the Commission’s Safe Harbour Decision is not valid as it did not contain sufficient findings by the Commission that U.S. public authorities' access to data transferred under the decision was limited or that effective legal protection against such interference existed.

the expiry of the time-limits for taking a decision on the execution of a European arrest warrant does not free the competent court of its obligation to adopt a decision in that regard. In addition, the expiry of the time-limits does not preclude, in itself, the continued holding of the requested person in custody. However, the Court noted that, in accordance with the fundamental right to liberty and security, the requested person must be released, and the measures necessary to prevent him from absconding ordered, if the duration of the custody is excessive;

In preliminary rulings addressed to the Irish judiciary, the Court ruled that:

The Court ruled that the Commission did not provide sufficient evidence that Ireland had failed to respect the Working Time Directive over non-consultant hospital doctors’ minimum rest periods and weekly working time. The case concerned their collective agreement and the standard contract of employment.

failure to apply correctly the Directive on the protection of pigs as regards group housing of sows.

failure to ensure compliance with the Regulation on animal welfare during transport;

failure to connect the national register of road transport undertakings to the national registers of the other Member States;

non-conformity of national legislation with the Directive on driving licences as amended;

failure to notify national measures transposing the Directive on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings;

non-communication of national measures transposing the Financial Conglomerates Directive;

the requirement that the Voluntary Health Insurance (VHI) Board meet the same regulatory requirements which apply to all companies under the Non-Life Insurance Directives as the conditions for exempting VHI were no longer met;

non-conformity with the Working Time Directive regarding the practice of ‘rolled-up holiday pay’. Under national rules, a percentage in lieu of holiday pay was included in the hourly rate of part-time and fixed-term teachers. This was not in line with the Directive;

non-conformity with the Working Time Directive regarding annual leave which was not accrued when employees were on sick leave. The annual leave was lost if not taken due to illness;

The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.

c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.

b)The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. It concerns the rule that the total registration tax is levied for cars rented or leased by Irish residents from lessors in other Member States and that the conditions for a partial refund of this tax at the end of the lease or rental period are unnecessarily harsh (i.e. disproportionate).

failure to implement functional airspace blocks effectively. Under the 'single European sky' legislation, national air traffic control organisations should work together in nine regional airspace blocks to increase efficiency, cut costs and reduce emissions.

late transposition of the Directive on attacks against information systems;

bad application of the Habitats Directive as regards designating special areas of conservation and establishing the necessary conservation measures;

late and incorrect transposition of the Energy Efficiency Directive;

failure to notify the national measures transposing the Directive which protects workers' in the area of health and safety at work to the Regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures;

a)The Commission opened 17 new infringement cases against Ireland in 2015. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court

2.Files relating to Ireland open in EU Pilot at year -end

1.New complaints made against Ireland by members of the public (2011- 2015)

New complaints against Ireland fell sharply in 2015. The number of new EU Pilot files held around the same level as the year before but open infringement cases dropped to a five-year low. Although the Commission opened more new infringement cases for late transposition of directives, they remained well below the 2011 peak.

the system of fines laid down in Hungarian law to sanction undeclared cash was disproportionate.

legislation which prohibits the operation of slot machines outside casinos may be contrary to the principle of freedom to provide services;

the shipment of waste in the country of transit at a different border crossing point than the one provided for in the notification document and consented to by the competent authorities represents an essential change to the shipment conditions. If not notified to the competent authorities, the change results in the shipment of waste being illegal. A fine imposed for such an illegal shipment, the basic amount of which is the same as the fine imposed for a breach of the requirement to obtain consent and to give prior notification in writing, can be seen as proportionate only if equally serious infringements are involved;

the Second Energy Package, interpreted in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, requires national authorities to allow certain market operators to challenge decisions by the national regulatory authorities;

In preliminary rulings addressed to the Hungarian judiciary, the Court ruled that:

There were no major Court rulings in 2015.

measures establishing different excise duty rates for ethyl alcohol, in breach of the Excise Duty Directive on alcohol and alcoholic beverages. The measures were repealed.

failure to connect to the driving licence network;

late transposition of the Directive combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography;

national measures which considerably limited the scope of persons to whom foreign exchange mortgage loans could be granted, resulting in restrictions similar to a total ban. The contested provision was abolished and replaced by a proportionate restriction;

non-communication of national measures transposing the Capital Requirements Directive and the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive;

non-communication of measures transposing the Directive amending a number of other Directives to align them to the Regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures;

The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.

c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.

b)The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. It concerns the rule that only Hungarian nationals are allowed to take up and practice the profession of notary in Hungary. This excludes nationals from other Member States from doing so.

failure to comply with the judgment of the Court declaring that exempting fruit distillates (‘pálinka’) from excise duties, whether produced under contract or by private distillation, is incompatible with EU law;

incorrect implementation of the Directives on asylum procedures and on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings;

the direct award of a contract to construct two new reactors and refurbish two others at the Paks II nuclear power plant without a transparent procedure. This is not in compliance with EU public procurement legislation;

failure to communicate all national measures transposing the first amendment of the Financial Conglomerates Directive. This aims to remedy gaps in supplementary supervision revealed during the financial crisis;

national restrictions on the rights of cross-border investors to use agricultural land (usufruct rights), which limit the free movement of capital and freedom of establishment, as well as the right to property as enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights;

national restrictions on the acquisition of agricultural land which limit the free movement of capital and freedom of establishment by being discriminatory and/or disproportionate;

failure to implement the EU Timber Regulation and the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Regulation;

failure to submit a national energy efficiency action plan and building renovation strategy under the Energy Efficiency Directive;

late and incomplete transposition of the Energy Efficiency Directive;

failure to comply with the Working Time Directive as workers in ‘school cooperatives’ do not receive any entitlement to paid annual leave. Such leave is required by Article 7 of the Directive;

failure to comply with the Working Time Directive as regards so-called ‘stand-by jobs’ such as security guards or workers in the private security sector. Such workers may be required to work hours that exceed the average weekly working time established in the Directive. Such workers may in addition serve 24-hour continuous work shifts without receiving their daily rest period or the equivalent compensatory rest immediately afterwards;

failure to notify the national measures transposing the Directive on the alignment of several EU health and safety at work directives to the Regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures;

a)The Commission opened 27 new infringement cases against Hungary in 2015. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court

2.Files relating to Hungary open in EU Pilot at year -end

1.New complaints made against Hungary by members of the public (2011- 2015)

New complaints against Hungary increased strongly in 2015 while the number of new EU Pilot files held steady. Open infringement cases fell slightly but remained within the relatively narrow range seen since 2012. New infringement cases for late transposition declined to a five-year low.

parental leave is an individual right which cannot depend on the employment status of the spouse. National legislation which prohibits a male civil servant from taking parental leave when his wife does not work is therefore not compatible with EU law.

a measure containing a plan or programme which falls within the scope of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive and modifies an existing plan or programme may not be exempted from the obligation to carry out an environmental assessment on the ground that it is intended to give more specific expression to and implement a master plan established by a hierarchically superior measure which has not itself been the subject of such an environmental assessment;

only people who have previously produced agricultural products could benefit under the long-term set-aside scheme for agricultural land;

In preliminary rulings addressed to the Greek judiciary, the Court ruled that:

Greece has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Nitrates Directive by not designating enough zones vulnerable to nitrate pollution and not establishing action programmes to address them.

Greece has failed to ensure full compliance with the 2007 judgment of the Court of Justice finding that Greece was not ensuring adequate collection and treatment of urban waste water in a number of agglomerations. The Court ordered Greece to pay a lump sum of EUR 10 million and a sliding-scale penalty payment of EUR 20 000 per day, corresponding to EUR 3.64 million per half-year of delay;

Greece failed to comply with the Working Time Directive by making it possible for the working week of doctors to exceed the 48-hour limit, without properly taking into account their on-call hours. The possibility of postponing doctors’ 24-hour rest period until a week after their on-call period also failed to comply with the Directive;

incorrect implementation of EU legislation on the rights of bus and coach passengers;

non-compliance with the requirement to ensure direct electronic exchange of fisheries-related data with other Member States;

late transposition of the Directive against trafficking in human beings;

non-compliance of Greek law with the Late Payment Directive regarding late payment rules for public hospitals and other public bodies;

failure of a waste landfill in Karvounari (Thesprotie) to comply with EU requirements;

The Commission referred one case to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU. It concerns non-communication of national measures transposing the Energy Efficiency Directive.

