top of page
Search

The EU is Keeping Watch: How the European Commission and the CJEU Hold Member States to Account


Timely and complete transposition of EU directives is essential for the proper functioning of the Single Market and the credibility of EU law. Yet every year, many Member States struggle to meet the deadlines. What do the numbers reveal, why do transposition deficits persist, and which directives are consistently the most challenging? This blog takes a closer look at the Commission’s enforcement role, recent trends, and the systemic issues shaping the EU’s implementation landscape.


Monitoring Transposition: The Commission’s Role


Twice a year, the European Commission publishes data showing the transposition deficit—that is, the percentage of deadlines for transposition that a Member State has failed to meet, relative to the total number of deadlines by which it should have fully notified the Commission of its national transposition measures.

The existence of a transposition deficit is not, in itself, unusual phenomenon. On the contrary, recurring difficulties with transposing directives are observed across Member States. In an organisation as large as the EU, which produces legislation requiring further implementation across 27 national legal systems (and in some cases also within EFTA countries), a certain margin of delay or incomplete transposition is inevitable. What changes over time—and what is worth examining—is the scale of the deficit and the reasons behind it.


Recent Trends in Transposition Deficits


According to data available as of 1 January 2026, the EU-wide average transposition deficit stood at 1.5%. In comparison with previous years, this is a middling figure: in 2021 it was 2.3%, then gradually decreased—to 1.1% in 2023—before rising again to 1.15% in 2024 and reaching 1.5% in 2025[1].

The increase in the deficit during the COVID‑19 period can reasonably be attributed to the operational challenges caused by the extraordinary situation, which were later “caught up” once the crisis subsided. It resulted in a temporary improvement in the indicator. Determining the causes of the more recent rise in the transposition deficit would, however, require a broader analysis.


Tools the Commission Uses to Enforce EU Law


The European Commission oversees the process of transposing directives across Member States. Regardless of why a Member State fails to meet the requirements for timely and complete transposition, the Commission is equipped with a range of disciplinary instruments. These include annual reports, which serve not only an informative function but also exert political pressure; various soft measures (co‑operation programmes, such as EU Pilot, and recommendations); and, at the other end of the spectrum, the formal infringement procedure under Article 258 TFEU, in which the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivers a binding ruling on the existence of an infringement. It is important to underline that only the CJEU can conclusively determine that a directive has not been properly transposed.

Incomplete transposition—whether in timing or in substance—triggers the Commission’s successive disciplinary steps. Initially, this occurs through bilateral communication with the Member State, during which the Commission identifies and specifies the shortcomings. This stage gives the Member State additional time to meet its obligation to fully implement the directive, in a situation where it was not possible to do so within the time limit specified in the directive itself.


Letters of Formal Notice: What the Numbers Show


What do the figures tell us about delays in implementing directives? Searches on the Commission’s website[2] containing information on infringement decisions reveal the following data:

In 2021, the Commission issued 738 letters of formal notice to Member States, relating to both failures to notify transposition measures and incorrect transposition (570/168). In 2022, there were 497 letters (459/39); in 2023 the number fell significantly to 374 (284/90). In 2024 the number increased to 415 (323/92), while in 2025 it totalled 474 (370/104).

Subsequent steps in an infringement case can be complex, but the standard sequence is as follows: upon receiving a letter of formal notice, the Member State must respond—usually within two months. If, after analysing the response, the Commission considers it insufficiently addressed, it may issue a reasoned opinion: a formal request to comply with EU law, explaining why it believes an infringement has occurred. The Member State is then required to inform the Commission, within a specified period (typically two months), of the measures taken to rectify the breach.

Most proceedings end at this stage. In 2021, the Commission closed 515 such cases; in 2022—420; in 2023—891; in 2024—379; and in 2025—409.

These figures allow for several observations. First, the number of letters of formal notice indicates that the Commission diligently fulfils its role as guardian of timely transposition. Second, Member States do respond to these letters, enabling the majority of cases to be resolved without taking further steps.

If the Commission remains unsatisfied, it may bring the case before the CJEU on the grounds of failure to transpose a directive correctly. There were 10 such cases in 2021, 25 in 2022, 52 in 2023, 26 in 2024, and 32 in 2025 (infringements involving failure to notify or incomplete transposition, but without allegations of incorrect application).

