures needed to comply with a Court judgment promptly. However, at the end of the year, 98 infringement procedures were still open after a Court ruling because the Commission considered that the Member States concerned had not yet complied with judgments under Article 258 TFEU. The main Member States concerned were Greece (16) Italy (11) and Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom (each 8) These cases mainly related to the environment (52), transport and mobility (12), taxation and customs (9), and the internal market, industry, entrepreneurship and SMEs (8).

Italy (6), Poland (3), and Germany, (Greece, and Spain (2 each) were the subject of the most Court judgments under Article 258 TFEU in 2019.

In 2019, the Court issued 24 judgments under Article 258 TFEU, 1 judgment under Article 260(2) TFEU. Of these, 23 were in the Commission’s favour, 2 were in the Member State’s favour.

In 2019, the Commission referred 31 cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU and 2 cases under Article 260(2) TFEU

2.Referrals and judgments of the Court of Justice under Articles 258 and 260(2) TFEU

·13 cases after deciding to refer the case to the Court but before submitting the application and 19 cases following a Court judgment. In addition, the Commission withdrew 9 cases from the Court before the latter handed down its ruling. The Commission withdrew these cases as the Member States concerned took the necessary measures to comply with EU law.

Even after it has launched an infringement procedure, the Commission continues its dialogue with the Member State in order to seek compliance. Statistics confirm that Member States make serious efforts to settle their infringements before the Court hands down its ruling.

The following chart shows the breakdown of the infringement cases open at the end of 2019, by policy area:

The following chart shows the number of open infringement cases by Member State at the end of 2019:

At the end of 2019, 1564 infringement cases remained open. This is a slight decrease from the previous year, as the following chart shows.

The following chart gives the breakdown by Member State.

The Commission also sent 316 reasoned opinions to Member States in 2019. The main policy areas concerned were the internal market, industry, entrepreneurship and SMEs (83), the environment (45), justice and consumers (44) and taxation and customs (34).

The following chart shows the main policy areas in which new procedures were opened.

Most new infringement cases are for late transposition of EU directives.

The following chart gives the breakdown by Member State.

The Commission launched 797 new procedures by sending a letter of formal notice in 2019. Out of these, the Commission launched procedures on its own initiative in 397 cases.

At the end of 2019, 499 EU Pilot files were open. The main Member States concerned were Italy (45), Spain (31) and France (31). The main policy area concerned continued to be the environment (128 open files), followed by justice and fundamental rights (61), migration and home affairs (60) and energy (50).

Most EU Pilot files which led to formal infringement procedures concerned the policy areas of environment (22 cases). Latvia and Poland had the highest number of files in EU Pilot which were pursued further through infringement procedures (4 files each), followed by Italy and Ireland (3 files each).

Altogether, 57 EU Pilot files were closed because the Commission rejected the responses provided by Member States. Of these, 42 were followed up by formal infringement procedures. While 8 of these procedures were based on complaints, the Commission launched the remaining 34 on its own initiative.

The Commission handled 244 EU Pilot files in 2019. It closed 187 of these after receiving satisfactory answers from the Member States concerned. This gives a resolution rate of 77%, which is above the 2018 level.

The following pie chart shows the policy areas in which the Commission opened the most new EU Pilot files in 2019:

The Commission opened 190 new EU Pilot files in 2019. Of these, 37 were triggered by complaints and 153 were opened by the Commission on its own initiative (against 86 in 2018).

The EU Pilot dialogue between the Commission and Member States was set up to quickly resolve potential breaches of EU law at an early stage in appropriate cases. However, the recourse to EU Pilot should not add a lengthy step to the infringement process, which in itself is a means to enter into a problem-solving dialogue with a Member State. In line with the Communication EU law: Better results through better application , the Commission launches infringement procedures without relying on the EU Pilot mechanism, unless recourse to EU Pilot is seen as useful in a given case.

In the customs and taxation field, the Commission received 27 petitions concerning the implementation and application of EU law. The petitions concerned cases already opened by the Commission.

In the area of migration and home affairs, the Commission received 19 petitions and launched 1 investigation as a follow up to a petition from the European Parliament concerning the incorrect implementation of the Directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. The relevant infringement procedure is still pending.

In the area of maritime affairs and fisheries, the Commission received 2 petitions concerning the implementation and application of EU law. The issues raised were already covered by ongoing investigations.

In the area of the internal market, the Commission received 33 new petitions in 2019 concerning the implementation and application of EU law. The matters raised were not identified as a systemic and serious breach of the Union law falling under the criteria of the Commission’s infringement priorities. At the same time, the Commission has given follow up to some of the petitions by putting the issue forward for a discussion with the Member States at the working groups and also is considering a White paper to launch a debate on some other issues.

In the areas of financial services and the Capital Markets Union, the Commission received 5 petitions concerning the implementation and application of EU law. Of these, the subject matter of 1 petition is being dealt with by the Commission in the context of complaints about a possible breach of EU law and still being assessed. This relates to the free movement of capital, especially the administrative and judicial practice related to restitution of property in several Member States. In the other 4 cases in relation to financial services, the Commission did not pursue the petitions as investigations because either had no competence or no breach of EU law could be established.

With regard to the environment, the Commission received 58 petitions linked to complaints or infringements in 2019. While many of those petitions were linked to complaints or to structural infringements, no investigations were started as a direct result of a petition. This was often because a number of petitions raised individual grievances of incorrect application, which are no longer pursued as a matter of priority by the Commission in line with the Communication ‘EU law: Better results through better application’.

This section provides an overview of the follow-up the Commission gave to petitions in 2019 in the policy areas most concerned.

Through petitions and questions, the European Parliament alerted the Commission to shortcomings in the way some Member States were implementing and applying certain EU laws in 2019. The Commission systematically ensures follow-up to the petitions received. However, not all petitions lead to investigations about breaches of EU law, because either no EU laws were breached or the Commission had no power to act. In many cases, the situation presented in a petition is already being investigated by the Commission through EU Pilot or a formal infringement procedure.

In 2019, complaints leading to formal infringement procedures were most frequently related to taxation and the customs union; the internal market, industry, entrepreneurship and SMEs; and employment. These new infringements mainly concerned Austria, Belgium and Germany.

Complaints leading to investigations using the EU Pilot mechanism were most frequently related to taxation and the customs union; financial stability, financial services and the Capital Markets Union; agriculture and rural development; the environment; and mobility and transport. These complaints mainly concerned Italy, Bulgaria, Malta and Spain.

In 2019, the Commission pursued 150 complaints further and launched investigations using the EU Pilot mechanism or the formal infringement procedure.

The Commission handled 3813 complaints in 2019. Once it has assessed complaints, the Commission may launch an investigation using the EU Pilot mechanism or through formal infringement procedures to clarify whether EU rules have been breached. Not all complaints in 2019 led to such investigations, because either no EU laws were breached (2712 complaints) or the correspondence did not qualify as a complaint (829). The Commission did not pursue 112 cases as the complainants withdrew their complaint. It also transferred 10 complaints to other redress mechanisms, such as SOLVIT. The Commission therefore closed 3663 complaints.

The following chart shows the main policy areas for which new complaints were registered in 2019. Together they account for 88% of all complaints received in 2019.

• Germany: 319 complaints, most of them related to: the environment (106 complaints); justice and consumers (63 complaints); and industry, entrepreneurship and SMEs (40 complaints).

• Italy: 375 complaints, mainly related to: industry, entrepreneurship and SMEs (90 complaints); employment (61 complaints); and taxation and customs (53 complaints); and

• Spain: 542 complaints, especially in connection with: justice and consumers (243 complaints); the environment (70 complaints); and employment (64 complaints);

The three Member States against which the Commission received the most complaints were Spain, Italy and Germany.

The Commission remains committed to improving the transparency of its enforcement action. At the same time, it has to give due account to the legitimate need for confidentiality with regard to the Member States in infringement procedures, as recognised by the Court of Justice.

