No major preliminary rulings were addressed to the Croatian judiciary in 2014.

There were no major Court rulings in 2014.

non-communication of measures transposing 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.

There were 13 late transposition infringement cases open against Croatia on 31 December 2014.

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 efficiently implement functional airspace blocks. Under the Single European Sky legislation, national air traffic control organisations should work together in regional airspace blocks to gain efficiency, cut costs and reduce emissions. The set-up of these common airspace blocks is arranged around traffic flows rather than state boundaries, which leads to performance improvements;

the law on the privatisation of the Industrija Nafte d.d. (INA) energy company. This law grants the Croatian State significant special powers over INA that seem to be unjustified restrictions on the free movement of capital;

a)The Commission opened 17 new infringement cases against Croatia in 2014. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

There were 10 infringement cases open against Croatia on 31 December 2014.

1.New complaints made against Croatia by members of the public (2013-14)

The number of new complaints made against Croatia increased significantly in 2014 from 2013, when Croatia joined the EU half way through the year. New EU Pilot files opened evolved in a similar manner. Ten infringement cases against Croatia were open on 31 December 2014. During the year the Commission launched 13 infringement cases against Croatia for late transposition.

does not require a Member State to issue an autonomous residence permit (or a similar document) to a non-EU national without identity documents; however, if a national court releases such a person concerned because there is no longer a reasonable prospect of his removal, the Member State must confirm the situation of this person in writing.

does not consider per se a non-EU national as showing ‘lack of cooperation’, if he failed to obtain an identity document making it possible for him to be removed from the Member State concerned;

precludes, among other things, national measures that allow the extension of an initial six-month period of detention solely because the non-EU national concerned has no identity documents; instead, the referring court should carry out an evaluation of all the facts and circumstances on a case-by-case basis;

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

Bulgaria failed to comply with the provisions of the First Railway Package. It included staff remuneration and social security contributions in the calculation of charges incurred for all of the minimum services and for access by the network to service infrastructure costs. However, staff remuneration and social security contributions cannot be considered to be directly incurred as a result of operating the train service.

failure to fully transpose the directive improving and extending the EU greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme;

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.

breach of the Landfill Directive by continuing to operate numerous non-compliant landfill sites;

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

failure to efficiently implement functional airspace blocks. Under the Single European Sky legislation, national air traffic control organisations should work together in regional airspace blocks to gain efficiency, cut costs and reduce emissions. The set-up of these common airspace blocks is arranged around traffic flows rather than state boundaries, which leads to performance improvements;

incorrect transposition of the directive on deposit-guarantee schemes and disproportionate restriction of the free movement of capital. Two banks have been put into receivership with a complete suspension of payments and bank activities and depositors have not had access to their funds for three months;

obstacles to the production and sale of cigarette tubes with filters;

incompatibility of the working conditions of Ministry of the Interior staff with the Working Time Directive;

a)The Commission opened 52 new infringement cases against Bulgaria in 2014. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

1.New complaints made against Bulgaria by members of the public (2011-14)

The number of new complaints made against Bulgaria has remained stable in recent years. After a peak in 2012, new EU Pilot files opened against Bulgaria fell in 2013 and remained at the same level in 2014. The overall number of pending infringement cases has not fluctuated much over the last five years. New infringement cases for late transposition increased significantly in 2014, taking the total to its highest level of the past five years.

Member States are obliged to cover the basic subsistence needs of non-EU nationals who are irregularly staying on their territory only in so far as this is necessary to ensure that emergency health care and essential treatment of illness are made available during the period in which their return cannot be carried out. For an appeal to be effective against a return decision whose enforcement may expose the non-EU national concerned to a serious risk of grave and irreversible deterioration in their state of health, that person must be able to avail himself, in such circumstances, of a remedy with suspensive effect.

protection for medical reasons is a form of humanitarian protection granted on a discretionary basis by Member States, and as such is excluded from the scope of the EU asylum acquis. Therefore, the rights and benefits available to beneficiaries of such a form of protection are to be decided exclusively under national legislation;

under EU asylum law, the interpretation to be given to the concept of ‘internal armed conflict’ must be independent of the definition used in international humanitarian law. An internal armed conflict exists where a State’s armed forces confront one or more armed groups or where two or more armed groups confront each other, regardless of the intensity of the confrontations, the level of organisation of the armed forces involved or the duration of the conflict;

Member States are not allowed to apply tax rules that provide for a different evaluation of methods of assessing the income from immovable property, if this results in higher taxation only because the comparable foreign income is evaluated at a higher value.

Member States can impose a general tax on operators providing electronic communications networks or services on account of the presence on public and private property of cellular telephone communication masts, pylons or antennae which are necessary for their activity;

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

Belgium infringed EU law by excluding members of a profession (dentists and physiotherapists) from the scope of the law which transposes the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, by imposing restrictive rules on the announcement of price reductions, and; by banning door-to-door sales for products above EUR 250;

discriminatory inheritance tax provisions in Walloon law which discourage Belgian residents from investing in foreign shares because their inheritance might be more heavily taxed;

non-ratification by Belgium of the Euro-Mediterranean Aviation Agreement with Morocco;

incorrect application of the regulation concerning the rights of bus and coach passengers by not designating the enforcement body in the Brussels-Capital Region and by not setting up a penalty system for infringements of the regulation;

incorrect application of the directive on the development of EU railways by not keeping separate business accounts for provision of transport services and management of railway infrastructure;

failure to fully transpose the directive improving and extending the EU greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme;

incompatibility of the working time of professional fire-fighters with the Working Time Directive;

failure to fully transpose the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive. The Commission proposed a daily penalty of 42 178.50 EUR.

The Commission referred one case to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU. It concerns:

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

refusal to apply tax exemptions for electricity and gas consumption granted to European Union institutions, in breach of the Union’s Protocol on Privileges and Immunities.

the requirement under Belgian legislation to prove language knowledge exclusively through a certificate issued by the Belgian authorities for posts in the local administrations of the French-, Flemish- and German-speaking regions; discriminatory treatment of foreign undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities. They have to pay a higher yearly tax rate (0.8 %) than Belgian undertakings (0.01 %);

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

collection of interest due on the late payment of own resources in a procedure where the requested securities turned out to be insufficient to cover a customs debt;

six requests by the national authorities to waive the collection of traditional own resources; the Commission is concerned that the authorities have not demonstrated that the entitlements were irrecoverable for reasons not attributable to them;

incorrect implementation of the directive laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs, which requires that sows are kept in groups during part of their pregnancy;

failure to efficiently implement functional airspace blocks. Under the Single European Sky legislation, national air traffic control organisations should work together in regional airspace blocks to gain efficiency, cut costs and reduce emissions. The set-up of these common airspace blocks is arranged around traffic flows rather than state boundaries, which leads to performance improvements;

restrictions on the principle of freedom of establishment as regards organisation of port labour;

the issue of visas and residence cards for non-EU family members of EU nationals and safeguards against the expulsion of EU nationals;

non-respect of EU air quality standards (PM10 limit values) in several zones and agglomerations;

failure to provide strict protection for the harbour porpoise as required under the Habitats Directive;

incorrect application of the regulations on the coordination of social security systems; these allow the Belgian authorities to subject someone to Belgian social security legislation even if he or she has a certificate issued by an institution of another Member State attesting that the legislation of the latter applies to that person;

limited access for non-Belgian residents to certain higher education courses in medicine; the procedure has been suspended until the end of 2016 to allow Belgium to prove that the restrictive measures are necessary and proportionate to protect the Belgian healthcare system;

a)The Commission opened 53 new infringement cases against Belgium in 2014. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

1.New complaints made against Belgium by members of the public (2011-14)

The number of new complaints made against Belgium increased considerably in 2014. After peaking in 2013, new EU Pilot files opened against Belgium fell slightly. Total pending infringement cases increased for the first time since 2010. New infringement cases involving late transposition significantly increased in 2014 for the first time since 2011.

the demographic criteria applied in Austria for determining whether a need to establish a new pharmacy exists are contrary to the freedom of establishment.

