AB TR Report

7/30/2019 AB TR Report

1/29

EN EN

EUROPEANCOMMISSION

Brussels, 30.11.2012

SWD(2012) 399 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

SITUATION PER MEMBER STATE

Accompanying the document

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION

29th ANNUAL REPORT ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW

(2011)

{COM(2012) 714 final}

{SWD(2012) 400 final}


2/29

2

AU S T R I A

General Statistics

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

However, Austrias performance is the worst in itsreference group1: Bulgaria had 54 open infringements and therewere 60 against Sweden. Austria closed the year with moreinfringements than in 2010 (57) and almost the same number asin 2009 (66). The following chart shows the three policy areaswhere Austria was subject most frequently to infringementprocedures:

Other policies; 32

Transport; 15

Internal Market; 10Enterprise; 8

65 infringements against Austria

Only two Court cases were brought against Austria during2011 (10 cases in 2010). The Commission argued that thestudents transport pricing system discriminated againstforeigners,2 and that some installations were not properlylicensed under the directive on integrated air pollutionprevention.3 Within the reference group, one case reached the

Court against each of Bulgaria and Sweden.No decisions were taken by the Commission to referAustria to the Court for the second time under Article 260(2)TFEU.

Transposition of directives

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

The policy areas where Austria experienced seriouschallenges in transposing EU directives are transport (13 latetransposition infringements), internal market & services andenterprise & industry (7 infringements in each area).

Despite the progress made by the Austrian authorities intransposing the Services Directive4, the process was still notcomplete more than two years after the implementationdeadline. Accordingly, the Commission referred Austria to theCourt with a proposal for financial sanctions (Article 260(3)TFEU).5

Complaints

In 2011, the Commission received 97 complaints againstAustria, which is the tenth-highest figure in the EU-27.

Areas with the most claimed irregularities includeenvironment (exemptions from impact assessment, access to

1

Member States with equal or close to equal voting weights in theCouncil; for Austria: Bulgaria and Sweden.2 IP/10/12273 IP/11/4334 Directive 2006/123/EC5 IP/11/1283

justice, nature protection; 26 complaints), internal market(public procurement and professional recognition; 21), andfundamental rights (free movement of family members anddouble-barrelled surname registration; 11). Other complaintsconcerned obstacles to car registration, breach of green car

procurement rules, limited access to transport services market,violation of rights to family benefits, and discriminatorytaxation of foreign pensioners and workers.

Early resolution of infringements

At the end of 2011, the Commission and the Austrianauthorities were working on 102 open files in EU Pilot,including 43 new dossiers opened during 2011. Austria isamong the 11 Members States whose average response time inEU Pilot (77 days) fails to meet the 10-week benchmark.

In 2011 Austria successfully closed a number ofinfringements launched earlier by the Commission: it hasproperly designated all Special Protection Areas under theBirds Directive, amended the rules on acquiring agricultural

land in Vorarlberg so that rules on the free movement of capital,brought the VAT exemptions for postal services within thelimits allowed by the VAT Directive, ensured equal taxtreatment for domestic and foreign investments funds, andmade the conditions for accessing the natural gas markettransparent.

Important judgments

The Court found once again that the reinstated traffic ban forlorries on the A12 motorway was incompatible with the freemovement of goods6 and the nationality condition for notariescould not be justified by the exercise of official authority.7 TheCourt also found against the reduced VAT rate for race horses8and the discriminatory tax incentive for donations for research

and development.

9

In preliminary rulings handed down to the Austrianjudiciary, the Court further clarified the conditions under whichEU citizens family members, who are third country nationals,may be refused the right to reside in that citizens MemberState.10 It also ruled that excluding a significantly higherproportion of female pensioners than male ones from a pensionadjustment scheme constitutes sex discrimination.11

Key infringements

Ban on internet sales of contact lenses Failure to ensure transparent and non-discriminatory

airport charges for airlines12 Restrictions on extended family members' rights protected

by Free Movement Directive13 Restricted access to justice in environmental impact

assessment matters

6 Commission v Austria, C-28/097 Commission v Austria, C-53/088

Commission v Austria, C-441/099 Commission v Austria, C-10/1010 Dereci and others, C-256/1111 Brachner, C-123/1012 IP/11/141013 IP/11/981
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1227_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-433_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-433_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-433_en.htmhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:376:0036:0068:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:376:0036:0068:EN:PDFhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1283&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1283&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:376:0036:0068:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:376:0036:0068:EN:PDFhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1283&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1283&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1283&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1283&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-53/08&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-53/08&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-53/08&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-441/09&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-441/09&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-441/09&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-10/10&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-10/10&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-441/09&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-256/11&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-256/11&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-10/10&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-10/10&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-123/10&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-123/10&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-256/11&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-256/11&td=ALLhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1410_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1410_en.htmhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-123/10&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-123/10&td=ALLhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/981&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/981&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/981&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/981&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/981&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/981&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/981&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/981&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/981&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1410_en.htmhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-123/10&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-256/11&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-10/10&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-441/09&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-53/08&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-28/09&td=ALLhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1283&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1283&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:376:0036:0068:EN:PDFhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-433_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1227_en.htm


3/29

3

B E L G I UM

General Statistics

There were 117 open infringements against Belgium at theend of 2011, which is the third-worst result among the EU-27.

