·monies deposited in the current account that are pledged to the bank as financial collateral to cover all the account holder’s debts fall within the scope of the Directive on financial collateral arrangements if those monies have been ‘provided’ to the bank, that is, the collateral provider must be prevented from disposing of such monies lodged in the ordinary bank account. The Court also confirmed that the collateral does not normally fall within the scope of the Directive if it was provided after the launch of an insolvency procedure but can be enforceable in exceptional circumstances.

·a Member State is not required to grant every EU citizen who has moved within its territory the same protection against extradition as that granted to its own nationals. However, before extraditing the citizen, the Member State concerned must give priority to the exchange of information with the Member State of origin and allow that Member State to request the citizen’s surrender for the purposes of prosecution;

In preliminary rulings addressed to the Latvian judiciary, the Court held that:

There were no major Court rulings in 2016.

·failure to fulfil obligations under the Directive on driving licences.

· completing the notification of all national measures necessary to transpose the Bank Resolution and Recovery Directive and the Directive on alternative investment fund managers;

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 transpose in full one or more of the three Directives on public procurement and concessions.

·failure to transpose in full the Directive amending EU legislation on the recognition of professional qualifications and the Internal Market Information System;

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

·failure to communicate all national measures transposing the Capital Requirements Directive and the Directive amending the Transparency Directive;

a)The Commission opened 23 new infringement cases against Latvia in 2016. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:

1.New complaints made against Latvia by members of the public (2012-2016)

All the main indicators for Latvia worsened in 2016. New complaints doubled to their highest level since 2012 while the number of new EU Pilot files rose slightly after several years of steady decrease. Open infringement cases and new cases for late transposition both continued to increase.

No major preliminary rulings were addressed to the Cyprus judiciary in 2016.

·Cyprus has treated migrant workers unequally by providing that those who left the national civil service to work within the EU institutions or within another international organisation lose their pension right and receive only a lump sum payment. By contrast, civil servants who remained in their position or took up another civil service position in Cyprus received the lump sum and retained their pension right.

·completing the transposition of the Directive on over-reliance on credit ratings.

·possible discrimination of nationals of other Member States regarding bus fares;

·non-communication of national measures transposing the Directive on priority substances in the field of water policy;

·failure to implement the Eurodac Regulation, which sets up an EU asylum fingerprint database;

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 transpose in full the Directive amending EU legislation on the recognition of professional qualifications and the Internal Market Information System;

·failure to transpose in full two Directives on public procurement and concessions;

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

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

·non-compliance with the Regulation on the marketing and use of explosives precursors;

a)The Commission opened 45 new infringement cases against Cyprus in 2016. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:

1.New complaints made against Cyprus by members of the public (2012-2016)

New complaints against Cyprus increased in 2016, equalling their 2014 level. The number of infringement cases open at the end of the year rose sharply to a new peak. The rising trend in new infringement cases for late transposition seen since 2012 continued, although the number remained below the 2011 level. In contrast, the number of new EU Pilot files against Cyprus dropped further.

·the term ‘small areas at local level’, under the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive, refers to areas under the territorial jurisdiction of the local authority preparing and/or adopting the plan or programme concerned, and which are small in size relative to that territorial jurisdiction;

·the Mining Waste Directive does not have the effect of making subject to the requirements of the Landfill Directive an operation which entails the backfilling of a quarry with waste other than extractive waste, if that operation does not amount to a disposal but to a recovery of waste;

·the Commission may require Member States to remove all plants capable of being infected by the Xylella fastidiosa bacterium, even when there are no symptoms of infection, when such plants are in the vicinity of plants already affected by that bacterium. That measure is proportionate to the objective of protecting plant health in the European Union and is justified by the precautionary principle, taking into consideration the scientific evidence available to the Commission when the measure was adopted;

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

·Italy has failed to fulfil its obligations under EU law by failing to guarantee just and appropriate compensation for victims of all violent intentional crimes committed in cross-border situations. The Directive on compensation to victims of crime requires that all violent intentional crimes, as defined in the national legislation of each Member State, should give access to compensation from the state. Member States may not limit the scope of the compensation scheme for victims to only certain violent intentional crimes. The Court also confirmed that the principle of the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of nationality should be observed as regards access to compensation for the victims of crime in cross-border situations.

·incorrect implementation of the principles governing the investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector;

·failure to fulfil obligations under the Directive on driving licences;

·completing the notification of all national measures necessary to transpose the Capital Requirements Directive and the Directive on alternative investment fund managers;

·bad application of the Birds Directive in relation to the trapping of live decoys using nets;

·failure to implement the Eurodac Regulation, which sets up an EU asylum fingerprint database;

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.

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

·fishing activities of Italian-flagged vessels in the waters under the jurisdiction of Guinea-Bissau and the Gambia in violation of the EU provisions and the fisheries partnership agreements;

·breach of the rules on the separation of accounts under the First Railway Package;

·incorrect transposition of the Directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes;

·non-respect of the PM10 limit values set by the Air Quality Directive;

·non-compliance with the Prüm Decisions on information-sharing to combat terrorism and serious crime;

·non-compliance with the Commission’s Decision on measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the EU of the plant bacterium Xylella fastidiosa;

a)The Commission opened 19 new infringement cases against Italy in 2016. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:

1.New complaints made against Italy by members of the public (2012-2016)

New complaints against Italy jumped again in 2016, by approximately 20 % from the 2015 level and by around 50 % from the 2012-2014 levels. By contrast, the numbers of new EU Pilot files and of open infringement cases at year-end were down. New infringement cases for late transposition fell again to a five-year low.

·national legislation which provides that the price of water services invoiced to the consumer includes not only a variable component calculated according to the volume of water actually consumed by the person concerned, but also a fixed component not connected with that volume, is compatible with the Water Framework Directive.

In a preliminary ruling addressed to the Croatian judiciary, the Court held that:

There were no major Court rulings in 2016.

·completing the notification of all national measures necessary to transpose the Bank Resolution and Recovery Directive and the Financial Conglomerates Directive;

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

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

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

·non-ratification of the Protocol of Accession to the Eurocontrol International Convention.

·failure to correctly transpose and implement the EU rules on driving licences;

·the discriminatory framework for the purchase of sport fishing licences to the disadvantage of non-residents, in breach of the Services Directive;

·failure to transpose in full the three Directives on public procurement and concessions;

·the reduced excise duty rate for small producers of ethyl alcohol. This seems to be incompatible with the Excise Duty Directive on alcohol and alcoholic beverages;

·the special powers reserved for the state in the main energy company, INA (Industrija Nafte d.d.), following its privatisation. These may restrict the free movement of capital and freedom of establishment under the TFEU;

·failure to comply with the free movement of goods and the EU internal energy market rules;

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

·non-compliance with the Prüm Decisions on information-sharing to combat terrorism and serious crime;

a)The Commission opened 32 new infringement cases against Croatia in 2016. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:

1.New complaints made against Croatia by members of the public (2013-2016)

New complaints against Croatia continued to drop in 2016, to less than half their 2014 peak. The number of new EU Pilot files also fell slightly. In contrast, infringement cases open at the end of the year doubled. New infringement cases for late transposition also reached a new peak.

·A commercial practice consisting of the sale of a computer equipped with pre-installed software without any option for the consumer to purchase the same model of computer not equipped with pre-installed software does not in itself constitute an unfair commercial practice within the meaning of Article 5(2) of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, unless such a practice is contrary to the requirements of professional diligence and materially distorts or is likely to materially distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer with regard to the product, a matter which is for the national court to determine by taking account of the specific circumstances of the case in the main proceedings. In the context of a combined offer consisting of the sale of a computer equipped with pre-installed software, the failure to indicate the price of each of those items of pre-installed software does not constitute a misleading commercial practice within the meaning of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive.

-the effects of the contested provision are maintained only for the period strictly necessary to adopt the measures remedying the irregularity.

-annulment of the contested provision would create a legal vacuum in the transposition of EU environmental law which would be more damaging to the environment; and

-a new national provision would not avoid damage to the environment arising from annulment of the contested provision;

·a national court may, exceptionally and on a case-by-case basis, limit in time the effects of a declaration of the illegality of a national provision adopted in disregard of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive, provided that such a limitation is dictated by an overriding consideration linked to environmental protection and having regard to the specific circumstances of the case. However, this power may be exercised only if the following conditions are satisfied:

·roll cores in the form of rolls, tubes or cylinders, around which flexible material is wound and sold to consumers, constitute ‘packaging’ under the Packaging Directive;

·security of supply and territorial cohesion might be objectives in the general economic interest which may justify state intervention in fixing the price of supply of natural gas to household customers. However, such intervention would be compatible with the Gas Directive only if strict requirements were met, including proportionality and non-discrimination;

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

·France has failed to provide adequate treatment of urban waste water in several smaller agglomerations.