Member States may impose the requirement that both the applicant and the spouse have reached the age of 21 by the time of their application for a residence permit for the purpose of family reunification, a measure to prevent forced marriages;

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

There were no major Court rulings in 2014.

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 bring national rules into line with Directive 2004/49/EC on rail safety.

a proposed hydro power plant which would cause serious deterioration in the quality of the Schwarze Sulm river in Styria;

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

incorrect application of the regulation on the rights of bus and coach passengers;

failure to efficiently implement functional airspace blocks. Under the Single European Sky legislation, national air traffic control organisations should work together in regional airspace blocks to gain efficiency, cut costs and reduce emissions. The set-up of these common airspace blocks is arranged around traffic flows rather than state boundaries, which leads to performance improvements;

obstacles to the free provision of services of ski instructors in Austria;

non-transposition of the directive on free movement of EU nationals and their family members;

non-compliance with the EU–Turkey association agreement (problems linked to the Austrian establishment and residence law and its compliance with the rights of Turkish nationals and their families under the EU–Turkey association law and its standstill clauses);

non-communication of measures transposing three directives in the automotive sector;

obstacles to distance sales of certain tobacco products within the EU;

Austria’s reservation of 75 % of its study places for medical and dentistry studies for Austrian nationals;

the incompatibility of Austrian legislation with EU law regarding questions related to who is responsible for the health and safety at work of school teachers in certain provinces;

a)The Commission opened 36 new infringement cases against Austria in 2014. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

1.New complaints made against Austria by members of the public (2011-14)

The number of new complaints made against Austria has steadily fallen since it peaked in 2012. New EU Pilot files opened against Austria have been on a downward trend since 2011, despite a peak in 2013. The number of open infringement cases has been relatively stable since 2011. New infringement cases for late transposition rose in 2014 but the number was still below the 2011 level.

a programme manual adopted by a monitoring committee in the context of an operational programme established by two Member States and intended to promote European territorial cooperation, cannot prevent a decision of the monitoring committee rejecting an application for aid from being subject to appeal before a court of a Member State, as this would constitute a breach of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

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

There were no major Court rulings in 2014.

discriminatory taxation of foreign investment funds regarding income from real estate. While resident funds are entitled to a tax exemption for their real estate income, comparable funds established in other EU Member States and EEA countries are subject to tax.

under national law, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications carried out certain regulatory tasks, including managing radio frequency allocations and granting frequency authorisations. At the same time it controlled the largest TV and radio broadcast network operator in Estonia (the state-owned company Levira Ltd). These control tasks have been transferred to the Ministry of Finance, ensuring compliance with 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.

incorrect transposition of the directive on public access to environmental information.

b)The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. It concerns:

failure to connect to and use the EU driving licence network (RESPER) under the directive on driving licences;

lack of effective judicial remedy against the refusal, annulment or revocation of a visa, in breach of the provisions of the Visa Code;

restrictions on the marketing of cigarettes. In Estonia, a time limit for the sale of cigarettes is linked to the fiscal stamp on the packaging. Three months after a new tax marking design enters into force, cigarettes bearing the old marking are no longer allowed to be sold;

a)The Commission opened 15 new infringement cases against Estonia in 2014. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

1.New complaints made against Estonia by members of the public (2011-14)

The number of new complaints made against Estonia has not varied greatly over the last four years, and new EU Pilot files opened against it have held relatively stable over the same period. The downward trend in the number of pending infringement cases continued in 2014. New infringement cases for late transposition also fell slightly.

the obesity of a worker can be a disability covered by the directive on employment equality if it hinders a person’s full and effective participation in personal and professional life on an equal basis with other workers.

at the reasonable request of competing operators aiming to access and use specific network elements and facilities, the Danish national regulatory authority may oblige an electronic communications operator with significant power in a given market to install specific cables provided that this obligation is based on the nature of the problem identified, is proportionate and is justified under the Framework Directive. The fulfilment of these criteria is for the national court to verify. The Court has also taken into account the initial investment of the operator concerned and the price control mechanism that allows the recovery of installation costs;

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

Denmark failed to comply with Water Framework Directive by failing to adopt and notify the river basin management plans the directive requires.

incorrect application of the directive laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs, which requires that sows are kept in groups during a part of their pregnancy.

unjustified restrictions on non-resident hauliers transporting empty pallets and containers into and within Denmark;

failure to comply with the Competition Directive by obliging property owners to become paying members of a particular local cable TV association;

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.

Denmark’s failure to amend its national legislation to ban all forms of snus, an oral tobacco product sold both loose and in small sachets. All forms of snus are banned from sale in the EU, with the exception of Sweden.

Denmark’s lack of river basin management plans, which are required under the Water Framework Directive;

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

nonconformity of the national transposition measures with the directive on railway safety;

incorrect application of the regulation on the rights of bus and coach passengers due to a lack of designated bus terminals for disabled passengers;

nonconformity of the national transposition measures with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive;

difference of treatment between permanent staff and part-time staff employed in the municipal education sector. Various collective agreements exclude part-time staff from a number of benefits that full-time employees receive. The directive on part-time work requires the equal treatment of part-time staff and permanent staff doing similar work;

nonconformity of the National Holiday Act with Article 7 of the Working Time Directive by imposing a one-year delay between the accrual and exercise of annual leave rights;

a)The Commission opened 27 new infringement cases against Denmark in 2014. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

1.New complaints made against Denmark by members of the public (2011-14)

The number of new complaints made against Denmark has remained relatively stable over the last four years. After reaching a peak in 2013, new EU Pilot files opened against Denmark fell considerably in 2014. The overall number of pending infringement cases has not changed much over the last five years. However, infringement cases against Denmark for late transposition increased in 2014 for the first time since 2011.

the operation of a camera system installed by an individual in his family home to protect the property and the health and life of the home owned, but which also monitors a public space, is not considered as processing for a purely personal or household activity and therefore falls within the scope of the Data Protection Directive.

the EU Copyright Directive does not allow health establishments to be exempted from the payment of copyright fees. The monopoly granted to the Czech copyright collecting society to collect fees for the use of composers' musical works is compatible with the freedom to provide services; Moreover, the grant of this territorial monopoly over the management of copyright is not, as such, contrary to competition rules either (Article 106 in conjunction with Article 102 TFEU);

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

There were no major Court rulings in 2014.

inspection of carriers in the area of aviation security.

designation of national bodies and sanctions in relation to the protection of passenger rights;

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.

rules on the hallmarking of jewellery. The Czech Assay Office requires certain articles of jewellery imported from another EU country to be stamped with an additional national hallmark even when they have already been lawfully hallmarked and marketed in the EU.

b)The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. It concerns:

lack of a register of road transport undertakings and of a connection to the European system, and failure to fulfil preconditions necessary for the European Electronic Toll Service to function;

failure to efficiently implement functional airspace blocks. Under the Single European Sky legislation, national air traffic control organisations should work together in regional airspace blocks to gain efficiency, cut costs and reduce emissions. The set-up of these common airspace blocks is arranged around traffic flows rather than state boundaries, which leads to performance improvements;

requirement to have Czech nationality to work as notary;

the right of EU nationals to become members of a political party or to found one in the Member State of residence;

implementation of the right to appeal against a visa refusal;

nonconformity with the Racial Equality Directive due to discrimination against Roma children by disproportionately and systematically placing them in special schools meant for children with disabilities;

a)The Commission opened 30 new infringement cases against the Czech Republic in 2014. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

5.EU Pilot files: evolution of the resolution rate by the Czech Republic (2011-14)

2.Evolution of files relating to the Czech Republic open in EU Pilot

1.New complaints made against the Czech Republic by member of the public (2011-14)

After a significant fall in 2012, the number of new complaints made against the Czech Republic has remained stable. New EU Pilot files opened against the Czech Republic fell from 2013’s peak. The overall number of pending infringement cases has remained fairly steady since the big drop in 2012. New infringement cases for late transposition have fallen considerably since 2011.

No major preliminary rulings were addressed to the Cypriot judiciary in 2014.