Belgium's performance is below average in its referencegroup14: Romania had 47 open infringements, Hungary 54, theCzech Republic 65, the Netherlands and Portugal 71 and 84respectively and Greece 123. However, Belgium closed the yearwith fewer infringements than in 2010 (126) and 2009 (128). Thefollowing chart shows the four policy areas where Belgium wasmost frequently subject to infringement procedures:

Other policies; 45

Taxation; 36

Internal Market; 13

Environment; 13Transport; 10

117 infringements against Belgium

Six cases were submitted to the Court against Belgiumduring 2011 (by contrast to the 11 submissions in 2010). TheCommission contested: the discriminatory nature of the de

facto exemption granted to Belgian (but not to EU)investment companies from interest and dividend tax,15 thefailure to adopt river basin management plans16 and the lackof indexation of Belgian pensions when paid to certain non-resident persons.17 Within the reference group, no cases werebrought against Romania or Hungary; there were threeagainst Portugal and four each against the Netherlands, theCzech Republic and Greece.

The Commission filed one case against Belgium underArticle 260(2) TFEU with a request for financial sanctionsdue to Belgiums failure to collect and/or treat urban wastewater properly in some areas of the country.18


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

The policy areas where Belgium experienced seriouschallenges in transposing EU directives are transport, internal

market & services (10 late transposition infringements ineach area) and energy (6).

In no case in 2011 did, the Commission refer Belgium tothe Court with a request for financial sanctions (Article260(3) TFEU) due to late transposition of directives.

Complaints

In 2011, the Commission received 82 complaints againstBelgium, which is the thirteenth lowest figure in the EU-27.

Areas with the most alleged irregularities includetaxation (discriminating against foreign workers, inheritanceand securities income; 23 complaints), environment

14 Member States with equal or close to equal voting weights in the

Council; for Belgium: Romania, Hungary, the Czech Republic, theNetherlands, Portugal and Greece.15 IP/11/42216 IP/11/43817 IP/11/16518 IP/10/835

(inadequate impact assessments, potential damages to Natura2000 sites, nitrates pollution and urban waste watertreatment; 14), free movement of persons (blocking familyreunification with non-EU nationals and registration ofdouble barrelled surnames; 9). Complaints also invoked car

registration problems, passenger rights and mutualrecognition of professional qualifications.


Belgium joined EU Pilot in early 2011. By the end of the year,the Commission and the Belgian authorities were working on42 newly opened files. Belgiums average response time in EUPilot (71 days) is only slightly above the 10-week benchmark.

Alignment of certain disputed Belgian laws with EU rulesresulted in the closure of several infringements in 2011 inparticular: the barriers to parallel imports of drugs were removed;unit rates for air terminal charges were notified;19 theindependence of the rail safety authority was ensured;20 Belgianpensions were made payable to any bank account within the EU;

compliance was achieved with the drinking water directive;21

and two discriminatory tax regimes were adjusted (a flat-rate taxreduction available only to Flemish residents and tax deductionof interests paid to Belgian banks).22

Important judgments

The three Belgian regions were found to have failed to laydown the necessary criteria and thresholds making projectssubject to environmental impact assessment.23 Belgium wasalso found guilty of not requiring an impact assessment forprojects likely to damage Natura 2000 sites such as the tangsde Roly.24 In addition, the Court rejected the exercise of officialauthority as a justification for maintaining the nationalitycondition for public notaries.25 However, safeguarding the tax

systems cohesion did justify a discriminatory tax credit thatwas granted only to residents moving house within Flanders.26The Courts preliminary rulings clarified, among other

things, that the mere conversion of an administrative decisioninto a national law does not automatically exempt a projectfrom the requirements laid down in the EnvironmentalImpact Assessment Directive.27

Key infringements Restrictions on extended family members rights,

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

Non-transposition of the directive on buildings energyperformance29

Discriminatory additional taxation of certain types ofincome from capital30

Discriminatory inheritance tax provisions31

19 IP/11/1252 on the earlier reasoned opinion20 IP/11/72 on the earlier reasoned opinion21 Directive 98/83/EC22 IP/10/1403 on the earlier reasoned opinion23 Commission v Belgium,C-435/0924 Commission v Belgium,C-538/0925 Commission v Belgium,C-47/0826

Commission v Belgium, C-250/0827 Boxus and others,C-128/0928 IP/11/98129 IP 11/733, Directive 2002/91/EC30 IP/11/142431 IP/11/425
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-422_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-438_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-438_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-165_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-165_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-835_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-835_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-835_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-835_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-835_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-835_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-835_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-72_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1252_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1252_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-72_en.htmhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1998L0083:20090807:EN:PDFhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1403_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1403_en.htmhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1998L0083:20090807:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1998L0083:20090807:EN:PDFhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1403_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1403_en.htmhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=435/09&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=538/09&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=538/09&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=538/09&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=47/08&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=47/08&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=47/08&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=250/08&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=250/08&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=250/08&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=128/09&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=128/09&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=250/08&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=250/08&td=ALLhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/981&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=128/09&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=128/09&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=128/09&td=ALLhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-733_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1424_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1424_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-425_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1424_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-425_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-425_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-425_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-425_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-425_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-425_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1424_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-733_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/981&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=128/09&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=250/08&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=47/08&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=538/09&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=435/09&td=ALLhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1403_en.htmhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1998L0083:20090807:EN:PDFhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-72_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1252_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-835_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-835_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-165_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-438_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-422_en.htm


4/29

4

BU L GA R I A

General Statistics

The Commission had 54 open infringements against Bulgaria atthe end of 2011, which is the eleventh best result (along withHungary) among the EU-27.

