COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT SITUATION PER MEMBER STATE Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 29th ANNUAL REPORT ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW (2011)
Date: 2012-11-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU control, EU statistics, complaint to the Commission, infringement procedure (EU), national implementing measure

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 30.11.2012  
SWD(2012) 399 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

SITUATION PER MEMBER STATE 

Accompanying the document 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

29th ANNUAL REPORT ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW 
(2011) 

{COM(2012) 714 final} 
{SWD(2012) 400 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
A U S T R I A  

General Statistics 
With 65 open infringements at the end of 2011, Austria had the 
eleventh-highest number of infringements (along with the 
Czech Republic) among the EU-27. 

However, Austria’s performance is the worst in its 

reference group1: Bulgaria had 54 open infringements and there 
were 60 against Sweden. Austria closed the year with more 
infringements than in 2010 (57) and almost the same number as 
in 2009 (66). The following chart shows the three policy areas 
where Austria was subject most frequently to infringement 
procedures:  

65 infringements against Austria 

Enterprise; 8 

Internal Market; 10 

Transport; 15 

Other policies; 32

Only two Court cases were brought against Austria during 

2011 (10 cases in 2010). The Commission argued that the 
students transport pricing system discriminated against 
foreigners,2 and that some installations were not properly 
licensed under the directive on integrated air pollution 
prevention.3 Within the reference group, one case reached the 
Court against each of Bulgaria and Sweden.  

No decisions were taken by the Commission to refer 
Austria to the Court for the second time under Article 260(2) 
TFEU. 

Transposition of directives  
The Commission opened 46 infringement procedures against 
Austria for late transposition of various directives in 2011. 
Austria faced 29 such procedures in 2010. Ranking as the 18th 
in the EU-27, this result is poorer for the other two Member 
States in the reference group.  

The policy areas where Austria experienced serious 
challenges in transposing EU directives are transport (13 late 
transposition infringements), internal market & services and 
enterprise & industry (7 infringements in each area).  

Despite the progress made by the Austrian authorities in 
transposing the Services Directive4, the process was still not 
complete more than two years after the implementation 
deadline. Accordingly, the Commission referred Austria to the 
Court with a proposal for financial sanctions (Article 260(3) 
TFEU).5  

Complaints  
In 2011, the Commission received 97 complaints against 
Austria, which is the tenth-highest figure in the EU-27.  
Areas with the most claimed irregularities include 
environment (exemptions from impact assessment, access to 

1  

2  
3  
4  
5  

Member States with equal or close to equal voting weights in the 
Council; for Austria: Bulgaria and Sweden. 
IP/10/1227 
IP/11/433 
Directive 2006/123/EC  
IP/11/1283 

justice, nature protection; 26 complaints), internal market 
(public procurement and professional recognition; 21), and 
fundamental rights (free movement of family members and 
double-barrelled surname registration; 11). Other complaints 
concerned obstacles to car registration, breach of green car 
procurement rules, limited access to transport services market, 
violation of rights to family benefits, and discriminatory 
taxation of foreign pensioners and workers.  

Early resolution of infringements 
At the end of 2011, the Commission and the Austrian 
authorities were working on 102 open files in EU Pilot, 
including 43 new dossiers opened during 2011. Austria is 
among the 11 Members States whose average response time in 
EU Pilot (77 days) fails to meet the 10-week benchmark. 
In 2011 Austria successfully closed a number of 
infringements launched earlier by the Commission: it has 
properly designated all Special Protection Areas under the 
Birds Directive, amended the rules on acquiring agricultural 
land in Vorarlberg so that rules on the free movement of capital, 
brought the VAT exemptions for postal services within the 
limits allowed by the VAT Directive, ensured equal tax 
treatment for domestic and foreign investments funds, and 
made the conditions for accessing the natural gas market 
transparent.  

Important judgments  
The Court found once again that the reinstated traffic ban for 
lorries on the A12 motorway was incompatible with the free 
movement of goods6 and the nationality condition for notaries 
could not be justified by the exercise of official authority.7 The 
Court also found against the reduced VAT rate for race horses8 
and the discriminatory tax incentive for donations for research 
and development.9 

In preliminary rulings handed down to the Austrian 
judiciary, the Court further clarified the conditions under which 
EU citizens’ family members, who are third country nationals, 
may be refused the right to reside in that citizen’s Member 
State.10 It also ruled that excluding a significantly higher 
proportion of female pensioners than male ones from a pension 
adjustment scheme constitutes sex discrimination.11 

Key infringements 

(cid:131)  Ban on internet sales of contact lenses 
(cid:131) 

Failure to ensure transparent and non-discriminatory 
airport charges for airlines12 

(cid:131)  Restrictions on extended family members' rights protected 

by Free Movement Directive13 

(cid:131)  Restricted access to justice in environmental impact 

assessment matters 

6  
7  
8  
9  
10  
11  
12  
13  

Commission v Austria, C-28/09 
Commission v Austria, C-53/08 
Commission v Austria, C-441/09 
Commission v Austria, C-10/10 
Dereci and others, C-256/11 
Brachner, C-123/10 
IP/11/1410 
IP/11/981 

2

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
B E L G I U M  

General Statistics 
There were 117 open infringements against Belgium at the 
end of 2011, which is the third-worst result among the EU-27. 
Belgium's performance is below average in its reference 
group14: Romania had 47 open infringements, Hungary 54, the 
Czech Republic 65, the Netherlands and Portugal 71 and 84 
respectively and Greece 123. However, Belgium closed the year 
with fewer infringements than in 2010 (126) and 2009 (128). The 
following chart shows the four policy areas where Belgium was 
most frequently subject to infringement procedures:  

117 infringements against Belgium 

Environment; 13 

Transport; 10 

Other policies; 45

Internal Market; 13 

Taxation; 36 

Six cases were submitted to the Court against Belgium 

during 2011 (by contrast to the 11 submissions in 2010). The 
Commission contested: the discriminatory nature of the de 
facto exemption granted to Belgian (but not to EU) 
investment companies from interest and dividend tax,15 the 
failure to adopt river basin management plans16 and the lack 
of indexation of Belgian pensions when paid to certain non-
resident persons.17 Within the reference group, no cases were 
brought against Romania or Hungary; there were three 
against Portugal and four each against the Netherlands, the 
Czech Republic and Greece.  

The Commission filed one case against Belgium under 
Article 260(2) TFEU with a request for financial sanctions 
due to Belgium’s failure to collect and/or treat urban waste 
water properly in some areas of the country.18  

Transposition of directives  
The Commission opened 45 infringement procedures against 
Belgium for late transposition of various directives in 2011. 
Belgium faced 14 such procedures in 2010. Ranking as 17th in 
the EU-27, this result is still better than for the other Member 
States in the reference group except for the Netherlands.  

The policy areas where Belgium experienced serious 
challenges in transposing EU directives are transport, internal 
market & services (10 late transposition infringements in 
each area) and energy (6).  

In no case in 2011 did, the Commission refer Belgium to 

the Court with a request for financial sanctions (Article 
260(3) TFEU) due to late transposition of directives. 

Complaints  
In 2011, the Commission received 82 complaints against 
Belgium, which is the thirteenth lowest figure in the EU-27.  
Areas with the most alleged irregularities include 
taxation (discriminating against foreign workers, inheritance 
and securities income; 23 complaints), environment 

14  

15  
16  
17  
18  

Member States with equal or close to equal voting weights in the 
Council; for Belgium: Romania, Hungary, the Czech Republic, the 
Netherlands, Portugal and Greece. 
IP/11/422 
IP/11/438 
IP/11/165 
IP/10/835 

(inadequate impact assessments, potential damages to Natura 
2000 sites, nitrates pollution and urban waste water 
treatment; 14), free movement of persons (blocking family 
reunification with non-EU nationals and registration of 
double barrelled surnames; 9). Complaints also invoked car 
registration problems, passenger rights and mutual 
recognition of professional qualifications.  

Early resolution of infringements 
Belgium joined EU Pilot in early 2011. By the end of the year, 
the Commission and the Belgian authorities were working on 
42 newly opened files. Belgium’s average response time in EU 
Pilot (71 days) is only slightly above the 10-week benchmark.  
Alignment of certain disputed Belgian laws with EU rules 

resulted in the closure of several infringements in 2011 in 
particular: the barriers to parallel imports of drugs were removed; 
unit rates for air terminal charges were notified;19 the 
independence of the rail safety authority was ensured;20 Belgian 
pensions were made payable to any bank account within the EU; 
compliance was achieved with the drinking water directive;21 
and two discriminatory tax regimes were adjusted (a flat-rate tax 
reduction available only to Flemish residents and tax deduction 
of interests paid to Belgian banks).22 

Important judgments  
The three Belgian regions were found to have failed to lay 
down the necessary criteria and thresholds making projects 
subject to environmental impact assessment.23 Belgium was 
also found guilty of not requiring an impact assessment for 
projects likely to damage Natura 2000 sites such as the Étangs 
de Roly.24 In addition, the Court rejected the exercise of official 
authority as a justification for maintaining the nationality 
condition for public notaries.25 However, safeguarding the tax 
system’s cohesion did justify a discriminatory tax credit that 
was granted only to residents moving house within Flanders.26 
The Court’s preliminary rulings clarified, among other 

things, that the mere conversion of an administrative decision 
into a national law does not automatically exempt a project 
from the requirements laid down in the Environmental 
Impact Assessment Directive.27  

Key infringements 

(cid:131)  Restrictions on extended family members’ rights, 

expulsion safeguards and hindering the issuing of entry 
visa for non-EU family members.28 

(cid:131)  Non-transposition of the directive on buildings energy 

performance29 

(cid:131)  Discriminatory additional taxation of certain types of 

income from capital30 

(cid:131)  Discriminatory inheritance tax provisions31 

19  
20  
21  
22  
23  
24  
25  
26  
27  
28  
29  
30  
31  

IP/11/1252 on the earlier reasoned opinion 
IP/11/72 on the earlier reasoned opinion 
Directive 98/83/EC 
IP/10/1403 on the earlier reasoned opinion 
Commission v Belgium, C-435/09 
Commission v Belgium, C-538/09 
Commission v Belgium, C-47/08 
Commission v Belgium, C-250/08 
Boxus and others, C-128/09 
IP/11/981  
IP 11/733, Directive 2002/91/EC 
IP/11/1424 
IP/11/425 

3

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
B U L G A R I A  

Early resolution of infringements 
At the end of 2011, the Commission and the Bulgarian 
authorities were working on 75 open files in EU Pilot, which is 
an average caseload. The Commission opened 62 new dossiers 
in relation to Bulgarian issues during 2011. Bulgaria is among 
the 13 Member States whose average response time in EU Pilot 
(67 days) is below the 10-week benchmark.  

Bulgaria acted to eliminate a number of inconsistencies in 

its national law vis-à-vis EU rules, which prompted the 
Commission to close numerous infringements in 2011, 
including cases on: the non-portability of landline numbers 
when changing telephone operator 34 disproportionate 
restrictions on the establishment and operation of pharmacies, 
and the lack of transposition rules for more than 30 directives, 
including the one on capital requirements for the trading book 
and for re-securitisations and the supervisory review of 
remuneration policies.35  

Important judgments  
In a preliminary ruling in response to a request from the 
Bulgarian judiciary, the Court clarified that Member States may 
restrict the free movement of their nationals who have been 
convicted of a criminal offence; however, such restriction 
should be justified by the person’s conduct, proportionate to the 
objective of crime prevention and subject to effective judicial 
review.36 

Key infringements 

(cid:131) 

Failure to control all risks to human health and the 
environment arising from the use of GMOs37 
(cid:131)  Distortion of the market for broadcasting network 
services (prohibition of certain market players, e.g. 
network infrastructure owners, from applying for digital 
spectrum) 
Lack of transparent conditions for access to the natural 
gas distribution networks38 
Inadequate waste disposal installations in the municipality 
of Sofia 

(cid:131) 

(cid:131) 

General Statistics 
The Commission had 54 open infringements against Bulgaria at 
the end of 2011, which is the eleventh best result (along with 
Hungary) among the EU-27. 

Bulgaria's performance is the best in its reference group32: 

Sweden had 60 open infringements Austria 65. However, 
Bulgaria closed the year with more infringements than in 2010 
(44) and 2009 (45). The following chart shows the three policy 
areas where Bulgaria was most frequently subject to 
infringement procedures:  

54 infringements against Bulgaria

Internal  Market  & 
Services;  8

Other  policies; 21

Transport;  11

Environment;  14

One case was submitted to the Court against Bulgaria 
during 2011 due to the non-transparent access conditions to the 
natural gas transmission networks33. Within the reference group, 
one case was submitted against Sweden and two against Austria.  

No decisions were taken by the Commission to refer 
Bulgaria to the Court for the second time under Article 260(2) 
TFEU. 

Transposition of directives  
The Commission opened 36 infringement procedures against 
Bulgaria for late transposition of various directives in 2011. 
Bulgaria faced 29 such procedures in 2010. Ranking as 9th in 
the EU-27 (with Slovakia), this result is better than for Austria 
but poorer than that for Sweden.  

The policy areas where Bulgaria experienced serious 
challenges in transposing EU directives include transport (10 
late transposition infringements), internal market & services (5), 
health & consumers and energy (4 in each).  

In no case in 2011 did the Commission refer Bulgaria to 

the Court with a request for financial sanctions (Article 260(3) 
TFEU) due to late transposition of directives.  

Complaints  
In 2011, the Commission received 97 complaints against 
Bulgaria, which is the 10th highest figure in the EU-27.  

Areas where the most anomalies were raised include 
environment (illegal activities, especially hunting, in Natura 
2000 sites, poor waste management; 23 complaints) and 
internal market (public procurement, free movement of capital 
and free provision of services; 16). Further complaints were 
about the restricted movement right of persons with outstanding 
debts, the non-recognition of foreign diplomas (in particular 
from franchised institutions), renewable energy and energy 
efficiency as well as roadside inspections of commercial 
vehicles.  

32  

33  

Member States with equal or close to equal voting weights in the 
Council; for Bulgaria: Sweden and Austria 
IP/11/1437 

34 
35  
36  
37  
38  

IP/10/521 on the earlier reasoned opinion 
Directive 2010/76/EU 
Gaydarov, C-430/10  
IP/11/291  
IP 11/1437 

4

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
C Y P R U S  

General Statistics 
The Commission had 59 open infringements against Cyprus at 
the end of 2011, which ranks Cyprus 14th among the EU-27 
(the median value).  

However, Cyprus’s performance is the worst in its 
reference group:39 Latvia had only 23 open infringements; 
Malta and Estonia had 36 each, Slovenia 46, and Luxembourg 
48. Cyprus closed 2011 with considerably more infringements 
than in 2010 (44) and 2009 (31). The following chart indicates 
the four areas where Cyprus was subject most frequently to 
infringement procedures:  

59 infringements against Cyprus 

Internal Market; 8

Energy; 5

Rest of policies; 24

Transport; 11

Environment; 11

One case against Cyprus was brought before the Court in 

2011 (the same number as in 2010: the Commission claimed 
that the restrictive provisions on the acquisition of secondary 
residences by EU citizens, which benefited from a five-year 
moratorium after Cyprus’ accession, should have been 
repealed.40 Within the reference group, no cases were brought 
against Latvia and one each was brought against Estonia, Malta, 
Slovenia and Luxembourg. 

