REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION Monitoring the application of Union law 2014 Annual Report
Date: 2015-07-09
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: EU Member State, EU control, activity report, approximation of laws, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 9.7.2015  
COM(2015) 329 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

Monitoring the application of Union law 
2014 Annual Report 

{SWD(2015) 133 final} 
{SWD(2015) 134 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
Monitoring the application of 
Union law 

2014 Annual Report 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
V. 

VI. 

I. 
II. 
III. 
IV. 

INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................4 
POLICY ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF UNION LAW .............................5 
STAGES IN INFRINGEMENT PROCEDURES.......................................................6 
BEFORE AN INFRINGEMENT PROCEDURE IS STARTED ......................................7 
Detecting problems ..............................................................................7 
1. 
2. 
Solving problems ...............................................................................10 
INFRINGEMENT PROCEDURE ....................................................................... 13 
Pre-litigation phase ............................................................................13 
1. 
2. 
Referrals to the Court under Articles 258 and 260(2) TFEU ............15 
TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES ................................................................ 17 
Late transposition...............................................................................17 
1. 
Referrals to the Court under Article 258/260(3) TFEU.....................20 
2. 
VII.  POLICY DEVELOPMENTS ............................................................................. 22 
Bringing Union law closer to the people of Europe ..........................22 
‘Third  pillar’  transition:  Police  and  judicial  cooperation  in 
criminal matters now on an equal footing with other EU policies ....23 
Implementation  plans  and  explanatory  documents:  current  state 
of play ................................................................................................24 
Better Regulation Agenda..................................................................25 
EU regulatory fitness .........................................................................26 
VIII.  CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................... 27 

1. 
2. 

4. 
5. 

3. 

3 

 
 
Monitoring the application of Union law: 2014 Annual Report 

I. 

INTRODUCTION 

Effective  application  of  EU  law  is  essential  if  the  European  Union  is  to  meet  its 
objectives  as  set  in  the  treaties  and  enhance  the  credibility  of  the  EU  institutions  in 
the eyes of the citizens and the public at large. While Member States are responsible 
for  transposing  directives  on  time  and  accurately,  and  for  correctly  applying  and 
implementing EU law as a whole,1 the Commission monitors the application of EU law 
and ensures that their legislation complies with EU law.2 

To  this  end,  the  Commission  regularly  checks  the  texts  of  national  transposition 
measures it receives from Member States and launches own-initiative investigations. 
It also assesses and responds to complaints it receives from members of the public, 
businesses,  NGOs  and  other  stakeholders  and  to  petitions  from  the  European 
Parliament that reveal potential breaches of the law. 

If  the  Commission  detects  a  possible  infringement,  it  begins  bilateral  dialogue  with 
the  Member  State,  which  is  invited  to  solve  the  problem  quickly  and  efficiently  in 
compliance  with  EU  law.  If  these  problem-solving  efforts  are  not  successful,  the 
Commission  may  start  a  formal  infringement  procedure  (under  Article  258  of  the 
Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU)).  3 Should a Member State fail to comply 
with  the  Commission’s  opinion,  the  Commission  may  bring  the  case  to  the  Court  of 
Justice under Article 258 TFEU if the conditions of Article 260(2) or (3) are met, even 
request financial penalties. 

This 2014 Annual Report reviews the Member States’ performance on key aspects of 
the application of EU law and highlights the main enforcement policy developments of 
2014.  The  report  has  the  same  structure  as  in  previous  years.  The  staff  working 
documents  accompanying  the  report  examine  performance  and  challenges  in  the 
application of EU law by Member State and by policy area. 

1   Article 291(1) TFEU. 
2   Article  17  TEU  ‘[the  Commission]  shall  ensure  the  application  of  the  Treaties  and  of  the 
measures  adopted  by  the  institutions  pursuant  to  them.  It  shall  oversee  the  application  of 
Union law […]’. 
Infringement  procedures  can  also  be  started  under  other  provisions  of  EU  law,  for  example 
Article  106  TFEU  in  combination  with  Articles  101  or  102  TFEU.  This  Report  also  takes  these 
procedures into account. 

3  

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Monitoring the application of Union law: 2014 Annual Report 

II. 

POLICY ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF UNION LAW 

Efficient  monitoring  of  the  application  of  EU  law  is  part  of  the  Commission’s  Better 
Regulation  Agenda.  The  results  of  such  monitoring  feed  into  evaluations  of  the  law, 
into  impact  assessments  for  new  initiatives  and,  more  generally,  into  the  legislative 
life  cycle.  The  objective  is  both  to  improve  the  implementation  and  enforcement  of 
existing legislation and to enhance the quality of new legislation. 

The  Commission  has  a  unique  and  essential  role  in  overseeing  the  application  of  EU 
law. At the same time, EU law forms an integral part of the national legal order in the 
Member  States,  which  bear  primary  responsibility  for  applying  it  correctly.  Their 
public administrations and judiciary have to ensure that the laws and obligations are 
properly  applied  and  enforced.  Before  starting  formal  infringement  procedures,  the 
Commission  works  in  partnership  with  the  Member  States  to  solve  problems 
efficiently and in accordance with Union law, through a process of structured dialogue 
with clear deadlines that was introduced for this purpose. 4 This process is referred to 
as ‘EU Pilot’. 

If  no  solution  is  found,  the  Commission  pursues  the  bilateral  discussion  and  may 
launch  formal  infringement  proceedings  under  Article  258  TFEU.  Financial  penalties 
are imposed if Member States do not comply with Court rulings (Article 260(2) TFEU) 
or  fail  to  transpose  EU  legislative  directives  on  time  (Article  260(3)  TFEU).  These 
provisions  are  essential  to  the  overall  objective  of  the  Commission’s  enforcement 
policy,  which  is  to  ensure  that  EU  law  is  implemented  and  applied  correctly  and  on 
time, for the benefit of people and businesses. 

