Infringements
This report provides statistics on Single Market infringement proceedings that were open on 1 December 2020. All comparisons are made with the figures for the last reporting date, 1 December 2019, when the UK was still a Member State of the European Union. This should be kept in mind while reading the present report.
To make the Single Market work for all, common EU rules are put into place, eliminating barriers and facilitating the circulation of goods, persons, services and capital. These rules can only deliver the intended results if they are properly implemented and enforced throughout the EU.
To ensure that Single Market rules are complied with and that citizens’ rights are enforced, is a shared responsibility of the Member States and the Commission. Member States are required to comply with EU rules they have agreed to as European legislators. They have to detect and remedy violations of Single Market rules in their own territory. The Commission, in accordance with Article 17(1) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), is obliged to ensure that all Member States implement and comply with Single Market rules. The Commission can take legal action, by initiating an infringement procedure in line with Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), against any EU Member State that fails to implement EU law. The Commission may refer the issue to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which can impose financial penalties in certain cases.
Monitoring infringements helps to make the Single Market work better. It highlights the efforts that Member States are making to ensure that Single Market law is implemented properly and encourages them to improve their performance.
Infringements and the Single Market – why does it matter?
In March 2019, the European Council invited the Commission to develop a long-term action plan for better implementation and enforcement of Single Market rules, in close cooperation with the Member States. On 10 March 2020, The Commission adopted the so-called Enforcement action plan.
The Enforcement action plan seeks to maximise the effectiveness and efficiency of the EU’s compliance and enforcement policy. The commitment of the Commission and the Member States to increase their joint efforts in order to achieve this objective was articulated in 22 concrete actions. These actions range from increasing the knowledge and awareness of the Single Market rules and making the best use of preventive mechanisms, up to strengthening enforcement on the ground and improving the handling of infringements.
The overall focus lies on stronger cooperation between Member States and the Commission, also to ensure that Single Market directives are properly transposed and Single Market regulations applied. The aim is to prevent infringements on Single Market rules and to find swift solutions where needed.
As a follow up to the long-term action plan, the Single Market Enforcement Task Force (SMET) was set up to offer a high level forum where the Commission and Member States collaboratively commit to devise and implement solutions for Single Market obstacles that are rooted in enforcement or implementation deficiencies. At the first SMET meeting in June 2020, Commissioner Breton said: ‘The coronavirus pandemic has clearly shown how interrelated our economies are. As the EU embarks on a clear path to recovery, we need to work collectively to remove existing barriers and prevent new ones from arising in our Single Market. A well-functioning Single Market is our best asset to help European businesses find new opportunities, strengthen key ecosystems of our economy and support European solidarity.’
For further information on the Enforcement action plan and SMET, see in ‘More information’.
Key messages
- The number of Single Market-related infringements has risen to 837 pending cases, thus rising one of its highest levels in the past 10 years. This increasing trend should be flattened by the more systematical use of the EU Pilot dialogue as announced in Action 21 of the March 2020 Long-term action plan for better implementation and enforcement of Single Market rules.
- With 58 cases (almost double the EU average), Spain has the highest number of pending cases. It is followed by Italy and Greece (with respectively 50 and 49 cases).
- The sectors with most Single Market-related infringement cases are environment (30%), transport (21%) and services including the free movement of professionals (13%).
- The average case duration is now 37.3 months, up from 34.8 months one year ago. This increase is probably due to the extraordinary measures the Commission took to help alleviate the strain on national administrations, in particular in extending the Member States’ deadlines for replies to on-going cases.
- The correct implementation of the Single Market rules will ensure its smooth-functioning and renders it an essential tool for the economic recovery of the EU and for consolidating Europe’s resilience and competitiveness. In this context, it appears essential that the national authorities devote sufficient resources to the application of the Single Market acquis and take measures to guarantee the required administrative capacity.
Overall performance (all 4 indicators combined)
Map legend
A Member State’s performance across all indicators is calculated by scoring each of the 4 indicators listed in the chart “Performance per indicators” below as follows:
- red = -1
- yellow = 0
- green = +1
The colours on the map represent the sum of these scores:
- green: 2 or higher = above average
- yellow: -1, 0 or 1 = average
- red: -2 or lower = below average
- Seven Member States have improved on their December 2019 performance (Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Croatia, Hungary, the Netherlands and Slovakia) while performance has worsened in 4 Member States (Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechia and Romania). The remaining 16 Member States have matched their previous performance.
