Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

*|*

# 52013SC0432

**COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT PART I Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 30TH ANNUAL REPORT ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW (2012) /\* SWD/2013/0432 final \*/**

  

AUSTRIA

GENERAL
STATISTICS

With 51 open
cases at the end of 2012, Austria had the 18th highest number of
infringement cases in the EU-27. In 2012, the Commission launched 31 new
infringement procedures against Austria by sending letters of formal notice.

Austria’s performance remained
the worst in its reference group; Bulgaria had 46 open infringement cases and Sweden
had 36. However, Austria ended the year with fewer infringements than in 2011
(65) and 2010 (57). The following chart shows the policy areas in which Austria
was most frequently subject to infringement procedures:

The Commission
did not bring any cases against Austria before the Court in 2012 (compared to
two referrals in 2011). In Austria’s reference group, Bulgaria and Sweden had
two and one referrals, respectively.

TRANSPOSITION
OF DIRECTIVES

The Commission
opened 24 infringement procedures against Austria for late transposition of
various directives in 2012 (46 in 2011). In Austria’s reference group, only six
such cases were launched against Sweden, and 13 against Bulgaria. With 23 open
late transposition infringement cases by the end of 2012, Austria (and
Portugal) had the 5th worst performance in the EU-27.

Austria faced major
challenges in transposing EU directives in the policy areas of transport and health
& consumers (six new late transposition infringements were opened in both
areas).

COMPLAINTS

In 2012, the
Commission received 116 complaints against Austria, the ninth-highest figure in
the EU‑27.

The areas in
which most complaints were received were: justice (22 complaints,
particularly on free movement of people and equal treatment); environment (21,
many on nature protection, water protection and management, environmental
impact assessments); internal market (21, mainly free provision of
services and regulated professions). There were also complaints about nationality-based
discrimination in relation to public-sector posts and public-transport fares.
Other complaints concerned, among other, taxation of pensions, obstacles to the
online sale of goods, and family benefits for migrant workers.

EARLY
RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENTS

At the end of
2012, the Commission and the Austrian authorities were working on 46 open EU Pilot
files, a significantly lower figure than the 102 files at the end of 2011. The
Commission opened 41 new EU Pilot files with Austria in 2012. By decreasing its
average EU Pilot response time to 62 days (from 77 in 2011), Austria managed to
respect the 10-week target.

The Commission
closed a number of infringement cases in 2012 because of action taken by the
Austrian authorities: Austria carried out an ex-post environmental impact
assessment for the project to expand Vienna Airport to identify the mitigation
and compensation measures needed; it modified the rules relating to the
acquisition of agricultural real estate in Tyrol to respect the free movement
of capital; and it fully transposed the Blue Card Directive (on highly-skilled
third-country employees)[1]
and the Directive on defence procurement.[2]

IMPORTANT
JUDGMENTS

The Court
declared that Austrian law had not ensured the independence of the Data
Protection Commission (Datenschutzkommission or DSK) because its
managing member was a federal officer subject to supervision, the DSK was part
of the Federal Chancellery and the Federal Chancellor’s information rights were
too broad.[3]
In addition, the reduced transport fare system put in place for students was
found to contradict the general rules on the free movement of people[4] because students residing
in Austria could benefit from the reduction only if their parents were entitled
to the Austrian family allowance.[5]
Finally, Austria was condemned for not issuing or renewing permits for several
industrial installations under the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control
Directive,[6]
which requires compliance with a number of environmental criteria.[7]

In a
preliminary ruling addressed to the Austrian judiciary, the Court confirmed
that a collective employment contract was in line with the Employment Equality
Framework Directive,[8]
if the contract’s terms determined pay grades solely on the basis of
professional experience gained at a specific airline and excluded employees’
identical experience obtained at other airlines.[9]

Key infringement proceedings § Rights of the public to challenge decisions on environmental impact assessments § Restricting extended family members’ rights granted by the Free Movement Directive[10] § Inaccurate transposition of the Railway Safety Directive[11] as regards its scope and definitions)

Belgium

GENERAL STATISTICS

With 92 open
infringement cases at the end of 2012, Belgium had the second worst result in
the EU‑27. In 2012, the Commission launched 29 new infringement
procedures against Belgium by sending letters of formal notice.

Belgium’s performance was below average in its reference group: the
Czech Republic Romania had 36 open infringement cases, the Netherlands had 41, Hungary
42, Romania 44, Portugal 67 and Greece 81. However, Belgium closed the year
with fewer infringements than in 2011 (117) and 2010 (126). The following chart
shows the policy areas in which Belgium was most frequently subject to
infringement procedures:

The Commission
decided to bring six cases against Belgium before the Court in 2012 (there were
six in 2011). It contested in particular Belgium’s non-compliance with the
obligation to issue passports containing fingerprint strips.[12] There were four
referrals each against the Netherlands, Portugal and Hungary, two against
Greece but none against the Czech Republic and Romania.

The Commission
filed one case to the Court against Belgium under Article 260(2) TFEU with a proposal
for financial sanctions, due to Belgium’s incorrect implementation of the first
judgment[13]
on awarding ‘must-carry’ status to content broadcast in the Brussels region.[14]

TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES

The Commission opened 21 infringement procedures against Belgium for
late transposition of various directives in 2012 (there were 45 in 2011). In
the reference group, Belgium’s performance was better than that of Greece (22
new late transposition infringements), Hungary (26) and Portugal (34) but worse
than that of the Netherlands (six), Romania (15), and the Czech Republic (13).
With 34 late transposition infringements open at the end of 2012, Belgium
ranked last in the EU-27 (with Poland).

Belgium faced significant
challenges in transposing directives in the areas of transport (six new late
transposition infringement cases), health & consumers (four), and internal
market (three).

Due to the
late transposition of the E-money Directive and two telecom directives, the
Commission referred Belgium to the Court with a proposal for financial
sanctions (Article 260(3) TFEU).[15]

COMPLAINTS

In 2012, the
Commission received 108 complaints against Belgium, which ranks Belgium sixteenth
in the EU‑27.

Most
complaints were received in the areas of taxation (31 complaints, mainly discriminatory
taxation of foreign financial service providers, cross-border workers and individuals’
securities income); justice (20, in relation to free movement of persons
and the European Arrest Warrant); and environment (17, impact assessments and
nature protection). Other complaints concerned e.g. airport charges, public
procurement and the recognition of professional qualifications.

EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENTS

In
2012, 54 new EU Pilot files were sent to Belgium. The Commission and the
Belgian authorities were working on 49 open files at the end of the year (42 in
2011). Belgium’s average EU Pilot response time (75 days, in 2011: 71) was
above the 10-week target.

Belgium
aligned several of its disputed laws with EU rules, so the Commission was able
to close several infringement cases in 2012. For example, Belgium made it
possible for beneficiaries to receive pension payments in bank accounts anywhere
in the EU;[16]
it eliminated delays to payments for workers’ paid annual leave;[17] it complied
with the Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications; it
notified the Commission of measures put in place to improve waste management;[18] and it
ensured that its laying hens would be kept in enriched cages.[19]

IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

In 2012, the Court delivered six judgments against
Belgium under Article 258 TFEU. In one of the two taxation-related judgments,
it declared that the structure of taxation on income from capital and immovable
property unjustifiably favoured resident companies.[20]
The Court also found that requiring systematically the certificate of
conformity to carry out roadworthiness test on vehicles already registered in another
Member State, by ignoring the results of such tests performed in another Member
State, went against the free movement of goods, [21]
and that the prior declaration requirement for self-employed service providers
from countries other than Belgium[22] went against the freedom to
provide services. Finally, the Court ruled that the Brussels and Walloon
regions had failed to implement the EU water legislation ensuring and improving
water quality in river basins.[23]

Key infringement proceedings Non-transposition of the e-money directive[24] Discrimination in company and inheritance tax[25], and in the notional interest deduction[26]; excluding non-residents from personal income tax deductions[27] Non-transposition of the Directive facilitating intra-EU transfers of defence products[28]

Bulgaria

GENERAL STATISTICS

With 46 infringement procedures open at the end of
2012, Bulgaria ranked 17th in the EU‑27. The Commission launched
27 new infringement procedures against Bulgaria in 2012 by sending letters of
formal notice.

Bulgaria’s performance was average in its
reference group. Sweden had 36 open infringement cases, while Austria had 51.
Bulgaria closed the year with fewer infringements than in 2011 (54) and
slightly more than in 2010 (44). The following chart shows the main policy
areas in which Bulgaria was most frequently subject to infringement procedures:

The Commission took Bulgaria to Court once in 2012.
One referral was due to its failure to fully implement the First Railway
Package, specifically the part on the charges that railway companies have to
pay for access to infrastructure[29],
the other was for late transposition of a directive (see below). Within Bulgaria’s
reference group, one case was submitted against Sweden and there were none
against Austria.

TRANSPOSITION OF
DIRECTIVES

The Commission launched 13 infringement procedures
against Bulgaria for late transposition of various directives in 2012 (there
were 36 in 2011). In the reference group, Bulgaria's performance was better
than Austria’s (24 new late transposition infringement cases) but worse than
Sweden’s (6). With 12 open late transposition infringement cases at the end of
2012, Bulgaria was ranked 11th in the EU‑27 (with Spain).

The policy areas in which Bulgaria faced particularly
significant challenges in transposing EU directives were: environment,
transport, and health & consumers (three late transposition infringement
cases in each of these sectors).

The Commission referred Bulgaria to the Court with
a proposal for financial sanctions under Article 260(3) TFEU due to the late
transposition of the EU Waste Framework Directive[30].

COMPLAINTS

The Commission received 133 complaints against
Bulgaria in 2012, the 20th highest figure in the EU‑27.

The areas in which most complaints were received
were: justice (23 complaints, mainly on free movement of people and consumer
law), environment (21, especially on nature protection, Natura 2000, waste
management and landfills); and energy (21, among other, on support schemes for
renewable energy plants, grid access tariffs for electricity made from
renewable energy sources, heating/hot water consumption billing and metering
and protecting individuals against the dangers of ionising radiation caused by
medical exposure).

Other complaints concerned e.g. the non-compliant
transposition of the Data Retention Directive,[31]
direct payments in agriculture and rural development, food safety, public
procurement rules and the free movement of capital.

EARLY RESOLUTION OF
INFRINGEMENTS

The Commission and the
Bulgarian authorities were working on 62 open files in EU Pilot at the end of
2012 (75 at the end of 2011). The Commission opened 65 new files in 2012.
Bulgaria is among the 19 Member States whose average EU Pilot response time (68
days, 67 in 2011) is below or equal to the 10-week target.

Bulgaria introduced several measures
to ensure compliance with EU law, so the Commission was able to close several
infringement cases in 2012, including on: air pollution caused by the
installation of three thermal power plants[32]; animal welfare (implementing the
ban on ‘‘unenriched’’ cages for laying hens); ground handling at Sophia airport;
discriminatory VAT deduction practices; and failure to notify the Commission of
transposition measures for the Waste Framework Directive.[33]

IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

There were no judgments against
Bulgaria in 2012.

Key infringement procedures § Exceeding EU air quality (PM10) limit values in several zones and agglomerations[34] § Lack of transparent conditions for access to natural gas transmission networks[35] § Restrictive application criteria for the digital broadcasting spectrum[36] § Exclusion of voluntary health insurance from the EU non-life insurance directives[37] § Incorrect transposition of the GMO Directive[38] § Duty and tax relief rules in a pre-accession bilateral agreement with the US[39]

CYPRUS

GENERAL
STATISTICS

With 43 open
infringement cases against it at the end of 2012, Cyprus ranked joint 14th
in the EU-27 (together with Finland). In 2012, the
Commission launched 29 new infringement procedures against Cyprus by issuing
letters of formal notice.

Although Cyprus ended 2012 with significantly
fewer infringement cases than in 2011 (59) and almost the same number as in
2010 (44), its performance was the worst in its reference group: Latvia only
had 20 open infringement cases; Estonia had 24, Malta 26, Luxembourg 34 and
Slovenia 39. The following chart shows the areas in which Cyprus was most
frequently subject to infringement procedures:

The Commission
brought four cases against Cyprus before the Court in 2012 (one in 2011). One of
them was because two of the country’s major landfills still operate without the
infrastructure required by the Landfill Directive[40] (the three other were
due to directives' late transposition, see below). Full compliance can only be
expected by 2015[41],
despite the closing down or rehabilitation of many other landfills. In the
reference group, there were no referrals against Latvia, Estonia and Malta, one
was against Luxembourg and five against Slovenia.

TRANSPOSITION
OF DIRECTIVES

The Commission
opened 24 infringement procedures against Cyprus for late transposition of
various directives in 2012 (compared to 63 in 2011). Cyprus’ performance
remained the worst in its reference group (5, 10, 12, 16 and 18 new late
transposition infringements against Estonia, Latvia, Luxembourg, Slovenia and
Malta, respectively). With 25 open late transposition infringement cases by the
end of 2012, Cyprus ranked joint 24th in the EU-27 (together with
the United Kingdom).

Cyprus has
found it particularly challenging to transpose EU directives in policy areas
such as: health and consumers (seven new late transposition infringement
cases), transport (six), and internal market and services (four).

The Commission
referred Cyprus to the Court with a request for financial sanctions under
Article 260(3) TFEU due to late transposition of the Mediation Directive, the
directive on environmental crime and the Driving Licence Directive.[42]

COMPLAINTS

The Commission
received 83 complaints against Cyprus in 2012, the 13th lowest
figure in the EU-27.

The areas in
which most complaints were received were: home affairs (19 complaints, especially
on incorrect refusal of asylum requests and restrictive admission of
third-country students); internal market (17, mainly freedom to provide
services and regulated professions); and justice (16, many on residence rights
for EU citizens’ third-country partners and unfair terms of consumer
contracts). Complaints also addressed nationality-based discrimination on
public transport and flaws in nature protection, urban waste-water treatment
and car taxation.

EARLY
RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENTS

The Commission
and the Cypriot authorities were working on 32 open EU Pilot files by the end
of 2012 – a caseload that increased compared to the figure at the end of 2011
(23 files), but that was still below average. The Commission sent 38 new EU
Pilot files to Cyprus in 2012. The average EU Pilot response time (60 days)
improved significantly as compared to the 2011 average (70 days) and met the
10-week target.