The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU. It concerns Greece's failure to implement a judgment of the Court of Justice finding that it was failing to ensure adequate management of hazardous waste. The Commission proposed the Court should impose a lump sum payment of EUR 14 904 736 and a daily penalty payment of EUR 72 864 until the obligations are fulfilled.

rules granting a tax exemption to people inheriting property in Greece only if they are considered a Greek resident.

car registration rules which levy the total registration tax on Greek residents even if they only rent or lease vehicles from non-Greek lessors, instead of requiring proportionate amounts;

b)The Commission referred three cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They concern:

reduced excise duty rate applied to the spirit drinks ‘Tsipouro’ and ‘Tsikoudià', in breach of EU rules.

failure to connect the national electronic register of road transport undertakings to the registers of other Member States;

failure to establish a registration procedure for the European Electronic Toll Service providers and a toll domain statement;

incorrect transposition of the Directive on driving licences, as amended;

non-compliance with the Mediterranean Regulation regarding the obligation to adopt a national management plan for fisheries conducted by boat seines within territorial waters;

lack of implementation of certain obligations under EU document-security legislation;

failure to notify national measures ensuring full transposition of the Directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography;

failure to notify national measures ensuring full transposition of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive and the Reception Conditions Directive;

structural flaws in the functioning of the guardianship system or legal representation of all unaccompanied minors during the asylum procedure;

the material conditions for receiving applicants for international protection, especially those with special reception needs and vulnerable persons; and

serious deficiencies in the Greek asylum system. These concern in particular:

excessive and unjustified obstacles in the area of professional services that run counter to the Services Directive;

failure to communicate all national measures transposing the Solvency II Directive and the Omnibus II Directive. These create a harmonised prudential framework for insurance firms in the EU to facilitate development of a single market in insurance services;

failure to communicate all national measures transposing the Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive. This is a precondition for the future use of the European Deposit Insurance Scheme proposed by the Commission;

failure to implement the EU Timber Regulation and the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Regulation;

failure to submit a cost-optimal report for the energy performance requirements for buildings;

bad application of the Habitats Directive as regards designating special areas of conservation and establishing the necessary conservation measures;

late transposition of the Directive on attacks against information systems;

failure to notify the national measures transposing the Directive on the alignment of several EU health and safety at work directives to the Regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures;

a)The Commission opened 40 new infringement cases against Greece in 2015. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court

2.Files relating to Greece open in EU Pilot at year -end

1.New complaints made against Greece by members of the public (2011- 2015)

In 2015 new complaints and new EU Pilot files opened against Greece both declined to the lowest level of the last five years. The number of open infringement cases has remained relatively stable since 2012. After the increase registered in 2014, new infringement cases for late transposition dropped slightly in 2015.

as a general rule, final losses of a foreign subsidiary cannot be taken into account at the level of the parent company.

the staggered taxation of the hidden reserves of assets used for professional purposes over a period of five years, in the event of them being transferred from a German to a Dutch permanent establishment of the same undertaking, is compatible with the freedom of establishment;

the penalty tax for holding units in investment funds established in certain non-EU countries (such as the Cayman Islands) can result in less favourable treatment, even by restricting the free movement of capital, including the provision of financial services, if the provision already existed on 31 December 1993;

e-book readers with translation or dictionary functions are classified as ‘electronic apparatus having an individual function not specified elsewhere’ — and are thus subject to a conventional rate of duty amounting to 3.7 % — instead of ‘electrical machine with dictionary function,’ which are duty free;

a Member State is not precluded from refusing to recognise the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State when the holder has engaged in unlawful conduct resulting in unfitness to drive;

a computerised booking system must indicate the final price to be paid, not only for the air service selected by the customer but also for each service for which the price is displayed, including when the prices are indicated for the first time;

the Free Movement Directive allows Member States to set limits on the entitlements to social assistance of economically inactive EU citizens moving to another EU Member State, as well as for EU citizens seeking a job. Previously the Court had found that a Member State could, under the Free Movement Directive, deny the benefit to an economically non-active person who never had sufficient resources of their own to enjoy right of residence and who, in addition, had never worked in the host Member State and had no intention of looking for a job there;

under the Qualifications Directive, an act of persecution can take the form of ‘prosecution or punishment for refusal to perform military service in a conflict, where performing military service would include crimes’. The judgment of the Court clarified the conditions in which a non-EU national who has deserted may be granted asylum in the EU;

non-corrective colour contact lenses featuring designs are not cosmetics under the Cosmetic Products Regulation;

European public procurement legislation does not preclude national legislation that requires tenderers to pay a predetermined minimum wage to staff;

architects whose qualifications cannot be automatically recognised under the Directive on professional qualifications can still benefit from the general system of recognition set out by the Directive;

the requirements imposed by the Water Framework Directive on the Member States to avoid deterioration in and achieve good status of their water bodies are binding objectives. Individual projects must therefore be assessed against these obligations. A fall by one class in the status of at least one quality element for a body of surface water is enough to determine the conclusion that there is a deterioration in the body's status;

garage-door operating devices depending on electric current of approximately 220 to 240 volts to work properly, designed to be incorporated into the building structure and apt at any time to be dismantled, re-installed or added to that structure, fall within the scope of the Directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment;

entitlement to family benefits can be granted to a person not resident in the territory of the Member State responsible for paying those benefits, when all other conditions for the granting of those benefits provided by national law are met;

a migrant worker who is subject to the legislation of the Member State of employment by virtue of the national legislation of the Member State of residence may receive an old-age pension and family benefits from the state of residence;

Member States can exclude jobseekers from social assistance benefits who are either first-time jobseekers or who, after having worked for less than one year in the host Member State, no longer retain the status of a worker;

under the Directive on collective redundancies, a person who performs services for and under the direction of another person and receives remuneration in return must be considered as a ‘worker’. Consequently, certain managing directors and certain trainees may also count as ‘workers’;

where an infringement of a provision of EU law is discovered only after the prejudice has occurred, the limitation period (after which the case is time-barred) begins to run from the time when both the economic operator’s act or omission that infringed EU law and the prejudice caused to the budget of the EU or budgets managed by it occurred;

In preliminary rulings addressed to the German judiciary, the Court ruled that:

making a tax benefit (a deferral of capital gains tax due on the sale of assets located in Germany) subject to the condition that such gains are reinvested in Germany is incompatible with the right of establishment.

Germany has incorrectly transposed the requirements of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and of the Industrial Emissions Directive with regard to access to justice;

failure to apply correctly the Directive on the protection of pigs as regards group housing of sows.

non-ratification of the Air Transport Agreement between Germany and the US;

the award of a waste disposal service contract by the city of Rostock on the basis of discriminatory award criteria;

The Commission referred one case to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU. It concerns Germany's failure to transpose the Directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment.

c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.

application only to the health and medical sector of the VAT exemption granted to cost-sharing associations (taxpayers’ groups purchasing services from third parties jointly). This is despite the VAT Directive containing no sector-specific limitations.

inadequate monitoring of security controls at some airports. Such monitoring is required by EU legislation;

the German Explosives Act. This is not compatible with the ‘free movement clause’ laid down in the Directive on the placing on the market of pyrotechnic articles. The Act provides for a mandatory notification procedure before pyrotechnic articles can be placed on the German market, even where the articles satisfy the requirements of the Directive;

b)The Commission referred three cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They concern:

systematic confiscation and subsequent destruction of non-commercial gifts containing tobacco sent by private individuals, without any differentiation based on the circumstances of the case. This is contrary to the principle of proportionality under EU law.

failure to meet air safety oversight obligations regarding initial and continuous airworthiness;

restrictions on the provision of transport services and free movement of goods deriving from the German minimum wage law;

discriminatory user charges for passenger cars (introduced by a new road charging scheme known as the Pkw-Maut). These hinder the free movement of persons and goods and the provision of services;

failure to implement functional airspace blocks effectively. Under the 'single European sky' legislation, national air traffic control organisations should work together in nine regional airspace blocks to increase efficiency, cut costs and reduce emissions;

incorrect transposition of the Directive ensuring equal access between men and women to goods and services;

non-communication of national measures transposing the recast Asylum Procedures and Reception Conditions Directives;

the right to family reunification of non-EU nationals residing lawfully in a Member State;

excessive and unjustified obstacles in the area of professional services that run counter to the Services Directive;

non-respect of the NO2 limit values in the Air Quality Directive;

bad application of the Habitats Directive as regards designating special areas of conservation and establishing the necessary conservation measures;

late and incomplete transposition of the Energy Efficiency Directive;

non-conformity with the Working Time Directive by applying a 12-month reference period for limiting average weekly working time to 48 hours for civil servants. The Directive provides for a 4-month reference period;

failure to notify the national measures transposing the Directive on the alignment of several EU health and safety at work directives to the Regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures;

a)The Commission opened 37 new infringement cases against Germany in 2015. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court