- Three Member States performed above the EU average: Denmark, Estonia and Croatia. There were none last year.
- Among the Member States whose performance stayed at the same level as in December 2019, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Austria, Poland and Portugal remained in the red zone. For some of them (Greece, Spain and Poland), this situation has been going on for several years.
- Of the Member States given a ‘red card’ in December 2019, Hungary and Slovakia have succeeded in tackling the issue, and are now around the EU average. Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechia and Romania are now below the EU average, as are another 8 Member States that were already in the red zone a year ago.
- Despite the growing number of infringement cases (837, up from 800 in 2019), the number of red cards has not increased since last year. The return of green cards is also a promising sign that the overall handling of infringements is improving.
Performance indicators
| [1] Number of pending infringement proceedings & [3] Duration of infringement proceedings (in months) | < average | average ± 10% | > average |
|---|---|---|---|
| [2] Change over the last 12 months (change in the number of infringement cases) | decrease | no change | increase |
| [4] Duration since Court’s ruling (in months) | < 8 months | 8-18 months | > 18 months |
This table combines the most relevant indicators in order to provide a better overview of Member States' compliance with the implementation and application of Internal Market rules. The table shows that only a small number of Member States perform better than the EU average when all the indicators are taken into account: Denmark, Estonia and Croatia.
Indicator [1]: Number of pending infringement proceedings
Note: This indicator shows the number of open infringements in different Member States compared with the EU average. It is not necessarily conclusive evidence of the degree of compliance with Single Market rules. This is because the number of infringements depends on several factors, including the size of the market in individual Member States.
Pending infringement proceedings on 1 December 2020. Spark line of the chart shows the development of pending infringement proceedings since December 2017. Bar gives the value in December 2020. EU-27 average is 31.
Main findings
Total number of cases: 837 (up from 800 in December 2019)
Average cases per Member State: 31 (up from 29)
Member States where the number of cases has risen: 18 (down from 24)
Member States where the number of cases has fallen: 5 (up from 2)
Member States with no change: 4 (up from 2)
- The number of pending infringements has risen for the third consecutive year, returning to one of its highest levels in the past 10 years. The total number of cases peaked at 837, 37 more than in the previous Scoreboard (+4.6%). 133 cases (of the 800 cases pending 12 months ago) have since been resolved. Particular progress has been made on environment (32 cases closed), taxation (22 cases) and transport (20 cases).
- Besides the resolution of 133 cases, the last year has seen the launch of 198 new cases (not including those for late transposition), which were still pending on 1 December 2020. Of these, 68 concerned transport (34%), 63 environment (32%) and 29 energy (15%).
- 73 of the new cases involved incorrect transposition of directives (37%), while 29 had to do with their incorrect application (15%). The remaining 96 involved applying regulations, decisions and the Treaties incorrectly and now count for 48% of all cases (up from 23% last year).
- The 2 Member States with most pending infringement cases are the same as a year ago: Spain, with 58 cases (almost double the EU average), followed by Italy (50). Greece (49 cases) and Germany (48) traded places. The 5 Member States with most infringements account for almost 30% of all cases.
- Five Member States cut their number of cases by 1 to 4 cases: Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands and Poland. Unfortunately, some Member States recorded far more spectacular increases in infringements. The biggest increases were in Bulgaria (+13 cases), Belgium (+10), Slovenia (+9) and Luxembourg (+7).
Indicator [2]: Change over the last 12 months
Change in the number of pending infringement proceedings since December 2019 (July 2020 edition of the Single Market Scoreboard).
Main finding
The number of infringement cases is increasing in most Member States (18 out of 27).
- While the number of infringement cases continues to rise at EU level, one third of the Member States (9) cut or maintain their number of cases (up from 4 last year). The Member State that has cut most cases – in absolute numbers – since December 2019 is Hungary (-4), followed by Ireland (-3). The biggest increases were in Belgium (+10) and Bulgaria (+13).
- The highest percentage increases were in Luxembourg (+64%), Slovenia (+47%), Bulgaria (+45%) and Lithuania (+42%). Clearly, these changes should be viewed in relation to the total number of cases in each Member State (Indicator [1]).
