March infringements package: key decisions

This article is brought to you in association with the European Commission.

Overview by policy area

In its regular package of infringement decisions, the European Commission pursues legal action against Member States for failing to comply with their obligations under EU law. These decisions, covering various sectors and EU policy areas, aim to ensure the proper application of EU law for the benefit of citizens and businesses.

The key decisions taken by the Commission are presented below and grouped by policy area. The Commission is also closing 91 cases in which the issues with the Member States concerned have been solved without the Commission needing to pursue the procedure further.

For more information on the EU infringement procedure, see the full Q&A. For more detail on the history of a case, you can consult the infringement decisions’ register.

1. Environment

(For more information: Maciej Berestecki – Tel.: +32 2 296 64 83; Maëlys Dreux – Tel.: +32 229 54673)

Letter of formal notice

Commission calls on ESTONIA to correctly transpose EU legislation on medium combustion plants
The European Commission decided to open an infringement procedure by sending a letter of formal notice to Estonia (INFR(2024)2278)for failing to correctly transpose the Directive on limiting emissions of certain pollutants into the air from medium combustion plants (Directive (EU) 2015/2193). This Directive aims to reduce air pollution by setting emission limit values for medium combustion plants. These plants are used for a wide variety of applications including electricity generation, domestic or residential heating and cooling, and providing heat or steam for industrial processes. They are a significant source of emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and dust. Respecting EU rules on emission limit values and air quality standards is key to effectively protect human health and safeguard the natural environment. Estonia has failed to transpose some of the Directive’s obligations (for instance certain requirements concerning the role of responsible authorities, or concerning the periods of start-up and shut-down of medium combustion plants). The Commission is therefore sending a letter of formal notice to Estonia, which now has two months to respond and address the shortcomings raised by the Commission. In the absence of a satisfactory response, the Commission may decide to issue a reasoned opinion.

2. Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs

(For more information: Lea Zuber – Tel.: +32 2 295 62 98; Federica Miccoli – Tel.: +32 229-58300)

Letter of formal notice

Commission calls on ITALY to ensure compliance with EU rules on free movement of goods
The European Commission decided to open an infringement procedure by sending a letter of formal notice to Italy (INFR(2025)4000) for failing to address the incompatibility of its labelling requirements with Articles 34-36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Italy introduced an obligation to affix on consumer products a specific indication informing that the product’s quantity has been reduced while its packaging remains unchanged, leading to an increase in the price per unit. While the Commission acknowledges the importance of informing consumers about such changes, requiring this information to be displayed directly on each concerned product does not seem proportionate. National labelling requirements constitute a major internal market barrier and seriously undermine the free movement of goods. The Commission considers that the Italian authorities have not provided sufficient evidence concerning the proportionality of the measure, as other less restrictive options are available (e.g. displaying the same information near the products concerned). According to the Commission, Italy is also in breach of the Single Market Transparency Directive (Directive (EU) 2015/1535) since the measure was adopted during the standstill period following Italy’s notification of the draft law and without considering the detailed opinion issued by the Commission. The Commission is therefore sending a letter of formal notice to Italy, which now has two months to respond and address the shortcomings raised by the Commission. In the absence of a satisfactory response, the Commission may decide to issue a reasoned opinion.

3. Migration, Home Affairs and Security Union

(For more information: Markus Lammert – Tel.: +32 2 296 75 33; Elettra Di Massa – Tel.: +32 2 298 21 61)

Letter of formal notice

Commission calls on HUNGARY to correctly transpose certain provisions of the Firearms Directive   
The European Commission decided to open an infringement procedure by sending a letter of formal notice to Hungary (INFR(2025)2004) for failing to correctly transpose certain provisions of Directive (EU) 2021/555 on the control of the acquisition and possession of weapons (Firearms Directive) and the Commission Implementing Directive (EU) 2019/69 on alarm and signal weapons. The Firearms Directive sets common minimum standards on the acquisition, possession, and commercial exchange of civilian firearms, for example firearms used for sport shooting and hunting. It also sets high standards of security and protection against criminal acts and illicit trafficking of firearms. Hungary had until 14 December 2019 to transpose the Firearms Directive into national law. The Implementing Directive sets technical specifications for alarm and signal weapons (which only discharge blank ammunition or irritants) to better prevent their illegal conversion into lethal firearms. The deadline for Member States to transpose this Implementing Directive was 17 January 2020. The Commission has identified conformity issues concerning the lifecycle of firearms, ammunition and alarm and signal weapons, technical specifications as well as criminal sanctions. The Commission is therefore sending a letter of formal notice to Hungary, which now has two months to respond and address the shortcomings raised by the Commission. In the absence of a satisfactory response, the Commission may decide to issue a reasoned opinion.