Bulgaria's performance is the best in its reference group32:Sweden had 60 open infringements Austria 65. However,Bulgaria closed the year with more infringements than in 2010(44) and 2009 (45). The following chart shows the three policyareas where Bulgaria was most frequently subject toinfringement procedures:

Other policies; 21

Environment; 14

Transport; 11

Internal Market &Services; 8

54 infringements against Bulgaria

One case was submitted to the Court against Bulgaria

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

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


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

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

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

Complaints

In 2011, the Commission received 97 complaints against

Bulgaria, which is the 10th highest figure in the EU-27.Areas where the most anomalies were raised include

environment (illegal activities, especially hunting, in Natura2000 sites, poor waste management; 23 complaints) andinternal market (public procurement, free movement of capitaland free provision of services; 16). Further complaints wereabout the restricted movement right of persons with outstandingdebts, the non-recognition of foreign diplomas (in particularfrom franchised institutions), renewable energy and energyefficiency as well as roadside inspections of commercialvehicles.

32 Member States with equal or close to equal voting weights in theCouncil; forBulgaria: Sweden and Austria

33 IP/11/1437


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

Bulgaria acted to eliminate a number of inconsistencies inits national law vis--vis EU rules, which prompted theCommission to close numerous infringements in 2011,including cases on: the non-portability of landline numberswhen changing telephone operator34 disproportionaterestrictions on the establishment and operation of pharmacies,and the lack of transposition rules for more than 30 directives,including the one on capital requirements for the trading bookand for re-securitisations and the supervisory review ofremuneration policies.35

Important judgments

In a preliminary ruling in response to a request from theBulgarian judiciary, the Court clarified that Member States mayrestrict the free movement of their nationals who have beenconvicted of a criminal offence; however, such restrictionshould be justified by the persons conduct, proportionate to theobjective of crime prevention and subject to effective judicialreview.36

Key infringements Failure to control all risks to human health and the

environment arising from the use of GMOs37 Distortion of the market for broadcasting network

services (prohibition of certain market players, e.g.network infrastructure owners, from applying for digitalspectrum)

Lack of transparent conditions for access to the naturalgas distribution networks38

Inadequate waste disposal installations in the municipalityof Sofia

34 IP/10/521 on the earlierreasoned opinion35 Directive2010/76/EU36 Gaydarov, C-430/1037 IP/11/29138 IP 11/1437
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1437_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1437_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1437_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1437_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1437_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-521_en.htmhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:329:0003:0035:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:329:0003:0035:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:329:0003:0035:EN:PDFhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=430/10&td=ALLhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:329:0003:0035:EN:PDFhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/291&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=430/10&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=430/10&td=ALLhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1437&format=HTML&aged=0&language=en&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1437&format=HTML&aged=0&language=en&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1437&format=HTML&aged=0&language=en&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1437&format=HTML&aged=0&language=en&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1437&format=HTML&aged=0&language=en&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1437&format=HTML&aged=0&language=en&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1437&format=HTML&aged=0&language=en&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1437&format=HTML&aged=0&language=en&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1437&format=HTML&aged=0&language=en&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/291&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=430/10&td=ALLhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:329:0003:0035:EN:PDFhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-521_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1437_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1437_en.htm


5/29

5

C Y P R U S

General Statistics

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

However, Cypruss performance is the worst in itsreference group:39 Latvia had only 23 open infringements;Malta and Estonia had 36 each, Slovenia 46, and Luxembourg48. Cyprus closed 2011 with considerably more infringementsthan in 2010 (44) and 2009 (31). The following chart indicatesthe four areas where Cyprus was subject most frequently toinfringement procedures:

Rest of policies; 24

Environment; 11

Transport; 11

Internal Market; 8

Energy; 5

59 infringements against Cyprus

One case against Cyprus was brought before the Court in2011 (the same number as in 2010: the Commission claimedthat the restrictive provisions on the acquisition of secondaryresidences by EU citizens, which benefited from a five-yearmoratorium after Cyprus accession, should have beenrepealed.40 Within the reference group, no cases were broughtagainst Latvia and one each was brought against Estonia, Malta,Slovenia and Luxembourg.

In no case did the Commission refer Cyprus to the Courtfor the second time under Article 260(2) TFEU.


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

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

In no case did the Commission refer Cyprus to the Courtwith a request for financial sanctions (Article 260(3) TFEU)

due to late transposition of directives.

Complaints

The Commission received 79 complaints against Cyprus in2011, which is the eleventh-lowest figure in the EU-27.

They were concentrated in these areas: free movement ofpersons (expulsion safeguards, delays in issuing residencecards; 18 complaints), environment (detrimental impact ofinappropriate project assessments and improper functioning ofwaste facilities; 14) and indirect taxation (especially car taxes;12). In addition, citizens warned the Commission that theauthorities were refusing to recognise, for the purposes ofpension rights, the periods spent in foreign service by Cypriotcivil servants. Numerous complaints covered flaws in public

39 Member States with equal or close to equal voting weights in theCouncil; for Cyprus: Latvia, Malta, Slovenia, Estonia, andLuxembourg.

40 IP/11/1442

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


Cyprus joined EU Pilot in the first half of 2011 and the Cypriotauthorities were working on 23 newly opened files with theCommission in EU Pilot by the end of the year. This was thelowest EU Pilot caseload among the EU-27. Cypruss averageresponse time is on a par with the benchmark (70 days).