In no case did the Commission refer Cyprus to the Court 

for the second time under Article 260(2) TFEU. 

Transposition of directives  
During the course of 2011, the Commission opened 63 
infringement procedures against Cyprus for late transposition of 
national implementing measures of various directives 
(compared to 44 in 2010). This substantial increase means that 
Cyprus ranks 25th in the EU-27 and performed worse than all 
Member States in the reference group.  

The policy areas where Cyprus had to face particularly 
serious challenges in transposing EU directives are transport 
(12 late transposition infringements), health & consumers (11) 
and internal market & services (9).  

In no case did the Commission refer Cyprus to the Court 

with a request for financial sanctions (Article 260(3) TFEU) 
due to late transposition of directives. 

Complaints  
The Commission received 79 complaints against Cyprus in 
2011, which is the eleventh-lowest figure in the EU-27.  

They were concentrated in these areas: free movement of 

persons (expulsion safeguards, delays in issuing residence 
cards; 18 complaints), environment (detrimental impact of 
inappropriate project assessments and improper functioning of 
waste facilities; 14) and indirect taxation (especially car taxes; 
12). In addition, citizens warned the Commission that the 
authorities were refusing to recognise, for the purposes of 
pension rights, the periods spent in foreign service by Cypriot 
civil servants. Numerous complaints covered flaws in public 

39  

40  

Member States with equal or close to equal voting weights in the 
Council; for Cyprus: Latvia, Malta, Slovenia, Estonia, and 
Luxembourg. 
IP/11/1442 

procurement procedures and pointed out problems in relation to 
the recognition of professional qualifications.  

Early resolution of infringements 
Cyprus joined EU Pilot in the first half of 2011 and the Cypriot 
authorities were working on 23 newly opened files with the 
Commission in EU Pilot by the end of the year. This was the 
lowest EU Pilot caseload among the EU-27. Cyprus’s average 
response time is on a par with the benchmark (70 days).  

Some important infringement procedures were closed 

during 2011, given that Cyprus:  abolished the residence 
condition for seafarers for access to the social security 
system;41 adopted river basin management plans;42 justified the 
restrictions on the establishment of pharmacies with reference 
to public health; and updated the national civil aviation security 
programme.43  

Important judgments  
The Court delivered one judgment in 2011 on a public award 
procedure for the construction of a power station in Vassilikos. 
The Court declared that, on the basis of the elements made 
available to it, the Commission could not demonstrate that the 
Cypriot authorities had not treated applicants equally and had 
hindered the complaining applicant in resorting to legal 
remedies.44 

Key infringements 

(cid:131) 

(cid:131) 

The free movement of persons is restricted in particular 
by: disproportionately high fines and document costs; and 
no (or inadequate) transposition rules for the Free 
Movement Directive45 (relating to spouses, dependants 
and expulsion safeguards)46 
Failure to designate sufficient Special Protection Areas 
for endangered and migratory birds47 (only nine areas 
were designated out of the sixteen locations that are 
proven to be important) 

41  
42  
43  
44  
45  
46  
47  

IP/10/1210 on the earlier reasoned opinion 
IP/10/1413 on the earlier reasoned opinion 
IP/11/297 on the earlier reasoned opinion 
Commission v Cyprus, C-2009/251 
Directive 2004/38/EC 
IP/11/981 
IP/09/1793 

5

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
C Z E C H   R E P U B L I C  

General Statistics 
With 65 open infringements at the end of 2011, the Czech 
Republic had the 11th highest number of infringements (along 
with Austria) among the EU-27. 

This performance is around average in the Czech 

Republic’s reference group:48 Romania had 47 open 
infringements, Hungary 54, Netherlands and Portugal 71 and 84 
respectively, Belgium 117 and Greece 123. Czech Republic 
closed the year with more infringements than in 2010 (48) and 
2009 (60). The following chart shows the three policy areas 
where the Czech Republic was most frequently subject to 
infringement procedures:  

Complaints 
In 2011, 81 complaints were received against Czech Republic, 
which is the twelfth-lowest figure in the EU-27. 

Areas where the most irregularities were detected include 

employment (in particular the mandatory insurance required 
from labour agencies; 31 complaints), internal market 
(intellectual property rights and free provision of services; 10) 
and regional policy (fraudulent use of EU funds and 
discrimination in selection procedures; 8). Further complaints 
were about inconsistencies in the field of renewable energy, the 
lack of environmental impact assessment and poor urban waste 
water treatment. 

65 infringements against the Czech Republic

Internal Market; 6

Transport; 14

Rest of policies; 25

Environment; 20

Four cases were taken to the Court against the Czech 
Republic during 2011 (by contrast to the two during 2010). The 
Commission contested the sales designation 'Pomazánkové 
máslo' (butter spread) as the milk-fat content was not high 
enough to be called butter ('máslo') under EU law;49 the failure 
to update biocides legislation;50 the incorrect application of 
VAT grouping rules;51 and the erroneous implementation of 
VAT rules for travel agents.52 Within the reference group, no 
cases were submitted against Romania or Hungary, there were 
3 cases against Portugal, 4 each against the Netherlands and 
Greece, and 6 against Belgium.  

The Commission decided to refer the Czech Republic to 

the Court for the second time under Article 260(2) TFEU, with 
a request for financial sanctions, because of non-conformity in 
the implementation of the directive on occupational pension 
funds.53 

Transposition of directives  
The  Commission  opened  54  infringement  procedures  against 
the  Czech  Republic  for  late  transposition  of  various  directives 
in 2011. The Czech Republic faced 41 such procedures in 2010. 
Ranking as 21st in the EU-27, this result is poorer than for the 
Netherlands,  Belgium,  Romania  and  Portugal  but  is  ahead  of 
Greece and Hungary.  

The policy areas where the Czech Republic experienced 

serious challenges in transposing EU directives are 
environment (10 late transposition infringements), transport (9) 
and internal market & services (8).  

In no case in 2011 did, the Commission refer the Czech 

Republic to the Court with a request for financial sanctions 
(Article 260(3) TFEU) due to late transposition of directives.  

Early resolution of infringements 
At the end of 2011, the Commission was working on 73 open 
EU Pilot files with the Czech authorities, a regular caseload. 
The Czech Republic received 30 new EU Pilot dossiers from 
the Commission during 2011. The average response time in EU 
Pilot (72 days) was slightly above the 10-week benchmark.  
By taking into account the Commission's position, the 
Czech Republic took many necessary measures in 2011 to 
achieve compliance with EU law and to have the corresponding 
infringements closed. For example, it demonstrated improved 
national quality control on aviation security, modified its 
legislation on the sale of consumer goods and related 
guarantees, designated all Special Protection Areas required by 
the Birds Directive,54 amended its public procurement rules to 
cover certain military purchases,55 introduced equal tax 
treatment for domestic and foreign insurance pension schemes56 
and adjusted the VAT rate for race horses to comply with the 
VAT Directive.  

Important judgments  
In a preliminary ruling, the Court interpreted the Brussels I 
Regulation57 on the applicable jurisdiction for the Czech 
judiciary so that the plaintiff may launch legal proceedings 
before the court that has jurisdiction according to the 
defendant’s last known place of residence, if his/her current 
residence is unknown; however, this court remains obliged to 
take all necessary steps to locate the defendant’s current place 
of residence.58 

Key infringements 

(cid:131)  Non-application  of  the  working  time  rules  to  self-

employed drivers  

(cid:131)  Residence cards are issued subject to proof of 

accommodation; residence rights are not sufficiently 
explained to victims of domestic violence59 
Incomplete transposition of the Renewable Energy 
Directive60 

(cid:131) 

48  

49  
50  
51  
52  
53  

Member States with equal or close to equal voting weights in the 
Council; for Czech Republic: Romania, Hungary, the Netherlands, 
Portugal, Belgium and Greece. 
IP/10/1224 
IP/11/591 
IP/10/795 
IP/11/76 
IP/11/290  

54  
55  
56  
57  
58  
59  
60  

IP/07/938 on the earlier reasoned opinion 
IP/10/1438 on the earlier Court referral 
IP/10/1406 
Regulation 44/2001 
Hypoteční banka, C-327/10 
IP/11/981 and IP/12/75 
IP 11/1446 

6

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
D E N M A R K  

nationals are worried about the potential legal barriers to 
reunification of their family upon returning to Denmark. The 
Commission is also aware of concerns relating to protection 
from ionising radiation. 

Early resolution of infringements 
At the end of 2011, the Commission and the Danish authorities 
were working on 84 files in EU Pilot, which counts as a 
medium caseload. Relatively few new dossiers (35) were 
opened during 2011; however, the average EU Pilot response 
time for Denmark (81 days) was above the 10-week benchmark.  

Upon Denmark’s compliance with EU law, the 
Commission decided to discontinue in 2011 infringements 
pertaining to such matters as: the ban on certain energy drinks, 
refusals to reimburse medical expenses incurred in another 
Member State, infrequent monitoring under the national 
programme for the quality control of civil aviation security, 
improper assignment of the competences of the gender equality 
body and non-compliance of national implementing rules with 
the directive on wild birds.65 

Important judgments  
There were no such judgments.  

Key infringements 

(cid:131)  Discriminatory treatment of Dutch sailing ships 
(cid:131) 

Inadequate environmental assessments under the Habitats 
Directive66  

General Statistics 
The Commission had 37 open infringements against Denmark 
at the end of 2011, which is the fifth-best result among the 
EU-27. 

Denmark’s performance is also above average in its 
reference group:61 Lithuania had 36 open infringements, 
Slovakia and Ireland 41 and 42 respectively, and Finland 55. 
Denmark closed the year with more infringements than in 2010 
(29) and almost the same number as in 2009 (36). The 
following chart shows the four policy areas where Denmark 
was most frequently subject to infringement procedures:  

37 infringements against Denmark 

Energy; 5

Taxation; 5

Rest of policies; 12

Environment; 6

Transport; 9

Three cases were taken to the Court against Denmark 

during 2011 (by contrast to one case during 2010). The 
Commission contested: the failure to adopt river basin 
management plans;62 the incorrect application of VAT grouping 
rules;63 and the exit tax levied on companies relocating their 
headquarters to another Member State.64 Within the reference 
group, no cases were brought against Lithuania, one case 
against Slovakia, and two each against Ireland and Finland.  
No decisions were taken by the Commission to refer 
Denmark to the Court for the second time under Article 260(2) 
TFEU. 

Transposition of directives  
The Commission opened 28 infringement procedures against 
Denmark for late transposition of various directives in 2011. 
Denmark faced 14 such procedures in 2010. Ranking as the 2nd 
in the EU-27 (with Estonia and Ireland), this result is the best in 
Denmark’s reference group.  

The policy areas where Denmark experienced serious 

challenges in transposing EU directives are transport and 
energy (6 late transposition infringements in each area) and 
health & consumers (4).  

In no case in 2011 did the Commission refer Denmark to 
the Court with a request for financial sanctions (Article 260(3) 
TFEU) due to late transposition of directives. 

Complaints  
In 2011, the Commission received 77 complaints against 
Denmark, which is the tenth-lowest figure in the EU-27.  
Areas where the most irregularities were complained 

include taxation (discriminatory taxes on cars, cross-border 
workers and pensions; 25 complaints), internal market (public 
procurement and services; 11), environment (permission for 
mussel dredging in Natura 2000 sites; 10). Several Danish 

61  

62  
63  
64  

Member States with equal or close to equal voting weights in the 
Council; for Denmark: Lithuania, Slovakia, Ireland and Finland. 
IP/11/438 
IP/10/795 
IP/10/1565 

65  
66  

Directive 2009/147/EC 
Directive 1992/43/EC 

7

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
E S T O N I A  

Early resolution of infringements 
At the end of 2011, the Commission and the Estonian 
authorities were working on 30 open files, quite a light caseload. 
The Commission opened 19 new EU Pilot files on Estonia 
during 2011. Despite the moderate caseload, Estonia's average 
response time in EU Pilot (72 days) is slightly above the 10-
week benchmark.  

Quite a few infringements were terminated during 2011 as 

a result of Estonia’s cooperation with the Commission. 
Examples of such successful action include: amendments to the 
national rules to comply with EU consumer protection rules on 
advertised guarantees; the effective opening of the electricity 
market;69 remedies for shortcomings in Estonian laws 
implementing the directive on integrated pollution prevention 
and control70 and new legislation complying with the directive 
on capital requirements for the trading book and for re-
securitisations and the supervisory review of remuneration 
policies.71 

Important judgments  
There were no such judgments.  

Key infringements 

(cid:131)  No obligation for public authorities and transport 
operators to purchase clean and energy-efficient 
vehicles72 

(cid:131)  Non-transposition of the directive on public procurement 

in the fields of defence and security73 

General Statistics 
The Commission had 36 open infringements against Estonia at 
the end of 2011, which is the second-best result (along with 
Latvia and Malta) among the EU-27. 

Estonia’s performance (along with that of Malta) is also 

above average in its reference group:67 Latvia had 23 open 
infringements, Slovenia and Luxembourg 46 and 48 
respectively, and Cyprus 59. Estonia closed the year with fewer 
infringements than in 2010 (40) but slightly more than in 2009 
(34). The following chart shows the three policy areas where 
Estonia was most frequently subject to infringement 
procedures:  

36 infringements against Estonia 

Energy; 5

Internal Market; 7

Rest of policies; 14

Transport; 10

One case was brought before the Court against Estonia 
during 2011 (a notable decrease when compared with the 7 
cases submitted during 2010). Even in this case, in which the 
Commission claimed a lack of national laws on spatial data 
infrastructure,68 Estonia adopted the necessary rules shortly 
after the case had reached the Court. Within the reference group, 
no cases were filed against Latvia and only each against Malta, 
Slovenia, Luxembourg and Cyprus. 

In no case did the Commission refer Estonia to the Court 

for the second time under Article 260(2) TFEU. 

Transposition of directives  
The Commission opened 28 infringement procedures against 
Estonia for late transposition of various directives in 2011. 
Estonia faced 21 such procedures in 2010. Ranking as the 2nd in 
the EU-27 (with Denmark and Ireland), this result is the second 
best in Estonia’s reference group (Latvia performed even 
better).  

The policy areas where Estonia experienced serious 
challenges in transposing EU directives are transport (9 late 
transposition infringements), internal market & services (8) and 
energy (5).  

In no case in 2011 did the Commission refer Estonia to the 

Court with a request for financial sanctions (Article 260(3) 
TFEU) due to late transposition of directives. 

Complaints  
Estonia received the least complaints of all the Member States 
in 2011: just 19.  