There were no major Court rulings in 2014.

late transposition of the directive on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims;

failure to fully transpose the directive on the geological storage of carbon dioxide;

failure to fully transpose the Oil Stocks Directive and the Renewable Energy 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.

the incompatibility with EU law of Cyprus’ pensions rights for Cypriot nationals under 45 years old working in the EU institutions;

b)The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. It concerns:

incorrect implementation of the directive laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs, which requires that sows are kept in groups during part of their pregnancy.

failure to efficiently implement functional airspace blocks. Under the Single European Sky legislation, national air traffic control organisations should work together in regional airspace blocks to gain efficiency, cut costs and reduce emissions. The set-up of these common airspace blocks is arranged around traffic flows rather than state boundaries, which leads to performance improvements;

the late transposition of the Directive on the Single Permit for non-EU nationals, of the directive on standards for the qualification of non-EU nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection and of the directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography;

the alleged systematic detention of certain categories of asylum applicants without properly assessing the need for detention, and the lack of an effective remedy against detention orders;

significant impact from a development project in the area of Limni and the lack of strict protection of the Caretta Caretta species of turtle;

incorrect application of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and the Directive on unfair terms in relation to the purchase of immovable property;

a)The Commission opened 41 new infringement cases against Cyprus in 2014. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

1.New complaints made against Cyprus by members of the public (2011-14)

In 2014 the number of new complaints made against Cyprus fell to its lowest level in recent years. New EU Pilot files opened also dropped, to below the 2012 total. The overall number of pending infringement cases against Cyprus has not changed much over the last three years. The number of new cases registered in 2014 is the lowest of the last five years. New infringement cases for late transposition rose slightly for the second year running but remained well below the 2010 and 2011 levels.

No major preliminary rulings were addressed to the Greek judiciary in 2014.

Greece failed to fully comply with the 2005 judgment of the Court of Justice finding that it breached the Waste Directive by continuing to operate illegal landfill sites. In addition to a lump sum of EUR 10 million, the Court ordered Greece to pay a fine until the 2005 judgment is fully complied with. The amount of the fine will depend on the progress Greece makes, but in the absence of any progress it will be more than EUR 14 million for each six months of delay.

a General Court judgment annulling the Commission's 2008 decision, finding that Greece had infringed Article 106 TFEU in combination with Article 102 TFEU, should be overturned. The Commission's 2008 decision concerned lignite-exploitation rights giving the State-owned energy company privileged access to lignite, the cheapest source of electricity in Greece. The Commission decision has been referred back to the General Court to rule on outstanding arguments. However, the Court's judgment is a useful clarification as to the scope of application of Article 106 in combination with Article 102;

the rearing of laying hens in cages does not comply with the requirements of the directive on the protection of laying hens;

national income taxation of individuals and discrimination against non-residents with disabilities when applying car registration tax;

ratification of the Convention on International Carriage by Rail;

deficiencies in the system for training and certifying seafarers;

award of a contract for the provision of information technology services to the Social Insurance Foundation (IKA);

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

failure to implement a judgment of the Court of Justice finding that Greece was failing in its obligation to treat and dispose of urban waste water adequately, with 23 agglomerations across the country lacking the necessary collection and treatment systems. The Commission proposed a lump sum penalty payment of EUR 11 514 081 and a daily penalty of EUR 47 462 until the obligations are fulfilled.

c)The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU. This concerns:

failure to designate a number of zones vulnerable to nitrate pollution and to adopt measures to effectively combat nitrate pollution in these zones;

incorrect application of the Working Time Directive as interpreted by the Court of Justice, particularly regarding the on-call time of doctors in rural public health services;

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

incorrect transposition of the directive laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs, which requires that sows are kept in groups during part of their pregnancy;

incorrect application of the regulation on the rights of bus and coach passengers;

incorrect transposition of the Court decision on the First Railway package;

failure to efficiently implement functional airspace blocks. Under the Single European Sky legislation, national air traffic control organisations should work together in regional airspace blocks to gain efficiency, cut costs and reduce emissions. The set-up of these common airspace blocks is arranged around traffic flows rather than state boundaries, which leads to performance improvements;

the shareholder agreement concluded in the framework of the sale of OTE shares to Deutsche Telekom and ratified by law, which provides for special rights of the Greek State that are considered to be incompatible with the free movement of capital and the freedom of establishment;

late transposition of the directive on the single permit for non-EU nationals and the directive on combating sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography;

nonconformity of national legislation with the Return Directive on aspects such as an effective forced-return monitoring system, criminalisation of irregular stay and detention and detention conditions;

failure to communicate to the Commission a long-term strategy for mobilising investment in renovating the national stock of residential and commercial buildings and its national energy efficiency action plan as required under the Energy Efficiency Directive;

failure to comply with reporting obligations under the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive;

failure to comply with a Commission Decision and the subsequent judgment of the Court of Justice under Article 108(2) TFEU on several aid measures in favour of Hellenic Shipyards SA that constitute incompatible aid and several aid measures approved by the Commission in the past that have been misused;

nonconformity of a national law from 1934 forcing all wine producers in Samos to be members of the local cooperative and deliver their entire production to it;

a)The Commission opened 52 new infringement cases against Greece in 2014. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

1.New complaints made against Greece by members of the public (2011-14)

The number of new complaints made against Greece rose in 2014 after falling for two years. New EU Pilot files opened against Greece declined in both 2013 and 2014 from their peak in 2012. The number of pending infringement cases has remained relatively stable since 2012 at a level well below the previous years. New infringement cases for late transposition rose in 2014 but stayed below the 2011 level.

it is compatible with the Treaty to reimburse the underlying corporation tax on dividends distributed by German subsidiaries to a German loss-making parent company, where these dividends represent taxable income, but to refuse reimbursement of the underlying corporation tax on dividends distributed by subsidiaries established in non-EU countries.

the immediate taxation of the underlying capital gains involved in a corporate restructuring operation, if the capital gains of the shares issued in exchange for the contribution and attributed to non-residents were not subject to German taxation, is justified for preserving the balanced allocation of the power to impose tax;

the Court upheld the validity of the enforcement condition in the "ne bis in idem" principle (Article 54 CISA) requiring that, upon conviction and sentencing, the penalty imposed ‘has been enforced’ or is ‘actually in the process of being enforced’;

the Court does not have jurisdiction to interpret directly the 1951 Refugee Convention, although several pieces of EU legislation have been adopted in the field to which it applies as part of the implementation of EU asylum legislation;

a Member State is required to detain non-EU nationals staying illegally for the purpose of removing them to a specialised detention facility of that State even if the Member State has a federal structure and the federated state competent to decide upon and carry out such detention under national law does not have such a detention facility;

Member States are obliged to admit to their territory non-EU nationals who wish to stay for more than three months for study purposes if they meet the conditions for admission listed in EU law and if none of the grounds expressly listed by EU law as justification for refusing a residence permit are invoked;

the requirement that the spouse of a Turkish national residing in a Member State should prove the acquisition of basic knowledge of the official language of that State as a condition for issuing a visa for family reunification is incompatible with the standstill clause of the additional protocol to the EC-Turkey association agreement ;

Member States are not obliged to grant social assistance benefits to people who do not meet the conditions for legal residence set out in the directive on the right of EU nationals and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States;

consumers supplied with electricity and gas within the framework of a universal supply obligation must be informed, in good time before any price increase comes into effect, of the reasons and preconditions for the increase and its scope. By not providing for such information, the German legislation at issue does not comply with the Electricity and Gas Directives;

the pre-existing German ‘special liability system’ for pharmaceutical products can still be extended after the notification of Directive 85/374 without infringing the directive;

the German monetary allowance for annual leave not taken when an employment relationship is terminated cannot be lost when termination comes about by a workers’ death, on the basis of Article 7 of the Working Time Directive;

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

Germany has to grant non-residents the same inheritance and gift tax allowances as if at least one of the people concerned were resident.