2.Files relating to Germany open in EU Pilot at year -end

1.New complaints made against Germany by members of the public (2011- 2015)

New complaints against Germany in 2015 remained at the previous year's level while the number of new EU Pilot files significantly decreased from its 2014 peak. However, there was a marked increase from 2014 in infringement cases pending at the end of the year. New infringement cases for late transposition fell but were still above the 2012-2013 levels.

permanently excluding blood donations from men who have had sexual relations with other men may be justified, depending on the situation in the Member State concerned. Under French law, men who have had sexual relations with other men are permanently excluded from donating blood in France, given the high prevalence of HIV. The French measure may discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation. The permanent exclusion should therefore be assessed in the light of the situation in that Member State and of the proportionality principle. Permanent exclusion from blood donation for men who have had sexual relations with other men may be justified by medical and scientific knowledge and the epidemiological situation prevailing in a Member State and where no effective techniques or less onerous methods exist to address the situation. It is for the national court to determine whether those conditions are met in France.

people admitted to a work rehabilitation centre and carrying out activities there must be considered as workers. They are therefore entitled to minimum paid annual leave under the Working Time Directive and the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights;

the income of migrant workers, from professional activity or from assets in the Member State of employment, cannot be made subject to social contributions in the Member State of residence if social contributions were paid in the former Member State;

depriving a French citizen who had been convicted of a serious crime of the right to vote in European elections represents a limitation on the exercise of EU citizens' right to vote in elections to the European Parliament. This right is guaranteed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. However, in the case at hand the ban is proportionate as it takes into account the seriousness of the crime and gives the person the possibility to apply for reinstatement of their voting right;

In preliminary rulings addressed to the French judiciary, the Court ruled that:

exempting donations and bequests to public bodies from inheritance tax only if the beneficiary is established in France or in another Member State with which France has concluded a bilateral agreement is incompatible with the free movement of capital.

the reduced VAT rate for digital books did not comply with the VAT Directive;

the rules on corporate group taxation. These were changed to put French-owned and non-French-owned groups on the same tax footing.

the requirement to designate a fiscal representative for various capital transactions, which is considered in case law as a restriction on the freedom of establishment. The requirement was removed;

failure to apply correctly the Directive on the protection of pigs as regards group housing of sows;

failure to ensure compliance with the Regulation on animal welfare during transport;

non-conformity of national legislation with the Directive on driving licences as amended;

failure to notify national measures transposing the Directive on the European protection order;

incorrect transposition of the Directive on unfair commercial practices;

late transposition of the Directive against trafficking in human beings;

obstacles to the importation of antique firearms;

the obligation for French breathalyser kits in cars to conform to a specific French standard;

non-communication of measures transposing the Directive on over-reliance on credit ratings;

incorrect application of the Water Framework Directive in relation to the Sivens dam project;

failure to transpose the Directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment;

The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.

c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.

b)The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. It concerns inadequate urban waste water treatment in smaller agglomerations.

the 3 % dividend tax. This seems to be contrary to the Parents-Subsidiary Directive and the freedom of establishment because this tax should not be paid in case of obligation to pay tax in France. As only permanent establishments are exempted from the tax, the freedom to choose the legal form of establishment appears to be restricted as well.

the requirements of proof of payment of withholding tax by the paying agent to the French tax authorities and limitation periods for reimbursement of the withholding tax on securities investments in France (two years for non-residents, three years for residents);

incorrect application of case law by limiting the personal and family benefits of a French resident if she receives income sourced in the EU/European Economic Area;

follow-up to an earlier judgment of the Court, whereby the national court reduces applicants' entitlement to reimbursement. The case involves a failure to take into account the tax paid by some subsidiaries and restrictions on the right to get the amount of the dividend reimbursed;

failure to implement functional airspace blocks effectively. Under the 'single European sky' legislation, national air traffic control organisations should work together in nine regional airspace blocks to increase efficiency, cut costs and reduce emissions;

unjustified restrictions on trade in ‘handmade’ shoes manufactured and labelled in another Member State;

failure to communicate all national measures transposing the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive, a centrepiece of the EU banking union.;

discrimination against insurance providers from other Member States by requiring construction companies to buy insurance against potential damage from insurers established in France;

non-respect of the NO2 limit values in the Air Quality Directive;

non-respect of the PM10 limit values in the Air Quality Directive;

lack of waste management plans and waste prevention programmes required under the Waste Framework Directive;

late and incomplete transposition of the Radioactive Waste Directive;

late and incomplete transposition of the Energy Efficiency Directive;

failure to ensure the principle of unity in applying the social security contribution on income from real estate of EU officials outside the French social security system;

excluding workers with assisted contracts (‘contrats aidés’) from the calculation of the headcount of companies. This is considered contrary to the Directive on information and consultation of employees, as it makes it less likely that staff representation bodies can be set up;

privileged rights granted to a publicly owned company to operate the vast majority of the country’s hydropower concessions;

late transposition of the Directive on honey labelling;

non-communication of national measures transposing the recast Asylum Procedures and Reception Conditions Directives;

late transposition of the Directive on the alignment of several EU health and safety at work directives to the Regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures;

a)The Commission opened 35 new infringement cases against France in 2015. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court

2.Files relating to France open in EU Pilot at year -end

1.New complaints made against France by members of the public (2011- 2015)

The upward trend since 2011 in new complaints against France continued in 2015, though they did not quite reach the peak seen in 2013. However, new EU Pilot files have been falling since 2012 and reached their lowest level of the past five years. Continuing the trend since 2012, the number of open infringement cases rose slightly, while new infringement cases showed a more marked increase but remained below the 2011 level.

complex contractual arrangements can be classified as service proceedings so long as the relevant contracting authority has transferred to the concession holder all, or a significant share of, the risk which it faces.

discriminatory measures on distance selling and transport of alcoholic beverages can be justified if they are appropriate and cannot be achieved by less restrictive measures;

the Posted Workers Directive does not preclude a calculation of the minimum wage for hourly work and/or for piecework which is based on categorising employees into pay groups, provided that the calculation and categorisation are carried out in accordance with rules that are binding and transparent. It is for the national court to verify whether this the case;

In preliminary rulings addressed to the Finnish judiciary, the Court ruled that:

There were no major Court rulings in 2015.

failure to notify national measures transposing the Directive on the European protection order.

non-communication of national measures transposing the Alternative Investment Fund Managers and Financial Conglomerates Directives;

failure to transpose the Directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment;

incomplete transposition of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive;

lack of measures to protect pensions financed through book reserves in case of insolvency of the employer;

The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.

c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.

b)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU.

disproportionate vehicle taxes on cars leased or rented from other Member States.

non-conformity of national legislation with the Directive on patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare. The case relates to the level of costs reimbursed by the Member State of affiliation to an insured person who receives cross-border healthcare;

non-compliance with the EU rules on cabotage due to discrimination against non-resident hauliers;

spring hunting of eider ducks in the province of Åland and summer hunting of eiders on the Finnish mainland in breach of the Wild Birds Directive;

late and incomplete transposition of the Energy Efficiency Directive;

non-communication of national measures transposing the Directive on honey labelling;

a)The Commission opened 21 new infringement cases against Finland in 2015. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court

2.Files relating to Finland open in EU Pilot at year -end

1.New complaints made against Finland by members of the public (2011- 2015)

New complaints against Finland almost halved in 2015, falling back to their 2012 level, the lowest in the past five years. The number of new EU Pilot files held steady at less than half the levels seen in 2012 and 2013. The downward trend in open infringement cases since 2011 came to an end with a slight rise in 2015. New infringement cases for late transposition remained at less than one third of their 2011 peak level.

No major preliminary rulings were addressed to the Estonian judiciary in 2015.