The areas with alleged irregularities include environment 
(for example, designation of Natura 2000 sites; 4 complaints), 
home affairs (such as passport controls at intra-EU borders; 4) 
and taxation (e.g., discriminatory taxes on foreign income; 3). 

67  

68  

Member States with equal or close to equal voting weights in the 
Council; for Estonia: Latvia, Malta, Slovenia, Luxembourg and 
Cyprus. 
IP/10/1566 

69  
70  
71  
72  
73  

IP/06/1768 on the earlier reasoned opinion 
Directive 2008/1/EC 
Directive 2010/76/EU 
IP/11/726 
Directive 2009/81/EC 

8

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
F I N L A N D  

General Statistics 
The Commission had 55 open infringements against Finland at 
the end of 2011, which is the thirteenth-best result among the 
EU-27. 
However, Finland's performance is the worst in its reference 
group74: Lithuania had 36 open infringements, Denmark and 
Slovakia 37 and 41 respectively, and Ireland 42. Finland closed 
the year with more infringements than in 2010 (42) and 2009 
(37). The following chart shows the three policy areas where 
Finland was subject most frequently to infringement 
procedures: 

55 infringements against Finland 

Early resolution of infringements 
At the end of 2011, the Commission and the Finnish authorities 
were working on 57 open files in EU Pilot. This is deemed a 
regular caseload, including the 20 new dossiers the 
Commission opened on Finnish issues during 2011. Finland 
belongs to the 13 Member States whose average response time 
in EU Pilot (80 days) exceeds the 10-week benchmark.  
The Commission was able to close a number of 

infringements because Finland ensured compliance with EU 
law. For example, Finland broadened the scope of its personal 
data protection rules, achieved full compliance with the 
directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment,77 
transposed fully the directive on capital requirements for the 
trading book and for re-securitisations and the supervisory 
review of remuneration policies78 and applied the VAT 
exemption for universal postal services as required by the VAT 
directive.79  

Internal Market; 8

Entreprise; 10

Transport; 13

Rest of policies; 24

Important judgments  
There were no such judgments. 

Key infringements 

(cid:131) 

Failure to ensure enhanced consumer protection against 
errors in measuring instruments (such as household 
meters or petrol pumps)80  

(cid:131)  Non-application  of  the  working  time  rules  to  self-

(cid:131) 

employed drivers  
Lack of adequate protection of the Saimaa ringed seal 
(freshwater subspecies, found only in the Saimaa lake 
system in south-eastern Finland)81 

(cid:131)  Non-transposition of the directive on public procurement 

in the defence and security sector82  

Two Court cases were brought against Finland during 

2011 (the same number as in 2010). The Commission found 
unacceptable the application of VAT grouping rules;75 and the 
implementation of VAT rules for travel agents.76 Within the 
reference group, there were no cases against Lithuania, one 
against Slovakia, 2 against Ireland and 3 against Denmark.  

No decisions were taken by the Commission to refer 
Finland to the Court for the second time under Article 260(2) 
TFEU. 

Transposition of directives  
The Commission opened 62 infringement procedures against 
Finland for late transposition of various directives in 2011. 
Finland faced 49 such procedures in 2010. Ranking 24th in the 
EU-27, this result is easily the poorest in Finland’s reference 
group.  

The policy areas where Finland experienced serious 
challenges in transposing EU directives are health & consumers 
(14 late transposition infringements), transport (12) and 
enterprise & industry (10).  

In no case in 2011 did the Commission refer Finland to the 

Court with a request for financial sanctions (Article 260(3) 
TFEU) due to late transposition of directives. 

Complaints  
In 2011, the Commission received 46 complaints against 
Finland, which is the seventh-lowest figure in the EU-27.  

Citizens and businesses pointed out possible errors in the 

areas of taxation (especially discrimination against cross-border 
workers; 11 complaints), internal market (particularly the free 
provision of services; 9) and fundamental rights (sex 
discrimination in pension schemes; 9). In addition complaints 
addressed illegal bird hunting and disputed the residence 
requirement as an eligibility criteria for certain social security 
benefits.  

74  

75  
76  

Member States with equal or close to equal voting weights in the 
Council; for Finland: Lithuania, Denmark, Slovakia and Ireland. 
IP/10/795 
IP/11/76 

77  
78  
79  
80  
81  
82  

Directive 2002/96/EC 
Directive 2010/76/EU 
Directive 2006/112/EC 
IP/11/1110  
IP/10/523 
Directive 2009/81/EC 

9

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
F R A N C E  

General Statistics  
The Commission had 95 open infringements against France at 
the end of 2011, which is the fifth-highest number (together 
with Poland) among the EU-27. 

France’s performance is average in its reference group83: 

at the end of 2011, Germany and the UK had 76 open 
infringements each, Spain had 99, and 135 were on-going 
against Italy. France closed 2011 and 2010 with the same 
number of infringements (95), which was a slight increase 
compared to 2009 (92). The following chart shows the four 
policy areas with the most frequent infringement procedures:  

95 infringements against France

Transport; 13

Internal Market; 13

Rest of policies; 36

Environment; 15 

Taxation; 18 

The Commission brought seven Court cases against 
France (8 during 2010), including the sector-specific tax 
imposed on telecommunication companies84 and the non-
conformity of its energy tax system with the corresponding EU 
directive.85 Within the reference group, no cases were brought 
against Germany; there were 2 cases against the UK; 4 against 
Italy; 6 against Spain and 7 against Poland.  

In  no  case  did  the  Commission  refer  France  to  the  Court 

for the second time under Article 260(2) TFEU in 2011. 

Transposition of directives  
The Commission opened 42 infringement procedures against 
France during 2011 for late communication of national 
implementing measures of various directives. France faced 15 
such procedures at the end of 2010. This is the twelfth- best in 
the EU-27 and better than all Member States in the reference 
group, except for Germany. 

The policy areas where France experienced serious 
challenges in transposing EU directives are transport and 
internal market & services (9 late transposition infringements 
each) and energy (5). 

In no case did the Commission refer France to the Court 
with a request for financial sanctions (Article 260(3) TFEU) 
due to late transposition of directives in 2011. 

Complaints  
France ranked 4th among the EU-27 in terms of total complaints 
(223) at the end of 2011.  

Complaints focused on environment (e.g. inadequate or no 

impact assessments: 56); taxation (e.g. foreign charities, ‘exit 
tax’ on companies transferring their headquarters to other 
Member States, and the obligation on non-residents to appoint a 
tax representative); internal market & services (e.g. public 
procurement: 30). Car registration and access for non-French 
nationals to the CMU (sickness benefit scheme) also attracted 
several complaints. 

83  

84  
85  

Member States with equal or close to equal voting weights in the 
Council; for France: the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Spain and 
Poland. 
IP/11/309 
IP/10/1575 

(cid:131) 

(cid:131) 

86  
87  
88  
89  
90  
91  
92  
93  
94  
95  
96  

97  
98  
99  
100  
101  

Early resolution of infringements 
France joined EU Pilot in September 2011. By the end of 2011 
the Commission had invited the French authorities to provide 
an opinion on 53 new EU Pilot files. This high initial caseload 
reflected in an average response time (84 days) above the target 
10-week benchmark.  

By notifying its corrected measures implementing the Free 

Movement Directive,86 France has satisfactorily addressed the 
problem of repatriating Roma EU citizens. Other infringements 
against France that the Commission was able to close due to 
compliance during 2011 concerned: rules on the parallel import 
and repackaging of phytopharmaceutical products; VAT-rate 
for bundled purchases of TV, internet and telephone services; 
and the trading book requirements and re-securitisations for 
credit institutions.87 

Important judgments  
Reserving access to the profession of notary to French citizens 
was deemed contrary to the right of establishment.88 The 
treatment of asbestos-cement waste was found to be 
incompatible with the corresponding EU rules.89 The lack of a 
programme ensuring the strict protection of the European 
hamster was also held to be unlawful.90 

In addition, the Court’s preliminary rulings guided the 
French judiciary in relation to the personal scope of EU product 
liability rules (Directive 85/374/EEC as amended)91 and the 
discriminatory nature of granting the “bonus écologique” to 
demonstration vehicles registered abroad before their import to 
France.92 

Key infringements 

(cid:131)  Refusal to apply EU scrapie93 control measures in favour 

of national rules94 

(cid:131)  Violation of EU rules on marketing wine spirits and wine 

distillates95  

(cid:131)  Recovery of illegal state aid provided for the takeover of 

firms in difficulties96 

(cid:131)  Refusal to grant jobseekers’ allowances to non-French EU 

nationals 

(cid:131)  Regulated gas prices for non-household users97 
(cid:131)  Channel tunnel: violation of rail transport rules aimed at 

market opening and fair competition.98 
Failing to comply with the Energy Tax Directive99 - 
system for taxing electricity100 
Sector-specific tax on electronic communication 
services101 

Directive 2004/38/EC 
Directive 2010/76/EU 
Commission v France, C-50/08 
Commission v France, C-515/10 
Commission v France, C-383/09 
Dutrueux and Caisse primaire d'assurance maladie du Jura, C-495/10 
Bonnarde, C-443/10 
Scrapie is the “mad cow disease” equivalent for sheep and goats.  
IP/11/601 
IP/12/179  
Procedure under Article 260(2) TFEU due to France's failure to 
comply with the Court’s judgment in the case Commission v France, 
C-214/07 
IP/12/542 
IP/11/1099  
Directive 2003/96/EC 
IP/10/1575 
IP/11/309 

10

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
G E R M A N Y  

General Statistics 
The Commission had 76 open infringements against Germany 
at the end of 2011, which is the eighth-highest number of 
infringements (along with the United Kingdom) among the 
EU-27. 

However, Germany’s performance (along with that of the 
UK) is the best in its reference group:102France and Poland had 
95 open infringements each, Spain 99 and Italy 135. Germany 
closed the year with fewer infringements than in 2010 (79) and 
2009 (90). The following chart shows the three policy areas 
where Germany was most frequently subject to infringement 
procedures: 

76 infringements against Germany 

Other policies; 30

Internal market & 
services; 20

Transport; 10 

Taxation & customs 

union; 16 

No cases were brought to the Court against Germany 
during 2011 (by contrast to the 7 cases during 2010). Within the 
reference group, 2 cases were brought against the UK, 4 against 
Italy, 6 against Spain and 7 against Poland and France.  

The Commission decided to refer Germany to the Court 

for the second time under Article 260(2) TFEU in the 
‘Volkswagen case”’.103 

Transposition of directives  
The Commission opened 31 infringement procedures against 
Germany for late communication of national implementing 
measures of various directives. Though Germany faced only 21 
such procedures in 2010, its 2011 result is still the fifth-best in 
the EU-27 (with Sweden) and better than all Member States in 
the reference group.  

The policy areas where Germany experienced serious 
challenges in transposing EU directives are transport (9 late 
transposition infringements), internal market & services (5) and 
home affairs (4).  

The Commission referred Germany to the Court, with a 
request for financial sanctions (Article 260(3) TFEU), due to 
the late transposition of the Services Directive104, but the case 
has been closed following compliance by Germany. Two cases 
related to railway transport105 were referred to the Court with a 
proposal for financial sanctions.  

Complaints  
Germany registered the third-highest number of complaints of 
all the Member States in 2011 (263 complaints).  

The areas with the most alleged irregularities were internal 

market (especially public procurement and services; 69 
complaints), environment (damages to Natura 2000 sites; 47) 
and taxation (discrimination against cross-border workers, 
pension payments and dividends with cross-border elements; 

102  

103  
104  
105  

Member States with equal or close to equal voting weights in the 
Council; for Germany: the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain and 
Poland.  
IP/11/1444 
Directive 2006/123/EC  
Directives 2008/57/EC and 2008/110/EC  

40). Several complaints dealt with shortcomings in the 
enforcement of passenger rights, the free movement of family 
members, the lack of independence of the data protection 
supervisory body and preventive services at the workplace 
(such as first aid or reaction to dangers).  

Early resolution of infringements 
At the end of 2011, the Commission and the German authorities 
were working on 193 open files in EU Pilot. This counts as the 
third highest caseload in the EU-27, even though a relatively 
modest number of new dossiers (60) were opened during 2011. 
Despite the numerous on-going discussions, Germany achieved 
an average EU Pilot response time of 65 days, which is below 
the 10-week benchmark.  

Of the infringements eliminated by Germany during 2011, 

the following are worth highlighting: inclusion of foreign 
insurance periods when calculating old age pensions; changing 
the financial assets valuation rules for insurance companies to 
comply with EU norms; and reducing VAT exemptions for 
postal services to fit into the limits set by the VAT Directive.  

Important judgments  
Allowing a de facto tax exemption for domestic dividends 
while taxing dividends paid to foreign shareholders was found 
to be contrary to the free movement of capital.106 Making the 
grant of benefits for disabled persons conditional upon a 
residence in the Land was declared as incompatible with 
Regulation 1408/71.107 The Court condemned Germany also for 
refusing the Court of Auditors to carry out verifications in the 
field of VAT cooperation (established by Regulation 
1798/2003).108 

In addition, a number of preliminary judgments guided the 
German judiciary in the area of justice and fundamental rights. 
The Court ruled that the five-year residence period, which is a 
condition for any permanent stay, must include terms spent in 
the host country before the accession of the citizen’s Member 
State;109 and that a registered partner in a same-sex life 
partnership is entitled to a supplementary retirement pension in 
the same way as a married partner.110 

Key infringements 

Trade barriers on CE-marked construction products111 
(cid:131) 
(cid:131)  Restrictions  on  family  members’  rights  protected  by  the 

(cid:131) 

(cid:131) 

Free Movement Directive 112 
electricity  network 
Inappropriate  management  of 
congestion and lack of transparency of cross-border trade 
data on energy113 
Late transposition of the directive on public procurement 
in the defence and security sector (2009/81/EC) 

(cid:131)  Discriminatory tax rules on hidden reserves114 

106  
107  
108  
109  
110  
111  
112  
113  
114  

Commission v Germany, C-284/09 
Commission v Germany, C-206/10 
Commission v Germany, C-539/09 
Ziolkowski and Szeja, C-424/10 
Jürgen Römer v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg, C-147/08 
IP/11/713  
IP/11/981 
IP/10/836 and MEMO 10/275 
IP/11/1127 

11

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
G R E E C E  

General Statistics 
The Commission had 123 open infringements against Greece at 
the end of 2011. This is the second-worst result among the 
EU-27. 

Greece’s performance is also the worst in its reference 
group:115 Romania had 47 open infringements, Hungary 54, the 
Czech Republic 65, the Netherlands and Portugal had 71 and 84 
respectively, and Belgium 117.  However, Greece closed the 
year with fewer infringements than in 2010 (125) and 2009 
(137). The following chart shows the three policy areas where 
Greece was subject most frequently to infringement procedures:  
123 infringements against Greece 

Entreprise; 12

Environment; 24

Internal Market; 28

Rest of policies; 59

Four Court cases were brought against Greece during 2011 
(compared to the 11 cases filed during 2010). The Commission 
contested the failure to adopt river basin management plans;116 
the lack of progress in protecting Lake Koroneia (despite partial 
EU financing);117 the investment restrictions in ‘strategic 
companies’;118 and the incorrect implementation of VAT rules 
for travel agents.119 Within the reference group, no cases were 
brought against Romania and Hungary; 3 cases were brought 
against Portugal, 4 each against the Netherlands and Czech 
Republic, and 6 against Belgium.  