4. Justice

(For more information: Markus Lammert – Tel.: +32 2 296 75 33; Yuliya Matsyk – Tel.: +32 2 226 27 16)

(For more information on ‘Equality’: Eva Hrnčířová – Tel.: +32 2 298 84 33; Daniel Puglisi – Tel.: +32 2 296 91 40)

Letter of formal notice and additional letter of formal notice

Commission calls on FRANCE to comply with EU rules on effective insolvency protection for package travellers
The European Commission decided to open an infringement procedure by sending a letter of formal notice to France (INFR(2025)2003) for failure to correctly transpose the Package Travel Directive (Directive 2015/2302/EU). The Directive requires organisers of travel packages to provide a guarantee ensuring refunds and repatriation for travellers in the event of the organiser’s insolvency. This protection must cover both direct sales and sales of packages via retailers, such as travel agencies. Travellers must be protected regardless of their residence, or the Member State where the package was sold. French legislation states that the retailers are liable for the performance of a package holiday sold to a consumer in addition to the organiser of the package. However, the Commission considers that French legislation does not sufficiently guarantee the required protection of travellers when a package is sold via a retailer in another Member State or when the French organiser becomes insolvent. The Commission is therefore sending a letter of formal notice to France, which now has two months to respond and address the shortcomings raised by the Commission. In the absence of a satisfactory response, the Commission may decide to issue a reasoned opinion.

Commission calls on POLAND to comply with EU rules on free movement of persons within the EU as regards extended family members
The European Commission decided to send an additional letter of formal notice to Poland (INFR(2011)2074) for incorrectly transposing the Free Movement Directive (Directive 2004/38/EC). The Directive requires Member States to allow and facilitate the entry and residence of extended family members of EU citizens. Under EU law, these family members then have the same rights as immediate family members. However, under Polish law, extended family members who are EU citizens are subject to additional conditions to acquire a right of permanent residence, compared to immediate family members. In addition, extended family members who are third-country nationals are subject to rules of general immigration law, for example, they only obtain the right to take up employment with a working permit. Following recent case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union clarifying the rights of extended family members and having analysed legislative amendments notified by Poland so far, the Commission considers that further provisions of the Directive are being incorrectly transposed by Poland. The Commission is therefore sending an additional letter of formal notice to Poland, which now has two months to respond and address the shortcomings raised by the Commission. In the absence of a satisfactory response, the Commission may decide to issue a reasoned opinion.