There were no major Court rulings in 2015.

obstacles to the parallel imports of medicinal products.

non-conformity of national legislation with the Railway Safety Directive;

lack of timely transposition of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive;

The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.

c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.

b)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU.

failure to communicate national measures transposing the information procedures for the exchange of human organs and transposing the Directive on requirements applicable to the testing of human tissues and cells.

failure to communicate all national measures transposing the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive. This lays down the regulatory and supervisory framework for managers of alternative investment schemes that are addressed to professional investors;

failure to communicate all national measures transposing the Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive. This is a precondition for the future use of the European Deposit Insurance Scheme proposed by the Commission;

late and incomplete transposition of the Energy Efficiency Directive;

non-communication of national measures transposing the recast Asylum Procedures and Reception Conditions Directives;

a)The Commission opened 16 new infringement cases against Estonia in 2015. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court

2.Files relating to Estonia open in EU Pilot at year -end

1.New complaints made against Estonia by members of the public (2011- 2015)

New complaints against Estonia fell slightly in 2015 and the number of new EU Pilot files dropped for the second consecutive year, reaching its lowest level since 2011. Open infringement cases rose again after being on a downward trend since 2011. Similarly, new infringement cases for late transposition increased but were still below the 2011 level.

the Copyright Directive does not preclude national legislation which provides for fair compensation under the exception to the reproduction right for copies made for private use for multi-functional media, such as mobile phone memory cards.

In preliminary rulings addressed to the Danish judiciary, the Court ruled that:

The Court ruled that Denmark failed to fulfil its obligations by having continued to authorise the sale of loose snus (oral tobacco). EU legislation prohibits the sale of snus except in Sweden. Snus is finely ground or cut tobacco sold either loose or in small sachet portions and intended to be consumed by placing between the gum and the lip, without being chewed or smoked. Danish law prohibited the sale of snus packed in porous sachets but allowed the sale of loose snus.

non-compliance of national legislation with the Railway Safety Directive.

alleged discriminatory treatment against Dutch traditional sailing vessels over compliance with the safety rules for passenger ships;

non-communication of national measures transposing the Directive on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures;

non-conformity of the national legislation implementing the Marine Strategy Framework Directive;

The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.

c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.

b)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU.

non-communication of national measures transposing the Directive on requirements applicable to the testing of human tissues and cells.

incorrect transposition of the Directive on driving licences as amended;

national rules which prevent certain workers, such as those newly entering the Danish labour market and those with fixed-term contracts, from taking annual leave in the first year of employment or at all while employed. This is contrary to the fundamental EU social right to minimum paid annual leave and the Working Time Directive, which entitles workers to minimum paid annual leave of four weeks;

non-communication of national measures transposing the Directive on honey labelling;

a)The Commission opened 18 new infringement cases against Denmark in 2015. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court

2.Files relating to Denmark open in EU Pilot at year -end

1.New complaints made against Denmark by members of the public (2011- 2015)

New complaints against Denmark have remained relatively stable since 2012. In 2015 the number of new EU Pilot files continued the sharp fall from its 2013 peak, reaching its lowest level for five years. Open infringement cases also continued the overall downward trend seen for the last two years. The number of new late transposition cases rose slightly but held below the 2013 level.

In a preliminary ruling addressed to the Czech judiciary, the Court ruled that Articles 12 and 13 of the Universal Service Directive are unconditional and sufficiently precise to be recognised as having direct effect.

There were no major Court rulings in 2015.

failure to notify national transposition measures for the Directive on the European protection order.

failure to notify national transposition measures for the Directive on the right to information in criminal proceedings;

The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.

c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.

failure to establish a national electronic register of road transport undertakings and/or to connect it with the national electronic registers of the other EU Member States.

b)The Commission referred two cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They concern:

non-respect of the PM10 limit values in the Air Quality Directive.

late and incomplete transposition of the Energy Efficiency Directive;

failure to communicate all national measures transposing the first amendment of the Financial Conglomerates Directive. This aims to remedy gaps in supplementary supervision revealed during the financial crisis;

failure to communicate all national measures transposing the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive, a centrepiece of the EU banking union.

non-communication of national measures transposing the recast Asylum Procedures and Reception Conditions Directives;

non-conformity of the general authorisation regime for electronic communications with the provisions of the Authorisation Directive, in particular the requirement to establish legal residence;

late transposition of the Directive on the alignment of several EU health and safety at work directives to the Regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures;

a)The Commission opened 21 new infringement cases against the Czech Republic in 2015. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court

2.Files relating to Czech Republic open in EU Pilot at year -end

1.New complaints made against Czech Republic by members of the public (2011- 2015)

New complaints against the Czech Republic have slightly increased from the low reached in 2013 but are still below the level of 2011. In 2015 the number of new EU Pilot files continued falling from its 2013 peak, hitting its lowest point since 2011. However, open infringement cases have been rising steadily since 2013. New infringement cases for late transposition have been relatively stable since 2012.

No major preliminary rulings were addressed to the Cyprus judiciary in 2015.

There were no major Court rulings in 2015.

failure to connect the national electronic register of road transport undertakings with the registers of other Member States.

non-conformity of national legislation with EU rules on investigation and prevention of accidents and incidents in civil aviation;

bad application of the Directive on driving licences;

failure to apply correctly the Directive on the protection of pigs as regards group housing of sows;

failure to notify national transposition measures for the Directive on the right to information in criminal proceedings;

late transposition of the Directive combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography;

failure to transpose the Directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment;

failure to recognise professional experience gained in the public health system of another Member State;

The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.

c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.

b)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU.

failure to fulfil the ‘port state control’ inspection commitment, as fixed by the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control.

incorrect transposition of the Directive on driving licences, as amended;

failure to implement functional airspace blocks effectively. Under the 'single European sky' legislation, national air traffic control organisations should work together in nine regional airspace blocks to increase efficiency, cut costs and reduce emissions;

failure to inform buyers about pre-existing mortgages on properties offered for sale. As a result, buyers who had paid for their property were unable to obtain their title deed;

non-communication of national measures transposing the recast Asylum Procedures and Reception Conditions Directives;

incorrect application of the Long-Term Residents Directive due to the excessive and disproportionate charges levied;

failure to give full effect to provisions on the free movement of lawyers;

excessive and unjustified obstacles in the area of professional services that run counter to the Services Directive;

failure to communicate all national measures transposing the Solvency II Directive, which creates a harmonised prudential framework for insurance firms in the EU to facilitate development of a single market in insurance services;

failure to communicate all national measures transposing the Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive. This is a precondition for the future use of the European Deposit Insurance Scheme proposed by the Commission;

failure to fulfil obligations under the Habitats Directive in relation to a development project in the area of Limni;

lack of waste management plans and waste prevention programmes required under the Waste Framework Directive;

late and incomplete transposition of the Energy Efficiency Directive;

breach of the EU provisions on free movement of workers, by not taking into account, for employment in the public sector, previous professional experience in another Member State;

non-communication of national measures transposing the Directive on honey labelling;

late transposition of the Directive on the alignment of several EU health and safety at work directives to the Regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures;

a)The Commission opened 47 new infringement cases against Cyprus in 2015. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court

2.Files relating to Cyprus open in EU Pilot at year -end

1.New complaints made against Cyprus by members of the public (2011- 2015)

New complaints against Cyprus continued to drop in 2015, reaching the lowest level in the last five years. The number of new EU Pilot files was unchanged from 2014. Open infringement cases increased slightly to their highest level since 2012, though they were still below the 2011 peak. The rising trend in the number of new infringement cases for late transposition continued but the 2015 figure remained well below the 2011 level.

No major preliminary rulings were addressed to the Croatian judiciary in 2015.

There were no major Court rulings in 2015.

These concerned non-communication of national measures transposing the Directives on control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare, and consumer rights.

The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.

Six new late transposition infringement cases were opened against Croatia in 2015, just under half the thirteen cases opened a year earlier.

c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.

b)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU.

non-ratification and non-deposition of the ratification instrument of the Protocol of Accession to the Eurocontrol International Convention relating to the Safety of Air Navigation.

incorrect transposition of the Directive on driving licences, as amended;

failure to communicate all national measures transposing the first amendment of the Financial Conglomerates Directive. This aims to remedy gaps in supplementary supervision revealed during the financial crisis;

bad application of the Waste Framework Directive in the Biljane Donje site;

lack of waste management plans and waste prevention programmes required under the Waste Framework Directive;

late and incomplete transposition of the Energy Efficiency Directive;

failure to notify the national measures transposing the Directive on the alignment of several EU health and safety at work directives to the Regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures;

a)The Commission opened 18 new infringement cases against Croatia in 2015. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court

There were 21 infringement cases open against Croatia at the end of 2015, just over double the 10 cases open a year earlier.

2.Files relating to Croatia open in EU Pilot at year -end

1.New complaints made against Croatia by members of the public (2011- 2015)

New complaints against Croatia fell in 2015 after increasing sharply in 2014, its first full year as an EU Member State. The number of new EU Pilot files against Croatia moved in parallel with new complaints. However, twice as many infringement cases were open at the end of 2015 as a year earlier. In contrast, the number of new infringement cases for late transposition halved in 2015.