In addition, every year the Commission provides information in its annual reports on monitoring the implementation of EU legislation, on the follow-up given to complaints and on parliamentary petitions and infringement procedures.

Over recent years, the Commission has taken concrete measures to improve the transparency of its monitoring activities and decisions on infringement procedures. It has set up a centralised platform for disseminating infringement-related information on the Europa portal . This provides detailed information on the decisions the Commission takes on infringement procedures, including press material on specific cases. Since 2017, the press material covers all formal steps of the infringement procedure.

At the request of national courts, the Court of Justice may also issue preliminary rulings under Article 267 TFEU addressing issues of conformity of national laws with EU legislation. While preliminary rulings are distinct from infringement judgments, they give the Commission an additional opportunity to ensure that violations of EU law deriving from national legislation or its application are remedied. The Commission systematically follows up on preliminary rulings where the Court identifies situations of non-conformity of national legislation with EU law.

The Court may agree with the Commission and rule that the Member State has breached its obligations under EU law. If the Court does so but the Member State still has not taken the steps needed to comply, the Commission may continue the infringement procedure under Article 260(2) TFEU. This involves referring the Member State to the Court again, after sending it a letter of formal notice under Article 260(2) TFEU. In such cases the Commission can propose, and the Court can impose, financial sanctions in the form of a lump sum and penalties per day or another specified period.

When it brings a case before the Court against a Member State for failing to fulfil its obligations to notify measures transposing a directive adopted under a legislative procedure, the Commission may propose financial penalties under Article 260(3) TFEU.

Should the Member State not comply with the reasoned opinion, the Commission may open the litigation procedure by bringing the case to the Court of Justice under Article 258 TFEU.

In the pre-litigation phase, the Commission first sends a letter of formal notice to the Member State requesting an explanation within a given time limit. If the Member State’s reply is unsatisfactory or if the Member State does not reply at all, the Commission sends a reasoned opinion asking the Member State to comply within a given time limit.

The infringement procedure under Article 258 TFEU is divided into a pre-litigation phase and a litigation phase.

The Commission actively informs complainants of the decisions taken throughout all stages of the procedure .

Infringements may be detected by the Commission’s own investigations or brought to its attention by complaints or petitions from members of the public, businesses, NGOs or other organisations.

d)incorrect application: EU law is not applied correctly, or not applied at all, by national authorities.

c)infringement of the Treaties, regulations or decisions: the Commission considers that a Member State’s legislation is not in line with the requirements of the Treaties, EU regulations or decisions;

b)non-conformity/non-compliance: the Commission considers that a Member State’s legislation is not in line with the requirements of EU directives;

a)failure to notify: a Member State does not notify the Commission on time of its measures to transpose a directive;

There are four main types of infringements of EU law:

In the area of justice and home affairs, Union law has created the Schengen Evaluation Mechanism as a specific monitoring mechanism designed to verify the application of the European Union's so-called Schengen acquis. This is a body of legislation spanning borders, visas, returns, police cooperation, information systems and data protection. It aims to ensure that high uniform standards are applied in practice by those European Union countries in the Schengen area - an area comprising 26 countries, 22 of which are EU countries and 4 of which are non-EU countries associated to the Schengen area. In this area, no internal border controls are applied. The Schengen evaluation mechanism is a multi-layered tool involving the Commission and the Member States (as well as the Schengen associated countries) and also engages the European Parliament. It is without prejudice to the Commission’s powers to initiate infringement procedures. Countries belonging to the Schengen area are subject to monitoring and evaluation according to an evaluation programme.

In the area of occupational safety and health, the Commission continued its cooperation with Member States and social partners to make the EU occupational safety and health legislative framework future-proof and ensure proper compliance and enforcement in line with its 2017 Communication. In this context, the Commission supported two initiatives: i) a joint action between the Commission and other stakeholders on a ‘roadmap on carcinogens’ a voluntary action scheme to raise awareness about the risks arising from exposure to carcinogens in the workplace and ii) an exchange of good practices between companies and organisations as well as a peer review process with Member States on the legislation and practical management of psychosocial risks at work, which took place in Sweden.

Eleven Natura dialogues took place under the EU action plan for nature, people and the economy in 2019. These bilateral dialogues have been set up to promote discussions with individual Member States on key challenges in the implementation of the Nature Directives and involve the nature authorities as well as other relevant authorities and stakeholders. These meetings are being followed up through agreed implementation roadmaps, with milestones and actions to be delivered.

The Commission organises air quality dialogues to consult Member States on the main air quality challenges and to explore further action to address them. In 2019 the air quality dialogue was held in Italy.

In the area of urban waste water treatment, the Commission Directorate-General for Environment organised six country visits in 2019 in cooperation with the OECD. These allowed for in-depth dialogues on governance, financing possibilities and potential solutions to anticipate financing gaps and avoid infringements.

In the area of the environment and in particular waste management, three events were held in Athens, Lisbon and Budapest in 2019, building on the Virtuous Circles events organised in Malta, Romania and Bulgaria in 2018. These events are organised in Member States identified as being at risk of not reaching the new recycling targets and other requirements of the waste legislation, as revised in 2018. They emphasise the potential of good waste management in generating value from circular activities including remanufacturing, re-use, symbiosis, repair and recycling. In addition to recommendations on the way forward from top experts, these events are designed to offer and seek commitment on concrete financial and technical measures and assistance to implement EU waste policies.

In the field of energy, the Commission continued to use the Concerted Action Forum, which gathers representatives of Member States and other interested parties, to exchange best practices when applying specific EU instruments. Key discussion topics concerned the implementation of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive and the Energy Efficiency Directive.

In the agricultural sector, the Commission uses audits and financial correction procedures to check whether the Member States have set up control systems ensuring that payments to beneficiaries from the EU funds are made correctly. In addition, the Commission verifies the fulfilment of the organic legislation through audits and the monitoring of the organic farming information system (OFIS) . Furthermore, Member States regularly have to notify the Commission of their policy decisions as well as data on their annual implementation of direct payments, greening and cross-compliance. The Commission uses these notifications to guide Member States towards more uniform implementation. When the Commission detects systemic deficiencies in the control systems for direct payments, it requests that Member States set up remedial action plans. If a Member State fails to comply with the action plan, the Commission may decide to suspend or reduce payments. As a result of the above activities, compliance has improved in the domains concerned. For instance, notifications from Member States received in 2019 on the annual review of voluntary coupled support for 2020 and on the implementation of decoupled direct payments in 2018 showed general consistency with the relevant legal framework and required less clarifications and corrections compared to previous years.

In enforcing the EU’s maritime affairs and fisheries legislation, the Commission relies heavily on a system of verifications, inspections and audits by Commission inspectors. In addition, the control action plans adopted by the Commission in close cooperation with the Member State concerned are a strong tool to promote the correct enforcement of EU legislation and of the sanctioning system. In 2019, the Commission adopted new action plans for several Member States and actively monitored their implementation. On the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products, the Commission ensures that Member States carry out regular checks on the proper implementation of the relevant EU legislation.

In the area of migration and home affairs, 1 package meeting took place in 2019 to discuss pending infringement and EU Pilot procedures.

On environment, the Commission organised 9 package meetings in 2019 to discuss ongoing infringements and other issues related to the implementation of environmental legislation in the Member States. Before the meeting with the state authorities, the Commission usually meets with the local environmental non-governmental organisations.

On transport, the Commission organised 7 package meetings in 2019. These meetings have generally led to a swifter handling of a number of files and, in certain cases, to a substantial reduction of the number of infringements.

The Commission regularly discussed implementation of the security and migration legislation with Member States in various committee meetings, and expert groups remained an essential framework for discussion and exchanging expertise, namely in the area of legal migration, prevention of radicalisation and information systems for borders and security.