·enactment of administrative provisions respecting the proportionality requirements as regards the 3 % tax on properties in France owned by foreign companies.

·failure to fulfil obligations under the Directive on driving licences;

·completing the notification of all national measures necessary to transpose:

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 transpose in full the Directive amending EU legislation on the recognition of professional qualifications and the Internal Market Information System.

·excessive and unjustified obstacles in the area of professional services that run counter to the Professional Qualifications Directive;

·non-communication of national measures transposing the Directive on priority substances in the field of water policy;

·restrictions on the provision of transport services and free movement of goods;

·breach of the rules on the separation of accounts under the Directive establishing a single European railway area;

·failure to comply with the Third Internal Energy Market Package;

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

·non-compliance with the Regulation on the marketing and use of explosives precursors;

a)The Commission opened 39 new infringement cases against France in 2016. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:

1.New complaints made against France by members of the public (2012-2016)

All the main indicators for France worsened in 2016. New complaints continued their upward trend, reaching their highest level in 5 years. The number of new EU Pilot files also rose, reversing a continuous fall since 2012. Continuing the trend seen since 2012, the number of open infringement cases rose slightly. New infringement cases for late transposition showed a more marked increase, hitting their highest level in 5 years.

·the Commission’s decisions on remission of import duties, addressed to one or more Member States, are not of direct and individual concern to the operators concerned; thus they are not challengeable by way of direct action under Article 263 TFEU, fourth paragraph, but by way of indirect action before a national court via the preliminary ruling procedure set out in Article 267 TFEU.

·the Framework Directive on electronic communications networks and services does not preclude the possibility for national regulatory authorities to merge into one multisectoral authority provided that, in performing those tasks, that body meets the requirements of competence, independence, impartiality and transparency laid down by the Directive. In addition, an effective right of appeal to an independent body must be available against its decisions, which is a matter to be determined by the national court;

·a Member State may refuse an application for family reunification if the sponsor does not have sufficient, stable and regular resources to maintain himself and the members of his family without recourse to the social assistance system of that Member State. Such a decision could be based on the prospective assessment of the likelihood of the sponsor retaining, or failing to retain, the necessary stable and regular resources in the year following the date of submission of the application for family reunification. The assessment is based on the pattern of the sponsor’s income in the 6 months preceding the date of the application;

·a national of a non-EU country who has the sole care of an EU citizen who is a minor cannot be automatically refused a residence permit or expelled from the territory of the European Union on the sole ground that he has a criminal record. To be capable of being adopted, an expulsion measure must be proportionate and founded on the personal conduct of the national of a non-EU country. Moreover, that conduct must constitute a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat adversely affecting one of the fundamental interests of the society of the host Member State.

·Member States’ may adopt or retain in force stricter measures to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing than the rules laid down in the Directive on the prevention of the use of the financial system for money laundering and terrorist financing. These measures, however, must be justified by the level of risk and must be proportionate;

·National case-law cannot temporally limit the restitutory effects connected with a finding of unfairness by a court, in respect of a clause contained in a contract concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier, to amounts overpaid under such a clause after the delivery of the decision in which the finding of unfairness is made.The case concerned a decision by the Spanish Supreme Court of 2013 which had found so-called floor clauses in loan contracts concluded by consumers to be unfair, but had ruled that this finding would have effect only from the date of its judgment, thereby excluding restitution claims by consumers for overpayments made in the past;

In preliminary rulings addressed to the Spanish judiciary, the Court held that:

·the Commission’s appeals are unfounded in relation to the General Court’s rulings to annul the Commission’s decisions on the reduction of the EU contribution to various projects (due to irregularities in public procurements) because the Commission had not adopted its decision within the six-month deadline indicated in the General Structural Fund Regulation.

·Spain has infringed the Landfill Directive by not taking the necessary measures to ensure that non-compliant landfills do not continue to operate unless they satisfy the requirements of the Directive;

·Spain has not fulfilled its obligations under the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive in relation to a project for the building of a high-speed railway line between Seville and Almeria;

·Spain has failed to ensure the adequate treatment of urban waste water from four agglomerations discharging into sensitive areas;

·incorrect implementation of the Regulation on the rights of passengers travelling by sea and inland waterway;

·failure to fulfil obligations under the Directive on driving licences;

·non-compliance with the Mediterranean Regulation regarding the obligation to adopt management plans for fisheries conducted by dredges;

·notification of all national measures necessary to transpose the Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive and the Directive on alternative investment fund managers;

·two cases related to the incompatibility of national law on the Guardia Civil with the Working Time Directive as regards maximum working time, minimum rest periods and the protective provisions concerning night work;

·the notification of all national measures necessary to transpose the Bank Resolution and Recovery Directive;

·incorrect transposition of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive by the Tourism Act in the Balearic Islands;

·breach of EU citizens’ right to stand as candidates in local and European elections in the Member State of residence due to restrictions on their involvement in political parties;

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

·failure to comply with a previous judgment of the Court concerning freedom of establishment at Spanish ports.

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

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

·failure to transpose in full the Directive amending EU legislation on the recognition of professional qualifications and the Internal Market Information System;

·failure to transpose in full the three Directives on public procurement and concessions;

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

·failure to comply with EU rules on access to the occupation of road transport operator;

·failure to comply with the Third Internal Energy Market Package;

·failure to comply with the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive;

·trapping of finches in breach of the requirements of the Birds Directive;

·less favourable treatment of fixed-term staff in the public sector, which raises concerns under the Fixed-Term Work Directive;

·failure to ensure adequate protection of natural habitats and sustainable management of water resources in the area of the Doñana national park;

·failure to ensure that waste landfills operate in compliance with EU standards;

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

·non-compliance with the Regulation on the marketing and use of explosives precursors;

·non-compliance of the national rules and the case law of the Spanish Supreme Court on mortgage enforcement with the Directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts;

a)The Commission opened 46 new infringement cases against Spain in 2016. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:

1.New complaints made against Spain by members of the public (2012-2016)

All the main indicators for Spain worsened in 2016. New complaints increased significantly after a sharp drop the previous year. New infringement cases for late transposition more than doubled. New EU Pilot files and open infringement cases both started to rise, reversing the downward trend seen since 2012.

·in principle, EU law allows national authorities to prohibit collective redundancies. However, these rules must strike a fair balance between the protection of workers and employers’ freedom to conduct a business. The legal criteria on the basis of which the authorities may oppose planned collective redundancies must therefore be formulated in specific and precise terms. Thus a national authorisation regime for collective redundancies would be incompatible with the Collective Redundancies Directive if it deprived the Directive of its practical effect.

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

·Greece infringed Article 106 in conjunction with Article 102 TFEU by granting the public undertaking Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE privileged access to lignite. This maintained or reinforced its dominant position on Greece's wholesale electricity market.

·national rules exempting the primary residence from inheritance tax only for nationals of EU Member States who are resident in Greece restricts the free movement of capital;

·it is a restriction on the freedom to provide services to levy the full amount of car registration tax (as provided for under its national legislation) at the time of registration of a vehicle hired or leased by a Greek customer from a supplier established in another Member State, if the duration of the hire or lease contract and the duration of the vehicle’s use in Greek territory is not taken into consideration;

·Greece has failed to take all the necessary measures to comply with the Court's 2009 judgment finding that Greece was not ensuring adequate management of hazardous waste. The Court ordered Greece to pay a lump sum of EUR 10 million and a daily penalty payment of EUR 30 000;

·Greece has failed to comply with the Habitats Directive by not providing adequate protection for the endangered sea turtle Caretta caretta in the Bay of Kyparissia;

·failure to establish a registration procedure for the European electronic toll service providers and a toll domain statement;

·failure to meet the obligation to interconnect a national electronic register of road transport undertakings;

·failure to transpose in full the three Directives on public procurement and concessions;

·failure to fulfil obligations under the Directive on driving licences;

·the notification of all national measures necessary to transpose:

·operation of the landfill of Mesolonghi in breach of the Landfill Directive and the Waste Framework Directive;

·non-communication of national measures transposing the Directive on attacks against information systems;

·failure to implement the Eurodac Regulation, which sets up an EU asylum fingerprint database;

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 that Greece was failing to adequately collect and treat waste water discharged into the Gulf of Elefsina. The Commission proposed to the Court to impose a lump sum payment of EUR 15 943 620 and a daily penalty payment of EUR 34 974 until full compliance with EU law is ensured.

