Eighteenth annual report on monitoring the application of community law (2000) /* COM/2001/0309 final Volume I */





EIGHTEENTH ANNUAL REPORT ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF COMMUNITY LAW (2000) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Statistics for 2000 1.2. Improvements in the pre-litigation procedure 1.3. Transposal of Directives in 2000 1.4. Applications for derogations from harmonisation measures - Article 95 of the EC Treaty 1.5. Graphical overview of all the infringement proceedings commenced or handled by the Commission during 2000 1.6. Application by the Commission of Article 228 of the EC Treaty (developments in 2000) 2. SITUATION SECTOR BY SECTOR 2.1. Economic and financial affairs 2.2. Businesses 2.2.1. Preventive rules provided for by Directive 98/34/EC (formerly 83/189/EEC) 2.2.2. Pharmaceutical products 2.2.3. Cosmetic products 2.2.4. Chemicals 2.2.5. Motor vehicles, tractors and motor-cycles 2.2.6. Construction products 2.2.7. Machinery 2.2.8. Radio and telecommunications terminal equipment 2.2.9. Tourism 2.3. Competition 2.3.1. Telecommunications. 2.3.2. Postal services 2.3.3. Liberal professions 2.3.4. Transport. 2.3.5. Merger cases 2.3.6. State aids 2.4. employment and social affairs 2.4.1. Freedom of movement for workers 2.4.2. Equal treatment of men and women 2.4.3. Working conditions 2.4.4. Health and safety at work 2.5. agriculture 2.5.1. Free movement of agricultural produce 2.5.2. The market 2.6. Energy and transport 2.6.1. Internal market for electricity and natural gas 2.6.2. Energy efficiency 2.6.3. Oil and gas 2.6.4. Transport 2.6.5. Road transport 2.6.6. Combined transport 2.6.7. Inland waterways 2.6.8. Rail transport 2.6.9. Transport by sea 2.6.10. Air transport 2.7. Information society 2.8. Environment 2.8.1. Freedom of access to information 2.8.2. Environmental impact assessment 2.8.3. Air 2.8.4. Water 2.8.5. Nature 2.8.6. Noise 2.8.7. Chemicals and biotechnology 2.8.8. Waste 2.8.9. Environment and industry 2.8.10. Radiation protection 2.9. Fisheries 2.9.1. Resources 2.9.2. Grant of flag rights and fishing licences 2.9.3. Markets 2.10. Internal market 2.10.1. General strategy for the internal market 2.10.2. Free movement of goods 2.10.2.1. Application of Articles 28 et seq. EC (ex Articles 30 et seq. of the EC Treaty) 2.10.2.2. Measures to accompany the abolition of internal borders on 1 January 1993 2.10.2.3. Liability for defective products (Directive 85/374/EEC, as amended 2.10.3. Free movement of services and right of establishment 2.10.3.1. Articles 43 et seq. and Articles 49 et seq. 2.10.3.2. Financial services 2.10.3.3. Postal services 2.10.3.4. Commercial communications 2.10.3.5. The media 2.10.4. The business environment 2.10.4.1. Public procurement 2.10.4.2. Data protection 2.10.4.3. Intellectual property 2.10.4.4. Company law and financial information 2.10.5. Regulated professions (qualifications) 2.11. Regional policy 2.11.1. Type of Infringements 2.11.2. Actions undertaken by the Commission 2.12. Taxation and Customs Union 2.12.1. Customs union 2.12.2. Direct taxation 2.12.3. Value-added tax 2.12.4. Other indirect taxes 2.13. Education, audiovisual media and culture 2.13.1. Education and culture 2.13.2. Broadcasting 2.13.2.1. Progress in transposing the revised Directive 2.13.2.2. Application of the Directive 2.13.2.3. Enlargement-related questions 2.14. Health and consumer protection 2.14.1. Veterinary legislation 2.14.2. Plant health legislation 2.14.3. Legislation on seeds and plants 2.14.4. Food legislation 2.14.5. Animal feedingstuffs legislation 2.14.6. Contaminants 2.14.7. Notification of technical standards and rules 2.14.8. Consumer protection 2.15. Justice and home affairs 2.15.1. Communitisation of the Schengen acquis 2.15.2. Entry and residence 2.15.3. Right to vote and stand in elections 2.16. Budget 2.16.1. General 2.16.2. Incorrect application 2.16.2.1. Previously initiated proceedings 2.16.2.2. New proceedings 2.17. Personnel and administration 2.18. Community statistics [Volume II] Annex I: Detection of infringement cases. Annex II: Infringement proceedings - Breakdown by stage reached, legal basis, Member State and sector [Volume III] Annex III: Infringements of Treaties, Regulations and Decisions [Volume IV] Annex IV. Part I: Progress in implementing Directives [Volume V] Annex IV part 1: Summary table part 2: Infringements for non-conformity of measures implementing directives part 3: Infringements for incorrect application of measures implementing directives [Volume VI] Annex V: Judgments of the Court up to 31 December 2000 not yet implemented Annex VI: Monitoring the application of Community law by national courts Each year the European Commission draws up a report on the monitoring of the application of Community law, in response to requests made by the European Parliament (Resolution of 9 February 1983) and the Member States (point 2 of Declaration No 19 annexed to the Treaty signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992). The report also responds to the requests expressed by the European Council or the Council in relation to specific sectors. 1. INTRODUCTION The task of monitoring the application of Community law is vital in terms of the rule of law generally, but it also helps to make the principle of a Community based on the rule of law a tangible reality for Europe's citizens and economic operators. The importance of complaints in the process of detecting infringements (table 1.1) is clear evidence of the trust placed by the public in the Commission's exercise of this basic function. It is also evidence of the Commission's concern to give complainants an important role in the infringement procedure, in which they previously played no role at all by reason of the nature of the procedure as organised by Article 226 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (and Article 141 of the Euratom Treaty). This status for complainants took the practical form of the following procedures: registration of complaint, respect for confidentiality, information for the complainant and possibility of making views known before a decision is taken to close the case. The Commission has embarked on the codification of the current administrative rules to ease contacts with complainants. But the primary objective of the infringement procedure is still, as before, to cause the offending Member State to come into line with Community law. Nor does it have any effect on the discretionary power that the Commission is acknowledged d to have by the Court of Justice as regards commencing infringement proceedings. This is all the more important as the nature of the procedure may sometimes leave complainants feeling frustrated: they, of course, are aiming for a different result - the satisfaction of their individual interests which they see as threatened by the Member State's alleged unlawful conduct. The Commission is therefore constantly at pains to remind complainants that if they wish to obtain compensation for the loss they sustain, they must proceed in the national courts. Since the national courts are the first stage in the Community legal order, they are the best placed to hear and determine disputes as to specific individual cases of violation of Community law. While such cases can constitute genuine infringements of Community law, it is extremely difficult to come up with a solution that will satisfy the complainant in infringement proceedings brought by the Commission. It will always be up to the Member State and the national courts to remedy the effects of the infringement. Consequently, while paying special attention to complainants, whose procedural rights are expressly acknowledged at the pre-litigation stage, the Commission endeavours to combine proceedings wherever it can in the interests of uniform monitoring of Community law and to give priority to situations where there is evidence of a recurring tendency of the relevant Member State to violate Community law. In so doing it discharges its fundamental responsibility for defending the Community legal order under Article 211 of the EC Treaty. The eighteenth report on monitoring the application of Community law is the first produced since the Commission was reorganised. It fully reflects the reorganisation, and the layout of this report will thus be more consistent and will better highlight the action taken by the Commission under Articles 226 and 228 of the EC Treaty (Articles 141 and 143 of the Euratom Treaty), as requested by the Resolution of the European Parliament on the sixteenth report. The Commission endeavours to discharge this vital function of monitoring the application of Community law more and more efficiently by making use of modern communication and management techniques and by simplifying infringement procedures. The way in which the Commission proceeds against infringements is described in the following ways: - a statistical overview of the various stages involved in monitoring the application of Community law, comparing the 1999 figures with last year's (point 1.1); - improvements in the pre-litigation procedure (point 1.2); - progress in transposing Community directives in the Member States (point 1.3); - applications for derogations from harmonisation measures - Article 95 of the EC Treaty (point 1.4); - a graphical overview showing, by Member State, all the infringement procedures commenced or handled by the Commission during the year (point 1.5); and - an overview of the Commission's use of the penalty procedure of Article 228 of the EC Treaty since the Maastricht Treaty came into force (point 1.6). 1.1. Statistics for 2000 The statistics for 2000 reflect a degree of stabilisation in the number of complaints registered by the Commission. For the first time, the total is actually down slightly. Even so, complaints are still the privileged means of detecting infringements, though the Commission has also boosted the efficiency of its machinery for monitoring the transposal of directives and is extending its own capacity to detect infringement situations through an increased number of proceedings opened on the basis of its staff's investigations. Procedures are also being accelerated. The Commission is particularly keen to reduce the time taken to act in infringement proceedings. In the current situation 29 calendar days elapse between the adoption of decisions to issue letters of formal notice or reasoned opinions and their execution in the form of notification to the relevant Member State. The current delay between a decision to refer a case to the Court of Justice and the actual filing of the action is far more difficult to measure in aggregate terms, since contacts with the Member State tend to intensify at this stage. The primary objective of the infringement procedure being to cause the offending Member State to come into line with Community law, the Commission commonly gives priority to such contacts and suspends implementation of its decision to go to the Court. There is consequently little statistical significance to be attached to the longer time taken to move on. For the sake of transparency, since January 2001 decisions to issue letters of formal notice and reasoned opinions, to refer cases to the Court of Justice or to close cases have been announced forthwith on the Commission's Europa website. This may actually have a deterrent effect on Member States, who are immediately informed of the Commission's decisions on specific cases. The statistics for 2000 can be summed up as follows: - the number of complaints registered by the Commission in 2000 is down slightly (by 6.13% ) on 1999. The Commission also opened a far greater number of cases based on its own investigations than in previous years. In 2000 there were 896 such cases: this figure was last seen in 1996. Out of this total of 896, cases commenced on the basis of parliamentary questions (15, as against 16 in 1999) and petitions (5, as against 10 in 1999) are down slightly, which suggests that the Commission's investigation activity is accounting for a rising share of cases concerning the incorrect application of Community law and the conformity of national measures implementing directives. - 1317 letters of formal notice were issued in 2000, 22.51% up on the figure of 1075 for 1998. But it must be emphasised that the rise in the total number of letters of formal notice is primarily the result of the