Members  of  the  public,  businesses,  NGOs  and  other  organisations  contribute 
significantly  to  the  Commission’s  monitoring  by  reporting  shortcomings  in  the 
transposition  and/or  application  of  EU  law  by  Member  State  authorities.  The 
Commission  fully  acknowledges  their  important  role  and  has  committed  to  giving 
administrative  guarantees  when  handling  complaints,  such  as  informing  the 
complainant  of  any  steps  the  Commission  takes  in  further  processing  the complaint, 
and notifying the complainant before closing the complaint. 

4   See the communication ‘A Europe of Results — Applying Community Law’, COM(2007) 502. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Monitoring the application of Union law: 2014 Annual Report 

III.  STAGES IN INFRINGEMENT PROCEDURES 

Infringements  may  be  detected  through  the  Commission’s  own  investigations.  They 
can  also  be  started  following  complaints  or  petitions  from  members  of  the  public, 
businesses, NGOs or other organisations.  

If  the  informal  bilateral  dialogue  with  a  Member  State  is  unsuccessful,  the 
Commission may decide to launch a formal infringement procedure under Article 258 
TFEU.  The  infringement  procedure  is  divided  into  a  pre-litigation  phase  and  a 
litigation phase. 

There are three main types of infringements of EU law: 

• 

failure  to  notify:  a  Member  State  has  not  notified  the  Commission  on 
time of its measures to transpose a directive; 

•  non-conformity/non-compliance:  the  Commission  considers  a  Member 

• 

State’s legislation is not in line with the requirements of EU legislation; 
incorrect/bad  application:  Union  law  is  not  applied  correctly  or  not 
applied at all by national authorities. 

In the pre-litigation phase of an infringement procedure, first, the Commission sends 
a  letter  of  formal  notice  to  the  Member  State,  requesting  an  explanation  within  a 
given  time  limit.  Then,  if  the  Member  State’s  reply  is  unsatisfactory  or  it  does  not 
reply  at  all,  the  Commission  sends  a  reasoned  opinion  asking  the  Member  State  to 
comply within a given time limit. 

Should  the  Member  State  not  comply  with  the  reasoned  opinion,  the  Commission 
opens the litigation procedure by bringing the case to the Court of Justice. 

When  it  brings  a  case  before  the  Court  under  Article  258  TFEU  because  a  Member 
State  has  failed  to  fulfil  its  obligations  to  notify  measures  transposing  a  legislative 
directive, the Commission may propose financial penalties under Article 260(3) TFEU. 

If  the  Member  State  does  not  take  the  necessary  steps  to  comply  with  the  Court 
judgment  which  detects  a  violation  of  Union  law  obligations,  the  Commission  may 
continue the infringement procedure under Article 260(2) TFEU and refer the Member 
State to the Court again after having sent a letter of formal notice under article 260 
(2)  TFEU.  In  that  case,  the  Commission  can  propose  and  the  Court  can  impose 
financial sanctions (a lump sum and/or daily penalties). 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Monitoring the application of Union law: 2014 Annual Report 

IV.  BEFORE AN INFRINGEMENT PROCEDURE IS STARTED 

1.  Detecting problems 

1.1 Own-initiative cases 

The  Commission  examines  the  implementation  of  EU  law  primarily  on  its  own 
initiative.  As  with  complaints,  the  Commission  in  general  first  opens  bilateral 
discussions with the Member State concerned via EU Pilot with a view to finding a 
solution  complying  with  EU  law  (details  in  point  2  below).  777  EU  Pilot 
investigations were launched in 2014 (in 2013, 1023 were started). 

From  these,  environment,  energy,  and  mobility/transport  were  the  three  policy 
areas with the most potential infringements (with 151, 115 and 115 new EU Pilot 
files respectively). The Member States primarily concerned were Italy, Spain and 
Germany (59, 47 and 42 new EU Pilot files respectively). 

1.2 Complaints and petitions 

In  2014,  members  of  the  public,  businesses,  NGOs  and  other  organisations 
remained  very  active  in  reporting  potential  breaches  of  EU  law.  The  following 
chart shows the number has been rising since 2012. As a result, the total number 
of open complaints increased by approximately 5.7 % in 2014. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Monitoring the application of Union law: 2014 Annual Report 

The  chart  below  shows  further  key  data  on  complaints  from  members  of  the 
public:5 

3 715  new  complaints  were  registered  in  2014.  The  three  Member  States 
against which the most complaints were filed were: 

• 

• 

• 

Spain:  553  complaints,  most  of  them  related  to  employment  (222 
complaints); environment (111 complaints); and justice (76 complaints); 

Italy:  475  complaints,  especially  in  connection  with  employment  (110 
complaints);  environment  (92  complaints);  and  internal  market  and 
services (65 complaints); and 

Germany:  276  complaints,  mainly  related  to  internal  market  and  services 
(55  complaints);  environment  (54  complaints);  and 
justice  (50 
complaints). 

The  following  chart  shows  the  five  policy  areas  with  the  highest  number  of 
complaints (which represent 76 % of all complaints submitted). 

5  

 The number of complaints open at the end of 2013 given in the 2013 annual report is different 
from the current figure. This is because some cases were reopened in 2014 for administrative 
reasons. 

8 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Monitoring the application of Union law: 2014 Annual Report 

3 744 complaints were processed in 2014. When they had been assessed, the 
Commission  opened  bilateral  discussions  with  Member  States  on  447  complaints 
to  clarify  whether  EU  rules  had  been  breached.6  223  of  these  complaints  led  to 
infringement  procedures,  after  the  Commission  rejected  the  responses  provided 
by the Member States in EU Pilot. 

The Commission has the power under Article 258 TFEU to send a letter of formal 
notice  to  the  Member  State  without  prior  bilateral  discussion  and  may  do  so  in 
urgent and exceptional cases. Complaints that led to discussions in EU Pilot most 
frequently  related  to  the  internal  market  and  services;  taxation  and  customs 
union; and environment (80, 60 and 59 files opened under EU Pilot respectively). 
They mainly concerned the following Member States: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Italy: 66 files, most of them related to complaints about environment (16 
new  EU  Pilot  files);  taxation  and  customs  union  (10);  and  employment 
(10); 

files,  especially 

in  connection  with  complaints  about 
Spain:  37 
environmental  issues  (6  new  EU  Pilot  files);  enterprise  (5);  justice  (4), 
employment (4); and taxation and customs union (4); 

France:  33 files,  mainly  related  to  taxation  and  customs  union  (7  new  EU 
Pilot files); justice (5); and environment (4); and 

Germany:  33  files,  most  of  them  related  to  complaints  on  the  internal 
market  and  services  (15  new  EU  Pilot  files);  taxation  and  customs  union 
(3); enterprise (3); and mobility and transport (3). 