The Commission
closed several infringement cases in 2012 because Cyprus: amended its laws
restricting the acquisition of secondary residences by EU citizens;[43] modified car taxation
rules, which discriminated against non-Cypriot EU citizens who brought their
car into Cyprus;[44]
designated the Oroklini lake as a specially protected area under the Habitats
Directive[45]
and put in place preservation measures; ensured that the conditions under which
wild animals were kept in the Limassol Zoo were in accordance with the Zoos
Directive;[46]
and, finally, fully transposed the Waste Framework Directive[47] and the Blue Card
Directive (on highly-skilled third-country employees).[48]

IMPORTANT
JUDGMENTS

In 2012, the
Court delivered two judgments under Article 258 TFEU. In the first, it found
Cypriot legislation non-transparent in authorising telecommunications equipment
(e.g. masts and antennae) because of: (i) the overlaps between the competences
of the authorities dealing with the requests and (ii) inclusion of
environmental aspects into the applications’ evaluation without any such
requirement existing under national law.[49]
In the second, Cyprus was found in breach of EU environmental law as it failed
to designate the Paralimni Lake as a proposed Site of Community Interest under
the Habitats Directive and did not take the requisite measures to protect the
Cypriot grass snake population.[50]

Key infringement proceedings § Cypriot teachers’ pension: taking into account service periods spent in Greece[51] § Restrictions on the free movement of persons (disproportionately high fees and sanctions) § Incomplete software assurance for air navigation service providers

CZECH REPUBLIC

GENERAL
STATISTICS

With 36 open
infringement cases at the end of 2012, the Czech Republic had the 8th
lowest number of infringements out of all the EU-27 Member States (together
with Sweden). In 2012, the Commission launched 20 new infringement procedures
against the Czech Republic by sending letters of formal notice.

The Czech Republic’s performance
was the best in its reference group: the Netherlands had 41 open infringement
cases, Hungary had 42, Romania 44, Portugal 67 and Greece 81 and Belgium 92.
The Czech Republic ended the year with significantly fewer infringements than
in 2011 (65) and in 2010 (48). The following chart shows the policy areas in
which the Czech Republic was most frequently subject to infringement
procedures:

The Commission
did not bring any cases against the Czech Republic before the Court in 2012
(there had been four cases in 2011). As for the other countries in the Czech
Republic’s reference group, there were also no referrals against Romania. The
Commission brought two cases against Greece before the Court, four each against
the Netherlands, Hungary and Portugal, and six against Belgium.

TRANSPOSITION
OF DIRECTIVES

The Commission
opened 13 infringement procedures against the Czech Republic for late
transposition of various directives in 2012 (there were 54 such procedures in
2011). In the reference group, only the Netherlands had fewer new late
transposition infringement cases in 2012 (six). The Czech Republic performed
better than Romania (15), Belgium (21), Greece (22), Hungary (26) and Portugal
(34). With 11 open late transposition infringement cases by the end of 2012,
the Czech Republic ranked 10th in the EU-27.

The policy
areas in which the Czech Republic faced significant challenges in transposing
EU directives in 2012 were: transport and health & consumers (four new late
transposition infringement cases each). In addition, two directives in the area
of internal market have not been transposed yet.

COMPLAINTS

In 2012, the
Commission received 57 complaints against the Czech Republic, the ninth-lowest
figure in the EU-27.

The areas in
which most complaints were received were: environment (13 complaints, in particular
nature protection and lack of or incomplete environmental impact assessments);
justice (10, e.g. sale of consumer goods, personal data protection and equal
treatment in employment); and enterprise & industry (7, including obstacles
to the free movement of various products). There were also complaints
concerning e.g. the national rules transposing the Data Retention Directive,[52] the billing and
metering of hot water and heating consumption, renewable energy issues (access
to the distribution grid; changes in support schemes for renewables) and a
major tender procedure carried out for a nuclear power plant.

EARLY
RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENTS

By the end of
2012, the Commission and the Czech authorities were working on 28 open files in
EU Pilot. This caseload is below average and has decreased compared to the
number of files at the end of 2011 (73). The Czech Republic received 30 new EU
Pilot files from the Commission in 2012. The average EU Pilot response time (71
days) improved slightly when compared to the 2011 average (72 days) and was
very close to the 10-week target.

The Czech
Republic took the Commission’s position into account in several areas and
introduced measures to ensure compliance with EU law, so the Commission was
able to close a number of infringement cases in 2012. For example, the Czech
authorities changed their law and practice so that entitled unemployed people
would receive sickness benefits irrespective of whether they were resident in
the Czech Republic or not. The Czech Republic also corrected partial
non-conformity of Czech implementing laws with the Directive on waste
electrical and electronic equipment[53]
(including adjustments to the scope of electronic equipment covered by these
rules and requirements for distance traders).

IMPORTANT
JUDGMENTS

The Commission
requested the Court to rule on the sales designation ‘pomazánkové máslo’
(butter spread), as this product’s milk-fat content was not high enough to be
called butter (‘máslo’) under EU law. The Court found that this butter
spread did not comply with the criteria laid down in the applicable regulation,[54] and it was not listed
among the products benefiting from a statutory derogation. The Court also ruled
out automatic derogation being granted (i.e. without the Commission’s prior
authorisation) to certain milk products.[55]

Key infringement proceedings § Incomplete transposition of the Renewable Energy Directive[56] § Undue administrative burden on EU citizens applying for residence permits[57] § Obstacles to non-Czech EU citizens joining a political party or founding one § Failure to respect air quality (PM10) limit values in several zones and agglomerations[58]

Denmark

GENERAL STATISTICS

There were 27
infringement cases open against Denmark at the end of 2012, ranking Denmark’s
performance fifth best in the EU‑27, same as in 2011. The Commission launched
22 new cases against Denmark in 2012 by sending letters of formal notice.

Denmark’s
performance was above average in its reference group: Slovakia had 33 open
infringement cases, Ireland had 39 and Finland had 43. Only Lithuania had fewer
open infringement cases (22). Denmark closed the year with fewer infringement
cases than in 2011 (37) and almost the same number as in 2010 (29). The
following chart shows the four policy areas in which Denmark was most
frequently subject to infringement procedures:

The Commission
did not bring any cases against Denmark before the Court in 2012 (there were two
cases in 2011). In Denmark’s reference group, there were no cases against
Lithuania or Slovakia, one case against Ireland and Slovakia, and six against
Finland.

TRANSPOSITION OF
DIRECTIVES

The Commission
opened 17 infringement procedures against Denmark for late transposition of
various directives in 2012 (there were 28 in 2011). Denmark's performance was
better than that of Finland (21 new late transposition infringement cases) but
worse than that of Slovakia (7), Ireland (8) and Lithuania (10). With nine open
late transposition infringement cases at the end of 2012, Denmark ranked fifth
in the EU-27.

The policy
areas in which Denmark faced the most significant challenges in transposing EU
directives were: health & consumers (seven new late transposition
infringement cases), internal market and transport (three in each policy area).

COMPLAINTS

The Commission
received 60 complaints against Denmark in 2012, which, was the tenth lowest
figure in the EU‑27.

Areas in which
most complaints were received were: taxation (14 complaints, mainly in relation
to imported cars), environment (9, concerning e.g. wind farm developments) and social
security issues (8, especially on refusal of benefits).

EARLY RESOLUTION OF
INFRINGEMENTS

The
Commission and the Danish authorities were working on 26 files in EU Pilot at
the end of 2012 (there were 84 at the end of 2011). This is a small caseload.
Relatively few new files were opened in 2012 (34). Denmark’s average EU Pilot
response time (70 days, it was 81 days in 2011) remained within the 10-week target.

Denmark
introduced a number of measures
to ensure compliance with EU law, so the Commission was
able to close several infringement cases in 2012, including on: transposition
of the First Railway Package[59];
the Working Time Directive[60];
failure to notify the Commission of measures transposing the Waste Electrical
and Electronic Equipment Directive[61];
the Directive on the transfer of defence products[62]; and
provisions on driving licenses.[63]

IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

There
were no judgments against Denmark in 2012.

Key infringement proceedings § Transposition of the Tobacco Directive — sale of loose snus[64] § Incorrect application of the Single Sky Regulations[65]

Estonia

GENERAL STATISTICS

There
were 24 infringement cases open against Estonia at the end of 2012, the third
best result in the EU‑27 (with Latvia and Malta). The Commission launched
11 new infringement cases against Estonia in 2012 by sending letters of formal
notice.

Estonia’s
performance (along with Latvia’s) was above average in its reference group:
Latvia had 20 open infringement cases, Luxembourg had 34, Slovenia 39 and
Cyprus 43. Estonia ended the year with fewer infringement cases than in 2011
(36) and in 2010 (40). The following chart shows the three policy areas in
which Estonia was most frequently subject to infringement procedures:

The Commission
did not bring any cases against Estonia before the Court in 2012 (there was one
case in 2011). In Estonia’s reference group, no referrals were made against
Latvia and Malta. One case was filed against Luxembourg, four against Cyprus
and six against Slovenia.

TRANSPOSITION OF
DIRECTIVES

The
Commission launched five infringement procedures against Estonia for late
transposition of various directives in 2012 (there were 28 in 2011). This was
the best performance in Estonia's reference group and in the EU-27: 10 such
cases were launched against Latvia, 12 against Luxembourg, 16 against Slovenia
and 24 against Malta. With 10 open late transposition cases at the end of 2012,
Estonia ranked 9th in the EU‑27 (together with France.

Estonia
faced some challenges in transposing EU directives in the transport area (two
new late transposition infringement cases).

COMPLAINTS

Estonia
only received 11 complaints in 2012, the lowest number in all the Member
States. Most complaints
concerned: justice (3 complaints, especially on parent visitation rights), foreign
affairs (3, mainly on free movement of people); and health & consumers (2,
on marketing of medical devices).

EARLY RESOLUTION OF
INFRINGEMENTS

The
Commission and the Estonian authorities were working on 18 open files at the
end of 2012 (at the end of 2011: 30 files). This is considered a light
caseload. The Commission opened 25 new EU Pilot files on Estonian issues in
2012. With this moderate caseload, Estonia’s average EU Pilot response time (67
days) was slightly below the 10-week target.

Estonia introduced
several measures to ensure compliance with EU law, so the Commission was able
to close quite a number of infringement cases in 2012, including on: failure to notify the Commission of measures transposing
the Waste Framework Directive[66];
and failure to transpose the Directive on public procurement in the defence and
security sector.[67]
Estonia also completed transposition of the green vehicle procurement rules.[68]

IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

The
Court delivered a judgment in which it stated that Estonia infringed the EU
legislation on the free movement of workers by excluding non-resident
pensioners from tax allowances when their pensions were not taxed in their
country of residence because of their modest amount.[69]

Key infringement proceeding § Ensuring independence of national regulatory authorities in the telecommunications sector[70]

Finland

GENERAL STATISTICS

There were 43
infringement cases open against Finland at the end of 2012, the fourteenth
highest number in the EU‑27. The Commission opened 28 new infringement
cases against Finland in 2012 by sending a letter of formal notice.

Finland’s performance was the
worst in its reference group: Lithuania had 22 open infringement cases, Denmark
had 27, Slovakia 33 and Ireland 39. Finland ended the year with fewer infringement
cases than in 2011 (55), but more than in 2010 (42). The following chart shows
the policy areas in which Finland was most frequently subject to infringement
procedures:

The Commission
referred six cases against Finland to the Court in 2012 under Article 258 TFEU (there
were two in 2011). Two of them concerned Finland’s failure to update its
minimum physical and mental requirements for drivers[71] (the four other
referrals were due to late transposition, see next section).

In Finland’s
reference group, no cases were filed to the Court against Lithuania and Denmark,
and one case against each of Ireland and Slovakia.

TRANSPOSITION OF
DIRECTIVES

The Commission
opened 21 infringement procedures against Finland for late transposition of
various directives in 2012 (there were 62 in 2011). Finland's performance was
the worst in its reference group: Sweden, Ireland, Lithuania and Denmark had
fewer new infringement cases for late transposition (7, 8, 10 and 17,
respectively). With 21 open late transposition infringement cases at the end of
2012, Finland ranked 21st in the EU-27.

The policy
areas in which Finland faced significant challenges in transposing EU
directives were: transport (seven new late transposition infringement cases) and
health & consumers (five).

The Commission
referred Finland to the Court with a request for financial sanctions in 2012
(Article 260(3) TFEU) due to Finland’s failure to fully transpose the Directives
on: the internal electricity market[72],
the internal market in natural gas,[73]
the green vehicle procurement rules[74]
and road infrastructure safety management (road safety impact assessments,
safety audits, inspections and rankings).[75]

COMPLAINTS

The Commission
received 34 complaints against Finland in 2012, the fourth lowest figure in the
EU‑27.

Most
complaints concerned: taxation (five complaints, especially on excise or car
tax, discriminatory taxation of cross-border workers); environment, (five,
mainly on waste management and nature protection); and justice (four, e.g. on ethnic
discrimination). Other complaints concerned for example, public procurement and
the free movement of persons.

EARLY RESOLUTION OF
INFRINGEMENTS

The
Commission and the Finnish authorities were working on 28 open files in EU
Pilot at the end of 2012 (57 at the end of 2011). This is a low caseload,
including the 34 new files the Commission opened on Finnish issues in 2012.
Finland is one of the Member States whose average EU Pilot response time (66
days) met the 10-week target (80 days in 2011).

Finland
introduced a number of measures to ensure compliance with EU law, so the
Commission could close several infringement cases in 2012. These include cases
on Finland’s failure to notify the Commission of measures transposing EU rules on
the procurement of green vehicles,[76]
on transferring defence products within the EU (counteracting defence market
fragmentation),[77]
on waste management,[78]
and on end-of-life vehicles[79].
Moreover, Finland ensured that its coordination of social security systems was compliant
with EU law[80]
to avoid situations in which a person receiving benefits in another Member
State could not be insured in Finland.

IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

The
Court condemned Finland for a scheme under which dividends paid to non-resident
pension funds were taxed in a discriminatory way (restriction of free movement
of capital).[81]

Key infringement proceedings § Incomplete transposition of the Directives of the Third Energy Package[82] § Non-application of the working time rules to self-employed drivers[83] § Lack of adequate protection of the Saimaa ringed seal[84] § Spring hunting of eiders in Åland and summer hunting of eiders in mainland Finland[85]

France

GENERAL STATISTICS

There were 63 infringement cases open against
France at the end of 2012, the seventh highest number in the EU‑27. The
Commission launched 25 new cases in 2012.