The case concerned the installation of electricity meters at a height of 6 metres in a district densely populated by Roma people. The meters are installed in other districts at normal height. According to the electricity company the installation of meters at 6 metres height was justified by their being increasingly tampered with and damaged, and by the numerous unlawful connections to the network in the district concerned. The Court observed that the company's practice seemed disproportionate to the aims of ensuring the security of the electricity network and the due recording of electricity consumption, and to the legitimate interests of the residents of the district concerned.

In a preliminary ruling addressed to the Bulgarian judiciary, the Court ruled that the principle of equal treatment applies not only to people of a certain ethnic origin but also to those who suffer, together with the former, less favourable treatment or a particular disadvantage on account of a discriminatory measure.

Bulgaria has failed to comply with the Landfill Directive. It has not adopted the measures needed to ensure that its landfills for non-hazardous waste do not continue to function unless they satisfy the requirements of the Directive.

the procedure followed by Bulgaria in assigning rights of use for digital terrestrial (‘DTT’) frequencies was based on disproportionately restrictive award conditions. These led to the exclusion of potential candidates and hampered competition;

non-conformity of national legislation with the Directive on driving licences, as amended;

non-compliance with the requirement to ensure direct electronic exchange of fisheries-related data with other Member States;

failure to notify national measures transposing the Directive on the European protection order;

non-communication of national measures transposing the Directive on avoiding over-reliance on credit rating agencies;

incorrect transposition of the former Directive on deposit-guarantee schemes, in parallel with a disproportionate restriction on free movement of capital relating to the conservatorship and moratorium over Corporate Commercial Bank;

certain aspects of the organisation of working time of employees of the Bulgarian Ministry of Interior;

The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.

c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.

b)The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. It concerns non-respect of the PM10 limit values in the Air Quality Directive.

failure to communicate all national measures transposing the Solvency II Directive and the Omnibus II Directive. These create a harmonised prudential framework for insurance firms in the EU to facilitate development of a single market in insurance services.

late and incomplete transposition of the Energy Efficiency Directive;

late transposition of the Directive on attacks against information systems;

non-communication of national measures transposing the recast Asylum Procedures Directive and Reception Conditions Directive;

national restrictions on the acquisition of agricultural land which limit the free movement of capital and freedom of establishment by being discriminatory and/or disproportionate;

failure to communicate all national measures transposing the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive, a centrepiece of the EU banking union.

a)The Commission opened 25 new infringement cases against Bulgaria in 2015. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court

2.Files relating to Bulgaria open in EU Pilot at year -end

1.New complaints made against Bulgaria by members of the public (2011- 2015)

New complaints against Bulgaria jumped in 2015 after holding steady for three years. However, fewer new EU Pilot files were opened than in the previous four years. The number of open infringement cases also fell sharply to the lowest level since 2011. In addition, significantly fewer new infringement cases for late transposition were launched than in 2014.

reiterated the conditions set out in Article 19 of the Regulation on a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims, including the necessary extensions of time limits for challenging judgments. It thus suggested that Belgian law does not meet the conditions of Article 19.

ruled that the Maternity Leave Directive precludes a Member State from making entitlement to maternity allowance subject to a prior period of employment;

ruled that the office of legal secretary at the ‘Cour de cassation’ is not a ‘regulated profession’;

ruled that reducing or refusing a retirement pension to a retired EU official who has, prior to entering the service, pursued an activity in an employed capacity in the Member State in which she is posted is incompatible with the TFEU;

ruled that the Universal Service Directive does not lay down a social pricing obligation for mobile communications and mobile internet subscriptions. By contrast, social tariffs must be offered to certain categories of consumers for fixed telephone and internet subscriptions;

ruled that, regarding the term ‘fair compensation’ to be paid to right holders under the Copyright Directive, the system has to ensure that the compensation paid corresponds to the actual harm caused;

2. a charge being imposed on any natural or legal person operating mobile telephony network transmission and reception pylons and units,;

1. a charge on mobile telephony antennae installed being imposed on any natural or legal persons who are proprietors of a 'right in rem' over, or of a right to operate, a mobile telephony antenna; and

ruled that a tax imposed on owners of pylons or masts intended for a mobile telecoms network is not covered by the Authorisation Directive. This is because the tax is not a fee imposed on undertakings providing electronic communications networks and services in return for the right to install facilities. The Directive must be interpreted as not precluding:

In preliminary rulings addressed to the Belgian judiciary, the Court:

exempting the interest accrued on Belgian debt instruments from a withholding tax on condition that such instruments are deposited or credited to an account opened by a Belgian financial institution is incompatible with the free provision of services.

requiring proof of language knowledge from candidates for local services posts by means of one particular type of certificate, issued only by one particular Belgian body following an examination conducted by that body, infringes workers’ right of free movement;

laws on the representation rights of customs agents. The relevant provisions were subsequently amended on the specific issues covered by the infringement.

bad application of the Directive on driving licences;

non-communication of national measures transposing the Directive on charging heavy goods vehicles for use of certain infrastructure;

failure to notify measures transposing the Directive on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings;

late transposition of the Directive 2011/51/EU extending the Long-Term Residents Directive to beneficiaries of international protection;

incomplete transposition of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive;

non-communication of national measures transposing the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive and the Financial Conglomerates Directive;

non-communication of national measures transposing the Directive amending a number of other Directives to align them to the Regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures;

breach of the independence requirements for national regulatory authorities under the Framework Directive for electronic communications networks and services;

The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.

c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.

tax legislation discriminating against foreign property investments by applying different methods for assessing property-related income depending on whether the real estate is in Belgium or elsewhere in the EU.

national rules which may subject a posted worker to Belgian social security legislation under certain circumstances. This is considered contrary to the EU Regulation on the coordination of social security systems;

b)The Commission referred two cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They concern:

non-compliance with the Directive on inland waterway navigation due to restrictions on the freedom to conclude contracts and negotiate prices.

restrictions on the freedom of establishment regarding the provision of port services;

late transposition of the Directive on the alignment of several EU health and safety at work directives to the Regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures;

failure to implement functional airspace blocks effectively. Under the 'single European sky' legislation, national air traffic control organisations should work together in nine regional airspace blocks to improve efficiency, cut costs and reduce emissions;

late transposition of the Directive on attacks against information systems;

late transposition of the recast Asylum Procedures and Reception Conditions Directives;

insurance brokers/agents, real estate agents or undertaking banking or financial activities, and the ban on mixing the practice of accountant with any craft, agricultural or trade activity. The bans could infringe Article 25 of the Services Directive;

the total ban under Belgian law on people simultaneously practising as accountants and

failure to communicate all national measures transposing the Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive. This is a precondition for the future use of the European Deposit Insurance Scheme proposed by the Commission;

bad application of the Habitats Directive as regards designating special areas of conservation and establishing the necessary conservation measures;

late and incomplete transposition of the Energy Efficiency Directive;

late transposition of the Directive on honey labelling;

failure to notify the national measures transposing the Directive on the alignment of several EU health and safety at work directives to the Regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures;

a)The Commission opened 35 new infringement cases against Belgium in 2015. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court

2.Files relating to Belgium open in EU Pilot at year -end

1.New complaints made against Belgium by members of the public (2011- 2015)

Belgium's application of EU law improved in 2015. New complaints fell from the peak of 2014, while the number of new EU Pilot files decreased sharply, to below the 2011 level. Open infringement cases continued the downward trend seen since 2011. New infringement cases for late transposition fell back to their 2013 level after a sudden spike in 2014.

ruled that allowing the parent company to depreciate the goodwill embedded in the shares of the acquired firm only for domestic subsidiaries restricts the freedom of establishment.

provided answers to questions related to the definition of ‘passenger’ regarding legislation on insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators;

ruled that provisions in national law made it excessively difficult to exercise the right to bring an action for damages under EU procurement rules;

ruled that an administrative decision not to carry out an environmental impact assessment for a particular project cannot be binding on persons who were precluded from bringing an action against that decision, if they are members of the ‘public concerned’ who satisfy the criteria laid down by national law concerning ‘sufficient interest’ or ‘impairment of a right’;

ruled that exploratory drilling for natural gas, including trial production of natural gas to determine the commercial feasibility of the deposit, does not automatically require an environmental impact assessment. The competent national authorities must nevertheless carry out an evaluation to determine whether an environmental impact assessment is necessary. The cumulative impact of other projects must be considered and assessment must not be confined to municipal boundaries;

provided clarification on ‘programme’ and ‘principal purpose’ as defined in the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. The Court also stated that the Authorisation Directive should be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking is ‘affected’ by a national regulatory authority decision and has the right of appeal against that decision under certain circumstances. Changes in charges following a price adjustment clause contained in an undertaking’s standard terms and conditions and operating by reference to a consumer price index compiled by a public institution does not constitute a ‘modification to the contractual conditions’ under the Universal Service Directive that would give the subscriber the right to withdraw from the contract without penalty;

