Changes from report parliamentary committee draft to plenary report

Added18. Criticises the lack of transparency with regard to the criteria used by the Commission to prioritise certain enforcement actions over others; calls on the Commission to adopt and publish transparent, objective criteria applicable to infringement cases, particularly with regard to the selection and prioritisation of those involving serious or systemic violations of fundamental rights, rule of law principles or internal market rules; insists on the need for greater transparency throughout the entire process, including public access to information on the status, nature and scope of open procedures, on the outcomes of procedures, as well as on public input, both received and taken into account, particularly in the initiation phase of infringement procedures; calls on the Commission to report proactively and on a continuous basis on instances where it has acted in response to suspected serious infringement and on cases where it has decided not to act;

Removed9. Calls on the Commission to adopt and publish transparent, objective criteria applicable to infringement cases, particularly with regard to the selection and prioritisation of those involving serious or systemic violations of fundamental rights, rule of law principles or internal market rules;

Added19. Regrets the frequent lack of infringement procedures initiated for non-compliance with CJEU rulings; calls on the Commission to consistently initiate such procedures in cases of a failure to implement a CJEU ruling, including by issuing requests for lump sums or penalty payments, especially in cases of systemic breaches of EU law or repeated non-compliance with CJEU rulings by the Member State in question;

Removed10. Urges the Commission to shorten and streamline the pre-litigation phase, which in its current form can lead to significant delays in effective enforcement;

Added20. Stresses that complaints concerning alleged breaches of EU law by Member States submitted by citizens, legal professionals or civil society organisations are an important source of information pertaining to the enforcement of EU law; urges the Commission, when complaints are brought before it, to ensure appropriate follow-up to such complaints, including, where relevant, the timely initiation of infringement procedures or clear communication to the applicant on the reasons why no infringement procedure will be initiated; underlines, furthermore, the importance of other channels enabling citizens to report maladministration by an EU institution or fraud, and the need to strengthen the financial means and personnel of the European Ombudsman and of the European Anti-Fraud Office, as well as making the mechanism for filing petitions to the European Parliament more effective;

Added21. Notes with concern that in certain Member States the application of the preliminary ruling procedure is under threat, including judges’ powers to request preliminary rulings; stresses that such obstacles undermine the proper implementation of EU law in those Member States; urges the Commission to make full use of the relevant instruments to ensure full compliance with the preliminary ruling procedure;

Added22. Urges the Commission to make effective use of the pre-litigation phase, bearing in mind the objective of ensuring that Member States conform with the obligations arising from EU law as swiftly as possible; urges the Commission to introduce a time limit to the pre-infringement dialogue, formerly known as the EU Pilot procedure, to ensure prompt resolution and enforcement; recommends the provision of more detailed and accessible information about these informal dialogues, including expected timelines and outcomes, to ensure accountability and timely resolution;

Implementation of EU law

Change 7

Changed11.23. UrgesEncourages the Commission and the Member States to strengthen structured cooperation and early-warning mechanisms that help detect problems with transposition or implementation before formal infringement procedures become necessary; urges the Member States to strictly adhere to transposition deadlines, follow the guidelines issued by the Commission and actively and fully engage in implementation dialogues, and to notify the Commission in a timely manner about potential obstacles and issues with transposition and implementation;implementation, in order to avoid delays, errors and potential penalties; calls for further support to build Member States’ administrative and technical capacity in this regard; regrets that some Member States either report transposition and/or implementation issues too late or fail to report them altogether, resulting in delays that negatively affect EU citizens and businesses; recalls that the Member States participate in the legislative procedure through the Council as co-legislator; stresses that the lack of enforcement of EU law undermines citizens’ perception of the EU and its ability to deliver results;

Change 8

Removed12. Notes with concern the limitations of the new Europa implementation platform, launched in April 2025; points out that, despite its potential, the platform primarily consists of data tables and fails to provide essential information on ongoing or concluded procedures, offers no analysis of the data presented, and makes it nearly impossible to draw comparisons and conclusions in certain cases, making it insufficiently useful for legislators, legal practitioners, and citizens seeking insight into how EU law is upheld in practice;

Added24. Welcomes the introduction of implementation dialogues as a new instrument to support Member States’ compliance with EU law; stresses the importance of establishing a clear, transparent and inclusive process for identifying, selecting and involving stakeholders in these dialogues across all EU Member States; notes with concern that the participation of regional and local authorities in implementation dialogues remains limited; emphasises that meaningful stakeholder participation is essential to enhancing the quality, legitimacy and effectiveness of implementation efforts;