rising number of letters of formal notice for failure to notify national measures implementing directives (925 in 2000, up by 31% from 706 in 1999) and the number of letters of formal notice for non-conformity of such measures or for incorrect application of Community law (from 369 in 1999 to 392 in 2000). The latter increase is evidence of the increased effort made by the Commission to check conformity (see point 1.2 regarding the reinforcement of the qualitative approach). Letters of formal notice based on failure to notify have felt the full effects of automation and modernisation of the procedure based on empowerment decisions. The growing use of computerised instruments and the ongoing development of Asmodée II, the directives database, have substantially cut the time taken to issue letters of formal notice, which are now all within the rule of one month after the transposal deadline provided for by the Commission's internal rules for operation infringement proceedings. This modernisation in the procedure for formal notice in the event of failure to notify has helped to absorb the delays that built up in 1999, which has certainly helped to increase the number of letters of formal notice served in 2000. - the number of reasoned opinions issued in 2000 was 460, the same as in 1999. This figure reveals the extent to which the procedure has been stabilised since the delays accumulated in the years preceding 1998 were caught up. As has been seen, the time currently taken to serve this kind of decision averages 29 days. New adaptations to operational procedures relating to infringements are currently under study with a view to cutting the periods substantially. - the number of cases referred to the Court of Justice is down slightly (by 3.5%) in 2000, with 172 decisions against 178 in 1999. At the same time the share accounted for by the cases referred in relation to letters of formal notice also fell from 16.5% in 1999 to 13.05% in 2000. It might be logically deducted, then, that the pre-litigation procedure is becoming more efficient. - the speed of handling cases continued to rise in 2000: 1083 of the 1317 letters of formal notice sent to Member States in 1999 related to infringement procedures commenced in the course of the year, i.e. 82% as against 73% in 1999. But the speed of handling cases fell as regards reasoned opinions, since only 14% of reasoned opinions served in 2000 concerned proceedings commenced in 2000, against 26% in 1999 and 19% in 1998, the number of reasoned opinions remaining stable. this can be explained by the difficulty for the Commission of obtaining the information it needs to pursue the proceedings, and in particular by the delays in responding to letters of formal notice in some Member States. - at the same time, this efficiency of the pre-litigation procedure was confirmed by the number of termination decisions, which stabilised at 1899 in 2000 (1900 in 1999); - lastly, the Commission's policy of transparency intensified in 2000, chiefly through greater use of the Internet as a means of disseminating information (see below). Since 17 January 2001, the Commission has been announcing all recent decisions to issue letters of formal notice and reasoned opinions, to refer cases to the Court of Justice and to terminate cases on the Europa server, its Secretariat-General's website at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/droit_com/index_en.htm - infractions All this information is now freely accessible, whereas it used to be available only to the Member State concerned. The Commission issued 178 press releases in 2000. 1.2. Improvements in the pre-litigation procedure - The ongoing development of the Asmodée (directives) and infringements databases are an important aspect of this improvement. The productivity gains from modernisation and the improvement of procedures are essential means of improving the monitoring of the application of Community law in a way that is more quality-oriented and less dependent on the unpredictable aspects of current detection techniques, which proceed primarily from complaints filed by citizens and firms. For one thing, the level of development of the Asmodée II directives database now makes it possible to systematise the letters giving Member States formal notice for failure to notify national implementing measures with greater reliability. This systematisation corresponds to the very nature of an infringement in the form of failure to notify, where there is no discretionary room for assessment, since the Member State either has or has not notified measures, and if it has, they are either complete or not. For another, the infringements database has now become so reliable that it can be used as the basic tool for the pre-litigation procedure; the procedure now operates more smoothly, more transparently and more reliably. In combination with the tools already established by the Commission to monitor the effect given to its infringement decisions and the effort to achieve minimum standardisation of letters of formal notice and reasoned opinions, the intensified use of the infringements database should further reduce the time needed to give effect to decisions ordering letters of formal notice and reasoned opinions. - The web-based utilisation of the data available in the infringements and Asmodée II databases should also help to increase the frequency of the information currently put out on the European Communities' Europa server. In 2000, part of the information given in this report on the transposal of directives was already analysed in the monthly statistics published in the website. As already stated, since 17 January 2001, the Commission has been announcing all recent decisions to issue letters of formal notice and reasoned opinions, to refer cases to the Court of Justice and to terminate cases on the Europa server. Since this information is freely accessible, it means that complainants and the general public now have information that used to be reserved for the Member State concerned. While the public has an interest in having access to information such as this, there is no doubt that public dissemination immediately after the Commission has taken its decision will give the national authorities an incentive to come quickly into line with Community law, especially in cases where there is little room for genuine dispute, such as failure to notify. The Commission is currently wondering how to optimise and expand the information available to the public on the Europa server with an eye to setting up a genuine platform of information on Community law. 1.3. Transposal of Directives in 2000 The table below gives an overall picture of the rate of notification of national measures implementing all the directives applicable on 31 December 2000. On 31 December 2000 the Member States had on average notified 96.59 % of the national measures needed to implement the directives. This figure represents a sharp improvement in the transposal situation, as it is the highest rate achieved since 1992. It must be emphasised that the overall improvement is the result of an improvement in the situation in every Member State. It was presumably encouraged by the acceleration of procedures for giving formal notice in cases of failure to notify in 2000 (see point 1.2). In particular the efforts of four Member States are noteworthy: - Belgium and Luxembourg, where the transposal rate is up by nearly 3%; in terms of rankings, Belgium rises from 9th to 3rd. This improvement is without doubt the initial statistical reflection of that Member State's declared intention of reducing the volume of litigation in Community matters, further borne out by the figures below at point 1.5. - to a lesser but no more negligible extent, Greece and Portugal have improved their transposal rate by 2% or so, catching up some of the delays accumulated in 1999. But Greece is still the Member State with the lowest transposal rate. >REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC> The summary table at the end of Part 1 of Annex IV to this report shows the detailed transposal rate for each Member State and each sector in 2000. 1.4. Applications for derogations from harmonisation measures - Article 95 of the EC Treaty In 2000, only one Member State made a notification under Article 95. By letter dated 21 February 2000 Belgium applied under Article 95(5) of the EC Treaty for authorisation to apply from 1 January 2003 national provisions derogating from Directive 1999/51/EC concerning limitations on the marketing and use of organotin compounds. Under Article 95(5) and (6) the Commission must approve or reject these national provisions within six months after checking whether: - they are justified on the basis of new scientific evidence relating to the protection of the environment or the working environment on grounds of a problem specific to that Member State arising after the adoption of the harmonisation measure, - they are a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States and whether or not they constitute an obstacle to the functioning of the internal market. The national provisions are implicitly deemed to have been approved if the Commission does not adopt a decision within six months. When considering the justification for measures notified under Article 95(5), the Commission must have regard to the reasons put forward by the Member State. In accordance with the Treaty, the responsibility for proving that these measures are justified lies with the applicant Member State. In the light of an analysis of the reasons put forward by the Belgian authorities, it was not possible to conclude that the application made by them satisfied the tests of Article 95(5). By decision dated 25 July 2000 the Commission accordingly rejected the draft national implementing measures of which it had been notified. 1.5. Graphical overview of all the infringement proceedings commenced or handled by the Commission during 2000 The three tables below show the numbers of infringement proceedings in motion on 31 December 2000, at the three separate stages: letter of formal notice, reasoned opinion and referral to the Court of Justice. The same trio - France, Italy and Greece - headed the lists in 2000 as in 1999, at all three stages of the procedure. The fourth place in the ranking for letters of formal notice is again occupied by Germany this year, but Germany has moved up the table for reasoned opinions, taking over the fourth place occupied by Belgium in 1999. But the most spectacular movements are in the ranking by number of cases referred to the Court of Justice, where Germany moves up from 7th to 4th place while Belgium moves exactly the opposite way from 4th to 7th, having only 19 cases referred in 2000 as against 29 in 1999, a fall of 34.48%. >REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC> >REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC> >REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC> 1.6. Application by the Commission of Article 228 of the EC Treaty (developments in 2000) In 2000 the Commission adopted three decisions to refer cases to the Court of Justice for a second time with requests for imposition of a penalty payment, against Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom. Two of the cases (D and UK) concern the environment, and the third (I) concerns sea transport. The case against Germany was referred to the Court on 31 January 2001. The case against the United Kingdom is now in preparation. Italy has notified the Commission of implementing measures, which are now under scrutiny. In 2000 the Court of Justice for the first time ordered a Member State, Greece, to pay a penalty payment in a second action under Article 228 of the EC Treaty. The Court gave judgment on 4 July 2000 (Case C-387/97, not yet reported), ordering the Hellenic Republic to pay into the Commission's EC Own Resources account an amount of EUR20 000 per day of delay in implementing the measures needed to comply with its judgment of 7 April 1992 (Commission v Greece, C-45/91). It will be remembered that in that case it was held that Greece had failed to discharge its obligation to take the necessary measures for the elimination of toxic and dangerous waste in the Khania region of Crete (in particular, the closure of the illegal dump on the estuary of the Kouroupitos stream), under Council Directives 