Germany has not failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, particularly Articles 2(38) and 9, by excluding certain services from the concept of ‘water services’;

the German obligation for CE-marked construction products to meet supplementary national requirements for construction products (Bauregellisten) violates the EU rules on the free movement of goods;

the German action for annulment under Article 263 TFEU challenging the Council Decision of 18 June 2012 ‘establishing the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union with regard to certain resolutions to be voted in the framework of the International Organisation for Vine and Wine (OIV)’ is dismissed;

the legislation concerning door-to-door sales. Germany modified its legislation so that consumers are now guaranteed effective protection in all cases covered by the directive to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises;

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 separate financial flows between train operators and rail track managers in breach of Directive 91/440/EEC on the separation of accounts in the rail sector.

nonconformity with EU law of the German legislation on access to justice in environmental matters;

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

failure to efficiently implement functional airspace blocks. Under the Single European Sky legislation, national air traffic control organisations should work together in regional airspace blocks to gain efficiency, cut costs and reduce emissions. The set-up of these common airspace blocks is arranged around traffic flows rather than state boundaries, which leads to performance improvements;

incomplete transposition of the directive on free movement of EU nationals and their family members and violation of Article 21(1) TFEU;

ban on online sales of UK veterinary products to customers located in Germany;

nonconformity of German legislation on checks on persons at internal borders with the abolition of internal border controls (Articles 20 and 21 of the Schengen border code);

nonconformity of the national legislation with the Return Directive on aspects such as an effective forced-return monitoring system, criminalisation of irregular stay and detention and detention conditions;

the sale of building plots by municipalities to residents at lower prices than those paid by non-residents (Einheimischenmodell);

nonconformity with the directive on mobile air conditioning: German authorities allowed a German manufacturer to market vehicles in the EU in the first half of 2013 that did not comply with the directive, and decided not to impose any remedial measures on the manufacturer;

a)The Commission opened 46 new infringement cases against Germany in 2014. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

1.New complaints made against Germany by members of the public (2011-14)

In 2014 the number of new complaints made against Germany fell from 2013’s peak but was still above the 2011 and 2012 levels. New EU Pilot files opened against Germany rose very slightly, the fourth consecutive annual increase. The number of pending infringement cases and of new infringement cases for late transposition rose for the second year running but remained below their 2011 levels.

the extent of the right of illegally staying non-EU nationals to be heard.

non-EU nationals who have been duly heard on the illegality of their stay need not necessarily be heard again before the adoption of a return decision;

Treaty provisions on the free movement of goods preclude national legislation which allows parallel import authorisation to be refused for a plant protection product which does not have a marketing authorisation in the exporting Member State granted in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC even though that product has a parallel import authorisation and may be regarded as identical to a product covered by a marketing authorisation granted in accordance with that directive in the importing Member State;

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

passenger rights and designation of national bodies and sanctions when travelling by bus, coach and train;

the freeze of military pensions provided to widows of former Moroccan soldiers who served in the French army. The complainant initiating the case finally withdrew the complaint following a settlement with the French authorities;

the additional requirement for ‘battery tests’ on cars imported from another Member State where they had already been subject to a roadworthiness check;

the existence of regulated gas prices for non-household customers, in breach of the Gas Directive;

incorrect application of the Competition Directive, Framework Directive and Authorisation Directive concerning electronic communications networks: incumbent national analogue broadcasters were granted ‘bonus’ frequencies while no procedure was in place for any other broadcasters to obtain similar frequencies;

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 three cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. All three concern:

deficiencies in follow-up of the French Supreme Court decision after the CJEU case C-310/09 Accor;

incorrect transposition of the directive on unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the single market;

incorrect transposition of the directive laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs, which requires that sows are kept in groups during part of their pregnancy;

incorrect transposition of the First Railway package in the Channel Tunnel;

failure to efficiently implement functional airspace blocks. Under the Single European Sky legislation, national air traffic control organisations should work together in regional airspace blocks to gain efficiency, cut costs and reduce emissions. The set-up of these common airspace blocks is arranged around traffic flows rather than state boundaries, which leads to performance improvements;

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

incorrect application of the directives on environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment in relation to the Notre-Dame des Landes airport project;

restricting the sale of alcohol test kits to those certified in France;

a)The Commission opened 41 new infringement cases against France in 2014. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

1.New complaints made against France by members of the public (2011-14)

The number of new complaints made against France has remained relatively stable over the last four years. After a peak in 2013, the number of new cases opened declined in 2014. New EU Pilot files opened against France showed a clear fall from the two previous years. The number of pending infringement cases has been stable since 2013. There was a slight increase in the number of new infringement cases for late transposition, but the levels remains well below those of 2010 and 2011.

Member States are not allowed to take into account the different life expectancies of men and women when calculating the statutory benefit payable due to an accident at work.

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

There were no major Court rulings in 2014.

failure to fully transpose the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive. The Commission proposed a daily fine of EUR 19 178.25.

The Commission referred one case to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU. This concerns:

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

nonconformity with the Racial Equality Directive, due to shortcomings in the competences of the national equality body which provides assistance to victims of discrimination.

b)The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. It concerns:

incorrect transposition of the directive laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs, which requires that sows are kept in groups during part of their pregnancy.

implementation of the right to appeal against the refusal, annulment or revocation of a visa;

a)The Commission opened 23 new infringement cases against Finland in 2014. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

1.New complaints made against Finland by members of the public (2011-14)

After falling in 2011 and 2012, the number of new complaints made against Finland increased in 2013 and 2014. However, new EU Pilot files opened against Finland showed a clear decline in 2014 after rising for three consecutive years. The number of pending infringement cases has fallen each year since 2011, while new infringement cases for late transposition held steady at less than one third of their 2011 peak.

a programme manual adopted by a monitoring committee in the context of an operational programme established by two Member States and intended to promote European territorial cooperation, cannot prevent a decision of the monitoring committee rejecting an application for aid from being subject to appeal before a court of a Member State, as this would constitute a breach of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

There were no major Court rulings in 2014.

nonconformity of the national transposition measures with the Railway Safety Directive and the directive on separation of accounts in rail.

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.

the requirement to have Latvian nationality to work as a notary.

b)The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. This concerns:

non-communication of national measures transposing the Capital Requirements Directive and one directive concerning the automotive sector;

restrictions on the right of EU nationals to become members of a political party or to found one in the Member State of residence;

nonconformity of the national legislation with the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. Under Latvian law, any sign of disrespect to Latvia’s national values in audiovisual commercial communications is prohibited. This prohibition goes beyond the provisions of the directive, in particular in light of the freedom of expression enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

a)The Commission opened 17 new infringement cases against Latvia in 2014. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

1.New complaints made against Latvia by the members of the public (2011-14)

The number of new complaints made against Latvia fell markedly in 2014 from 2013’s peak. New EU Pilot files opened against Latvia also continued the decline recorded in 2013. However, the number of pending infringements increased for the first time since 2010 after falling for two years. New infringement cases for late transposition have shown little change over the last three years.

national laws that levy income tax on winnings gained in casinos in other Member States are not compatible with Treaty rules on the freedom to provide services (Articles 52 and 56 TFEU) if those winnings would be exempt from tax if gained in casinos within the national territory.

Member States are not allowed to reserve the position of President of a Port Authority for its nationals;

the notion of "final judgment" under the "ne bis in idem" principle (Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement (CISA)) includes an order making a finding that there is no ground to refer a case to a trial court which precludes, in the State in which that order was made, to bring new criminal proceedings in respect of the same acts against the person to whom that finding applies, unless new facts and/or evidence against that person come to light; such an order precludes new proceedings against the same person in respect of the same acts in another State;

a national of a Member State who qualifies as a lawyer in another Member State has the right to work as a lawyer in his own Member State;

to be able to acquire the long-term resident status provided for under EU law, non-EU nationals must personally be legally and continuously resident in the host Member State for five years before submitting their application. Family members of a long-term resident may not be exempted from this condition;

the conclusion of international agreements about the recognition by Member States of guarantees of origin issued by non-EU countries is liable to affect the correct functioning of the harmonised certification mechanism established by the Renewable Energy Directive and the objectives it pursues. This is therefore an exclusive EU external competence;

if a site of EU importance has lost its ecological value due to natural causes and not because a Member State has failed to protect it, the Member State is required to propose to the Commission that the site be declassified;

the Part-Time Work Directive does not always require an employer to obtain a worker’s consent before changing his part-time contract into a full-time one;

the Fixed-Term Work Directive precludes national rules that authorise the renewal of fixed-term contracts to fill vacant posts, pending the recruitment of tenured school staff, without stating a definite deadline for the completion of these recruitment processes and without providing compensation for damage suffered due to such unlimited renewals;