Delays in implementing directives often give rise to various analyses and conclusions. Some commentators assess which Member States have the highest or lowest rates of delay, or highlight directives that implementation takes more than two years. Such assessments are frequently accompanied by comments about the country’s perceived attitude of pro‑European—or, conversely, anti‑European—commitment.


Looking Beyond Countries: Which Directives Cause the Most Trouble?


I would like to look at the infringement data from a different perspective: by focusing on directives that posed particular implementation challenges for Member States. The criterion for this identification is whether the Commission issued letters of formal notice to at least 10 Member States concerning lack of on time notification or incomplete transposition. To identify relevant cases, I used data included in Commission press releases[3]. While not necessarily exhaustive, the information is sufficient for meaningful observations.

Across the five‑year period from 2021 to 2025, each year featured several directives (or full application of the regulation) whose transposition proved difficulty, prompting the Commission to send letters of formal notice to more than 10 Member States. Substantively, in 2021 there were the issues related to the labour market (two directives), environmental protection (invasive alien species and two waste‑related matters), and the internal market. In 2022, the problematic areas were environmental protection, copyright (two directives), and whistleblower protection. In 2023, the directives involved the labour market (seasonal workers, posted drivers, work‑life balance for parents and carers), children’s rights, and air transport. In 2024, the challenges concerned consumer credit and environmental protection (waste). In 2025, the difficulties centred on security (cybersecurity and critical‑entity resilience), climate change (two cases relating to the EU ETS and renewable energy), and criminal liability.

These data make it possible to identify the underlying reasons for delayed or incomplete transposition (and application of regulations). Undoubtedly, each of the cases mentioned deserves separate analysis.  However, they collectively demonstrate that (1) transposition issues arise across a wide range of policy areas, (2) they are recurrent—each year includes several directives that pose difficulties for a sizeable group of Member States, and (3) these are common challenges across multiple countries, which undermines the narrative that delays stem predominantly from pro‑ or anti‑EU political attitudes within individual states.


National vs EU‑Level Challenges


If, year after year, the Commission must call on more than a dozen Member States in one case to rectify delayed or incomplete transposition—and does so several times per year—this suggests a systemic issue that is unsatisfactory from the perspective of the EU’s overall functioning. One may therefore ask whether an analysis of the EU legislative process is warranted, particularly regarding structural barriers that contribute to persistent delays in transposing directives.

Given that several directives consistently prove difficulty to implement on time across many Member States, an important question arises: is the transposition period set at a realistic level? Due to the lack of timely implementation, the EC announced that it would call on up to 24 countries to remedy the infringement: delayed enforcement of rules on the posting of workers (2021; Directive 2014/67/EU), whistleblower protection (2022; Directive (EU) 2019/1937), while in case of the Directive (EU) 2023/2413 on strengthened rules for promoting renewable energy—delayed were as many as 26 Member States—timeliness proved particularly challenging. These examples illustrate the most difficult cases.

Another issue worth noting is the 2024 infringement action in which the Commission sent letters of formal notice to all 27 Member States for failing to meet targets on waste collection and recycling (Directive 2008/98/EC on waste, as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/851). This raises a number of questions: for example, given that the waste sector is heavily regulated at EU level, were Member States given sufficient regulatory support? As the sector is highly sensitive to global market conditions, should the EU’s target‑setting be more attuned to external changes? Waste management is one of the most serious environmental challenges globally and in the EU—making this case worthy of broader examination.

While the difficulties of individual Member States may sometimes be explained by the need for substantial amendments to national legislation, delays affecting a wider group of countries indicate that challenges also arise at EU level. It remains clear that, despite decades of harmonisation among the “older” Member States—delays also affect the founding members of the EEC—national legal systems remain diverse enough to influence the timely and proper implementation of EU legislation.


Conclusion


Transposition deficits are not simply a matter of national diligence. They are a systemic challenge shaped by complex legislation, diverse legal traditions, administrative capacity, and the pace of EU policymaking itself. The data show that certain directives consistently pose difficulties across multiple Member States, suggesting that structural issues—such as the length of transposition periods, the complexity of harmonisation, and the level of regulatory support—play a major role.

If the EU is to ensure timely implementation across the board, a closer look at the legislative process and the practical realities of transposition may be not only justified but necessary.


Comments

bottom of page