the infringement procedures – fines for non-compliance*
DESCRIPTION
The infringement procedures – fines for non-compliance*. Dr. Günter Wilms LL.M. Member of the European Commission’s Legal Service * The opinions expressed are personal and do not represent the ones of the Commission. I.Introduction. EU community of law - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1
The infringement procedures – fines for non-
compliance*
Dr. Günter Wilms LL.M.Member of the European Commission’s Legal
Service
*The opinions expressed are personal and do not represent
the ones of the Commission
2
I. Introduction
• EU community of law
• System of legal protection of the essence (f.i.: judgment of 3 September 2008, case C-402/05 P und C-415/05 P. Kadi/Council and Commission, para. 281)
3
I. Introduction• Role of the Court of Justice:
– Ensure that the law is observed (Article 19 TEU)
• Article 17 TEU → the Commission “guardian of the Treaties”
Article 258 TFEU :→ 1st infringement procedure
Article 260 TFEU: → 2nd infringement procedure, in case of non/bad execution of a judgment
4
II. Infringement Procedure, GeneralPre-litigation phase:
- Opening of the case (ex officio or following a complaint)- Pilot Phase- Letter of Formal Notice- Reasoned Opinion
Litigation phase:• 1st Infringement: Art. 258 TFEU
• 2nd Infringement: Art. 260 TFEU
5
II. Infringement Procedure, General:
Pre-litigation phase• Framework: Art. 4(3) TEU: obligation of MS to
cooperate with the Commission
• Letter of Formal Notice
• Reasoned Opinion– defines the subject-matter of the dispute – fixes a time limit within which the MS must
comply (2 months)
• Sets the frame (time-wise and content-wise) for the litigation phase
6
II. Infringement Procedure, GeneralLitigation Phase:
• Written (application, defence, reply, rejoinder) andoral (hearing)
If MS condemned: • (Art. 260(1) TFEU, special expression of duty to
cooperate loyally Art. 4(3) TEU):
– MS must take the necessary measures to comply with the judgement immediately
7
Environment and taxation account for almost half of the infringement proceedings
10 cases = 1.0%
15 cases = 1.5%
17 cases = 1.7%
27 cases = 2.7%
28 cases = 2.8%
30 cases = 3.0%
30 cases = 3.0%
31 cases = 3.1%
34 cases = 3.4%
36 cases = 3.6%
41 cases = 4.1%
41 cases = 4.1%
44 cases = 4.4%
48 cases = 4.8%
52 cases = 5.2%
54 cases = 5.4%
55 cases= 5.5%
58 cases = 5.8%
66 cases = 6.6%
102 cases = 10.2%
132 cases = 13.2%
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Maritime transport
Free movement of capital
Financial services
Information society and media
Environmental impact
Free movement of goods and market surveillance
Inland transport
Working rights and conditions
Atmospheric pollution
Free movement of professionals
Social security schemes and free movement of workers
Health and consumers
Justice (incl. Union citizenship and equal treatment)
Public procurement
Energy markets and networks
Services
Waste management
Air transport
Water protection and management
Indirect taxation
Direct taxation
Number of pending cases
8
Number of infringement proceedings by Member States
101 81 79 75 71 54 50 46 44 43 35 35 31 24 22 22 21 21 17 14 13 12 10171821240
25
50
75
100
BE EL IT ES FR PT DE UK PL NL IE SE AT BG HU RO SK CZ LU DK MT CY SI FI LV EE LT
Num
ber o
f pen
ding
case
s
red = increase in the number of pending cases since November 2010 (in Scoreboard n°22)dotted lines = decrease in the number of pending cases since November 2010 (in Scoreboard n°22)
EU average: 37 pending cases.