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste and 78/319/EEC of 20 March 1978 on toxic and dangerous waste. In compliance with the second judgment, the Commission demands payment of a monthly sum corresponding to the daily penalty of EUR20 000 imposed by the Court from the date on which judgment was given, i.e. 5 July 2000. By 31 December 2000, Greece had still not adopted the measures required to comply with the judgment given by the Court on 7 April 1992. Regarding the other cases pending in the Court in 1999, the other three infringement proceedings against Greece were terminated. The Court of Justice authorised the suspension of the proceedings against France concerning night work until 30 April 2001 to allow the French authorities to bring their legislation into line with Community law. The Commission also decided to stay execution of the second referral of Belgium to the Court to allow continuation of the contacts in motion for a settlement of the question of reimbursement of enrolment charges wrongly ordered and other discriminatory measures against students with Community nationalities other than Belgian. The case against Luxembourg concerning medical assistance on board vessels was terminated in 2000, when the Member State at last came into line with the Court's judgment of 2 July 1992. The judgment given against Greece bears witness to the effectiveness of the Article 228 procedure but is none the less preoccupying as the Member State had to have judgment given against it in the first place. Moreover, at the time of writing the infringement situation has still not been cleared up, and the penalty payments are being regularly paid by Greece into the Commission's EC Own Resources account to comply with the judgment of 4 July 2000. On 22 December 2000, for example, Greece paid EUR1 760 000, representing the full amounts due at the daily rate of EUR20 000 for the period from 5 July to 30 September 2000. The summary table below lists the decisions taken by the Commission for second referrals since the procedure was introduced by the Maastricht Treaty (and the outcome in each case). >REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC> 2. SITUATION SECTOR BY SECTOR 2.1. Economic and financial affairs Broadly speaking, freedom of movement of capital is satisfactorily secured both within the European Community and in relation to non-member countries. There were relatively few complaints from economic operators during the report period, and certain restrictions earlier identified were removed. The number of infringement cases is really quite limited, though certain of them concern substantial barriers to the smooth operation of the single market. New infringement proceedings were commenced as a result of monitoring the Member States' application of the principles of the Communication on certain legal aspects of intra-EU investment (OJ C 220/15, 19.7.1997). All the proceedings commenced on the basis of that Communication concern the special rights conferred by the Member States to control firms in the public utilities sector (energy, telecoms, airports, etc.). On 23 May 2000 the Court of Justice gave its first judgment [1] in such a case, against Italy, which had taken for itself special rights under the legislation on the privatisation of public enterprises. The Commission referred a number of similar infringement cases to the Court, and proceedings are continuing in others. These infringements in relation to special rights concern several Member States. [1] Case C-58/99 - Privatisation of public undertakings - Grant of special powers. Certain restrictions on the investment activities of pension funds (Belgium, Finland) have been removed, but a new case has been commenced regarding the investment rules for pension-saving funds in Belgium. Regarding the acquisition of securities, the Court gave judgment against Belgium on 26 September 2000 for prohibiting persons residing in Belgium from acquiring loan certificates issued by Belgium abroad. [2] [2] Case C-478/98 - Loans issued abroad - Prohibition of acquisition by Belgian residents. In a preliminary ruling given on 6 June 2000, [3] the Court held that certain provisions of Dutch tax legislation which make the grant of an exemption from the income tax payable on dividends paid to natural persons who are shareholders subject to the condition that those dividends are paid by a company whose seat is in that Member State constituted barriers to the free movement of capital. [3] Case C-35/98 - Free movement of capital - Direct taxation of share dividends - Exemption - Limitation to shares in companies whose seat is within national territory. Most of the complaints received in the course of the year, although limited in scope, concerned the acquisition by non-residents of real property in, chiefly, Denmark and Austria. These cases are now under supplementary investigation by the Commission. On 13 July 2000 the Court of Justice held that national legislation exempting exclusively nationals of the relevant Member State from the authorisation procedure applicable to acquisitions of real property in an area of military importance was incompatible with the free movement of capital. [4] [4] Case C-423/98 - Authorisation procedure for the purchase of immovable property. 2.2. Businesses 2.2.1. Preventive rules provided for by Directive 98/34/EC (formerly 83/189/EEC) The notification procedure introduced by Directive 98/34/EC is an essential tool for preventing barriers to trade from being raised and for sharing information. The Directive obliges Member States to submit to the Commission, and to each other, their drafts of new technical regulations for monitoring of compliance with internal market rules before they are finally adopted. This procedure, which previously applied only to products, has been extended since 5 August 1999 to information society services. [5] This is a sector where technological and legal progress also justify the establishment of an effective prior information, administrative partnership and review mechanism, notably with a view to securing fundamental rights and freedoms. [5] Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 which extends the information procedure to the rules on information society services (OJ L 217 p. 18). In 2000, the Commission received 751 drafts of technical regulations (of which 23 relating to rules on information society services and the rest relating to products) which were scrutinised by the relevant departments. The number involved was 604 in 1998 and 591 in 1999. These figures show that, despite the completion of the single market, the Member States are still adopting a wide range of technical regulations and even reverting to earlier regulatory patterns, partly on grounds of technical progress and of the concern to step up general health protection and food protection in particular. These initiatives must be kept under control so that they do not jeopardise the smooth operation of the internal market and so that sectors where Community rules might be necessary can be identified. Of the drafts received by the Commission in 2000, 45 [6] required a detailed opinion recommending changes to the planned measure in order to eliminate any unjustified barriers to the free movement of information-society goods or services which might arise as a result. The Member States issued 92 opinions. [7] The tendency for the number of detailed opinions to fall is broadly confirmed, which shows that the educational effort made in the context of the procedure is producing beneficial effects and that the quality of national rules is improving. [6] As at 31 December 2000. The time-limit for issuing detailed opinions on draft regulations reported in 2000 ends on 31 March 2000. The figure also includes certain notifications dating from 1999 for which the time-limit ended on 31 March 2000. [7] As at 31 December 2000. The time-limit for issuing detailed opinions on draft regulations reported in 2000 ends on 31 March 2000. The figure also includes certain notifications dating from 1999 for which the time-limit ended on 31 March 2000. In a dozen or so cases the directive also helped to facilitate Community harmonisation by precluding the adoption of national measures that could have rigidified the positions of certain Member States when common solutions were being sought. Five notifications [8] were held over for a year since they concerned matters covered by a proposal for a Council directive, and four [9] were held over for a year since the Commission had announced its intention of legislating. [8] As at 31 December 2000. The time-limit for notifying Member States of requests for postponements of 1999 notifications ends on 31 March 2000. The figure does not include notifications from 1999 for which the time-limit ended on 31 March 2000, as there were no requests for postponements of such notifications. [9] As at 31 December 2000. The time-limit for notifying Member States of requests for postponements of 1999 notifications ends on 31 March 2000. The figure does not include notifications from 1999 for which the time-limit ended on 31 March 2000, as there were no requests for postponements of such notifications. In response to the judgment given by the Court of Justice in 1996 in CIA Security, [1] the Member State were more scrupulous in the discharge of their obligations under Directive 98/34/EC. In that case the Court of Justice had held that the national court which must decline to apply a national technical regulation which has not been notified. On 26 September 2000, in Case C-443/98 Unilever, the Court of Justice further clarified the position, holding that a national court is also required to refuse to apply a national technical regulation which was adopted during a period of postponement of adoption prescribed in Article 9 of Council Directive 98/34/EC. [1] Case C-194/94 [1996] ECR I-2201 (Judgment given on 30 April 1996). But in certain cases, when it discovers a breach of Directive 98/34/EC, the Commission starts a dialogue with the Member State concerned in order to rectify the situation, or even commences infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty. At the end of 2000, preparatory work was under way on around ten procedures of this type. Other important judgments given by the Court in 2000 include Case C-37/99 Donkersteeg (judgment given on 16 November 2000), where the Court clarified the concept of technical specification in agricultural matters and the mandatory nature of the concept of technical regulation. To improve the dialogue with firms and persons eligible for the procedure, projects notified are accessible at http://europa.eu.int/comm/entreprise/tris. 2.2.2. Pharmaceutical products During 2000, almost all the measures implementing directives applicable to pharmaceuticals were notified to the Commission. Only France has yet to complete the transposal of Directive 93/41/EC in veterinary matters. As for the directives adopted by the Commission in 1999 and due for transposal, most Member States have already notified national implementing measures: Italy has yet to complete the transposal of Directives 1999/82/EC and 1999/83/EC, and Portugal has to complete Directive 1999/104/EC. As in previous years, certain general problems remain with the interpretation and application of the pharmaceuticals directives by the Member States. The infringements here chiefly concern different interpretations put by the Member States on the term "medicine" (with the consequence sometimes of raising barriers to the free movement of goods) and complaints about the alleged failure of the relevant national authorities to comply with the transparency directive 89/105/EEC. The transposal of Article 4(8)(a)(i)-(iii) of Directive 65/65/EEC by Member States and the management of the re-authorisation of "old" medicinal products are also the subject of ongoing infringement proceedings. The Commission is carefully considering these problems and complaints. 