France’s performance was average
in its reference group. Germany and the UK had 61 open infringement cases each,
Poland had 82, Spain 91 and Italy 99. France ended 2012 with fewer infringement
cases than in 2011 and 2010 (95 in both years). The chart shows the policy
areas in which France was most frequently subject to infringement procedures:

The Commission brought four cases against France to
Court (seven in 2011), including for: insufficient designation of nitrate-vulnerable
zones and lack of adequate measures to combat nitrate water pollution,[86] operating
installations without air permits issued under the IPPC Directive[87] and failing to comply
with the Urban Waste Water Directive.[88]
In France’s reference group, there was one referral against Spain, 3 against
Italy, 6 against the UK, 7 against Germany and 12 against Poland.

TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES

14 infringement procedures were opened against
France in 2012 for late communication of national transposition measures (42 in
2011). France's performance was second best in its reference group, after
Germany (11 new late transposition cases) but before Spain (16), Poland (18),
the UK (24) and Italy (36). With ten open late transposition cases by the end
of 2012, France ranked 9th in the EU-27 (together with Estonia).

The policy areas in which France faced challenges
in transposing EU directives were: health & consumers, transport (3 late
infringement cases in each area), internal market and justice (2 in each area).

COMPLAINTS

The Commission received 242 complaints against France
in 2012, the third highest number in the EU-27 (along with Germany).

Most complaints concerned: free movement of
workers (43 complaints, especially levying double social security
contributions, discrimination between EU and French citizens in access to
residence-based health care systems and nationality condition for certain
private sector jobs), justice (37, e.g. on free movement of persons, civil
justice and fundamental rights) and internal market (31, mainly free provision
of services, regulated professions and public procurement).

Other complaints covered e.g. the tax of foreign
charities and companies' 'exit tax', VAT, wine and spirits, car registration,
zootechnics (stud-books for horses, animal welfare), water protection and
management, nature protection and marine equipment.

EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENTS

The Commission and the French
authorities worked on 78 EU Pilot cases at the end of 2012 (53 in 2011). 112
new French cases were launched in 2012. France's average response time (83
days) exceeded the 10-week target (84 days in 2011).

Several cases could be closed against
France in 2012, including those on regulated electricity prices[89] and keeping
laying hens in un-enriched cages.[90]
Fiscal discrimination against certain ‘‘Schumacker’’[91]
non-residents and gender discrimination in pension benefits were eliminated.
France adopted a national aviation security programme and complied with several
environmental directives[92]
and the Directive on personal protection equipment.[93]

IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

The Court condemned the French VAT-reductions
for opening night receptions in theatres[94] and for the supply of race
horses[95] as well as the local
electricity taxes.[96] When France banned the marketing of certain medicinal
veterinary products in a procedure falling also under EU rules[97], the Court specified the role of the "reference Member State" when several Member States
work together to authorise a medicinal product[98].

In preliminary rulings, the Court clarified that: a
Member State that receives an asylum request must meet the minimum conditions
for receiving asylum seekers even if it considers that another Member State should
examine the application;[99]
France could not have different tax rules for nationally-sourced dividends
received by resident and non-resident UCITS ;[100] and a minimum of 10 days’ work or one month’s actual
work during the reference period cannot be the condition of paid annual leave.[101]

Key infringement proceedings § VAT: reduction on e-books[102] and race horses,[103] exemption for pleasure boat leases[104] and for boats navigating on the high seas[105] § Non-compliance with the Gas Directive[106] § Application of the Working Time Directive[107] to doctors and fire-fighters § Taxing milk producers even if the national quota is not exceeded § Additional requirements on EC-marked construction products[108] § Inadequate protection of the brown bear in the Pyrenees (Habitats Directive[109]) § Late transposition of the E-money Directive[110]

Germany

GENERAL STATISTICS

There were 61
infringement cases open against Germany at the end of 2012, the eighth highest
number in the EU‑27 (same as the UK). The Commission launched 23 new
cases against Germany in 2012 by sending a letter of formal notice.

Germany (and the UK) had the
fewest infringements cases its reference group: France had 63 open infringement
cases, Poland had 85, Spain 91 and Italy 99. Germany ended the year with fewer
infringement cases than in 2010 (79) and 2011 (76). The following chart shows
the policy areas in which Germany was most frequently subject to infringement
procedures:

The Commission
brought seven cases against Germany before the Court in 2012 (there were no referrals
in 2011). Three out of Germany's seven referrals related to tax discrimination.
They concerned: lower tax-free allowances for non-residents in the area of
inheritance tax[111],
hidden reserves (e.g. favourable fiscal treatment made conditional on gains
being reinvested in domestic permanent establishments)[112] and tax treatment of
group companies being reserved for companies with statutory seats and effective
management in Germany[113].
Two other referrals concerned single market rules in the construction sector[114] (discrimination
against ‘EC’-marked products if they do not have the national ‘Ü’ mark), and
one concerned the incorrect transposition of the Water Framework Directive[115] (the seventh was due
to late transposition, see below). In its reference group, there was one case
against Spain, three against Italy, four against France, six against the UK and
twelve against Poland.

TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES

The Commission
opened 11 infringement procedures against Germany because it was late in informing
the Commission about national implementing measures for various directives
(there were 31 in 2011). Germany’s performance was the best in its reference
group: 14 new late transposition infringements were initiated against France;
16, 18, 24 and 36 against Spain, Poland, the UK and Italy, respectively. With
14 open late transposition cases by the end of 2012, Germany ranked 16th
in the EU-27.

The policy
area in which Germany faced the most significant challenges in transposing EU
directives was transport (5 new late transposition infringement cases).

The Commission
referred Germany to the Court with a proposal for financial sanctions (Article
260(3) TFEU) due to late transposition of the Data Retention Directive.[116]

COMPLAINTS

Germany (and France)
had the third highest number of complaints in the EU-27 in 2012 (242).

The areas in
which most complaints were received were: internal market (47 complaints, mainly
public procurement, freedom to provide services and regulated professions), environment
(36, e.g. violation of the Habitats Directive[117]) and taxation (36,
especially discrimination against non-German companies, pension taxation and double
taxation). Several complaints concerned shortcomings in the social security
area (e.g. problems with granting family benefits for migrant workers and
healthcare for pensioners), the free movement of non-EU family members and
application of the Family Reunification Directive.[118]

EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENTS

The
Commission and the German authorities were working on 65 open files in EU Pilot
at the end of 2012. The caseload has considerably decreased since 2011 (193
open files). The Commission opened 64 new EU Pilot files on German issues in
2012. Germany’s average EU Pilot response time improved to 61 days, which is
below the 10-week target (65 days in 2011).

Germany
introduced several measures
to ensure compliance with EU law, so the Commission was able to close a number
of infringement cases in 2012. For example, Germany completed transposing the
Waste Framework Directive[119]
and opened Frankfurt airport’s ground handling services up to competition.[120]

IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

The
Court delivered a number of preliminary judgments which guided the German
judiciary. These included the following clarifications: even private-law bodies
must respect the free movement of goods principle, if the law consider the products
they certify as compliant with national legislation and this restricts the
marketing of products they did not certify;[121] the exclusive right to distribute
copies of a licensed computer programme expires with its first sale;[122]
compensation that is paid to a severely disabled worker in the context of early
retirement and is lower than the amount paid to a non-disabled worker is
considered discrimination.[123]

Key infringement proceedings § Trade barriers on EC-marked construction products[124] § Incorrect transposition of the Water Framework Directive[125]

Greece

GENERAL STATISTICS

There were 81
infringement cases open against Greece at the end of 2012, the fifth worst
result in the EU‑27. The Commission launched 34 new cases in 2012 by
sending a letter of formal notice.

Greece’s
performance was second worst in its reference group: Romania had 44 open
infringement cases, Hungary had 42, the Czech Republic 36, the Netherlands 41, Portugal
67 and Belgium 92. However, Greece ended the year with fewer infringements than
in 2011 (123) and in 2010 (125). The following chart shows the policy areas in
which Greece was most frequently subject to infringement procedures.

The Commission
brought two cases against Greece before the Court in 2012 (there were four referrals
in 2011). They concerned: the landfill in Zakynthos not being compliant with
the Landfill Directive, the Waste Framework Directive and the Habitats
Directive[126],
and public tender procedures[127].
In Greece’s reference group, there were no referrals against the Czech Republic
and Romania. There were four referrals each against Portugal, Hungary and the
Netherlands, and six against Belgium.

TRANSPOSITION OF
DIRECTIVES

The Commission
opened 22 infringement procedures against Greece for late transposition of
various directives in 2012 (there were 55 in 2011). Greece's performance was
average in its reference group: better than that of Hungary and Portugal (26
and 34 new late transposition cases, respectively) but worse than that of the
Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Romania and Belgium (6, 13, 15 and 21,
respectively). With 13 open late transposition cases by the end of 2012, Greece
ranked 13th in the EU-27.

The
policy areas in which Greece faced particularly significant challenges in
transposing EU directives were: environment (six new late transposition
infringement cases), transport (five) and internal market (four).

COMPLAINTS

The Commission
received 188 complaints against Greece in 2012, the fourth highest figure in
the EU‑27.

Most
complaints concerned the following areas: internal market (46 complaints,
mainly on public procurement, regulated professions and freedom to provide
services); taxation (30, e.g. car taxation) and environment (26, many on waste
management and nature protection). Other complaints concerned among other, discriminatory
airport charges and failure to take into account professional experience gained
in another Member State before being authorised to practice a profession in
Greece.

EARLY RESOLUTION OF
INFRINGEMENTS

The
Commission and the Greek authorities were working on 82 new EU Pilot files at
the end of 2012 (there were 43 at the end of 2011). There were 92 new Greek
files opened in EU Pilot during 2012. Greece was among the Member States whose
average EU Pilot response time (65 days) met the 10-week target (63 days in
2011).

Greece
corrected a number of its national rules to comply with EU law, so the
Commission was able to close several cases in 2012. These include cases on: Greece
not informing the Commission of its measures transposing the new EU waste
regime; the impact of motorway E 65 on Natura 2000 sites and protected species[128];
obstacles to the free movement of bake-off products[129]; the entry
into service of certain gas installations[130]; and the allocation and use of
rights of way for electronic communications networks.[131]

IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

The Court condemned Greece for
incorrectly transposing the First Railway Package, because Greece did not put
in place incentives to reduce access charges.[132] The Court
also ruled against Greece for failing to adopt and notify the Commission of river basin management plans[133] and because Greece
set up investment restrictions in so-called ‘strategic companies’, which
created a risk of discrimination.[134]

The Court also issued preliminary rulings related
to Greece, including on a deadline for publishing river management plans[135] and a margin for
assessing projects’ impact on plans and programmes, at the discretion of Member
States.[136]

Key infringement procedures § Excessive working time for doctors in public hospitals[137] § Operation of illegal landfills[138] § Restrictions on free movement of capital and the right of establishment[139]

HUNGARY

GENERAL
STATISTICS

With 42 open
infringement cases at the end of 2012, Hungary had the 13th best performance
out of all the EU‑27 Member States. In 2012, the Commission launched 36
new infringement procedures against Hungary by sending letters of formal
notice.

In its
reference group, Hungary’s performance was slightly above average; Romania had
44 open infringement cases, Portugal had 67, Greece 81 and Belgium 92. However,
there were only 36 open infringement procedures against the Czech Republic and
41 against the Netherlands. Hungary ended the year with fewer infringements
than in 2011 (54) and 2010 (53). The following chart shows the policy areas in
which Hungary was most frequently subject to infringement procedures:

The Commission
referred Hungary to the Court four times in 2012, as it maintained its concerns
as regards: (i) Hungary’s new laws on the retirement age of judges, prosecutors
and public notaries being compatible with the Equal Treatment Directive[140] (see also the last section);
(ii) the independence of Hungary’s data protection supervisory authority[141]; and (iii) Hungary’s
sector-specific tax levied on telecommunication companies being compliant with
the Authorisation Directive[142]
(the fourth referral was due to late transposition, see below). In Hungary’s
reference group, two cases against Greece, four each against Portugal and the
Netherlands, and six against Belgium reached the Court (there were no referrals
for the Czech Republic and Romania).

TRANSPOSITION
OF DIRECTIVES

The Commission
launched 26 infringement cases against Hungary for late transposition of
directives in 2012 (in 2011: 70 such cases). In the reference group, Hungary’s
performance was worse than that of the Netherlands, the Czech Republic,
Romania, Belgium and Greece (6, 13, 15, 21 and 22 new late transposition cases,
respectively) but better than that of Portugal (34). With 18 open late
transposition cases by the end of 2012, Hungary ranked 19th in the
EU-27.

The policy
areas in which Hungary faced significant challenges in transposing EU
directives in 2012 were: transport (eight new late transposition cases), health
and consumers (seven) and environment (four).

The late
transposition of the Waste Framework Directive[143] resulted in the
Commission referring Hungary to the Court with a proposal for financial
sanctions under Article 260(3) TFEU.[144]

COMPLAINTS

In 2012, the
Commission received 79 complaints against Hungary, the twelfth-lowest figure in
the EU-27.

The areas in
which most complaints were received were: internal market and services (15
complaints, mainly freedom to provide services and intellectual property);
taxation (14, especially on sector-specific taxes); and justice (13, e.g. on free
movement of people, equal treatment, consumer protection and civil justice). There
were also complaints about the so-called ‘study grant contracts’ ( it requires
recipients to work in Hungary for a period equal to the duration of financed
studies and could limit future workers’ free movement),  environment (on impact
assessment, nature protection and waste management), labelling (origin and
quality of foodstuffs) and air services rules.

EARLY
RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENTS

At the end of
2012, the Commission and Hungary were working on 46 open files in EU Pilot at
the end of 2011: 87 files). The Commission opened 53 new EU Pilot files on
Hungarian issues in 2012. Hungary’s average response time (65 days) met the
10-week target (66 days in 2011).

Hungary
eliminated a number of inconsistencies between national and EU law, so the
Commission was able to close several infringement cases in 2012. For example:
Hungary amended its laws to address shortcomings in the transposition of the
Mining Waste Directive,[145]
and it extended the scope of its national flood management rules to comply with
the Floods Directive.[146]
In addition, Hungarian rules now effectively forbid keeping laying hens in
unenriched cages, as required by the corresponding directive.[147] Hungary also withdrew
rules that restricted lessees in deducting VAT from fees paid on open-ended car
lease contracts. Finally, Hungary completed transposition of the Directive on
the re-use of public sector information[148],
in particular by more clearly explaining individuals’ rights.

