1 / 24

Stosowanie prawa UE – perspektywa Polski i Komisji Europejskiej Arkadiusz Pluciński

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).

sarai
Download Presentation

Stosowanie prawa UE – perspektywa Polski i Komisji Europejskiej Arkadiusz Pluciński

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Stosowanie prawa UE – perspektywa Polski i Komisji Europejskiej Arkadiusz Pluciński MSZ, Departament Prawa UE

  2. Plan • Unijny cykl legislacyjny a wdrażanie prawa UE • Skargi jako źródło naruszenia prawa • Praktyczne aspekty postępowania o naruszenie prawa (art. 258; 260 TFUE)

  3. Cykl legislacyjny NaruszeniaKomunikacja z KEPrzyjęcie nowej dyrektywy Ewaluacja Propozycja Komisji Consultations Impact Assessment Interservice Consultation Negotiation in EP/ Council Application by MS Transposition

  4. 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 explanatorydocuments ( OJ C 369, 17.12.2011, p. 14and 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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)

  8. 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

  9. 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’

  10. 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 filesresultedin the launch of formal infringement proceedings, out of the total of assessed 238 files (in 85% no infringement proceedings were started)

  11. 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 the volume of new formal infringements • Overview of the management of issues related to the application of EU law

  12. Skargi(obywatele, organizacje, podmiotygospodarcze) Brak komunikacji(dyrektywy, sankcjefinansowezwiązane z I wyrokiem Trybunału) Własne dochodzenie Komisji Źródła postepowania o naruszenie (art. 258 TFEU)

  13. Rejestracja skargi do 6 msc Decyzja o wycofaniu sprawy ok2 msc LFN 260/ 2 odesłanie do Trybunału 18 msc Orzeczenie 2 lata (?) Etapy postepowania o naruszenie prawa UE Uzasadniona opinia 4-6 msc List formalny 258 4-6 msc Przekazanie sprawy do Trybunału 2 msc II wyrok 2 lata (?) EU Pilot do 6 msc Brak notyfikacji 1-2 msc Faza przed-sądowa (sprawy art. 260.3 do 12 msc) Własne dochodzenie 2-3 lat Faza sądowa 14

  14. Postępowanie o naruszenie Article 260 TFEU Article 258 TFEU • Letter of formal notice • deadline: 2 months • Reasoned opinion • deadline: 2 months • Referral to the Court • Financial sanctions for failure to communicate transposition measures (Lisbon Treaty) • Letter of formal notice • NO reasoned opinion Second referral to the Court • Financial sanctions (all cases) Closure • at any time, if the Member State remedies the infringement

  15. 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

  16. 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/

  17. 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/

  18. 2nd referralto 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

  19. 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

  20. Financial sanctions (2) Apenalty payment, which has a persuasive function: Basic rate * seriousness * duration * national factor Basicrate: 650 € / day; Seriousness: factor 1 <> 20 Duration: factor between 1 and 3 (0.10 points per month's delayfollowing 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 1stjudgment and compliance or 2ndjudgment Basic rate 220 € / day Minimum lump sum: 186000 € (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 €)

  21. Cases by MS in October 2013 (1343 active cases)

  22. Polskie naruszenia

  23. 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]

More Related