2.2.3. Cosmetic products In 2000, the Commission observed real progress in the application of Community rules on cosmetics, having had to handle only a few infringement cases based on incorrect application. Regarding cases of failure to notify national measures transposing directives, the Commission was able to terminate a large number of infringement proceedings against Member States. Only France has yet to publish its Ministerial Orders and thus complete the transposal of Council Directive 93/35/EEC amending for the sixth time Directive 76/768/EEC and Commission Directive 98/62/EC (23rd Directive adapting to technical progress Directive 76/768/EEC). National measures implementing Directives 2000/6/EC and 2000/11/EC adapting to technical progress Directive 76/768/EEC have been notified by 12 and 11 Member States respectively, and the other Member States have transmitted drafts at an advanced stage. Certain Member States have not yet transposed Directives 97/18/EC and 2000/41/EC postponing the date from which experiments on animals are prohibited for ingredients or combinations of ingredients in order to ensure that economic operators enjoy a degree of certainty as to the law. The fact that the Commission has presented a proposal for a Council and European Parliament Directive amending for the seventh time Council Directive 76/768/EEC, to prohibit tests on animals of finished cosmetic products and their ingredients does not release the Member States from their obligations to transpose the directives. 2.2.4. Chemicals In the chemicals sector, 27 infringement cases for failure to report measures were closed in 2000. These were concerned with fertilisers (Directives 1997/63, and 1998/3), restrictions on the marketing and use of dangerous substances and preparations (Directives 1994/27 and 1999/43) and good laboratory practice (GLP) (Directives 1999/11 and 1999/12). After that five reasoned opinions had been sent with regard to the Directives for which the deadline for transposal had expired in 1999 (Directives 1999/11 and 1999/12), most of the Member States transposed the legislation. There is still a total of twelve infringement proceedings under way for failure to give notification of transposal measures. Some of these cases have been brought to the Court of Justice, and relate to good laboratory practice (GLP) (Directives 1999/11 and 1999/12). The deadline for transposal of three directives relating to restrictions on marketing and use of dangerous substances and preparations (Directives 1994/27, 1999/51, 1999/43) ran out during the first half of the year 2000. 8 Member States had not transposed the first two Directives on time, whereas 12 Member States failed to meet the deadline to transpose Directive 1999/43. Two infringement cases are pending for failure to properly transpose Directive 93/15/EEC on the placing on the market and supervision of explosives for civil use. 2.2.5. Motor vehicles, tractors and motor-cycles A satisfactory pace has been observed in the transposition of the numerous directives governing motor vehicle, component or technical system type-approval of in the field of passenger vehicles, light and heavy commercial vehicles, two or three-wheel motor vehicles and agricultural or forestry tractors. The comparatively large number of Directives adopted in these areas have nonetheless created evident difficulties for certain Member States to transpose punctually. The initiation of infringement proceedings in such cases is, as has been stated in the past, normally sufficient to bring about transposition within short time-frames. In terms of the directives in the field of pollutant emissions, Directive 98/69/EC, in the field of passenger cars and light commercial vehicles, has now been transposed by all Member States. A similar result has not yet been achieved, however, with regard to Directive 1999/96/EC governing pollutant emissions of heavy duty vehicles which, as at 30 November 2000, had not been transposed by seven Member States. The transposition into national law of Directive 97/54/EC relating to the maximum design speed of agricultural or forestry tractors has been completed by all Member States. With regard to the other Directives mentioned specifically in the 17th Annual Report concerning agricultural or forestry tractors, Directives 98/38/EC, 98/39/CE, 98/40/EC have been transposed by all Member States. Only 1 Member State has failed to transpose Directive 98/89/EC. The numbers (in parentheses) of Member States still having failed to transpose Directives in the field of motor vehicles are 98/77/EC (0), 98/90/EC (1), 1999/0007/EC (1). Corresponding numbers for directives 1999/0023/EC, 1999/0024/EC, 1999/0025/EC and 1999/0026/EC on two- or three-wheeled vehicles are 2, 0, 1 and 3. The majority of directives coming into force during the year 2000 were Commission directives adapting to technical progress previous Council directives. Certain Member States have introduced highly efficient mechanisms permitting the speedy transposition of such directives into national law. In other cases, delays appear to result from the relatively lengthy period required for the preparation, endorsement and publication of delegated legislative instruments rather than any complexities contained in the texts of the directives in question. In respect of directives requiring to be transposed during the year under review, the numbers (in parentheses) of Member States failing to transpose are as follows: 1998/0091/EC: (5) / Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 1999/0040/EC: (3) / Commission Directive 1999/0055/EC: (2) / Commission Directive 1999/0056/EC: (1) / Commission Directive 1999/0057/EC: (1) / Commission directive 1999/0058/EC: (1) / Commission Directive 1999/0086/EC: (9) / Council Directive 1999/0096/EC: (7) / Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 1999/0098/EC: (2) / Commission Directive 1999/0101/EC: (3) / Commission Directive 2000/0001/EC: (6) / Commission Directive 2000/0002/EC: (7) / Commission Directive 2000/0003/EC: (4) / Commission Directive With the exception of directives 1999/86/EC and 2000/0002/EC, the requisite action under article 226 has been instigated by Commission services. 2.2.6. Construction products The infringement proceedings commenced against Austria for incorrect transposal of Directive 98/106/EEC were terminated in 2000 as a result of explanations supplied by the Austrian authorities on points raised by the Commission in the course of the procedure. In the infringement proceedings against Greece regarding quality controls on certain steel imports, the Greek authorities notified new draft measures in October to be adopted and published at any early date, thus putting an end to the infringement. In its most recent A Report (2/2000) the Commission accordingly decided to defer its referral to the Court pending the adoption of the relevant instrument. 2.2.7. Machinery (mechanical engineering, electronics, personal protection equipment, gas equipment, pre-packaging, measuring equipment, medical devices and pleasure craft) Regarding cases of failure to notify national transposal measures, the situation is as follows: For Directive 97/23/EC on pressure vessels, all the Member States have notified national transposal measures except Germany, which should be in a position to complete transposal in 2001. Regarding Directive 95/16/EC on lifts, France was the last Member State (in 2000) to notify its transposal measures. For Directive 98/79/EC on in vitro diagnostic medical devices, the following Member States have notified national transposal measures: Italy, United Kingdom, Denmark, Sweden, Portugal and Spain. Austria and Finland have also notified national transposal measures, but additional documents are still awaited. The transposal of the directive in France, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Greece is in the final stages. Ireland has notified no information and it has been decided that a reasoned opinion will be sent. As regards cases of incomplete implementation of the directives or where national law conflicts with the directives, the situation is as follows. Five cases concerning incorrect application of Directive 98/37/EC (machinery) were terminated in 2000. But several complaints relating to the market surveillance obligation imposed by that directive are still under scrutiny. Complaints on similar subjects are still outstanding as regards Directive 73/23/EEC (low-voltage equipment). The referral of Italy to the Court [2] in a case concerning incorrect application of the directive proceeded in 2000. [2] Case C2000/100. A case against France concerning Directive 89/686/EEC (personal protective equipment was terminated. The decision was taken to refer Germany to the Court for incorrect application of the Directive. A supplementary letter of formal notice was sent to Italy concerning non-conformity of national legislation with Directive 89/336/CEE (to electromagnetic compatibility) for aspects covered by Directive 1999/5 (radio equipment). In 2000 decisions were taken to send an additional letter of formal notice on the basis of Article 228 to Italy and a reasoned opinion to Germany concerning the non-conformity of national rules with Directive 90/396/EEC (appliances burning gaseous fuels). 2.2.8. Radio and telecommunications terminal equipment Directive 1999/5/EC on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity (R&TTE-Directive) which entered into force on 7 April 1999 had to be transposed into national law by the Member States not later than 7 April 2000. Nevertheless, several Member States had difficulties in adopting the national legislation in time in order to meet the transposition deadline foreseen by the Directive. So far, only 10 Member States have notified to the Commission their national transposition laws enabling the Commission to close 6 non-notification proceedings. However, France, Germany, Ireland and Italy which have not yet transposed the Directive have put into place interim measures allowing to apply the Directive pending adoption of the legislation. Greece announced the adoption of interim measures for the beginning of 2001. As a result, the Commission continues non-notification proceedings against all aforementioned five Member States which have not yet fully transposed the R&TTE-Directive. In addition to these non-notification proceedings there are still 2 other infringements proceedings open under the R&TTE-Directive. 2.2.9. Tourism The infringement procedure against Italy concerning concessions on entrance fees for Italian museums and monuments applicable only to Italian nationals was continued in 2000 (see 17th Annual Report). The Commission sent a reasoned opinion in February 2000. Further examination of the case is currently on-going. 2.3. Competition The number of new proceedings for suspected or established infringements opened in competition matters in 2000 was unchanged in 1999 at 36. On 31 December 2000, 67 infringement files were being dealt with by the Directorate-General for Competition. Regarding the areas of activity, the number of new telecommunications cases hardly changed (1999: 11 new cases; 10 in 2000). The trend observed in 1999 for the number of new cases to fall sharply in transport but to rise in social insurance was confirmed in 2000. 