Removed13. Notes the challenges in applying regulations, as evidenced by gaps in the data provided by the Commission, particularly in terms of completeness, accessibility and consistency; asks the Commission to report on how its monitoring activities and practices are adapted to the application of regulations and to the recommendations made in this regard in its stocktaking report on the Commission working methods for monitoring the application of EU law;

Added25. Notes that, according to the Single Market Scoreboard, the average transposition delay for Single Market directives in the EU is currently 11.9 months, which means, on average, that Member States are taking almost a year longer than the prescribed deadline to incorporate EU directives into their national laws;

Added26. Expresses concern over the fact that many European legislative acts include references to technical standards and delegated or implementing acts that are still at the drafting stage when the basic acts are adopted, making it difficult for Member States to fully transpose them within the prescribed period;

Added27. Notes with concern the limitations of the new Europa implementation platform, launched in April 2025, the aim of which is to centralise information on the Commission’s enforcement actions, infringement cases, the transposition of directives and pre-infringement dialogue, formerly known as the EU Pilot procedure; points out that, despite its potential, the platform primarily consists of data tables and should be improved with a view to providing, in a transparent manner, essential information on ongoing or concluded procedures, and to making available exhaustive qualitative analyses of the data presented; notes that the information presented on the platform is primarily organised by the Member States, offering a general overview of national implementation efforts; regrets the absence of a legal-act-based structure that would allow for a clearer understanding of the implementation stage, related challenges, as well as the challenges faced by Member States in implementing legislative acts; considers that developing such an analytical approach would significantly improve transparency and facilitate a more evidence-based assessment of implementation across the EU; calls on the Commission to improve the efficiency of the platform and its content so that it can be used to conduct a range of operations in a transparent and easily accessible manner, including comparisons and conclusions in certain cases, and so that it becomes a useful instrument for legislators, legal practitioners, and citizens seeking insight into how EU law is upheld in practice;

Added28. Stresses that the transparent and timely publication of data on transposition and infringement cases is essential for accountability and public trust; calls on the Commission to make such data accessible in an open and user-friendly format and to facilitate comparisons across Member States and policy areas; calls on the Commission to ensure the necessary transparency of all tools and databases used to monitor the implementation of EU law, including by making methodological notes, criteria for data collection, and explanations of indicators publicly available; stresses that transparency is essential for meaningful scrutiny by citizens, researchers and the EU institutions;

Added29. Underlines the need to strengthen transparency for citizens and businesses regarding the rights they enjoy under EU law and the mechanisms available when these rights are breached; calls on the Commission and the Member States to improve the visibility and accessibility of complaint procedures, including through modernised digital tools and multilingual information portals;

Added30. Urges the Commission to strengthen and modernise its monitoring of the application of regulations, in recognition of their increasing importance as the EU’s main legislative instrument; notes the challenges in applying regulations, as evidenced by gaps in the data provided by the Commission, particularly in terms of completeness, accessibility and consistency; asks the Commission to report on how its monitoring activities and practices are adapted to the application of regulations and to the recommendations made in this regard in its stocktaking report on the Commission working methods for monitoring the application of EU law;

Added31. Recommends a more disciplined and limited use of level 2 legislation, namely delegated and implementing acts, by specifying non-essential elements of legislation or by restricting their scope to genuinely technical matters necessary for the application of level 1 legislation, respectively; stresses that level 2 acts must be subject to transparent procedures, include clear timelines, allow for sufficient time for meaningful and effective scrutiny by the co-legislators, and be published with sufficient lead time to allow stakeholders to prepare for compliance, and that such measures should, where feasible, be made available prior to or simultaneously with the entry into force of level 1 legislation to ensure legal certainty and enforceability;

Added32. Insists on the fundamental role of Member States’ and the EU’s judicial authorities to build robust case-law, thereby maintaining legal security throughout EU society and the EU market; stresses, in that regard, the importance of preserving judicial independence, but also of allocating robust financial and human resources to judicial authorities;

Added33. Highlights that, in certain Member States that have federal or regional systems, transposition might involve multiple legislative processes and levels of government;

Added34. Underlines the importance of stronger cross-border cooperation among judicial and law enforcement authorities to effectively combat serious crime, corruption and terrorism, in particular through reinforcing the role and operational capacity of the EPPO;