Regarding gender equality, following the adoption in June 2019 of the Directive on Work-Life Balance, the Commission started the preparatory work on its implementation in the Member States. An informal kick-off general meeting with all Member States on 10 and 11 December 2019 discussed issues of interpretation of the Directive’s provisions. This was followed by several bilateral meetings in the days that followed.

In the area of free movement and Union citizenship, the Expert Group on Free Movement met once in 2019 to discuss several implementation issues and in particular compliance with the Coman judgement. In 2019, the consular protection expert group discussed the Directive’s implementation and the collection of statistical data.

In February 2019, the Regulation simplifying the circulation of certain public documents between Member States became applicable. The Commission and the Member States met within the Committee on Public Documents to discuss the Regulation’s application. Discussions showed that Member State authorities are not yet fully familiar with the new provisions and as a result further training for authorities at national level is planned.

In the area of justice and consumers, the Commission continued its efforts to ensure proper application of the new data protection rules. It received feedback from stakeholders on implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation through a dedicated multi-stakeholder group composed of representatives from industry, civil society, practitioners and academics. In parallel, the Commission is actively contributing to the work of the European Data Protection Board , composed of the national authorities who are the enforcers of data protection rules.

Following the adoption of the Unfair Trade Practices Directive , two expert group meetings took place and provided answers to Member States on how to interpret the Directive. Moreover, the Commission set up a dedicated web space to allow for an exchange of information.

The Administrative Commission on the Coordination of Social Security Systems met four times in 2019, enabling national authorities to discuss topics linked to the application of the Regulation on the Coordination of Social Security Systems. Moreover, the network of social security experts (MoveS network) contributed to the correct application of the Regulation via information tools, ad hoc analyses, reports on specific issues and seminars in Member States.

The Committee of Experts on Posting of Workers held several meetings in 2019 and established a working group for the transposition of the Directive on the Posting of Workers.

The Commission had a first meeting with representatives of Member States responsible for the transposition of the Directive on accessibility of products and services to support them in their efforts.

In the field of occupational health and safety, in 2019 the Commission made regular use of committees and expert groups to discuss the appropriate implementation and application of EU labour legislation on the safety and health of workers. The Advisory Committee on Safety and Health met twice in plenary and several times in various working groups. It adopted several opinions, namely on future priorities in the field of occupational safety and health. The Technical Progress Committee met four times in 2019 to discuss possible technical updates to the annexes to three occupational safety and health directives (on biological agents, personal protective equipment and medical treatment on board vessels) and the adoption of a fifth list of indicative occupational exposure limit values. Following this work, the Commission adopted four directives in October 2019. The Senior Labour Inspectors’ Committee adopted guidance on addressing health risks from welding fumes and started discussion on future enforcement priorities in occupational safety and health.

As regards the area of working conditions, the Commission has established a Member State expert group to facilitate the transposition of the Directive on Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions in the European Union. In October 2019, in the Expert Group on European Works Councils, the Commission presented the results of its evaluation of the Directive and discussed how to address weaknesses in the redress and sanctions regimes in Member States. The Commission also participates regularly in the sectoral Social Dialogue Committee on Temporary Agency Work, with frequent discussions on the enforcement of the Directive on Temporary Agency Work, as well as in the Social Dialogue Committees on Maritime Transport and on Fishing.

Under Action 6 of the EU action plan for nature, people and the economy, the Commission has further supported the Natura 2000 biogeographical process. This is a process of cooperation between various stakeholders at the level of a biogeographical region. The Member States in which the region lies are involved in improving the implementation, management, monitoring, financing and reporting for the Natura 2000 network on the basis of agreed roadmaps. Two Natura 2000 biogeographical seminars were organised in 2019, for the Atlantic region and the Boreal region.

In the area of the environment and in particular waste management, the Commission Directorate-General for Environment held 13 technical committee meetings and 10 expert group meetings as well as several other meetings (e.g. a stakeholders’ meeting under the Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive, an environmental directors’ meeting, a meeting of waste shipment correspondents under the Waste Shipment Regulation). These meetings concerned both the preparation of new legislation and the implementation of existing directives.

Since the introduction of the common agricultural policy, the Commission has made intensive use of committees and expert groups to ensure compliance. Apart from their institutional role in adopting implementing acts, the committees in the agricultural sector provide an important forum for discussing, explaining, clarifying and interpreting the applicable rules. In 2019, the Commission services held nearly 160 committee and expert meetings. The discussions covered a broad range of topics with a particular focus on the correct application and implementation of EU law and the exchange of best practices between Member States. The Commission used the Committee for the common organisation of agricultural markets to discuss the requirements for the new regulation on market transparency . The Expert Group for Agricultural Markets was a forum to share experience gained through Commission audits. The Expert Group for Animal Products discussed the outcome of the on-the-spot checks by the Union Inspection Committee on carcass classification, and management and control issues regarding the EU school fruit, vegetables and milk scheme. The technical clarifications provided in the context of the Rural Development Committee concerned the agri-environmental-climate measure, the annual implementation reports, the voluntary agricultural certification schemes, the financial instruments, the outcomes of the performance reserve, those provided in the context of quality policy concerned the control and practical implementation of rules on the protection of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications. Finally, following the adoption of the Unfair Trade Practices Directive, expert group meetings provided several opportunities to assist Member States in transposing the Directive into national law.

In the area of financial services, the Commission organised meetings of an Expert Group on Payments to support Member States to ensure compliance with the Payment Services Directive. This expert group advised the Commission on payments and assisted the Commission in preparing legislative acts and policy initiatives regarding payments, including fraud prevention issues related to the payment industry and users.

In the area of climate change policy, the Commission organised four Technical Working Groups with experts from all Member States on the implementation of the Governance Regulation and notably on the preparation of the national energy and climate plans.

In the field of nuclear safety and radiation protection, the Commission held several meetings of the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group (ENSREG).

The Commission regularly discussed the implementation of the energy legislation with Member States in various committee meetings. In the field of energy efficiency, the Commission held several meetings of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive.

The Commission deploys a wide range of meeting-based tools, such as committees, networks, expert groups and workshops, to promote the good implementation of EU law across policy areas.

Taking into account these findings, the Commission will continue to explore avenues for improving the effectiveness of the implementation plans together with the Member States.

The Commission prepared one implementation plan for the revised Capital Requirements Directive later in the legislative process, as the Directive entered into force on 27 June 2019. The main objective of the Directive is to strengthen the current regulatory framework and to align it with international regulatory standards set by the Basel Committee.

The Commission prepares implementation plans for certain legislative proposals for directives and regulations. An implementation plan identifies the challenges that the Member States will face and which need to be taken into account when they prepare to transpose and implement the respective directive or regulation. The plans also provide for a wide range of tools to help Member States implement EU laws, such as guidance documents, expert groups and dedicated websites. Implementation plans could also include actions and monitoring arrangements by the Member States to track progress and report on their implementation.

In the field of the environment, the Commission published guidance on the application of exemptions under the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. It aims to help national administrative and judicial authorities apply the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. Furthermore, the Commission completed the first ever habitat action plan for the conservation of wild pollinators in November 2019. The action plan provides comprehensive information on the status and trends of the relevant species and habitats, the pressures and threats acting on them and the measures needed to address them in order to achieve the Nature Directive’s objectives. The implementation of the Water Framework Directive raises a number of shared technical challenges, which are addressed at regular meetings of the Strategic Coordination Group and its sub-groups, gathering Member States and stakeholders. This has resulted in extensive guidance, which is regularly updated.

In the field of energy, the Commission adopted three recommendations to help Member States to implement the different elements of the new amending Directive on Energy Efficiency in national law. They cover the energy savings obligation, the revised metering and billing provisions for thermal energy and the revised provisions for efficiency in heating and cooling. The Commission has also published two recommendations on both the building renovation and building modernisation aspects of the new rules in the amended Energy Performance of Buildings Directive.