2.3.1. Telecommunications. The transposal and effective application of the directives on competition in the telecommunications industry were again closely monitored by the joint team, together with each Member State, in conjunction with the preparation of the sixth report, adopted by the Commission on 7 December 2000, on the implementation of the telecommunications regulatory package. [3] At the same time the Commission pushed ahead with ongoing Article 226 proceedings against certain Member States, and started a number of new ones. [3] COM(2000)814 final. Three new proceedings were terminated after reasoned opinions had been sent. They all concerned Greece. The cases closed concerned the transposal of Directive 94/46/EC (liberalisation of satellite communications services) and Directive 96/19/CE (alternative infrastructures ). [4]. [4] Two infringements: the authorities issued a licence for the construction of alternative infrastructures (measures taken in response to a reasoned opinion issued on 21 December 1998); no further state measures restricting cross-border interconnection of mobile networks (reasoned opinion issued on 22 December 1998). The Commission commenced infringement proceedings against Austria, Spain, Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg and Portugal for failure to notify measures implementing Directive 1999/64/EC [5] within the time allowed. These measures were subsequently notified by the Austrian, Finnish, French and Luxembourg authorities, and the proceedings against them were terminated. [5] Commission Directive 1999/64/EC of 23 June 1999 amending Directive 90/388/EEC in order to ensure that telecommunications networks and cable TV networks owned by a single operator are separate legal entities (OJ L 74, 10.7.1999, p. 39) In 2000 the Commission issued three reasoned opinions regarding national measures which were not consistent with directives on competition in the telecommunications industry or did not transpose these directives correctly. In 2000, the question of the tariff adjustments prescribed by Directive 96/19/EC [6] attracted considerable attention. The Commission sent Italy a reasoned opinion on 1 September 2000 concerning the measure preventing the historic operator from adjusting its tariffs - the price cap scheme in force since August 1999. But the Commission responded to the decisions modifying the price-cap scheme taken by the Italian authorities on 11 December 2000 with a decision postponing the case on 14 December 2000, pending confirmation in the second half of 2002 that the adjustments required by the commitments entered into by the Member State have been completed. Still on the subject of tariff adjustments, but in Spain this time, the Commission continued the procedure commenced in 1998 by adopting a supplementary reasoned opinion on 21 December 2000. On 3 August the Commission sent Luxembourg a reasoned opinion concerning its failure to properly transpose the provisions of Directive 96/19/EC relating to the non-discriminatory grant of rights of way for telecommunications operators. [6] Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March 1996 amending Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to the implementation of full competition in the telecommunications markets, OJ L 74, 22.3.1996, p. 13. On 17 April the Commission referred the financing of the universal service in France to the Court of Justice. [7] The Commission accuses France of imposing on mobile operators contributions to the net cost of the universal service provided by France Télécom in 1997 even though France Télécom still had a monopoly of voice telephony at the time. It also criticises the method of calculating the various components of the cost of the universal service, which may have led to an over-estimation. And it accuses France of not having given proper assurances as to the reality of the completion of the tariff adjustment process. The written procedure was completed in November. [7] Case C-146/00. On 30 November 2000 the Court of Justice gave judgment against Belgium [8] since the Belgian rules provided for universal service financing in favour of the press, contrary to Directive 97/33/EC. [9] The Commission withdrew its other heads of action - the absence of a method of calculating operators' contributions to financing the universal service and of a method for calculating the estimated net cost of the service - following notification of a Royal Order governing these two aspects. 2.3.2. [8] Case C-384/99. 2.3.3. [9] Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 on interconnection in telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal service and interoperability through application of the principles of Open Network Provision (ONP). 2.3.4. Postal services In relation to postal services, the Commission adopted a decision on 21 December 2000 on the provision in Italy of new postal services with high value added, notably the guarantee that a transmission generated electronically arrives on a specific date or at a specific time. [10] This decision is the response to a complaint concerning the fact that the delivery of hybrid mail services (where postal items are generated electronically) are reserved for the historic operator. This prevents private providers from providing the full hybrid mail service. The Commission considered that Italian Legislative Decree No 261 of 22 July 1999, which introduced the system, was contrary to Article 86(1) of the EC Treaty, read with Article 82. Delivery on a specific date or at a specific time constitutes a market that is very different from traditional services (universal service). There is accordingly no reason for reserving it for the universal service provider, who does not provide this service. And this operator offers no guarantee as to delivery on a specific date or at a specific time. The decision obliges the Italian Government to make clear that the service consisting of delivery on a specific date or at a specific time is not one of the services that can be reserved. It aims to establish the certainty as to the law that private operators need regarding delivery on a specific date or at a specific time. 2.3.5. [10] OJ L 63, 3.3.2001, p. 59. 2.3.6. Liberal professions In relation to the liberal professions, the Commission was able to terminate the infringement proceedings against Italy for violation by Act No 1612 of 22 December 1960, of Articles 5 and 85 of the EC Treaty (now renumbered as Articles 10 and 81). By judgment given on 18 June 1998, [11] the Court of Justice held that by adopting and maintaining in force an Act requiring the Consiglio nazionale degli spedidizioneri doganali - CNSD (National Council of Customs Agents), by a provision conferring the corresponding decision-making power, to adopt a decision of an association of undertakings contrary to Article 85 (now Article 81) of the EC Treaty setting mandatory charges for all customs agents, the Italian Republic had failed to comply with its obligations under those Articles. Since contacts between the Commission and the Italian authorities for the purpose of bringing the relevant legislation into line remained fruitless, the Commission had to send Italy a letter of formal notice under Article 228 in February 2000 and then a reasoned opinion on 3 August. But on 13 September Italy notified Act No 213 of 25 July 2000, published in the Gazzetta Ufficiale on 1 August, updating the rules governing the activities of customs agents. The Act repeals the provisions of the Act of 1960 contrary to the Treaty provisions, thus putting an end to the infringement established by the Court. 2.3.7. [11] Case 35/96 [1998] ECR I-3851. 2.3.8. Transport. In the field of transport, the Commission continued the proceedings commenced by the decision adopted under Article 86(3) on 10 February 1999 to the effect that the Portuguese system of discounts on landing charges and the differentiation of charges according to the origin of flights constituted discrimination incompatible with Article 86(1) in conjunction with Article 82. But it stayed the execution of its decision to refer the case to the Court of Justice since the action brought by Portugal against the Commission decision in May 1999 and already at the investigation stage also concerned the legality of the system. There was a second Article 86(3) decision on the question of landing charges. On 26 July 2000, the Commission considered that the system of variable discounts and fees depending on the origin of the flight in Spain discriminated in favour of Spanish airlines. For all categories of planes, the Spanish system provides for higher fees for intra-Community flights than for domestic ones. It also provides for discounts ranging from 9% to 35%, depending on the monthly number of landings. The system in practice works for the benefit of Spanish airlines, which receive average discounts of between 20% and 25 %. There are no objective considerations in support of this discrimination. The Spanish Government has announced that corrective measures will be taken in due course. 2.3.9. Merger cases The infringement proceedings against Portugal commenced in 1999 following a decision by the Portuguese authorities to oppose the merger between the Spanish bank BSCH and the Portuguese group Champalimaud was terminated. A new merger operation, whereby the Spanish bank acquired two banks from the Portuguese group, was notified on 29 November 1999 and authorised on 11 January 2000. the Portuguese authorities stated that they did not oppose the new operation, which replaced the one on which the earlier infringement proceedings had been opened. 2.3.10. State aids The Commission was able to terminate a very old state aid case. On 20 September 1990 the Court of Justice upheld [12] the Commission's final negative decision of 17 November 1987 [13] ordering repayment of a grant of DEM 2 million made by the Land Baden-Würtemberg to BUG-Alutechnik, a firm manufacturing finished and semi-finished products in aluminium, in 1985. The grant had not been repaid despite Commission requests, so in 1991 the Commission commenced proceedings against Germany for infringement of Article 171 of the EC Treaty (now Article 228). In 1992, the "Staatsschuldenverwaltung Baden-Württemberg" ordered the firm to repay the grant. But BUG-Alutechnik applied to the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen for judicial review of this order, with suspensory effect. The Court dismissed the application in 1994, and the firm appealed to the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Mannheim; the appeal also had suspensory effect. The Verwaltungsgerichtshof Mannheim upheld the first judgment in 1996, and the firm, now called Hoogovens Aluminium Profiltechnik, was given leave to apply for revision of the appeal judgment to the Bundesverwaltungsgericht. The application for revision was dismissed on 26 August 1999. The grant was finally repaid on 14 October 1999. Once the Commission had been officially notified, it terminated the case at the beginning of 2000. 2.4. [12] Case 5/89 [1990] ECR I-3437. 2.5. [13] OJ L 1998, 30.8.1993, p. 29. 2.6. employment and social affairs 2.6.1. Freedom of movement for workers The Commission has initiated and/or is continuing with a number of infringement proceedings against several Member States concerning the application of Regulations (EEC) Nos 1612/68 and 1408/71. It is continuing with infringement proceedings against Belgium for failing to implement the Court's judgment in Case C-47/93 concerning the allocation of funding to Belgian universities for students who have come from other Member States solely to follow a university course. Infringement proceedings have been terminated against Germany, first of all regarding the granting of welfare benefits to migrant workers when their families join them, and secondly concerning the rule making welfare benefits conditional on the presentation of a residence permit. In the first case, a, interpretative circular has been issued, calling on the relevant authorities to see that Community law is properly applied. The situation in the second has been regularised following amendment of the relevant legislation. Infringement proceedings continue against Denmark concerning its rules and practices restricting the use by frontier workers in Denmark of vehicles registered in another Member State and belonging to their employer based in that country. Denmark has now amended its rules, but the Commission is not entirely satisfied, so a supplementary reasoned opinion has been sent. Greece as been sent a reasoned opinion regarding its legislation which requires members of the family of Union citizens who are not Greek nationals to obtain a work permit if they wish to work in Greece. A reasoned opinion has also been addressed to Austria on the basis that Austrian legislation is discriminatory to the detriment of citizens of the Union exercising their right of freedom of movement of workers as well as of nationals of non-member countries with whom the Community has concluded co-operation or association agreements (for example. Morocco, Turkey, Poland etc.). In particular, on one hand, the Austrian provisions on elections to Chambers of Labour make all foreign workers ineligible to stand for election to these bodies and, on the other hand, the provisions of the Labour Constitution Act exclude from eligibility to stand for election to works councils the nationals of non-member countries with whom the Community has concluded co-operation or association agreements. The infringement proceedings against Greece on the basis of Article 228 of the EC Treaty and against Spain on the basis of Article 226 concerning the nationality requirement for access to public service posts have been terminated now that the two countries have taken the measures needed to comply with Community rules. The Commission sent reasoned opinions to Austria and Belgium