IMPORTANT
JUDGMENTS

The Court confirmed
unjustified age discrimination in the claim contesting the new mandatory
retirement age for judges, prosecutors and public notaries when they reach the
age of 62.[149]

A preliminary
ruling to Hungarian courts interpreted the freedom of establishment (in principle,
a national law that only governs the conversion of companies based in Hungary and
not cross border conversion is considered an unjustifiable restriction).[150]

Key infringement proceedings § Restrictions on issuers of luncheon, leisure and holiday vouchers[151] § Exemption from excise duties for fruit distillates (‘pálinka’) [152] § Sector-specific taxes on telecommunications and retail companies[153] § Restrictive application of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive[154]

Ireland

GENERAL STATISTICS

There were 39
infringement cases open against Ireland at the end of 2012, so Ireland’s
performance was seventeenth best in the EU‑27 (with Slovenia). The
Commission launched 14 new infringement cases against Ireland in 2012 by
sending a letter of formal notice.

Ireland’s
performance was below average in its reference group: Lithuania had 22 open
infringement cases, Denmark had 27, Slovakia 30. However, it was better than
Finland’s (43). Ireland ended the year with fewer infringement cases than in
2010 (58) and 2011 (42). The following chart shows the policy areas in which
Ireland was most frequently subject to infringement procedures:

The Commission brought one case against Ireland before the Court in
2012 (there were two referrals in 2011), because the conditions for accessing the natural
gas transmission networks were not transparent enough and because Ireland failed
to take effective remedial action[155]. In Ireland’s reference group, there
were no referrals against Lithuania and Denmark. There was one referral against
Slovakia and six against Finland.

The Commission
referred Ireland to the Court with a request for financial sanctions under
Article 260(2) TFEU because it failed to remedy its non-compliance with EU rules on assessing
various projects’ environmental effects.[156]

TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES

The Commission
opened eight infringement procedures against Ireland for late transposition of
various directives in 2012 (there were 28 in 2011), which shows significant
improvement in this area. Ireland’s performance was the very good in its
reference group: better than that of Lithuania, Denmark and Finland (10, 17 and
21 new late transposition cases, respectively), only Slovakia performed better
(7). With 8 open late transposition cases by the end of 2012, Ireland ranked 3rd
in the EU-27.

The policy
area in which Ireland faced challenges in transposing EU directives was health
and consumers (three late transposition cases).

COMPLAINTS

The Commission
received 110 complaints against Ireland in 2012, the eleventh-lowest figure in
the EU‑27.

The areas in
which most complaints were received were: environment (43 complaints, mainly on
environmental impact
assessment, waste water treatment, nature protection – Natura 2000); justice (28, especially on free
movement of people); and internal market (11, many on public procurement, regulated professions). Other complaints concerned amongst
others, the principle of free movement of goods (use of label of origin) and direct
taxation (termination of payments).

EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENTS

The
Commission and the Irish authorities were working on 43 open files in EU Pilot
at the end of 2012, a much lower number than at the end of 2011 (118 open
files). The Commission opened 40 new files on Irish issues in 2012. Ireland’s
average EU Pilot response time (78 days) did not meet the 10-week target (75
days in 2011).

Ireland
introduced several measures to ensure compliance with EU law in 2012. For example, it put in
place measures to ensure that the National Development Plan conforms to the relevant
environmental legislation[157];
it implemented the First Railway Package[158]; and it brought its direct taxation
legislation in line with EU law by eliminating the discriminatory aspects of
agricultural tax relief. Accordingly, these case were closed.

IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

The
Court imposed financial
penalties on Ireland for failure to comply with two judgments on environmental
laws. The first judgment
concerned projects that were likely to have an impact on the environment, but
which were not subject to any prior environmental assessment.[159] In its other
judgment, the Court found that Ireland had failed to fully adopt the measures
necessary to implement the previous judgment on the incorrect transposition of waste
legislation.[160]
The Court took into account the economic situation and in particular the recent
trends in inflation and the GDP at the time of the Court's examination of the
facts when it calculated Ireland’s penalty.

Key infringement proceedings § Lack of transparency of conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks[161] § Alleged failure to protect peat bogs[162] § Restrictions on foreign travel agencies irrespective of their country of establishment § Separation of accounts of railway undertakings and railway infrastructure managers[163] § Restrictive exit tax for companies when they cease to be tax residents[164] § Discriminatory tax exemption of termination payments § Reduced VAT rate on race horses and greyhounds

Italy

GENERAL STATISTICS

99 infringement cases were open against Italy at
the end of 2012, the worst result in the EU‑27. The Commission launched
58 cases in 2012.

In Italy's reference group, Spain had 91 open cases,
Poland had 82, France 63, and Germany and the UK 61 each. Italy closed the year
with fewer infringements than in 2011 (135) and 2010 (128) and was most often subject
to infringement procedures in the following policy areas:

Three cases were brought against
Italy to the Court in 2012 (4 in 2011) due to its: non-compliance with EU rules
on buildings’ energy performance certificates and on air-conditioning systems'
inspections;[165]
incorrect implementation of the Directive on collective redundancies;[166] and inadequate urban
waste-water treatment in some areas.[167]
In the reference group, there was 1 referral against Spain, 4 against France, 6
against the UK, 7 against Germany and 12 against Poland.

Italy had one
second referral proposing fines under Article 260(2) TFEU because it had failed
to clean up hundreds of illegal landfills.[168]

TRANSPOSITION OF
DIRECTIVES

The Commission opened 36 infringement procedures
against Italy for late transposition of directives (73 in 2011). Italy’s
performance was the worst in its reference group: 11, 14, 16, 18, and 24 new
late transposition cases were launched against Germany, France, Spain, Poland
and the UK, respectively. With 17 open late transposition cases by the end of
2012, Italy ranked 18th in the EU-27.

Environment (11 new late transposition cases), health
& consumers (10) and transport (7) directives posed the main challenges to
Italy.

COMPLAINTS

438 complaints were received against Italy in 2012,
the highest figure in the EU-27.

Most concerned environment (124 complaints, many
on waste, nature protection and impact assessment), internal market (72, mainly
public procurement, regulated professions and provision of services) and
taxation (64, e.g. companies' 'exit tax' and foreign real estates).

Other complaints dealt with taking into account
working periods acquired in other Member States, home-grown sport players,
legal migration,[169]
equality, civil justice, labour law[170],
health and safety, organic farming, biofuels, air passenger rights and
discrimination on public transport.

EARLY RESOLUTION OF
INFRINGEMENTS

There were 135 open files in EU Pilot
at the end of 2012, the highest caseload in the EU‑27. Italy received 107
new EU Pilot files in 2012. Its average EU Pilot response time was 69 days, meeting
the 10-week target (72 days in 2011).

The Commission could close several
cases in 2012 because Italy: corrected its tax on port dues and vessels' VAT
exemption; respected EU marketing authorisation laws for generic drugs[171]; removed
unjustified trade obstacles on amusement machines and bottled drinking water[172]; duly transposed
the SEA Directive[173];
and granted family allowances to frontier and migrant workers.

IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

The Court condemned Italy for
inadequate urban waste water treatment in specific areas[174] and for the
excessive PM10 concentrations in ambient air in 55 agglomerations during the
years 2006 and 2007.[175]

The Court also ruled that: when establishing
employees’ seniority, the duration of fixed-term contracts at the same public
authority should also be taken into account unless deduction is justified on
‘objective grounds’[176];
long-term resident, third-country nationals should be treated similarly to EU citizens
in allocating housing benefits;[177]
the rule that allowed the taxpayer to close a pending case before the court of
last resort by paying 5% of the claim, if such case had been initiated for more
than 10 years ago and the taxpayer's claim was upheld by both at the first and
second instance is compatible with EU law;[178] cultivating GMOs already authorised
by the EU could not be made conditional on national authorisation and that even
if Member States may adopt coexistence measures, this cannot extend to a general
ban of GMOs authorised under EU law.[179]

Key infringement proceedings § Waste pre-treatment in Malagrotta and other Lazio landfills[180] § Bad application of certain EU asylum laws § Doctors' working time in public hospitals § Limited discretion of the national authority regulating electronic communications[181] § Non-compliance with the Directives on buildings' energy performance[182], on health & safety at work[183] and laying hens' keeping conditions[184] § Visa exemption for Chinese diplomatic passports § Discriminating cheaper tobacco products[185] § Restrictions on non-Italian water-polo players § Lack of monitoring and proper enforcement of EU rules on using drift nets § Access of Italian vessels to third country waters (EU exclusive competence) § Awarding public service contracts to regional shipping companies without public tenders[186] § Non-recovery of illegal state aid for firms investing in municipalities affected by natural disasters

Latvia

GENERAL STATISTICS

With 20
infringement cases open at the end of 2012, Latvia had the best performance in the
EU–27. The Commission launched 17 new
infringement cases against Latvia in 2012.

Latvia’s
performance was also the best in its reference group: Estonia had 24 open
infringement cases, Malta had 24, Slovenia 39, Luxembourg 34 and Cyprus 43. Latvia
ended the year with fewer infringement cases than in 2011 (23) and 2010 (26).
The following chart shows the policy areas in which Latvia was most frequently subject
to infringement procedures:

The Commission
did not refer any cases against Latvia to the Court in 2012 (this situation remains
unchanged since 2009). In Latvia’s reference group, there was one referral
against Luxembourg, four against Cyprus and five against Slovenia.

TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES

The Commission
opened 10 infringement procedures against Latvia for late transposition of
various directives in 2012 (there were 24 such cases in 2011, Latvia’s performance
was second best in its reference group: Estonia had fewer new late
transposition cases (5), Luxembourg, Slovenia, Malta and Cyprus had more (12,
16, 18 and 24, respectively). With 9 open late transposition cases by the end
of 2012, Latvia ranked 5th in the EU-27.

Latvia faced significant
challenges in transposing EU directives in the health and consumers area (four
new late transposition cases).

COMPLAINTS

The Commission
received only 17 complaints against Latvia in 2012. Latvia ranked second in the
EU-27.

Most
complaints concerned: international affairs (three complaints, such as the
entry of third country nationals into the territory of the EU: three
complaints), justice (three, e.g. on the right of establishment); and environment
(three, mainly on nature protection: three).

EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENTS

The
Commission and the Latvian authorities were working on 28 EU Pilot files at the
end of 2012, one of the lowest caseloads in the EU‑27 (there were 30
files at the end of 2011). The Commission opened 35 new Latvian files during
2012. Latvia’s average EU Pilot response time (81 days) was over the 10 week target
(in 2011, it was 62 days).

Latvia aligned
a number of its national measures and practices with EU law, so the Commission was
able to close a number of cases, including on the wrong application of the
directive on protecting laying hens[187]
and the directive on airport charges.[188]
Latvia also solved the problem of not designating enough Special Protection
Areas for bird species in danger of extinction, bird species considered vulnerable
or migratory birds.[189]

IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

There
were no such judgments.

Key infringement proceedings § Non-compliance with EU legislation on Tetraourogallus hunting[190] § Non-compliance with EU rules on separating accounts in railway financing[191]

Lithuania

GENERAL STATISTICS

With 22
infringement cases open at the end of 2012, Lithuania ranked second best in the
EU‑27. The Commission launched eleven new cases against Lithuania in 2012
by sending a letter of formal notice.

Lithuania’s
performance was the best in its reference group: Denmark had 27 open
infringement cases, Slovakia had 33, Ireland 39, and Finland 43. Lithuania ended
the year with fewer infringement cases than in 2011 (36) and 2010 (24). The
following chart shows the policy areas in which Lithuania was most frequently subject
to infringement procedures:

The Commission
did not refer any cases against Lithuania to the Court in 2012 (this situation remains
unchanged since 2009). In Lithuania’s reference group, there was one referral
each against Ireland and Slovakia, and six against Finland but none against
Denmark.

TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES

The Commission
opened ten infringement procedures against Lithuania for late transposition of
various directives in 2012 (there were 34 in 2011). In its reference group,
Lithuania performed better than Finland and Denmark (21 and 17 new late
transposition cases, respectively), but worse than that of Slovakia and Ireland
(7 and 8 cases, respectively).

The policy
areas in which Lithuania faced the most significant challenges in transposing
EU directives were: transport (three new late transposition infringement cases)
and health and consumers (three).

COMPLAINTS

The Commission
received 36 complaints against Lithuania in 2012, the seventh lowest figure in
the EU‑27.

The areas in
which most complaints were received were: justice (six complaints), internal
market (five, mainly public procurement); and regional policy (five). Other complaints
concerned transposition of the Directive on package travel, package holidays
and package tours[192]
and EU funding.

EARLY RESOLUTION OF
INFRINGEMENTS

The
Commission and the Lithuanian authorities were working on 30 open files in EU
Pilot at the end of 2012 (at the end of 2011: 65 files), an average caseload.
The Commission opened 32 new files on Lithuanian issues in 2012. Lithuania
respected the 10-week target for providing replies in EU Pilot; it submitted
its responses within an average of 63 days (62 days in 2011).

The Lithuanian
authorities actively sought to settle their infringement cases in 2012 by ensuring
that national legislation complied with the Directive on packaging and
packaging waste.[193]
In addition, Lithuania transposed provisions on geological storage of carbon
dioxide[194]
and on energy labelling.[195]
As a result, the Commission closed these infringement procedures.

IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

There were no such judgments in 2012.

Key infringement proceedings § Ban on registering right-hand drive cars[196] § Klaipeda state seaport — priority for current cargo handling operators renewing their port land lease[197] § Expelling or denying entry to people in cases that are not sufficiently serious or do not present a danger to public security[198] § Insufficient designation of Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for birds[199]

Luxembourg

GENERAL STATISTICS

With 34
infringement cases open against Luxembourg at the end of 2012, Luxembourg’s performance
was seventh best in the EU‑27. The Commission launched 21 new
infringement cases against Luxembourg in 2012 by sending letters of formal
notice.

Luxembourg’s
performance was average in its reference group: Latvia had 22 open infringement
cases, Estonia had 24, Malta 26, Slovenia 39 and Cyprus 43. Luxembourg ended
the year with fewer infringement cases than in 2010 (41) and 2011 (76). The
following chart shows the policy areas in which Luxembourg was most frequently
subject to infringement procedures:

Like in 2011,
the Commission referred one case to the Court against Luxembourg in 2012 (see
the section on the transposition of directives). In Luxembourg’s reference
group, there were four referrals against Cyprus and five against Slovenia but
none against Latvia, Estonia or Malta.

TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES

The Commission
opened 12 infringement procedures against Luxembourg for late transposition of
various directives in 2012 (there were 44 in 2011). Luxembourg ranked 19th
in the EU‑27, and its performance was above average in its reference
group: worse than that of Estonia (five new late transposition cases) and
Latvia (ten), but better than that of Slovenia (16), Malta (18) and Cyprus
(24). With 13 open late transposition cases by the end of 2012, Luxembourg
ranked 13th in the EU-27.

The policy
areas in which Luxembourg faced significant challenges in transposing EU
directives were: transport (five new late transposition infringement cases) and
health and consumers (three).

The Commission
referred Luxembourg to the Court with a request for financial sanctions under Article
260(3) TFEU due to late transposition of the Directive on public procurement in
the defence and security sector.[200]

COMPLAINTS

The Commission
received 20 complaints against Luxembourg in 2012, the third lowest figure in
the EU‑27.

Most of the
complaints concerned: taxation (five complaints, mostly on discriminatory
taxation on transfer of residence (‘exit tax’) and discriminatory treatment of
capital gains); external relations (three, especially the free movement of people
in the context of the EU/Switzerland Agreement); and social security (three,
e.g. on family benefits for migrant workers). Other complaints concerned for
example, inadequate environmental impact assessments.

EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENTS

The
Commission sent Luxembourg 17 files since Luxembourg joined EU Pilot in June
2012. It was working with Luxembourg’s national authorities on 12 open files at
the end of 2012. Luxembourg’s average EU Pilot response time (67 days) met the
10-week target.

The
Commission was able to close some infringement cases in 2012, because amongst
others, Luxembourg ensured compliance with EU rules on water (the Quality
Assurance Quality Control Directive[201])
and chemicals (the Classification, Labelling and Packaging Regulation[202]).

IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

The
Court clarified in a preliminary ruling that restricting a Member State’s
recruitment subsidies for employment placements to people registered in that
Member State goes against EU law.[203]

Key infringement proceedings § Reduced VAT rates on e-books § Restrictive access to study grants for family members of migrant workers § Failure to bring urban waste water treatment up to EU standards despite Court judgment[204] § Non-transposition of the Directive on public procurement in the defence and security sector[205]

MALTA

GENERAL
STATISTICS

With 26 open infringement
cases at the end of 2012, Malta had the fourth-best performance out of all the
EU-27 Member States. In 2012, the
Commission launched 22 new infringement procedures against Malta by sending
letters of formal notice.

In its
reference group, Malta's performance remained above average; only Latvia and
Estonia had fewer open infringement cases (20 and 24 respectively). Luxembourg
had 34, Slovenia 39 and Cyprus 43. Although Malta ended the year with fewer
infringements than in 2011 (36), its 2010 result was even better (22). The
following chart shows the policy areas in which Malta was most frequently
subject to infringement procedures:

The Commission
did not bring any cases against Malta before the Court in 2012, (there had been
one referral in 2011). In Malta's reference group, there was one referral
against Luxembourg, four against Cyprus and five against Slovenia but none
against Estonia and Latvia.

TRANSPOSITION
OF DIRECTIVES

The Commission
opened 18 infringement procedures against Malta for late transposition of
various directives in 2012 (there were 40 such procedures in 2011). In Malta’s
reference group, only Cyprus had more new late transposition infringement cases
in 2012 (24). Estonia, Latvia, Luxembourg, and Slovenia performed better than
Malta (with five, 10, 12 and 16 such infringements, respectively). With only
nine open late transposition infringement cases by the end of 2012, Malta
ranked 5th in the EU-27 (together with Latvia and Denmark).

The policy
areas in which Malta faced significant challenges in transposing EU directives
in 2012 were: health and consumers (6 new late transposition infringements) and
environment (4). In addition, three infringement cases were still open in 2012
due to the late transposition of transport-related directives.

COMPLAINTS

In 2012, the
Commission received 35 complaints against Malta, the fifth-lowest figure in the
EU-27.

The areas in
which most complaints from citizens and businesses were received were: justice
(eight complaints, especially on the free movement of people and non-residents'
energy tariffs) and taxation (four, e.g. registration tax and VAT on used
vehicles imported from other Member States, taxation of internet bills). There
were also complaints concerning e.g. nationality-based discrimination on public
transport and in relation to child allowance, the illegal killing and hunting
of birds, and inadequate waste management. In addition, the Commission learnt
of a case in which the Maltese authorities demanded a proof of earning average wage
(instead of the statutory minimum amount) from a third-country national in
order to grant her long-term resident status.

EARLY
RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENTS

Malta joined
EU Pilot in June 2012. By the end of the year, the Commission and the Maltese
authorities were working on 27 open files in EU Pilot – a workload that rose
rapidly but is still below average. The Commission opened 28 new files on
Maltese issues by the end of 2012. The Maltese authorities’ average EU Pilot
response time (87 days) was above the 10-week target.

Malta
eliminated a number of inconsistencies between national and EU law in 2012. For
example, it established noise maps for its major roads, made them publicly available
and informed the Commission about them as required by the Environmental Noise
Directive.[206]
Malta also put in place measures that ensure competitive ground-handling
services (such as aircraft refuelling services) at Luqa airport, as requested
by the Commission[207].
Lastly, Malta removed the nationality requirement for public notaries.[208]

IMPORTANT
JUDGEMENTS

There were no
Court judgments concerning the Malta.

Key infringement proceedings § Reducing Maltese pensions for beneficiaries who also receive a pension from another Member State[209] § Incomplete transposition of the Omnibus I and Prospectus Directives[210] § Nationality-based discrimination in charging fees for water and electricity § Marsa Power Station: operating hours in excess of the limits set by the Large Combustion Plant Directive[211]

the
Netherlands

GENERAL STATISTICS

There were 41 infringement cases open against the
Netherlands at the end of 2012, the sixteenth highest number in the EU‑27.
The Commission launched 14 new cases in 2012 by sending letters of formal
notice.

The Netherlands’ performance was above average in
its reference group: Romania had 44 open infringement cases, Hungary had 42,
the Czech Republic 36, Portugal 67, Belgium 92 and Greece 81. The Netherlands ended
the year with fewer infringement cases than in 2010 (62) and 2011 (71). The
following chart shows the policy areas most frequently subject to infringement
procedures:

The Commission referred four cases against the
Netherlands to the Court in 2012 (there were also four in 2011), all of them
were due to late transposition of directives (see below). In the Netherlands’
reference group, there were no referrals against Romania or the Czech Republic,
two against Greece and four each against Hungary and Portugal, and six against Belgium.

TRANSPOSITION OF
DIRECTIVES

The Commission opened six infringement procedures
against the Netherlands for late transposition of various directives in 2012 (there
were 32 in 2011). Its performance was best in its reference group: the Czech
Republic had 13 new late transposition cases, Romania had 15, Belgium 21,
Greece 22, Hungary 26 and Portugal 34.

The Netherlands faced significant challenges in
transposing EU directives in the area of transport (three late
transposition infringement cases).

The Commission referred the Netherlands to the
Court with a proposal for financial sanctions under Article 260(3) TFEU due to
late transposition of: the Directive on defence procurement[212]; the Mediation
Directive[213];
the Citizens’ Rights Directive[214];
and the Better Regulation Directive.[215]
With 6 open late transposition cases by the end of 2012, the Netherlands ranked
1st in the EU-27.

COMPLAINTS

The Commission received 100 complaints against the
Netherlands in 2012, the 14th highest figure in the EU‑27.

Complaints concerned especially: environment (17
complaints, many on nature protection and air quality); internal market
(16, mainly public procurement, freedom to provide services and regulated
professions); justice and free movement of workers (16, e.g. free movement of people
and social security issues). Other complaints focused on nationality-based discrimination
on public transport, discrimination in the taxation group relief regime and tax
obstacles to the cross-border provision of pensions.

EARLY RESOLUTION OF
INFRINGEMENTS

The Commission and the Dutch
authorities were working on 38 open files in EU Pilot at the end of 2012 (2011:
98). The Commission opened 38 new EU Pilot files on Dutch issues in 2012. The
Netherlands’ average EU Pilot response time (64 days) met the 10-week target
(67 days in 2011).

Due to the measures of the Dutch
authorities put in place to improve compliance with EU law, the Commission
could close a number of cases in 2012. The Netherlands revoked the
discriminatory taxation of capital held by foreign charities, made their
national legislation compliant with the Racial Equality Directive[216] and brought the Dutch
Crisis and Recovery Act in line with the Environment Impact Assessment
Directive.[217]

IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

Three judgments of the Court found that
the Netherlands failed to comply with its obligations under EU law. First, it
found that the Dutch authorities were imposing disproportionate charges for
granting residence permits to third-country nationals, in breach of the
Long-Term Resident Directive.[218]
Second, it ruled that according to EU rules,[219] if a contracting authority requires
that certain products it orders be derived from organic agriculture or fair
trade, it must provide detailed specifications instead of referring to
eco-labels or specific labels.[220]
Finally, the Court ruled that making study abroad funding subject to a Dutch
residence permit gives rise to unequal treatment of Dutch and migrant workers,
which is incompatible with the free movement of workers.[221]

Among the preliminary rulings
addressed to the Dutch judiciary, the Court ruled that work carried out on
drilling platforms at sea, on the continental shelf adjacent to a Member State,
must be regarded as work carried out on the territory of that country (so that
invalidity benefits are due).[222]

Key infringement proceedings § Failure to halt the on-going deterioration of the Western Schelde estuary (Natura 2000 site)[223] § Non-transposition of the directive on public procurement in the defence and security sector[224] § Discriminatory tax rules on cross-border pensions[225] § Reduced VAT rate on race horses § Failure to comply with the Court ruling addressing residence conditions being attached to payment of study grants for children of migrant workers

POLAND

GENERAL STATISTICS

82 infringement cases were open against Poland at
the end of 2012, the 4th worst performance in the EU‑27. The
Commission launched 28 cases in 2012 by sending letters of formal notice.

Poland’s performance was average in its reference
group: Germany and the UK each had 61 open infringement cases, France had 63,
Spain 91 and Italy 99. Poland ended the year with fewer cases than in 2011 (95)
and 2010 (91). Poland was most frequently subject to infringement procedures in
the following policy areas:

The Commission brought 12 cases against Poland to
the Court in 2012 (seven in 2011). All were due to late transposition of directives
(see next section). In Poland’s reference group, there was one referral against
Spain, three against Italy, four against France and six against the UK and
seven against Germany.

TRANSPOSITION OF
DIRECTIVES

The Commission opened 18 infringement cases
against Poland for late transposition of EU directives in 2012 (44 in 2011). In
its reference group, Poland’s performed better than the UK (24) and Italy (36),
but worse than Germany (11), France (14) and Spain (16). With 34 open late
transposition cases by the end of 2012, Poland ranked last in the EU-27 (with
Belgium).

Poland faced the most challenges in transposing EU
directives in the areas of transport and health & consumers (5 new late
transposition cases each) and internal market (3).

Poland was referred to the Court with a proposal
for financial sanctions under Article 260(3) TFEU due to late transposition of
the Audiovisual Media Services Directive,[226] the Marine Strategy Framework
Directive,[227]
the Waste Framework Directive,[228]
the Airport Charges Directive,[229] the Maritime Accident Investigation
Directive,[230]
the Citizens’ Rights Directive,[231]
the Better Regulation Directive,[232]
the Defence Procurement Directive[233]
and the Third Energy Package.[234]
Referrals without a proposal for financial sanctions[235] were due to late
transposition of the Railway Interoperability Directive[236] and the Conservation
and Amateur Vegetable Varieties Directive[237].

COMPLAINTS

The Commission received 156 complaints against
Poland in 2012, the 7th highest figure in the EU‑27.

Most complaints concerned: environment (37
complaints, many on water management, impact assessment and nature protection);
justice (30, including equal treatment in work, residence rights of
third-country spouses of EU citizens); and taxation (18, cars' excise tax,
electricity and energy taxes, VAT Directive[238]).

Other complaints targeted e.g., the transposition
of the Data Retention Directive,[239]
marketing of medical devices, free provision of services and public
procurement, limitations on direct payments from the EU’s agricultural support
schemes, and a nationality condition for public sector jobs.

EARLY RESOLUTION OF
INFRINGEMENTS

There were 64 files open in EU Pilot
at the end of 2012, an above-average caseload that decreased since 2011 (78).
Poland received 59 new files in 2012. Its average EU Pilot response time was 69
days, which met the 10-week target.

Cases were closed against Poland at an
early stage as it complied with EU law on, for example: environment (impact
assessment of the EU-co-financed S3 motorway that crosses Natura 2000 sites,
which led to Poland adopting a package of compensatory measures); transport
(adoption of the national aviation security programme); and equal treatment of
men and women in access to employment.

IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

The Court ruled that:
Polish legislation violated EU rules[240] by allowing in certain
circumstances foreign medicinal products to be placed on the market without EU
market authorisation;[241]
and Poland had failed to protect wild birds as required by the Birds Directive.[242]

The Court also made clear that parts of
the Polish gambling law may constitute ‘technical regulations’ under the
directive on technical standards[243].
So Poland should have sent the draft measures to the Commission before their
adoption in so far as it is established that those provisions constitute
conditions which can significantly influence the nature or the marketing of the
product concerned, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.[244]

Key infringement proceedings § Incomplete transposition of the Directives of the Third Energy Package[245] § Incorrect implementation of the Laying Hens Directive[246] § Non-transposition of the Waste Framework Directive[247] § Failure to implement the Court judgment[248] on incomplete transposition of the Automotive Framework Directive[249] § Non-transposition of the Directive on public procurement in the defence and security sector[250]

Portugal

GENERAL STATISTICS

With 67 infringement cases open at the end of
2012, Portugal’s performance was the 6th worst in the EU‑27.
The Commission launched 46 new cases against Portugal in 2012 by sending
letters of formal notice.

Portugal’s performance was below average in its
reference group: the Czech Republic had 36 infringement cases, the Netherlands had
41, Hungary 42, Romania 44, Greece 81 and Belgium 92. Portugal ended the year
with fewer infringement cases than in 2011 (84) and 2010 (98). Portugal was
most frequently subject to infringement procedures in the following policy
areas::

Four cases were brought before the Court against
Portugal in 2012 (3 in 2011). They challenged: Portugal’s refusal to pay duties
on un-exported sugar surplus stocks; its missing transposition measures of the Directive
updating driving licence requirements[251];
and the incorrect transposition of EU law[252]
on distance marketing of consumer financial services.[253] The fourth referral
was due to late transposition (see below). In Portugal’s reference group, there
were no cases against the Czech Republic and Romania. Greece had two referrals,
Hungary had four and Belgium six.