In order to improve the application of consumer legislation, in July 2019, the Commission issued guidance on applying the Unfair Contract Terms Directive. It covers the rich case law of the Court of Justice, for instance, on the transparency of contract terms, the effect of finding contract terms unfair and requirements for procedures before national courts, such as the ex officio review of unfair contract terms.

In the area of employment and social affairs, the Commission published the Practical Guide on Posting of Workers in 2019. This document aims to assist workers, employers and national authorities in understanding the rules on posting of workers, as revised by the Directive on posting of workers. This understanding is essential to ensure that workers are aware of their rights and that the rules are correctly and consistently applied by national authorities and employers throughout the EU.

Regarding the common agricultural policy, the Commission completed the guide on how to register a protected designation of origin or protected geographical indication for wine. Furthermore, the Commission provided guidance on additional controls on organic products from China, Russia, Ukraine, Moldova and Kazakhstan. The Commission updated the guidance on direct payments and rural development. Through the Expert Group on ESIF and platforms such as InfoRegio, the Commission provided guidance on issues related to the European Structural and Investments Funds.

In 2019, the Commission issued guidelines on interpreting and implementing EU law in the following policy areas.

The Commission often provides written guidance to Member States on how to implement and apply certain EU legal instruments.

The Commission will continue to report in its annual report on the explanatory documents received from the Member States.

The Court’s judgement does not impose an obligation on the Member States to notify explanatory documents to the Commission in the form of correlation tables. Member States remain free to choose the form of their explanatory documents. The Commission will continue to explore with Member States the benefit of providing guidance on how to draft and submit explanatory documents. This could include the need for a common template and clear rules on the presentation of the relevant information by the Member States.

In its judgment of 8 July 2019, the Court of Justice clarified that, when notifying national transposition measures to the Commission, Member States must provide sufficiently clear and precise information, and identify, for each provision of the directive, the national provision(s) ensuring its transposition. If they fail to provide documents explaining the correlation between the provisions of a directive and the corresponding provisions of national law, the Commission will pursue the infringement procedures under Article 260(3) TFEU. This Treaty provision allows the Commission to request the Court to impose financial penalties if a Member State fails to fulfil its obligation to notify measures transposing a directive adopted under a legislative procedure.

The Commission considers that the current framework gives sufficient flexibility on the use of explanatory documents. Unfortunately, in 2019 Member States did not deliver in all cases on their commitment to provide explanatory documents together with the national measures transposing the directives into their legal order. Moreover, the Commission’s initial assessment of the explanatory documents it received indicates that their quality is uneven.

·4 explanatory documents notified for the Directive as regards the harmonisation and simplification of certain rules in the value added tax system for the taxation of trade between Member States, by 4 Member States.

·2 explanatory documents notified for the Directive as regards mandatory automatic exchange on information, by 2 Member States.

·5 explanatory documents notified for the Directive on tax dispute resolution mechanisms by 4 Member States.

·4 explanatory documents notified for the Directive as regards hybrid mismatches with third countries, by 4 Member States.

·8 explanatory documents notified for the Directive laying down the rules against tax avoidance practices, by 5 Member States.

·17 explanatory documents notified for Directive as regards the treatment of vouchers, by 16 Member States.

There were also explanatory documents notified by Member States in the field of taxation for 6 Directives:

·14 explanatory documents for the Directive as regards the list of defence-related products from 13 Member States.

·2 explanatory documents for the Directive on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons from 2 Member States.

·2 explanatory documents for the Directive on approximation of the laws of the Member States regarding trade marks from 2 Member States.

·4 explanatory documents for the Directive on electronic invoicing in public procurement from 4 Member States.

In the area of the internal market, Member States submitted to the Commission explanatory documents for 4 Directives:

·1 explanatory document for the Directive on protective measures against the introduction of organisms harmful to plants or plant products 2019/523/EU, notified by 1 Member State.

·1 explanatory document for the Directive as regards the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified organisms 2018/350/EU, notified by 1 Member States.

·6 explanatory documents for the Directive as regards minimum conditions for examining certain varieties of agricultural plant species and vegetable species, notified by 6 Member States.

There were also 3 Directives in the field of health and safety for which the explanatory documents were submitted:

In the field of energy, the Commission received 10 explanatory documents from 8 Member States for the Directive as regards the methods for calculating stockholding obligations.

In the field of employment, the Commission received 5 explanatory documents for the Directive implementing the Agreement concerning the implementation of the Work in Fishing Convention, from 5 Member States.

Another 1 of the 36 directives is on climate. The Commission received 11 explanatory documents from 9 Member States for the Directive to enhance cost-effective emission reductions and low-carbon investments.

One of the 36 directives concerns financial services. The Commission received 21 explanatory documents from 18 Member States for the Directive on activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision.

·4 explanatory documents for the Directive on the inland transport of dangerous goods, provided by 3 Member States.

·4 explanatory documents for the Directive on a system of inspection for the safe operation of roll-on roll-off passenger ships and high-speed passenger craft in regular service, provided by 3 Member States.

·2 explanatory documents for the Directive on the registration of persons sailing on board passenger ships and on reporting formalities for ships, provided by 2 Member States.

·2 explanatory documents for the Directive on safety rules and standards for passenger ships, provided by 2 Member States.

·4 explanatory documents for the Directive on railway safety provided by 4 Member States.

·4 explanatory documents for the Directive on the interoperability of the rail system, notified by 4 Member States;

In addition, 6 of the 36 directives concern transport. Member States notified to the Commission the following numbers of explanatory documents:

·13 explanatory documents for the Directive on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interest by means of criminal law, submitted by 11 Member States.

·23 explanatory documents for the Directive as regards the encouragement of long-term shareholder engagement, submitted by 16 Member States.

·12 explanatory documents for the Directive on legal aid for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings, submitted by 7 Member States.

·27 explanatory documents for the Directive on procedural safeguards for children who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings, submitted by 13 Member States.

Another 4 of the 36 directives are in the field of justice and consumers. The Commission received:

·3 Member States notified 3 explanatory documents for the Directive on exemption for lead in bearings and bushes.

·3 Member States notified 3 explanatory documents for the Directive on exemption for lead as an alloying element in high melting temperature solders.

·3 Member States notified 3 explanatory documents for the Directive on exemption for lead as an alloying element in copper.

·3 Member States notified 3 explanatory documents for the Directive on exemption for lead as an alloying element in aluminium.

·3 Member States notified 3 explanatory documents for the Directive on exemption for lead as an alloying element in steel.

·3 Member States notified 3 explanatory documents for the Directive on exemption for lead in cermet-based trimmer potentiometer elements.

·3 Member States notified 3 explanatory documents for the Directive on exemption for lead in solders.

·3 Member States notified 3 explanatory documents for the Directive on exemption for certain electrical components containing lead in glass or ceramic.

·1 Member State notified 2 explanatory documents for the Directive on the restriction to use certain hazardous substances in electrical equipment.

Nine of the 36 directives for which the Member States undertook to provide explanatory documents in 2019 concerned the environment. Member States notified to the Commission the following numbers of explanatory documents:

During 2019, Member States had to transpose 42 directives. They undertook to submit explanatory documents for 36 directives. In total, Member States notified 238 explanatory documents. The process of assessing the national transposition measures for these directives is under way.

In 2019, the Commission submitted only one proposal for a directive to the European Parliament and the Council. The proposal included a request for explanatory documents. The 66 directives that the Parliament and the Council adopted during this year included 26 directives for which the Commission had asked for explanatory documents. For all 26 directives, the agreed recital on the need for such documents was maintained in the final text.

