Stosowanie prawa UE – perspektywa Polski i Komisji Europejskiej

Arkadiusz PlucińskiMSZ, Departament Prawa UE

Plan

• Unijny cykl legislacyjny a wdrażanie prawa UE • Skargi jako źródło naruszenia prawa• Praktyczne aspekty postępowania o naruszenie prawa

(art. 258; 260 TFUE)

Application by MS

Transposition

Negotiation in EP/ Council

Consultations

Impact Assessment

Interservice Consultation

Cykl legislacyjny

Explanatory documents and implementation plans

• From Jan 2014 a need to accompany transposition measures by explanatory documents (ED)

- A necessity for the Commission to follow-up on transposition

- Policy based on political agreement/no infringement will be launched for not providing ED

- Implementation plan provides for assistance to MS and it is now available together with the Commission legislative proposal

Joint Political Declarations on explanatory documents ( OJ C 369, 17.12.2011, p. 14 and OJ C 369, 17.12.2011, p. 15)

Example of IP: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SWD:2013:0270:FIN:EN:PDF

Skargi (1)

• Complainants have no formal role in the infringement procedure, BUT…

• …Complaints are important for helping to detect potential infringements

• 2012 Commission Communication (COM(2012) 154) contains rules on complaint-handling and lists administrative guarantees for complainants

Skargi (2)

Anyone may lodge a complaint without proof of interest

Infringement-related complaints must:

• be sent by a citizen or an organization (anonymous letters are not registered as complaints)

• concern the application of EU law

• identify a responsible Member State

• be written in an EU official language

Skargi (3)Administrative guarantees for complainants:

• Registration of a complaint in CHAP (central Commission registry for complaints)

• Acknowledgement of receipt is sent within 15 working days of the receipt of the complaint

• 12-month time limit within which the Commission decides, as a general rule, whether it initiates an infringement procedure

• Complainant has possibility to meet with the Commission in order to present his/her arguments

• Requirement to give prior notice should the Commission intend to close a case, thus allowing the complainant to raise new arguments within 4 weeks (pre-closure letter and final closure letter)

Skargi (4)

• Commission enjoys a wide discretionary power in deciding whether or not to follow-up on a complaint

• If the Commission decides to follow-up on the complaint and contact the Member State concerned for further information, the case is transferred to EU Pilot

Pre-infringementOverall objective

• To clarify the situation (fact or law) with the Member State, or

• To find a solution for the problem without an infringement procedure

• If no solution compatible with EU law is found, to launch without delay a formal infringement procedure

Main instrument: EU Pilot

Framework for dialogue with the Member States supported by IT platform

EU Pilot streamlines the process which existed before and replaces ‘administrative letters’

EU Pilot

Established in 2008; Polska przyłączyła do systemu 1 stycznia 2011

All Member States participate in EU Pilot

Standard deadlines:

• At the Commission’s request, the Member State delivers its response in 10 weeks

• The Commission evaluates the response in further 10 weeks

Success rate and results:

• In 10.2013 statistics (PL) – 35 files resulted in the launch of formal infringement proceedings, out of the total of assessed 238 files (in 85% no infringement proceedings were started)

EU Pilot

Success rate and results:

• 2012 statistics – in 72% of files, replies of the Member States were assessed as acceptable (no infringement proceedings were started)

• Reduction of the volume of new formal infringements

• Overview of the management of issues related to the application of EU law

• Skargi (obywatele, organizacje, podmioty gospodarcze)

• Brak komunikacji (dyrektywy, sankcje finansowe związane z I wyrokiem Trybunału)

• Własne dochodzenie Komisji

Źródła postepowania o naruszenie (art. 258 TFEU)

14

Faza sądowa

Przekazanie sprawy do Trybunału

2 msc

Orzeczenie

2 lata (?)

LFN 260/ 2 odesłanie do Trybunału

18 msc

Faza przed-sądowa

(sprawy art. 260.3 do 12 msc)

II wyrok

2 lata (?)