EFTA
16 1020
5
10
15
20
NO IS LI
9
III. Second Infringement: Sanctions• Sanctions for failure to comply with the first
judgment: the Art. 260 TFEU procedure
– Case law
– Calculation of lump sums and penalty payments
• Changes introduced by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union : new Art. 260 (3) TFEU
10
III. Second Infringement: Art. 260 (2) TFEU Failure to comply
• Pre-litigation
– No reasoned opinion
– Commission shall specify the amount of the lump sum or penalty payment
– Must be appropriate in the circumstances
11
III. Second Infringement: Art. 260(3) TFEU New
• Failure to notify measures transposing a directive
• Commission may propose penalty payment or lump sum already in “first infringement”
• Court bound by the Commission’s proposal as a ceiling
12
III. Second Infringement: History
• Until 2002 the COM asked the Court only to impose daily penalty payments
• Result: MS complied only at a late stage
• Purpose of financial sanctions was re-examined
13
III. Second Infringement: Purpose
Objectives of two sanctions → complementary:
• Penalty payment (Persuasive function):→ end an infringement ASAP after the 2nd
judgment
• Lump sum (Dissuasive function)→ effects on public and private interests
caused by the failure to comply with the 1st judgement
14
III. Second Infringement: Precedents
• C-304/02 COM v France cumulative use:
- Breach of Community law - has continued for a long period and - is inclined to persist (par. 82)
- In the concrete case:
• Penalty payment of EUR 57.761.250 for each period of 6 months
• Lump sum of EUR 20.000.000
15
III. Second Infringement:Lessons learned
• Practical consequences of C-304/02 COM v France:
- COM includes now, in general, in its applications to the Court a specification of:
» both the penalty payment by day of delay after the delivery of the judgement under Art. 260 TFEU
» and a lump sum penalising the continuation of the infringement between the first judgement and the one delivered under Art. 260 TFEU
16
III. Second Infringement: Communications by the Commission
• Purpose of the communications
– Legal certainty
– Proportionality and equal treatment
– Deterrent effect
→ encourage early compliance
17
Calculation of sanctions(SEC 2011/1024 of 01/09/2011; principles: SEC 2005/1658 of 09/12/2005)
• Criteria:1. Seriousness of the infringement
1. 2. Duration of the infringement2. 3. Sanction deterrent for further infringements
3. Respect of proportionality principle (in particular)• Sanction has to be appropriate in case of partial compliance
Progress made towards compliance must be taken into account
(several infringements separate sanctions; reduction for progress made)
18
Calculation of sanctions(SEC 2011/1024 of 01/09/2011; principles: SEC 2005/1658 of 09/12/2005)
• Standard flat rates:• for daily penalty payments:
• 630€/day x coeff. for seriousness from 1 to 20 x coeff. for duration between 1 and 3x factor ‘n’(→ GNP&votes in Council)
• for lump sum:• 208€/day x coeff. for seriousness from 1 to 20
x factor ‘n’(→ GNP&votes in Council)x number of days between 1st
judgment and compliance or 2nd judgment • Minimum lump sum:• Between 314.000€ (EST) and 11120.000€ (GER)
19
NEW ART. 260(3) TFEU
• Raison d’être
• Stronger incentive to transpose directives within deadlines
• Help EU citizens to enjoy the rights conferred by these directives at an earlier stage
• Respect for the legislator
20
Infringement proceeding for non-conformity as percentage of Internal Market directives (as of 1 May 2011)All statistics from: SEC(2011) 1128 final Internal Market Scoreboard n°23, 29.9.2011
0.2
%
0.3
%
0.3
%
0.3
%
0.5
%
0.5
%
0.5
%
0.5
%
0.5
%
0.6
%
0.7
%
0.7
%
0.8
%
0.8
%
0.8
%
0.9
%
0.9
%
0.9
%
1.0
%
1.0
%
1.0
%
1.1
%
1.2
%
1.5
%
1.6
%
1.6
%
0.1
%
0%
1%
2%
CY MT FI NL RO LV LT DK EE LU BG AT IE DE HU SI SK SE CZ ES PT UK EL FR BE IT PL
EU average: 0.8%
21
NEW ART. 260(3) TFEU
• Features of this instrument:
Already in first infringement lump sum and / or penalty payment may be imposed
Court will not exceed the amount specified by the Com.