Explanatory documents play an essential role in allowing the Commission to understand how Member States transpose EU directives. They help to make monitoring compliance easier: without these documents, the Commission would need considerable resources and numerous contacts with national authorities to track the methods of transposition in all Member States. Often, transposing measures must fit into a complex legal framework. The resulting transposition exercise thus produces hundreds of measures that the Commission needs to examine.

The EU institutions and the Member States agreed in 2011 that Member States, when notifying national transposition measures to the Commission, may also have to provide documents explaining how they have transposed directives into their law. The Commission can ask Member States to submit these ‘explanatory documents’ in justified cases.

The Commission is committed to better explaining its role as guardian of the treaties and its work with Member States on issues concerning the application and implementation of EU law. Information provided in this section of the report goes beyond the dialogue engaged with the Member States during the formal infringement procedures. It gives a brief overview of other types of action taken by the Commission in 2019 to assist Member States in implementing and applying EU law.

In line with this approach, the Commission has developed a number of tools to help Member States transpose, apply and implement EU law correctly and on time. These include guidance documents, implementation plans, expert groups, explanatory documents, providing training, organising workshops and holding package meetings. Some of these tools are used to avoid (‘prevent’) breaches of EU law, while others are intended to be used in parallel with infringement procedures to resolve (‘correct’) breaches of EU law and to avoid having to refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Commission often uses a combination of these tools to address problems and promote compliance with EU law.

The ultimate purpose of the Commission’s enforcement actions is to ensure compliance with EU law, and in this sense infringement procedures are an option of last resort to achieve that purpose. In many cases, good cooperation and communication between the Commission and the Member States is more conducive to reaching compliance at an early stage than having to resort to infringement procedures. In its Communication ‘EU law: Better results through better application’, the Commission committed to strengthening its partnership with Member States.

The Member States and the European Commission share responsibility for ensuring compliance with EU law. In line with the principle of sincere cooperation set out in Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, they should ‘in full mutual respect, assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from the Treaties’.

4. Referrals and judgments of the Court of Justice under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU

2. Referrals and judgments of the Court of Justice under Articles 258 and 260(2) TFEU

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 31.7.2020 SWD(2020) 147 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Part II: Policy areas Accompanying the document Report from the Commission Monitoring the application of European Union law





2019 Annual Report







{COM(2020) 350 final}



Agriculture and rural development Communications networks, content and technology Employment, social affairs and inclusion Energy Environment Financial stability, financial services and Capital Markets Union Health and food safety Internal market, industry, entrepreneurship and SMEs Justice and consumers Maritime affairs and fisheries Migration and home affairs Mobility and transport Taxation and customs union

This document provides an overview of the policy areas in which the most significant developments related to infringements of EU law took place in 2019. Agriculture and rural development I.COMPLAINTS 1.New complaints received from members of the public (2015-2019) 2.Public complaints open at year-end

38 ► Complaints open at end-2018 42 ► New complaints registered in 2019 67 ► Complaints handled in 2019 = 13 ► Complaints open at end-2019 3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy sectors

II.EU PILOT 1.New EU Pilot files (2015-2019) 2.EU Pilot files open at year-end At the end of 2019, 15 EU Pilot files remained open. 3.EU Pilot files: resolution rate for policies (2015-2019) III.OWN-INITIATIVE CASES New own-initiative infringement cases In 2019, the Commission did not open own-initiative infringement cases in this area. IV.INFRINGEMENT CASES Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court a)The Commission did not open new infringement cases in 2019 in this area. Major ongoing infringement cases include the following: ·Bulgaria: maintaining a national framework on geographical indications, which is not compatible with the EU rules on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs; ·Denmark: unlawful use of the protected designation of origin ‘Feta’, in violation of the EU rules on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs. b)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU.

c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU. V.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES 1.New late transposition infringement cases (2015-2019) 2.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy sectors The Commission did not open any new late transposition infringement cases. VI.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES There were no major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2019 in this area. VII.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS 1.Court rulings There were no major Court rulings in 2019 in this area. 2.Preliminary rulings The Court gave the following preliminary rulings: ·Germany: Where EU customs regulations require providing a specific indication of the country of origin for a product (in the present case, cultivated mushrooms that had been relocated during the growing process), the country of origin is that where the product was harvested and that indication as such cannot be regarded as misleading consumers. In such circumstances, no obligations may be imposed on the food business operators to provide information additional to the indication of the country of origin in order to prevent any alleged risk of misleading consumers. ·Germany: The protection of the name ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena (PGI)’, entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications, does not extend to the use of the individual non-geographical terms of that name, namely ‘aceto’ and ‘balsamico’. ·Lithuania: A national legislation aiming to combat unfair commercial practices may prohibit buyers of raw milk to pay a different purchase price to producers who, on the basis of the daily quantity of raw milk sold that is of identical composition and quality and delivered via the same method, must be regarded as belonging to the same group, in so far as those rules are appropriate to attain the objective pursued and do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective. ·Spain: Figurative signs may trigger directly in the consumer’s mind the image of products whose designation of origin is protected, on account of their ‘conceptual proximity’ to such a designation. Consequently, a protected designation of origin, such as ‘queso manchego’, may be evoked through the use of figurative signs, including where such figurative signs are used by a producer established in the geographical area associated with the designation of origin, but whose products, similar or comparable to those protected by the designation of origin, are not covered by it. VIII.Outlook Important implementation work in 2020 includes: ·focusing on infringements that challenge the application of important mechanisms of the common market organisation or affect the correct application of the direct payments regime or the implementation of the Organic and Quality Regulations;

·monitoring compliance with recent rulings of the Court of Justice; ·continuing to use the clearance of accounts procedure in the agricultural sector to convince Member States to adapt their management and control systems if an infringement is detected through conformity audit mechanisms. ·preparing the transposition of the Unfair Trading Practices Directive. Communications networks, content and technology I.COMPLAINTS 1.New complaints received from members of the public (2015-2019) 2.Public complaints open at year-end 127 ► Complaints open at end-2018 68 ► New complaints registered in 2019 94 ► Complaints handled in 2019 = 101 ► Complaints open at end-2019 3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy sectors



II.EU PILOT 1.New EU Pilot files (2015-2019) 2.EU Pilot files open at year-end At the end of 2019, 7 EU Pilot files remained open. 3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: main policy sectors The Commission did not open new files in this area in 2019. 4.EU Pilot files: resolution rate for policies (2015-2019)

III.OWN-INITIATIVE CASES New own-initiative infringement cases In 2019, the Commission opened own-initiative infringement cases over: ·lack of compliance with the rules governing the European emergency number ‘112’; ·the Geo-blocking Regulation,. ^ ·failure to submit information about operators of essential services identified under the EU law on the security of network and information systems . IV.INFRINGEMENT CASES 1.Infringement cases open on 31 December (2015-2019) 2.Infringement cases open on 31 December 2019: main policy sectors

3.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy sectors



4.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court a)The Commission opened 17 new infringement cases in 2019. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include the following: Czechia, Germany, Greece, Spain and Croatia for failure to effectively implement the rules on the 112 emergency number, in particular by not ensuring equivalent access for disabled users. France, Spain, Cyprus, Poland, Romania and Slovakia for delays in the implementation of the Geo-blocking Regulation., by failing to provide for measures and mechanisms for consumer protection. Belgium, Greece, Hungary, Austria, Romania and Slovenia: failure to submit information about operators of essential services identified under the EU law on the security of network and information systems. b)The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. This concerns: Portugal: failure to align its system of financing universal services to the Universal Service Directive. c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.. V.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES 1.New late transposition infringement cases (2015-2019) 2.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy sectors The Commission did not open any new late transposition infringement cases. 3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court The Commission did not open any cases for late transposition in 2019 in this area. The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3).