Some important infringement procedures were closedduring 2011, given that Cyprus: abolished the residencecondition for seafarers for access to the social securitysystem;41 adopted river basin management plans;42 justified therestrictions on the establishment of pharmacies with referenceto public health; and updated the national civil aviation securityprogramme.43

Important judgments

The Court delivered one judgment in 2011 on a public award

procedure for the construction of a power station in Vassilikos.The Court declared that, on the basis of the elements madeavailable to it, the Commission could not demonstrate that theCypriot authorities had not treated applicants equally and hadhindered the complaining applicant in resorting to legalremedies.44

Key infringements The free movement of persons is restricted in particular

by: disproportionately high fines and document costs; andno (or inadequate) transposition rules for the FreeMovement Directive45 (relating to spouses, dependants

and expulsion safeguards)46

Failure to designate sufficient Special Protection Areas

for endangered and migratory birds47 (only nine areaswere designated out of the sixteen locations that areproven to be important)

41 IP/10/1210 on the earlier reasoned opinion42

IP/10/1413on the earlier reasoned opinion43 IP/11/297 on the earlier reasoned opinion44 Commission v Cyprus, C-2009/25145 Directive 2004/38/EC46 IP/11/98147 IP/09/1793
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1442&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1442&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1442&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1442&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1442&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1413&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1413&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/297&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/297&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1413&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/297&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/297&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?pro=&lgrec=hu&nat=&oqp=&dates=&lg=&language=en&jur=C%2CT%2CF&cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&num=C-251%252F09&td=ALL&pcs=O&avg=&page=1&mahttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2004L0038:20110616:EN:PDFhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?pro=&lgrec=hu&nat=&oqp=&dates=&lg=&language=en&jur=C%2CT%2CF&cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&num=C-251%252F09&td=ALL&pcs=O&avg=&page=1&mahttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?pro=&lgrec=hu&nat=&oqp=&dates=&lg=&language=en&jur=C%2CT%2CF&cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&num=C-251%252F09&td=ALL&pcs=O&avg=&page=1&mahttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/981&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/981&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2004L0038:20110616:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2004L0038:20110616:EN:PDFhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/1793&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/1793&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/1793&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/1793&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/1793&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/1793&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/1793&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/1793&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/1793&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/981&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2004L0038:20110616:EN:PDFhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?pro=&lgrec=hu&nat=&oqp=&dates=&lg=&language=en&jur=C%2CT%2CF&cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&num=C-251%252F09&td=ALL&pcs=O&avg=&page=1&mahttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/297&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1413&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1210&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1442&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1442&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=fr


6/29

6

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

General Statistics

With 65 open infringements at the end of 2011, the CzechRepublic had the 11th highest number of infringements (alongwith Austria) among the EU-27.

This performance is around average in the CzechRepublics reference group:48 Romania had 47 openinfringements, Hungary 54, Netherlands and Portugal 71 and 84respectively, Belgium 117 and Greece 123. Czech Republicclosed the year with more infringements than in 2010 (48) and2009 (60). The following chart shows the three policy areaswhere the Czech Republic was most frequently subject toinfringement procedures:


Environment; 20

Transport; 14

Internal Market; 6

Four cases were taken to the Court against the Czech

Republic during 2011 (by contrast to the two during 2010). TheCommission contested the sales designation 'Pomaznkovmslo' (butter spread) as the milk-fat content was not highenough to be called butter ('mslo') under EU law;49 the failureto update biocides legislation;50 the incorrect application of

VAT grouping rules;51

and the erroneous implementation ofVAT rules for travel agents.52 Within the reference group, nocases were submitted against Romania or Hungary, there were3 cases against Portugal, 4 each against the Netherlands andGreece, and 6 against Belgium.

The Commission decided to refer the Czech Republic tothe Court for the second time under Article 260(2) TFEU, witha request for financial sanctions, because of non-conformity inthe implementation of the directive on occupational pensionfunds.53


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

The policy areas where the Czech Republic experiencedserious challenges in transposing EU directives areenvironment (10 late transposition infringements), transport (9)and internal market & services (8).

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

48 Member States with equal or close to equal voting weights in theCouncil; for Czech Republic: Romania, Hungary, the Netherlands,

Portugal, Belgium and Greece.49 IP/10/122450 IP/11/59151 IP/10/79552 IP/11/7653 IP/11/290

Complaints

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

Areas where the most irregularities were detected includeemployment (in particular the mandatory insurance requiredfrom labour agencies; 31 complaints), internal market(intellectual property rights and free provision of services; 10)and regional policy (fraudulent use of EU funds anddiscrimination in selection procedures; 8). Further complaintswere about inconsistencies in the field of renewable energy, thelack of environmental impact assessment and poor urban wastewater treatment.


At the end of 2011, the Commission was working on 73 openEU Pilot files with the Czech authorities, a regular caseload.The Czech Republic received 30 new EU Pilot dossiers fromthe Commission during 2011. The average response time in EUPilot (72 days) was slightly above the 10-week benchmark.

By taking into account the Commission's position, theCzech Republic took many necessary measures in 2011 toachieve compliance with EU law and to have the correspondinginfringements closed. For example, it demonstrated improvednational quality control on aviation security, modified itslegislation on the sale of consumer goods and relatedguarantees, designated all Special Protection Areas required bythe Birds Directive,54 amended its public procurement rules tocover certain military purchases,55 introduced equal taxtreatment for domestic and foreign insurance pension schemes56and adjusted the VAT rate for race horses to comply with theVAT Directive.