By  way  of  petitions  and  questions,  in  2014  the  European  Parliament  alerted  the 
Commission to shortcomings in the way Member States implement and apply EU 
law. 

These include: 

• 

Environment:  Three  letters  of  formal  notice  were  sent  about  the 
authorisation of various development projects in France. 

In another 13 cases, concerning waste management, water protection and 
impact  assessments,  the  Commission  began  bilateral  dialogues  with  the 
Member  States.  Most  of  these  files  concerned  Italy,  France,  Luxembourg 
and Spain. 

• 

• 

• 

Transport:  The  Commission  began  bilateral  dialogues  with  Ireland,  Italy 
and  Spain  in  four  cases  concerning  discriminatory  local  transport  fares, 
driving licences for disabled drivers, requirements for the establishment of 
road passenger transport activities and transport for schoolchildren. 

Health  &  consumers:  The  Commission  assessed  alleged  infringements  of 
EU rules on animal welfare and food safety. 

Taxation:  A  written  question  in  Parliament  led  the  Commission  to  raise 
concerns  about  legislation  in  Denmark  excluding  the  transfer  of  losses 
incurred  in  the  national  territory  by  a  non-resident  branch  of  a  company 

6   Not  all  complaints  led  to  bilateral  discussions  with  the  Member  States,  because  EU  laws  were 
not  breached  (2459),  because  the  Commission  had  no  power  to  act  (147)  or  because  the 
correspondence  did  not  qualify  as  a  complaint  (468).  Therefore,  these  3074  complaints  have 
been closed. 

9 

 
 
                                                 
Monitoring the application of Union law: 2014 Annual Report 

established  in  another  Member  State  to  a  company  of  the  same  group 
established in the national territory. 

2.  Solving problems 

EU  Pilot  is  a  Commission  initiative  aimed  at  asking  Member  States  to  answer 
questions and to find solutions to problems related to the application of EU law. It 
is supported by an online database and communication tool. Through the dialogue 
in  EU  Pilot,  the  Commission  and  Member  States  solve  problems  more  quickly, 
benefiting  the  public  and  businesses  by  achieving  compliance  with  EU  law 
obligations. 

The number of new EU Pilot files increased gradually between 2011 and 2013 (see 
the chart below). However, in 2014, the number fell back to its 2011 level: 1208 
new files were opened (a fall of approximately 20 %). 

The following chart shows the main EU Pilot figures for 2014:7 

7   From  the  sum  of  EU  Pilot  files  open  at  end-2013  and  new  EU  Pilot  files  opened  in  2014 
(1476+1208=2684),  the  number  of  files  processed  is  subtracted  (2684-1336=1348).  The 
number of files open at the end of 2013 given in the 2013 Annual Report is different from the 
current figure. This is because some files were registered late and others have been closed. 

10 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Monitoring the application of Union law: 2014 Annual Report 

1 208 new EU Pilot files were opened in 2014. This figure is composed of 423 
files triggered by complaints, 8 triggered by inquiries and 777 new own-initiative 
files. 

The  following  pie  chart  shows  the  policy  areas  in  which  most  new  EU  Pilot  files 
were opened in 2014: 

1 336 EU Pilot files were processed in 2014. Of the 1 336 processed EU Pilot 
files in 2014, the Commission closed 996 because the Member State’s answer was 
satisfactory. This is a 75 % resolution rate for the Member States, up from 70 % in 
2013.  One  file  was  rejected  by  the  Member  State  at  this  stage,  and  the 
Commission accepted its rejection. Altogether, 339 EU Pilot files were closed after 
the  Commission  rejected  the  responses  provided  by  the  Member  States.  Out  of 
those, 325 were followed by formal infringement procedures (there were 396 such 
files  in  2013).  These  included  91  mobility  and  transport  cases;  43  environment 
cases;  39  taxation  and  customs  union  cases;  and  37  employment  and  social 
affairs  cases.  Italy,  Spain,  Germany  and  France  had  the  highest  number  of  such 
files in EU Pilot followed by infringement proceedings (at 31, 28 and 22 files each 
respectively). 

11 

 
 
 
 
Monitoring the application of Union law: 2014 Annual Report 

1 348  EU  Pilot  files  were  open  at  the  end  of  2014.  At  the  end  of  2014,  the 
most EU Pilot files still open concerned Italy (139), Spain (91), Greece and Poland 
(73  each).  The  environment  remained  the  main  policy  area  concerned,  with  390 
open files, followed by justice (157) and mobility and transport (157). 

The following chart displays the resolution rate for EU Pilot files for all the Member 
States in 2014 (as a percentage). 

Member  States  should  reply  to  questions  in  EU  Pilot  within  10  weeks  (70  days). 
The next chart displays the average response time (in days) by Member State in 
2014. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Monitoring the application of Union law: 2014 Annual Report 

V. 

INFRINGEMENT PROCEDURE 

1.  Pre-litigation phase 

If a Member State does not resolve the alleged breach of EU law, the Commission 
may launch infringement procedures under Article 258 TFEU8 and may ultimately 
bring  the  case  before  the  Court.  In  2014,  the  Commission  launched  893  new 
procedures  by  sending  a  letter  of  formal  notice.  The  following  chart  shows  the 
distribution by Member State. 

The following chart shows the main policy areas to which new procedures related. 

The Commission also sent 256 reasoned opinions to Member States during 2014. 
Italy (20), Romania (17), Spain, Slovenia, Greece and Poland (14 each) received 
the  most  reasoned  opinions.  The  policy  areas  in  which  the  Commission  sent  the 
most  reasoned  opinions  to  Member  States  were:  environment;  mobility  and 
transport; and the internal market and services (60, 44 and 35, respectively). 