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

Italy’s appeals against two Commission decisions under the European Regional Development Fund are unfounded. One, involving a 10 % flat-rate reduction in financial assistance, concerned the Apulia region and the other, involving the non-admission of interim payment applications, concerned the Campania region.

failed to comply with the directive on the protection of laying hens by not ensuring that they are no longer reared in unenriched cages;

failed to ensure adequate treatment of waste landfilled in Malagrotta and in other Lazio landfills;

did not implement the 2007 judgment of the Court of Justice establishing its failure to fulfil obligations under the waste directives. The Court ordered Italy to pay a lump sum EUR 40 million and a penalty of 42.8 million for each six-month period of delay in implementing the measures necessary for compliance;

incorrect application of the regulation on rail passengers’ rights and obligations;

incorrect application of the directive on the minimum level of training of seafarers due to several shortcomings in Italy’s system for training and certifying them;

the authorities’ refusal to recognise that holders of Italy’s Maturita magistrale diploma were fully qualified to exercise the profession of primary school teacher in Italy. As a result, holders of this diploma could not work in any other Member State;

several fishing agreements concluded by Italy with third countries in breach of the EU’s exclusive competence in the field of fisheries; the Italian authorities subsequently provided evidence that the agreements have been terminated;

incorrect application of the Long-Term Residents Directive by limiting some core social benefits to its nationals and totally or partially excluding non-EU nationals who are long-term residents;

lack of controls on the illegal use of driftnets. Following a Court judgment in October 2009, and in the context of an action plan, Italy agreed to give top priority to implementing additional measures to eradicate illegal driftnet activities. The Commission monitored Italy’s implementation of the remedial actions included in the action plan over the first half of 2014;

late transposition of the directive implementing the Framework Agreement on prevention from sharp injuries in the hospital and healthcare sector concluded by the European Hospital and Healthcare Employers’ association (HOSPEEM) and the European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU);

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

failure to recover illegal and incompatible State aid to companies in Venice and Chioggia. The Commission proposes a daily fine of EUR 24 578.40 for the period between the previous Court judgment (on 6 October 2011) and the judgment in this case; the Commission also proposes a higher daily fine if Italy does not comply with the judgment in this case within six months.

c)The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU. This concerns:

nonconformity with the directive on compensation to crime victims; Italian legislation provides for compensation to victims of certain violent intentional crimes, such as terrorism and organised crime, but not for all of them.

the exclusion of National Health Service staff from certain rights under the Working Time Directive;

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

failure to efficiently implement functional airspace blocks. Under the Single European Sky legislation, national air traffic control organisations should work together in regional airspace blocks to gain efficiency, cut costs and reduce emissions. The set-up of these common airspace blocks is arranged around traffic flows rather than state boundaries, which leads to performance improvements.

alleged denial of access to the asylum procedure for migrants arriving from Greece and possibly in need of international protection (under the Dublin Regulation);

nonconformity of the national legislation with the Return Directive on aspects such as an effective forced-return monitoring system, criminalisation of irregular stay, detention and detention conditions;

incorrect application of the Drinking Water Directive (arsenic and fluoride in drinking water);

failure to comply with the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive in 900 agglomerations across Italy;

the trapping of birds with nets for use as live decoys;

incompatibility of the working conditions of some public sector staff with the Fixed-Term Directive; it appears that the salaries, paid leave linked to seniority and other entitlements of these staff are less generous than for permanent staff;

failure to comply with a Commission Decision and the subsequent judgment of the Court of Justice under Article 108(2) on investment aid to the hotel industry in Sardinia;

the incorrect application of the Authorisation Directive by not respecting the obligation to make administrative charges and costs for electronic communications providers transparent. In addition, some of the charges on smaller operators are discriminatory and disproportionate;

failure to comply with the regulation establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets by not imposing the necessary measures to effectively and efficiently recover levies owed by milk producers that exceeded their quota;

a)The Commission opened 41 new infringement cases against Italy in 2014. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

1.New complaints made against Italy by members of the public (2011-14)

The number of new complaints made against Italy has stabilised over the past two years at a rather high level. After a clear decline in 2012, new EU Pilot files increased again in 2014 to above the 2011 level. By contrast, the overall number of pending infringement cases reached a five-year low in 2014. New infringement cases for late transposition also fell further in 2014, to their lowest level in five years.

the principles of effectiveness and the right to good administration under EU asylum law allow Member States to apply national procedures under which an application for subsidiary protection is examined only after an application for refugee status has been refused, provided that it is possible to submit both applications at the same time and that the national rules do not make the procedure unreasonably long.

the Data Retention Directive is invalid. The retention of data required by the directive might be considered appropriate to meet the objective of fighting organised crime and terrorism, and therefore of improving public security. However, the directive’s wide-ranging and serious interference with the fundamental rights to respect of private life and to protection of personal data is not sufficiently limited to what is strictly necessary;

the definitions of ‘residence’ and ‘stay’ for the purposes of applying Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems apply when someone is suddenly taken seriously ill while on holiday in another Member State and is compelled to remain in that Member State as a result of the illness;

Member States are not required to grant maternity leave or adoption leave to a female worker who as a commissioning mother had a baby through a surrogacy arrangement;

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

There were no major Court rulings in 2014.

application of minimum and maximum prices on tobacco, which is in breach of the directive on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco.

discriminatory treatment of taxpayers receiving termination payments for their employment with group companies when they started their employment in another Member State in comparison with taxpayers who started their employment in Ireland;

lack of sanctions for misuse of air slots in breach of the Slot Regulation;

absence of transposition of the directive on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims;

failure to fully transpose the directive on the geological storage of carbon dioxide;

late transposition of the directive implementing the Framework Agreement on prevention from sharp injuries in the hospital and healthcare sector concluded by the European Hospital and Healthcare Employers’ association (HOSPEEM) and the European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU);

partial transposition of the Electricity Directive. The Commission proposed a daily penalty of EUR 20 358.

failure to fully transpose the Renewable Energy Directive. The Commission proposed a daily penalty of EUR 25 447.5;

The Commission referred two cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU. They concern:

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

incorrect application of the rules on fiscal marking of gas oils and kerosene by allowing the use of marked fuel for the purposes of private pleasure craft.

failure to apply the rules of the Working Time Directive to doctors in training and other non-consultant hospital doctors;

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

non-ratification of the Convention concerning Internal Carriage by Rail as amended by the Vilnius Protocol of 3 June 1999, in breach of Article 4(3) of the TFEU.

failure to efficiently implement functional airspace blocks. Under the Single European Sky legislation, national air traffic control organisations should work together in regional airspace blocks to gain efficiency, cut costs and reduce emissions. The set-up of these common airspace blocks is arranged around traffic flows rather than state boundaries, which leads to performance improvements;

exempting the Voluntary Health Insurance Board from the application of the Non-life Insurance Directives, although the criteria for exemption are no longer met;

failure to accept applications for a residence card lodged by family members during their first three months of residence, in breach of the directive on the right of EU citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States;

failure to protect peat land sites in breach of the Habitats Directive, the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and Article 4(3) of the TFEU;

the directive implementing the Framework Agreement on prevention from sharp injuries in the hospital and healthcare sector concluded by the European Hospital and Healthcare Employers’ association (HOSPEEM) and the European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU),

incorrect application of the Working Time Directive by applying the practice of ‘rolled-up’ holiday pay for part-time and fixed-term teachers;

incorrect application of the Working Time Directive by not counting the ‘sleepover’ hours of social care workers as working time and not granting them minimum daily and/or weekly rest periods or equivalent compensatory rest;

the incompatibility of national provisions on annual leave with Working Time Directive as regards the carry-over period for leave not taken due to illness;

a)The Commission opened 21 new infringement cases against Ireland in 2014. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

1.New complaints made against Ireland by members of the public (2011-14)

The number of new complaints made against Ireland has been constantly increasing and in 2014 approached double the 2011 level. However, new EU Pilot files opened against Ireland nearly halved from their 2013 peak. The overall number of pending infringement cases has not varied much over the last four years, with 2014 seeing a slight rise back to 2011 levels. New infringement cases for late transposition remained very low for the third year running, at less than one third of their levels in 2010 and 2011.

the different tax treatment of a company belonging to a group can constitute indirect discrimination contrary to EU law if the companies affected by the highest band of the special retail tax are linked in the majority of cases to companies which have their registered office in another EU Member State.

excluding the participation in a tendering procedure of an economic operator who has committed an infringement of competition law established by a judicial decision is allowed under Directive 2004/18/EC; as a consequence such exclusion is also allowed under Articles 49 and 56 TFEU regarding public contracts which fall below the EU thresholds;

an import permit that does not comply with the conditions laid down in the regulation on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade in them is void only in respect of those animals that are actually affected by its invalidity. These animals are the only ones that may be seized and possibly confiscated by the competent authority of the Member State where they are situated. The national proceedings concerned Hungary’s decision to invalidate the permits issued by Bulgaria on the import of animals and to confiscate the animals;

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

EU law precludes exempting from excise duties fruit distillates (pálinka) produced under both contract and private distillation.