In no case did the Commission decide to refer Greece to 

the Court for the second time under Article 260(2) TFEU. 

Transposition of directives  
The Commission opened 55 infringement procedures against 
Greece for late transposition of various directives in 2011. 
Greece had to face only 49 such procedures in 2010. Ranking 
22nd in the EU-27, this result is poorer than for all the other 
Member States in the reference group except for Hungary.  
The policy areas where Greece experienced serious 

challenges in transposing EU directives are health & consumers 
(13 late transposition infringements), transport (11) and internal 
market & services (8).  

Despite the progress made by the Greek authorities in 
transposing the Services Directive120, the process could not be 
deemed complete even more than two years after the 
implementation deadline had expired. Accordingly, the 
Commission referred Greece to the Court with a proposal for 
financial sanctions.121  

Complaints  
The Commission received 193 complaints against Greece in 
2011, which is the sixth highest figure among the EU-27.  

Areas that attracted the most complaints were internal 
market (especially public procurement, the free provision of 
services and mutual recognition of qualifications; 69 
complaints), environment (damages to Natura 2000 sites and 
illegal landfills; 47) and fundamental rights (such as age 
discrimination in recruitment and retirement from diplomatic 
service; 16). Other complaints were about the refusal to 
recognise foreign diplomas for employment purposes in the 
public sector, food safety and the discriminatory application of 
the rules on minimum personal income tax for non-residents.  

Early resolution of infringements 
Greece joined EU Pilot in the second half of 2011. By the end 
of the year the Commission and the Greek authorities were 
already working on 43 new EU Pilot files. Despite this high 
initial caseload, Greece was among the 11 Member States 
whose average response time in EU Pilot (63 days) beat the 10-
week benchmark.  

Greece has corrected several of its national rules to 
comply with EU law. The Commission closed cases on barriers 
to access in the road haulier profession, the restrictions on 
maritime cabotage, the absence of a national air surveillance 
authority, the prohibition on repacking potatoes, other fresh 
fruits and vegetables, the functioning of the Skalistiri landfill 
without proper licensing and the discriminatory tax amnesty 
granted to repatriated funds vis-à-vis funds held abroad.  

Important judgments  
The Court found against Greece for the late transposition of the 
directive on compensation to crimes victims and ordered it to 
pay a lump sum penalty of €3 million. 122 The use of the less 
transparent negotiated procedure was also found to be 
unjustified in a public tender concerned with urban planning 
and land registration even if these services were provided on a 
complementary basis.123 The Court also refused to accept the 
exercise of official authority as a justification for the nationality 
condition for public notaries.124 

In preliminary rulings, the Court found that while certain 

restrictions on the transporting, storing, processing and packing 
of dried grapes may protect the quality, they are nonetheless 
equivalent to measures of quantitative restrictions.125 The Court 
also confirmed that a project must undergo an environmental 
assessment under the SEA Directive,126 if it may have a 
significant effect on natural habitats or wild fauna and flora.127 

Key infringements 

(cid:131) 

Total ban on games machines (non-compliance with 
Court judgment despite financial sanctions)128 
Excessive working hours for doctors in public hospitals129 

(cid:131) 
(cid:131)  Bad transposition of the directive on late payments,130 

outstanding debts of public bodies (including hospitals) 

115  

116  
117  
118  
119  
120  
121  

Member States with equal or close to equal voting weights in the 
Council; for Greece: Romania, Hungary, the Czech Republic, the 
Netherlands, Portugal and Belgium 
IP/11/438 
IP/11/89 
IP/11/179 
IP/11/76 
Directive 2006/123/EC  
IP/11/1283 

122  
123  
124  
125  
126  
127  
128  
129  
130  

Commission v Greece, Case C-407/09 and IP/12/168 
Commission v Greece, Case C-601/10 
Commission v Greece, C-61/08 
Kakavetsos-Fragkopoulos, Case C-161/09 
Directive 2001/42/EC 
Syllogos Ellinon Poleodomon kai chorotakton C-177/11 
Commission v Greece, Case C-65/05 
IP/11/1121 
Directive 2000/35/EC 

12

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
H U N G A R Y  

General Statistics 
The Commission had 54 open infringements against Hungary at 
the end of 2011, which is the eleventh-best result (along with 
Bulgaria) among the EU-27. 

Hungary’s performance is also above average in its 
reference group:131 Romania had 47 open infringements, the 
Czech Republic 65, the Netherlands and Portugal 71 and 84 
respectively, Belgium 117, and Greece 123.  Hungary closed 
the year with slightly more infringements than in 2010 (53) and 
2009 (50). The following chart shows the three policy areas 
where Hungary was subject most frequently to infringement 
procedures:  

Areas where citizens and businesses raised the most 
problems include taxation (discriminative nature of sector-
specific taxes in retail and telecommunications; 26 complaints) 
and fundamental rights (independence of the judiciary and the 
data protection authority, sensitive data processing and video 
surveillance by employer; 9). Other complaints alleged that 
Natura 2000 sites were not subject to adequate environmental 
impact assessment in connection with infrastructure 
developments, illegal landfills were being operated, hazardous 
waste treatment was deficient, and internal market rules were 
being misapplied especially those relating to free provision of 
services.  

Early resolution of infringements 
At the end of 2011, the Commission and the Hungarian 
authorities were working on 87 open files in EU Pilot, which 
suggests an average caseload. 42 new Hungarian dossiers were 
opened in EU Pilot during 2011. The country is one of the 13 
Member States whose average response time (66 days for 
Hungary) remains under the 10-week benchmark.  

The Commission was able to close a number of 
infringements against Hungary in 2011 due to action to 
eliminate inconsistencies in its national law vis-à-vis EU rules. 
For example, the restrictions on foreign currency mortgages 
were lifted, amendments to the tax legislation granted non-
discriminatory treatment to second-hand cars imported from 
other Member States,133 an aerial power line that passed 
through an area protected by the Birds Directive was 
removed,134 and the new legislation on pyrotechnic articles 
achieved compliance with the new EU rules. 

Important judgments  
There were no such judgments. 

Key infringements 

(cid:131)  Compatibility of laws implementing the new Hungarian 
constitution with EU rules especially as regards the 
independence of the central bank, the judiciary and the 
data protection supervisory authority 
Sector-specific tax on electronic communication 
services135 

(cid:131) 

(cid:131)  Absence of measures on driving licences136 
(cid:131) 

Failure to meet limit values on air quality ('PM10' values) 
in several zones and agglomerations137 

54 infringements against Hungary 

Internal Market; 8

Environment; 10

Rest of policies; 24

Transport; 12

At the end of 2011, the Commission expressed serious 

concerns regarding the compatibility of draft Hungarian 
legislation with EU law. One of these draft laws concerned the 
retirement age of judges, prosecutors and public notaries. 
Another related to the independence of the data protection 
supervisory authority. A third raised doubts about the 
independence of the Hungarian National Bank. In addition, the 
Commission announced that certain Hungarian draft laws had 
to be assessed against the core principle of an independent 
judiciary.132 

No Court cases were brought against Hungary during 2011 

(3 in 2010). Within the reference group, there were no cases 
against Romania, 3 against Portugal, 4 each against the 
Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Greece, and 6 against 
Belgium.  

In no case did the Commission refer Hungary to the Court 

with a request for financial sanctions under Article 260(2) 
TFEU. 

Transposition of directives  
The Commission opened 70 infringement procedures against 
Hungary for late transposition of various directives in 2011. 
Hungary faced 57 such procedures in 2010. Ranking 26th in the 
EU-27, this result is the poorest in Hungary’s reference group.  
The policy areas where Hungary experienced serious 
challenges in transposing EU directives are health & consumers 
(17 late transposition infringements), transport (12) and 
environment (8).  

In no case in 2011 did the Commission refer Hungary to 
the Court with a request for financial sanctions (Article 260(3) 
TFEU) due to late transposition of directives. 

Complaints  
The Commission received 83 complaints against Hungary in 
2011, which is the fourteenth-highest figure in the EU-27.  

131  

132  

Member States with equal or close to equal voting weights in the 
Council; for Hungary: Romania, the Czech Republic, the 
Netherlands, Portugal, Belgium and Greece.  
IP/12/24 and IP/12/222 

133  
134  
135  
136  
137  

IP/09/1643 on the earlier reasoned opinion 
IP/11/437 on the earlier reasoned opinion 
IP/11/1108 
IP/11/1250 
IP/10/1577 

13

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
I R E L A N D  

General Statistics 
The Commission had 42 open infringements against Ireland at 
the end of 2011, which is the seventh-best result among the 
EU-27. 

Ireland’s performance is below average in its reference 
group:138 Lithuania had 36 open infringements, Denmark and 
Slovakia 37 and 41 respectively, and Finland 55. Ireland closed 
the year with fewer infringements than in 2010 (58) and 2009 
(98). The following chart shows the three policy areas where 
Ireland was most frequently subject to infringement procedures:  

42 infringements against Ireland 

Energy; 6

Taxation; 8

Rest of policies; 15

Environment; 13

Two cases were referred to the Court against Ireland 

during 2011 (4 cases were brought during 2010). The 
Commission held that the application of VAT grouping rules139 
and the reduced VAT rate for supplies of horses and 
greyhounds140 were incompatible with EU rules. Within the 
reference group, no cases were brought against Lithuania; one 
case was brought against Slovakia, 2 against Finland and 3 
against Denmark.  

The Commission referred two Irish environmental cases to 

the Court against with a request for financial sanctions under 
Article 260(2) TFEU: one because the criteria system for 
making a project subject to environmental impact assessment 
ignored sensitive countryside features (such as wetlands, 
habitats and archaeological remains);141 and another due to the 
lack of adequate checks and inspections on septic tanks for 
collecting domestic waste water.142 

Transposition of directives  
The Commission opened 28 infringement procedures against 
Ireland for late transposition of various directives in 2011. 
Ireland faced 31 such procedures in 2010, so there has been an 
improvement in an area where almost all Member States’ 
performance weakened in 2011. Ranking as 2nd in the EU-27 
(with Estonia and Denmark), this result is the best in Ireland’s 
reference group.  

The policy areas where Ireland experienced serious 
challenges in transposing EU directives are transport (6 late 
transposition infringements), internal market & services (5) and 
energy (5).  

In no case in 2011 did the Commission refer Ireland to the 

Court with a request for financial sanctions (Article 260(3) 
TFEU) due to late transposition of directives. 

Complaints 
The Commission received 90 complaints against Ireland in 
2011 which is the thirteenth-highest figure in the EU-27. 

Areas with the most alleged irregularities include 

environment (negative impact of infrastructural developments 
on Natura 2000 sites and inadequate environmental assessment; 
29 complaints), fundamental rights (especially, restrictions on 
family members’ rights, if not EU citizens; 26) and internal 
market (free provision of services and public procurement; 12). 
Additional complaints criticised discriminatory taxes on cars 
and inheritance, and the restricted access to special non-
contributory benefits.  

Early resolution of infringements 
At the end of 2011, the Commission and the Irish authorities 
were working on 118 open files in EU Pilot, which is a higher 
than average caseload. 44 new dossiers were opened on Irish 
issues during 2011. Ireland’s average EU Pilot response time 
(75 days) failed to meet the 10-week benchmark.  

By respecting the Commission’s position, Ireland took 

many necessary measures in 2011 to achieve compliance with 
EU law. For example, it overhauled the discriminatory air 
travel tax,143 provided for the opening of the gas and electricity 
markets,144 amended its legislation to comply with the directive 
on waste originating from electronic and electric equipment145 
and created a new legal framework to implement the directive 
on postal services.146 As result, the corresponding 
infringements were closed.  

Important judgments  
The Court closed an environmental dispute by ruling that: 
Ireland had failed to transpose properly the impact assessment 
directive;147 there were shortcomings in cooperation on the 
competent Irish authorities, which prevented the efficient 
performance of impact assessments; and demolition works were 
unduly excluded from the scope of the Irish legislation 
implementing the relevant directive.148  

Key infringements 

(cid:131) 

Failure  to  ensure  animal  welfare  during  transport  as 
regards journey times and resting periods  
Excessive working hours for doctors in public hospitals149 

(cid:131) 
(cid:131)  Restrictive exit tax rules for companies150 
(cid:131)  Discriminatory tax treatment of cars leased or rented from 

another Member States151 

(cid:131)  Non-transparent conditions as regards access to natural 

gas transmission networks152 

138  

139  
140  
141  
142  

Member States with equal or close to equal voting weights in the 
Council; for Ireland: Lithuania, Denmark, Slovakia, and Finland. 
IP/10/795 
IP/10/1576 
IP/11/168 
IP/11/592 

143  
144  
145  
146  
147  
148  
149  
150  
151  
152  

IP/11/734 
IP/06/1768 
Directive 2002/96/EC 
Directive 2008/6/EC 
Directive 85/337/EEC 
Commission v Ireland, Case C-50/09 
IP/11/1121 
IP/11/78 
IP/11/1281 
IP/12/52 

14

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
I T A L Y  

General Statistics 
The Commission had 135 open infringements against Italy at 
the end of 2011, which is the worst result among the EU-27. 
Italy’s performance is also the worst in its reference 
group:153 Germany and the UK had 76 open infringements each, 
France and Poland 95 each, and Spain 99. Italy closed the year 
with more infringements than in 2010 (128) but fewer than in 
2009 (151). The following chart shows the four policy areas 
where Italy was subject most frequently to infringement 
procedures:  

135 infringements against Italy 

Transport; 12

Taxation; 12

Internal Market; 18

Rest of policies; 60

Environment; 33

Four Court cases were brought against Italy during 2011 

(5 in 2010). The Commission contested the Italian 
implementation of VAT rules for travel agents;154 the 
unjustified excess of EU air quality limit values for airborne 
particles (‘PM10 values’);155 the incorrect transposition of the 
First Railway Package;156 and the incomplete transposition of 
the EU directive prohibiting discrimination in employment on 
the grounds of, among other, disability.157 Within the reference 
group, no cases were brought against Germany, 2 against the 
UK, 6 against Spain and 7 each against Poland and France.  

No decisions were taken by the Commission to refer Italy 

to the Court for the second time under Article 260(2) TFEU. 

Transposition of directives  
The Commission opened 73 infringement procedures against 
Italy for late transposition of various directives. Italy faced only 
55 such procedures in 2010. Ranking last in its reference group, 
Italy’s result is also the poorest in the EU-27.  

The policy areas where Italy experienced serious 

challenges in transposing EU directives are health & consumers 
(15 late transposition infringements), internal market & services 
(11), transport and environment (10 in each area).  