In preliminary rulings addressed to the Austrian judiciary, the Court:

There were no major Court rulings in 2015.

differentiation of toll rates at the Felbertauern crossing, in breach of the principle of non-discrimination.

incorrect implementation of EU legislation on the rights of bus and coach passengers and passengers travelling by sea and inland waterways;

late transposition of the Directive combating trafficking in human beings;

non-respect of the PM10 limit values in the Air Quality Directive;

incomplete transposition of the Council Directive implementing the social partners Framework Agreement on the prevention from sharp injuries in the hospital and healthcare sector;

incorrect transposition of the Health and Safety at Work Framework Directive at the level of the provinces of Salzburg and Lower Austria. Several acts correcting the errors identified were adopted at that level and have entered into force;

The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.

c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.

non-compliance with the EU-Turkey association law. The Austrian establishment and residence legislation does not fully reflect the rights of Turkish workers and their families.

failure to comply with EU provisions on financial transparency in the rail transport sector;

b)The Commission referred two cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They concern:

incorrect implementation of the Directive on charging of heavy goods on a motorway (night tolls).

failure to connect the national electronic register of road transport undertakings to the registers of other Member States;

non-compliance of national legislation with provisions of the Train Drivers’ Directive;

hindrance of ski instructors' freedom to provide services in Austria;

excessive and unjustified obstacles in the area of professional services that run counter to the Services Directive;

bilateral investment treaties, signed before all state parties became members of the EU, which overlap and conflict with the EU single market law on cross-border investments;

late and incomplete transposition of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive and of the Energy Efficiency Directive;

late transposition of the Directive on honey labelling;

a)The Commission opened 21 new infringement cases against Austria in 2015. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court

2.Files relating to Austria open in EU Pilot at year -end

1.New complaints made against Austria by members of the public (2011- 2015)

New complaints against Austria rose in 2015, reversing falls from the peak reached in 2012. The number of new EU Pilot files fell for the second consecutive year, to less than half their 2013 peak. Open infringement cases eased back down to their 2013 level, while the downward trend in new infringement cases for late transposition since 2011 continued.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 15.7.2016 SWD(2016) 231 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Part II: Member States Accompanying the document Report from the Commission Monitoring the application of European Union law

2015 Annual Report {COM(2016) 463 final}

{SWD(2016) 230 final}



Italy New complaints against Italy jumped by more than 30 % in 2015 but the number of new EU Pilot files fell by almost half. Open infringement cases held steady at the end-2014 level. New infringement cases for late transposition decreased to a five-year low. I.COMPLAINTS 1.New complaints made against Italy by members of the public (2011- 2015) 2.Public complaints against Italy open at year-end 355 > Complaints open at end-2014 637 > New complaints registered in 2015 484 > Complaints handled in 2015 = 508 > Complaints open at end-2015 3.New complaints registered in 2015: main policy areas



II.EU PILOT 1.New EU Pilot files opened against Italy (2011-2015) 2.Files relating to Italy open in EU Pilot at year -end 139 > EU Pilot files open at end-2014 68 > New EU Pilot files registered in 2015 96 > EU Pilot files handled in 2015 = 111 > EU Pilot files open at end-2015 3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2015: main policy areas





4.EU Pilot files: Italy’s average response time in 2011-2015 (in days) 5.EU Pilot files: Italy’s resolution rate in 2011- 2015 III.INFRINGEMENT CASES 1.Infringement cases against Italy open on 31 December (2011-2015)



2.New infringement cases opened in 2015: main policy areas 3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court a)The Commission opened 31 new infringement cases against Italy in 2015. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern: a ban on the use of condensed and powdered milk in the manufacture of dairy products; failure to notify the national measures transposing the Directive aligning several EU Directive in the area of health and safety at work directives to the Regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures; late and incomplete transposition of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive; lack of waste management plans and waste prevention programmes required under the Waste Framework Directive; failure to ensure that waste landfills operate in line with EU standards; bad application of the Habitats Directive as regards designating special areas of conservation and establishing the necessary conservation measures;

non-respect of the NO2 limit values in the Air Quality Directive; failure to communicate all national measures transposing the Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive. This is a precondition for the future use of the European Deposit Insurance Scheme proposed by the Commission; failure to communicate all national measures transposing the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive, a centrepiece of the EU banking union; failure to communicate all national measures transposing the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive. This lays down the regulatory and supervisory framework for managers of alternative investment schemes that are addressed to professional investors; incorrect application of the Long-Term Residents Directive due to the levy of excessive and disproportionate charges; failure to correctly implement the 'Eurodac' Regulation; pension reform which provides for ‘early retirement’ after a number of years of financial contributions which differ depending on the sex of the worker; failure to implement functional airspace blocks effectively. Under the 'single European sky' legislation, national air traffic control organisations should work together in nine regional airspace blocks to increase efficiency, cut costs and reduce emissions; failure to correctly implement the Airport Charges Directive; non-compliance with the Commission’s Decision on measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the EU of Xylella fastidiosa. The case specifically relates to the removal of plants, survey activities and the ongoing rapid spread of the disease; non-communication of national measures transposing the Directive on certain technical requirements for testing human tissues and cells; failure to fully recover State aid illegally granted to the Sardinian shipping sector in the form of loans and leases. b)The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. It concerns the failure to recover milk levies due from Italian producers. c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU. IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES 1.Late transposition infringement cases against Italy open on 31 December (2011-2015)



2.New late transposition infringement cases against Italy (2011-2015)

3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2015: main policy areas 4.Referrals to the Court The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU. V.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2015 These concerned: incorrect transposition of the Health and Safety at Work Framework Directive; incompatibility with the Working Time Directive due to the exclusion of healthcare staff from the right to maximum weekly working hours and minimum daily rest periods; This exclusion has now been removed in order to comply with the Working Time Directive; discriminatory treatment of fixed-term school staff and abuse of fixed-term employment. National authorities adopted the ‘Buona Scuola’ schools reform to eliminate such treatment; non-conformity of the national legislation with the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive; incorrect transposition of the Construction Sites Directive as regards the scope of application of the national implementing measures. Legislative amendments have been adopted to resolve the issue; provisions in national law hindering the sale of plastic chimneys or flue ducts; late transposition of the Directive against trafficking in human beings; non-compliance with the Mediterranean Regulation as regards the obligation to adopt a national management plan for fisheries conducted by dredges within territorial waters; non-conformity with the Railway Safety Directive; incorrect implementation of EU legislation on the rights of bus and coach passengers; incorrect implementation of EU legislation on the rights of passengers travelling by sea and inland waterways; non-communication of measures transposing the Directive on over-reliance on credit ratings; higher excise duties on certain categories of cigarettes. These were removed by applying a uniform duty as required by the Excise Duty Directive on manufactured tobacco products;