- In comparison with December 2017, when the numbers were at their lowest, the highest percentage increases are in Latvia (+214%), Estonia and Malta (+200%), Bulgaria (+180%) and Luxembourg (+100%) while Belgium, Czechia and Germany increased their percentage moderately (less than 10%). Only 4 Member States have a decreased or stable percentage (Ireland, Portugal, Slovakia and Sweden).
Indicator [3]: Duration of infringement proceedings
Pending infringement cases not yet sent to the Court (i.e. at the pre-litigation stage) on 1 December 2020 (737 cases). Average duration is calculated in months from when the letter of formal notice is sent.
Main finding
New increase in average case duration: now 37.3months, up from 34.8 in December2019.
- Rapid action to bring to an end breaches of Internal Market rules is vital for EU citizens and businesses who wish to exercise their rights in the Single Market. However, after a 13% decrease between December 2017 and December 2019, the average case duration is now 37.3 months, up from 34.8 months one year ago. This increase is probably due to the extraordinary measures the Commission took to help alleviate the strain on national administrations, in particular in extending the Member States’ deadlines for replies to on-going cases.
- The average case duration has fallen in only 8 Member States,compared with 18 in December 2019. There is no particularly impressive reduction to mention. The reductions are between 3.9 months (for Latvia) and 0.2 month (for Italy).
- In 19 Member States (up from 9 a year ago), the average duration of cases is longer than 1 year ago. For those Member States, duration has increased by 5.5 months on average, but increases are higher in 10 Member States, in particular Hungary (+13.1 months), Poland (+9.6 months), Denmark, Estonia and Romania (+7.5 months). Although the goal is always to keep infringement proceedings as short as possible, an increase in duration is not necessarily negative. Generally, this happens when Member States resolve a number of quite recent cases. At the same time, as the remaining cases get older, they weigh more heavily on the calculation of the average duration.
- The December 2016 Communication on EU Law: Better results through better application underlined the importance of close cooperation between the Commission and the Member States in enforcing EU law. This includes limiting any distortion of Single Market rules as much as possible. As the table above shows, cases involving Single Market law take just under 3 years to resolve on average. An average maximum of 36 months (to either close a case or send it to the Court) seems a reasonable initial target for all Member States to meet, as most are already below this threshold. This issue was also reflected in the March 2020 Enforcement action plan that proposes setting ambitious additional indicators.
Indicator [4]: Time taken to comply with Court ruling
Cases closed between 1 December 2015 and 30 November 2020 where the Court has ruled against a Member State (96 cases). This graph shows the average time (in months) between the delivery of the Court’s judgment and the closure of the case confirming that the Member State has complied with the judgment (‘compliance time’).
Main finding
The average time lag is higher than it has ever been.
- Article 260 paragraph 1, as interpreted by the Court of Justice, requires that after a Court ruling establishing a breach of EU legislation, the Member State concerned takes swift action to ensure compliance with EU law.
- The average time Member States take to comply with a Court of Justice ruling continues to increase (to 31.7 months, from 29.5 months a year ago and 21 months 5 years ago). For 9 Member States (up from 7 in December 2019), it is now over 3 years. The Communication on EU Law: Better results through better application notes that infringements must be dealt with promptly. An average maximum duration of 18 months for the Member States to comply with a Court judgement could be proposed as a first incentive threshold.
- Seven Member States (Ireland, Spain, Italy, Hungary, Malta, Austria and Poland) cut their average compliance time (the same number as in December 2019). The most impressive reduction was in Malta (-24.7 months).
- Nine Member States had longer average compliance times than a year ago. The one with the biggest increase is Bulgaria (+44.5 months), followed by Slovenia (+29.6 months) and France (+13.2 months). This statistic is based on cases closed in the last 5 years. Taking a case closed over 5 years ago out of the statistics, or adding a recently closed one, can have a major impact on the results, especially for Member States with only a few cases. Considering the significant increase in the Bulgarian time lag: one case concerning the distortion of the market for electronic/ broadcasting services, which took 5 years to solve, was closed within the last year while a case in the transport sector that was closed more than 5 years ago (16.2 months after the Court’s ruling) is no longer part of the calculation.
- The time taken to comply with the Court’s rulings is not necessarily linked to their number. Poland (13 rulings) and the Netherlands (3 rulings) are lagging by a similar amount (around 25 months). Sweden and Italy all have 2 rulings but very different compliance times (65.4 and 16.4 months respectively).
EEA EFTA countries
Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway are also subject to Single Market rules under the EEA Agreement. They are monitored by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.