Portugal was referred to the Court with a proposal
for financial sanctions under Article 260(2) TFEU, because it had not designated
a universal service provider in the telecom sector as required by the Universal
Service Directive.[254]

TRANSPOSITION OF
DIRECTIVES

34 infringement procedures were launched against
Portugal for late transposition of various directives in 2012 (50 in 2011). Portugal’s
performance was the worst in its reference group: 6, 15, 21, 22, 24 and 26 new
late transposition cases were launched against the Netherlands, Romania,
Belgium, Greece, the Czech Republic and Hungary, respectively. With 34 open
late transposition cases by the end of 2012, Portugal ranked last in the EU-27
(with Belgium).

Portugal faced challenges in transposing EU
directives in the policy areas of environment (10 new late transposition cases),
transport (8) and health and consumers (6).

Portugal was referred to the Court with a proposal
for financial sanctions under Article 260(3) TFEU due to its late transposition
of EU telecommunications rules under the Citizens’ Rights Directive.[255]

COMPLAINTS

67 complaints were received against Portugal in
2012, the 11th highest figure in the EU‑27.

Most complaints concerned environment (12
complaints, e.g. nature protection, water protection and management, waste
management), taxation (10) and internal market (seven, for example, public
procurement). Other complaints concerned transport (air passenger rights and
registration of documents for vehicles), agriculture (organic farming) and
employment (aggregation of insurance periods, fixed-term employment of
teachers).

EARLY RESOLUTION OF
INFRINGEMENTS

The Commission and the Portuguese
authorities were working on 52 open EU Pilot files at the end of 2012 (153 at
the end of 2011). 62 new files were opened on Portuguese issues in 2012.
Portugal's average EU Pilot response time (68 days) remained within the 10-week
target (60 days in 2011).

Portugal aligned a number of its
national laws with EU law in 2012, so several cases could be closed. For
example, Portugal: implemented correctly the ban on un-enriched cages for
laying hens; gave consumers who exercise the right to withdraw from a service
contract the right to automatically cancel any additional contracts; complied with
the Equal Treatment Directive[256];
applied working time rules to self-employed drivers; and fixed bird hunting
periods to respect EU rules on wild birds' conservation, to avoid overlaps with
reproduction/pre-nuptial migration periods.

IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

The Court ruled that Portugal: failed to publish and
transmit to the Commission the river basin management plans required under the Water
Framework Directive;[257]
exceeded for the years 2005 to 2007 the PM10 values for air quality required
under the Air Quality Directive;[258]
breached the VAT Directive by applying a special scheme exempting farmers from paying
VAT and involving the application of a flat-rate compensation percentage at a
nil rate;[259]
violated EU rules by taxing immediately the unrealized capital gains, if a
Portuguese company removed its seat and management to another Member State or
if a parent company relocated the assets of its Portuguese subsidiary to
another Member State when purely national operations were not subject to such
tax;[260]
failed to fully transpose Directives from the First Railway Package by
requiring the government to approve decisions on acquiring or transferring
holdings in the capital of Comboios de Portugal (the public rail transport
company) and by not ensuring that the accounts of the infrastructure manager
REFER were balanced.[261]

Key infringement proceedings § Automatic exclusion of projects covered by a land-use plan from Portuguese environmental impact assessment law[262] § Lack of independence of the Portuguese airport slot coordinator[263] § Restrictions on tobacco products (excise duties-tax marks)[264] § Restrictive exit taxes for individuals[265] § Late transposition of the ‘‘e-money’’ Directive,[266] the Directive on the type-approval of tractors[267] and the Employers Sanctions Directive[268] § Excessive fixed-term employment contracts for state-sector teachers without measures preventing abuse by employers

Romania

GENERAL STATISTICS

With 44 infringement cases open at the end of
2012, Romania ranked 16th in the EU‑27. The Commission
launched 30 new infringement cases against Romania in 2012.

Romania’s performance was average in its reference
group: the Czech Republic had 36 infringement cases, the Netherlands had 41,
Hungary 42, Portugal 67, Greece 81 and Belgium 92. Romania ended the year with fewer
infringement cases than in 2011 (47), but more than in 2010 (36). The following
chart shows the policy areas in which Romania was most frequently subject to
infringement procedures:

The Commission did not bring any cases against
Romania before the Court in 2012 (like in 2011). In Romania’s reference group,
there were no referrals against the Czech Republic, there was two against
Greece four each against the Netherlands, Portugal and Hungary, and six against
Belgium.

TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES

The Commission opened 15 infringement procedures
against Romania for late transposition of various directives in 2012 (there
were 46 in 2011). Romania's performance was worse than that of the Czech
Republic (13 new late transposition cases) and the Netherlands (6), but better
than that of Belgium (21), Greece (22), Hungary (26) and Portugal (34). With 13
open late transposition cases by the end of 2012, Romania ranked 13th
in the EU-27 (together with Greece and Luxembourg).

The policy area in which Romania faced challenges
in transposing EU directives was transport (four new late transposition
infringement cases).

COMPLAINTS

The Commission received 105 complaints against
Romania in 2012, the 13th highest figure in the EU‑27.

Most complaints concerned the following areas: taxation
(23 complaints, especially on excise duties and discriminatory treatment of
permanent establishments); internal market (19, mainly public
procurement); and justice (19, mainly on civil and criminal law, the functioning
of the judiciary, fundamental rights). Other complaints concerned: energy (including
consumer provisions on the internal energy market, billing and metering of heating/hot
water consumption); environment (e.g. inadequate impact assessment, industrial emissions,
nature protection – Natura 2000); agriculture (for example, rural development,
direct payments and organic farming); health and consumers (particularly food
safety); and transport (such as public service obligations).

EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENTS

The Commission and the Romanian
authorities were working on 51 cases at the end of 2012. The Commission opened
57 new cases in 2012. With an average EU Pilot response time of 77 days,
Romania was among the Member States that did not respect the 10-week target.

Romania put in place a number of
measures to ensure compliance with EU law. For example, it removed the Romanian
nationality condition for becoming a public notary, changed its end-user price
regulation schemes to give consumers the freedom of choice (by phasing-out
regulated electricity end-user prices),[269] addressed its inadequate
transposition of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (especially
on financial guarantees incumbent to individual producers),[270] and modernised/replaced
laying-hen cages to fully implement the ban on un-enriched cages.[271]

IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

There were no such judgments.

Key infringement proceedings § Inadequate nature protection in the Sulina Danube Delta beach development project[272] § Gas export ban § Lack of transparency in the conditions for accessing the natural gas transmission networks[273] § Non-transposition of the Data Retention Directive[274],the  Directive on simplified reporting of rules on mergers and divisions[275] and the Directive on the transfer of defence-related products within the EU[276] § Transparency and equal treatment concerns when awarding a public works contract for modernising Bucharest’s road infrastructure[277] § Non-compliance with the Racial Equality Directive[278] (direct and indirect discrimination, burden of proof) § Disadvantageous tax treatment of permanent foreign legal companies established in Romania § Failure to correctly implement the ban on un-enriched cages for laying hens[279]

SLOVAKIA

GENERAL
STATISTICS

With 33 open infringement
cases at the end of 2012, Slovakia had the sixth-best performance out of the
EU-27. In 2012, the Commission launched 18 new infringement procedures against
Slovakia by sending letters of formal notice.

Slovakia’s
performance was average in its reference group: Lithuania had 22 open
infringement cases, Denmark had 27, Ireland 39 and Finland 43. Slovakia ended
the year with fewer infringement cases than in the two preceding years (41 cases
in 2011 and 38 in 2010). The following chart shows the policy areas in which
Slovakia was most frequently subject to infringement procedures:

The Commission
brought one case against Slovakia before the Court in 2012 (there was one in
2011) because of late transposition of a directive (see below). In Slovakia’s
reference group, no cases against Denmark and Lithuania were brought before the
Court, and the Commission decided on one referral against Ireland and six against
Finland.

TRANSPOSITION
OF DIRECTIVES

The Commission
opened seven infringement procedures against Slovakia for late transposition of
various directives in 2012 (there were 36 such procedures in 2011). This result
is better than for the other Member States in Slovakia’s reference group: Ireland
had 8 new late transposition cases, Lithuania had 10, Denmark 17 and Finland
21. With only eight open late transposition cases by the end of 2012, Slovakia
ranked joint 3rd in the EU-27 (with Ireland).

This
significant improvement means that, apart from the two new late transposition
infringement cases in the area of transport, Slovakia did not face major
challenges in transposing EU directives prior to the end of 2012.

The Commission
referred Slovakia to the Court with a request for financial sanctions (Article
260(3) TFEU) due to the late transposition of the Waste Framework Directive[280]

COMPLAINTS

The Commission
received 55 complaints against Slovakia in 2012, the eighth-lowest figure in
the EU-27.

The areas in
which most complaints were received were: environment (12 complaints,
especially waste management, nature protection and missing environmental impact
assessments); free movement of workers (10, particularly as regards the
nationality and residence conditions for taking up certain posts in the public
sector); and justice (eight, for example, equal opportunities and equal
treatment of men and women in employment matters). Other complaints concerned
e.g.  public procurement.

EARLY
RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENTS

At the end of
2012, the Commission and Slovak authorities were working on 33 EU Pilot open
files – a caseload that is lower than the number of open files at the end of
2011 (42). In 2012, the Commission invited Slovakia to give its opinion on 39
new EU Pilot files. As in 2011 with 57 days, Slovakia had the best average EU
Pilot response time (51 days) in the EU-27.

The Slovak
authorities eliminated a number of inconsistencies between national and EU law,
so the Commission was able to close a number of infringement cases in 2012. Slovakia
clarified the scope of its rules transposing the End of Life Vehicle Directive[281] and these now include
improved measures that encourage carmakers to avoid using hazardous materials.[282] It ensured the
independence of the infrastructure manager and the regulatory body in implementing
the First Railway Package.[283]
Lastly, it allowed consumer associations to claim injunctions against firms
based in other Member States that applied unfair marketing techniques.[284]

IMPORTANT
JUDGMENTS

In 2012, the
Court delivered an important preliminary ruling on public procurement. In a legal
dispute related to a tender for motorway toll collection services, the Court
confirmed that the Public Procurement Directive[285] obliges contracting
authorities to request an explanation from tenderers who offer abnormally low
prices, and that contracting authorities may not waive this obligation. The Court
also clarified that national provisions might allow contracting authorities to
ask tenderers to clarify their offers but in doing so, they must treat all
tenderers equally.[286]

Key infringement proceedings § Denial of Christmas pension supplement (vianočný príspevok) to non-residents[287] § Denial of carers’, disability and cash allowances to non-residents[288] § Obstacles on car rug market (e.g. a requirement for type approval and for appointment of a local representative) § Failure to respect air quality (PM10) limit values in several zones and agglomerations[289] § Removing health insurance firms from the scope of the Non-life Insurance Directives[290]

SLOVENIA

GENERAL
STATISTICS

With 39 open
infringement cases at the end of 2012, Slovenia had the tenth-best performance out
of all the EU-27 Member States, together with Ireland. In 2012, the Commission
launched 27 new infringement cases against Slovenia by sending letters of
formal notice.

However,
Slovenia’s performance was below average in its reference group; Latvia had 20
open infringement cases, Estonia had 24, Malta 26, Luxembourg 34 and Cyprus 43.
Slovenia ended the year with fewer infringement cases than in 2011 (46), but
more than in 2010 (33). The following chart shows the policy areas in which
Slovenia was most frequently subject to infringement procedures:

The Commission
brought five cases against Slovenia before the Court in 2012 (there had been one
referral in 2011). In Slovenia's reference group, there was one referral
against Luxembourg, four against Cyprus but none against Estonia, Malta and
Latvia.

TRANSPOSITION
OF DIRECTIVES

The Commission
opened 16 infringement procedures against Slovenia for late transposition of
various directives in 2012 (there were 43 such procedures in 2011). In Slovenia’s
reference group, this result is better than that of Malta (18 new late
transposition cases) and Cyprus (18) but Luxembourg, Latvia and Estonia
performed better (with 12, 10 and five such infringement cases, respectively).
With 19 open late transposition infringements by the end of 2012, Slovenia
ranked 20th in the EU-27.

The policy
areas in which Slovenia faced major challenges in transposing EU directives were
health and consumers (6 new late transposition cases) and transport (4).

The Commission
referred Slovenia to the Court with a proposal for financial sanctions under
Article 260(3) TFEU due to late transposition of five directives: the Better
Regulation Directive,[291]
the Directive on users' rights in electronic communications networks,[292] the Directive on
defence procurement[293]
and the Gas and the Electricity Directives[294]
in the Third Energy Package.

COMPLAINTS

The Commission
received 35 complaints against Slovenia in 2012, the fifth-lowest figure in the
EU-27.

The areas in
which most complaints were received were: internal market and services (11
complaints, mainly free movement of services and public procurement);
environment (nine, most on nature protection, environmental impact assessment
and waste management); and justice (six, on free movement of people). There
were also complaints about the system of study grants, which requires
recipients to work in Slovenia for a period equal to the duration of financed
studies, and about nationality-based discrimination on public transport.

EARLY
RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENTS

At the end of
2012, the Commission and the Slovene authorities were working on 33 open files
in EU Pilot – a caseload that is below average and has substantially decreased
compared to the number of files at the end of 2011 (67). The Commission opened
37 new EU Pilot files on Slovene issues in 2012. Slovenia’s average EU Pilot
response time, 64 days, remains below the 10-week target and shows a slight
improvement as compared with the year before (67 days).

Out of the
open infringement cases, the Slovene authorities could finish transposing the
Waste Framework Directive[295].
As regards the municipal land use plan in Rova-South, Slovenia repeated the
assessment procedure required by national rules implementing the Strategic
Environmental Assessment Directive.[296]
The Commission also received the Slovenian implementing measures for the Blue
Card Directive[297]
(designed to facilitate the admission of highly-skilled workers from third
countries into the EU).[298]
As a result, the corresponding cases were closed in 2012.