8   Or under other relevant provisions of the TFEU; see footnote 3. 

13 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Monitoring the application of Union law: 2014 Annual Report 

At the end of 2014, 1 347 infringement cases remained open. While in 2014 the 
number of open infringement cases increased slightly, overall the figure has fallen 
since 2010, as shown in the following chart. 

The  following  chart  shows  the  total  number  of  open  infringement  cases  by 
Member State at the end of 2014: 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Monitoring the application of Union law: 2014 Annual Report 

The  following  pie  chart  shows  the  policy  areas  in  which  most  infringement  cases 
were open in 2014: 

The dialogue between the Member State and the Commission continues during the 
formal  procedure,  in  order  to  seek  compliance.  Statistics  confirm  that  Member 
States  make  serious  efforts  to  settle  their  infringements  before  the  Court  hands 
down its ruling.9 

In 2014, the Commission closed: 

•  580 infringements after sending a letter of formal notice; 

•  190 cases after sending reasoned opinions to the Member State; and 

•  11  cases  after  deciding  to  refer  the  case  before  the  Court  but  before 
submitting  the  application.  In  addition,  the  Commission  has  withdrawn  16 
cases from the Court before it handed down its ruling. 

2.  Referrals to the Court of Justice under Articles 258 and 260(2) TFEU 

The  Court  delivered  38  judgments  under  Article  258  TFEU  in  2014,  of  which  35 
(92 %)  were  in  favour  of  the  Commission.  The  Court  delivered  the  most 

9   The  figures  that  follow  were  calculated  for  all  infringement  cases  irrespective  of  origin  (i.e. 

complaint, at the Commission’s initiative or late transposition of directives by Member States). 

15 

 
 
 
                                                 
Monitoring the application of Union law: 2014 Annual Report 

judgments  against  Spain  (5,  all  in  favour  of  the  Commission),  Belgium  (4,  all  in 
favour of the Commission), Germany (4, of which one was in Germany’s favour), 
Italy  (4,  all  in  favour  of  the  Commission),  Poland  (4,  all  in  favour  of  the 
Commission)  and  the  United  Kingdom  (4,  all  in  favour  of  the  Commission). 
Environment  (10),  taxation  (8)  and  enterprise  and  industry  (5)  were  the  subject 
of the most judgments delivered by the Court during 2014. 

Member  States  frequently  take  the  necessary  measures  to  comply  with  the 
judgment  of  the  Court  promptly.  However,  at  the  end  of  2014,  61  infringement 
procedures  were  still  open  after  a  Court  ruling  because  the  Commission 
considered  that  the  Member  States  concerned  had  not  yet  complied  with  the 
judgments  under  Article  258  TFEU.  Most  of  these  cases  concerned  Spain  (8), 
Poland  (7)  and  Greece  (6)  and  were  related  to  environment  (19),  taxation  & 
customs union (14), transport (6) and health and consumer protection (6). 

Of these 61 cases, 3 had already been referred to the Court for the second time. 
Under Article 260(2) TFEU the Commission can propose and the Court can impose 
a  lump  sum  and/or  a  daily  penalty  on  the  defaulting  Member  State,  which  must 
immediately pay the lump sum and pay the periodic penalty until it complies fully 
with  the  first  and  second  Court  judgments.  In  2014,  5  Court  judgments  were 
delivered  under  Article  260(2)  TFEU.  The  Court  imposed  penalty  payments  on 
Italy  (1),10  Greece,11  Portugal,12  Spain,13  and  Sweden.14  At  the  end  of  2014,  7 
infringement  procedures  were  still  open  after  a  Court  ruling  under  Article  260(2) 
TFEU. 

The  overall  decrease  of  the  number  of  infringement  procedures  can  be  put  in 
relation  to  the  important  increase  of  preliminary  rulings  under  Article  267  TFEU 
since  2010.15  The  Court  of  Justice  has  addressed  conformity  issues  of  national 
laws  in  regard  of  EU  legislation  in  about  half  of  its  judgments  under  Article  267 
TFEU  since  2010  and  identified  non  conformities  in  numerous  cases.  Whilst 
preliminary  rulings  are  distinct  from  infringement  judgments,  this  gives  the 
Commission an additional opportunity to ensure in a more systematic manner that 
violations  of  Union  law  deriving  from  national  legislation  or  its  application  are 
remedied. 

10   Commission  v  Italy,  C-196/13,  (lump  sum  payment  of  € 40 000 000;  penalty:  € 42 800 000  for 

each six-month period of non-compliance with the judgment under Article 258 TFEU). 

11   Commission v Greece, C-378/13, (lump sum payment of € 10 000 000; penalty: € 14 520 000 for 

each six-month period of non-compliance with the judgment under Article 258 TFEU). 

12   Commission  v  Portugal,  C-76/13,  (lump  sum  payment:  € 3 000 000;  € 10 000  for  each  day  of 

non-compliance with the judgment under Article 258 TFEU). 

13   Commission v Spain, C-184/11, (lump sum payment: € 30 000 000; no daily penalty). 
14   Commission  v  Sweden,  C-243/13,  (lump  sum  payment:  € 2 000 000;  € 4 000  for  each  day  of 

non-compliance with the judgment under Article 258 TFEU). 
15   See Court of Justice of the EU 2014 Annual Report – p. 94-99 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Monitoring the application of Union law: 2014 Annual Report 

VI.  TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES 

1.  Late transposition 

Late  transposition  of  directives  by  Member  States  remains  a  persistent  problem 
which  prevents  people  and  businesses  from  receiving  the  tangible  benefits  of 
Union  law  within  the  agreed  time  spans  set  by  the  legislator  for  legislative 
Directives and which negatively affects overall legal security and the level playing 
field  in  the  Single  Market.  By  definition,  when  a  legislative  Directive  is  not 
transposed  within  the  set  time  limits,  the  transposition  deadline  is  prolonged 
unduly  in  a  significant  way  beyond  the  deadline  that  is  applicable  to  all  Member 
States. Combating late transposition is therefore a long-established priority for the 
Commission.16 This objective has also been reflected by the novelty introduced in 
the  Lisbon  Treaty  in  Article  260  (3)  TFEU,  namely  the  possibility  for  the 
Commission to propose financial sanctions when referring a Member State to the 
Court of Justice under Article 258 for not having communicated to the Commission 
their  transposition  measures  for  directives  adopted  under  a  legislative  procedure 
within  the  time  limit  set  by  the  legislator  in  the  directive  (details  in  subsection 
VI.2). 