regarding the reckoning of periods served in the public service in another Member State. The infringement proceedings against Germany and Ireland commenced on the same subject in 1999 are continuing. In the field of coordination of national security systems, the European Court of Justice held in the cases against France concerning the payment of contributions for "Contribution Sociale Généralisée" [14] and "Cotisation pour le remboursement de la dette sociale" [15] that these contributions, which according to the French authorities should be categorised as taxes, are falling within the scope of Regulation 1408/71. Therefore they can not be levied on persons residing in France but working in another Member State, like e.g. French frontier workers working in Belgium, as they are not subject to French social security legislation. Not having received satisfactory information concerning the necessary measures to be taken to comply with these rulings, these procedures continue on the basis of article 228 of the EC-Treaty. [14] Case C-169/98 [15] Case C-34/98 In the case which the Commission had brought before the Court of Justice against Germany in 1999 concerning the levying of contributions under a special law on social security benefits for artists (Künstlersozialversicherungsgesetz) [16], the Advocate General has delivered his opinion on 24 October 2000. [16] Case C-68/99 The case against Belgium [17] concerning the deduction of a personal contribution of 13,07 % where the claimants reside in another Member State is still pending before the European Court of Justice. The Advocate General has delivered his opinion on 23 January 2001. [17] Case C-347/98 The Commission decided to continue a case against the Netherlands by bringing it to the Court of Justice. According to the Commission the refusal from the Dutch authorities to export a former frontier worker's unemployment benefit during a maximum period of three months to another Member State, contradicts Article 69 of Regulation 1408/71 since the latter does not make a distinction between frontier workers and other workers. A reasoned opinion has been sent to France concerning the refusal by the French sickness institution to reimburse, according to French tariffs, costs for glasses which an insured person had bought in Germany. The Commission is of the opinion that this position contradicts the provisions of the EC Treaty on free movement of goods, notably Articles 28 and 30, as they had been interpreted by the Court of Justice in the case C-120/95 Decker [18] where the court offered persons the right to receive reimbursement for this type of medical product according to the tariffs of the Member State where the person is insured, without prior authorisation. [18] Judgment Court of Justice 28.4.98 The Dutch government agreed with a reasoned opinion which the Commission had sent to the Netherlands concerning the calculation of a Dutch old age pension in situations where, while being compulsory insured, at the same time voluntary contributions have been paid in another Member State and is currently revising the respective administrative policy rules. Despite Article 15 (1b) of Regulation 574/72 which states clearly that periods of compulsory insurance prime over periods of voluntary contributions, the Dutch authorities had refused to take into account a certain employment period in the Netherlands because voluntary contributions had been made at the same time to the scheme of another Member State referring to Annex VI, J, 2 h of the Regulation. This interpretation from the authorities was shared by the national judge. In an infringement procedure against France concerning the calculation of unemployment benefits for a person whose last employment had not been in France, the French government modified the respective circular letter to comply with Community law, after the Commission had brought the case before the Court of Justice. The case has been filed. Following a reasoned opinion sent by the Commission concerning the refusal to apply the Danish social security legislation to workers of other Member States who work on oil rigs on the Danish continental shelf, the Danish government has modified its legislation and the infringement procedure has been filed. 2.6.2. Equal treatment of men and women The Commission action before the Court against France under Article 228 of the EC Treaty [19] for failing to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of 13 March 1997 in Case C-197/96, [20] in which the Court ruled against France for maintaining a ban on night work by women in industry whereas no such prohibition exists in relation to men, is still in motion. [19] Case C-224/99. [20] Case C-197/96 Commission of the European Communities v French Republic [1997] ECR I-1489 (judgment given on 13 March 1997). Regarding Directive 92/85/EEC on the protection of pregnant workers, the Irish authorities have amended their legislation in line with Community rules after a reasoned opinion was sent, and have notified new national measures. Proceedings against Ireland have accordingly been terminated. The Swedish and Luxembourg authorities also notified new legislation, now under scrutiny, after reasoned opinions were sent. The proceedings continue. The Commission decided to refer a case against France for incorrect transposal to the Court of Justice, [21] and the action against Italy continues. [21] The French legislation does not specifically include the possibility for pregnant women to be released from work if necessary in order to protect their health; Following notification of national transposal measures, the action against Italy in the Court of Justice for failure to notify measures transposing Directive 96/34/EEC on parental leave [22] was withdrawn. [22] Case C-445/99. The Commission brought Article 228 actions in the Court against France for failing to comply with the judgment given against it on 8 July 1999 [23] for failure to notify it of measures implementing Council Directive 96/97/EC amending Directive 86/378/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in occupational social security schemes. The Directive required the Member States to adopt transposal measures by 1 July 1997. The Court of Justice gave judgment against Greece on the same question on 14 December 2000. [24] Following notification of transposal measures by the Luxembourg authorities, the action in the Court of Justice for failure to notify measures transposing Directive 96/97/EC amending Directive 86/378/CEE on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in occupational social security schemes [25] was withdrawn. [23] Case C-354/98. [24] Case C-457/98. [25] Case C-438/98. Mr Advocate General La Pergola delivered his opinion on 24 June 1999. The Commission commenced new Article 228 proceedings against Greece for failure to comply with the judgment given on 28 October 1999 [26] for non-conformity of its legislation relating to the grant of the marriage allowance and the reckoning of that allowance for the calculation of old-age and retirement pensions with Directive 79/7/EEC, Article 141 of the Treaty and Directive 75/117/EEC. The rules had no retroactive effect as regards the marriage allowance as from 1 January 1981 (when Article 141 of the Treaty and Directive 75/117/EEC became applicable in Greece), or as regards the calculation of old-age and retirement pensions as from 23 December 1984 (when Directive 79/7/EEC entered into force). 2.6.3. [26] Case C-187/98. 2.6.4. Working conditions In the proceedings for failure to adopt measures implementing Directive 93/104/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, the Court of Justice gave judgment against Italy and France. [27] No measures to give effect to the Court's judgment have been notified and the infringement proceedings under Article 228 continue. Following late notification of measures transposing Directive 93/104/CE the action against Luxembourg [28] for failure to notify was withdrawn. [27] Case C-386/98 Commission v Italy (judgment given on 9 March 2000) and Case C-46/99 Commission v France (judgment given on 8 June 2000). [28] Case C-48/99. Mr Advocate-General Alber delivered his conclusions on 16 November 1999, In its judgment of 18 May 2000, the Court ruled against France for failing to notify transposal of Directive 94/33/EC concerning the protection of young people at work. [29] No measures to give effect to the Court's judgment have yet been notified and the proceedings under Article 228 continue. [29] Case C-45/99. Following Court of Justice judgments given against Luxembourg for failure to notify measures transposing Directive 94/33/EC on the protection of young people at work [30] and for failure to transpose Directive 94/45/EC on the establishment of a European Works Council, [31] the Luxembourg authorities notified transposal measures now under scrutiny. [30] Case C-430/98 (judgment given on 21 October 1999). [31] Case C-47/99 (judgment given on 16 December 1999). As the Italian authorities did not give a satisfactory reply to the Commission's reasoned opinion for incorrect transposal of Directive 77/187/EEC on the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, the Commission decided to refer the case to the Court. In contrast with the preceding case, the Commission decided to defer the infringement proceedings for incorrect transposal in Greece of Directive 98/59/EC regarding collective redundancies, needing time for detailed analysis of the Greek authorities' reply before taking a decision. Portugal and Italy received reasoned opinions for incorrect transposal of Directive 98/59/EC relating to collective redundancies. The Commission decided to refer Ireland to the Court for incorrect transposal of Directives 98/59/EC relating to collective redundancies and 77/187/EEC on the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings. At the end of December 2000, the Irish authorities notified transposal measures and undertook to take others. There is no further need for a referral to the Court. 2.6.5. Health and safety at work Luxembourg having notified national measures implementing Directive 92/29/EEC on medical treatment on board vessels, all the Member States have transposed framework Council Directive 89/391/EEC and its implementing Directives, [32] as well as the independent Directive 92/29/EEC. [32] Directives 89/654/EEC, 89/655/EEC, 89/656/EEC, 90/269/EEC, 90/270/EEC, 90/394/EEC, 90/679/EEC, 92/57/EEC, 92/58/EEC, 92/91/EEC, 92/104/EEC and 93/103/EC. As for the directives amending the specific directives or adapting them to technical progress, [33] the rate of notification of national implementing measures improved again in 2000 (notably following Italy's notification of measures implementing Directives 95/30/EC, [34] 97/59/EC and 97/65/EC [35]), though the position is still not wholly satisfactory. Consequently, infringement proceedings are continuing against Member States which have not yet notified the Commission of their national implementing measures. Decisions have already been taken to refer some of these to the Court of Justice, such as the cases against Austria for failing to transpose Directives 95/30/EC, [36] 97/59/EC and 97/65/EC. [37] A reasoned opinion for failure to notify measures implementing Directive 95/63/EC was also sent to Ireland. The decision was taken to send reasoned opinions to France and Ireland for failure to notify measures transposing Directive 97/42/EC, the deadline for which was 27 June 2000. [33] Directives 93/88/EC, 95/30/EC, 97/59/EC, 97/65/EC, 95/63/EC and 97/72/EC. [34] Case C-439/98 (judgment given on 16 March 2000) [35] Case C-312/99 (following this notification the action was withdrawn in the Court of Justice). [36] Case C-473/99. [37] Cases C-110/00 and C-111/00. Concerning the conformity of national measures implementing Framework Directive 89/391/EEC, the Commission has sent reasoned opinions, for incorrect transposal, to Portugal and Sweden. The Commission referred cases to the Court of Justice against Germany [38] and Italy [39] for incorrect transposal and decided to proceed likewise against Belgium as regards the framework Directive. [38] Case C-5/00. [39] Case C-49/00. Proceedings against Sweden regarding the conformity of national measures implementing the specific directives [40] were terminated following notification of new measures implementing Directive 90/269/EEC, and Denmark received a reasoned opinion concerning incorrect transposal of Directive 89/654/EEC. The Commission decided to refer two cases against Italy for incorrect transposal of Directives 89/655/EEC and 90/270/EEC to the Court of Justice. 