Added35. Supports the further digitalisation of justice tools, especially in cross-border procedures, such as the e-Evidence and e-CODEX systems, with the aim of accelerating judicial decision-making in a trustworthy way;

Simplification

Change 9

Removed14. Stresses that the simplification of EU law must not be conflated with deregulation; emphasises that streamlining legal texts and procedures can improve clarity, legal certainty, and administrative efficiency while preserving essential policy objectives and protections;

Added36. Stresses that the simplification of EU law must not be conflated with deregulation; emphasises that the Commission’s simplification efforts, which bundle the fate of various legislative acts, should in no way be automatic and must, where necessary, be subject to thorough impact assessments and meaningful stakeholder consultations; emphasises that streamlining legal texts and procedures can improve clarity, legal certainty, and administrative efficiency; reiterates that quality, clear and cohesive EU legislation is an essential condition for effective, correct and uniform transposition by the Member States that preserves essential policy objectives and protections; highlights that the aim of such a simplification process must be to reduce technical complexity, eliminate regulatory overlaps, harmonise the definitions and procedures laid down by acts governing related fields and guarantee the technical feasibility of implementation in national law; points out the importance of coherence across legislative instruments in order to avoid duplications and contradictions that add complexity and hinder effective implementation; emphasises that reducing administrative burdens is inseparable from ensuring accessibility, which can be effectively achieved through well-designed digital tools that are simple and inclusive for all users;

Added37. Notes that in 2023, 59 out of 130 Ordinary Legislative Procedures were published without an impact assessment, and in 2024, 26 out 31 Ordinary Legislative Procedures were published without one; notes with concern, furthermore, that the Commission published 80 Ordinary Legislative Procedures between 1 December 2024 and 26 September 2025, of which only 18 were supported by a total of 12 impact assessments; calls for impact assessments to be carried out on all acts; regrets the fact that this was not the case for several politically sensitive proposals in the past;

Added38. Acknowledges the burden reduction objectives set out by the Commission in its 2025 work programme; welcomes the Commission’s plans to carry out stress tests and reality checks on EU legislation to ensure that it effectively delivers on its policy objectives; recalls, in this regard, the importance of the systematic evaluation of legislation for evidence-based policymaking, as provided for in the Commission’s Better Regulation Toolbox; urges that a designated Commissioner be empowered with the necessary authority, resources, and analytical tools to lead this effort and ensure that all legislative acts are proportionate, enforceable, and fit for purpose;

Added39. Underlines the cases of legislative acts that have never been applied; calls on the Commission to monitor such cases regularly, assess the reasons for this lack of application, decide whether they require simplification and come up with proposals to modify them;

Added40. Recalls that EU law-making is based on interinstitutional balance among co-legislators and a shared commitment to transparent cooperation throughout the legislative cycle; notes that this must be reflected when setting or reviewing multiannual priorities and in the annual joint declaration on annual interinstitutional priorities; strongly criticises the Commission’s recent practice of withdrawing legislative proposals, particularly those already under trilogue negotiations, without sufficient justification, as such actions undermine the credibility of interinstitutional cooperation and democratic accountability; recalls that any intention by the Commission to withdraw pending legislative acts, as announced in its annual work programmes, need to be duly reasoned and substantiated, allowing for the proper consultation of EU co-legislators; observes that a lack of proper consultation puts at risk the balanced exercise of the prerogatives of EU institutions, creates legal uncertainty for businesses and undermines the trust of ordinary people in EU law-making; calls therefore on the Commission to fully involve the European Parliament and the Council at an early stage and throughout any withdrawal procedure, and to conduct thorough, evidence-based impact assessments before any potential repeal, considering benefits and costs in a comprehensive manner, including the costs of noncompliance and inaction;

Added41. Recommends that the Commission bring forward legislation to codify minimum standards for administrative procedures across Member States, in accordance with the European Parliament resolution of 22 November 2023 with recommendations to the Commission on Digitalisation and Administrative Law; stresses that such legislation should promote fairness, transparency and digitalisation in EU public administration, including safeguards for the responsible use of AI in decision-making;