tax treatment of resident taxpayers and ‘Schumacker non-residents’. Tax laws subsequently introduced comparable procedural and substantial rules for the two categories. VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS 1.Court rulings The Court: ruled that Italy has failed to correctly execute the 2010 judgment of the Court of Justice finding that Italy had failed to adopt, for the region of Campania, all the measures necessary to ensure that waste is recycled and disposed of without endangering human health and without harming the environment. In particular, it has not established a suitable and integrated network of disposal installations. The Court ordered Italy to pay a lump sum of EUR 20 million and a daily penalty payment of EUR 120 000; ruled that, despite a first judgment that Italy had failed to fulfil its obligations, delivered by the Court of Justice in 2011, Italy has still not recovered aid granted between 1995 and 1997 to certain firms in Venice and Chioggia. The Court of Justice ordered Italy to pay a lump sum of EUR 30 million and a penalty of EUR 12 million per half-year of delay in recovering the aid; dismissed all arguments brought by Italy alleging the illegality of the Commission’s decision making a financial correction to the regional operational programme in Puglia for the period 2000-2006. The correction amounted to EUR 79 336 741. The Court’s judgment confirmed, among other things, the possibility for the Commission to apply a flat-rate correction when several irregularities in the awarding of public contracts are to be attributed to the systemic failure of the management and control system to protect the EU’s financial interests. 2.Preliminary rulings In preliminary reference procedures the Court held that: the practice of selling and re-selling bananas for the sole purpose of benefiting from the preferential rate of duty for imports, even if formally in line with the letter of the EU rules, are in the end an abuse of those rules; national legislation is compatible with EU law if it provides that, where it is impossible to identify the polluter of a plot of land, the owner of the land who is not responsible for the pollution cannot be required to adopt preventive and remedial measures; Directive on Long Term Residents, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which requires third-country nationals, when applying for the issue or renewal of a residence permit in the Member State concerned, to pay a fee (varying in amount between EUR 80 and EUR 200), inasmuch as such a fee is disproportionate in the light of the objective pursued by the directive and is liable to create an obstacle to the exercise of the rights conferred by that directive; labelling requirements constitute a barrier to intra-EU trade if goods coming from other Member States have to be given a different label; the Return Directive does not, in principle, preclude national legislation which imposes a prison sentence on a non-EU national who unlawfully enters its territory in breach of an entry ban; if necessary to prevent serious VAT fraud, national courts must disapply the overall limitation in the sanction system and impose effective and dissuasive penalties. Latvia New complaints against Latvia continued falling in 2015, reaching their lowest level since 2011. New EU Pilot files also continued the steady decrease seen since 2011. However, the numbers of open infringement cases and of new late transposition cases both rose.

I.COMPLAINTS 1.New complaints made against Latvia by members of the public (2011- 2015) 2.Public complaints against Latvia open at year-end 12 > Complaints open at end-2014 17 > New complaints registered in 2015 11 > Complaints handled in 2015 = 18 > Complaints open at end-2015 3.New complaints registered in 2015: main policy areas



II.EU PILOT 1.New EU Pilot files opened against Latvia (2011-2015) 2.Files relating to Latvia open in EU Pilot at year -end 23 > EU Pilot files open at end-2014 17 > New EU Pilot files registered in 2015 19 > EU Pilot files handled in 2015 = 21 > EU Pilot files open at end-2015 3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2015: main policy areas



4.EU Pilot files: Latvia’s average response time in 2011-2015 (in days)

5.EU Pilot files: Latvia’s resolution rate in 2011- 2015 III.INFRINGEMENT CASES 1.Infringement cases against Latvia open on 31 December (2011-2015)



2.New infringement cases opened in 2015: main policy areas 3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court a)The Commission opened 18 new infringement cases against Latvia in 2015. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern: failure to notify the national measures transposing the Directive on the alignment of several EU health and safety at work directives to the Regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures; non-communication of national measures transposing the recast Asylum Procedures and Reception Conditions Directives; late and incomplete transposition of the Energy Efficiency Directive; lack of timely transposition of the Directive on the sulphur content of marine fuels; national restrictions on the acquisition of agricultural land which limit the free movement of capital and freedom of establishment by being discriminatory and/or disproportionate; non-communication of measures transposing the Directive establishing a single European railway area; non-conformity of national legislation with the Directive on driving licences as amended. b)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.





IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES 1.Late transposition infringement cases against Latvia open on 31 December (2011-2015) 2.New late transposition infringement cases against Latvia (2011-2015) 3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2015: main policy areas 4.Referrals to the Court The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU. V.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2015 These concerned: failure to transpose the Directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment; failure to notify national transposition measures for the Directive on the European protection order; non-conformity of national legislation with the Waste Framework Directive; failure to put into place a registration procedure for European Electronic Toll Service providers; restrictions on the provision of towage services in the port of Riga. VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS 1.Court ruling The Court ruled that the requirement to hold Latvian nationality to exercise the profession of notary is a discrimination based on nationality prohibited by Article 49 TFEU.

2.Preliminary ruling In a preliminary ruling addressed to the Latvian judiciary, the Court ruled that the fact that a product bears a CE mark certifying conformity with the Directive on medical devices cannot be regarded as decisive regarding its assessment for tariff classification purposes. Lithuania New complaints against Lithuania increased in 2015, reaching their highest level since 2011. By contrast, the number of new EU Pilot files fell slightly, to the lowest for five years. Both open infringements and new late transposition cases rose in 2015 but the numbers were still below their 2011 levels. I.COMPLAINTS 1.New complaints made against Lithuania by members of the public (2011- 2015) 2.Public complaints against Lithuania open at year-end 36 > Complaints open at end-2014 37 > New complaints registered in 2015 28 > Complaints handled in 2015 = 45 > Complaints open at end-2015 3.New complaints registered in 2015: main policy areas



II.EU PILOT 1.New EU Pilot files opened against Lithuania (2011-2015) 2.Files relating to Lithuania open in EU Pilot at year -end 29 > EU Pilot files open at end-2014 26 > New EU Pilot files registered in 2015 29 > EU Pilot files handled in 2015 = 26 > EU Pilot files open at end-2015

3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2015: main policy areas



4.EU Pilot files: Lithuania’s average response time in 2011-2015 (in days) 5.EU Pilot files: Lithuania’s resolution rate in 2011- 2015 III.INFRINGEMENT CASES 1.Infringement cases against Lithuania open on 31 December (2011-2015)



2.New infringement cases opened in 2015: main policy areas 3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court a)The Commission opened 21 new infringement cases against Lithuania in 2015. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern: failure to provide sufficient guarantees for the reimbursement of consumers affected by the insolvency of a package travel organiser; non-communication of national measures transposing the recast Asylum Procedures and Reception Conditions Directives; late and incomplete transposition of the Energy Efficiency Directive; non-conformity of national transposition measures with the Directive on infrastructure for spatial information;

national restrictions on the acquisition of agricultural land which limit the free movement of capital and freedom of establishment by being discriminatory and/or disproportionate; failure to communicate all national measures transposing the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive, a centrepiece of the EU banking union; incorrect implementation of the Baltic functional airspace block; failure to fulfil air safety oversight obligations under the Regulations on airworthiness; restrictions on freedom of establishment at the Klaipeda seaport; incorrect transposition into national legislation of the Directives on quality and safety standards for human tissues and cells. b)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.



IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES 1.Late transposition infringement cases against Lithuania open on 31 December (2011-2015) 2.New late transposition infringement cases against Lithuania (2011-2015) 3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2015: main policy areas 4.Referrals to the Court The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU. V.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2015

These concerned: non-communication of national measures transposing the Industrial Emissions Directive; late transposition of the Single Permit Directive; failure to notify national transposition measures for the Directive on the European protection order; lack of timely transposition of the Industrial Emissions Directive; non-communication of national measures transposing the Directives on alternative investment fund managers and over-reliance on credit ratings; non-conformity of national legislation with the Directive on driving licences as amended. VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS 1.Court rulings There were no major Court rulings in 2015. 2.Preliminary rulings In preliminary rulings addressed to the Lithuanian judiciary, the Court ruled that: a national law that makes entitlement to compensation under the Investor Compensation Schemes Directive conditional on the credit institution concerned having transferred or used the funds or securities in question without the investor’s consent is not compatible with the Directive; the Brussels I Regulation on jurisdiction in civil and commercial law was intended to prevent conflicts of jurisdiction between courts of the EU Member States and not conflicts between a court and an arbitral tribunal. Recognition of arbitral awards is governed by national law or, as the case may be, by the 1965 New York Convention. In the case at hand, after one party initiated court proceedings in Lithuania, the other party, Gazprom, commenced arbitral proceedings in Sweden. The arbitral tribunal found that the Lithuanian court proceedings were in breach of the arbitral agreement and issued an injunction against the suit. Gazprom then sought recognition of that arbitral award in Lithuania. The Lithuanian High Court made a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice asking whether the Brussels I Regulation can be invoked by the court to refuse recognition of anti-suit injunctions ordered by the arbitral tribunal. Luxembourg New complaints against Luxembourg in 2015 fell from the previous year's peak, while the number of new EU Pilot files continued its recent downward trend. Open infringement cases have been relatively stable since 2012, although slightly on the rise. New infringement cases for late transposition also showed a small increase, almost rising back to their 2011 peak. I.COMPLAINTS 1.New complaints made against Luxembourg by members of the public (2011- 2015)

2.Public complaints against Luxembourg open at year-end 20 > Complaints open at end-2014 45 > New complaints registered in 2015 24 > Complaints handled in 2015 = 41 > Complaints open at end-2015 3.New complaints registered in 2015: main policy areas



