Stosowanie prawa UE –
perspektywa Polski i Komisji
Europejskiej
Arkadiusz Pluciński
MSZ, 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)
Cykl legislacyjny
Consultations
Impact
Assessment
Interservice
Consultation
Negotiation in EP/
Council
Application by MS
Transposition
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-infringement
Overall 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
infringements
•
Overview of the management of issues related to
the application of EU law
the
volume
of
new
formal
Źródła postepowania o naruszenie
(art. 258 TFEU)
•
Skargi (obywatele, organizacje, podmioty
gospodarcze)
•
Brak komunikacji (dyrektywy, sankcje finansowe
związane z I wyrokiem Trybunału)
•
Własne dochodzenie Komisji
Etapy postepowania o naruszenie prawa UE
Rejestracja
skargi
Własne
dochodzenie
do 6 msc
2-3 lat
Przekazanie
sprawy do
Trybunału
2 msc
EU Pilot
do 6 msc
Brak
notyfikacji
1-2 msc
List formalny
258
4-6 msc
Orzeczenie
2 lata (?)
LFN 260/ 2 odesłanie
do Trybunału
ok 2 msc
18 msc
Uzasadniona
opinia
II wyrok
4-6 msc
2 lata (?)
Faza przed-sądowa
Decyzja o
wycofaniu
sprawy
Faza sądowa
(sprawy art. 260.3 do 12 msc)
14
Postępowanie o naruszenie
Article 258 TFEU
• Letter of formal notice
Article 260 TFEU
• Letter of formal notice
• deadline: 2 months
• Reasoned opinion
• NO reasoned opinion
• deadline: 2 months
• Referral to the Court
• Financial sanctions for failure
to communicate transposition
measures (Lisbon Treaty)
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 € / day
Minimum lump sum: 186 000 € (MT), 4.171.000€ (PL) , 11.467.000 € (DE),
Examples: 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)
120
Active infringement proceedings per Member State
100
80
60
40
20
0
EL
BE
ES
FR
PL
DE UK
PT
AT RO BG
CZ
NL
SI
FI
HU
SE
SK
IE
CY
LU
DK
LT
EE MT LV
Number of proceedings 107 90
IT
87
86
73
73
59
48
44
39
39
39
38
35
35
35
34
33
31
28
23
22
51
44
43
22
21
HR
3
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]