The Commission referred Italy to the Court, with a request 

for financial sanctions (Article 260(3) TFEU), due to the late 
transposition of the directive modifying capital requirements 
for the trading book and for re-securitisations as well as the 
supervisory review of remuneration policies.158  

Complaints  
There were more complaints submitted against Italy in 2011 
than against any other Member State: 386 complaints were 
received by the Commission.  

The areas with the most alleged irregularities include 

internal market (in particular, public procurement, free 
provision of services and recognition of professional 

153  

154  
155  
156  
157  
158  

Member States with equal or close to equal voting weights in the 
Council; for Italy : Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Poland 
and Spain. 
IP/11/76 
IP/10/1586 
IP/10/807 
IP/11/408 
Directive 2010/76/EU 

(cid:131) 

(cid:131) 

159  
160  
161  
162  
163  
164  
165  
166  
167  

qualifications; 114 complaints), environment (inadequate 
environmental impact assessments, damages to Natura 2000 
sites, illegal landfills, substandard waste management systems; 
69) and fundamental rights (discriminatory access to social 
benefits and civil mediation; 47). The health and safety of 
employees at the workplace continues to generate many 
complaints, as does the discriminatory tax on foreign real estate 
and companies’ exit tax. The proper functioning of electricity 
and gas markets was also questioned. Finally, the Commission 
was requested to examine discriminatory charges at an airport 
and certain maritime cabotage restrictions.  

Early resolution of infringements 
At the end of 2011, the Commission and the Italian authorities 
were working on 371 open files in EU Pilot, which was the 
highest caseload within the EU-27. Italy also received the 
highest number of new EU Pilot dossiers from the Commission 
during 2011 (125). Despite such pressure, Italy’s average 
response time in EU Pilot (72 days) was only slightly above the 
10-week benchmark. 

Italy made serious efforts in 2011 to comply with EU law, 

e.g.: it eliminated the obstacles to the importation and use of 
radio receivers; acted to recognise, from all other Member 
States, the certificates of origin issued for renewable 
electricity;159 cleaned up industrial and urban waste landfills in 
Manfredonia and Pioltello-Rodano; brought the VAT 
exemptions for postal services within the limits of the VAT 
Directive160 and abolished the discriminatory taxes on foreign 
investment funds. The infringements in question were thus 
discontinued.  

Important judgments  
Because of its failure to recover illegal state aid, Italy was 
ordered to pay a lump sum penalty of €30 million as well as 
periodic penalties which can decrease proportionately to any 
aid remaining unrecovered.161 Hunting derogations introduced 
in Sardinia were also deemed to go beyond the limits 
established by the Birds Directive.162 Finally, the Court found 
that Italy had failed to take the necessary measures to ensure 
that all existing installations be subject to integrated pollution 
prevention control via new permits or re-verified and/or 
updated permits.163  

Key infringements 

(cid:131) 
Incorrect transposition of the First Railway Package 
(cid:131)  Discriminatory rules against workers with experience and 

qualifications from another EU country164 

(cid:131)  Restrictions on extended family members' rights under the 

EU free movement rules165 
Lack of compliance with the Energy Performance of 
Buildings Directive (2002/91/EC)166 
Inadequate waste management in Campania region167 

IP/09/1799 on the earlier Court referral  
Directive 2006/112/EC 
Commission v Italy, Case C-496/09 
Commission v Italy, Case C-508/09 
Commission v Italy, Case C-50/10 
IP/11/167 
IP/11/981 
IP/11/1100  
IP/11/1102 

15

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
L A T V I A  

General Statistics 
The Commission had just 23 open infringements against Latvia 
at the end of 2011, which is the best result among the EU–27. 
Latvia’s performance is also the best in its reference 
group:168 Estonia and Malta had 36 open infringements each, 
Slovenia and Luxembourg 46 and 48 respectively, and Cyprus 
59. Latvia closed the year 2011 with fewer infringements than 
in 2010 (26) and 2009 (30). The following chart shows the 
policy areas where Latvia was subject most frequently to 
infringement procedures:  

Latvia has properly addressed a number of concerns 

regarding the compatibility of its national measures and 
practices with EU law. As a result, the Commission was able to 
put an end, for example, to the infringement relating to the 
incomplete transposition of the directive on waste originating 
from electric and electronic equipment.169 In addition, a child 
abduction complaint demonstrated that, in matrimonial matters, 
the Latvian authorities apply correctly the mutual recognition 
and enforcement rules laid down by the ‘Brussels IIA 
Regulation’170. 

23 infringements against Latvia 

Climate; 2

Energy; 3

Rest of policies; 5

Important judgments  
In a preliminary ruling, the Court ruled that if a private 
company does not bear a significant share of risk under a 
contract signed with a public body, such contract should fall 
within the scope of EU rules on public procurement (in this 
case, Directive 2004/17/EC).171 

Transport; 3

Environment; 5

Internal Market; 5

Key infringements 

(cid:131)  Non-transposition of the directive on airport charges172 
(cid:131) 
Insufficient designation of Special Protection Areas for 
migratory and vulnerable wild bird species173 

No Court cases were brought against Latvia during 2011 

(none either in 2009 and 2010). Within the reference group, 
there was one case each against Estonia, Malta, Slovenia, 
Luxembourg and Cyprus. 

Likewise, no decisions were taken by the Commission to 

refer Latvia to the Court for the second time under Article 
260(2) TFEU. 

Transposition of directives  
The Commission opened 24 infringement procedures against 
Latvia for late transposition of various directives in 2011. This 
is more than the 18 in 2010, but its result is still the best within 
its reference group and also in the EU-27.  

The policy areas where Latvia experienced serious 
challenges in transposing EU directives are internal market & 
services (5 late transposition infringements) transport (4), 
health & consumers and energy (3 in each area).  

In no case in 2011 did the Commission refer Latvia to the 

Court with a request for financial sanctions (Article 260(3) 
TFEU) due to late transposition of directives. 

Complaints  
Latvia was ranked second in terms of complaints received: 21 
complaints in 2011.  

Areas where the most anomalies were claimed include 
regional policy (errors in the implementation of various EU-
funded regional projects; 6 complaints), internal market 
(especially public procurement matters; 4) and transport (for 
example, towage services in a Latvian port; 3). 

Early resolution of infringements 
Latvia started to use EU Pilot at the beginning of 2011. By the 
end of the year, the Commission and the Latvian authorities 
were working on 30 newly opened dossiers, which is one of the 
lightest caseloads in the EU-27. Latvia’s average EU Pilot 
response time (62 days) is in line with the 10-week benchmark.  

168  

Member States with equal or close to equal voting weights in the 
Council; for Latvia: Estonia, Malta, Slovenia, Luxembourg and 
Cyprus. 

169  
170  
171  
172  
173  

Directive 2002/96/EC 
Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 
Norma-A and Dekom, C-348/10 
Directive 2009/12/EC 
IP/07/938 

16

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
L I T H U A N I A  

General Statistics 
The Commission had 36 open infringements against Lithuania 
at the end of 2011, which is the second best result (along with 
Estonia and Malta) among the EU-27. 

Lithuania’s performance is also the best in its reference 
group:174 Denmark had 37 open infringements, Slovakia and 
Ireland 41 and 42 respectively, and Finland 55. However, 
Lithuania closed the year with more infringements than in 2010 
(24) and 2009 (28). The following chart shows the five policy 
areas where Lithuania was subject most frequently to 
infringement procedures:  

36 infringements against Lithuania 

Justice; 4

Energy; 4

Rest of policies; 8

Internal Market; 5

Environment; 5

Transport; 10

No Court cases were brought against Lithuania during 
2011 (none either in 2009 and 2010). Within the reference 
group, there was one case against Slovakia, 2 each against 
Ireland and Finland and 3 against Denmark.  

Likewise, no decisions were taken by the Commission to 
refer Lithuania to the Court for the second time under Article 
260(2) TFEU. 

Transposition of directives  
The Commission opened 34 infringement procedures against 
Lithuania for late transposition of various directives in 2011. 
Lithuania had to face only 15 such procedures in 2010. Ranking 
5th in the EU-27 and 3rd in the reference group, this result is 
better than for Finland and Slovakia but poorer than for 
Denmark and Ireland.  

The policy areas where Lithuania experienced serious 
challenges in transposing EU directives are transport (9 late 
transposition infringements), internal market & services and 
energy (5 in each area).  

In no case in 2011 did the Commission refer Lithuania to 
the Court with a request for financial sanctions (Article 260(3) 
TFEU) due to late transposition of directives. 

Complaints  
The Commission received 25 complaints against Lithuania in 
2011, which is the third-lowest figure in the EU-27.  

Areas with most alleged failures were internal market 
(especially public procurement; 5 complaints), enterprise & 
industry (in particular the ‘buy Lithuanian’ campaign; 3) and 
information society (e.g. the proper functioning of the 
telecommunication authority; 3). Complainants were also 
concerned about the obstacles to registering the name and the 
surname of a child with dual nationality and the lack of permits 
being issued under the directive on integrated pollution 
prevention control.175  

174  

175  

Member States with equal or close to equal voting weights in the 
Council; for Latvia: Estonia, Malta, Slovenia, Luxembourg and 
Cyprus. 
Directive 2008/1/EC 

Early resolution of infringements 
At the end of 2011, the Commission and the Lithuanian 
authorities were working on 61 open files in EU Pilot, which is 
an average workload. The Commission has opened 28 new 
dossiers on Lithuanian matters. One of the 13 Member States 
whose average EU Pilot response time meets the 10-week 
benchmark in the EU-27, Lithuania’s average was 62 days.  

Furthermore, the Lithuanian authorities actively sought to 

settle a number of infringements in 2011; for example, they 
abolished the system of regulated electricity prices to comply 
with the second electricity directive176 and improved the laws 
transposing the directive on strategic environmental impact 
assessment so that the public can be fully informed about new 
projects with a likely significant effect on the environment.177 
As a result, the Commission was able to halt the corresponding 
infringements in 2011. 

Important judgments  
The Court handed down two preliminary rulings of special 
importance in order to guide Lithuanian courts on points of EU 
law. In the first, it ruled that national authorities may 
transliterate forenames and surnames of citizens from other 
Member States when issuing certificates on civil status, 
provided this does not cause serious inconvenience to those 
citizens at administrative, professional and private levels.178 In 
the second, the Court ruled that the SEA Directive179 does not 
allow to exempt small areas of land at local level from 
environmental impact assessment in a general way, without 
case-by-case analysis.180 

Key infringements 

(cid:131)  Ban on registration of right-hand drive cars181  
(cid:131)  Klaipeda State Seaport — priority right for leasing port 

(cid:131) 

land for the incumbent lessee182 
Lack of measures requiring individual and proportionate 
assessment when applying restrictions on the right to free 
movement for public policy and public security reasons 
183 

176  
177  
178  
179  
180  
181  
182  
183  

IP/09/1035 on the earlier letter of formal notice 
IP/11/306 on the earlier reasoned opinion 
Runevič-Vardyn and Wardyn, Case C-391/09 
Directive 2001/42/EC 
Valčiukienė and Others, Case C-295/10 
IP/11/1251  
IP/12/636 
IP/11/981 and IP/12/75 

17

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
L U X E M B O U R G  

General Statistics 
The Commission had 48 open infringements against 
Luxembourg at the end of 2011, which is the tenth-best result 
among the EU-27. 

However, Luxembourg's performance is below average in 

its reference group.184 Latvia had 23 open infringements, 
Estonia and Malta 36 each, Slovenia 46, and Cyprus 59. 
Luxembourg closed the year with more infringements than in 
2010 (41) but fewer than in 2009 (53). The following chart 
shows the three policy areas where Luxembourg was subject 
most frequently to infringement procedures:  

76 infringements against Luxembourg 

Internal Market; 6

Environment; 8

Transport; 11

Rest of policies; 23

Only one Court case was brought against Luxembourg 
during 2011 (a remarkable decrease in comparison to the 8 
cases brought during 2010). The Commission challenged the 
incorrect transposition of the First Railway Package.185 Within 
the reference group, there were no cases against Latvia and one 
case each against Estonia, Malta, Slovenia and Cyprus.  

The Commission decided to refer Luxembourg to the 
Court with a request for financial sanctions under Article 
260(2) TFEU for failure to provide for the proper treatment 
and/or disposal of urban waste water in some areas of the 
country (including the capital).186 

Transposition of directives  
The Commission opened 44 infringement procedures against 
Luxembourg for late transposition of various directives in 2011. 
Luxembourg had to face only 33 such procedures in 2010. 
Ranking as the 15th in the EU-27, this result is poorer than that 
of all other Member States in the reference group except for 
Cyprus.  

The policy areas where Luxembourg experienced serious 
challenges in transposing EU directives are transport (11 late 
transposition infringements), internal market & services (7) and 
health & consumers (5).  

In no case in 2011 did the Commission refer Luxembourg 

to the Court with a request for financial sanctions (Article 
260(3) TFEU) due to late transposition of directives. 

Complaints  
The Commission received 31 complaints against Luxembourg, 
in 2011, which is the fourth-lowest figure in the EU-27.  

Areas where the most irregularities were alleged include 

taxation (companies’ exit tax, VAT refund, discriminatory 
treatment of capital gains; 20 complaints), education 
(discriminative access to study grants; 5) and fundamental 
rights (for example, refusal to grant the right of residence 
despite the expiry of the five-year period laid down in EU law; 

184  

185  
186  

Member States with equal or close to equal voting weights in the  
Council; for Luxembourg: LV, EE, MT, SI and CY 
IP/10/807 
IP/11/1273 

3). Further complaints reported problems in recognising foreign 
professional qualifications and inadequate environmental 
impact assessments.  

Early resolution of infringements 
In 2011, Luxembourg had not yet joined EU Pilot; however, the 
Commission and Luxembourg authorities continued making 
preparations for Luxembourg’s participation in the project in 
the near future.187  

Luxembourg also remedied several infringements during 
2011, e.g. by opening up access to financial aid to all students 
who acquired the right of permanent residence under the free 
movement directive,188 by amending its legislation to comply 
with the extended Seveso II Directive (on the control of major-
accident hazards),189 by revoking the preferential VAT rate 
accorded to race horses190 and by eliminating the discriminatory 
treatment of non-resident heirs (in terms of securing the 
inheritance tax payment with an ‘additional guarantee’).191 
Accordingly, these procedures were terminated. 