The  Commission  proposes  fines  for  Member  States  under  the  special  penalty 
provisions  of  Article  260(3)  TFEU  if  they  do  not  transpose  directives  on  time 
(details in subsection VI.2). 

There  were  fewer  directives  to  transpose  in  2014  than  in  the  previous  year  i.e. 
6717 compared with 74 in 2013) but more than in 2012 (56). However, there was 
a  significant  increase  in  new  late  transposition  infringements  in  2014  compared 
with the previous year: 585 new late transposition infringements were launched in 
2014 compared with 478 in 2013 (there were 447 in 2012, 1 185 in 2011 and 855 
in 2010). 

421 late transposition cases were still open at the end of 2014, which represents a 
7.4 % increase on the 390 cases at the end of 2013. 

16   Commission  communication  A  Europe  of  results  —  Applying  Community  law,  COM(2007) 502 

final, p. 9. 

17   Of  these  67  directives,  7  environmental  directives  were  repealed  on  1  September  2013,  and 

some Member States were given transitional periods. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Monitoring the application of Union law: 2014 Annual Report 

The following chart shows the key figures on late transposition infringement cases 
(LTIs) launched by the Commission in 2014: 

The  following  chart  shows  the  number  of  LTIs  open  on  31 December 2014  by 
Member State, irrespective of the year when the case was opened. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Monitoring the application of Union law: 2014 Annual Report 

The next chart shows new cases (585 in total) opened in 2014, by Member State. 

The four policy areas where the most new cases were launched in 2014 are shown 
in the following pie chart: 

New  cases  were  launched  against  27  Member  States  because  of  the  late 
transposition of the directive on access to the activity of credit institutions and the 
prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms.18 In addition, 24 
Member  States  were  involved  in  cases  for  late  transposition  of  the  directive  on 

18   Directive 2013/36/EU. 

19 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Monitoring the application of Union law: 2014 Annual Report 

energy  efficiency.19  17  procedures  were  launched  concerning  the  directive  on 
requirements  for budgetary  frameworks  of  the  Member States20,  on  the  directive 
on consumer rights21 and on the directive on waste from electrical and electronic 
equipment22.  16  Member  States  failed  to  transpose  and/or  notify,  within  the  set 
deadline,  their  national  transposition  measures  under  the  directive  on  the 
application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare23 and under the directive 
facilitating the cross-border exchange of information on road-safety-related traffic 
offences.24 

2.  Referrals to the Court of Justice under Article 258/260(3) TFEU 

Under  Article  260(3)  TFEU,  when  referring  a  case  for  absence  of  complete 
transposition  to  the  Court  of  Justice  according  to  Article  258  TFEU,  the 
Commission may propose financial penalties already at this stage without having 
to wait for a first judgment. The purpose of this innovation in the Treaty of Lisbon 
is  to  give  Member  States  a  greater  incentive  to  transpose  directives  within  the 
deadlines laid down in Union law. The Commission decides on the level of financial 
penalties to propose in line with the policy laid down in its communication on the 
implementation of Article 260(3) TFEU. 25 

In  2014,  the  Commission  continued  to  bring  a  number  of  late  transposition 
infringement cases to the Court of Justice with a request for daily penalties under 
Article  260(3)  TFEU.  Three  Member  States  were  referred  to  Court  in  2014: 
Belgium,26  Finland27  and  Ireland  (two  cases).28  The  Commission  withdrew  its 
application  from  the  Court  in  one  case  concerning  Ireland’s  late  transposition  of 
the Renewable Energy Directive.29 All referrals to Court for late transposition with 
proposals  for  daily  penalties  related  to  energy  policy  directives.  Decisions  for 
referral  were  also  taken  in  other  sectors,  apart  from  energy,  but  in  these  cases 
the  Member  States  adopted  the  necessary  transposition  measures  before  the 
applications  were  sent  to  Court  and  thus  avoided  the  Court  procedures.  The 
Commission  has  so  far  not  yet  made  proposals  to  the  Court  to  apply  lump  sum 
payments.  Indeed  at  the  time  the  Commission  adopted  its  policy  on  the 
implementation of Article 260 (3) TFEU, it hoped that the penalty payment would 
prove  sufficient  to  achieve  the  innovation's  objective  to  give  Member  States  a 
stronger incentive to transpose Directives in good time. Although all cases brought 
to the Court of Justice under Articles 258 and 260 (3) TFEU since 2011 have in the 
meantime  been  withdrawn  from  the  Court  due  to  complete  transposition,  it  is  to 
be  noted  that  these  complete  transpositions  are  achieved  at  a  very  late  stage  in 
from  an  undue 
the 
prolongation  of  the  transposition  deadline  set  by  the  legislator  equally  for  all 
Member States. 

judicial  procedure,  some  Member  States  benefiting 

19   Directive 2012/27/EU. 
20   Council Directive 2011/85/EU. 
21   Directive 2011/83/EU. 
22   Directive 2012/19/EU 
23   Directive 2011/24/EU. 
24   Directive 2011/82/EU. 
25   Communication from the  Commission — Implementation of Article 260(3) of the  Treaty,  OJ C 

12, 15.1.2011, p. 1. 

26   The  Commission  referred  Belgium  to  the  Court  for  failure  to  fully  implement  the  Energy 

Performance of Buildings Directive and proposed a daily penalty of € 42 178.50. 