II.EU PILOT 1.New EU Pilot files opened against Luxembourg (2011-2015) 2.Files relating to Luxembourg open in EU Pilot at year -end 31 > EU Pilot files open at end-2014 24 > New EU Pilot files registered in 2015 23 > EU Pilot files handled in 2015 = 32 > EU Pilot files open at end-2015 3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2015: main policy areas



4.EU Pilot files: Luxembourg’s average response time in 2011-2015 (in days) 5.EU Pilot files: Luxembourg’s resolution rate in 2011- 2015

III.INFRINGEMENT CASES 1.Infringement cases against Luxembourg open on 31 December (2011-2015)

2.New infringement cases opened in 2015: main policy areas 3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court a)The Commission opened 24 new infringement cases against Luxembourg in 2015. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern: non-communication of measures transposing the Directive on orphan works into national legislation; failure to notify the national measures transposing the Directive amending several EU Directives in the area of health and safety at work to align them to the Regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures; late transposition of the recast Asylum Procedures and Reception Conditions Directives; late and incomplete transposition of the Energy Efficiency Directive; failure to communicate all national measures transposing the Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive. This is a precondition for the future use of the European Deposit Insurance Scheme proposed by the Commission; failure to communicate all national measures transposing the Solvency II Directive and the Omnibus II Directive. These create a harmonised prudential framework for insurance firms in the EU to facilitate development of a single market in insurance services; failure to communicate all national measures transposing the Directive on reducing over-reliance on credit rating agencies; non-communication of national measures transposing the first amendment of the Financial Conglomerates Directive; failure to communicate all national measures transposing the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive, a centrepiece of the EU banking union; failure to implement functional airspace blocks effectively. Under the 'single European sky' legislation, national air traffic control organisations should work together in nine regional airspace blocks to increase efficiency, cut costs and reduce emissions; non-compliance with several provisions of the Railway Safety Directive. b)The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. It concerns national VAT rules. These seem to contract the VAT Directive by: limiting the reception of VAT-free services to members of a cost-sharing group whose taxed activities remain below 30 % (in certain cases 45 %) of their annual turnover; and

allowing group members to deduct VAT charged to the group. c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU. IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES 1.Late transposition infringement cases against Luxembourg open on 31 December (2011-2015) 2.New late transposition infringement cases against Luxembourg (2011-2015)



3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2015: main policy areas 4.Referrals to the Court The Commission referred one case to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU. It concerns failure to transpose the Directive establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms. V.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2015 These concerned: the method of calculating the allowance in lieu of annual leave under the Working Time Directive; late transposition of the Directive against trafficking in human beings; failure to notify national transposition measures for the Directive on the right to information in criminal proceedings; failure to transpose the Directive implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services in the light of the decision of the Court of Justice in the 'Test-Achats' ruling; incorrect implementation of EU legislation on the rights of bus and coach passengers;

failure to connect to the driving licence network; non-conformity with the Directive on the interoperability of the rail system.



VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS 1.Court rulings The Court ruled that: the absence of measures to prevent the abuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts in the case of occasional workers in the entertainment arts infringes the Fixed-Term Work Directive; the reduced VAT rate on digital books did not comply with the VAT Directive. 2.Preliminary rulings No major preliminary rulings were addressed to the Luxembourgish judiciary in 2015. Malta New complaints against Malta decreased slightly in 2015 but remained above their 2013 low. The number of new EU Pilot files continued to fall, reaching its lowest level since 2012. However, open infringement cases and new late transposition cases both rose in 2015 after falling steadily since 2011. I.COMPLAINTS 1.New complaints made against Malta by members of the public (2011- 2015) 2.Public complaints against Malta open at year-end 13 > Complaints open at end-2014 26 > New complaints registered in 2015 17 > Complaints handled in 2015 = 22 > Complaints open at end-2015

3.New complaints registered in 2015: main policy areas



II.EU PILOT 1.New EU Pilot files opened against Malta (2011-2015) 2.Files relating to Malta open in EU Pilot at year -end 21 > EU Pilot files open at end-2014 25 > New EU Pilot files registered in 2015 23 > EU Pilot files handled in 2015 = 23 > EU Pilot files open at end-2015 3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2015: main policy areas



4.EU Pilot files: Malta’s average response time in 2011-2015 (in days) 5.EU Pilot files: Malta’s resolution rate in 2011- 2015 III.INFRINGEMENT CASES 1.Infringement cases against Malta open on 31 December (2011-2015)





2.New infringement cases opened in 2015: main policy areas 3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court a)The Commission opened 22 new infringement cases against Malta in 2015. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern: non-communication of national measures transposing the Directive on honey labelling; failure to communicate all national measures transposing the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive, a centrepiece of the EU banking union; excessive and unjustified obstacles in the area of professional services that run counter to the Services Directive; incorrect application of the Long-Term Residents Directive as regards implementing the requirements on stable and regular resources and appropriate accommodation; failure to notify national measures ensuring full transposition of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive and the Reception Conditions Directive and the Directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography; failure to implement functional airspace blocks effectively. Under the 'single European sky' legislation, national air traffic control organisations should work together in nine regional airspace blocks to increase efficiency, cut costs and reduce emissions; non-conformity of national legislation with the Directive on driving licences as amended. b)The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. It concerns trapping of seven species of finch in breach of the Wild Birds Directive. c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU. IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES 1.Late transposition infringement cases against Malta open on 31 December (2011-2015) 2.New late transposition infringement cases against Malta (2011-2015) 3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2015: main policy areas

4.Referrals to the Court The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU. V.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2015 These concerned: breach of the Large Combustion Plants Directive through operation of the Marsa Power Station beyond the limited lifetime derogation period; late transposition of Directive 2011/51/EU extending the Long-Term Residents Directive to beneficiaries of international protection. VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS 1.Court rulings There were no major Court rulings in 2015. 2.Preliminary rulings No major preliminary rulings were addressed to the Maltese judiciary in 2015. Netherlands New complaints against the Netherlands in 2015 continued the steady fall seen since their peak in 2012. The number of new EU Pilot files fell for the second consecutive year, to their lowest level since 2011. Open infringement cases have been relatively stable since 2012. New infringement cases for late transposition rose in 2015 but the number was still well below the 2011 level. I.COMPLAINTS 1.New complaints made against Netherlands by members of the public (2011- 2015) 2.Public complaints against Netherlands open at year-end

53 > Complaints open at end-2014 79 > New complaints registered in 2015 66 > Complaints handled in 2015 = 66 > Complaints open at end-2015 3.New complaints registered in 2015: main policy areas



II.EU PILOT 1.New EU Pilot files opened against Netherlands (2011-2015) 2.Files relating to Netherlands open in EU Pilot at year -end 41 > EU Pilot files open at end-2014 20 > New EU Pilot files registered in 2015 32 > EU Pilot files handled in 2015 = 29 > EU Pilot files open at end-2015 3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2015: main policy areas



4.EU Pilot files: Netherlands’s average response time in 2011-2015 (in days) 5.EU Pilot files: Netherlands’s resolution rate in 2011- 2015 III.INFRINGEMENT CASES 1.Infringement cases against Netherlands open on 31 December (2011-2015)





2.New infringement cases opened in 2015: main policy areas 3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court a)The Commission opened 17 new infringement cases against the Netherlands in 2015. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern: failure to notify the national measures transposing the Directive on the alignment of several EU health and safety at work directives to the Regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures; late and incomplete transposition of the Energy Efficiency Directive; late and incomplete transposition of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive; non-communication of national measures transposing the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive; bilateral investment treaties, signed before all state parties became members of the EU, which overlap and conflict with the EU single market law on cross-border investments; failure to communicate all national measures transposing the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive, a centrepiece of the EU banking union; failure to implement functional airspace blocks effectively. Under the 'single European sky' legislation, national air traffic control organisations should work together in nine regional airspace blocks to increase efficiency, cut costs and reduce emissions; non-compliance with several provisions of the Railway Safety Directive; the ‘limitation on benefits’ clause in the Dutch-Japanese Tax Treaty. This grants better treatment to companies held by shareholders resident in Dutch territory (or listed on Dutch stock exchanges) than to comparable companies held by non-resident EU shareholders (or traded on other EU stock exchanges). b)The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. It concerns the exemption in the VAT Directive for the supply of sport or physical education services by non-profit-making organisations. The Dutch rules both restrict and expand this exemption. On the one hand, exemptions are granted only to organisations where volunteers supplied these services; on the other hand, the letting of berths and moorings for vessels was VAT-free even for non-sport purpo