Reasoned opinions and additional reasoned opinion

Commission calls on CZECHIA, GERMANY, CROATIA and LATVIA to correctly transpose the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant  
Today, the European Commission decided to send a reasoned opinion to Czechia (INFR(2020)2312), Germany (INFR(2020)2361), Croatia (INFR(2021)2111) and Latvia (INFR(2021)2239) for failing to comply with the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA). The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) is a simplified cross-border judicial procedure to surrender a requested person for the purpose of prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order. Operational since 1 January 2004, the European Arrest Warrant has replaced the lengthy extradition procedures that existed between EU Member States. The Commission sent letters of formal notice to Czechia, Germany, Croatia and Latvia in 2021, as well as additional letters of formal notice to Czechia in 2023 and Germany, Croatia and Latvia in 2024. After analysing their replies, the Commission concluded that these four Member States failed to correctly transpose into their national law certain provisions of the Framework Decision. Czechia failed to fully transpose the provisions related to the situation pending the decision on surrender, as well as the privilege and immunity. Germany failed to fully transpose the provisions related to the competing international obligations and those related to the optional and mandatory grounds for refusal, the competent executing judicial authority, the renunciation of entitlement to specialty rule, the decision in the event of multiple requests, the privileges and immunities, the situation pending the decision on surrender and the transit. Croatia failed to correctly transpose the provisions related to the guarantees to be given by the issuing Member State in particular cases, and to the situation pending the decision on surrender. Latvia failed to completely transpose the provisions related to trials in absentia and the optional ground for refusal, the time limits to take the decision on surrender, and privilege and immunity. Therefore, the Commission has decided to issue reasoned opinions to Czechia, Germany, Croatia and Latvia, which now have two months to respond and take the necessary measures. Otherwise, the Commission may decide to refer the cases to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Commission calls on SLOVAKIA and FINLAND to fully transpose the Directive on procedural safeguards for children in criminal proceedings 
The European Commission decided to send a reasoned opinion to Slovakia (INFR(2023)2108) and Finland (INFR(2023)2126) for failing to fully transpose the Directive on procedural safeguards for children in criminal proceedings (Directive (EU) 2016/800) into national law. This Directive aims to guarantee common minimum standards regarding the rights of children who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings to ensure their right to a fair trial across the EU. The Commission sent a letter of formal notice to Slovakia and Finland in 2023. After analysing their replies, the Commission concluded that both Slovakia and Finland continue to fail to correctly transpose some of the Directive’s requirements. Slovakia still failed to include a reference to the Directive in or accompanying the adoption of transposing measures. Finland failed to transpose the presumption of minority set out in the Directive in cases where the age of a young person is in doubt and the requirement to update the individual assessment of the child throughout the proceedings. Therefore, the Commission has decided to issue a reasoned opinion to Slovakia and Finland, which now have two months to respond and take the necessary measures. Otherwise, the Commission may decide to refer the cases to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Commission calls on BULGARIA to correctly transpose into its national law EU rules on the right of access to information in criminal proceedings
Today, the European Commission decided to send an additional reasoned opinion to Bulgaria (INFR(2021)2098) for failing to correctly transpose the Directive on the right to information in criminal proceedings (Directive 2012/13/EU). This Directive aims to ensure that persons suspected or accused in criminal proceedings or subject to a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) are given adequate information about their rights. The Commission sent a letter of formal notice to Bulgaria in September 2021 and a reasoned opinion in September 2023. It considers that the national transposition measures notified by Bulgaria fall short of the requirements of the Directive. Bulgarian law does not cover persons who are de facto suspected of having committed a criminal offence but who have not yet been officially recognised as accused persons. This means that, in Bulgaria, persons who are only suspected and not yet officially accused of having committed a criminal offence do not enjoy the rights to which they are entitled under the Directive, which can significantly impact the fairness of their trial. This issue interlinks with the incorrect transposition of substantive rights set out in the Directive, such as the right to information about rights, which Bulgarian law does not extend to de facto suspects. While Bulgaria has taken steps to address some of the identified grievances, such as concerning the right of access to the materials of the case, the additional measures adopted are also not sufficient to ensure the correct transposition of these rights. Therefore, the Commission decided on 15 July 2024 to refer the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Due to the complexity of the case and to respond to additional information from Bulgaria, it has, however, since been decided to issue an additional reasoned opinion to Bulgaria. Bulgaria now has two months to respond and take the necessary measures. Otherwise, the Commission may decide to refer the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Commission calls on GREECE to fully transpose into its national law EU requirements on accessibility requirements for products and services
Today, the European Commission decided to send a reasoned opinion to Greece (INFR(2022)0297) for failing to fully transpose the European Accessibility Act into national law (Directive (EU) 2019/882). The European Accessibility Act requires key products and services such as phones, computers, e-books, banking services and electronic communications to be accessible for persons with disabilities. Member States had until 28 June 2022 to transpose the provisions of the Directive into national law. On 19 July 2022, the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to Greece for failing to notify any transposition measure by the deadline of the Directive. Greece subsequently submitted transposition measures self-assessed as complete. However, following a detailed analysis, the Commission services found some remaining transposition gaps. Therefore, the Commission has decided to issue a reasoned opinion to Greece, which now has two months to respond and take the necessary measures. Otherwise, the Commission may decide to refer the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

5. Energy and climate

(For more information: Anna-Kaisa Itkonen – Tel.: +32 2 295 75 01; Giulia Bedini – Tel.: +32 2 295 86 61; Ana Crespo Parrondo – Tel.: +32 2 298 13 25)