Important judgments

In a preliminary ruling, the Court interpreted the Brussels IRegulation57 on the applicable jurisdiction for the Czechjudiciary so that the plaintiff may launch legal proceedingsbefore the court that has jurisdiction according to thedefendants last known place of residence, if his/her currentresidence is unknown; however, this court remains obliged totake all necessary steps to locate the defendants current placeof residence.58

Key infringements Non-application of the working time rules to self-

employed drivers Residence cards are issued subject to proof of

accommodation; residence rights are not sufficientlyexplained to victims of domestic violence59

Incomplete transposition of the Renewable EnergyDirective60

54 IP/07/938 on the earlier reasoned opinion55

IP/10/1438 on the earlier Court referral56 IP/10/140657 Regulation44/200158 Hypoten banka, C-327/1059 IP/11/981 andIP/12/7560 IP 11/1446

65 infringements against the Czech Republic
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1224_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-591_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-591_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-795_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-795_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-76_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-795_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-290_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-290_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-290_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-290_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-290_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-290_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-290_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1438_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1438_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1406_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1406_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1406_en.htmhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2001R0044:20120314:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2001R0044:20120314:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2001R0044:20120314:EN:PDFhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=327/10&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=327/10&td=ALLhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/12/75&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/12/75&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=327/10&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=327/10&td=ALLhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1446&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1446&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1446&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/12/75&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/12/75&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/12/75&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1446&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1446&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1446&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1446&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1446&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1446&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/12/75&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/12/75&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=327/10&td=ALLhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2001R0044:20120314:EN:PDFhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1406_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1438_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/07/938&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-290_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-290_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-76_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-795_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-591_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1224_en.htm


7/29

7

D E NMA R K

General Statistics

The Commission had 37 open infringements against Denmarkat the end of 2011, which is the fifth-best result among theEU-27.

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


Transport; 9Environment; 6

Taxation; 5

Energy; 5

Three cases were taken to the Court against Denmarkduring 2011 (by contrast to one case during 2010). TheCommission contested: the failure to adopt river basinmanagement plans;62 the incorrect application of VAT groupingrules;63 and the exit tax levied on companies relocating theirheadquarters to another Member State.64 Within the reference

group, no cases were brought against Lithuania, one caseagainst Slovakia, and two each against Ireland and Finland.No decisions were taken by the Commission to refer

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


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

The policy areas where Denmark experienced seriouschallenges in transposing EU directives are transport andenergy (6 late transposition infringements in each area) andhealth & consumers (4).

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

Complaints

In 2011, the Commission received 77 complaints againstDenmark, which is the tenth-lowest figure in the EU-27.

Areas where the most irregularities were complainedinclude taxation (discriminatory taxes on cars, cross-borderworkers and pensions; 25 complaints), internal market (publicprocurement and services; 11), environment (permission formussel dredging in Natura 2000 sites; 10). Several Danish

61 Member States with equal or close to equal voting weights in theCouncil; forDenmark: Lithuania, Slovakia, Ireland and Finland.

62 IP/11/43863 IP/10/79564 IP/10/1565

nationals are worried about the potential legal barriers toreunification of their family upon returning to Denmark. TheCommission is also aware of concerns relating to protectionfrom ionising radiation.


At the end of 2011, the Commission and the Danish authoritieswere working on 84 files in EU Pilot, which counts as amedium caseload. Relatively few new dossiers (35) wereopened during 2011; however, the average EU Pilot responsetime for Denmark (81 days) was above the 10-week benchmark.

Upon Denmarks compliance with EU law, theCommission decided to discontinue in 2011 infringementspertaining to such matters as: the ban on certain energy drinks,refusals to reimburse medical expenses incurred in anotherMember State, infrequent monitoring under the nationalprogramme for the quality control of civil aviation security,improper assignment of the competences of the gender equalitybody and non-compliance of national implementing rules with

the directive on wild birds.65

Important judgments

There were no such judgments.

Key infringements Discriminatory treatment of Dutch sailing ships Inadequate environmental assessments under the Habitats

Directive66

65 Directive 2009/147/EC66 Directive 1992/43/EC

37 infringements against Denmark
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-438_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-795_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-795_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1565_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1565_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1565_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1565_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1565_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1565_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1565_en.htmhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1992L0043:20070101:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1992L0043:20070101:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1992L0043:20070101:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1992L0043:20070101:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1992L0043:20070101:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1992L0043:20070101:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1992L0043:20070101:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1992L0043:20070101:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1992L0043:20070101:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:020:0007:0025:EN:PDFhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1565_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1565_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-795_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-438_en.htm


8/29

8

E S T ON I A

General Statistics

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

Estonias performance (along with that of Malta) is alsoabove average in its reference group:67 Latvia had 23 openinfringements, Slovenia and Luxembourg 46 and 48respectively, and Cyprus 59. Estonia closed the year with fewerinfringements than in 2010 (40) but slightly more than in 2009(34). The following chart shows the three policy areas whereEstonia was most frequently subject to infringementprocedures:


Transport; 10

Internal Market; 7

Energy; 5

One case was brought before the Court against Estoniaduring 2011 (a notable decrease when compared with the 7cases submitted during 2010). Even in this case, in which theCommission claimed a lack of national laws on spatial datainfrastructure,68 Estonia adopted the necessary rules shortly

after the case had reached the Court. Within the reference group,no cases were filed against Latvia and only each against Malta,Slovenia, Luxembourg and Cyprus.

In no case did the Commission refer Estonia to the Courtfor the second time under Article 260(2) TFEU.


The Commission opened 28 infringement procedures againstEstonia for late transposition of various directives in 2011.Estonia faced 21 such procedures in 2010. Ranking as the 2nd inthe EU-27 (with Denmark and Ireland), this result is the secondbest in Estonias reference group (Latvia performed evenbetter).

The policy areas where Estonia experienced seriouschallenges in transposing EU directives are transport (9 latetransposition infringements), internal market & services (8) andenergy (5).

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

Complaints

Estonia received the least complaints of all the Member Statesin 2011: just 19.

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

67 Member States with equal or close to equal voting weights in theCouncil; for Estonia: Latvia, Malta, Slovenia, Luxembourg andCyprus.