IMPORTANT
JUDGMENTS

The Court
ruled on the compatibility of the Slovenian complementary health insurance laws
with the First and Third Non-Life Insurance Directives[299] and found that these
directives do not allow the national supervisory authority to request insurers
to regularly submit their current insurance terms and conditions for prior
approval (including cases in which they decide to raise premiums).[300]

Key infringement proceedings § Disregard of other Member States’ transitional periods under the Directive on drivers’ certificates of professional competence[301] § Deficiencies in the transposition of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive[302] § Incomplete transposition of the Directives of the Third Energy Package[303]

Spain

GENERAL STATISTICS

With 91 infringement cases open at the end of
2012, Spain’s performance was third worst in the EU‑27. The Commission launched
32 new infringement cases against Spain in 2012.

Spain’s performance was below average in its
reference group: Germany and the UK had 61 infringement cases each, France had 63,
Poland 82 and Italy 99. However, Spain ended the year with fewer infringement
cases than in 2011 (99) and 2010 (109). The following chart shows the policy
areas in which Spain was most frequently subject to infringement procedures:

The Commission referred Spain to the Court once in
2012 (there were 6 referrals in 2011), because of barriers to importing heavy
goods vehicles. Spain refused to allow road haulage operators to use the first
vehicle in their fleet for commercial purposes, if it was over five months old.[304] Spain had the lowest
number of referrals in its reference group. There were twelve referrals against
Poland, seven against Germany, six against the UK, four against France and
three against Italy.

TRANSPOSITION OF
DIRECTIVES

The Commission opened 16 infringement cases
against Spain for late transposition of various directives in 2012 (43 in 2011).
Spain performed better than Poland (18), the UK (24) and Italy (36), but worse
than Germany (11) and France (14). With 12 open late transposition cases by the
end of 2012, Spain ranked 11th in the EU-27 (together with Bulgaria).

The policy areas in which Spain faced challenges to
transposing EU directives were: environment (six new late transposition cases),
health and consumers (four) and transport (three).

COMPLAINTS

The Commission received 306 complaints against
Spain in 2012. Spain ranked second in the EU-27.

Most complaints concerned: environment (73
complaints, many on inadequate water protection and management, waste management,
nature protection); internal market (43, mainly public procurement, freedom to
provide services and regulated professions); and protection of workers (35, non-implementation
of the rules on health and safety at work,[305]
non-acceptance of European Health Insurance Cards (EHIC) of citizens from other
Member States, refusal to treat citizens based on their EHIC, if covered by
private health insurance, minimum right to paid annual leave for police forces
in the Basque Autonomous Region: 35). Other complaints concerned for example,
the automotive sector, direct payments and quality schemes in agriculture,
zootechnics (stud-books for horses), airport charges, free movement of people
and civil justice.

EARLY RESOLUTION OF
INFRINGEMENTS

At the end of 2012, 107 files on
Spanish issues were open in EU Pilot (at the end of 2011: 365), the second highest
caseload in the EU‑27. Spain had the second highest number of new EU
Pilot files in 2012 (110). Its average EU Pilot response time (74 days) was
above the 10-week target (it was 82 days in 2011).

The Commission closed a number of infringement
cases after Spain introduced measures to comply with EU law. The Spanish
authorities removed: obstacles to exporting pharmaceutical products (requirement
to notify them about medicines to be exported to other Member States); discrimination in access to the
security guard and archaeologist professions; discrimination
of people with work experience in other Member States and applying for public
sector jobs; and excessive conditions for approving associations that maintain
stud-books for registered horses.[306]

IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

The Court ordered Spain to pay a lump sum of € 20
million and a daily penalty of € 50 000 for failing to comply with its 2002
judgment under Article 108 TFEU, ordering compliance with the Commission’s
decision on recovering unlawful state aid paid to companies part of the
Magefesa group.[307]
In another ruling, the Court held that Spain did not adopt and notify to the
Commission and the other concerned Member States a number of river basin
management plans, and failed to initiate public consultations on these plans in
several areas.[308]
The Court also found that Spain’s restrictive tax provisions for individuals
moving to another Member State went against the freedom of movement of workers and the freedom of
establishment.[309]

In a preliminary ruling, the
Court clarified the calculation of pension contributions for part-time workers
and found Spain’s
legislation to be discriminatory because it required a proportionally longer
contribution period for part-time workers, mostly women.[310]

Key infringement proceedings § Failure to bring urban waste water treatment up to EU standards in small agglomerations § Monopoly in the system for recruiting port workers (dockers)[311] § Discriminatory taxation of investments in non-Spanish EU public bonds § Real estate tax regime discriminatory against non-residents[312] § Unlawful VAT-exemption of notary services  connected with financial transactions[313] § Wrong application of the Framework Directive on health and safety at work to workers of the Guardia Civil (in particular as preventive services) § Restrictions on film distribution in Catalonia[314] § Failure to correctly implement the ban on un-enriched cages for laying hens[315] § Failure to take into account employment in international organisations when calculating pensions rights § Incomplete transposition of the Directive on energy performance of buildings[316]

Sweden

GENERAL STATISTICS

With 36
infringement cases open at the end of 2012, Sweden’s performance was eighth
best in the EU‑27. The Commission opened nine new infringement cases against
Sweden in 2012.

Sweden’s performance
was best in its reference group: Bulgaria had 46 open infringement cases and Austria
had 51. Sweden ended the year with fewer infringement cases than in 2011 (60)
and 2010 (53). The following chart shows the policy areas in which Sweden was most
frequently subject to infringement procedures:

The Commission
referred one case against Sweden to the Court in 2012, because Sweden’s
national legislation did not comply with the Directive on Waste Electrical and
Electronic Equipment (specifically waste storage sites).[317] In Sweden’s reference
group, there were two referrals against Bulgaria but none against Austria.

TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES

The Commission
opened six infringement procedures against Sweden for late transposition of
various directives in 2012 (there were 31 in 2011). Sweden’s performance was
the best in its reference group: 13 new late transposition infringements were
initiated against Bulgaria and 24 against Austria. With 7 open late
transposition cases by the end of 2012, Sweden ranked 2nd in the EU-27.

Sweden faced some
challenges in transposing EU directives in the area of transport (two new late
transposition infringement cases).

COMPLAINTS

The Commission
received 111 complaints against Sweden in 2012, the 18th highest
figure in the EU‑27.

Most
complaints concerned: health and consumers (22 complaints, especially on the
reimbursement of medical costs); justice (18, most on the free movement and
residence rights); and taxation (14, limitation of deduction rights for company
groups and congestion tax). Other complaints concerned, for example, nature
protection (in particular wolf hunting) and public procurement.

EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENTS

The
Commission and the Swedish authorities were working on 34 open files in EU
Pilot at the end of 2012 (at the end of 2011: 84 files), which is an average caseload.
The Commission opened 38 new files on Swedish issues in 2012. Sweden met the
10-week target for providing replies in EU Pilot and submitted its responses within
an average of 61 days (it was 81 days in 2011).

The Swedish
authorities actively sought to settle infringement procedures, so the
Commission could close a number of cases in 2012. For example, Sweden
transposed provisions on the recovery of petrol vapour that would otherwise be
emitted into the air during vehicle refuelling[318] and common rules for
the internal market in electricity and in natural gas. It also rectified the incorrect
application of EU legislation on the working time of self-employed drivers.[319] It put national
legislation in line with the directive on strategic environmental assessment[320] and with the
directive on recognising professional qualifications.[321] It also allowed
registration of double surnames for children of dual nationality.[322]

IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

The Court established
that Sweden had failed to respect the Directive on integrated pollution
prevention and control because there remained some industrial installations in
Sweden that had not yet received new or renewed permits in accordance with the
above directive.[323]

Key infringement procedures § Wolf hunting practices inconsistent with EU nature protection provisions[324] § Full implementation of the judgment on licensing high polluting installations[325] § Possibly abusive extensions of fixed-term employment contracts[326] § Failure to transpose the Data Retention Directive[327] § Infringement of rules on free movement of people[328] § Discriminatory taxation of foreign pension funds[329]

United Kingdom

GENERAL STATISTICS

There were 61
infringement cases open against the UK at the end of 2012, the eighth-highest
number in the EU‑27 (equal with Germany). The Commission launched 34 new
infringement cases against the UK in 2012 by sending a letter of formal notice.

The UK’s
performance (along with that of Germany) was the best in its reference group: France
had 63 open infringement cases, Poland had 82, Spain 91, and Italy 99. The UK ended
the year with fewer infringement cases than in 2010 (72) and 2011 (76). The
following chart shows the policy areas in which the UK was most frequently
subject to infringement procedures:

The Commission
brought six cases against the UK before the Court in 2012 (only two in 2011).
Four of these concerned taxation, and more specifically: (i) UK legislation making
it excessively difficult for undertakings to benefit from cross-border loss
relief[330]
(against the ‘Marks & Spencer’ Court ruling[331]);[332] (ii) UK taxation of
assets transferred abroad[333]
(iii) discriminatory attribution of capital gains to members of non-resident
undertakings[334];
and (iv) UK legislation making it excessively difficult for taxpayers to
exercise their right to be paid back taxes that had been levied in breach of EU
rules.[335]
Another referral concerned the UK’s refusal to compensate for duties that its
customs authorities failed to collect in the past and that should have been
paid into the EU budget.[336]
The UK was also referred to the Court for not offering maximum interconnection
capacity in its gas market.[337] Within the UK’s reference group, there
were twelve referrals against Poland, seven against Germany, four against
France, three against Italy and one against Spain.

TRANSPOSITION OF DIRECTIVES

The Commission
opened 24 infringement procedures against the UK for late transposition of
various directives in 2012 (there were 57 in 2011). The UK's performance was worse
than that of Germany, France, Spain and Poland (11, 14, 16 and 18 new late
transposition cases, respectively) but better than that of Italy (36). With 25
open late transposition cases by the end of 2012, the UK ranked 24th
in the EU-27.

The policy areas
in which the UK faced significant challenges in transposing EU directives were:
transport (six new late transposition cases), health and consumers (four),
internal market (three) and enterprise and industry (three).

COMPLAINTS

The Commission
received 197 complaints against the UK in 2012, the fifth highest number in the
EU‑27.

Most
complaints concerned: the free movement of people (60 complaints, in particular
difficulties in obtaining residence cards, requiring a visa from family members
of EU citizens, refusing visas for reasons prohibited by EU law[338]). Other complaints
concerned the following areas: internal market (32, mainly public procurement,
regulated professions and freedom to provide services) and environment (44,
especially on nature protection[339]
and air quality). There were also many complaints about the residence
requirement for certain posts.

EARLY RESOLUTION OF INFRINGEMENTS

The
Commission and the UK authorities were working on 67 open files at the end of
2012 (at the end of 2011: 192), the third highest caseload in the EU‑27.
The Commission sent the UK 64 new EU Pilot files in 2012. The UK kept its
average EU Pilot response time (70 days) within the 10-week target (it was 66
days in 2011).

The
Commission was able to close a number of infringement cases in 2012 because the
UK complied with its obligations. For instance, the UK: modified its
legislation to allow EU-qualified pharmacists to be responsible for new
pharmacies; accepted that family members of pensioners who lived abroad could
independently claim sickness benefits; correctly applied the Landfill Directive[340] with
regard to site closure and aftercare. The UK also conducted a comprehensive
reform of its anti-avoidance regime (CFC-legislation) to prevent tax abuse
while not compromising the intra-EU establishment.[341]

IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

The
Court found that the UK violated its obligations under the Urban Waste Water
Directive[342]
by failing to ensure: appropriate urban waste water collection in certain parts
of London and Whitburn and proper urban waste water treatment in the plants at Beckton,
Crossness and Mogden.[343]

The
Court also issued a number of preliminary rulings in 2012. For example, it
clarified in a landmark judgment concerning avoidance of double economic
taxation of dividends, in particular dividends paid by third countries
subsidiaries of EU companies.[344]

Key infringement proceedings § Discriminatory taxation of assets transferred abroad and of capital gains attributed to members of non-resident undertakings § Violation of free movement of people (rights of family members, exemptions from the visa requirement, permanent residence of EU citizens from countries that have recently joined the EU)[345]

[1]               Directive
2009/50/EC
and IP/12/167
on the earlier reasoned opinion

[2]               Directive
2009/81/EC
and IP/12/533
on the earlier reasoned opinion

[3]               Commission
v Austria, C-614/10

[4]               Directive
2004/38/EC

[5]               Commission
v Austria, C-75/11

[6]               Directive
2008/1/EC

[7]               Commission
v Austria, C-352/11

[8]               Directive
2000/78/EC

[9]               Tyrolean
Airways Tiroler Luftfahrt, C-132/11

[10]             Directive 2004/38/EC

[11]             Directive 2004/49/EC

[12]             IP/12/1247

[13]             Commission
v Belgium, C-134/10

[14]             IP/12/1144

[15]             Directive 2009/110/EC
and Directives 2009/140/EC
and 2009/136/EC,
respectively, and IP/12/1248
(E-money) and IP/12/524
(telecom directives)

[16]             IP/11/419 on
the earlier reasoned opinion

[17]             IP/11/1417 on
the earlier reasoned opinion

[18]             Directive 2008/98/EC

[19]             IP/12/47 on the
earlier reasoned opinion

[20]             Commission
v Belgium, C-387/11

[21]             Commission
v Belgium, C-150/11

[22]             Commission
v Belgium, C-577/10

[23]             Commission
v Belgium, C-366/11

[24]             IP/12/418

[25]             IP/12/408

[26]             IP/12/61

[27]             IP/12/281

[28]             IP/12/651

[29]             IP/12/53

[30]             IP/12/422 and Directive 2008/98/EC

[31]             Directive 2006/24/EC

[32]             Maritza-IztoK
Energy Complex

[33]             Directive 2008/98/EC

[34]             IP/13/47

[35]             IP/11/1437

[36]             IP/12/298

[37]             IP/12/72

[38]             IP/12/403 and
Directive 2009/41/EC

[39]             IP/12/672

[40]             Directive 1999/31/EC

[41]             IP/12/655

[42]             Directives
2008/52/EC,
2008/99/CE
and 2006/126/EC,
respectively and IP/12/1016, IP/12/296 and IP/12/1237
and IP/12/642

[43]             IP/11/1442 on
the earlier Court referral

[44]             IP/11/1277 on
the earlier Court referral

[45]             Directive 1992/43/EC

[46]             Directive 1999/22/EC

[47]             Directive 2008/98/EC

[48]             Directive 2009/50/EC

[49]             Commission
v Cyprus, C-125/09

[50]             Commission
v Cyprus, C-340/10

[51]             MEMO/13/375

[52]             Directive 2006/24/EC

[53]             Directive 2002/96/EC

[54]             Regulation
(EC) No 1234/2007

[55]             Commission
v the Czech Republic, C-37/11

[56]             IP/11/1446

[57]             IP/12/75

[58]             IP/13/47

[59]             Directive 1991/440/EEC
and Directive 2001/14/EC

[60]             Directive 2003/88/EC

[61]             Directive 2002/96/EC

[62]             Directive 2009/43/EC

[63]             Directive 2006/126/EC

[64]             Directive 2001/37/EC

[65]             Regulation(EC)
No 482/2008
and Regulation (EU) No 1034/2011

[66]             Directive 2008/98/EC

[67]             Directive 2009/81/EC

[68]             Directive 2009/33/EC

[69]             Commission
v Estonia, C-39/10

[70]             IP/12/630

[71]             Directives
2009/112/EC
and 2009/113/EC
and IP/12/56

[72]             Directive 2009/72/EC
and IP/12/1236

[73]             Directive 2009/73/EC
and IP/12/1236

[74]             Directive 2009/33/EC
and IP/12/270

[75]             Directive 2008/96/EC and IP/12/641

[76]             Directive 2009/33/EC

[77]             Directive 2009/43/EC and
IP/12/651 on the
earlier reasoned opinion

[78]             Directive 2008/98/EC

[79]             Directive 2000/53/EC

[80]             Regulation
(EC) No 883/2004

[81]             Commission
v Finland, C-342/10

[82]             IP/12/410 and
Directives 2009/72/EC
and 2009/73/EC

[83]             Directive 2002/15/EC
and IP/12/409

[84]             This seal
is a freshwater subspecies, found only in the Saimaa Lake system in
south-eastern Finland. It is protected under Directive 92/43/EC.