However, there is a time lag between when a legal act is adopted or repealed in the EU and when it is added to or removed from the EEA Agreement. The body of EU law applicable in Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway may thus differ from that applicable in the EU. This should be borne in mind when comparing the Single Market Scoreboard and the EEA Scoreboard.
Number of pending cases
Infringement cases pending on 1 December 2020 arising from the incorrect transposition or application of Single Market rules. EEA EFTA average is 17.
Main findings
Total cases open: 165 (up from 121 in December 2019), of which:
- incorrect transposition/application: 51 (see figure above) = 31% of all open infringement cases (Iceland 19, Liechtenstein 6 and Norway 26)
- late transposition (directives): 13 (Iceland 7, Liechtenstein 4 and Norway 2) = 8%
- late implementation* (regulations): 101 (Iceland 94 and Norway 7) = 61%
* Under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, regulations incorporated into the Agreement ‘shall as such be made part of the internal legal order’ of the EEA EFTA countries. In Liechtenstein, however, regulations are directly applicable and do not have to be implemented.
- 51 infringement cases have to do with incorrect transposition or application. This represents an increase of 3 cases within a year (+6%). However, the total number of infringement cases has drastically increased from 121 to165 (+36%).
- There is a decrease in the number of cases concerning the late transposition of directives: 13 pending infringement cases, compared to 20 in December2019 (-35%).
- Cases dealing with the incorporation of regulations almost doubled, from 53 to 101 (+91%).
- Problematic sectors: transport, right of establishment, social security, financial services and persons-other.
Trends
Changes in numbers of infringement cases
- The current report shows a new rise in the number of infringement proceedings (5% within the last year; 26% since December 2017 when the numbers were at their lowest). This is the third consecutive increase.
- EU Pilot, the structured problem-solving dialogue between the Commission and Member States, roughly halved the number of cases between its launch in April 2008 and December 2016. In its Communication on EU Law: Better results through better application, the Commission recognised the effectiveness of EU Pilot, but noted that dialogue with national authorities was continuing for much longer than is reasonable and decided to launch infringement procedures without systematically relying on EU Pilot’s problem-solving mechanism. The consequence was a strong rise in the number of formal infringement cases.
- More recently, the Commission corresponded to Member States’ request to re-establish a wider use of the EU Pilot mechanism as an early problem-solving mechanism. The March 2020 Enforcement action planthereforecalls for a more systematic use of EU Pilot, with a clear timetable, and in those cases where a rapid solution is likely to be found. A widespread use of EU Pilot should flatten the increasing number of infringement cases.
- In the same time, the pandemic also had an impact on the work related to the application of EU law and on the use of compliance tools such as the dialogue with Member States.
Evolution of infringement cases broken down by Member State and EEA EFTA countries
Facts and figures
Cases by sector
This table shows the total number of infringement cases for each Member State on 1 December 2020, broken down by sector. Sectors with few infringement proceedings are included in ‘other sectors’. The highlighted figures show the sector(s) with most infringement cases in each Member State.
(#) Total number of infringement cases by sector
| Member State | Air transport (80) | Atmospheric pollution (69) | Chemical substances, industrial and biotechnological hazards (24) | Direct taxation (32) | Energy efficiency (23) | Energy markets and networks (35) | Environmental impact (30) | Financial services (30)
| Free movement of goods and market surveillance (21) | Free movement of professionals (53) | Indirect taxation (33) | Nuclear safety and radioactive waste (30) | Public procurement (27) | Road and rail transport (24) | Services (52) | Sustainable and intelligent transport (33) | Transport safety (33) | Waste management (39) | Water protection and management (60) | Other fields (109) | TOTAL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spain | 4 | 3 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 10 | 10 | 58 | ||
| Italy | 4 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 50 | ||
| Greece | 4 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 49 | ||
| Germany | 3 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 48 | |||
| Bulgaria | 3 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 42 | |||
| France | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 39 | ||||||
| Poland | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 39 | |||
| Belgium | 4 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 38 | |||||||
| Portugal | 5 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 37 | |||
| Romania | 2 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 37 | |||||
| Austria | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 35 | ||||
| Hungary | 3 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 32 | ||
| Czechia | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 31 | |||
| Slovenia | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 28 | |||
| Slovakia | 4 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 27 | |||||||
| Croatia | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 26 | ||
| Malta | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 24 | |||||
| Netherlands | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 24 | ||||