VI.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES There were no major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2019. VII.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS 1.Court rulings The Court gave the following ruling: ·Belgium did not fulfil its obligations under EU law by notifying to the Commission only partial transposition measures for the Directive on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic communications networks with respect to the region of Bruxelles-Capitale. The Court applied for the first time the sanction mechanism of Article 260(3) TFEU. This Treaty provision allows the Commission to request the Court to impose financial penalties if Member States fail to fulfil their obligation to notify measures transposing a directive adopted under a legislative procedure. In addition to clarifying that the sanction scheme of Article 260(3) TFEU may also be applied to cases of partial failure to adopt and communicate transposition measures, the Court held that, when notifying national transposition measures to the Commission, Member States must provide sufficiently clear and precise information and state, for each provision of the directive, the national provision(s) ensuring its transposition. 2.Preliminary rulings The Court gave the following preliminary rulings: ·Belgium: SkypeOut service should be considered an electronic communications service. As a result, SkypeOut is subject to telecoms legislation, in particular to the general authorisation regime. Services offered via software, such as SkypeOut, which allow calling numbers in a national numbering plan, constitute electronic communication services. ·Germany: freedom of information and freedom of the press cannot justify a derogation from the author’s exclusive rights of reproduction and of communication to the public going beyond the exceptions or limitations provided for in EU law. ·Germany: a phonogram producer can prevent the use of a sound sample of his or her phonogram in another phonogram. However, such a sample can be used, if it is included in the phonogram in a modified form unrecognisable to the ear. ·Germany: The Gmail service should not be considered as consisting wholly or mainly in the ‘conveyance of signals’. As a result, Gmail is not an electronic communications service, and is therefore not subject to the general authorisation regime under the current EU telecoms legislation. ·France: Airbnb provides an information society service separate from accommodation services to which it relates. Such a service does not aim only at providing immediate accommodation services, but rather it consists essentially of providing a tool for presenting and finding accommodation for rent, thereby facilitating the conclusion of future rental agreements. Therefore, that type of service is not merely ancillary to an overall accommodation service. Second, an intermediation service, such as the one provided by Airbnb Ireland, is in no way indispensable to the provision of accommodation services, since the guests and hosts have a number of other channels in that respect, some of which are long-standing. Finally, there is no indication that Airbnb sets or caps the amount of the rents charged by the hosts using that platform. ·Lithuania: A Member State may, on grounds of public policy, such as in the specific circumstances combating the incitement to hatred of the Baltic States based on nationality, impose a requirement to temporarily distribute or retransmit a television channel from another Member State only in pay-to-view packages. ·Lithuania: Telecommunications companies are required to transmit location information for free to the 112 emergency call authorities, even if the call is received from a mobile phone which is not equipped with a SIM card. When determining accuracy and reliability criteria, Member States need to ensure that the location information is useful for emergency services to intervene. ·The Netherlands: The sale of second-hand e-books through a website constitutes a communication to the public that is subject to authorisation by the author. ·Portugal: Member States cannot add additional requirements (such as a specific, aesthetically significant visual effect) for granting copyright protection to designs, such as the clothing designs of jeans, which already meet the requirements for copyright protection under EU law . VIII.Outlook Important implementation work in 2020 includes monitoring the complete and correct implementation of: ·the European Electronic Communications Code;

·the Decision on the use of the 470-790 MHz frequency band in the Union and the timely allocation of the spectrum by Member States beforehand, which is a precondition for the roll-out of 5G in the EU; ·the Audio Video Media Services Directive; ·the Platforms-to-business Regulation. Employment, social affairs and inclusion I.COMPLAINTS 1.New complaints received from members of the public (2015-2019) 2.Public complaints open at year-end 287 ► Complaints open at end-2018 390 ► New complaints registered in 2019 442 ► Complaints handled in 2019 = 235 ► Complaints open at end-2019 3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy sectors



II.EU PILOT 1.New EU Pilot cases (2015-2019)

2.EU Pilot files open at year-end At the end of 2019, 12 EU Pilot files remained open. 3.EU Pilot files: resolution rate for policies (2015-2019) III.OWN-INITIATIVE CASES New own-initiative infringement cases In 2019, the Commission opened an own-initiative infringement case concerning the indexation of family benefits. IV.INFRINGEMENT CASES 1.Infringement cases open on 31 December (2015-2019) 2.Infringement cases open on 31 December 2019: main policy sectors 3.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy sectors 4.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court The Commission opened three new infringement cases in 2019. These concerned the following:

·Austria: breach of the rules on the free movement of workers and social security by indexing the amount of eligible family allowances, child tax credit and family tax deduction for children who are not permanently resident in Austria. ·Spain: incompatibility of national rules on paid annual leave with EU labour legislation. ·Italy: insufficient protection of public sector workers against abusive successive fixed-term contracts and discrimination as required under EU rules. The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.. V.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES 1.New late transposition infringement cases (2015-2019) 2.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy sectors The Commission did not open any new late transposition infringement cases in 2019. 3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court The Commission did not open any cases for late transposition in 2019 in this area. The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.

VI.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES 1.Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2019 These concerned: ·Ireland, France, Cyprus and Romania: non-communication of measures on minimum requirements for enhancing worker mobility between Member States by improving the acquisition and preservation of supplementary pension rights. ·Bulgaria, Czechia, Germany, Estonia, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania and Finland: non-communication of measures on working time in inland waterway transport. ·Ireland, Greece, Croatia, Italy, Poland, Portugal and Romania: non-communication of measures on labour rights for seafarers. VII.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS 1.Court rulings There were no major Court rulings in 2019 in this area. 2.Preliminary rulings The Court gave the following preliminary rulings: ·Italy: the Court of Justice confirmed that Member States are obliged, under the Fixed-Term Work Directive, to provide effective measures designed to prevent and punish the misuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts. ·Belgium: the Court of Justice ruled that the circumstance that the transferee has a choice whether to dismiss employees goes against the objective of the Directive on transfer of undertakings, which provides that dismissals due to the transfer are prohibited. ·Slovenia: the Court of Justice clarified that a transfer of financial instruments and other client assets between stock exchange intermediaries may constitute a transfer within the meaning of the Directive on transfer of undertakings where there is a transfer of clients. ·Greece: the Court of Justice concluded that the Directive on transfer of undertakings may, under certain conditions, apply in a situation where the transferor, the transferee or both envisage not only the pursuit of the activity transferred, but also the future liquidation of the transferee itself. ·Germany: the Court of Justice stated that, in case of insolvency of the employer, a reduction in a former employee’s old-age benefits must be regarded as being manifestly disproportionate if that person is living, or would have to live, below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold determined by Eurostat for the Member State concerned. ·Spain: the Court of Justice ruled that, on the basis of the Working Time Directive and in the light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, the Member States must require employers to set up an objective, reliable and accessible system enabling the duration of time worked each day by each worker to be measured. ·Spain: calculating the length of service of a part-time worker whose working hours are ‘distributed vertically’ over the whole year (a vertical cyclical part-time worker) solely on the basis of periods actually worked when it comes to the right to pay rise and promotion, while not doing the same for comparable full-time workers, may be discriminatory and therefore breach the Framework Agreement on Part-Time Work and the Equal Treatment Directive. ·Austria: the Court of Justice stated that the limitation on the recognition of previous periods of professionally relevant experience completed in another Member State for determining the entry salary for the migrant worker is possible only if the limitation applies equally to national and migrant workers and the work-related experience from another Member State is not fully comparable with the new employment position. ·Austria: the fact that part-time workers, who would otherwise have been employed on open-ended contracts, could be employed on fixed-term contracts for longer periods of time than comparable full-time workers, could be contrary to the Framework Agreement on Part-Time Work (principle of non-discrimination). Such a situation may also constitute an indirect discrimination based on sex, to the extent that women are substantially overrepresented in the group of part-time workers on a fixed term contract under the Equal Treatment Directive.