Hungary infringed Union law by ending the term served by its data protection supervisor before the expiry of the term of office. The independence of the authorities responsible for data protection, as laid down in the Data Protection Directive, requires Member States to allow them to serve their full term of office;

incorrect transposition of the right to appeal against decisions refusing, annulling or revoking visas;

completing the notification of national transposing measures under the Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment Directive;

failure to fully transpose the directive improving and extending the EU greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme and the directive on the geological storage of carbon dioxide;

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.

the restrictive issuing conditions of meal and holiday vouchers under the new national legal framework.

b)The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. It concerns:

in the area of taxation, discriminatory municipal taxation of non-residents, the application of two excise duty rates on ethyl alcohol and the sales restriction on tobacco products already released for consumption.

failure to establish the preconditions needed for the European Electronic Toll Service to function;

implementation of an earlier Court ruling on the First Railway Package;

incompatibility of working conditions of urban bus drivers with the Working Time Directive;

failure to efficiently implement functional airspace blocks. Under the Single European Sky legislation, national air traffic control organisations should work together in regional airspace blocks to gain efficiency, cut costs and reduce emissions. The set-up of these common airspace blocks is arranged around traffic flows rather than state boundaries, which leads to performance improvements;

requirement to have Hungarian nationality to work as notary;

national legislation adopted in December 2013 that on 1 May 2014 terminated all existing usufruct (the right to use land and profit from it) and use rights which had been granted for agricultural land by a contract between parties other than close relatives. This radically shortened the 20-year transitional period adopted in 2012 to four and a half months. The measure has affected people and businesses from other EU Member States that had acquired such rights for an unlimited period of time or that bought lifelong usufruct on small plots of land before 2002;

the so-called ‘Plaza Stop Law’, which banned the construction and expansion of retail outlets larger than 300 m² from January 2012 until December 2014. A government decree introduced the possibility of requesting an exemption from this ban, but the criteria for granting an exemption were unclear and included a potential ‘economic needs’ test;

the award of a contract for the development and operation of an e-tolling system on the Hungarian motorways without a prior competitive procedure;

a possible infringement of the general EU law principle of effectiveness and the regulation on the implementation of the competition rules through an amendment of the Act on Inter-branch Organisations concerning agricultural products, which restricts the power of the National Competition Authority;

a procedure in the National Media Act allows the assignment of ‘temporary’ licences to use radio spectrum for up to three years in certain cases. This might be disproportionate to the general objectives of the Authorisation Directive;

a)The Commission opened 38 new infringement cases against Hungary in 2014. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

1.New complaints made against Hungary by members of the public (2011-14)

The number of new complaints made against Hungary rose slightly in 2014 after two years of decline. New EU Pilot files opened against Hungary fell for the second year running from their 2012 peak. The overall number of pending infringement cases has fluctuated to some extent over the last five years. New infringement cases for late transposition rose back to their 2012 level but were still considerably lower than in 2010 and 2011.

a person’s right to be heard before Member State authorities adopt any decision under the Community Customs Code may be relied on directly by individuals before national courts.

a resident parent company should be allowed to form a single tax entity with a resident sub-subsidiary even when the latter is not permanently established in that Member State. Sister companies resident in one Member State with a parent company resident in another Member State should also be allowed to form a fiscal unit;

the provisions of the Free Movement of Citizens Directive apply to a EU national who has created or strengthened a family life with a non-EU national during genuine residence in another Member State and when he returns with that family member to his Member State of origin;

data about an applicant for a residence permit that are contained in an administrative document (including the data in the document’s legal analysis) are personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Directive. The person whose data have been processed can request a full summary of the data in an intelligible form;

national authorities must ensure the respect of fundamental rights when assessing the credibility of the declared sexual orientation of applicants for asylum. This excludes intrusive and humiliating medical or pseudo-medical tests, intrusive questioning and requiring photographic or video evidence of sexual practices. The assessment cannot be based on stereotyped notions and should always take full account of the individual situation and personal circumstances of the applicant;

a plan or project that has negative implications for a natural habitat present on a ‘Natura 2000’ site and that provides for the creation of an area of equal or greater size of the same natural habitat type within the same site has an effect on the integrity of that site. Protective measures that are provided for in a project and are aimed at compensating for its negative effects on a Natura 2000 site cannot be taken into account in the assessment of the project’s implications. Such measures can be categorised as ‘compensatory measures’ within the meaning of the Habitats Directive if the conditions it sets out are met;

the directive on approximating national legislation on protecting employees in the event of their employer’s insolvency must be interpreted as prohibiting national legislation which treats a non-EU national who is not legally resident in the Member State concerned as not being an employee with the right to an insolvency benefit even if recognised under Member State law as having the status of an ‘employee’;

a Member State is required to recalculate a farmer’s payment entitlements under the regulation laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system;

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

There were no major Court rulings in 2014.

incorrect application of the regulation on the rights of bus and coach passengers by not designating bus terminals where disabled people are entitled to receive assistance, not designating a national enforcement body and not setting up a penalty system for infringements of the regulation.

incorrect application of the Long-Term Residents Directive by requiring disproportionate fees for processing applications for long-term residence status;

non-communication of national measures transposing the directive on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims;

The Commission did not refer any case 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 fully comply with EU rules on VAT exemptions for water sport activities. The Netherlands grants a VAT exemption if the water sport organisations only employ volunteers to supply sport or physical education services and an exemption on the letting of berths and moorings for vessels provided by water sport organisations, even when they are not linked to sport activities.

the refusal to allow Erasmus students and students from other Member States who are not economically active in the Netherlands or have not obtained a permanent right of residence to benefit from the reduced transport fares granted to Dutch students;

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

incorrect application of the directive on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies. Dutch law does not require the set-up of a Special Negotiating Body whose task is to discuss employee participation rights.

discriminatory taxation of outbound dividends received by insurance companies. Only dividends paid on shares held by Dutch insurance companies are actually tax exempt;

incomplete transposition of the Capital Requirements Directive and the Cross-border Healthcare Directive;

incorrect transposition of the directive on the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers. Drivers born before 1 July 1955 are wrongly exempted from the periodic training requirements stipulated in the directive;

failure to efficiently implement functional airspace blocks. Under the Single European Sky legislation, national air traffic control organisations should work together in regional airspace blocks to gain efficiency, cut costs and reduce emissions. The set-up of these common airspace blocks is arranged around traffic flows rather than state boundaries, which leads to performance improvements;

failure to halt ongoing deterioration of the Westerschelde ‘Natura 2000’ site as required by the Habitats Directive;

the amount of a survivor’s benefits, work incapacity benefits and supplementary allowances will be reduced when exported to a recipient residing outside the EU/EEA area and Switzerland, if the cost of living is lower in this country than in the Netherlands. This is in breach of the EU-Turkey Association Council Decision No 3/80;

a)The Commission opened 13 new infringement cases against the Netherlands in 2014. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

5.EU Pilot files: evolution of the resolution rate by the Netherlands (2011-14)

2.Evolution of files relating to the Netherlands open in EU Pilot

1.New complaints made against the Netherlands by members of the public (2011-14)

In 2014 the number of new complaints made against the Netherlands continued falling from its 2012 peak and new EU Pilot files opened against it declined considerably. The overall number of pending infringement cases in 2014 was the lowest for five years. New infringement cases for late transposition remained stable after the big drop seen in 2012.