27   The  Commission  referred  Finland  to  the  Court  for  failure  to  fully  implement  the  Energy 

Performance of Buildings Directive and proposed a daily penalty of € 19 178.25. 

28   The  Commission  referred  Ireland  to  the  Court  for  partial  transposition  of  the  Electricity 
Directive and proposed a daily penalty of € 20 358. In a separate case, the Commission referred 
Ireland to the Court for failure to fully transpose the Renewable Energy Directive and proposed 
a daily penalty of € 25 447.50. 

29   Directive 2009/28/EC. 

20 

 
 
                                                 
Monitoring the application of Union law: 2014 Annual Report 

In  2014,  Member  States  increased  their  efforts  to  complete  transposition  before 
the  Court  of  Justice  delivered  its  judgments.  However,  taken  together  with  the 
other cases based on Article 258 and 260(3) TFEU that were launched in previous 
years,  there  remained  8  open  cases  with  a  proposal  for  daily  penalties:  2  cases 
each against Austria and Poland, and one case each against Belgium, Finland, the 
Netherlands and Ireland. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Monitoring the application of Union law: 2014 Annual Report 

VII. 

POLICY DEVELOPMENTS 

1.  Bringing Union law closer to the people of Europe 

In 2014, the Commission continued its efforts to inform people better about their 
rights under EU law and to ensure that they find suitable mechanisms of redress, 
if  they  consider  these  rights  have  been  breached.  These  efforts  focused  on 
providing  better  access  to  information  on  the  application  of  EU  law,  on  problem-
solving  instruments  for  EU  citizens  and  businesses  in  Member  States  and  on 
improving  the  handling  of  complaints  from  EU  citizens  and  businesses  about 
breaches of EU law. 

1.1 Better access to information on the application of Union law 

On  9  December  2014,  the  European  Commission  launched  a  new  web  section 
‘Applying  Union  law’,  a  database  of  decisions  taken  by  the  Commission  on 
infringement procedures and an online complaint form for members of the public 
and businesses. 

1.1.1 New web section on application of Union law 

With more than 30 000 visitors a month, ‘Applying Union law’30 is the second most 
visited  web  section  on  the  Europa  portal.  The  content  and  structure  of  this  web 
section  have  been  completely  revamped  and  simplified.  The  section  enables 
people to find the information they need more quickly, in all official EU languages. 

1.1.2 Database of the Commission’s infringement decisions 

The  Commission  also  launched  a  new  online  database  of  its  decisions  on 
infringements.31  An  improved,  user-friendly  search  tool  makes  it  easier  to  find 
infringement decisions by Member State, case number, policy field, etc. 

1.1.3 Online complaint form 

In  an  effort  to  make  it  easier  for  members  of  the  public  to  complain  about 
breaches of EU law, in December 2014 the Commission introduced a simple online 
complaint  form.32  This  is  now  accessible  via  the  Europa  portal  Your  rights, which 
links  to  different  problem-solving  and  complaint-handling  services  at  EU  and 
national level. 

1.2  Better  access  to  problem-solving  tools  for  the  public  and 
business in Member States 

While complainants remain an important source of information about breaches of 
EU  law  in  the  Member  States,  many  cases  brought  to  the  attention  of  the 
Commission via complaints turn out not to be infringements of EU law. And often, 
the quickest and most effective way for people and businesses to solve problems 
arising  from  incorrect  application  of  EU  law  by  Member  States  is  to  take  the 
matter up with the national authorities concerned. 

To  make  it  easier  for  businesses  and  the  public  to  find  out  about  the  formalities 
and procedures to be complied with in different countries, and who to contact, the 
Commission’s portal Your Europe provides practical information and tips for living 
in and moving around in the EU. Your Europe directs members of the public and 

30   Applying Union law. 
31   Commission’s decisions on infringements. 
32   Your EU rights: problem solving and complaints. 

22 

 
 
                                                 
Monitoring the application of Union law: 2014 Annual Report 

businesses to the most appropriate service to help to find a solution33 and serves 
as a gateway to assistance and channels for complaints where needed. 

1.3 Swifter handling of complaints from the public and business 

To further streamline complaint-handling and provide a better service to members 
of the public and businesses, in 2014 the Commission connected up the problem-
solving service SOLVIT with the internal tool for registering complaints, CHAP.34 

CHAP  ensures  proper  and  timely  assignment  of  complaints  to  the  competent 
Commission  departments  together  with  systematic  feedback  to  complainants  in 
line with the 2012 Commission communication Updating the handling of relations 
with the complainant in respect of the application of Union law.35 

informal  problem-solving 

SOLVIT,  an 
the  national 
administrations,  was  set  up  in  2002  by  the  Commission  and  Member  States  to 
help  people  obtain  rapid  solutions  to  problems  with  a  cross-border  dimension 
where national authorities were failing to comply with EU law. 

tool  provided  by 

The link between CHAP and SOLVIT ensures swifter handling of complaints. 

2.  ‘Third  pillar’  transition:  Police  and  judicial  cooperation  in  criminal 

matters now on an equal footing with other EU policies 

1 December 2014 saw the expiry of rules that limited the Court of Justice’s judicial 
control  on  the  EU  rules  on  police  cooperation  and  judicial  cooperation  in  criminal 
matters and the Commission's power to monitor the application of EU legislation in 
that area36. 

The Treaty of Lisbon’s entry into force on 1 December 2009 had ended the ‘third 
pillar’  of  EU  legislation  (justice  and  home  affairs).37  Treaty  provisions  on  police 
and  judicial  cooperation  in  criminal  matters  were  incorporated  into  Title  V  of  the 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). 

As a transitional measure, however, Protocol 36 to the Lisbon Treaty provided that 
until  1  December  2014,  the  powers  of  the  Commission  under  Article  258  TFEU 
(infringement proceedings) and of the Court of Justice did not apply to acts in the 
field of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters that had been adopted 
before  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Treaty,  unless  they  were  repealed,  annulled  or 
amended (conditions sometimes referred to as ‘Lisbonisation’) after its entry into 
force. 