Added42. Calls for a significant simplification of administrative obligations for beneficiaries of EU funds to ensure that EU funds are used properly and effectively, particularly through the broader use of results-based reporting models, reduced duplication in audit procedures, and a clear legal distinction between unintentional errors and deliberate fraud; regrets that by the end of 2023, only about a third of the total Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) funds had been disbursed to Member States, while seven Member States had not received any funds for the satisfactory fulfilment of milestones and targets from the RRF by the end of 2023, due to governments missing agreed milestones9; highlights that excessive administrative burdens, as well as issues with administrative capacity and complex rules at national level, undermine access to EU funding and the credibility of EU support policies;

Added43. Urges the Commission to assess the feasibility of merging current and upcoming digital legislation, including cybersecurity frameworks, into a single, coherent Digital Rulebook; recommends that such an instrument contain harmonised definitions, unified reporting obligations, and clear guidance for both public and private actors to improve legal coherence and compliance across the Digital Single Market;

AddedSector-specific elements

Added44. Notes that, in the field of trade, in the case of legislative acts with deferred application dates, setting out clear application dates is paramount; recalls that the Commission guidelines needed for the effective and uniform implementation of such acts should bring clarity and legal certainty, and not undermine the very essence and purpose of the basic act; greatly regrets, in this context, the negative impact on EU operators and EU international partners of repeated delays and lack of clarity regarding the dates of application and phasing-in periods under EU legislation and international agreements to which EU is party, including by undermining the EU’s credibility on the global scene;

Added45. Welcomes, in the field of employment, the CJEU judgment10 which largely confirmed the validity of the Directive on adequate minimum wages11; calls on those Member States that have not yet transposed the Directive into their national legal systems within the prescribed deadline to do so without delay; urges the Commission to remain vigilant and to take all appropriate measures to ensure the full and timely transposition and effective implementation of the Directive; supports the Commission’s engagement in pre-infringement dialogues in the field of occupational safety and health, which facilitates national legislative changes aimed at strengthening and harmonising minimum levels of protection for workers, thereby safeguarding workers’ rights and contributing to a level playing field across the EU; regrets that several Member States have only partially transposed certain directives into their national legislation;

Added46. Welcomes, in the field of environment, the Environmental Implementation Review (EIR); calls on the Commission to publish annual implementation dashboards for each Member State and policy area with machine-readable, comparable indicators and case-status metadata, integrating European Environment Agency and European Chemicals Agency datasets and enabling trend analysis and benchmarking; points out that, according to the 2025 EIR, the cost of non-implementation of EU environmental law amounts to EUR 180 billion per year, while closing the implementation gap would require EUR 122 billion per year, demonstrating that effective implementation represents a sound investment rather than a cost; highlights that, as of 2 April 2025, 309 infringement proceedings were ongoing in the field of environmental legislation, of which 45 % concerned pollution and water, 24 % waste management, 24 % nature and biodiversity, and 7 % governance; calls on the Member States to strengthen their administrative capacity for permitting, inspections and monitoring, to adopt digital permitting and enforcement tools, and to ensure open environmental data for evidence-based policymaking and civic oversight; notes with concern that the proliferation and layering of implementing and delegated acts can undermine legal clarity and timely compliance for administrations and duty-bearers; underlines that simplification should enhance clarity and certainty without lowering environmental protection standards; invites the Commission to accompany simplification initiatives with compliance impact assessments and guidance for practitioners; urges alignment of EU funding with implementation priorities by ring-fencing support for closing environmental compliance gaps identified in the EIR and by phasing out environmentally harmful subsidies; invites the Commission to consider proportionate, targeted conditionalities where persistent non-compliance undermines EU objectives;

Added47. Welcomes the Commission’s initiation of pre-infringement dialogues with Member States, in particular those that did not submit the updated draft national energy and climate plans for the period 2021–2030 in time, but regrets the lack of detailed timetables for compliance and follow-up action by Member States; emphasises the importance of streamlining the implementation of EU climate and environmental legislation, including the Fit for 55 package and the European Green Deal; calls for integrated monitoring, better enforcement mechanisms and closer alignment between EU climate goals and national strategies to ensure the timely and coherent delivery of the EU’s environmental commitments;

Added48. Notes that the timely and effective implementation of recently adopted legislation, including the recast Energy Efficiency Directive12, the Renewable Energy Directive13, the Electricity Market Design package, and the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive14, is essential for achieving the EU’s 2030 climate and energy objectives, as well as for ensuring the completion of a fully integrated and interconnected Energy Union in line with Regulation (EU) 2022/869 on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure15, including its upcoming revision, and Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 on the Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action16; stresses that persistent barriers such as lengthy and complex administrative procedures, insufficient digitalisation, a lack of administrative capacity in permitting and regulatory authorities, and inconsistent or delayed transposition by Member States continue to hinder the uniform application of EU energy law, delay the modernisation of energy infrastructure and interconnections, and impede the effective functioning of the internal energy market;