Uzasadniona opinia

4-6 msc

List formalny 258

4-6 msc

Rejestracja skargi

do 6 msc

EU Pilot

do 6 msc

Brak notyfikacji

1-2 msc

Etapy postepowania o naruszenie prawa UE

Decyzja o wycofaniu sprawy

ok 2 msc

Własne dochodzenie

2-3 lat

Postępowanie o naruszenie

Article 258 TFEU

• Letter of formal notice• deadline: 2 months

• Reasoned opinion• deadline: 2 months

• Referral to the Court• Financial sanctions for failure to

communicate transposition measures (Lisbon Treaty)

Article 260 TFEU

• Letter of formal notice

• NO reasoned opinion

Second referral to the Court• Financial sanctions (all cases)

Closure• at any time, if the Member State remedies the infringement

Letter of formal notice

•The Commission requests observations on an alleged infringement

•Drafted by the lead DG (LS and associated DGs to agree)

•Deadline for the Member State to respond: 2 months (it can be extended upon request and under certain conditions)

•Limited information to the public

http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/infringements/infringements_decisions_en.htm

Reasoned Opinion

• The Commission sets its position in more detail with regard to alleged infringement following the Member State’s response or lack of response to the letter of formal notice

• Reasoned opinion defines the subject-matter of the dispute

• If new grievances have to be added, the Commission cannot proceed with a reasoned opinion but has to adopt a complementary letter of formal notice instead

• Drafted by the lead DG (LS and assoc. DGs to agree)

• Deadline for the Member State to respond: 2 months (it can be extended upon request and under certain conditions)

• Press release: http://europa.eu/rapid/

1st referral to the court Opens litigation procedure

Reasoned opinion and application to the Court must be based on the same objections (the subject matter of the dispute cannot be extended or altered)

Lead service drafts synopsis for the Legal Service

Drafting and presentation of the application to the Court by the Legal Service

Press release: http://europa.eu/rapid/

2nd referral to the court

Subject-matter is the alleged non-compliance of the Member State with the Court’s first judgment (non or bad execution of the judgement)

Initiated by the “pre-260” letter

Letter of formal notice

No reasoned opinion (abolished by Lisbon Treaty)

Main relevant Commission documents: Commission Communication [SEC(2005) 1658]; Commission Communication [SEC(2010) 1371], Implementation of Article 260(3) TFEU

Financial sanctions (1)• Financial sanctions may be requested in all cases

(complaint, own initiative, non-communication)

Ważna różnica:• Article 260 (3) TFEU:

• Special procedure: non-communication cases only• A financial sanction can be proposed with the first referral of the case to

the Court of Justice under Art. 258 TFEU

• Art 260 (2) TFEU: • 'Normal' procedure: all cases• Letter of formal notice, then second referral to the Court with a proposal to

impose financial sanctions

Financial sanctions (2)A penalty payment, which has a persuasive function:

Basic rate * seriousness * duration * national factor

Basic rate: 650 € / day; Seriousness: factor 1 <> 20

Duration: factor between 1 and 3 (0.10 points per month's delay following delivery of initial judgment (Art. 258)

«N» factor (national): 0,35 (MT); 7,75 (PL); 21,29 (DE) [GDP + number of votes in Council)OR/AND

A lump sum, which has a dissuasive function:Basic rate * seriousness * national factor * number of days between 1st judgment and compliance or 2nd judgment

Basic rate 220 € / dayMinimum lump sum: 186 000 € (MT), 4.171.000€ (PL) , 11.467.000 € (DE),

ExamplesExamples: C-304/02, Commission v France: penalty payment of 57,76 million € / six months, lump sum of 20 million €

Commission v Greece, C-407/09 (lump sum 3 million €)

Commission v Italy, C-496/09 (lump sum  30 million €)

Cases by MS in October 2013 (1343 active cases)

Polskie naruszenia

Podsumowanie• Problemy zw. z wdrożeniem prawa UE powinny być

rozwiązywane na etapie tworzenia/transpozycji prawa• Skarga od obywateli/podmiotów podstawowym źródłem

wiedzy o naruszeniu prawa dla KE• KE decyduje czy i kiedy rozpocząć/zamknąć

postępowanie• Preferowane polubowne rozstrzyganie sporu• Państwa członkowskie są zainteresowane przewlekaniem

postępowania• Brak interpretacji Trybunału co do zakresu zastosowania

art. 260.3 TFUE [non-comm v. non-conformity]