·The Netherlands: The Court of Justice concluded that third-country nationals legally staying (but not residing) and working in a Member State are to be issued A1 certificates for their posting in other Member States. ·The Netherlands: the Court of Justice clarified in its judgment that a person residing in his/her own Member State, employed in another Member State but working in international waters falls under the applicable legislation of the Member State of residence of that person. ·Ireland: The Court of Justice clarified that it is not necessary for a person to pursue an activity as an employed person in a Member State in order to be entitled to family benefits if his or her children are living in another Member State . VIII.Outlook Important implementation work in 2020 includes: ·In relation to occupational safety and health legislation, monitoring the complete transposition of and performing conformity checks on the Directive on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens or mutagens at work and performing conformity checks on the Directive establishing a fourth list of indicative occupational exposure limit values. ·Finalising and adopting a report on the application of the Directive on minimum requirements for enhancing worker mobility between Member States by improving the acquisition and preservation of supplementary pension rights. ·Monitoring the timely and complete transposition of the Directive concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services. ·Monitoring the compliance of national legislation and administrative practices concerning the EU free movement of workers.

Energy I.COMPLAINTS 1.New complaints received from members of the public (2015-2019) 2.Public complaints open at year-end 82 ► Complaints open at end-2018 58 ► New complaints registered in 2019 43 ► Complaints handled in 2019 = 97 ► Complaints open at end-2019 3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy sectors



II.EU PILOT

1.New EU Pilot files (2015-2019) 2.EU Pilot files open at year-end At the end of 2019, 50 EU Pilot files remained open. 3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: main policy sectors 4.EU Pilot files: resolution rate for policies (2015-2019) III.OWN-INITIATIVE CASES New own-initiative infringement cases In 2019, the Commission opened own-initiative infringement cases over: ·energy efficiency; ·energy performance of buildings; ·internal energy market and consumer protection; ·radioactive waste. IV.INFRINGEMENT CASES 1.Infringement cases open on 31 December (2015-2019) 2.Infringement cases open on 31 December 2019: main policy sectors





3.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy sectors 4.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court a)The Commission opened 52 new infringement cases in 2019. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include the following: Croatia, Italy, Greece, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechia, Estonia, France, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Poland, Denmark and Portugal: non-compliance with the requirements of the Energy Efficiency Directive; Croatia, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal and Romania: failure to submit their second cost-optimal report required by the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive; Romania: failure to correctly implement certain requirements of the Third Energy Package (the Gas Directive) and the Security of Gas Supply Regulation; Romania: non-compliance of national measures restricting the export of natural gas with the requirements of the Third Energy Package (the Gas Directive) and Articles 35 and 36 TFEU; Poland: failure to comply with the EU requirements on the security of gas supply; Latvia: failure to correctly transpose certain requirements of the Radioactive Waste Directive; Belgium and Spain: failure to adopt a national programme for the implementation of a spent fuel and radioactive waste management policy that is compliant with the requirements of the Radioactive Waste Directive. b)The Commission referred five cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They concern: Belgium: incorrect transposition of the Third Energy Package Directives (Electricity and Gas Directives); Czechia and Slovenia: incorrect transposition and application of certain provisions of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive; Spain: failure to comply with the requirements on individual metering in multi-apartment and multi-purpose buildings laid down in the Energy Efficiency Directive; Italy: failure to notify transposition measures under the Basic Safety Standards Directive. c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU. V.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES 1.New late transposition infringement cases (2015-2019)

2.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy sectors



3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court The Commission opened 31 cases for late transposition in 2019. They concern the: ·Indirect Land Use Change Directive ·amendment to the Oil Stocks Directive as regards the methods for calculating stockholding obligations ·Basic Safety Standards Directive. ·The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU. VI. EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2019. These concerned: ·Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands and Slovenia: non-compliance with the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive; ·Luxembourg and Romania: failure to submit their second cost-optimal report required by the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive; ·Czechia, Ireland and Malta: failure to correctly transpose certain requirements of the Radioactive Waste Directive; ·Croatia: failure to notify the national programme for the implementation of a spent fuel and radioactive waste management policy; ·Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Spain and Sweden: incorrect transposition of the Third Energy Package Directives; ·Spain and Poland: non-communication of national measures transposing the Offshore Safety Directive;

·Romania: non-compliance with the Oil Stocks Directive; ·Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, France, Portugal and Romania: failure to adopt all transposition measures for the Indirect Land Use Change Directive; ·Finland and Malta: non-compliance with the Energy Efficiency Directive; ·Belgium, Poland and Spain: failure to adopt all transposition measures for the Nuclear Safety Directive. VII.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS 1.Court rulings The Court gave the following rulings: ·Italy has failed to comply with the Radioactive Waste Directive since it has not notified a final adopted national programme for radioactive waste and spent fuel management . ·The General Court annulled a 2016 Commission decision amending the conditions for an exemption granted by an earlier decision to the gas pipeline Ostseepipeline-Anbindungsleitung from the rules on third-party access and unbundling set out in the Gas Directive. The Court found that the Commission had failed to examine the impact of the revised exemption conditions on energy solidarity to determine whether they could negatively impact the interests of other Member States or the Union. ·The General Court annulled on procedural grounds the decision of the European Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) on the capacity calculation regions which led to the split of the German-Austrian bidding zone, based on the reason that the Austrian regulatory authority had asked for an amendment of the proposal for the capacity calculation regions before the expiry of the six-month period during which the national regulatory authorities may approve the proposal. 2.Preliminary rulings The Court gave the following preliminary rulings: ·Bulgaria: National legislation obliging apartment owners in buildings in co-ownership to pay for the thermal energy used by the common parts and the internal installation of the building is compatible with EU law, even though the owners do not use that thermal energy in their own apartments. In such buildings, the bills for thermal energy consumption by the internal installation are calculated for each property owner in the building in proportion to the heated volume of their apartment. ·Bulgaria: The Court gave guidance as to the relevant criteria under the Electricity Directive to distinguish between transmission and distribution systems. ·Finland: The Energy Efficiency Directive does not prevent energy companies from giving customers discounts to encourage the uptake of electronic billing delivery methods. ·France: The Gas Directive allows a regulatory authority settling a dispute between energy companies to extend the effects of its decision to the situation of the parties before the emergence of that dispute, by requiring one party to bring a contract for the transmission of natural gas in line with EU law for the entire contractual period. ·Italy: National legislation under which the amount of royalties payable by holders of licences for the extraction of natural gas is calculated on the basis of an index based on the prices of oil and other fuels in the medium and long term and not an index that reflects the short-term market price of natural gas is not incompatible with EU law . ·Spain: A financial contribution imposed on certain electricity generating undertakings to finance savings and energy efficiency plans managed by a public authority does not constitute a public service obligation under the Electricity Directive. ·Spain: National legislation may set taxes on the production and storage of nuclear fuel and waste which apply only to electricity-generating undertakings using nuclear energy and whose main objective is to increase the amount of revenue for the electricity financial system. Such legislation does not violate the principle of non-discrimination provided for by the Electricity Directive. ·Spain: EU law does not prohibit a tax on the use of inland waters for the production of electricity which does not incentivise the efficient use of water, nor establish mechanisms for the preservation and protection of public water resources, as it is focused solely and exclusively on the income-generating capacity of hydroelectricity producers. A tax on the use of inland waters to produce electricity which exclusively affects hydroelectricity generators operating in river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community and not those operating in river basins encompassing a single autonomous community is not considered discriminatory .

VIII.Outlook Important implementation work in 2020 includes: ·assessing the national energy and climate plans adopted by the Member States pursuant to the Governance Regulation; ·taking legal action to ensure correct and complete transposition of the Electricity and Gas Directives, the Indirect Land Use Change Directive, the Energy Efficiency Directive, the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, the Oil Stocks Directive, the Radioactive Waste Directive, the Nuclear Safety Directive, the Basic Safety Standards Directive, the Euratom Drinking Water Directive; ·assessing the Member States reports on the implementation of the Nuclear Safety Directive, due to be submitted to the Commission by 22 July 2020; ·taking legal action to ensure the correct application of the Governance Regulation, the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling Regulations, the Risk Preparedness Regulation, the Electricity Regulation, the Network Codes and the Security of Gas Supply Regulation.