No major preliminary rulings were addressed to the Maltese judiciary in 2014.

There were no major Court rulings in 2014.

discriminatory bus fares for non-residents compared to those for residents.

incomplete transposition of the directive on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims;

nonconformity with EU law of the Maltese legislation on access to justice in environmental matters;

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.

the situation of some Maltese nationals who previously worked under the UK civil servant scheme and whose UK pensions are deducted from their Maltese retirement pensions.

b)The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. This concerns:

failure to efficiently implement functional airspace blocks. Under the Single European Sky legislation, national air traffic control organisations should work together in regional airspace blocks to gain efficiency, cut costs and reduce emissions. The set-up of these common airspace blocks is arranged around traffic flows rather than state boundaries, which leads to performance improvements.

finch-trapping, which is prohibited under EU legislation on the conservation of wild birds;

a)The Commission opened 16 new infringement cases against Malta in 2014. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

1.New complaints made against Malta by members of the public (2011-14)

The number of new complaints made against Malta increased in 2014 after two years of decline but remained well below the 2011 and 2012 totals. New EU Pilot files opened against Malta fell considerably from 2013’s peak to a level almost identical with 2012. The downward trend in the overall number of pending infringements continued in 2014, taking open cases against Malta on 31 December 2014 to the lowest level of the last five years. New infringement cases for late transposition held unchanged at their lowest level since 2010.

to calculate the supplementary family benefits to which a migrant worker is entitled in his/her Member State of employment, the latter should take into account only the same family benefits the worker received in their Member State of residence.

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

There were no major Court rulings in 2014.

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.

the VAT system applied to independent groups of people: the services provided by an independent group to its members are free of VAT provided that the members’ taxed activities do not exceed 30 % (or 45 % under certain conditions) of their annual turnover. This is not compatible with the EU’s VAT rules.

the Labour code’s incompatibility with the Fixed-Term Work Directive regarding the advertising of vacancies and workers in casual employment in show business;

the national regulatory authority (the Institut Luxembourgeois de Régulation) had failed to carry out a timely analysis of the relevant markets for fixed access to the public telephone network and for leased lines, in breach of EU telecoms rules;

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

incomplete transposition of the Capital Requirements Directive and of the Cross-border Healthcare Directive.

failure to efficiently implement functional airspace blocks. Under the Single European Sky legislation, national air traffic control organisations should work together in regional airspace blocks to gain efficiency, cut costs and reduce emissions. The set-up of these common airspace blocks is arranged around traffic flows rather than state boundaries, which leads to performance improvements;

incorrect transposition of the Railway Interoperability Directive due to shortcomings in safety management, the validity of safety certificates, the independence, tasks and decision-making of the safety authority and the independence of the investigating body;

the incorrect application of the regulation on the rights of bus and coach passengers by not setting up a penalty system for infringements of the regulation;

failure to communicate to the Commission its long-term strategy for mobilising investment in renovating the national stock of residential and commercial buildings and its national energy efficiency action plan, as required under Energy Efficiency Directive;

incorrect transposition of the Working Time Directive as regards the annual leave of civil servants;

non-compliance with the information injunctions in the context of tax ruling and patent box enquiries based on the State aid Procedural Regulation;

a)The Commission opened 28 new infringement cases against Luxembourg in 2014. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

1.New complaints made against Luxembourg by members of the public (2011-14)

The number of new complaints made against Luxembourg increased considerably in 2014 but new EU Pilot files opened against it fell from 2013’s peak. The overall number of pending infringement cases has not fluctuated greatly over the last five years. New infringement cases for late transposition fell, holding well below the 2010 and 2011 levels.

the national legislation stipulating that a hot water meter that satisfies all the requirements of the directive on measuring instruments and is connected to a remote data-transmission device cannot be used for its intended purpose if it has not undergone a metrological verification as a measuring system infringes the free movement of goods principle.

the free movement of goods principle does not permit national legislation that requires precious metal articles to be controlled and stamped again when they have been imported from another Member State where they have already been authorised to be put on the market and stamped with a hallmark in accordance with that Member State’s legislation;

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

the obligation imposed by Lithuanian law to move the steering wheel of right-hand drive vehicles to the left-hand side for road safety reasons infringes EU law.

nonconformity of national measures with the directive on separation of accounts in the rail sector.

incorrect application of the Wild Birds Directive due to the insufficient designation of Special Protection Areas;

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 efficiently implement functional airspace blocks. Under the Single European Sky legislation, national air traffic control organisations should work together in regional airspace blocks to gain efficiency, cut costs and reduce emissions. The set-up of these common airspace blocks is arranged around traffic flows rather than state boundaries, which leads to performance improvements;

violation of the principle of freedom to provide services in the port of Klaipeda;

nonconformity of national legislation with the directive on free movement and residence rights of EU citizens and their family members;

restrictions on the right of EU nationals to become members of a political party or to found one in the Member State of residence;

violation of the principle of free movement of goods by requiring articles of precious metal imported from another EU country to be stamped with an additional national hallmark even when they have already been lawfully hallmarked and marketed in the EU;

non-communication of national measures transposing the Capital Requirements Directive, the Industrial Emissions Directive and one directive concerning the automotive sector;

incorrect application of the rule in the Fuel Quality Directive requiring Member States to ensure that the ethanol content of petrol placed on the market within their territory is below 10 %;

nonconformity of the national legislation with the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. Under Lithuanian law, television broadcasts from another Member State may be suspended if they contain information on gay marriage or homosexual couples starting families. This restriction could go beyond the scope of the derogations contained in the directive regarding the protection of minors;

a)The Commission opened 21 new infringement cases against Lithuania in 2014. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

1.New complaints made against Lithuania by members of the public (2011-14)

The number of new complaints made against Lithuania has hardly changed over the last four years. However, new EU Pilot files opened against Lithuania fell visibly in 2014 from their 2013 peak. The number of pending infringement cases rose slightly but remained far below the 2011 level. New infringement cases for late transposition fell marginally and were well below half the total in 2011.

the directive on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which authorises the issue of a European firearms pass only to holders of weapons used for hunting and target-shooting.

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

There were no major Court rulings in 2014.

breach of the principle of free movement of goods regarding the requirements for type approval of car rugs and the presence of a representative of the manufacturer;

exclusion of workers in areas deemed not dangerous from the right to health surveillance;

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.

lack of effective control by the judiciary in cases where traders seek enforcement, outside ordinary court procedures, of claims that are based on unfair contract terms or violate the rules on consumer credit. This includes recourse to commercial arbitration bodies which do not apply consumer law.

failure to efficiently implement functional airspace blocks. Under the Single European Sky legislation, national air traffic control organisations should work together in regional airspace blocks to gain efficiency, cut costs and reduce emissions. The set-up of these common airspace blocks is arranged around traffic flows rather than state boundaries, which leads to performance improvements;

violation of the right of EU nationals to become members of a political party or to found one in the Member State of residence;

lack of effective judicial remedy against the refusal, annulment or revocation of a visa, in breach of the provisions of the Visa Code;

non-respect of EU air quality standards (PM10 limit values) in several zones and agglomerations;

exclusion of workers in areas deemed not dangerous from the right to health surveillance;

a)The Commission opened 23 new infringement cases against Slovakia in 2014. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

1.New complaints made against Slovakia by members of the public (2011-14)

The number of new complaints made against Slovakia fell slightly in 2014, the third consecutive decline. New EU Pilot files opened against Slovakia and the overall number of pending infringement cases have not changed much over the last five years. New infringement cases for late transposition showed a small fall but were above the low reached in 2012.

prior medical authorisation under the regulation on the coordination of social security systems cannot be refused because the hospital concerned cannot provide medication and basic medical supplies and infrastructure in good time in the insured person’s Member State of residence.