2.7. [40] Directives 89/654/EEC, 89/655/EEC, 89/656/EEC, 90/269/EEC, 90/270/EEC, 90/394/EEC, 90/679/EEC, 92/57/EEC, 92/58/EEC, 92/91/EEC, 92/104/EEC and 93/103/EC. 2.8. agriculture 2.8.1. Free movement of agricultural produce [41] [41] Further to the re-organisation in Commission services, legislation and questions related to human, animal and plant health affairs have been lodged in Directorate-General Health and Consumer Protection. From the last quarter 1999 onwards, this Directorate-General is in charge of the instruction and management of infringement files relating to these matters, including questions relating to obstacles to free circulation of agricultural products for health protection reasons. Freedom of movement for agricultural products in a single market is one of the principles underpinning the operation of the common agricultural policy and its common market organisations. The Court of Justice has had regular occasion to recall that Articles 28 and 29 of the EC Treaty are an integral part of the common organisation of markets, even if express reference to them has been superfluous since 1 January 1970. The Commission has maintained a permanent open eye to the task of rapidly removing all barriers to trade in agricultural produce in the Community. The downward trend in recent years in the number of new cases involving traditional barriers to trade in agricultural produce - such as routine import checks and demands for import licences - has been further confirmed this year. Certain countries' persistence in reserving "quality labels or descriptions" for products of their own regions or countries led the Commission to press ahead with the infringement proceedings commenced against France, Spain and Germany. The Commission considers that, pursuant to Article 28 of the EC Treaty, as interpreted by the Court of Justice in Cases C-13/78 Eggers [42] and C-321/94 Montagne, [43] a quality description or quality label should not be reserved for products from a particular geographical entity but should be based exclusively on the intrinsic characteristics of the product. That being the case, any national quality label or description should, pursuant to Articles 12 and 34 of the EC Treaty, as of right be accessible to any potential Community producer or user whose products meet the objective and verifiable criteria required. [42] Judgment given on 12.10.1978 [1978] ECR 1935. [43] Judgment given on 7.5.1997 [1997] ECR I-2343. In the case of France the infringement proceedings concern the following regional quality labels: "Normandie", "Nord-Pas-de-Calais", "Ardennes de France", "Limousin", "Languedoc-Roussillon", "Lorraine", "Savoie", "Franche-Comté", "Corse", "Midi-Pyrénées", "Salaisons d'Auvergne" and "Qualité France". The continued use of these labels caused the Commission to issue reasoned opinions. The French authorities are at present disposed to change the legal arrangements governing such labels. Reasoned opinions were issued concerning the following quality descriptions used in Spain: "La Conca de Barbera", "El Valles Occidental", "El Ripolles", "Alimentos de Andalucia", "Alimentos de Extremadura" and "Calidad Cantabria". In the wake of these reasoned opinions, the competent regional authorities have now scrapped these contested descriptions. Finally, faced with the refusal by the German authorities to make the CMA quality label (Markenqualität aus deutschen Ländern), given exclusively to products processed in Germany without specific requirements as to the original environment or geographical place, available to products from other Member States, the Commission referred Germany to the Court of Justice. The Commission considers that the label in question constitutes a mandatory restriction as to the place where processed products can come from. Regarding the less traditional forms of barriers to trade, such as the repeated acts of violence by individuals in France against fruit and vegetable imports from other Member States, in particular from Spain, and the authorities' failure to take measures to prevent such acts, it is worth recalling the judgment given by the Court of Justice on 9 November 1997 in Case C-265/95, [44] where it held that "by failing to adopt all necessary and proportionate measures in order to prevent the free movement of fruit and vegetables from being obstructed by actions by private individuals, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now Article 28 EC), in conjunction with Article 5 of that Treaty (now Article 10), and under the common organisations of the markets in agricultural products." The fact that the marketing of fruit and vegetables from Spain was untrammelled in 1998 suggests that the measures taken by the French Government to give effect to the Court's judgment worked better than those taken in previous years. The same was true in 1999 and 2000, with the exception of a few isolated incidents. The Commission trusts that the marketing campaigns in the years ahead will proceed smoothly. 2.8.2. [44] Judgment given on 6.11.1997 [1997] ECR I-6959. 2.8.3. The market In addition to its efforts to remove barriers to the freedom of movement of produce, the Commission also sought to ensure that the other provisions of the Community's agricultural legislation are effectively and correctly applied. In monitoring the application of specific market organisation mechanisms, the Commission continued to keep a close watch on the use of production control mechanisms, particularly in the milk sector, where it conducted a systematic analysis of national measures to implement Regulations (EEC) Nos 3952/92 and 536/93. The Commission addressed reasoned opinions to Italy and Spain because of deficiencies in their implementation of the milk quotas scheme. The main concern was the persistent failure by the relevant authorities to pass the supplementary levy on to the producers responsible for the excesses. In February 1997 the Italian government instructed a commission of inquiry to conduct a special inquiry into milk production during 1995-96 and 1996-97. Pending the conclusions of this inquiry, and subject to the reimbursement of an estimated excess in relation to the levy actually due, the accounts relating to the levy advances received by the purchasers for the periods in question have been frozen. In the light of widespread allegations concerning fraud and irregularities, the Italian authorities had taken the view that payments to the competent authority could not be made until there had been a new in-depth inquiry into the level of actual production and the level of the reference quantity for each producer. These circumstances formed the subject of the infringement proceedings. The Commission has been kept informed of the progress of each successive inquiry and has itself carried out control visits to all the bodies concerned. The indications seem to be that this exceptional exercise will help to clarify a previous situation based on doubts concerning actual production in Italy. The production level initially declared by purchasers has been confirmed (the figures are out by less than 1%, and part of this may yet be confirmed). The inquiry results have also clarified the situation of each individual producer, except in instances where lawsuits are involved. In November 1999 the results of the new scheme for offsetting deliveries were notified to those concerned. The Commission is keeping a close watch on trends in the actual collection of amounts due. A mission has just taken place for the purpose of ascertaining precise figures for amounts immediate recovery is not possible on account of actions brought in regional courts which have the power to order suspension. Detailed verification of these cases is in progress. The Commission will not hesitate to continue the infringement proceedings regarding any amount that is left unrecovered without good reason. In Spain, only a fraction of the levy payable for 1993/94, 1995/96 and 1996/97 has actually been paid by producers. Both producers and purchasers have commenced large-scale actions against decisions affecting them. Following commencement of infringement proceedings, the Spanish authorities have adopted new measures for managing the scheme, aimed at avoiding large-scale recourse to the courts in the future. The key elements consist of an obligatory scheme for collecting advance payments from producers who exceed their quota during the period and the imposition of restrictive conditions governing the approval of purchasers. The scheme's management in 1998-99 did not produce the widespread problems that had been encountered in previous years. Regarding actions commenced earlier, the Spanish authorities caused sureties to be established for the sums in dispute in the numerous cases where this had not already been done. They now consider that the levy still due is fully covered, either by these sureties or by compulsory recovery orders. The Commission has also had occasion to look into cases of failure to comply with Community rules governing the designation of agricultural products. Regarding spirit drinks, the Commission addressed a reasoned opinion to France for authorising the marketing of spirits made by adding a percentage of water to whisky and using the word "whisky" as a generic sales description. Under Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89, whisky must have an alcoholic strength of at least 40% and no water may be added to an alcoholic drink so that the nature of the product will not be changed. A preliminary ruling was requested on the same subject by the Paris Tribunal de Grande Instance (Case C-136/96). The Court of Justice ruled on 16 July 1998 [45] that Community rules prohibited such product designations. [45] Judgment given on 16.07.1998 [1998] ECR I-4571. In their reply to the reasoned opinion the French authorities continued to support the marketing of the relevant product under the designation contested by the Commission, which accordingly referred the case to the Court of Justice. The Commission has worked on persuading the Greek authorities to fully implement the integrated management and control system for certain Community aid schemes under Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92, which establishes an integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes, in particular for arable farming and meat production (beef and veal, sheepmeat and goat's meat) to boost efficiency and profitability by means of a policy of preventing and punishing irregularities in EAGGF-financed operations. Article 2 of Regulation No 3508/92 as amended requires each Member State to establish by 1 January 1997 an integrated system comprising: a computerised data base, an alphanumeric identification system for agricultural parcels, an alphanumeric system for the identification and registration of animals, aid applications and an integrated control system. The Greek authorities have not fully met all these requirements, the aim of which is to ensure that payments made by Community bodies are in accordance with the regulations. The fact is that the identification and numbering of agricultural land parcels has not been commenced and the procedure for registering and identifying animals is no more than embryonic. High-performance databases do not exist. The Commission has accordingly issued a reasoned opinion. Implementation of Directive 98/34/EC (technical standards and regulations) in the field of agriculture In 2000 as in previous years, the Commission received notification of a great many draft instruments pursuant to Directive 98/34/EC, which requires the Member States to give notice prior to the adoption of any draft rules containing technical standards or regulations which might impede intra-Community trade. In agriculture, 135 draft instruments notified by the Member States and the EFTA countries were scrutinised in 2000 against Article 28 of the EC Treaty and relevant secondary legislation. 2.9. Energy and transport The Commission monitors three aspects of the implementation of Community energy law: notification of the national measures implementing the directives, conformity of these measures and practical application of directives, regulations and Treaty provisions. 