Important judgments  
The Court ruled that Luxembourg´s social security laws failed 
to allow the reimbursement of patients’ medical costs arising 
from laboratory analyses and tests carried out in another 
Member State.192 The directive on the quality of drinking water 
was not correctly transposed as regards the information to be 
provided in the event of derogations from certain limit values 
established for drinking water.193 The nationality condition 
could not be justified for public notaries on the ground of the 
exercise of official authority.194 

The Court also delivered an important preliminary ruling 

as regards the interpretation of the Rome I Regulation195 
relating to the law applicable to employment contracts: for an 
employee who works in more than one Member State, the 
country where he habitually carries out his work is the one 
where he performs the greater part of his contractual 
obligations.196 

Key infringements 

(cid:131)  Restrictive access to study grants for family members of 

migrant workers 

(cid:131)  Non-transposition of the directive on public procurement 

in the defence and security sector197  

187  
188  
189  
190  
191  
192  
193  
194  
195  
196  
197  

Luxembourg joined EU Pilot in June 2012.  
Directive 2004/38/EC 
Directive 96/82/EC 
IP/08/1812 
IP/10/794 
Commission v Luxembourg, Case C-490/09 
Commission v Luxembourg, Case C-458/10 
Commission v Luxembourg, Case C-51/08 
Regulation No 593/2008 
Koelzsch, Case C-29/10 
Directive 2009/81/EC 

18

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
M A L T A  

General Statistics 
The Commission had 36 open infringements against Malta at 
the end of 2011, which is the second-best result (along with 
Estonia and Lithuania) among the EU-27. 

Malta's performance (along with that of Estonia) is also 
above average in its reference group198: Latvia had 23 open 
infringements, Slovenia and Luxembourg 46 and 48 
respectively, and Cyprus 59. However, Malta closed the year 
with more infringements than in 2010 (22) and 2009 (30). The 
following chart shows the four policy areas where Malta was 
subject most frequently to infringement procedures:  

36 infringements against Malta 

Climate; 4

Internal Market; 4

Rest of policies; 15

Early resolution of infringements 
In 2011, Malta had not yet joined EU Pilot; however, the 
Commission and the Maltese authorities continued to make 
preparations with a view to Malta’s participation in the project 
in the near future.201 

Malta acted to eliminate a number of inconsistencies in its 

national law vis-à-vis EU rules. In 2011, for example, it lifted 
the maritime cabotage restrictions on the ferry line between the 
Malta mainland and Gozo, renewed or updated the permits of 
all installations falling under the directive on integrated 
pollution prevention and control,202 enacted new legislation to 
comply with the directive on capital requirements for the 
trading book and for re-securitisations and the supervisory 
review of remuneration policies,203 and amended the rules on 
car registration tax with a view to achieving non-discriminatory 
treatment of second-hand cars imported from other Member 
States.204 These actions prompted the Commission to close the 
related infringements.  

Environment; 6

Transport; 7

Important judgments  
There were no such judgments.  

Key infringements 

(cid:131) 

Limited access to the ground-handling market at Luqa 
Airport: fuel and oil handling services  

(cid:131)  Restrictions on extended family members' rights under 

(cid:131) 
(cid:131) 

EU rules on free movement205  
Illegal hunting of migratory birds206  
Lack of conformity with EU public procurement rules 
especially as regards the directive on effective review 
procedures207 

One case was brought against Malta during 2011 (none in 

2010). The Commission contested the failure to adopt, under 
the corresponding EU directive,199 ambient noise maps.200 
Within the reference group, there were no cases against Latvia 
and one each against Estonia, Slovenia Luxembourg and 
Cyprus.  

No decisions were taken by the Commission to refer Malta 

to the Court for the second time under Article 260(2) TFEU. 

Transposition of directives  
The Commission opened 40 infringement procedures against 
Malta for late transposition of various directives in 2011. Malta 
faced only 19 such procedures in 2010. Ranking 11th in the 
EU-27, this result is better than for Slovenia, Luxembourg, and 
Cyprus, but poorer than for Latvia and Estonia.  

The policy areas where Malta experienced serious 
challenges in transposing EU directives are transport (9 late 
transposition infringements), health & consumers (6) and 
internal market & services (5).  

In no case in 2011 did the Commission refer Malta to the 

Court with a request for financial sanctions (Article 260(3) 
TFEU) due to late transposition of directives. 

Complaints  
In 2011, the Commission received 38 complaints against Malta, 
which is the sixth-lowest figure in the EU-27.  

Areas that citizens and businesses targeted with the most 

complaints were the free movement of persons (nationality-
based discrimination in accessing public services at reduced 
tariffs; 9 complaints), internal market (mainly public 
procurement issues; 7) and car taxation (4). One complainant 
also alleged the abusive treatment of Natura 2000-protected 
sites.  

198  

199  
200  

Member States with equal or close to equal voting weights in the 
Council; for Malta: LV, EE, SI, LU and CY 
Directive 2002/49/EC 
IP/10/1416 

201  
202  
203  
204  
205  
206  
207  

Malta joined EU Pilot in June 2012.  
Directive 2008/1/EC 
Directive 2010/76/EU 
IP/08/511 on the earlier reasoned opinion 
IP/11/981 
IP/10/1409 
Directive 2007/66/EC 

19

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
N E T H E R L A N D S  

General Statistics 
The Commission had 71 open infringements against the 
Netherlands at the end of 2011, which is the tenth-highest 
number of infringements among the EU-27. 

However, the Netherlands' performance is above average in 

its reference group:208 Romania had 47 open infringements, 
Hungary 54, the Czech Republic 65, Portugal and Belgium 84 and 
117 respectively, and Greece 123. The Netherlands closed the year 
with more infringements than in 2010 (62) and 2009 (58). The 
following chart shows the four policy areas where the Netherlands 
was subject most frequently to infringement procedures:  

71 infringements against the Netherlands 

Energy; 7

Transport; 9

Rest of policies; 27

Internal Market; 9

Taxation; 19

Four Court cases were brought against the Netherlands 
during 2011 (in 2010). The Commission contested the incorrect 
application of VAT grouping rules;209 the flawed implementation 
of VAT rules for travel agents;210 the exit tax levied on 
companies which relocate their headquarters to another Member 
State;211 and the limited employee participation in cross-border 
mergers.212 Within the reference group, there were no cases 
against Romania and Hungary, 3 against Portugal, 4 each against 
the Czech Republic and Greece, and 6 against Belgium.  

In no case did the Commission refer the Netherlands to the 

Court for the second time under Article 260(2) TFEU. 

Transposition of directives  
The Commission opened 32 infringement procedures against 
the Netherlands for late transposition of various directives in 
2011. The Dutch authorities faced only 18 such procedures in 
2010. Ranking 7th in the EU-27, the Dutch performance is the 
best in the reference group.  

The policy areas where the Netherlands experienced 
serious challenges in transposing EU directives include internal 
market & services (7 late transposition infringements), transport 
(5), enterprise & industry, and energy (4 in each area).  

In no case in 2011 did the Commission refer the 

Netherlands to the Court with a request for financial sanctions 
(Article 260(3) TFEU) due to late transposition of directives.  

Complaints  
The Commission received 71 complaints against the 
Netherlands in 2011, which is the ninth-figure in the EU-27.  

Areas with the most alleged irregularities include internal 
market (mainly public procurement and regulated professions; 
15 complaints) and social security (non-exportability of 
benefits for the old and the disabled; 14). Further complaints 
invoked potential damage to Natura 2000 sites and the 

208  

209  
210  
211  
212  

Member States with equal or close to equal voting weights in the 
Council; for the Netherlands: Romania, Hungary, the Czech Republic, 
Portugal, Belgium and Greece. 
IP/10/795 
IP/11/76 
IP/10/1565 
IP/11/1422 

deterioration of an estuary in the south-western Netherlands. 
Discrimination in the taxation group relief regime also triggered 
a number of complaints.  

Early resolution of infringements 
At the end of 2011, the Commission and the Dutch authorities 
were working on 98 open files in EU Pilot, which represents a 
slightly above average caseload. 43 new EU Pilot dossiers were 
opened during 2011. The Netherlands is among the 13 Member 
States whose average EU Pilot response time (67 days) is in 
line with the 10-week benchmark.  

The Dutch authorities took many necessary measures in 

2011 to improve compliance with EU law and to have the 
relevant infringements terminated. In particular, they undertook 
to honour the EU’s external competences and the principle of 
loyal cooperation after voting for a proposed bluefin tuna ban 
(within the Convention on International Trade in Endangered 
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) that contravened the common 
position of the EU. They also enabled cross-border sponsoring 
between Dutch companies and EU-based institutions for 
occupational retirement provision (IORPs) as well as between 
EU-based companies and Dutch IORPs. They revoked 
discriminatory income tax rules that allowed the deduction of 
maintenance costs for monumental buildings only if they were 
located in the Netherlands.  

Important judgments  
The Court ruled that the reduced VAT rate that the Dutch tax laws 
applied to all horses (especially pet and race horses) contravened 
the Sixth VAT Directive because the reduced rate of VAT was 
available only for animals destined to enter into the food chain.213 
In addition, the Dutch judiciary received preliminary 
rulings in which the Court: interpreted the copyright directive214 
in relation to the collection of private copy levies in a case 
when the reproduction equipment was obtained via distance 
selling;215 declared that the Dutch authorities were not entitled 
to withdraw a supplement to an invalidity benefit from third 
country nationals, even after their return to their home state;216 
and clarified the relation between the directives217 on integrated 
pollution prevention control and national emission ceilings;218 
confirmed that companies transferring their place of effective 
management into another Member State may invoke the 
freedom of establishment against the Member State of 
incorporation (however, the latter may tax the exiting 
company's unrealized capital gains under certain conditions).219 

Key infringements 

(cid:131)  Refusal of the purchasing power allowance to pensioners 

residing abroad  

(cid:131)  Non-transposition of the directive on public procurement 

in the defence and security sector220 
Tax discrimination on donations to foreign charities221 

(cid:131) 
(cid:131)  Discriminatory inheritance and gift tax rules222 

213  
214  
215  
216  
217  
218  
219  
220  
221  
222  

Commission v Netherlands, Case C-41/09 
Directive 2001/29/EC 
Stichting de Thuiskopie, Case C-462/09 
Akdas and Others, Case C-485/07 
Directives 2008/1/EC and 2001/81/EC 
Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Others, Case C-165/09 
National Grid Indus, C-371/10 
Directive 2009/81/EC 
IP/11/429 
IP/11/1425 

20

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
P O L A N D  

General Statistics 
95 infringements were open against Poland at the end of 2011, 
which is the fifth-worst result among the EU-27. 

Poland’s performance (along with that of France) is 
average in its reference group:223 Germany and the UK had 76 
open infringements each, Spain 99, and Italy 135. Poland 
closed the year with more infringements than in 2010 (91) but 
slightly fewer than in 2009 (97). The following chart shows the 
three policy areas where Poland was subject most frequently to 
infringement procedures:  

95 infringements against Poland 

Internal Market; 14

Transport; 16

Rest of policies; 46

Environment; 19

Seven Court cases were brought during 2011 (9 in 2010). 

The Commission challenged the failure to investigate all 
possible risks in implementing the directive on genetically 
modified (GM) organisms control;224 the adoption of a general 
ban on GM animal feed;225 the further exemptions from the 
strict EU protection system for wild birds;226 the de facto ban 
on registering cars with right-hand drive;227 and the mistaken 
implementation of VAT rules for travel agents.228 Within the 
reference group, there were no cases against Germany, 2 
against the UK, 4 against Italy, 6 against Spain and 7 against 
France.  

The Commission did not refer Poland to the Court for the 

second time under Article 260(2) TFEU. 

Transposition of directives  
The Commission opened 44 infringement procedures against 
Poland for late transposition of national implementing measures 
(2010: only 39). Ranking 15th in the EU-27 (with Luxembourg), 
this result is better than for the UK and Italy but poorer than for 
France, Spain and Germany. 

The policy areas with the most serious transposition 
challenges are transport (10 infringements), internal market & 
services (9) and energy (6).  

Poland was brought to the Court, with a request for 
financial sanctions (Article 260(3) TFEU), due to the late 
transposition of 3 directives: (1) on modifying the capital 
requirements for the trading book229 (2) on ambient air 
quality230 and (3) on the marine strategy framework.231  

Complaints  
206 complaints were launched against Poland in 2011, which is 
the fifth-highest figure in the EU-27.  

The areas most concerned are: environment (inadequate 
impact assessment and management plans, damage to Natura 
2000 sites, non-compliant water projects and programmes; 43 
complaints), free movement of persons (conditions for 
obtaining registration certificates, extended family members’ 
rights; 36) and agriculture (e.g. wrong information on 
temporary exceptional support measures; 27). Other areas were: 
discriminatory airport charges, public procurement, food safety, 
and employment in the public sector.  

Early resolution of infringements 
Poland joined EU Pilot at the beginning of 2011. At the end of 
2011 there were 78 newly opened files, a high initial caseload. 
Nevertheless, Poland kept its average EU Pilot response time 
(65 days) within the 10-week benchmark.  

Poland’s willingness to resolve cases at an early stage 
helped to close many files in 2011. For instance: national rules 
were completed or modified in order to comply with EU rules 
on environment (public participation in authorisation of 
projects, access to justice), sale of consumer goods (validity of 
non-compliant guarantees), package travel (protection against 
organiser’s insolvency), equal treatment (material scope of 
relevant directives232, prohibition of victimisation and 
harassment, rights of disabled persons), transport (approval of 
imported ‘Class 66’  locomotives, ‘small’  airports’ security 
standards 233), health (registration requirements for imported 
medical devices) and taxation (late reimbursement of VAT). On 
the internal gas market, importers can now access the Yamal 
pipeline and are no longer required to store gas in Poland.234  

Important judgments  
The Court ruled that Poland had failed to protect all species of 
naturally occurring birds and to define correctly the conditions 
under which derogation may be granted from the Birds and 
Habitats Directives.235 It also found against Poland for not 
transposing into its national law in time a vital directive for the 
competitiveness of the European automotive industry.236 

In addition, the Court provided guidance to the Polish 

judiciary by interpreting, for example, the regulation on 
national courts’ cooperation in evidence-taking237 as regards 
reimbursing the expenses of a witness examined by the 
requested court.238 

Key infringements 

(cid:131) 

Failure to comply with the Court judgment outlawing the 
total ban on GM seed239 

(cid:131)  Restrictions on the right to free movement of extended 

family members240 

(cid:131)  Regulated prices on the wholesale gas market241  
(cid:131)  Unjustified exclusion criteria in public procurement law 

and insufficient defence rights for any excluded 
undertaking 

223  

224  
225  
226  
227  
228  
229  
230  
231  

Member States with equal or close to equal voting weights in the 
Council; for Poland: Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Spain 
and Italy 
IP/11/293 
IP/11/292 
IP/11/171 
IP/11/1111 
IP/11/76 
Directive 2010/76/EU  
Directive 2008/50/EC 
Directive 2008/56/EC 

232  
233  
234  
235  
236  
237  
238  
239  
240  
241  

Directive 2000/43/EC and Directive 2000/78/EC 
IP/11/187 on the earlier reasoned opinion 
IP/10/945 on the earlier reasoned opinions 
Commission v Poland, Cases C-192/11 and C-46/11 
Commission v Poland, C-311/10 
Regulation No 1206/2001 
Artur Weryński v Mediatel 4B spółka z o.o., Case C-283/09 
Commission v Poland, C-165/08 
IP/11/981 
IP/11/414 

21

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
P O R T U G A L

General Statistics 
The Commission had 84 open infringements against Portugal at 
the end of 2011, which is the seventh-worst result among the 
EU-27. 