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

·legacies bestowed on certain non-profit entities established in Greece which are treated more favourably than those bestowed on similar entities established in other EU Member States. For Greek non-profit entities, a preferential tax rate of 0.5 % is automatically available. However, similar non-profit entities from other Member States are taxed at a rate of 20 to 40 % unless their Member State also affords preferential tax treatment to Greek non-profit entities.

·national rules allowing service stations at its land borders with Kipi (Turkey), Kakkayia (Albania) and Evzoni (FYROM) to sell fuel without the payment of excise duties. Under the Horizontal Excise Duty Directive, excise duties should be charged on the sale of such fuel.

·non-compliance with the obligation to calculate the cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements for buildings;

·poor management of the Temploni waste landfill on the island of Corfu;

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

·failure to ensure the adequate protection of Lake Koroneia in conformity with the Habitats Directive and the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive.

·failure to transpose in full the Directive amending EU legislation on the recognition of professional qualifications and the Internal Market Information System;

·excessive delays in the examination of applications for recognition of qualifications from other Member States;

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

·incorrect application of the Regulation on the rights of passengers travelling by sea or inland waterways;

·the prohibition placed on individual wine growers on the island of Samos from producing and marketing wine products;

·failure to notify flood hazard and risk maps required under the Floods Directive;

·illegal poisoning of birds, in breach of the Birds Directive;

·bad application of the Habitats Directive as regards designation of special areas of conservation and establishment of the necessary conservation measures;

·non-compliance with the rules under the Authorisation and Framework Directives as regards the independence of the national regulatory authority and rules on digital terrestrial television broadcasting;

·non-communication of national measures transposing the Directives on asylum procedures and reception conditions;

·non-compliance with the Prüm Decisions on information-sharing to combat terrorism and serious crime;

a)The Commission opened 42 new infringement cases against Greece in 2016. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:

1.New complaints made against Greece by members of the public (2012-2016)

Both new complaints and new EU Pilot files against Greece continued to drop in 2016, reaching their lowest level in recent years. The number of infringement cases open at the end of 2016 was only slightly higher than the previous year, confirming the relatively stable trend registered since 2012. The number of new infringement cases for late transposition also rose slightly.

·the principle of effectiveness must be interpreted as precluding a national procedural rule which requires an application for subsidiary protection status to be made within 15 working days of notification, by the competent authority, that an applicant whose asylum application has been rejected may make an application for subsidiary protection.

In preliminary ruling addressed to the Irish judiciary, the Court held that:

There were no major Court rulings in 2016.

·non-ratification of or reservations against appendices to the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail.

·completing the notification of all national measures necessary to transpose:

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 transpose in full one or more of the three Directives on public procurement and concessions.

·failure to transpose in full the Directive amending EU legislation on the recognition of professional qualifications and the Internal Market Information System;

·bad application of the Habitats Directive as regards designation of special areas of conservation and establishment of the necessary conservation measures;

·non-compliance with the Prüm Decisions on information-sharing to combat terrorism and serious crime;

·incorrect implementation of the Directive on attacks against information systems;

·non-compliance of the national food safety control system as regards the production and marketing of live bivalve molluscs with the EU health standards;

a)The Commission opened 40 new infringement cases against Ireland in 2016. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:

1.New complaints made against Ireland by members of the public (2012-2016)

New complaints against Ireland more than doubled in 2016 and open infringement cases at year-end jumped to a five-year high. New infringement cases for late transposition of directives also more than doubled to the highest level for 5 years. On a more positive note, the number of new EU Pilot files fell to a five-year low.

No major preliminary rulings were addressed to the Estonian judiciary in 2016.

There were no major Court rulings in 2016.

·failure to meet the requirements of the Regulation on the investigation and prevention of accidents and incidents in civil aviation.

·failure to fulfil obligations under the Directive on driving licences;

·completing the notification of all national measures necessary to transpose

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 transpose in full one or more of the three Directives on public procurement and concessions.

·breach of the rules on the separation of accounts under the First Railway Package;

·incomplete transposition of the Directive on administrative cooperation on taxation through a general provision broadly referring to the application of EU law in the relevant matters;

·failure to take measures to combat water pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources;

a)The Commission opened 20 new infringement cases against Estonia in 2016. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:

1.New complaints made against Estonia by members of the public (2012-2016)

All the main indicators for Estonia worsened in 2016. New complaints reached their highest level since 2012, while the number of new EU Pilot files increased after dropping for 2 consecutive years. Open infringement cases and new cases for late transposition both rose to their highest levels in 5 years.

·imposing fixed prices for the sale of prescription-only medicines by pharmacies restricts the free movement of goods due to its impact on pharmacies in other Member States. Imposing such price-fixing on foreign pharmacies cannot be justified as it is not an appropriate way to achieve the objective of protecting human health and life by ensuring a safe and high-quality supply of medicinal products.

·the Temporary Agency Work Directive applies to members of non-profit associations working in an undertaking in so far as they are paid by the association and the association receives compensation in return for their work;

·a project aiming at stretching a road by less than 10 km is not, in itself, subject to a systematic environmental impact assessment, even though it widens an existing road with four or more lanes. The term ‘express road’ does not have to form part of the network of main international traffic arteries or to be located in urban areas. The term ‘construction’ covers the carrying-out of works not previously existing or the physical alteration of existing installations;

·when a plan indirectly connected with the management of a nature site was authorised following a study that is not compliant with the Habitats Directive, and before including this site in the list of sites of Community importance, a subsequent review shall be carried out if that is the only proper step to prevent significant deterioration of the habitat due to implementation of the plan;

·for the purposes of customs rules, remunerated helicopter-flight training, if an instructor and the trainee pilot are present in the cockpit, is not commercial use of the aircraft;

·the Inheritance Tax Act’s restriction on the free movement of capital by affording tax reduction only if a multiple inheritance occurred under German rules (thus inheritance taxes paid to other Member States cannot be taken into account) could be justified by the need to safeguard the coherence of the tax system;

·under the EU-Switzerland agreement on free movement of persons, the income of German resident nationals paid by a legal person governed by public law established in Switzerland must be granted the same tax exemptions as those granted to incomes paid by a legal person governed by public law established in Germany;

·inheritance rules obliging financial institutions (including their branches) to notify the tax authorities about a client's assets upon his death do not restrict the freedom of establishment. Thus, German banks’ branches in another Member State must also notify such information, even if inheritance tax is not levied in the other Member State and even if notification would breach the other Member State’s banking secrecy rules;

·the Court provided an interpretation of the terms ‘ticket’ and ‘price of the ticket’ under the Air Passenger Rights Regulation, in the context of downgrading;

·the subcontracting rules in the Regulation on public passenger transport services by rail and by road apply to contracts awarded for public passenger transport by bus. Also, a subcontracting limitation of 30 % of the transport services remains within the discretion of the competent authorities;

·Regulation (EC) No 258/97 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients, must be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘new primary molecular structure’ relates to foods or food ingredients which were not used for human consumption in the territory of the European Union before 15 May 1997;

·the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs Directive must be interpreted as meaning that each of the individual portions of honey presented in the form of portion-cups closed by an aluminium seal and packed in cartons supplied to mass caterers constitutes a ‘pre-packaged foodstuff’ where the mass caterers sell those portions separately or offer them for sale to the ultimate consumer as part of pre-prepared meals for an all-inclusive price;

·the EU poultry meat labelling rules are compatible with the Charter of Fundamental Rights’ freedom to conduct a business and do not discriminate by requiring the indication of the total price and the price per weight unit on the pre-packaging or on the attached label;

·a civil servant of a Member State who leaves his post voluntarily in order to be employed in another Member State should not lose his pension rights under the retirement scheme for civil servants;

·when a person provides access to somebody else’s content through open internet access, the person whose rights are breached cannot claim compensation from the access provider for that breach by a third party. However, it can claim compensation from the access provider if the infringement continues;

·under the Qualification Directive, beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status may be subjected to a residence condition to promote their integration where they are not in a comparable situation to non-EU citizens;

·the execution of a European arrest warrant must be deferred if there is a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment due to the detention conditions in the Member State where the warrant was issued;

·the recognition of freely chosen forenames and the surname (acquired legally in another Member State) may be refused in order to ensure equality before the law;

·nationals of other Member States may be excluded from social assistance during the first 3 months of residence without the individual situation of the person concerned being assessed;

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

·Germany failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive on the placing on the market of pyrotechnic articles. This was because Germany provided, over and above the requirements of the Directive and notwithstanding a previous conformity assessment of pyrotechnic articles, that (i) those articles are to be subject to a specific national procedure (‘the SprengV’) before being placed on the market; and that (ii) pursuant to the SprengV, a national body is to have the power to review and, where required, to modify their instructions for use.