68 IP/10/1566


At the end of 2011, the Commission and the Estonianauthorities were working on 30 open files, quite a light caseload.The Commission opened 19 new EU Pilot files on Estoniaduring 2011. Despite the moderate caseload, Estonia's averageresponse time in EU Pilot (72 days) is slightly above the 10-week benchmark.

Quite a few infringements were terminated during 2011 asa result of Estonias cooperation with the Commission.Examples of such successful action include: amendments to thenational rules to comply with EU consumer protection rules onadvertised guarantees; the effective opening of the electricitymarket;69 remedies for shortcomings in Estonian lawsimplementing the directive on integrated pollution preventionand control70 and new legislation complying with the directiveon capital requirements for the trading book and for re-securitisations and the supervisory review of remunerationpolicies.71

Important judgmentsThere were no such judgments.

Key infringements

No obligation for public authorities and transportoperators to purchase clean and energy-efficientvehicles72

Non-transposition of the directive on public procurementin the fields of defence and security73

69 IP/06/1768 on the earlier reasoned opinion70 Directive2008/1/EC71 Directive 2010/76/EU72 IP/11/72673 Directive 2009/81/EC

36 infringements against Estonia
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1566_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1566_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1566_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1566_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1566_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/1768&language=enhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:024:0008:0029:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:024:0008:0029:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:329:0003:0035:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:329:0003:0035:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:329:0003:0035:EN:PDFhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-726_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-726_en.htmhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:329:0003:0035:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:329:0003:0035:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:216:0076:0136:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:216:0076:0136:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:216:0076:0136:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:216:0076:0136:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:216:0076:0136:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:216:0076:0136:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:216:0076:0136:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:216:0076:0136:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:216:0076:0136:EN:PDFhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-726_en.htmhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:329:0003:0035:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:024:0008:0029:EN:PDFhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/1768&language=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1566_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1566_en.htm


9/29

9

F I N L AND

General Statistics

The Commission had 55 open infringements against Finland atthe end of 2011, which is the thirteenth-best result among theEU-27.However, Finland's performance is the worst in its referencegroup74: Lithuania had 36 open infringements, Denmark andSlovakia 37 and 41 respectively, and Ireland 42. Finland closedthe year with more infringements than in 2010 (42) and 2009(37). The following chart shows the three policy areas whereFinland was subject most frequently to infringementprocedures:


Transport; 13

Entreprise; 10

Internal Market; 8

Two Court cases were brought against Finland during

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

No decisions were taken by the Commission to refer

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


The Commission opened 62 infringement procedures againstFinland for late transposition of various directives in 2011.Finland faced 49 such procedures in 2010. Ranking 24th in theEU-27, this result is easily the poorest in Finlands referencegroup.

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

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

Complaints

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

Citizens and businesses pointed out possible errors in theareas of taxation (especially discrimination against cross-borderworkers; 11 complaints), internal market (particularly the freeprovision of services; 9) and fundamental rights (sexdiscrimination in pension schemes; 9). In addition complaintsaddressed illegal bird hunting and disputed the residencerequirement as an eligibility criteria for certain social securitybenefits.

74 Member States with equal or close to equal voting weights in theCouncil; for Finland: Lithuania, Denmark, Slovakia and Ireland.

75 IP/10/79576 IP/11/76


At the end of 2011, the Commission and the Finnish authoritieswere working on 57 open files in EU Pilot. This is deemed aregular caseload, including the 20 new dossiers theCommission opened on Finnish issues during 2011. Finlandbelongs to the 13 Member States whose average response timein EU Pilot (80 days) exceeds the 10-week benchmark.

The Commission was able to close a number ofinfringements because Finland ensured compliance with EUlaw. For example, Finland broadened the scope of its personaldata protection rules, achieved full compliance with thedirective on waste electrical and electronic equipment,77transposed fully the directive on capital requirements for thetrading book and for re-securitisations and the supervisoryreview of remuneration policies78 and applied the VATexemption for universal postal services as required by the VATdirective.79

Important judgments

There were no such judgments.

Key infringements

Failure to ensure enhanced consumer protection againsterrors in measuring instruments (such as householdmeters or petrol pumps)80

Non-application of the working time rules to self-employed drivers

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

Non-transposition of the directive on public procurementin the defence and security sector

82

77

Directive2002/96/EC78 Directive2010/76/EU79 Directive 2006/112/EC80 IP/11/111081 IP/10/52382 Directive 2009/81/EC

55 infringements against Finland
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-795_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-76_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-76_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-795_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-76_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-76_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-76_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-76_en.htmhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:329:0003:0035:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:329:0003:0035:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:329:0003:0035:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2006L0112:20110101:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2006L0112:20110101:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2006L0112:20110101:EN:PDFhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1110&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1110&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2006L0112:20110101:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2006L0112:20110101:EN:PDFhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/523&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/523&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:329:0003:0035:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:329:0003:0035:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:329:0003:0035:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:329:0003:0035:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:329:0003:0035:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:329:0003:0035:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:329:0003:0035:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:329:0003:0035:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:329:0003:0035:EN:PDFhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/523&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1110&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2006L0112:20110101:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:329:0003:0035:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:037:0024:0038:EN:PDFhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-76_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-76_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-795_en.htm


10/29

10

F RAN C E

General Statistics

The Commission had 95 open infringements against France atthe end of 2011, which is the fifth-highest number (togetherwith Poland) among the EU-27.