Portugal’s performance is average in its reference 

group242: Romania had 47 open infringements, Hungary 54, the 
Czech Republic and the Netherlands 65 and 71 respectively, 
Belgium 117 and Greece 123. However, Portugal closed the 
year with fewer infringements than in 2010 (98) and 2009 (100). 
The following chart shows the three policy areas where 
Portugal was subject most frequently to infringement 
procedures:  

84 infringements against Portugal 

Taxation; 12

PT; 

Environment; 16

Rest of policies; 39

Transport; 17

dams causing serious consequences and damage to Natura 2000 
sites; 22 complaints) and fundamental rights (refused entry into 
Portugal on the grounds of posing a threat to public security; 
18). Other complaints pointed out the discriminatory capital 
gains tax on real estate, the requirement to appoint a fiscal 
representative for non-residents, and the restricted access to the 
ground-handling market at an airport in southern Portugal.  

Early resolution of infringements 
At the end of 2011, the Commission and the Portuguese 
authorities were working on 153 open files in EU Pilot, one of 
the higher caseloads in the EU-27. The Commission opened 46 
new dossiers on Portuguese issues during 2011. Portugal 
managed this workload successfully: its average EU Pilot 
response time (60 days) counts as one of the best within the 
EU-27.  

Portugal also remedied a number of infringements during 

2011, e.g. by carrying out a proper revision on the expired 
construction authorisation for a tourist resort located in a site of 
community importance (Costa Sudoeste / Montinho da Ribeira), 
by procuring notebooks and internet services for students, 
teachers and trainees by means of an open tender rather than a 
direct award246 and by eliminating discriminatory tax rules as 
regards outbound dividends (i.e., paid to foreign companies)247 
and non-residents’ income.248 These procedures were therefore 
terminated. 

Three Court cases were brought against Portugal during 
2011 (10 in 2010). The Commission challenged the incorrect 
implementation of VAT rules for travel agents;243 the failure to 
adopt river basin management plans;244 and the unjustified 
excess of EU air quality limit values for airborne particles 
(‘“PM10 values’”).245 Within the reference group, there were 
no cases against Romania and Hungary, 4 each against the 
Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Greece, and 6 against 
Belgium.  

No decisions were taken by the Commission to refer 
Portugal to the Court for the second time under Article 260(2) 
TFEU. 

Important judgments  
The Court ruled that the Portuguese legislation in the field of 
reimbursement of non-hospital medical care provided in 
another Member State, which does not involve the use of major 
and costly equipment, is in breach of the Treaty provisions 
guaranteeing the free movement of services.249 Portugal’s 2005 
tax amnesty laws (i.e., reduced tax on financial assets 
repatriated to Portugal from abroad, if they are, or are 
reinvested into, securities issued by the Portuguese State), the 
obligation to appoint a fiscal representative and the rules on the 
taxation of dividends paid to foreign pension funds were all 
found incompatible with the free movement of capital.250 

Transposition of directives  

The Commission opened 50 infringement procedures 
against Portugal for late transposition of various directives in 
2011. Portugal had to face only 41 such procedures in 2010. 
Ranking 20th in the EU-27, this result is poorer than for the 
Netherlands, Belgium and Romania but is still ahead of the 
Czech Republic, Greece and Hungary.  

The policy areas where Portugal experienced serious 
challenges in transposing EU directives are transport and 
internal market & services (10 late transposition infringements 
in each area) and health & consumers (9).  

In no case in 2011 did the Commission refer Portugal to 

the Court with a request for financial sanctions (Article 260(3) 
TFEU) due to late transposition of directives.  

Complaints  
The Commission received 92 complaints against Portugal in 
2011, which is the eleventh-highest figure in the EU-27.  

Areas that attracted the most complaints from the public 
include environment (insufficient impact assessment of some 

242  

243  
244  
245  

Member States with equal or close to equal voting weights in the 
Council; for Portugal: Romania, Hungary, the Czech Republic, the 
Netherlands, Belgium and Greece. 
IP/11/76 
IP/11/438 
IP/10/1586 

(cid:131) 

246  
247  
248  
249  
250  
251  
252  
253  

Key infringements 

(cid:131) 

Inadequate transposition of the directive on distance 
marketing of financial services251 

(cid:131)  Ground-handling market252 
(cid:131) 

Illegal disposal of hazardous waste in an old mine near 
Oporto 
Energy Tax Directive —derogation for the taxation of 
electricity253 

IP/11/83 
IP/10/662 
IP/10/300 
Commission v Portugal, C-255/09 
Commission v Portugal, Cases C-20/09, C-493/09 and C-267/09 
IP/12/50 
IP/11/588 
IP/11/590  

22

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
R O M A N I A  

General Statistics 
The Commission had 47 open infringements against Romania 
at the end of 2011, which is the ninth-best result among the 
EU-27. 

Romania’s performance is the best in its reference 

group:254 Hungary had 54 open infringements, the Czech 
Republic and the Netherlands 65 and 71 respectively, Portugal 
84, Belgium 117, and Greece 123. However, Romania closed 
the year 2011 with more infringements than in 2010 (36) and 
2009 (32). The following chart shows the five policy areas 
where Romania was subject most frequently to infringement 
procedures:  

47 infringements against Romania 

Transport; 6

Rest of policies; 10

Environment; 6

Internal Market; 8

Taxation; 9

Energy; 8

No Court cases were brought against Romania during 

2011 (none in 2010 either). Within the reference group, there 
were no cases against Hungary, 3 cases against Portugal, 4 each 
against the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Greece, and 6 
against Belgium.  

Likewise, no decisions were taken by the Commission to 

refer Romania to the Court for the second time under Article 
260(2) TFEU. 

Transposition of directives  
The Commission opened 46 infringement procedures against 
Romania for late transposition of various directives in 2011. 
Romania had to face the same number of such procedures in 
2010. Ranking 18th in the EU-27, this result is poorer than for 
the Netherlands and Belgium but is still better than for Portugal, 
the Czech Republic, Greece and Hungary.  

The policy areas where Romania experienced serious 

challenges in transposing EU directives include health & 
consumers (10 late transposition infringements), transport and 
internal market & services (7 in each area).  

In no case in 2011did the Commission refer Romania to 

the Court with a request for financial sanctions (Article 260(3) 
TFEU) due to late transposition of directives. 

Complaints  
The Commission received 130 complaints against Romania in 
2011, which is the eighth-highest figure in the EU-27.  

Areas where the most potential errors were reported 
include taxation (discriminatory treatment of permanent 
establishments, tax relief for research and development 
expenses and excise duties; 44 complaints), environment 
(inadequate impact assessment, degradation of Natura 2000 
sites by infrastructure projects; 18) health & consumers (food 
safety and animal welfare; 12). Other complaints were about 
the refusal to pay pensions to EU citizens who had worked in 

254  

Member States with equal or close to equal voting weights in the 
Council; for Romania: Hungary, the Czech Republic, the 
Netherlands, Portugal, Belgium and Greece.  

Romania. Finally, the allocation of agricultural funds and 
subsidies triggered several investigation requests from citizens.  

Early resolution of infringements 
Romania joined EU Pilot at the beginning of 2011. By the end 
of the year, the Commission and the Romanian authorities were 
working on 64 newly opened cases, which suggests a weighty 
initial caseload. With an average EU Pilot response time of 67 
days, Romania is among the 13 Member States which managed 
to stay within the 10-week benchmark.  

Romania remedied a number of infringements during 2011, 

e.g. by modifying its laws on water policy to comply with the 
water framework directive255 (especially the rules on river basin 
districts and management plans, public consultation and control 
measures) and by cancelling the tender procedure for public 
works in the Craiova power plant due to procedural deficiencies 
which violate public procurement legislation.256  

Important judgments  
Concerning the insufficient designation of Special Protection 
Areas, the Court found that the letter of formal notice did not 
sufficiently identify the grievance in the reasoned opinion and 
the Commission’s referral was dismissed257. 

Key infringements 

(cid:131)  Restrictive access to the natural gas transmission 

(cid:131) 

networks258 
Insufficiently open gas and electricity markets due to the 
regulated prices schemes259 

(cid:131)  Negative impact of tourism development on the 
environment in Sulina (Danube Delta)260 

(cid:131)  Non-transposition of the data retention directive261  

255  
256  
257  
258  
259  
260  
261  

Directive 2000/60/EC 
Directive 2004/17/EC 
Commission v Romania, C-522/09 
IP 11/1437 
IP/11/414 
IP/11/92 
Directive 2006/24/EC 

23

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
S L O V A K I A  

Early resolution of infringements 
At the end of 2011, the Commission and the Slovak authorities 
were working on 42 open files in EU Pilot, which is well below 
the average caseload in the EU-27. The Commission invited 
Slovakia to give its opinion in 32 new EU Pilot dossiers during 
2011. Slovakia achieved the best average EU Pilot response 
time (57 days) among the Member States.  

Slovakia acted to eliminate a number of inconsistencies in 

its national law vis-à-vis EU rules. In 2011, the Commission 
was able to close, for example, infringements contesting the 
incorrect transposition of the water framework directive 
(especially as regards river basin management plans and 
revision of protected areas), the unjustified use of restricted 
procurement for legal services relating to the construction of 
the D1 motorway264 and the discriminatory tax deduction 
granted to supplementary pension insurance contributions only 
if paid to Slovak schemes.  

Important judgments  
The Court’s preliminary ruling gave guidance in relation to the 
Aarhus Convention on the availability of effective judicial 
protection.265 

Key infringements 

(cid:131) 

Failure to comply with EU rules on consumers' collective 
interest under the Injunctions Directive (2009/22/EC)266 

(cid:131)  Non-conformity with EU requirements of the national 

rules on the use of GMOs  

(cid:131) 

General Statistics 
The Commission had 41 open infringements against Slovakia at 
the end of 2011, which is the sixth-best result among the EU-27. 

Slovakia’s performance is average in its reference 
group262: Lithuania had 36 open infringements, Denmark 37, 
Slovakia and Ireland 41 and 42 respectively, and Finland 55. 
Slovakia closed the year with more infringements than in 2010 
(38) but fewer than in 2009 (49). The following chart shows the 
three policy areas where Slovakia was subject most frequently 
to infringement procedures:  

41 infringements against Slovakia 

Internal Market; 6

Transport; 7

Rest of policies; 20

Environment; 8

One Court case was brought against Slovakia during 2011 

(2 in 2010). The Commission argued that the landfill site near 
Žilina did not have the documentation required by EU waste 
rules.263 Within the reference group, there were no cases against 
Lithuania, 2 each against Ireland and Finland, and 3 against 
Denmark.  

No decisions were taken by the Commission to refer 
Slovakia to the Court for the second time under Article 260(2) 
TFEU. 

Transposition of directives  
The Commission opened 36 infringement procedures against 
Slovakia for late transposition of various directives in 2011. 
Slovakia faced only 14 such procedures in 2010. Ranking 9th in 
the EU-27 (with Bulgaria), this result is poorer than for all other 
Member States in the reference group except for Finland.  
The policy areas where Slovakia experienced serious 
challenges in transposing EU directives are transport, internal 
market & services (7 late transposition infringements in each 
area), health & consumers, energy, and justice and fundamental 
rights (4 in each area).  

In no case in 2011did the Commission refer Slovakia to 

the Court with a request for financial sanctions (Article 260(3) 
TFEU) due to late transposition of directives. 

Complaints  
The Commission received 63 complaints against Slovakia in 
2011, which is the eighth-lowest figure in the EU-27.  
Areas with the most alleged irregularities include 
consumer protection (in particular, unfair terms in consumer 
credit contracts; 27 complaints), environment (inadequate 
impact assessment of projects affecting Natura 2000 sites and 
illegal hunting; 9) and social security (non-exportability of 
annual pension supplement; 8). Further complaints called for 
Commission investigations in relation to public procurement 
procedures and insurance law.  

262  

263  

Member States with equal or close to equal voting weights in the 
Council; for Slovakia: Lithuania, Denmark, Ireland and Finland. 
IP/11/177 

264  
265  
266  

IP/09/1470 
Lesoochranárske zoskupenie, C-240/09 
IP/12/184  

24

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
S L O V E N I A  

General Statistics 
The Commission had 46 open infringements against Slovenia at 
the end of 2011, which is the eighth-best result among the 
EU-27. 

However, Slovenia's performance is less than average in 

its reference group267: Latvia had 23 open infringements, 
Estonia and Malta 36 each, Luxembourg 48, and Cyprus 59. 
Slovenia closed the year with more infringements than in 2010 
(33) and 2009 (25). The following chart shows the three policy 
areas where Slovenia was subject most frequently to 
infringement procedures:  

46 infringements against Slovenia 

Energy; 6

Transport; 8

Internal Market; 10

Rest of policies; 22

One Court case was brought against Slovenia during 2011 

(3 in 2010). The Commission concluded that the Slovenian 
rules on complementary health insurance unjustifiably 
restricted the freedom of establishment (by requiring a resident 
representative for insurers based outside the country) and the 
free movement of capital (by prohibiting the distribution of 
profits to the shareholders).268 Within the reference group, there 
were no cases against Latvia and one each against Estonia, 
Malta, Luxembourg and Cyprus. 

No decisions were taken by the Commission to refer 
Slovenia to the Court for the second time under Article 260(2) 
TFEU. 

Transposition of directives  
The Commission opened 43 infringement procedures against 
Slovenia for late transposition of various directives in 2011. 
Slovenia faced only 30 such procedures in 2010. Ranking 13th 
in the EU-27 (with Spain), this result is poorer than for Latvia, 
Estonia and Malta but is still ahead of Luxembourg and Cyprus.  
The policy areas where Slovenia experienced serious 

challenges in transposing EU directives are transport (8 late 
transposition infringements), internal market & services, and 
enterprise & industry (7 in each area).  

In no case in 2011did the Commission refer Slovenia to 

the Court with a request for financial sanctions (Article 260(3) 
TFEU) due to late transposition of directives. 

Complaints  
The Commission received 33 complaints against Slovenia in 
2011, which is the fifth-lowest figure in the EU-27.  

Complaints targeted especially environment (imperfect 

impact assessments and screenings, lack of or poor-quality 
permits for activities with high pollution potential, sub-standard 
landfills; 11 complaints) and internal market (free provision of 
services, insurance and public procurement; 9). Several 
complaints contested the academic recognition of foreign 

267  

268  

Member States with equal or close to equal voting weights in the 
Council; for Slovenia: Latvia, Estonia, Malta, Luxembourg and 
Cyprus. 
IP/11/181 

diplomas, including certificates issued by franchised 
institutions.  

Early resolution of infringements 
At the end of 2011, the Commission and the Slovene authorities 
were working on 67 open files in EU Pilot, which is an average 
caseload. The Commission initiated relatively few new EU 
Pilot dossiers vis-à-vis the Slovene authorities. Slovenia’s 
average EU Pilot response time, 67 days, remains under the 10-
week benchmark.  