Reasoned opinions

Commission urges BELGIUM, ESTONIA, CROATIA, POLAND and SLOVAKIA to send their final updated National Energy and Climate Plans
Today, the European Commission decided to send reasoned opinions to Belgium (INFR(2024)2252), Estonia (INFR(2024)2257), Croatia (INFR(2024)2256), Poland (INFR(2024)2260) and Slovakia (INFR(2024)2262) for failing to submit their final updated integrated National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs) in line with the Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 on the Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action. The final updated NECPs are crucial tools for ensuring that Member States set out a concrete roadmap to achieve the agreed EU goals for greenhouse gas emissions reduction, renewable energy and energy efficiency, among others. They are also key for the European Commission to assess where Member States stand collectively in terms of ambition towards the 2030 climate and energy targets. Under Article 14(2) of the Governance Regulation, all Member States had to submit their final updated NECPs by 30 June 2024. So far, the Commission has received 22 final Plans. Following extensive exchanges after the submission of draft Plans and adoption of Commission recommendations to the Member States, in November 2024, the Commission sent letters of formal notice to 13 Member States for not submitting their final updated NECPs. After analysing their replies and given that these five Member States have not yet submitted their final updated NECPs, the Commission has decided to issue reasoned opinions to Belgium, Estonia, Croatia, Poland and Slovakia. The five Member States now have two months to remedy the situation and submit their final updated NECPs to the Commission. Otherwise, the Commission may decide to refer the cases to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Commission urges HUNGARY not to undermine the Union’s position on intra-EU arbitrations under the Energy Charter Treaty and to abide by the case law of the Court of Justice
Today, the European Commission decided to send a reasoned opinion to Hungary (INFR(2024)2206) for undermining the Union’s position on the international stage with regard to the prohibition of intra-EU investor-State arbitrations related to the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). Furthermore, the Hungarian position contradicts the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. On 26 June 2024, the Union and 26 Member States signed a Declaration on the legal consequences of the Komstroy judgment, in which the Court of Justice held that the arbitration clause of the ECT is not applicable to disputes between a Member State and an investor from another Member State concerning an investment made by the latter in the first Member State. This Declaration complemented an agreement reaffirming the Union’s long settled position that the arbitration clause provided in the Energy Charter Treaty does not apply – and has never applied – in the relations between an EU investor and an EU country, or the Union. On the same day, Hungary adopted a unilateral declaration claiming that the Komstroy judgment can only take effect for future intra-EU investor-State arbitration proceedings, once the Energy Charter Treaty has been amended. On 25 July 2024, the Commission opened an infringement procedure against Hungary as its unilateral declaration contradicts the decision of the Court of Justice, as well as the Union’s position vis-à-vis arbitration tribunals and courts of third countries. The Commission considers that none of the considerations set forth by the Hungarian authorities in their reply address the concerns set out in the letter of formal notice. Therefore, the Commission has decided to issue a reasoned opinion to Hungary, which now has two months to respond and take the necessary measures. Otherwise, the Commission may decide to refer the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

6. Taxation

(For more information: Anna-Kaisa Itkonen – Tel.: +32 2 295 75 01; Saul Louis Goulding – Tel.: +32 229-64735)

Reasoned opinion

The Commission calls on SPAIN to allow for a deduction of directly related expenses when calculating withholding tax on cross-border royalty payments
Today, the European Commission decided to send a reasoned opinion to Spain (INFR(2021)4042), for failure to align its rules on withholding taxes charged on royalty payments received by non-resident taxpayers with the freedom to provide services (Article 56 TFEU). The Spanish tax legislation provides that, for non-resident taxpayers, the withholding tax on royalty payments is levied on the gross amount of the income without the possibility to deduct directly related expenses. While case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Case C-290/04) allows a Member State to charge a withholding tax on cross-border royalty payments even if it does not levy withholding taxes on purely domestic payments, it must allow the deduction of directly related expenses when determining the tax due. Therefore, the Commission has decided to issue a reasoned opinion to Spain, which now has two months to respond and take the necessary measures. Otherwise, the Commission may decide to refer the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Referral to the Court of Justice

Commission decides to refer SPAIN to the Court of Justice of the European Union due to discriminatory tax treatment of non-resident taxpayers
Today, the European Commission decided to refer Spain (INFR(2021)4035)to the Court of Justice of the European Union for having failed to remedy an infringement related to the free movement of capital (Article 63 TFEU) due to a discriminatory tax treatment of non-resident taxpayers. When a payment for transfer of assets is deferred for longer than a year or is paid in instalments over a period longer than a year, resident taxpayers may pay the tax either when the capital gain accrues or proportionally deferred on a cash flow basis. However, non-resident taxpayers are not offered this possibility of deferral and must pay the tax when the capital gains accrue at the time of the transfer of the assets. On 2 December 2021, the Commission sent Spain a letter of formal notice followed by a reasoned opinion on 23 May 2024. In its formal replies, and in subsequent technical exchanges with national authorities, Spain has maintained that its tax legislation is in line with EU law. The Commission considers that efforts by the authorities have, to date, been insufficient and is therefore referring Spain to the Court of Justice of the European Union. More information is in the press release.