Frances performance is average in its reference group83:at the end of 2011, Germany and the UK had 76 openinfringements each, Spain had 99, and 135 were on-goingagainst Italy. France closed 2011 and 2010 with the samenumber of infringements (95), which was a slight increasecompared to 2009 (92). The following chart shows the fourpolicy areas with the most frequent infringement procedures:


Taxation; 18Environment; 15Internal Market; 13

Transport; 13

95 infringements against France

The Commission brought seven Court cases against

France (8 during 2010), including the sector-specific taximposed on telecommunication companies84 and the non-conformity of its energy tax system with the corresponding EUdirective.85 Within the reference group, no cases were broughtagainst Germany; there were 2 cases against the UK; 4 againstItaly; 6 against Spain and 7 against Poland.

In no case did the Commission refer France to the Courtfor the second time under Article 260(2) TFEU in 2011.

Transposition of directivesThe Commission opened 42 infringement procedures againstFrance during 2011 for late communication of nationalimplementing measures of various directives. France faced 15such procedures at the end of 2010. This is the twelfth- best inthe EU-27 and better than all Member States in the referencegroup, except for Germany.

The policy areas where France experienced seriouschallenges in transposing EU directives are transport andinternal market & services (9 late transposition infringementseach) and energy (5).

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

Complaints

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

Complaints focused on environment (e.g. inadequate or noimpact assessments: 56); taxation (e.g. foreign charities, exittax on companies transferring their headquarters to otherMember States, and the obligation on non-residents to appoint atax representative); internal market & services (e.g. publicprocurement: 30). Car registration and access for non-Frenchnationals to the CMU (sickness benefit scheme) also attractedseveral complaints.

83 Member States with equal or close to equal voting weights in theCouncil; for France: the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Spain andPoland.

84 IP/11/30985 IP/10/1575


France joined EU Pilot in September 2011. By the end of 2011the Commission had invited the French authorities to providean opinion on 53 new EU Pilot files. This high initial caseloadreflected in an average response time (84 days) above the target10-week benchmark.

By notifying its corrected measures implementing the FreeMovement Directive,86 France has satisfactorily addressed theproblem of repatriating Roma EU citizens. Other infringementsagainst France that the Commission was able to close due tocompliance during 2011 concerned: rules on the parallel importand repackaging of phytopharmaceutical products; VAT-ratefor bundled purchases of TV, internet and telephone services;and the trading book requirements and re-securitisations forcredit institutions.87

Important judgments

Reserving access to the profession of notary to French citizenswas deemed contrary to the right of establishment.88 The

treatment of asbestos-cement waste was found to beincompatible with the corresponding EU rules.89 The lack of aprogramme ensuring the strict protection of the Europeanhamster was also held to be unlawful.90

In addition, the Courts preliminary rulings guided theFrench judiciary in relation to the personal scope of EU productliability rules (Directive 85/374/EEC as amended)91 and thediscriminatory nature of granting the bonus cologique todemonstration vehicles registered abroad before their import toFrance.92

Key infringements Refusal to apply EU scrapie

93

control measures in favourof national rules94 Violation of EU rules on marketing wine spirits and wine

distillates95 Recovery of illegal state aid provided for the takeover of

firms in difficulties96 Refusal to grant jobseekers allowances to non-French EU

nationals Regulated gas prices for non-household users97 Channel tunnel: violation of rail transport rules aimed at

market opening and fair competition.98 Failing to comply with the Energy Tax Directive99 -

system for taxing electricity100 Sector-specific tax on electronic communication

services101

86 Directive2004/38/EC87 Directive2010/76/EU88 Commission v France,C-50/0889 Commission v France,C-515/1090 Commission v France,C-383/0991 Dutrueux and Caisseprimaire d'assurance maladie du Jura, C-495/1092 Bonnarde,C-443/1093 Scrapie is the mad cow disease equivalent for sheep and goats.94 IP/11/60195 IP/12/17996 Procedure under Article 260(2) TFEU due to France's failure to

comply with the Courts judgment in the case Commission v France,

C-214/0797 IP/12/54298 IP/11/109999 Directive 2003/96/EC100 IP/10/1575101 IP/11/309
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/309&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1575&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1575&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1575&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1575&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1575&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1575&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1575&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:329:0003:0035:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:329:0003:0035:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:329:0003:0035:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:329:0003:0035:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:329:0003:0035:EN:PDFhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-50/08&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-515/10&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-515/10&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-515/10&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-383/09&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-383/09&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-383/09&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-383/09&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-383/09&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-383/09&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-443/10&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-495/10&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-495/10&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-495/10&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-443/10&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-443/10&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-443/10&td=ALLhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/601&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/12/179&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/12/179&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/12/179&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/12/179&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=74274&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=106930http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-542_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-542_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1099&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1099&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1099&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2003L0096:20040501:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2003L0096:20040501:EN:PDFhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1575_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1575_en.htmhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2003L0096:20040501:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2003L0096:20040501:EN:PDFhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1309_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1309_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1309_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1309_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1309_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1309_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1309_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1309_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1309_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1575_en.htmhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2003L0096:20040501:EN:PDFhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1099&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-542_en.htmhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=74274&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=106930http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/12/179&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/601&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-443/10&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-495/10&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-383/09&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-515/10&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-50/08&td=ALLhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:329:0003:0035:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2004L0038:20110616:EN:PDFhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1575&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1575&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/309&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en


11/29

11

G E RMAN Y

General Statistics

The Commission had 76 open infringements against Germanyat the end of 2011, which is the eighth-highest number ofinfringements (along with the United Kingdom) among theEU-27.