2.9.1. Internal market for electricity and natural gas Parliament and Council Directive 96/92/EC of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity was transposed by all the Member States. The infringement proceedings against Luxembourg were terminated. Belgium should have transposed the directive by 19 February 1999 but had not done so entirely, as implementing decrees are still awaited. Likewise there are infringement proceedings against France for incomplete and incorrect transposal of this directive, but recent should remove obstacles to the opening up of the electricity market to competition in France. Directive 98/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas must be transposed by 10 August 2000. France, Luxembourg and Portugal have not transposed it. On 20 December the Commission decided to send France and Luxembourg a reasoned opinion. Germany has transposed only part of the directive, and infringement proceedings have been commenced accordingly. The Commission continues to analyse the conformity of national measures implementing the two directives in all the Member States. 2.9.2. Energy efficiency Italy has now transposed Directive 96/57/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on energy requirements for household electric refrigerators, freezers and combinations thereof. So all the Member States have now transposed it. All the directives implementing Directive 92/75/EEC of 22 September 1992 on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by household appliances [46] have now been transposed by all the Member States (except Italy for Directive 98/11/EC with regard to the energy labelling of household lamps). [46] -Directive 94/2/EC implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard to energy labelling of household electric refrigerators, freezers and their combinations; The Commission has commenced infringement proceedings against eight Member States for incorrect application of Council Directive 93/76/EEC of 13 September 1993 to limit carbon dioxide emissions by improving energy efficiency (Save). 2.9.3. Oil and gas Council Directive 98/93/EC of 14 December 1998 amending Directive 68/414/EEC imposing an obligation on Member States of the EEC to maintain minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products, due to be transposed by 31 December 1999, has been transposed by all the Member States except Italy and Portugal, against which infringement proceedings are in motion. 2.9.4. Transport The Commission monitors three aspects of the implementation of Community transport law: notification of the national measures implementing the directives, conformity of these measures and practical application of directives, regulations and Treaty provisions. In 2000, eight new transport directives became due for transposal. Regrettably, as in previous years, most of the Member States are very late in adopting national measures. This has resulted in a very poor rate of notification of national measures implementing directives due for transposal in the second half of 2000. There is only a slight improvement in the average rate of transposal of transport directives - from 86% at the end of 1999 to a little over 88% at the end of 2000. However, notification speeded up once infringement proceedings were started. Failure to notify thus accounted for over three quarters of the 111 instances in which proceedings were dropped by the Commission in 2000. The year-on-year figures for complaints received and cases identified on the Commission's own initiative have remained stable. But the number of infringement proceedings which the Commission has referred to the Court of Justice continues to rise (from 30 in 1999 to 39 in 2000), with a large proportion of cases of failure to notify national measures transposing directives (30 cases), bringing to 69 the total number of cases that the Commission has decided to refer to the Court of Justice. The case against Italy for failure to transpose Directive 95/21/EC ((port State control) has been referred a second time, with a request for a penalty payment, for failure to comply with an earlier judgment (given on 11.11.1999). 2.9.5. Road transport The transposal of Directive 98/76/EC, which seeks to promote the exercise of the freedom of establishment of road haulage operator in national and international transport by amending Directive 96/26/EC on admission to the occupation of road haulage operator and road passenger transport operator, is still worrying as seven proceedings are in motion for failure to notify, and the Commission has decided to refer the cases against Luxembourg, Belgium, Italy and Greece to the Court of Justice. The Finnish authorities have still to notify provisions transposing Directive 96/26/EC in the Åland Islands. But there as been progress in the notification of legislation on the maximum authorised dimensions in national and international traffic and the maximum authorised weights in international traffic (Directive 96/53/EC) and roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers (Directive 96/96/EC), as all the proceedings have been terminated. Regarding safety in the transport of dangerous substances by road, the Court gave two judgments against Ireland [47] for failure to notify the Commission of national measures implementing Directives 94/55/CE and 96/86/CE on the approximation of the laws of the Member States with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by road or Directive 95/50/CE on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road. Ireland has not transposed any of the directives on road or rail transport of dangerous goods (cf. infra, point 2.8.4). But the proceedings against Greece were terminated in 2000. [47] Case C-408/99 Commission v Ireland [2000] ECR 0000 - Judgment given by the Court on 26 September 2000. In the same area, the rules on the appointment and vocational qualification of safety advisers for the transport of dangerous goods by road, rail and inland waterway (Directives 96/35/EC and 2000/18/EC) have not been transposed by Greece or Ireland (or by Portugal in the case of the amending directive). Greece has transposed none of the surface transport directives adopted since 1998 and falling due for transposal in 1998-2000. The situation is much the same in Ireland. As for road taxation, the infringement proceedings against Belgium for non-conformity of measures implementing Directive 93/89/EEC (taxes, tolls and charges) are still at the investigation stage, but the Court has given judgment in the case against Austria regarding tools at the Brenner pass. [48] Parliament and Council Directive 99/62/EC of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures has not been transposed in 13 Member States, and infringement proceedings for failure to notify national implementing measures have been commenced. [48] Case C-205/98 Commission v Austria [2000] ECR 0000 - Judgment given by the Court on 26 September 2000. Concerning driving licences, the conformity of measures transposing Directive 91/439/EC still gives serious cause for concern. The proceedings against Italy were terminated in 2000 but examination of national transposal measures reveals that in eight other Member States there are many discrepancies in such matters as the minimum age for a vehicle category, renewal of licences for EU citizens no longer residing in the Member State of issue, criteria for test vehicles, the duration of the practical test and minimum requirements in terms of physical and mental aptitude. The procedures for automatic registration of licences belonging to drivers who move from one country to another are incompatible with the principle of mutual recognition of driving licences. 2.9.6. Combined transport The proceedings against Finland for non-conformity of national measures implementing Directive 92/106/EEC on the establishment of common rules for certain types of combined transport of goods between Member States were terminated in 2000 following notification of Act No 440/2000 of 19 May 2000, which correctly transposes the Directive. But the proceedings against Italy for incorrect application of the Directive continue and the case is still before the Court of Justice. 2.9.7. Inland waterways Transposal of Directive 96/50/EC on harmonisation of the conditions for obtaining national boatmasters' certificates for inland waterway navigation, which was due for transposal in 1998, has given rise to non-notification proceedings. The Commission decided to refer to the Court of Justice the cases against France and the Netherlands, which have not yet adopted and published national measures transposing the directive, even though both Member States have announced drafts of measures to be adopted in the near future. Proceedings against Germany and Luxembourg, which concluded bilateral inland waterways agreements with third countries, are continuing with the Commission's decision to refer the two cases to the Court of Justice on the grounds that this is exclusively a matter for the Community. 2.9.8. Rail transport In the field of carriage of dangerous goods by rail, Directive 96/49/EC as amended by Directive 96/87/EC provides for the approximation of the laws of the Member States with regard to the transport of goods, laying down uniform safety rules in this sector to improve safety and facilitate movement of rolling stock and equipment throughout the Community. These directives, which apply to transport of dangerous goods by rail in or between Member States, have still to be transposed in Ireland and Greece, and the Commission has decided to refer the two Member States to the Court of Justice. Directive 99/48 adapting for the second time to technical progress Council Directive 96/49/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by rail, has not been transposed by Italy, Ireland or Greece, and the Commission has accordingly decided to issue a reasoned opinion for failure to notify national measures implementing it in the three Member States. The situation regarding Directive 96/48/EC on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system, the purpose of which is to promote interconnection and interoperability between national high-speed rail networks at different stages of conception, construction and entry into service, but also of operation and access to networks, remains preoccupying. Seven Member States have still not notified transposal measures, and the Commission has felt the need to refer the cases against them to the Court of Justice (France, United Kingdom, Greece, Ireland, Austria, Sweden and Finland). 2.9.9. Transport by sea The Commission notes that there has been considerable progress in implementing Community sea transport law in the whole area of safety at sea, but the situation regarding freedom to provide services is less satisfactory. In 1999 the Commission regretted the general delay in properly transposing the directives of safety of sea transport and the prevention of pollution of the sea in the Member States. In 2000 there was a great improvement in the situation regarding the transposal of directives though it is still the case that the most recent directives have not been fully incorporated in national legal orders. This is the case in particular of Directive 99/35/EC on a system of mandatory surveys for the safe operation of regular ro-ro ferry and high-speed passenger craft services and Directive 99/97/EC (port State control) which fell due for transposal in December 2000 but have not been transposed in most of the Member States. But the progress made by the Member States in transposing the safety at sea directives is perfectly illustrated by the example of Directive 96/98/EC on marine equipment, as amended by Directive 98/85/CE, for all the proceedings for failure to notify measures implementing these two Directives were terminated in 2000. Likewise the directives on minimum standards for vessels transporting dangerous or polluting goods have now been transposed by all the Member States (Directive 93/75/EEC and the amending Directives 96/39/EC, 97/34/EC, 98/55/EC and 98/74/EC). Regarding the safety of passenger transport by sea; directives 98/18/EC and 98/41/EC on safety rules and standards for passenger ships seek to improve safety and likelihood of rescue for passengers and crew on passenger ships bound for or leavi