Added49. Regrets that enforcement in the field of energy continues to account for a significant share of infringement proceedings, primarily owing to the incomplete or incorrect transposition of EU legislation; stresses that shortcomings in the implementation of provisions related to energy infrastructure and interconnections under Regulation (EU) 2022/869 and Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 further delay the integration of national energy systems and undermine the achievement of the EU’s energy and climate objectives; calls on the Commission to ensure a more coherent approach between infringement procedures, monitoring under Regulation (EU) 2018/1999, and technical support provided through the Technical Support Instrument, so as to address instances of non-compliance that stem from insufficient administrative capacity or lack of legal clarity; encourages the Commission to prioritise enforcement and guidance actions that facilitate the timely completion of projects of common interest and other cross-border infrastructure essential for the completion of the internal energy market and the Energy Union;

Added50. Urges Member States to fully and correctly transpose and implement Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA and the Digital Services Act, and calls on the Commission to continue pursuing infringement procedures in cases of systemic non-compliance; welcomes, in particular, the establishment of a new Unit at the Commission dealing with the implementation and enforcement of the Digital Services Act, which should enable concrete actions to be taken in respect of very large platforms that do not respect the law, as well as due follow-up regarding cooperation between the Commission and the national Digital Service Coordinators;

Added51. Highlights the fact that, in the field of agriculture, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) represents the largest share of the EU budget, with 31 % of the total expenditure for the period 2021-2027; emphasises that it is crucial for EU legislation and the CAP control systems to be effectively implemented and enforced at both EU and national levels, to ensure that the financial interests of the EU and its citizens are effectively protected against any misuse of EU funds, which could adversely affect farmers and the public image of this policy; points out that land grabbing and misuse of subsidies have occurred in certain Member States owing to violations of EU Law, corrupt practices, or the involvement of organised crime; stresses that correct implementation of EU law, together with effective monitoring and control measures, is needed to combat such abuses; highlights, in this context, the lack of transparency and public access to data regarding the distribution of agricultural subsidies; expresses concern that judicial cooperation, despite the numerous legal instruments established in the area of asset recovery, is still hindered by significant differences between national legal systems and a lack of harmonised regulations; emphasises that the EU Financial Regulation17, particularly Article 61 thereof, must be respected and enforced in all Member States and applied to all EU fund payments, including direct payments for agriculture;

Added52. Recalls, in the field of audiovisual and media policy and culture, the importance of the timely and effective implementation of regulatory instruments, in particular the European Media Freedom Act18, as a means to ensure a sustainable, pluralistic and resilient media ecosystem, capable of countering disinformation; emphasises the necessity of implementing financial instruments within their annual programming periods in a manner consistent with the criteria established under Regulation (EU) 2021/81819, in particular with regard to the Creative Europe Programme 2021–2027, whose primary mission is to support the cultural sector and to safeguard the independence and artistic freedom of creators; calls on the Commission to conduct a comprehensive and balanced evaluation of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive20, as the main instrument regulating audiovisual and media content in the EU;

Added53. Calls on the Commission to ensure the uniform application and effective enforcement of internal market rules across all sectors; expresses serious concern about coercive buy-out practices imposed on European creators, in particularom of under contracts based on foreign laws and jurisdictions that may circumvent EU standards on appropriate and proportionate remuneration; urges the Commission to introduce a dedicated legislative proposal establishing safeguards to prevent such circumvention and to ensure that European creators can effectively rely on and enforce their rights under EU law;

Added54. Notes with concern persistent shortcomings in the transposition and implementation of key legal instruments relating to asylum, migration, data protection, judicial cooperation and law enforcement;

Added55. Notes the absence of reporting on the application of the EU gender equality strategy 2020-2025, on its actions to combat discrimination, including through the EU Accessibility Act21, as well as on its EU youth strategy; recalls its commitment to achieve the targets of the European Pillar of Social Rights by 2030 for a strong social Europe that is fair, inclusive and full of opportunity; calls on the Commission to dedicate specific chapters on the implementation of these important policy fields in its future reporting; recommends that it include detailed information on combating hate crimes, on gender mainstreaming and on the systematic application of youth tests in its policy making;

°

° °

56. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.