33   These services include Your Europe Advice (clarification of a situation by independent lawyers), 
SOLVIT  (solving  problems  with  public  administrations),  Enterprise  Europe  Network  and  the 
Points of Single Contact (support for SMEs), EURES (job matching) and the ECC-Net (consumer 
centres). In addition, the Europe Direct Contact Centre also informs citizens about their rights 
and either forwards their messages or refers them to specialised services when needed. 

34   CHAP is the Commissions IT tool for registering and managing complaints and enquiries about 

Member States’ application of EU law. 

35   COM/2012/0154 final. 
36   Article 10 of Protocol 36 to the Lisbon Treaty. For more info see press release IP/14/2266. 
37   The Treaty of Maastricht (1992) introduced a new institutional structure composed of the three 
‘pillars’  of  the  EU.  The  third  pillar  was  inter-governmental  and  focused  on  justice  and  home 
affairs  (JHA),  which  was  renamed  police  and  judicial  cooperation  in  criminal  matters  (PJC), 
after  the  Treaty  of  Amsterdam  (1999)  transferred  certain  fields  to  the  first  pillar  (free 
movement,  asylum,  immigration,  borders,  visa  policy  and  civil  law).  The  third  pillar  then 
focused  on  cooperation  in  law  enforcement  and  combating  racism  while  retaining  its  inter-
governmental  character.  The  development  of  many  important  policies  such  as  the  European 
arrest warrant, the common European asylum system and the Schengen area started off under 
the third pillar. 

23 

 
 
                                                 
Monitoring the application of Union law: 2014 Annual Report 

Certain Member States (Denmark, Ireland and UK) have special status as regards 
these policy areas.38 

The  abolition  of  the  pillar  structure  and  the  full  integration  of  police  and  judicial 
cooperation  in  criminal  matters  into  the  mainstream  of  EU  law  and  institutions 
contribute  to  the  efficient  functioning  of  instruments  for  freedom,  security  and 
justice  and  enhance  both  mutual  trust  between  the  Member  States  and  public 
confidence in the EU. 

3.  Implementation  plans  and  explanatory  documents:  current  state  of 

play 

3.1  Implementation plans 

The  Commission  provides  implementation  plans  to  make  it  easier  to  apply  the 
Union law effectively and on time, while fully recognising that applying the Union 
law is the responsibility of Member States. The implementation plans are drafted 
at an early stage when drafting new legislation. They identify challenges which the 
Member  States  will  face  in  applying  the  law  and  which  need  to  be  taken  into 
account  when  Member  States  prepare  for  the  work  of  transposition  and 
implementation.  They  also  provide  for  a  wide  range  of  tools  to  assist  Member 
States  to  implement  Union  law,  for  example  guidance  documents,  expert  groups 
and dedicated websites. 

In 2014, the Commission adopted 4 directives (3 on the internal market and 1 on 
environment) with an implementation plan. The plans identify the main challenges 
and  deliverables  for  Member  States  in  transposing  the  directives.  They  suggest 
useful actions (such as reaching the target within the deadline, using experience 
gained from previous exercises, monitoring and quality reporting, implementation 
workshops  and  bilateral  meetings  and  expert  groups).  They  also  name  the 
‘contact points’ (lead departments) in the Commission. 

The  Commission  considers  that  these  plans  will  contribute  to  efficient 
transposition and implementation of the proposed directives. The Commission will 
monitor the use of implementation plans. 

3.2  Explanatory documents 

While Member States are responsible for transposing directives accurately and on 
time, it is the Commission’s role as guardian of the Treaties to check that this is 
done. For this purpose, the information that Member States give the Commission 
must be clear and precise. In 2011, the EU institutions and Member States agreed 
on  a  new  framework  under  which  Member States  provide  supporting  information 
about  how  they  have  transposed  directives  into  their  law.39  It  was  agreed  that 
such  supporting  information  (‘explanatory  documents’)  will  be  submitted  in 
justified cases together with the measures to transpose directives.40 

In  2014,  the  Commission  requested  explanatory  documents  in  8  out  of  12 
proposals  for  directives  submitted  to  the  Council  and  Parliament.  During  this 

38   Protocols 21, 22 and 36 to the Treaty on the European Union, to the Treaty on the Functioning 
of the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, 
introduced by the Lisbon Treaty. 

39   The  policy  is  contained  in  a  (1)  Joint  Political  Declaration  of  28  September  2011  between  the 
Commission and the Member States (OJ 2011/C 369/02) and (2) a Joint Political Declaration of 
27 October 2011 between the EP, Council and Commission (OJ 2011/C 369/03). 

40   Member States ‘undertake to accompany the notification of transposition measures with one or 
more  explanatory  documents,  which  can  take  the  form  of  correlation  tables  or  other 
documents serving the same purpose’. The Commission will have ‘to justify on a case by case 
basis,  when  submitting  the  relevant  proposals,  the  need  for,  and  the  proportionality  of 
,providing such documents’. 

24 

 
 
                                                 
Monitoring the application of Union law: 2014 Annual Report 

period, the Council and Parliament adopted 23 directives (out of 65) for which the 
Commission  requested  explanatory  documents  and  which  maintained  the  agreed 
recital on the need for such documents. 

In 2014, Member States had to transpose 67 directives,41 for 8 of which they had 
undertaken  to  submit  explanatory  documents.42  Some  Member  States  have  not 
sent any explanatory documents. For the directives in the field of justice (2 out of 
the 8), the Commission received 16 explanatory documents for the first directive 
(9  in  the  form  of  ‘correlation  tables’)  and  16  for  the  second  (10  in  the  form  of 
‘correlation  tables’).  For  the  directives  on  environment  (3  out  of  8),  the 
Commission  received  7  explanatory  documents  for  the  first  directive  (4  in  the 
form of ‘correlation tables’), 8 on the second (5 in the form of ‘correlation tables’) 
and 16 on the third (10 in the form of ‘correlation tables’). For the directive in the 
field of energy, the Commission received 28 ‘correlation tables’ (not by all Member 
States  but  sometimes  several  per  Member  State)  and  14  other  explanatory 
documents.  For  the  directives  on  financial  markets  (2  out  of  8),  the  Commission 
received  9  explanatory  documents  (8  in  the  form  of  ‘correlation  tables’)  on  the 
first  directive  and  only  1  explanatory  document  (in  the  form  of  a  ‘correlation 
table’) on the second. 