| Sweden | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 24 | |||||||
| Ireland | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 23 | ||||||||
| Cyprus | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 23 | |||||||
| Latvia | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 22 | ||||||
| Denmark | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 19 | |||||||||
| Luxembourg | 3 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 18 | |||||||||
| Lithuania | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 17 | |||||||||
| Finland | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 15 | ||||||||||
| Estonia | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 12 |
Main findings
Sectors with most infringement cases
- Environment – 30% of all cases (especially atmospheric pollution, water protection & management and waste management)
- Transport – 21% (especially air transport, sustainable & intelligent transport and transport safety)
- Services including free movement of professionals – 13%
- Energy – 11% (equally distributed between energy efficiency, energy markets & networks and nuclear safety & radioactive waste)
Problematic sectors by Member State
- Environment – Slovenia and Greece (43% of all cases), Slovakia and Sweden (37%), Italy and France (36%)
- Transport – Portugal (35% of all cases), Belgium (34%), Cyprus (30%)
- Taxation – Luxembourg (22% of all cases), Germany (21%)
Average duration by sector
Pending infringement cases not yet sent to the Court (i.e. still in the pre-litigation phase) on 1 December 2020 (737 cases), broken down by sectors with at least 20 cases. Average duration is calculated in months from when the letter of formal notice is sent.
(#) = number of cases in the sector
The duration of air transport cases is inflated by factors outside the control of either the national authorities or the Commission. Since it has not been possible to make any progress in any direction on most of the cases in this sector, it was decided not to include the sector in the below figure.
Main findings
Longest average duration (in months)
- Indirect taxation (up from 37.9 months to 58.8)
- Direct taxation (stable, from 45 months to 44.9)
- Atmospheric pollution (down from 49.3 months to 40.1)
- Waste management (up from 15.8 months to 35.3)
- Water protection and management (down from 38.4 months to 34.4)
The comment under ‘Indicator [3] - Duration of infringement proceedings’ above on the increase in case duration by Member State is also relevant to case duration by sector. When a substantial number of quite recent cases are resolved (or if no new cases are launched), the remaining older cases have bigger impact on the calculation of the average duration. This is certainly the case for indirect taxation and waste management.
Types of cases
Number of pending infringement cases open for late or incorrect transposition of Single Market directives, plus the number of cases open for incorrect application of rules – situation on 1 December 2020 (1423 cases).
Main findings
- 64% of cases involve late or incorrect transposition of directives (up from 58% in December 2019)
- 82% of cases involve directives (up from 82%), while 15% concern regulations, decisions and Treaty articles (down from 19%)
- The number of pending infringement cases for late transposition has strongly increased within a year. This is mainly due to the higher number of Single Market-related directives to be transposed by the Member States: 35 in 2019 and 51 in 2020. Member States have difficulty in transposing directives within the agreed deadline and this leads to the systematic launch of infringement procedures for non (timely) communication of national transposition measures. For more on this see ‘Facts & figures - Focus on short overdue directives’ in the ‘Transposition’ governance tool.
- The number of pending infringement cases for late transposition (586) is much higher than the current number (290) of missing transpositions and transpositions declared partial by the Member States (or by a College decision). This is because the Commission needs time to assess the completeness of the measures lately notified, and, if applicable, to close non-communication proceedings. For more on this see ‘Indicator [1] - Transposition deficit’ in the ‘Transposition’ governance tool.
- Good cooperation between Member States and the Commission, and the use of compliance promotion tools such as explanatory documents, implementation plans, workshops and sectoral dialogues can facilitate the complete and correct transposition of a directive into national legislation. This in turn can reduce the number of pending infringement cases.
- In its judgment of 8 July 2019 in Case C-543/17, Commission v Belgium, the Court of Justice refers to the obligation of the Member States not only to notify transposition measures as such, but also to supply sufficiently clear and precise information as to which provisions of national law transpose which provisions of a directive. This should also avoid the launching of a number of infringement cases (for further information on the outcome of the judgment in Case C-543/17, see in ‘More information.
More information
Single Market legislation includes acts and Treaty provisions considered to have an impact on the functioning of the internal market, as defined in Article 26(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). This includes the four freedoms (freedom of movement of persons, goods, services and capital across borders within the EU), and supporting policies with a direct impact on the Single Market, such as taxation, employment, culture, social policy, education, public health, energy, consumer protection, transport, environment (except nature protection), and the information society and media.