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.

·exclusion of travel services used by taxable persons for their business from the special scheme for travel agents (which allows travel agents to determine on a flat-rate basis the tax assessment base for groups of services and for each taxable period).

·failure to fully implement, in North Rhine-Westphalia, the Directive on enhancing port security;

·failure to fulfil the duty of sincere cooperation at the 25th session of the Revision Committee of the Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail;

·failure to take sufficient measures to combat water pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources;

·failure to correctly apply the requirements of the Habitats Directive in relation to the authorisation of a coal power plant in Hamburg/Moorburg;

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

·limitation of approval of certain motor vehicles to two specific technical testing centres, contrary to the Services Directive;

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

·restrictions on the provision of transport services and free movement of goods;

·failure to comply with the Third Internal Energy Market Package;

·late transposition of the Directive aligning various rules to the Regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures;

·failure to transpose in full the Directive amending EU legislation on the recognition of professional qualifications and the Internal Market Information System

·non-communication of national measures transposing the Directives on asylum procedures and reception conditions;

a)The Commission opened 29 new infringement cases against Germany in 2016. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:

1.New complaints made against Germany by members of the public (2012-2016)

New complaints against Germany in 2016 increased to a five-year peak, but new EU Pilot files reached a five-year low after falling sharply from 2015’s already low level. The number of infringement cases pending at the end of the year rose slightly. New infringement cases for late transposition remained at the 2015 level but were still above the 2012-2013 levels.

·the objective of ensuring the successful integration of non-EU nationals in the Member State concerned may constitute an overriding reason in the public interest which Member States can legitimately invoke to justify new restrictions on the rights of residence of Turkish citizens and their family members in relation to the standstill clauses of the EU-Turkey association law, provided that they are proportionate to the objectives pursued.

·the Universal Service Directive must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which an undertaking designated as the provider of additional mandatory services is entitled to compensation from the Member State for the net cost of providing those services only if that cost constitutes an unfair burden on that undertaking;

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

There were no major Court rulings in 2016.

·collective agreements in the municipal education sector which excluded part-time staff from a number of benefits if they worked less than 8 hours per week or were employed for less than 1 month.

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 comply with cabotage rules as laid down in the Regulation on access to the international road haulage market.

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

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

a)The Commission opened 31 new infringement cases against Denmark in 2016. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:

1.New complaints made against Denmark by members of the public (2012-2016)

All the main indicators for Denmark worsened in 2016. New complaints rose to their highest level since 2012, while the number of new EU Pilot files also increased after the sharp fall from its 2013 peak. Both open infringement cases and new cases for late transposition rose considerably, reaching five-year highs.

·Directive 2003/95/EU does not preclude national legislation that requires individuals to complete periodic training of a specified duration as a condition for carrying out a driving activity in circumstances where the individuals concerned were exempted from the obligation laid down in the Directive to obtain an initial qualification.

In a preliminary ruling addressed to the Czech judiciary, the Court held that:

·the Czech Republic failed to fulfil its obligations concerning the free movement of goods by refusing to recognise the hallmarks of Waarborg Holland, the Netherlands’ independent assay office for precious metals. Although in some cases the Member State is entitled not to recognise hallmarks affixed outside the EU by that assay office, a general and systematic refusal to recognise any of that office’s hallmarks is a disproportionate measure.

·non-ratification of or reservations against appendices to the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail;

·failure to meet the obligation to interconnect a national electronic register of road transport undertakings;

·completing the notification of all national measures necessary to transpose:

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 condition of nationality laid down for the exercise of the profession of notary in the Czech legal system. This is discriminatory and constitutes a disproportionate restriction of the freedom of establishment.

·failure to fulfil obligations under the Directive on driving licences;

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

·failure to transpose in full one or more of the three Directives on public procurement and concessions;

·incorrect transposition of the Directive on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community;

·incomplete natura 2000 network, contrary to the Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;

·failure to comply with the Security of Gas Supply Regulation;

a)The Commission opened 42 new infringement cases against the Czech Republic in 2016. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:

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

1.New complaints made against the Czech Republic by members of the public (2012-2016)

New complaints against the Czech Republic continued to increase in 2016, reaching their highest level in 5 years. Open infringement cases also continued their steady rise since 2013. New infringement cases for late transposition rose to almost double their 2015 level. By contrast, the number of new EU Pilot files continued falling from its 2013 peak, hitting its lowest point since 2012.

·the custodial sentence of a prisoner may not be reduced, when he is transferred from one Member State to another, by reason of time spent working in prison in the first Member State if that Member State has not, under its national law, granted such a reduction in sentence.

In a preliminary ruling addressed to the Bulgarian judiciary, the Court held that:

·has failed to protect unique habitats and endangered species in the Kaliakra region, in violation of the Birds Directive, the Habitats Directive and the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive.

·completing the notification of all national measures necessary to transpose the Capital Requirements Directive and the Bank Resolution and Recovery Directive.

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

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

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

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

·failure to transpose in full one or more of the three Directives on public procurement and concessions;

·disproportionate fines for not declaring cash entered into the customs union;

·failure to fulfil obligations under the Directive on the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources;

·failure to comply with the Energy Performance of Buildings Directives;

·incorrect implementation of the Directive on the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, by imposing disproportionate charges for resident permits;

·non-communication of national measures transposing the Directive on attacks against information systems;

a)The Commission opened 32 new infringement cases against Bulgaria in 2016. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:

1.New complaints made against Bulgaria by members of the public (2012-2016)

New complaints against Bulgaria decreased somewhat in 2016 after jumping in 2015. Fewer new EU Pilot files were opened than in the previous 4 years. However, the number of open infringement cases increased sharply to the highest level since 2012. This correlates with the significantly higher level of infringement cases for late transposition that were open at the end of 2016.

·national legislation by a federated entity of a Member State, which requires every undertaking that has its place of establishment within the territory of that entity to draw up all the details on invoices relating to cross-border transactions exclusively in the official language of that entity, failing which those invoices are to be declared null and void by the national courts of their own motion, is incompatible with EU law.

·national legislation which prohibits retailers from selling tobacco products at a unit price lower than the price indicated by the manufacturer or importer on the revenue stamp affixed to those products, in so far as that price has been freely determined by the importer, is compatible with EU law;

·a regulatory order containing provisions on the installation of wind turbines which must be complied with when administrative consent is granted for the installation and operation of such installations comes within the notion of ‘plans and programmes’ under the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive;

·measures contained in a plan or project not directly connected with the management of a site of Community importance which, before the occurrence of adverse effects on a natural habitat type present on it, are providing for the future creation of an area of that type may not be taken into account in the assessment of the effects of the plan or project on the site when that assessment precedes the completion of the respective area. Qualifying such measures as ‘compensatory measures’ under the Habitats Directive is strictly subject to the conditions it lays down;

·the Directive on the systems of chartering and pricing in national and international inland waterway transport must be interpreted so that contracts are to be freely concluded between the parties concerned. National legislation may therefore determine that a person who does not correspond to the Directive’s definition of ‘carrier’ may nevertheless conclude a contract of carriage as a carrier;

·a person making a train journey while not in possession of a ticket for that purpose, and who fails to regularise his situation within the periods laid down in national provisions, may be deemed to not have a contractual relationship with the railway undertaking;

·the exemption of distribution charges limited to green electricity produced in Flanders is incompatible with EU law. It fails to achieve the objective of increasing the production of the exemption of distribution charges limited to green electricity produced in Flanders is incompatible with EU law. It fails to achieve the objective of increasing the production of green electricity and is thus considered non-proportionate discrimination against imported electricity;

·under the Consumer Sales Directive, the concept of ‘seller’ also covers a trader acting as an intermediary on behalf of a private individual if the trader has not duly informed the consumer of the fact that the owner of the goods sold is a private individual. The Court's clarifications on intermediaries seem relevant for other areas of consumer law as well;

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

·Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, by not exempting the EU institutions from the federal contributions in respect of the supply of electricity and gas.