national provisions which exclude producers from the benefit of agriculture aids because of their debts to national or local budgets are incompatible with the regulation establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the Common Agricultural Policy and certain support schemes for farmers;

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

There were no major Court rulings in 2014.

incorrect application of the VAT Directive regarding the treatment of non-recovered leased goods.

incorrect application of the directive on veterinary checks in intra-EU trade by confiscating meat originating from Denmark;

nonconformity of national legislation with the directive on the separation of accounts in the rail sector;

incorrect application of the regulation on the rights of bus and coach passengers by not designating a national enforcement body nor setting up a penalty system for infringements of the regulation;

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.

nonconformity of the national transposition measures with the Railway Safety Directive.

failure to efficiently implement functional airspace blocks. Under the Single European Sky legislation, national air traffic control organisations should work together in regional airspace blocks to gain efficiency, cut costs and reduce emissions. The set-up of these common airspace blocks is arranged around traffic flows rather than state boundaries, which leads to performance improvements;

non-communication of measures transposing the Capital Requirements Directive and the Cross-border Healthcare Directive;

non-compliance in waters and resources under Romanian jurisdiction with the principle of equal access rights for vessels flying the flag of other Member States;

incorrect application of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive in relation to lignite quarries in the Gorj Region;

failure to operate waste landfills in accordance with the provisions of the Landfill Directive;

non-respect of EU air quality standards (PM10 limit values) in several zones and agglomerations;

failure to communicate to the Commission its national energy efficiency action plan as required under the Energy Efficiency Directive;

barriers to exports of natural gas by, inter alia, requiring gas transactions to undergo prior checks and approval;

nonconformity with the Working Time Directive of the national legislation on annual leave for government employees;

a)The Commission opened 50 new infringement cases against Romania in 2014. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

1.New complaints made against Romania by members of the public (2011-14)

The number of new complaints made against Romania fell in 2014 but remains relatively high. New EU Pilot files opened against Romania declined for the third consecutive year. However, the number of pending infringements increased considerably after three years of stability. New infringement cases for late transposition also rose for the first time since 2011.

the in-house exemption (which makes it possible to not apply the public procurement directives) requires, amongst other conditions, that the contracting authority exercises over the contractor a control similar to the control that it exercises over its own departments. This condition is not met if a private undertaking or a non-profit entity makes any investment in the capital of a company of which the awarding authority is also part.

In a preliminary ruling addressed to the Portuguese judiciary, the Court ruled that:

Portugal failed to organise a procedure for selecting suppliers to provide ground-handling services for baggage handling, ‘ramp handling’ and freight and mail handling at Lisbon, Porto and Faro airports.

Portugal was still failing to correctly transpose the provisions of the Universal Service Directive despite the Court’s earlier judgment. Since the Court found that Portugal had not designated the companies responsible for providing the universal service by using a procedure that is consistent with the directive, and in the end had not provided the requested proof of the termination of the designated provider, it ordered Portugal to pay a lump sum of EUR 3 million, plus a daily penalty of EUR 10 000 until it complies with the first judgment;

designation of national bodies and sanctions for protecting passenger rights when travelling by sea and inland waterway.

incorrect transposition of the directive on public participation in the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment;

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

failure to implement a judgment of the Court of Justice finding that Portugal was failing in its obligation to collect, treat and dispose of urban waste water adequately since seven agglomerations across the country with populations of more than 15 000 lacked the necessary collection systems and 15 lacked adequate treatment systems. The Commission proposed a lump sum of EUR 4 458 828 and a daily penalty of EUR 20 196 until the obligations are met.

c)The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU. This concerns:

discrimination against taxpayers who cease to be tax-resident in Portugal.

failure to guarantee the independence of the airport slot coordinator;

failure to establish guidelines for assessing infrastructure safety for road infrastructure in the trans-European network (TEN-T);

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

incorrect application of the regulation on the rights of passengers travelling by bus and coach;

incorrect application of the regulation on the rights of passengers travelling by train;

failure to efficiently implement functional airspace blocks. Under the Single European Sky legislation, national air traffic control organisations should work together in regional airspace blocks to gain efficiency, cut costs and reduce emissions. The set-up of these common airspace blocks is arranged around traffic flows rather than state boundaries, which leads to performance improvements;

failure to ratify the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage 2001 (the Bunkers Convention);

failure to comply with a Court judgment that Portugal has not ensured adequate urban waste water treatment in sensitive areas;

failure to communicate to the Commission its long-term strategy for mobilising investment in renovating the national stock of residential and commercial buildings as required under Energy Efficiency Directive;

discriminatory treatment of HVO and biofuels in violation of the Renewable Energy Directive;

a)The Commission opened 33 new infringement cases against Portugal in 2014. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

1.New complaints made against Portugal by members of the public (2011 -14)

The number of new complaints made against Portugal continued to increase and reached in 2014 the highest level in the last four years. The number of new EU Pilot files opened against Portugal fluctuated over the last years. In 2014, this number was higher than in 2013, but nonetheless lower than in 2012. As regards the overall number of pending infringements, the descending trend registered over the last years was discontinued in 2014, when the number of cases very slightly increased as compared to the previous year. In the area of transposition of directives, the positive trend noted in the last years continued in 2014. The number of new late transposition infringement cases against Portugal was in 2014 the smallest over the last five years.

the taxation of non-EU investment funds receiving dividends from Polish companies must be the same as that of similar domestic funds, provided that the fund’s State of residence is bound by an obligation under a convention on mutual administrative assistance. This convention must enable the Polish tax authorities to verify any information which may be provided by the investment fund.

the non-discrimination rule in the Fixed-Term Work Directive also applies to notice periods;

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

Poland’s designation of nitrate vulnerable zones was insufficient and so were the measures contained in the action programmes;

Poland was in breach of the directive on the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment because producers were not legally obliged to inform the authorities if they cultivated genetically modified crops and no register was set up to list the locations where such crops were grown;

the Polish requirement that the steering wheel of right-hand drive vehicles must be moved to the left-hand side for road safety reasons infringes Union law since this cannot be considered necessary to achieve the stated goal;

the award of land lease contracts in the Port of Gdansk in breach of the principle of freedom of establishment.

transposition of the Mining Waste Directive; Poland is now in compliance;

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.

Poland’s system of regulated gas prices for non-household customers in violation of the Gas Directive.

failure to comply with EU legislation on the quality and safety of human tissues and cells;

national legislation specifying grounds for exclusion from tenders that differ from those provided for by the Public Procurement Directive. The exclusion concerned cases in which economic operators who had been awarded a contract had failed to perform it correctly and in which the contract had terminated due to circumstances for which they were responsible;

failure to notify the Commission of the penalties put in place to deal with cases where the EU rules for companies and personnel working with fluorinated gases are not followed;

b)The Commission pursued before the Court four cases under Article 258 TFEU. They concern:

lack of a national enforcement body, of sanctions and of designated bus terminals for disabled bus and coach passengers;

non-implementation of an earlier Court ruling on the First Railway Package;

award of land lease contracts in the Port of Gdansk in breach of the principle of freedom of establishment;

failure to efficiently implement functional airspace blocks. Under the Single European Sky legislation, national air traffic control organisations should work together in regional airspace blocks to gain efficiency, cut costs and reduce emissions. The set-up of these common airspace blocks is arranged around traffic flows rather than state boundaries, which leads to performance improvements

the right of EU nationals to become members of a political party or to found one in the Member State of residence;

incorrect transposition of the right to appeal against decisions refusing, annulling or revoking visas;

incorrect transposition of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive with regard to mining activities;

inadequate river basin management plans, which are required under the Water Framework Directive;

granting of a building permit for two new units of a coal-fired power station without having carried out the assessment for retrofitting of CO2 capture prescribed by the Large Combustion Plants Directive;

exclusion of certain biofuels(HVO) from the Polish biofuels market and counting towards the national target in violation of the Renewable Energy Directive;

a)The Commission opened 35 new infringement cases against Poland in 2014. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, concern:

1.New complaints made against Poland by members of the public (2011-14)

In 2014 the number of new complaints made against Poland fell slightly from 2013’s peak. New EU Pilot files opened against Poland remained stable after the sharp fall recorded in 201