This new provision aims to solve the persistent and widespread problem of late transposition of directives. The Commission, as guardian of the EU`s legality, has made the fight against late transposition a priority and welcomed it. It explained how it would use the mechanism in two communications in 2011 and 2017. Access to Oxford Academic content is often made possible through subscriptions and institutional purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access the content in one of the following ways: After many years of uncertainty, this judgment defined how to interpret the notion of non-notification of measures transposing a directive. Extending situations of partial notification within the scope of article 260 para. 3 TFEU, it has chosen to strengthen the criminal dimension of the proceedings. This new enforcement tool should also help the Commission to reduce the processing burden of an ever-increasing number of late transposition cases. Access to a journal for members of society is done in one of the following ways: 5. The application of fundamental values in the EU – current challenges and possible solutions. The procedure follows a series of steps provided for in Article 258 TFEU, each ending with a formal decision: Table 1 Classification of variables with regard to their impact on compliance 31 courts whose decisions cannot be appealed are even required to appeal to the CJEU in case of doubts of interpretation.
Following that judgment, the Commission has made it clear to all Member States that they are considered to be in breach of their notification obligation if they do not specify in a sufficiently clear and precise manner which provisions of national legislation transpose which provision of the Directive. Where a Member State provides such information but, after examination, it appears that certain transposition measures are manifestly absent or do not cover the entire territory of the Member State, the Commission shall prosecute the infringement in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU. 27 Case C-494/01 Commission v Ireland [2005] ECR I-3331. Belgium made further progress during the legal proceedings and informed the Commission of the new transposition measures. However, at the time of the hearing, the Commission considered that the transposition of certain provisions by the Brussels-Capital Region was still pending and maintained its application. Consequently, the procedure continued and enabled the Court to rule on the applicability of Article 260(3) to the case and to give its very first interpretation of that enforcement mechanism. In the previous chapter, an explanation of the TFEU infringement procedure was given. However, before initiating infringement proceedings, the Commission must monitor the actual level of compliance by the Member States concerned. In this context, the Commission is often referred to as a “guardian”, in which law enforcement actors – i.e. the CJEU – are involved when it aims to challenge the implementation outcomes of national actors.28 It is argued that monitoring and enforcement is not just a legal task, but also, to a large extent, a matter of political interests. 35 Stine Andersen, The Enforcement of EU Law – The Role of the European Commission (Oxford University Press 2012), p.
32. In the pre-litigation phase, Belgium has managed to transpose a large part of the Directive. However, the Commission stated that it had not received notification of the transposition measures of the relevant parts of the Directive after the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, which is a formal request made by the Commission to the Member State during the pre-litigation phase before referring the matter to the Court of Justice. It then decided to bring an action before the Court under Article 260(3) TFEU for Belgium to be ordered to pay an appropriate daily penalty payment. The political costs for the Member States concerned should not be underestimated if the infringement procedure initiated becomes public. States generally have a vested interest in being seen as sincere and politically credible. Whatever the final outcome of the infringement procedure, the perception of a potential infringer undoubtedly undermines political bargaining power and increases the reputational costs of non-compliance. Therefore, the phenomenon of denunciation and shame is an important lever for the Commission in terms of enforcement policy. In this context too, it should be borne in mind that, in many cases, the accused Member States ultimately bow to the Commission`s legal opinion in order to avoid an imminent judgment. Many proceedings therefore end without trial because of the punitive effect of the simple accusation.
Some companies use Oxford Academic`s personal accounts to grant access to their members. See below. It took almost ten years for the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU, Court of Justice) to apply Article 260(3) TFEU. This allows it to impose a financial penalty on an EU Member State after the conclusion of the first infringement procedure (Article 258 TFEU) if measures transposing a directive are not notified. In its long-awaited judgment in Case C-543/17, Commission v Belgium, the Court for the first time formulated a detailed interpretation of the notification obligation, which includes not only `non-notification` but also `partial notification` of transposition measures. This judgment will have important practical implications for the work of public authorities responsible for harmonising EU law. It also provides the EU with a new instrument to put pressure on Member States to transpose directives in a timely manner. Finally, the judgment categorically rejected the argument that cases of non-compliance with transposition could be assessed in the light of Article 260(3) TFEU. The Court insisted that cases of non-notification and non-transposition must be distinguished from cases of incorrect transposition.