22
NEW ART. 260(3) TFEU
• Communication on the Implementation of Art. 260(3) TFEU [O.J. C 12 of 15/01/2011 p. 1]
• Same principles as Art. 260(2) TFEU
• 2 possible cases:
– Total failure to notify transposition measures– Partial notifications of these measures
23
NEW ART. 260(3) TFEU
• Coefficient of duration:
– Starting point: day following the expiry of the transposition period
• Proposal of the COM is not binding for the Court
• But: Court cannot go beyond
24
Case Parties Substance Sanction imposed
C-387/97 Com./Greece Waste24 20.000 Euro per day
C-287/01 Com./Spain Quality of bathing waters 624.150 Euro per cent for affected bathing waters
C-304/02 Com./France Prohibition to catch small fish 57.761.250 Euro per 6 months of non-compliance and 20.000.000 Euro lump sum
C-177/04 Com./France Non-transposition of product safety directive
31.650 Euro per day of non-transposition
C-119/04 Com./Italy Foreign language teachers Condemned for non-compliance but no sanction
C-503/04 Com./Germany Waste treatment Braunschweig
Condemned for non-compliance but no sanction
C-70/06 Com./Portugal Public procurement 19.392 Euro per day of non-compliance
C-121/07 Com./France GMOs 10.000.000 Euro lump sum
C-369/07 Com./Greece Subsidies fpr Olympic Airways 16.000 Euro per day of non-compliance and2.000.000 Euro lump sum
C-457/07 Com./Portugal Free circulation of construction products
Rejected
C-568/07 Com./Greece Optician-stores 1.000.000 Euro lump sum
C-109/08 Com./Greece Gambling machines 31.536 Euro per day of non-compliance and3.000.000 Euro lump sum
C-407/09 Com./Greece Compensation of crime victims 3.000.000 Euro lump sum
C-469/09 Com./Italy Recovery of illegal State aid • Penalty payment 30.000.000 Euro per 6 months x % of unlawful aid not recovered 30.000.000 Euro lump sum
25
Average duration of infringement proceedings (from one year to almost three years)
34.7
33.2
30.8
29.8
29.1
29.1
28.4
28.4
27.9
27.1
26.9
26.2
26.1
24.7
23.8
22.7
22.4
21.7
20.5
20.0
19.9
19.7
17.1
15.4
15.0
14.1
11.5
0
10
20
30
FI10
CZ16
DK19
IE24
DE36
UK42
PT30
SE28
NL35
FR58
HU20
ES57
PL35
EL63
BE85
LT10
IT65
EE11
MT14
SK21
BG24
AT18
SI14
LV13
RO22
CY15
LU15
Number of cases per Member State
Dura
tion s
ince s
endin
g of le
tter
of for
mal n
otice
(in m
onths
)
EU average: 24.7 months
26
Cases from most Member States are still open more than 12 months after the Court ruling
24.2
22.4
21.1
20.6
18.2
17.3
16.2
16 15.9
14.6
14.2
14 14 12.1
10.4
9.8
9 6.1
4.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
FR28
ES41
IE17
AT18
PT14
IT52
EL26
NL13
LU21
BE18
SE10
DE28
UK20
FI12
DK3
PL6
LT2
SK1
MT2
Number of cases
Dur
atio
n be
twee
n ju
dgem
ent
of t
he C
ourt
and
clo
sure
(in
mon
ths)
EU average= 17.4 months
27
CLOSING STATEMENT
• For it is only through a legally stable environment, based on the rule of law,
democratic principles and fundamental rights, that the confidence of citizens, of partners and
investors can be gained and upheld.
Commission President Barroso, Plenary debate of the EPStrasbourg, 18th January 2012