This document does not include cases of late transposition (known as ‘non-communication cases’) – except in the pie chart entitled ‘Types of cases’. This is to avoid such cases being counted twice, as they are already covered in the ‘Transposition’ governance tool.
The Commission always initiates infringement proceedings if a Member State has not transposed an EU directive correctly or on time. It may also initiate proceedings if it considers that a Member State is applying Single Market rules incorrectly. Infringement proceedings start when the Commission sends a letter of formal notice to the Member State concerned. However, only the Court of Justice can rule definitively that a breach of EU law has occurred.
In March 2019, the European Council invited the Commission to develop a long-term action plan for better implementation and enforcement of Single Market rules, in close cooperation with the Member States. Since then, Member States have repeatedly stressed their commitment to stronger enforcement, for instance in a letter signed by all Member States and submitted at the Coreper II meeting on 29 November 2019.
In January 2020, 14 Member States addressed to the Commission a joint position paper ‘Strengthening the Single Market through dialogue on implementation, application and enforcement of EU law’. It said that ‘Single Market rules are of economic importance for businesses, citizens and the EU economy at large. However, a lack of clarity, consistence, inadequate implementation, poor enforcement and lack of compliance undermine the EU’s credibility and effectiveness. […] We believe that, next to enhancing the quality of the Single Market acquis, improving implementation and securing compliance with Single Market rules should remain one of the priorities of any future strategy for the Single Market.’
On 10 March 2020, the Long-term action plan for better implementation and enforcement of single market rules - the so-called Enforcement action plan - addresses Member States’ concerns regarding this issue. It is the expression of a renewed partnership between Member States and the Commission which seeks to maximise the effectiveness and efficiency of the EU’s compliance and enforcement policy. The commitment of the Commission and the Member States to increase their joint efforts in order to achieve this objective was articulated in the 22 concrete actions of the Enforcement action plan. These actions range from increasing the knowledge and awareness of Single Market rules and making the best use of preventive mechanisms, up to strengthening enforcement on the ground and improving the handling of infringements.
The overall focus lies on stronger cooperation between Member States and the Commission, also to ensure that Single Market directives are properly transposed and Single Market regulations applied. The aim is to prevent infringements on Single Market rules and to find swift solutions where needed.
The adoption of the Enforcement action plan coincided with the emergence of the first wave of the Covid-19 pandemic. The negative consequences of the crisis brought the importance and the general interest of proper compliance and enforcement of Single Market rules even more to the fore. At the same time, the pandemic also had an impact on the work related to the application of EU law and on the use of compliance tools such as the dialogue with Member States. At the European Council of 26 March 2020 Europe's leaders gave clear guidance to remove all internal bans or restrictions to the free movement of goods.
As a follow-up to the Long-term action plan, the Single Market Enforcement Task Force (SMET) was set up to offer a high level forum where the Commission and Member States collaboratively commit to devise and implement solutions for Single Market obstacles that are rooted in enforcement or implementation deficiencies. The work of the new Task Force was kick-started in April 2020 in light of the urgency of a number of issues hampering the correct functioning of the Single Market. These include intra-EU export restrictions of vital protective, medical and medicinal supplies, border controls and the need to increase production of essential equipment (Report [PDF])
With its judgment of 8 July 2019 in Case C-543/17, Commission v Belgium, the Court of Justice clarified the scope of Article 260(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) by stating that its sanction mechanism may also be applied in case of a partial failure to adopt and to communicate the transposition measures. In this context, the Court refers to the obligation of the Member States not only to notify transposition measures as such, but also to supply sufficiently clear and precise information as to which provisions of national law transpose which provisions of a directive. In the absence of such indications and in full respect of the principle of proportionality, the Commission can continue to pursue an infringement procedure based on Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU.
On 16 July 2020, the Court of Justice reconfirmed its position in rulings C-549/18, Commission v Romania, and C-550/18, Commission v Ireland, and clarified further the calculation and imposition of daily penalties and lump sums for the non-communication cases. Consequently, the Commission proposals under article 260(3) TFEU are binding as regards the maximum amount of the penalty. In the context of the calculation of the lump sum, the Court clarified that the calculation of the duration of the infringement starts from the transposition deadline of the Directive.
Here is more information on the infringement procedures.