However, Germanys performance (along with that of theUK) is the best in its reference group:102France and Poland had95 open infringements each, Spain 99 and Italy 135. Germanyclosed the year with fewer infringements than in 2010 (79) and2009 (90). The following chart shows the three policy areaswhere Germany was most frequently subject to infringementprocedures:

76 infringements against GermanyInternal market &

services; 20

Taxation & customs

union; 16Transport; 10

Other policies; 30

No cases were brought to the Court against Germany

during 2011 (by contrast to the 7 cases during 2010). Within thereference group, 2 cases were brought against the UK, 4 againstItaly, 6 against Spain and 7 against Poland and France.

The Commission decided to refer Germany to the Courtfor the second time under Article 260(2) TFEU in theVolkswagen case.103


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

The policy areas where Germany experienced seriouschallenges in transposing EU directives are transport (9 latetransposition infringements), internal market & services (5) andhome affairs (4).

The Commission referred Germany to the Court, with arequest for financial sanctions (Article 260(3) TFEU), due to

the late transposition of the Services Directive

104

, but the casehas been closed following compliance by Germany. Two casesrelated to railway transport105 were referred to the Court with aproposal for financial sanctions.

Complaints

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

The areas with the most alleged irregularities were internalmarket (especially public procurement and services; 69complaints), environment (damages to Natura 2000 sites; 47)and taxation (discrimination against cross-border workers,pension payments and dividends with cross-border elements;

102

Member States with equal or close to equal voting weights in theCouncil; for Germany: the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain andPoland.

103 IP/11/1444104 Directive 2006/123/EC105 Directives 2008/57/EC and 2008/110/EC

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


At the end of 2011, the Commission and the German authoritieswere working on 193 open files in EU Pilot. This counts as thethird highest caseload in the EU-27, even though a relativelymodest number of new dossiers (60) were opened during 2011.Despite the numerous on-going discussions, Germany achievedan average EU Pilot response time of 65 days, which is belowthe 10-week benchmark.

Of the infringements eliminated by Germany during 2011,the following are worth highlighting: inclusion of foreigninsurance periods when calculating old age pensions; changingthe financial assets valuation rules for insurance companies tocomply with EU norms; and reducing VAT exemptions for

postal services to fit into the limits set by the VAT Directive.

Important judgments

Allowing a de facto tax exemption for domestic dividendswhile taxing dividends paid to foreign shareholders was foundto be contrary to the free movement of capital.106 Making thegrant of benefits for disabled persons conditional upon aresidence in theLandwas declared as incompatible withRegulation 1408/71.107 The Court condemned Germany also forrefusing the Court of Auditors to carry out verifications in thefield of VAT cooperation (established by Regulation1798/2003).108

In addition, a number of preliminary judgments guided theGerman judiciary in the area of justice and fundamental rights.

The Court ruled that the five-year residence period, which is acondition for any permanent stay, must include terms spent inthe host country before the accession of the citizens MemberState;109 and that a registered partner in a same-sex lifepartnership is entitled to a supplementary retirement pension inthe same way as a married partner.110

Key infringements Trade barriers on CE-marked construction products111 Restrictions on family members rights protected by the

Free Movement Directive 112 Inappropriate management of electricity network

congestion and lack of transparency of cross-border tradedata on energy113

Late transposition of the directive on public procurementin the defence and security sector (2009/81/EC)

Discriminatory tax rules on hidden reserves114

106 Commission v Germany,C-284/09107 Commission v Germany,C-206/10108 Commission v Germany, C-539/09109

Ziolkowski and Szeja, C-424/10110 Jrgen Rmer v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg,C-147/08111 IP/11/713112 IP/11/981113 IP/10/836 andMEMO 10/275114 IP/11/1127
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1444&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1444&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=frhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:376:0036:0068:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:376:0036:0068:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:345:0062:0067:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:345:0062:0067:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:345:0062:0067:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:345:0062:0067:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:345:0062:0067:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:345:0062:0067:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:345:0062:0067:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:345:0062:0067:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:345:0062:0067:EN:PDFhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?pro=&lgrec=hu&nat=&oqp=&dates=&lg=&language=en&jur=C%2CT%2CF&cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&num=C-206%252F10&td=ALL&pcs=O&avg=&page=1&mahttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?pro=&lgrec=hu&nat=&oqp=&dates=&lg=&language=en&jur=C%2CT%2CF&cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&num=C-206%252F10&td=ALL&pcs=O&avg=&page=1&mahttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?pro=&lgrec=hu&nat=&oqp=&dates=&lg=&language=en&jur=C%2CT%2CF&cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&num=C-206%252F10&td=ALL&pcs=O&avg=&page=1&mahttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-539/09&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-539/09&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-539/09&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?pro=&lgrec=hu&nat=&oqp=&dates=&lg=&language=en&jur=C%2CT%2CF&cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&num=C-424%252F10&td=ALL&pcs=O&avg=&page=1&mahttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?pro=&lgrec=hu&nat=&oqp=&dates=&lg=&language=en&jur=C%2CT%2CF&cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&num=C-424%252F10&td=ALL&pcs=O&avg=&page=1&mahttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-539/09&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-539/09&td=ALLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?pro=&lgrec=hu&nat=&oqp=&dates=&lg=&language=en&jur=C%2CT%2CF&cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&num=C-424%252F10&td=ALL&pcs=O&avg=&page=1&mahttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?pro=&lgrec=hu&nat=&oqp=&dates=&lg=&language=en&jur=C%2CT%2CF&cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&num=C-424%252F10&td=ALL&pcs=O&avg=&page=1&mahttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?pro=&lgrec=hu&nat=&oqp=&dates=&lg=&language=en&jur=C%2CT%2CF&cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&num=C-424%252F10&td=ALL&pcs=O&avg=&page=1&mahttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?referen

AB TR Report

Documents

Transcript of AB TR Report