·incorrect implementation of the Regulation on the rights of passengers travelling by sea or inland waterway;

·refusal to register the double surname for children born to a parent of Belgian nationality and a parent with another EU nationality;

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 transpose in full one or more of the three Directives on public procurement and concessions.

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

·incorrect implementation of the Regulation on the rights of passengers travelling by sea and inland waterway;

·restrictions on the freedom to provide port services and the freedom of establishment;

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

·failure to communicate all national measures transposing the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive;

·failure to transpose in full the Directive amending EU legislation on the recognition of professional qualifications and the Internal Market Information System;

·failure to comply with the Third Internal Energy Market Package;

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

·non-communication of national measures transposing the Directive on attacks against information systems;

a)The Commission opened 49 new infringement cases against Belgium in 2016. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:

1.New complaints made against Belgium by members of the public (2012-2016)

New complaints against Belgium rose to the highest in 5 years, while new EU Pilot files increased only slightly. Open infringement cases also increased, to their highest level since 2012. New infringement cases for late transposition rose again after the previous year’s dip, and are at a five-year peak.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 6.7.2017 SWD(2017) 260 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Part II: Member States Accompanying the document Monitoring the application of European Union law

2016 Annual Report {COM(2017) 370 final}

{SWD(2017) 259 final}



Lithuania In 2016 new complaints against Lithuania fell after rising for 2 years. The number of new EU Pilot files continued its downward trend. However, both the numbers of open infringement cases and of new cases for late transposition rose to their highest levels since 2012. I.COMPLAINTS 1.New complaints made against Lithuania by members of the public (2012-2016) 2.Public complaints against Lithuania open at year-end 45 > Complaints open at end-2015 30 > New complaints registered in 2016 36 > Complaints handled in 2016 = 39 > Complaints open at end-2016 3.New complaints registered in 2016: main policy areas



II.EU PILOT 1.New EU Pilot files opened against Lithuania (2012-2016) 2.Files relating to Lithuania open in EU Pilot at year-end 3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2016: main policy areas





4.EU Pilot files: Lithuania’s average response time in 2012-2016 (in days) 5.EU Pilot files: Lithuania’s resolution rate in 2012-2016 III.INFRINGEMENT CASES 1.Infringement cases against Lithuania open on 31 December (2012-2016)



2.New infringement cases opened in 2016: main policy areas 3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court a)The Commission opened 31 new infringement cases against Lithuania in 2016. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include: ·non-communication of national measures transposing the Framework Decision on the ‘Swedish initiative’ on simplifying the exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement authorities of EU Member States; ·non-communication of national measures transposing the Directive on interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings; ·national restrictions on the acquisition of agricultural land which limit the free movement of capital and freedom of establishment by being discriminatory and/or disproportionate; ·restrictions on the freedom to provide port services and the freedom of establishment; ·non-communication of national measures transposing the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive; ·excessive and unjustified obstacles in the area of professional services that run counter to the Services Directive; ·failure to transpose in full one or more of the three Directives on public procurement and concessions;

·failure to fulfil the obligations under EU vehicle type approval legislation. b)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.



IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES 1.Late transposition infringement cases against Lithuania open on 31 December (2012-2016) 2.New late transposition infringement cases against Lithuania (2012-2016) 3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2016: main policy areas 4.Referrals to the Court The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU. V.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2016 These concerned: ·non-communication of national measures transposing the Seveso III Directive; · completing the notification of all national measures necessary to transpose the Capital Requirements Directive and the Bank Resolution and Recovery Directive; ·non-compliance with the Railway Safety Directive; ·lack of implementation of the Regulations on airworthiness.

VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS 1.Court rulings There were no major Court rulings in 2016. 2.Preliminary rulings In a preliminary ruling addressed to the Lithuanian judiciary, the Court held that: ·an air carrier which has concluded a contract of international carriage with an employer of persons carried as passengers is liable to that employer for damage caused by a delay in flights on which its employees were passengers under that contract. ·an organ of the executive such as the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania cannot be designated as ‘issuing judicial authority’ and the act issued by such body cannot be regarded as a ‘judicial decision’ for the purpose of executing a European arrest warrant. Luxembourg New complaints against Luxembourg in 2016 fell by more than half, the second drop in a row. The number of new EU Pilot files was unchanged. By contrast, open infringement cases and new infringement cases for late transposition both increased quite sharply. I.COMPLAINTS 1.New complaints made against Luxembourg by members of the public (2012-2016) 2.Public complaints against Luxembourg open at year-end 41 > Complaints open at end-2015 20 > New complaints registered in 2016 24 > Complaints handled in 2016 = 37 > Complaints open at end-2016 3.New complaints registered in 2016: main policy areas





II.EU PILOT 1.New EU Pilot files opened against Luxembourg (2012-2016) 2.Files relating to Luxembourg open in EU Pilot at year-end 3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2016: main policy areas



4.EU Pilot files: Luxembourg’s average response time in 2012-2016 (in days) 5.EU Pilot files: Luxembourg’s resolution rate in 2012-2016 III.INFRINGEMENT CASES 1.Infringement cases against Luxembourg open on 31 December (2012-2016)

2.New infringement cases opened in 2016: main policy areas 3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court a)The Commission opened 43 new infringement cases against Luxembourg in 2016. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include: ·failure to notify measures transposing the Tobacco Directive;

·failure to communicate all national measures transposing the Mortgage Credit Directive; ·non-compliance with the Regulation on the marketing and use of explosives precursors; ·repeal of the minimum entity tax. This is incompatible with the Directive on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States; ·failure to notify transposition measures for the 'Swedish initiative' on simplifying the exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement authorities of EU Member States; ·incorrect application of the Regulation on the rights of passengers travelling by sea and inland waterway; ·failure to transpose in full one or more of the three Directives on public procurement and concessions; ·failure to fulfil the obligations under EU vehicle type approval legislation; ·failure to transpose in full the Directive amending the EU legislation on the recognition of professional qualifications and the Internal Market Information System. b)The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. It concerns: ·failure to meet the obligation to interconnect a national electronic register of road transport undertakings. c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.



IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES 1.Late transposition infringement cases against Luxembourg open on 31 December (2012-2016) 2.New late transposition infringement cases against Luxembourg (2012-2016) 3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2016: main policy areas





4.Referrals to the Court The Commission referred three cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU. They concern: ·late transposition of the Directive aligning various rules to the Regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures; ·failure to transpose the Packaging & Labelling Directive; ·failure to transpose the Directive on a single European railway area. V.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2016 These concerned: ·non-communication of national measures transposing the Seveso III Directive; ·completing the notification of all national measures necessary to transpose: -the Capital Requirements Directive; -the Bank Resolution and Recovery Directive; -the Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive; -the Over-reliance on credit ratings Directive; -the Financial Conglomerates Directive; ·non-compliance with the Directive on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer; ·repeal of the minimum entity tax. This was incompatible with the Directive on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States. VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS 1.Court rulings The Court ruled that:

·Luxembourg failed to establish a national electronic register and to interconnect with the national electronic registers of other Member States. 2.Preliminary rulings In preliminary rulings addressed to the Luxembourgish judiciary, the Court held that: ·the grant of financial aid for higher education studies to a non-resident student cannot be made conditional on whether at least one of the student’s parents worked in Luxembourg for a minimum and continuous period of 5 years; ·national laws may not limit access to pensioners' tax credit to resident taxpayers receiving domestic pension income; the tax credit must also be open to residents receiving a pension from other Member States. Hungary New complaints against Hungary fell sharply in 2016, as did the number of new EU Pilot files. Both figures reached a five-year low. By contrast, the number of open infringement cases at the end of 2016 rose to a five-year high. This correlates with the increase in new infringement cases for late transposition, which doubled from the previous year. I.COMPLAINTS 1.New complaints made against Hungary by members of the public (2012-2016) 1.Public complaints against Hungary open at year-end 73 > Complaints open at end-2015 69 > New complaints registered in 2016 77 > Complaints handled in 2016 = 65 > Complaints open at end-2016 2.New complaints registered in 2016: main policy areas



