The European Union’s 27 member countries have to stick to the rules set by policymakers or risk being hit with costly legal action. This is where infringement procedures come into play.
As the guardian of the EU treaties, the European Commission is tasked with making sure national governments stay in line, make changes to laws when needed and generally stick to the EU’s codex.
But this is not always possible, either technically or politically. Some countries may take too long to get in line or fail to take note of EU laws correctly.
If an investigation by the Commission decides that the law has been broken then an infringement procedure can be launched. This does not mean immediate legal action and grants countries a bit of a grace period to make things right.
The first step is a formal letter, requesting further information from the offending country. Maybe there is a justification for the rule breach the Commission was unaware of. Governments get two months in which to make their case.
If that letter does not receive a satisfactory reply in time, the infringement process moves on to the next stage: a reasoned opinion. In this document, the Commission states in full why it believes the rules have been broken and what needs to be rectified.
After another two months, if a compromise has not been brokered, then the Commission can decide to refer the case to the European Court of Justice. Financial penalties can be applied while that case is being deliberated as well.
For example, Poland was hit with massive daily fines when it was embroiled in a dispute over rule of law measures, as well as a separate case linked to environmental permits at a coal mine on the Czech border.
The Commission is allowed to take these fines out of that country’s EU budget allocation, preventing governments from simply refusing to pay up.
This month, the Commission announced its latest infringement package: 38 letters and 58 opinions were issued, while 18 cases were referred to the ECJ. However, 83 cases were also closed, after the EU executive decided the right measures had been implemented.
May’s cases involved areas as diverse as landfill rules, water permits, European arrest warrants and motorway tolling.