[85]             Directive 2009/147/EC

[86]             IP/12/170

[87]             Directive 2008/1/EC

[88]             Directive 91/271/EEC

[89]             IP/06/1768

[90]             Directive 1999/74/EC

[91]             Persons
who receive part of their income in a Member State where they are not resident.

[92]             Directives 94/62/EC, 2002/96/EC and 2011/92/EU

[93]             Directive 89/686/EC
and IP/11/610

[94]             Commission
v France, C-119/11

[95]             Commission
v France, C-596/10

[96]             Commission
v France, C-164/11

[97]             Directive 2001/82/EC

[98]             Commission
v France, C-145/11

[99]             Cimade
& GISTI, C-179/11

[100]            Undertakings
for collective investments in transferable securities; Santander Asset
Management SGIIC, C-338/11

[101]            Dominguez, C-282/10

[102]            MEMO/12/794

[103]            IP/09/1459

[104]            MEMO/12/876

[105]            Commission
v France, C-197/12

[106]            IP/06/1768

[107]            Directive 2003/88/EC

[108]            MEMO/12/708

[109]            Directive 92/43/EEC

[110]            IP/12/418

[111]            IP/12/1018

[112]            IP/12/1019

[113]            IP/12/83

[114]            Directive 89/106/EEC

[115]            Directive 2000/60/EC

[116]            Directive 2006/24/EC

[117]            Directive 92/43/EEC

[118]            Directive 2003/86/EC

[119]            Directive 2008/98/EC

[120]            Directive 96/67/EC

[121]            Fra-bo v
DVGW, C-171/11

[122]            UsedSoft
GmbH v Oracle International Corp., C-128/11,
Court press release No
94/12

[123]            Dr Johann
Odar v Baxter Deutschland GmbH, C-152/11,
Court press release No
161/12

[124]            IP/12/648

[125]            IP/12/536 and
Directive 2000/60/EC

[126]            IP/12/1023 and
Directives 1999/31/EC, 2008/98/EC and 92/43/EC

[127]            IP/12/1249
and Directive 2004/18/EC

[128]            Directives 2008/98/EC
and 92/43/EC

[129]            IP/11/1415

[130]            Directives 97/23/EC
and 2009/142/EC

[131]            Directives 2002/20/EC
and 2002/21/EC

[132]            Directives 1991/440/EEC
and 2001/14/EC,
and Commission v Greece, C-528/10

[133]            Directive 2000/60/EC
and Commission v Greece, C-297/11

[134]            Commission
v Greece, C-244/11

[135]            Nomarchiaki Aftodioikisi Aitoloakarnanias and others,
C-43/10

[136]            Syllogos Ellinon Poleodomonkaichorotakton, C-177/11

[137]            IP/11/1121
and Directive 2003/88/EC

[138]            IP/12/1023

[139]            IP/12/420

[140]            Directive 2000/78/EC

[141]            IP/12/395 (on
both cases)

[142]            Directive 2002/20/EC
and IP/12/286

[143]            Directive 2008/98/EC

[144]            IP/12/422

[145]            Directive 2006/21/EC

[146]            Directive 2007/60/EC

[147]            Directive 1999/74/EC

[148]            Directive 2003/98/EC

[149]            Commission
v Hungary, C-286/12

[150]            VALE
Építési Kft., C-378/10

[151]            MEMO/12/876

[152]            IP/12/674

[153]            MEMO/12/876

[154]            IP/12/656

[155]            IP 12/52

[156]            IP/12/657

[157]            Directive
2001/42/EC

[158]            Directive
91/440/EEC
amended by directives 1995/18/EC and 2001/14/EC

[159]            Commission
v Ireland, C-279/11,Court
press release No171/12

[160]            Commission
v Ireland, C-374/11, Court press release No171/12

[161]            IP/12/52

[162]            IP/11/730

[163]            Directive 91/440/EEC
as amended by Directive 2001/12/EC

[164]            IP/11/78

[165]            IP/12/411

[166]            IP/12/1145

[167]            IP/12/658

[168]            IP/12/1140

[169]            Application
of Directive 2003/109/EC
to long-term residents.

[170]            Fixed-term
employment in schools and for university language teachers.

[171]            IP/12/48

[172]            IP/10/1220

[173]            Directive
2001/42/EC

[174]            Commission
v Italy, C-565/10

[175]            Commission
v Italy, C-68/11

[176]            Valenza and
Others, C-302/11

[177]            Kamberaj, C-571/10

[178]            3M Italia, C-417/10

[179]            Pioneer Hi
Bred Italia, C-36/11
and Directive 2001/18/EC

[180]            IP/12/538

[181]            MEMO/13/122

[182]            Directive 2002/91/EC
and IP/12/411

[183]            Directive 89/391/EC

[184]            IP/12/629

[185]            MEMO/12/794

[186]            IP/12/637

[187]            Directive 1999/74/EC
and IP/12/47

[188]            Directive 2009/12/EC

[189]            Directive 2009/147/EC

[190]            This bird,
also known as the wood grouse, is the largest member of the grouse family and
is protected by Directive 2009/147/EC.

[191]            Directive 1991/440/EEC

[192]            Directive 1990/314/EEC

[193]            Directive 1994/62/EC

[194]            Directive 2009/31/EC

[195]            Directive 2010/30/EU

[196]            Directives 1970/311/EEC and 2007/46/EC and IP/11/1251

[197]            IP/12/636

[198]            Directive
2004/38/EC

[199]            Directive 2009/147/EC
and IP/07/938

[200]            Directive 2009/81/EC

[201]            Directive 2009/90/EC

[202]            Regulation
(EC) No 1272/2008

[203]            Caves Krier
Frères Sàrl, C‑379/11,
Court press release No 167/12

[204]            Commission
v Luxembourg, C-576/11

[205]            Directive 2009/81/EC

[206]            Directive 2002/49/EC
and IP/10/1416
on the earlier Court referral

[207]            IP/11/188 on
the earlier Court referral

[208]            IP/07/1510 on
the earlier reasoned opinion

[209]            IP/13/249

[210]            Directives 2010/78/EU
and 2010/73/EU

[211]            Directive 2001/80/EC
and IP/12/660

[212]            IP/12/1020
and Directive 2009/81/EC

[213]            MEMO/12/708
and Directive 2008/52/EC

[214]            IP/12/524 and
Directive 2009/136/EC

[215]            IP/12/1016
and Directive 2009/140/EC

[216]            Directive 2000/43/EC

[217]            Directive 85/337/EEC
now repealed by Directive 2001/42/EC

[218]            Commission
v Netherlands, C-508/10,
Court press release No
52/12 and Directive 2003/109/EC

[219]            Directive 2004/18/EC

[220]            Commission
v Netherlands, C-368/10
and Court press release No
60/12

[221]            Article 45
TFEU and Regulation (EC) No 1612/68
as amended, now codified in Regulation (EU) No 492/2011

[222]            A.
Salemink, Case C-347/10
and Court press release No
1/12

[223]            MEMO/12/794

[224]            Directive 2009/81/EC
and IP/12/76

[225]            MEMO/12/876

[226]            Directive 2007/65/EC

[227]            Directive 2008/56/EC

[228]            Directive 2008/98/EC

[229]            Directive 2009/12/EC

[230]            Directive 2009/18/EC

[231]            Directive 2009/136/EC

[232]            Directive 2009/140/EC

[233]            Directive 2009/81/EC

[234]            Directives2009/72/EC
and 2009/73/EC

[235]            These
directives do not fall under Article 260(3) TFEU.

[236]            Directive 2011/18/EU

[237]            Directive 2009/145/EC

[238]            Directive 2006/112/EC

[239]            Directive 2006/24/EC

[240]            Directive 2001/83/EC

[241]            Commission
v Poland, C-185/10
and Court press release No 36/12

[242]            Directive 2009/147/EC
and Commission v Poland, Cases C‑192/11
and C‑46/11

[243]            Directive 98/34/EC

[244]            Fortuna sp.
z o.o. and others, joined cases C-213/11,
C-214/11 and C-217/11

[245]            Directives 2009/73/EC
and 2009/72/EC, and IP/12/1139
and IP/12/1236

[246]            Directive 1999/74/EC
and IP/12/629

[247]            Directive 2008/98/EC,
and IP/12/422

[248]            Commission
v Poland, C‑311/10

[249]            Directive 2007/46/EC

[250]            Directive 2009/81/EC

[251]            IP/12/56

[252]            Directive 2002/65/EC

[253]            IP/12/50

[254]            IP/12/287 and
Directive 2002/22/EC

[255]            IP/12/524 and
Directive 2009/136/EC

[256]            Directive 2000/43/EC

[257]            Commission
v Portugal, C-223/11
and Directive 2000/60/EC

[258]            Commission
v Portugal, C-34/11
and Directive 2008/50/EC

[259]            Commission
v Portugal, C-524/10

[260]            Commission
v Portugal, C-38/10

[261]            Commission
v Portugal, C-557/10

[262]            MEMO/12/876

[263]            MEMO/13/22

[264]            IP/12/675

[265]            IP/09/1635

[266]            IP/12/418 and
Directive 2009/109/EC

[267]            MEMO/12/876
Directive2010/62/EU

[268]            IP/12/531 and
Directive 2009/52/EC

[269]            IP/11/414

[270]            Directive 2002/96/EC

[271]            IP/12/47

[272]            IP/12/539

[273]            IP/11/1437

[274]            Directive 2006/24/EC

[275]            IP/12/74

[276]            IP/12/532

[277]            IP/12/73

[278]            Directive 2000/43/EC

[279]            IP/12/47

[280]            IP/12/422
on the earlier referral decision and Directive 2008/98/CE

[281]            Directive 2000/53/EC

[282]            IP/11/93 on the
earlier reasoned opinion

[283]            IP/09/1438 on
the earlier reasoned opinion

[284]            IP/12/184 on
the earlier reasoned opinion

[285]            Directive 2004/18/EC

[286]            SAG ELV
Slovensko and Others, C-599/10

[287]            MEMO/12/876

[288]            MEMO/12/794

[289]            IP/13/47

[290]            Directives 73/239/EEC
and 92/49/EEC

[291]            Directive 2009/140/EC
and IP/12/524

[292]            Directive 2009/136/EC
and IP/12/524

[293]            Directive 2009/81/EC
and IP/12/1020

[294]            Directives 2009/72/EC
and 2009/73/EC and IP/12/1139

[295]            Directive 2008/98/EC

[296]            Directive 2001/42/EC

[297]            Directive 2009/50/EC

[298]            IP/12/529

[299]            Directives 73/239/EEC
and 92/49/EEC

[300]            Commission
v Slovenia, C-185/11

[301]            Directive 2003/59/EC

[302]            Directive 2011/92/EU

[303]            Directives 2009/72/EC
and 2009/73/EC,
and IP/12/1139

[304]            IP/12/649

[305]            Directive 89/391/EC

[306]            IP-11-708

[307]            Commission
v Spain, C-610/10

[308]            Commission
v Spain, C-403/11 and
Directive 2000/60/EC

[309]            Commission
v Spain, C-269/09

[310]            Elbal
Moreno, C-385/11

[311]            IP/12/1022

[312]            MEMO/12/708

[313]            MEMO/12/794

[314]            IP/12/663

[315]            IP/12/629

[316]            IP/11/1447

[317]            Directive 2002/96/EC
and IP/12/1024

[318]            Directive 2009/126/EC

[319]            Directive 2002/15/EC

[320]            Directive 2001/42/EC

[321]            Directive 2005/36/EC

[322]            IP/12/644 and
Directive 2004/38/EC

[323]            Commission
v Sweden, C-607/10
and Directive 2008/1/EC

[324]            IP/11/732 and
Directive 1992/43/EC

[325]            Directive 2008/1/EC

[326]            Directive 1999/70/EC

[327]            Directive 2006/24/EC
and IP/12/530
on the partial withdrawal

[328]            Directive 2004/38/EC
and IP/12/646

[329]            IP/12/284

[330]            The
possibility for a parent company to deduct the losses of its subsidiary
established in another Member State, if all other possibilities have been
exhausted.

[331]            Marks &
Spencer plc v David Halsey, C-446/03

[332]            IP/12/1017

[333]            IP/12/1147

[334]            IP/12/1146

[335]            IP/12/64

[336]            IP/12/632

[337]            IP/12/52

[338]            Directive 2004/38/EC

[339]            Directive 92/43/EEC

[340]            Directive 1999/31/EC

[341]            IP/11/606

[342]            Directive 91/271/EEC

[343]            Commission
v United Kingdom, C-301/10
and IP/09/1488

[344]            Test
Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, C-35/11

[345]            IP/12/646

[Top](#document1)