II.EU PILOT 1.New EU Pilot files opened against Hungary (2012-2016)

2.Files relating to Hungary open in EU Pilot at year-end 3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2016: main policy areas



4.EU Pilot files: Hungary’s average response time in 2012-2016 (in days) 5.EU Pilot files: Hungary’s resolution rate in 2012-2016 III.INFRINGEMENT CASES 1.Infringement cases against Hungary open on 31 December (2012-2016)



2.New infringement cases opened in 2016: main policy areas 3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court a)The Commission opened 45 new infringement cases against Hungary in 2016. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include: ·discrimination against Roma children in education; ·non-respect of NO2 limit values set by the Air Quality Directive;

·lack of strategic noise maps and/or action plans required by the Environmental Noise Directive; ·poor application of the Drinking Water Directive as regards non-respect of the EU parametric values for arsenic, boron and fluoride in several municipalities; ·failure to comply with the Third Internal Energy Market Package; ·national restrictions on the acquisition of agricultural land which limit the free movement of capital and freedom of establishment by being discriminatory and/or disproportionate; ·excessive and unjustified obstacles in the area of professional services that run counter to the Services Directive; ·a selective consumption tax on spirits exempting fruit distillates (mainly produced domestically) and herbal bitters, which may be inconsistent with the free movement of goods. b)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.



IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES 1.Late transposition infringement cases against Hungary open on 31 December (2012-2016) 2.New late transposition infringement cases against Hungary (2012-2016) 3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2016: main policy areas 4.Referrals to the Court The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU. V.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2016

These concerned: ·paid annual leave granted to members of so-called school cooperatives; ·failure to implement the EU Timber Regulation and the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Regulation; ·completing the notification of all national measures necessary to transpose: -the Bank Resolution and Recovery Directive; -the Directive on over-reliance on credit ratings; -the Financial Conglomerates Directive; ·failure to meet the obligation to interconnect a national electronic register of road transport undertakings; ·incorrect implementation of the Directive on a European electronic toll service. VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS 1.Court rulings The Court ruled that: ·the fact that the revenue generated by the holder of a public or private monopoly providing services is the source of funding for social programmes does not justify a restriction on freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services. Member States are not free to establish a services monopoly in the context of their tax and wages policies, as Member States must exercise their competence in the area of direct taxation consistently with EU law and, in particular, with the fundamental freedoms. National legislation reserving the activity of issuing leisure cards only to banks or financial institutions infringes the Services Directive, unless the measure satisfies the cumulative conditions of non-discrimination, necessity and proportionality. 2.Preliminary rulings In preliminary rulings addressed to the Hungarian judiciary, the Court held that: ·a Member State has the right to send an applicant for international protection to a safe third country, if that Member State was responsible for examining an application for international protection submitted by the applicant who left that Member State before a decision on the substance of his first application for international protection was taken; ·both the driver and/or the transport undertaking employing the driver can be held liable for infringements of the Regulation on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport; ·the customs authorities may disregard the declared price of imported goods and use secondary methods (laid down in the Community Customs Code) to determine the transaction value, if they still doubt the accuracy of the declared value after asking for additional information or documents and providing the person concerned with a reasonable opportunity to clarify those doubts; ·the requirements of the principle of proportionality are not met when a vehicle of a transport undertaking is immobilised if the driver, employed by the undertaking, drove in breach of the EU law on recording equipment and if the competent national authority did not establish the liability of that undertaking. ·shipments of waste intended for recovery must be considered illegal, under the Waste Shipment Regulation, when the shipment document contains incorrect or inconsistent information about the importer/consignee, the recovery facility and the countries/states concerned. This is the case irrespective of whether the error is made intentionally, that information is correct in other documents available to the competent authorities or procedures for taking back illegal shipments are being implemented. The fine for such an illegal shipment may, in principle, be the same as that imposed for infringements of the obligation to complete the respective document. However, in reviewing the proportionality of the penalty, account must be taken of the potential risks to the protection of the environment and human health.

Malta New complaints against Malta have been relatively stable since 2014. The number of new EU Pilot files continued to drop in 2016, reaching its lowest level ever. Infringement cases open at the end of 2016 rose for the second year running. The number of new late transposition infringement cases was slightly lower than in 2015. I.COMPLAINTS 1.New complaints made against Malta by members of the public (2012-2016) 2.Public complaints against Malta open at year-end 22 > Complaints open at end-2015 28 > New complaints registered in 2016 25 > Complaints handled in 2016 = 25 > Complaints open at end-2016 3.New complaints registered in 2016: main policy areas



II.EU PILOT 1.New EU Pilot files opened against Malta (2012-2016) 2.Files relating to Malta open in EU Pilot at year-end 3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2016: main policy areas





4.EU Pilot files: Malta’s average response time in 2012-2016 (in days) 5.EU Pilot files: Malta’s resolution rate in 2012-2016 III.INFRINGEMENT CASES 1.Infringement cases against Malta open on 31 December (2012-2016) 2.New infringement cases opened in 2016: main policy areas 3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court a)The Commission opened 20 new infringement cases against Malta in 2016. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include: ·inadequate urban waste water treatment; ·failure to transpose in full the three Directives on public procurement and concessions; ·failure to transpose in full the Directive amending EU legislation on the recognition of professional qualifications and the Internal Market Information System. b)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU. IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES 1.Late transposition infringement cases against Malta open on 31 December (2012-2016)



2.New late transposition infringement cases against Malta (2012-2016) 3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2016: main policy areas 4.Referrals to the Court The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU. V.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2016 These concerned: ·discriminatory application of water and energy tariffs; ·notification of all national measures necessary to transpose the Capital Requirements Directive and the Bank Resolution and Recovery Directive; ·failure to fulfil obligations under the Directive on driving licences.



VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS 1.Court rulings The Court ruled that: ·Malta did not violate EU social security rules when its laws deducted the value of civil-service old-age pensions from other Member States from Maltese old-age pensions. 2.Preliminary rulings No major preliminary rulings were addressed to the Maltese judiciary in 2016.

Netherlands All the main indicators for the Netherlands worsened in 2016. After falling since 2012, new complaints jumped suddenly in 2016 to their highest level for 5 years. Open infringement cases also rose to a five-year peak, as did new infringement cases for late transposition. The number of new EU Pilot files was relatively stable, showing only a slight increase. I.COMPLAINTS 1.New complaints made against the Netherlands by members of the public (2012-2016) 2.Public complaints against the Netherlands open at year-end 66 > Complaints open at end-2015 107 > New complaints registered in 2016 99 > Complaints handled in 2016 = 74 > Complaints open at end-2016 3.New complaints registered in 2016: main policy area



II.EU PILOT 1.New EU Pilot files opened against the Netherlands (2012-2016) 2.Files relating to the Netherlands open in EU Pilot at year-end 3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2016: main policy areas





4.EU Pilot files: Netherlands’ average response time in 2012-2016 (in days) 5.EU Pilot files: Netherlands’ resolution rate in 2012-2016 III.INFRINGEMENT CASES 1.Infringement cases against the Netherlands open on 31 December (2012-2016)



2.New infringement cases opened in 2016: main policy areas 3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court a)The Commission opened 24 new infringement cases against the Netherlands in 2016. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include: ·failure to fully transpose the Offshore Safety Directive; ·failure to communicate all national measures transposing the Capital Requirements Directive; ·bilateral investment treaties signed before all state parties became members of the EU and which now overlap and conflict with the EU single market on cross-border investments; ·failure to correctly implement the Directive on the qualification and training of road drivers; ·bad application of the Habitats Directive; ·failure to fully transpose the Directive on driving licences; ·failure to transpose in full one or more of the three Directives on public procurement and concessions;

·failure to transpose in full the Directive amending EU legislation on the recognition of professional qualifications and the Internal Market Information System. b)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU.



IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES 1.Late transposition infringement cases against the Netherlands open on 31 December (2012-2016) 2.New late transposition infringement cases against the Netherlands (2012-2016) 3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2016: main policy areas 4.Referrals to the Court The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU. V.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2016 These concerned: ·completing the notification of all national measures necessary to transpose the Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive; ·non-compliance with the Directive on the common system of value added tax as regards dental prostheses. VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS 1.Court rulings

The Court ruled that: ·financial support to students for travel costs (public transport for free or at a reduced rate), which is granted only to Dutch nationals and long-term residents, is not discriminatory as such support must be regarded as maintenance aid for studies consisting of student grants or student loans, which is covered by a derogation from equal treatment under the Citizens’ Rights Directive; ·the VAT Directive exempts from VAT the supply of sport or physical education services by non-profit-making organisations. However, the Netherlands granted this exemption only if such organisations employ volunteers, not employees, to supply these services. By contrast, the letting of berths and moorings for vessels (provided by non-profit water sport organisations) was exempted from VAT even when it was not linked to sports activities. 2.Preliminary rulings In preliminary rulings addressed to the Dutch judiciary, the Court held that: ·the Reception Conditions Directive allows for an asylum seeker to be detained when the protection of national security or public order so requires. The introduction of a fresh asylum application by a person who is subject to a return decision does not render that decision inoperative under the Return Directive; ·when a hyperlink is posted by the manager of a website to copyright-protected works made available on another website without the authorisation of the right holder, and no profit is pursued by the person posting the hyperlink, such a person can be considered, as a general rule, as not knowing or unable to reasonably know that the work was published without the consent of the right holder. However, when it is established that a person knew or ought to have known that the hyperlink provides access to a work illegally placed on the internet, the provision of the link constitutes a communication to the public. Such knowledge is presumed when the posting of hyperlinks is carried out for profit; ·under the Directive on rental and lending rights, the term ‘lending’ covers the lending of a digital copy of a book, where the lending is carried out by placing that copy on the server of a public library and allowing a user to reproduce that copy by downloading it onto his own computer. Only one copy may be downloaded and it can only be used during the lending period; ·an asylum seeker is entitled to plead, in an appeal against a decision to transfer him, the incorrect application of one of the criteria for determining responsibility laid down in the Dublin Regulation, in particular the criterion relating to the grant of a visa; ·the European arrest warrant issued by the Swedish National Police Board is invalid as such body is not covered by the term ‘issuing judicial authority’ and acts issued by police service cannot be regarded as a ‘judicial decision’; ·the national authorities carrying out general monitoring tasks with regard to air passengers’ rights are not required to take enforcement action in each individual case with a view to compelling air carriers to pay compensation. However, Member States have discretion in the allocation of the powers they give to such authorities and can nevertheless empower them to act on individual complaints; ·the concept of ‘emissions into the environment’ includes the release into the environment of products or substances, such as plant protection products or biocides or active substances contained in those products, to the extent that the release is actual or foreseeable under normal or realistic conditions of use of the product or substance. The concept of ‘information on emissions into the environment’ covers not only emissions as such (the nature, composition, quantity, date and place of those emissions), but also information enabling the public to check whether the assessment of actual or foreseeable emissions is correct, as well as data relating to the medium- or long-term effects of those emissions on the environment. The confidentiality of commercial and industrial information may not be invoked to preclude the disclosure of ‘information on emissions into the environment’. Austria New complaints against Austria continued to rise in 2016 from the low point reached in 2014. The number of new EU Pilot files went up only slightly, while open infringement cases at the end of the year saw a sharp increase. New infringement cases for late transposition also rose, to almost triple the number of 2015. I.COMPLAINTS 1.New complaints made against Austria by members of the public (2012-2016) 2.Public complaints against Austria open at year-end

75 > Complaints open at end-2016 103 > New complaints registered in 2016 74 > Complaints handled in 2016 = 104 > Complaints open at end-2016 3.New complaints registered in 2016: main policy areas



II.EU PILOT 1.New EU Pilot files opened against Austria (2012-2016) 2.Files relating to Austria open in EU Pilot at year-end 3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2016: main policy areas



4.EU Pilot files: Austria’s average response time in 2012-2016 (in days) 5.EU Pilot files: Austria’s resolution rate in 2012-2016 III.INFRINGEMENT CASES 1.Infringement cases against Austria open on 31 December (2012-2016)





2.New infringement cases opened in 2016: main policy areas 3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court a)The Commission opened 47 new infringement cases against Austria in 2016. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include: ·non-respect of NO2 limit values set by the Air Quality Directive; ·failure to communicate measures transposing the Directive on priority substances in the field of water policy; ·failure to comply with the Third Internal Energy Market Package; ·bilateral investment treaties signed before all state parties became members of the EU and which now overlap and conflict with the EU single market on cross-border investments; ·non-conformity with the Directive on structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages; ·non-compliance with the VAT Directive; ·excessive and unjustified obstacles in the area of professional services that run counter to the Services Directive; ·failure to transpose in full one or more of the three Directives on public procurement and concessions; ·failure to transpose in full the Directive amending EU legislation on the recognition of professional qualifications and the Internal Market Information System; ·failure to fully transpose the Capital Requirements Directive and the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive; ·charging VAT on the resale rights of works of art, which may violate the VAT Directive due to the lack of a contractual relationship between the resale buyer and the artist. b)The Commission referred one case to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. It concerns: ·direct award of the security printing of official documents (such as passports, ID-cards, residence permits, driving licences) to the Austrian State Printing Office. This is in breach of public procurement legislation. c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU. IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES

1.Late transposition infringement cases against Austria open on 31 December (2012-2016) 2.New late transposition infringement cases against Austria (2012-2016)



3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2016: main policy areas 4.Referrals to the Court The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU. V.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2016 These concerned: ·non-communication of national measures transposing the Industrial Emissions Directive; ·failure to fulfil obligations under the Directive on driving licences; ·failure to meet the obligation to interconnect a national electronic register of road transport undertakings; ·breach of the EU-Turkey association law by the introduction of new restrictions on access to the Austrian labour market and on family reunification of Turkish nationals; ·restrictions of resort homes in the Vorarlberg region contrary to the free movement of capital. VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS 1.Court rulings The Court ruled that:

·Austria's failure to fulfil obligations under the Water Framework Directive in relation to the authorisation for the construction of a hydropower plant on the Schwarze Sulm River was unfounded. 2.Preliminary rulings In preliminary rulings addressed to the Austrian judiciary, the Court held that: ·processing of personal data carried out by an undertaking engaged in electronic commerce is governed by the law of the Member State to which that undertaking directs its activities, if it is shown that the undertaking carries out the data processing in question in the context of the activities of an establishment situated in that Member State. It is for the national court to ascertain whether that is the case; ·old-age benefits provided under an occupational pension scheme of one Member State and those provided under a statutory pension scheme of another Member State are equivalent benefits, where both have the same aim of ensuring that their recipients maintain a standard of living commensurate with that which they enjoyed before retirement; ·the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive does not apply to a project covered by a legislative provision according to which a project which has been the subject of a decision taken in breach of the obligation to assess its effects on the environment, for which the time limit for an action for annulment has expired, must be regarded as lawfully authorised. However, EU law precludes such a legislative provision insofar as it provides that a prior impact assessment is deemed to have been carried out for the project; ·all postal operators may have imposed on them a number of obligations, ranging from a contribution to the financing of the national regulatory authority to compliance with working conditions and requirements on quality, availability and performance. Poland New complaints against Poland in 2016 continued to fall from 2013’s peak while EU Pilot files held steady. The number of open infringement cases continued the gentle downward trend seen since the previous year. New infringement cases for late transposition continued to rise, reaching a peak of twice their 2012 level. I.COMPLAINTS 1.New complaints made against Poland by members of the public (2012-2016) 2.Public complaints against Poland open at year-end 167 > Complaints open at end-2015 152 > New complaints registered in 2016 186 > Complaints handled in 2016 = 133 > Complaints open at end-2016 3.New complaints registered in 2016: main policy areas





II.EU PILOT 1.New EU Pilot files opened against Poland (2012-2016) 2.Files relating to Poland open in EU Pilot at year-end 3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2016: main policy areas



4.EU Pilot files: Poland’s average response time in 2012-2016 (in days) 5.EU Pilot files: Poland’s resolution rate in 2012-2016 III.INFRINGEMENT CASES 1.Infringement cases against Poland open on 31 December (2012-2016)



2.New infringement cases opened in 2016: main policy areas 3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court a)The Commission opened 43 new infringement cases against Poland in 2016. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include:

·non-compliance with the rules under the Authorisation Directive, the Framework Directive and the Directive on competition in the market for communications networks and services as regards the spectrum assignment to a specific company without an open procedure; ·non-respect of NO2 limit values set by the Air Quality Directive; ·increased logging in Białowieża Forest; ·failure to communicate measures transposing the Seveso III Directive; ·failure to fully transpose the Energy Efficiency Directive and the Directive on safety of offshore oil and gas operations; ·failure to comply with the requirements of the Renewable Energy Directive; ·failure to communicate all national measures transposing the Mortgage Credit Directive; ·failure to correctly implement the Airport Charges Directive; ·excessive and unjustified obstacles in the area of professional services that run counter to the Services Directive; ·failure to transpose in full one or more of the three Directives on public procurement and concessions. b)The Commission referred four cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. They concern: ·widespread non-respect of the PM10 limit values set by the Air Quality Directive; ·failure to ensure that the environmental impacts of exploratory mining drillings are properly assessed; ·failure to meet the obligation of establishing a national electronic register of road transport undertakings; ·failure to correctly transpose and implement EU rules on rail safety. c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU. IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES 1.Late transposition infringement cases against Poland open on 31 December (2012-2016) 2.New late transposition infringement cases against Poland (2012-2016)





3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2016: main policy areas 4.Referrals to the Court The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU. V.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2016 These concerned: ·non-conformity of national legislation with the Directive on quality and safety of blood and blood components; ·incorrect transposition of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and the Habitats Directive in relation to maintenance works on rivers; ·non-communication of national measures transposing the Directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment; ·failure to fulfil obligations under the Directive on driving licences; ·incorrect implementation of the Directive on a European electronic toll service; ·failure to correctly transpose and apply EU legislation on the separation of accounts in rail; ·completing the transposition of the Directive on over-reliance on credit ratings; ·completing the notification of all national measures necessary to transpose the Financial Conglomerates Directive; ·minimum amounts of cover in relation to the Motor Insurance Directive. VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS 1.Court rulings

The Court ruled that: ·Poland has failed to transpose correctly into its national legal framework several provisions of the Water Framework Directive; ·Poland has failed to establish a national electronic register and to interconnect with the national electronic registers of other Member States. 2.Preliminary rulings In a preliminary rulings addressed to the Polish judiciary, the Court held that: ·the use of standard contract terms with content identical to that of terms which have been declared unlawful by a judicial decision having the force of law and which have been entered in a national register of unlawful standard contract terms can be regarded, in relation to another seller or supplier which was not a party to the proceedings culminating in the entry in that register, as an unlawful act, provided that that seller or supplier has an effective judicial remedy against the decision declaring the terms to be equivalent, as well as against the decision fixing the amount of the fine imposed. Such a national register of unlawful standard contract terms must comply with the requirements of Directive 93/13/EEC and of EU law more generally. It must in that regard be managed in a transparent manner in the interest not only of consumers but also of sellers or suppliers and kept up to date; ·the Universal Services Directive must be interpreted to mean that a Member State may provide that an operator of a public electronic communications network must ensure that all end users are able to access non-geographic numbers on its network in that State, and not only those of other Member States; ·a national court hearing an appeal against a decision of the national regulatory authority in the area of electronic communications networks and services must be able to annul that decision with retroactive effect if it finds that to be necessary in order to provide effective protection for the rights of the undertaking which has brought the appeal; ·subjecting the organisation of games of chance and gaming on machines to the requirement to hold a licence to operate a gaming casino does not fall within the concept of ‘technical regulation’ under the Single Market Transparency Directive. Portugal New complaints against Portugal dropped further in 2016, almost equalling their 2013 level. The decreasing trend also continued for new EU Pilot files, which reached a five-year low. In contrast, the number of infringement cases against Portugal open at the end of the year increased sharply, equalling the 2012 peak. New infringement cases for late transposition also jumped, reaching a new five-year high. I.COMPLAINTS 1.New complaints made against Portugal by members of the public (2012-2016) 2.Public complaints against Portugal open at year-end 78 > Complaints open at end-2015 76 > New complaints registered in 2016 98 > Complaints handled in 2016 = 56 > Complaints open at end-2016 3.New complaints registered in 2016: main policy areas





II.EU PILOT 1.New EU Pilot files opened against Portugal (2012-2016) 2.Files relating to Portugal open in EU Pilot at year-end 3.New EU Pilot files opened in 2016: main policy areas



4.EU Pilot files: Portugal’s average response time in 2012-2016 (in days) 5.EU Pilot files: Portugal’s resolution rate in 2012-2016 III.INFRINGEMENT CASES 1.Infringement cases against Portugal open on 31 December (2012-2016)



2.New infringement cases opened in 2016: main policy areas

3.Key infringement cases and referrals to the Court a)The Commission opened 60 new infringement cases against Portugal in 2016. These, and other major ongoing infringement cases, include: ·non-compliance with the Prüm Decisions on information-sharing to combat terrorism and serious crime; ·bad application of the Habitats Directive as regards designation of special areas of conservation and establishment of the necessary conservation measures; ·inadequate urban waste water treatment; ·failure to fully transpose the Offshore Safety Directive; ·failure to comply with the requirements of the Renewable Energy Directive; ·failure to communicate all national measures transposing the Mortgage Credit Directive; ·failure to communicate all national measures transposing the Transparency Directive; ·incorrect implementation of the Directive on accident investigations; ·incorrect implementation of the Directive on port State control; ·incorrect implementation of the Flag State Directive; ·failure to report on monitoring activities carried out by the maritime authority; ·failure to correctly transpose and implement EU rules on driving licences; ·failure to transpose in full the three Directives on public procurement and concessions; ·failure to transpose in full the Directive amending EU legislation on the recognition of professional qualifications and the Internal Market Information System; ·the airport tax applied by the Lisbon municipality on passengers arriving at the Lisbon airport: as passengers with their domicile in Portugal are exempted from the tax, it may constitute a covert discrimination by reason of nationality that infringes Article 18 TFEU. b)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 258 TFEU. c)The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU. IV.TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES

1.Late transposition infringement cases against Portugal open on 31 December (2012-2016) 2.New late transposition infringement cases against Portugal (2012-2016)



3.New late transposition infringement cases opened in 2016: main policy areas 4.Referrals to the Court The Commission did not refer any cases to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU. V.EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENT CASES Major cases closed without a Court judgment in 2016 These concerned: ·failure to apply correctly the Directive on the protection of pigs as regards group housing of sows; ·illegal landfills operated in breach of the Landfill Directive; ·the notification of all national measures necessary to transpose the Capital Requirements Directive and the Bank Resolution and Recovery Directive; ·transposition of the Directive on over-reliance on credit ratings; ·incorrect implementation of the Directive on a European electronic toll service; ·non-ratification of the Protocol of Accession to the Eurocontrol International Convention; ·unequal treatment in recognition of qualifications of fixed-term teachers. VI.IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

1.Court rulings The Court ruled that: ·Portugal failed to execute in full the Court's 2009 judgment finding that Portugal was not ensuring adequate treatment of urban waste water in certain agglomerations discharging into normal areas. The Court ordered Portugal to pay a lump sum of EUR 3 million and a daily penalty payment of EUR 8 000; ·Portugal failed to ensure adequate treatment of urban waste water in several smaller agglomerations; ·Portugal failed to fulfil its obligations under the Regulation on common rules for allocating slots at Community airports. The Court also provided clarification on the notion of independence of the slot allocation body under the Regulation; ·Portugal failed to establish a national electronic register and to interconnect with the national electronic registers of other Member States; ·the depreciation rates applied in Portugal on used vehicles for vehicle registration tax purposes were not in compliance with Article 110 TFEU. This is because no depreciation is taken into account before the vehicle is 1 year old and no further depreciation is taken into account in the case of vehicles older than 5 years. 2.Preliminary rulings In a preliminary ruling addressed to the Portuguese judiciary, the Court held that: ·the freedom to provide services under the TFEU allows Member States to apply a withholding tax at source to the income of non-resident banks without levying such a tax on resident banks, if such a tax is justified by an overriding reason in the general interest and necessary to achieve the objective. However, Member States may not tax non-resident banks by prohibiting them from deducting business expenses directly related to their activities while this opportunity is given to resident banks. Romania New complaints against Romania rose again in 2016 after falling for 2 years. Open infringement cases and new cases for late transposition also both