Environment I.COMPLAINTS 1.New complaints received from members of the public (2015-2019) 2.Public complaints open at year-end 546 ► Complaints open at end-2018 443 ► New complaints registered in 2019 422 ► Complaints handled in 2019 = 567 ► Complaints open at end-2019 3.New complaints registered in 2019: main policy sectors

II.EU PILOT 1.New EU Pilot files (2015-2019) 2.New EU Pilot files opened in 2019: main policy sectors

3.EU Pilot files open at year-end At the end of 2019, 128 EU Pilot files remained open. 4.EU Pilot files: resolution rate for policies (2015-2019)

III.OWN-INITIATIVE CASES New own-initiative infringement cases In 2019, the Commission opened own-initiative infringement cases over: ·incorrect transposition of the revised Environmental Impact Assessment Directive; ·failure to complete the Natura 2000 network and to ensure protection of this network; ·incorrect transposition of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive; ·incorrect transposition of the SEVESO III Directive; ·failure to share spatial information, in line with the INSPIRE Directive; ·non-compliance with the Industrial Emissions Directive; ·incorrect transposition of the Directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes; ·failure to ensure adequate protection of certain bird species and of certain natural habitats; ·bad application of the Birds Directive in relation to the hunting of certain bird species; ·failure to set dissuasive penalties and to adopt specific lists of invasive alien species for outermost regions, in breach of the Invasive Alien Species Regulation; ·non-compliance with reporting obligations under EU waste legislation. IV.INFRINGEMENT CASES

1.Infringement cases open on 31 December (2015-2019) 2.Infringement cases open on 31 December 2019: main policy sectors 3.New infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy sectors 4.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court a)The Commission opened 175 new infringement cases in 2019. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include the following: United Kingdom: failure to comply with a Court judgment finding that the United Kingdom had breached its obligations under EU law as regards collection and treatment of urban waste water in London and Whitburn; Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia and Spain: failure to ensure that urban waste water is adequately collected and treated; · Poland and Slovakia: failure to comply with EU rules on landfills; Greece: lack of measures to address waste problems on the island of Corfu; Germany: failure to comply with a Court judgment finding that Germany was in breach of its obligations under the Nitrates Directive by failing to revise an action programme whose measures had proved insufficient; Belgium: failure to protect waters from nitrates pollution; Belgium and Poland: non-compliance with key provisions of the Noise Directive; Czechia, Latvia, Slovakia, Poland, Portugal and Romania: failure to ensure adequate protection of habitats and species of EU interest by designating nature protection areas to complete the NATURA 2000 network; Slovenia: incorrect transposition of the Habitats and Birds Directives;

Cyprus: general and persistent failure to ensure that plans and projects undergo an appropriate assessment of their implications on Natura 2000 sites, as required by the Habitats Directive; Slovakia: failure to provide for an appropriate assessment of the effects that projects within Natura 2000 sites, such as forest logging activities, may have on the protected areas, which resulted in a significant fall in bird numbers; Bulgaria, Italy and Germany: failure to establish Special Areas of Conservation, as well as conservation objectives and measures to maintain or restore the protected species and habitats to a favourable condition, as required by the Habitats Directive; France: authorisation of non-selective hunting practices which are not in line with the Birds Directive; France and Spain: failure to take the necessary measures to enhance protection of the species of the Turtle dove as required by the Birds Directive; Germany and Slovenia: failure to ensure adequate protection of grasslands, as required by the Habitats Directive; Poland: failure to establish adequate safeguards to protect forests and its plant and animal species, as required under the Birds and Habitats Directives. Also, failure to provide access to justice with regard to forest management plans; Austria, Denmark, Finland, Latvia, Germany, Slovenia and Poland: incorrect transposition of the Directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes; Greece: incorrect transposition of the Industrial Emissions Directive and failure to protect citizens from noxious air pollution from several power plants, as required by the said Directive; Romania: failure to ensure that installations under the Industrial Emissions Directive operate with appropriate permits; Poland: failure to comply with a Court judgment finding that Poland had breached its obligations under the Ambient Air Quality Directive; Greece: failure to comply with the nitrogen dioxide (NO2) limit values set by the Air Quality Directive, failure to put in place adequate sampling points to properly monitor NO2 concentrations and failure to make available a complete air quality report; Romania: systemic failure to monitor air pollution as required by EU legislation on ambient air quality; France: non-conformity of national legislation with the Directive on public access to environmental information; Croatia: non-conformity of the Croatian Water Act with the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, the Habitats Directive and the Water Framework Directive; Austria: failure to provide for a strategic environmental assessment of plans in the energy sector as required by the Strategic Environmental Assessments Directive; Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia and Sweden: incorrect transposition of the revised Environmental Impact Assessment Directive; Austria: restrictions regarding access to justice in environmental procedures, not in line with the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive; Poland: failure to fully comply with the EU rules on reviewing environmental decisions ; Ireland: failure to apply the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive to peat extraction operations;

Croatia: non-conformity of national legislation with the Groundwater Directive; Croatia: non-conformity of national legislation with the Drinking Water Directive; Luxembourg: incorrect transposition of the Environmental Quality Standards Directive; France: failure to comply with the Water Framework Directive concerning the ecological continuity of the Rhine River; Bulgaria, Cyprus, Ireland, Lithuania and Malta: late reporting on the environmental status of marine waters under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive; Ireland: incorrect transposition of the Water Framework Directive. b)The Commission referred nine cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They concern: Bulgaria: exceedance of sulphur dioxide (SO2) limit values set by the Air Quality Directive; Greece: failure to establish the necessary conservation measures and objectives for all sites designated as Special Areas of Conservation under the Habitats Directive; Spain: failure to take adequate measures to protect the groundwater bodies that feed the Doñana wetlands and to prevent the deterioration of protected habitats in these wetlands, in violation of the Water Framework Directive and the Habitats Directive; Spain: absence of flood risk management plans, required under the Floods Directive, for all seven river basin districts in the Canary Islands; Italy: failure to ensure that all agglomerations with a population of more than 2,000 are provided with collecting systems for urban waste water and that urban waste water entering collecting systems is adequately treated before discharge, as required by the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive; Cyprus: lack of proper collection and treatment of urban waste waters of various agglomerations in breach of the Urban Waste Water Directive; Italy: exceedance of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) limit values set by the Air Quality Directive; Finland: illegal spring hunting of male eiders in the province of Åland, in violation of the Birds Directive; Austria: hunting of woodcock during its reproductive period in the Land of Lower Austria, in breach of the Birds Directive. c)The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU. It concerns Greece: failure to comply with a Court judgment establishing that Greece had failed to protect its waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources. V.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES 1.New late transposition infringement cases (2015-2019)

2.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2019: main policy sectors 3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court a)The Commission opened 59 cases for late transposition in 2019. They included the: Directive concerning the indicative lists of elements to be taken into account for the preparation of marine strategies Directive establishing common noise assessment methods. b)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU. VI.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2019 These concerned mainly: ·Belgium: bad application of the Timber Regulation by not carrying out a significant number of verifications; ·Denmark: exceedances of the nitrogen dioxide (NO2) limit values set by the Air Quality Directive; ·Greece: failure to establish a general system for the protection of wild birds, prohibiting, in particular, their deliberate killing through poison baits; ·Spain: trapping of five species of wild finches beyond the strict conditions set by EU rules on the conservation of wild birds; ·Croatia: incorrect transposition of the Habitats Directive; ·Croatia: incorrect transposition of the Birds Directive; ·Estonia, Hungary and Spain: incorrect transposition of the Directive on the prote