The documents received vary in form and content, ranging from a mere reference 
to the national legal texts transposing the directive to detailed correlation tables. 
They  include  letters  and  memos,  including  tables,  to  the  Commission  explaining 
how the Member State has transposed the directive. Some provide details of how 
the new directive is already reflected in existing national legislation. 

On  the  basis  of  a  first  assessment,  it  appears  that  some  Member  States  clearly 
state how the directive has been transposed in their national law. However, others 
do not fully respect their earlier commitments, as they do not in all cases provide 
the clear and precise information required by settled case-law.43 

A more extensive assessment will be possible once the Commission has received 
explanatory  documents  for  a  more  representative  number  of  directives.  The 
Commission will continue to report to the European Parliament and the Council on 
this in its Annual Reports on the application of EU law. 

4.  Better Regulation Agenda 

The  Commission’s  2015  Work  Programme44  confirms  that  the  Commission  will 
continue  working  actively  to  ensure  that  EU  law  is  properly  applied  implemented 
and  enforced  so  it  delivers  real  benefits  to  citizens.  This  goes  hand  in  hand  with 
the creation, within the Juncker Commission, of the position of First Vice-President 
with cross-cutting responsibility for Better Regulation, Interinstitutional Relations, 
the Rule of Law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.  

There  were  several  important  developments  in  the  Better  Regulation  Agenda  in 
2014.  

Public consultations were held on evaluation, impact assessment and stakeholder 
consultation  guidelines,  feeding  into  the  preparation  of  the  Better  Regulation 
Guidelines.45  

41   Of  these  67  directives,  some  have  been  repealed;  some  Member  States  have  a  transitional 

period and some other Member States are not concerned. 

42   Directives  2012/17/EU  (JUST),  2013/1/EU  (JUST),  2012/18/EU  (ENV),  2012/19/EU  (ENV), 
2012/33/EU (ENV), 2012/27/EU (ENER), 2013/14/EU (MARKT) and 2014/59/EU (MARKT). 

43   See Court of Justice Case C-427/07 and the case-law cited there. 
44   http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/pdf/cwp_2015_en.pdf. 
45   http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/evaluation/consultation/index_en.htm. 

25 

 
 
                                                 
Monitoring the application of Union law: 2014 Annual Report 

5.  EU regulatory fitness 

its  Regulatory  Fitness  and  Performance  Programme  (REFIT),46  the 
With 
Commission  set  out  an  ambitious  agenda  with  almost  200  individual  actions  to 
simplify  and  reduce  the  regulatory  burden,  repeal  existing  regulation  and 
withdraw proposals for new regulation. In addition, it provided for Fitness Checks 
and  evaluations  to  assess  the  efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  EU  regulation  and 
prepare future burden reduction initiatives. 

In  June  2014  the  Commission  adopted  a  communication47  including  a  number  of 
new REFIT initiatives and published the first edition of an annual scoreboard48 to 
facilitate  monitoring  of  implementation  and  stakeholder  dialogue.  The  new 
Commission’s  Work  Programme  confirms  REFIT  initiatives  to  be  implemented  in 
2015.49 

http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/consultation_2014/index_en.htm. 
http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/consultation_2014/stakeholder-
consultation/index_en.htm. 

46   COM(2013) 685 final. 
47   COM(2014) 368.  
48   SWD(2014)192final/2. 
49   COM(2014) 910final. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
Monitoring the application of Union law: 2014 Annual Report 

VIII.  CONCLUSIONS 

Effective application of EU law continued to face major challenges in 2014. 

The  high  number  of  possible  breaches  of  Union  law  requires  increased  efforts  from 
the  Member  States  to  implement  the  law  correctly  and  on  time,  to  the  benefit  of 
people  and  businesses.  The  overall  decrease  in  the  number  of  formal  infringement 
procedures in the last five years (from nearly 2900 to 1347) reflects the effectiveness 
of structured dialogue via the EU Pilot in resolving potential infringements quickly, to 
the  benefit  of  people  and  businesses.  In  the  coming  year,  the  Commission  aims  to 
fully  play  its  role  as  Guardian  of  the  Treaties  and  strengthen  the  cooperation  with 
Member  States  to  prevent  infringements  from  arising  and  speed  up  correction  of 
breaches of EU law where necessary. At the same time, the Commission will continue 
to provide useful information to members of the public and businesses on EU law and 
help them solve problems by further strengthening relevant tools such as SOLVIT and 
by  pursuing  initiatives  aimed  at  strengthening  how  the  benefits  of  EU  law  are 
delivered. The rising number of infringements relating to late transposition shows that 
prompt  transposition  continues  to  be  a  challenge  in  numerous  Member  States  and 
requires an effective response by the Commission. 

As  part  of  the  Better  Regulation  Agenda,  the  Commission  will  focus  on  ensuring  the 
clarity,  operability  and  enforceability  of  EU  legislation.  This  objective  cannot  be 
achieved without an active contribution from all parties involved in the EU’s legislative 
process. Increased attention will be paid to aspects of implementation, management 
and  enforcement,  both  when  the  Commission  drafts  proposals  and  throughout  the 
legislative process. 

Once  directives  are  adopted,  the  Commission  will  use  the  period  before  the 
transposition  deadline  expires  to  focus  on  providing  assistance  to  Member  States  on 
implementation.  After  the  transposition  deadline  expires,  the  Commission  will 
strengthen  enforcement  of  EU  law  based  on  structured  and  systematic  transposition 
and conformity checks of national legislation. 

Timely  and  correct  transposition  of  EU  law  into  national  legislation  and  a  clear 
domestic  legislative  framework  should  be  a  priority  for  the  Member  States.  This 
should considerably reduce breaches of EU law and hence the number of complaints, 
thereby benefiting people and businesses. 

27