Furthermore, the Slovene authorities created a new legal 
framework to address the shortcomings in the transposition of 
the directive on end-of-life vehicles,269 amended the country's 
consumer protection laws to cover the scope of goods covered 
by the relevant EU directive,270 and to provide in more detail 
for commercial guarantees, and extended the VAT exemption 
for universal postal services and postal stamps to the degree 
required by the VAT directive.271 As a result, the corresponding 
infringements were terminated in 2011. 

Important judgments  
The Court had to decide on a disagreement between Slovenia 
and the Commission pertaining to air quality. It declared that 
Slovenia had failed to comply with the EU’'s air quality 
standards for dangerous airborne particles known as PM10 for 
the years 2005 to 2007.272 

Key infringements 

(cid:131)  Operation of several landfills falling short of EU 

(cid:131) 

requirements 
Inadequate transposition of the directive on injunctions to 
protect consumers’ collective interest273 

(cid:131)  Maintaining nationality condition for access to study 

(cid:131) 

grants 
Late transposition of the directive relating to public 
procurement in the defence and security sector274 

269  
270  
271  
272  
273  
274  

Directive 2000/53/EC 
Directive 1999/44/EC 
Directive 2006/112/EC 
Commission v Slovenia, C-365/10  
Directive 2009/22/EC 
Directive 2009/81/CE 

25

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
S P A I N  

General Statistics 
99 infringements were open against Spain at the end of 2011, 
which is the fourth-worst result among the EU-27. 

Spain’s performance is below average in its reference 
group:275 Germany and the UK had 76 infringements each, 
France and Poland 95 each, and Italy 135. However, Spain 
closed the year with fewer infringements than in 2010 (109) 
and 2009 (129). The following chart shows the three policy 
areas where Spain was subject most frequently to infringement 
procedures:  

99 infringements against Spain 

Internal Market; 17

Rest of policies; 40

Taxation; 19

Environment; 23

Six Court cases were brought against Spain during 2011 
(the same number as in 2010). The areas concerned included 
the sector-specific tax imposed on telecommunication 
companies;276 the incorrect implementation of VAT rules for 
travel agents;277 the reduced VAT rate for medical 
equipment;278 and the exit tax of companies relocating their 
headquarters to another Member State.279 Within the reference 
group, there were no new cases against Germany, 2 against the 
UK, 4 against Italy and 7 each against Poland and France.  

The Commission filed a case to the Court with a request 

for financial sanctions (Article 260(2) TFEU) as the Basque 
Provinces’ incompatible state aid had not been recovered.280 

Transposition of directives  
43 infringement procedures were opened against Spain for late 
transposition of various directives (in 2010: 44), which is an 
average performance. Ranking 13th in the EU-27 (with 
Slovenia), this result is better than for Poland, the UK and Italy, 
but poorer than for France and Germany. 

transposition challenges are health & consumers (17 
infringements), internal market & services (7) and energy (5).  

The Commission did not refer Spain to the Court with a 

request for financial sanctions under Article 260(3) TFEU.  

Complaints  
In 2011, Spain ranked second with regard to the number of 
complaints (306).  

The areas most concerned are environment (inadequate 
impact assessment and water management, damage to Natura 
2000 sites; 97 complaints), internal market (e.g. free provision 
of services and professional recognition; 46) and fundamental 
rights (e.g. mistreatment of persons in detention and delays in 
issuing residence cards; 40). Other complaints concerned 

275  

276  
277  
278  
279  
280  

Member States with equal or close to equal voting weights in the 
Council; for Spain: Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Poland 
and Italy. 
IP/11/309 
IP/11/76 
IP/11/605  
IP/10/1565 
IP/10/1544 

The policy areas where Spain experienced serious 

(cid:131) 

discriminatory taxes on inheritance, gifts and capital gains 
realised on real estate, the European Health Insurance Card and 
animal welfare rules in a slaughterhouse.  

Early resolution of infringements 
At the end of 2011, 365 files were open in EU Pilot, the 
second-highest caseload in the EU-27. Spain also received the 
second-highest number of new EU Pilot dossiers during 2011 
(113). Accordingly, Spain’s average EU Pilot response time (82 
days) was substantially above the 10-week benchmark. 

The Commission closed a few infringements against Spain 
because compliance with EU law was reached. For instance, the 
Spanish authorities repealed the geographical indication 
‘“Viñedos de España’” (the names of Member States can only 
exceptionally be protected). The Spanish transposition of the 
directive on insurance against civil liability281 was corrected so 
that the national guarantee fund covers damages caused by 
stolen or violently obtained cars of all origins. Minor 
inconsistencies in the rules implementing the directive on 
distance marketing of financial services282 (e.g., scope of the 
consumer’s withdrawal right) were eliminated. Postal services’ 
VAT exemption was also aligned with the VAT directive.283  

Important judgments  
The Court ruled that Spanish law was contravening the freedom 
of establishment as regards certain restrictions on opening 
shopping centres.284 Other rulings concern the operation of an 
open-cast coal mine without a full impact assessment and 
protective measures under the EIA and Habitats Directives;285 
and the failure to establish, adopt and apply conservation 
priorities and measures to prevent the deterioration of habitats 
in the Macaronesian biogeographical region.286  

The Spanish judiciary received guidance from the Court’s 
preliminary rulings in relation to police and judicial cooperation 
in criminal matters. The Court ruled that a mandatory stay away 
injunction may be maintained in domestic violence cases, even 
if the victim wishes to restart cohabitation with the offender.287 

Key infringements 

(cid:131)  Non-compliance with the directive on buildings’ energy 

performance288 
Free movement of persons: granting the right of residence 
for third country family members289 

(cid:131)  Refusal to issue European Health Insurance Card to 

persons insured under regional schemes290 

(cid:131)  Animal welfare at slaughter291 
(cid:131)  APIE monopoly granted by Spanish Port legislation 
(cid:131)  Authorisation for supplementary private transport292 
(cid:131) 
Sector-specific tax on electronic communication 
services293  

281  
282  
283  
284  
285  
286  
287  
288  
289  
290  
291  
292  
293  

Directive 2009/103/EC 
Directive 2002/65/EC 
Directive 2002/65/EC 
Commission v Spain, C-400/08 
Commission v Spain, C-404/09 
Commission v Spain, C-90/10 
Magatte Gueye, C-483/09 
IP/11/1447 
IP/11/981 
IP/11/1118 
IP/11/1092 
IP/11/611 
IP/11/309 

26

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
S W E D E N  

Early resolution of infringements 
At the end of 2011, the Commission and the Swedish 
authorities were working on 84 open files; this was a similar 
caseload to many other Member States. The Commission 
opened a relatively small number of new Swedish EU Pilot 
dossiers during 2011 (29). Sweden’s average response time in 
EU Pilot (81 days) remained above the 10-week benchmark.  
By taking into account the Commission’s position, 
Sweden took many necessary measures in 2011 to achieve 
compliance with EU law and to have the corresponding 
infringements closed. For example, Sweden remedied its waste 
legislation to comply with the directive on end-of-life 
vehicles297 and abolished a number of restrictions applicable to 
foreign branches (e.g. mandatory establishment, naming 
restrictions and obligation to appoint a resident agent).298  

Important judgments  
The Court had to rule on a disagreement between Sweden and 
the Commission over air quality. Sweden was found to have 
failed to comply with the EU’s air quality standards for 
dangerous airborne particles known as PM10 for the years 2005 
to 2007.299

Key infringements 

(cid:131) 

Free movement of persons: inconsistencies with EU law 
in procedural safeguards in the event of expulsion of EU 
citizens and their family members and in issuing entry 
visas and residence cards for third country family 
members300 

(cid:131)  Wolf hunting practices inconsistent with EU nature 

(cid:131) 

protection directives301 
Incorrect application of EU law governing the working 
time of self-employed drivers302 

(cid:131)  Distance marketing of financial services303 

General Statistics 
The Commission had 60 open infringements against Sweden at 
the end of 2011, which is the twelfth-highest number of 
infringements among the EU-27. 

Sweden's performance is average in its reference group294: 

Bulgaria had 54 open infringements, and Austria 65. Sweden 
closed the year with more infringements than in 2010 (53) and 
2009 (58). The following chart shows the four policy areas 
where Sweden was subject most frequently to infringement 
procedures:  

60 infringements against Sweden 

Taxation; 6

Environment; 9

Rest of policies; 25

Transport; 10

Internal Market; 10

One Court case was brought against Sweden during 2011 

(4 in 2010). The Commission concluded that the Swedish 
transposition of the directive on distance marketing of 
consumer financial services was incorrect.295 Within the 
reference group, there were no cases against Bulgaria and 2 
against Austria.  

The Commission referred Sweden to the Court under 
Article 260(2) TFEU with a request for financial sanctions for 
failure to implement the directive on data retention.296 

Transposition of directives  
The Commission opened 31 infringement procedures against 
Sweden for late transposition of various directives in 2011. 
Sweden faced only 21 such procedures in 2010. Ranking 5th in 
the EU-27, this result is better than for the other two Member 
States in the reference group.  

The policy areas where Sweden experienced serious 
challenges in transposing EU directives are internal market & 
services (9 late transposition infringements), transport and 
energy (5 infringements in each area).  

In no case in 2011 did the Commission refer Sweden to 

the Court with a request for financial sanctions (Article 260(3) 
TFEU) due to late transposition of directives. 

Complaints  
The Commission received 91 complaints against Sweden in 
2011, which is the twelfth-highest figure in the EU-27.  

Areas that attracted the most complaints include 

environment (especially illegal wolf hunting; 22 complaints), 
taxation (for example, inheritances, capital gains and excise 
duties; 13) and internal market (public procurement, free 
provision of services and professional recognition; 12). Further 
complaints covered public health, passenger rights and road 
safety.  

294  

295  
296  

Member States with equal or close to equal voting weights in the  
Council; for Sweden: BG and AT 
IP/11/98 
IP/11/409 

297  
298  
299  
300  
301  
302  
303  

Directive 2000/53/EC 
IP/11/1125 
Commission v Sweden, C-479/10  
IP/11/981 
IP/11/732 
Directive 2002/15/EC 
IP/11/98 

27

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
U N I T E D   K I N G D O M  

General Statistics 
The Commission had 76 open infringements against the UK at 
the end of 2011. This is the eighth-highest number of 
infringements among the EU-27 (ranking equal with Germany). 
However, the UK’s performance (along with that of 
Germany) is the best in its reference group:304 France and 
Poland had 95 open infringements each, Spain 99, and Italy 135. 
The UK closed the year with more infringements than in 2010 
(72) but fewer than in 2009 (98). The following chart shows the 
four policy areas where the UK was subject most frequently to 
infringement procedures:  

76 infringements against the United Kingdom

Internal Market; 9

Environment; 9

Rest of policies; 30

Taxation; 11

Transport; 17

The Commission brought two Court cases against the UK 

during 2011 (only one in 2010): one because of the 
prohibitively high costs of challenging licences issued to 
industrial plans with potential effect on the environment;305 the 
other due to allowing the inclusion of economically passive 
holding companies in VAT groups.306 Within the reference 
group, there were no cases against Germany; 4 against Italy, 6 
against Spain and 7 each against Poland and France.  

No decisions were taken by the Commission to refer the 
UK to the Court for the second time under Article 260(2) TFEU. 

Transposition of directives  
The Commission opened 57 infringement procedures against 
the UK for late transposition of various directives in 2011. The 
UK faced only 35 such procedures in 2010. Ranking 23rd in the 
EU-27, this result is worse than that of all Member States in the 
reference group except for Italy.  

The policy areas where the UK experienced serious 
challenges in transposing EU directives are transport (13 late 
transposition infringements), internal market & services (11) 
and enterprise & industry (9).  

In no case in 2011 did the Commission refer the UK to the 

Court with a request for financial sanctions (Article 260(3) 
TFEU) due to late transposition of directives.  

Complaints  
The Commission received 192 complaints against the UK in 
2011, which is the seventh-highest result among the EU-27.  
Most of the alleged irregularities were in relation to the 
free movement of persons (delays in issuing residence permits, 
requiring a visa from EU citizens’ family members, restrictive 
calculation of presence period for the purpose of permanent 
residence, and discrimination on racial, ethnic or religious 
grounds; 57 complaints). Citizens and businesses frequently 
reported problems in the areas of internal market (public 
procurement and professional recognition; 31 complaints) and 

304  

305  
306  

Member States with equal or close to equal voting weights in the 
Council; for Spain: DE, ES, FR, PL and IT 
IP/11/439 
IP/10/795  

environment (inadequate impact assessment of fishing and 
wind-farm activities; 29). Disabled persons’ limited access to 
sickness benefits and the conditions for receiving jobseeker’s 
allowance generated a number of objections, too.  

Early resolution of infringements 
At the end of 2011, the Commission and the UK authorities 
were working on 192 open files, which was the fourth-highest 
caseload in the EU-27. The Commission forwarded 69 new EU 
Pilot dossiers to the UK authorities during 2011. These figures 
called for a strong response from the UK, which managed to 
keep its average EU Pilot response time (66 days) within the 
10-week benchmark.  

The Commission was able to terminate infringements in 
2011 because the UK adopted new anti-discrimination laws and 
modified its practices on issuing residence documents to EU 
citizens and their family members, amended its laws to comply 
with the Drinking Water Directive,307 and corrected its tax rules 
in three areas (VAT exemptions of postal services, income tax 
exemption for resident seafarers, and real estate tax discounts 
for students studying in England or Wales).  

Important judgments  
The Court delivered important preliminary rulings during 2011 
relating to residence rights and access to social security benefits.  
In particular, the Court ruled that short-term incapacity 

benefit in youth must be deemed as an invalidity benefit under 
EU law; thus, it cannot be reduced or withdrawn when claimed 
by persons residing outside the Member State that pays the 
benefit.308 The Court also held that although the Free 
Movement Directive does not apply to a Union citizen who has 
never exercised her right to free movement, Article 21 TFEU 
protects such person against national measures which would 
deprive her of her essential rights as a Union citizen (including 
free movement).309 The Court declared that an EU citizen who 
resided in the host Member State with a valid residence 
document (granted under earlier laws) but without meeting the 
residence conditions cannot rely on such periods to acquire 
permanent residence right; and that periods before 30 April 
2006 cannot be taken into account when calculating the five-
year stay leading to permanent residence.310  

Key infringements 

(cid:131) 

(cid:131) 

‘Right to reside test’: discrimination against UK-resident 
EU nationals in relation to rights to certain social 
benefits311 
Free movement of persons (e.g. special residence 
documents for workers from new Member States; 
excessively broad detention rights and no coverage in 
public health-care scheme)312 

(cid:131)  Non-transparent access conditions to the natural gas 

transmission networks313 

(cid:131)  Channel tunnel: violation of rail transport rules aimed at 

market opening and fair competition314 

307  
308  
309  
310  
311  
312  
313  
314  

Directive 98/83/EC 
Stewart, C-503/09 
McCarthy, C-434/09 
Dias, C-325/09 
IP/11/1118  
IP/11/981 
IP/10/836 
IP/11/1099 

28

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
29