Making Sure EU Laws Are Actually Followed

Why it matters

• EU law protects citizens, keeps the single market working, and gives the EU credibility.
• Member states must turn EU rules into national law, apply them correctly, and do so on time.
• The Parliament wants the Commission to keep a clear, yearly record of how well this is happening – a practice that has existed for more than 40 years.

Main complaints

• Missing 2024 report – the Commission did not publish its usual annual monitoring report.
• Too much focus on “simplification” – the 2025 overview talks mainly about making rules simpler, but the Parliament wants a balanced view that also looks at enforcement.
• Inadequate data – data on infringement cases (open, closed, started) is incomplete or hard to read.
• Slow implementation – on average, member states take almost 12 months longer than the deadline to transpose directives.
• Too many “delegated” rules – rules made by the Commission after the main rule is adopted make compliance harder.
• Limited use of AI and digital tools – the Parliament wants responsible, transparent use of technology, especially AI in decision‑making.

What the Parliament wants the Commission to do

1. Publish a yearly, country‑by‑country report on EU law application.
2. Make the data open, easy to read, and comparable across member states and policy areas.
3. Explain the methods used to collect and analyse the data.
4. Use “pre‑infringement” talks more often and give clear timelines.
5. Treat infringement cases transparently – publish criteria for pursuing cases, status of open cases, and outcomes.
6. Act on complaints from citizens, NGOs, and businesses by investigating and, if needed, starting infringement cases.
7. Strengthen enforcement of fundamental rights (child protection, media freedom, anti‑racism).
8. Improve the “Europa” platform so it shows explanations of why a case is open or closed.
9. Limit the use of delegated acts that add extra technical detail after the main rule is adopted.
10. Support member states with training, resources, and digital tools to implement EU law faster and more accurately.

Key numbers highlighted

• Closed infringement cases: 1 030 (2023), 535 (2024), 345 (Jan‑Jul 2025).
• Open infringement cases: 1 461 (2023), 1 493 (2024), 1 559 (Jan‑Jul 2025).
• New infringement cases: 528 (2023), 567 (2024).
• Average delay in transposing directives: 11.9 months (2023).
• Environmental implementation gap cost: €180 bn per year.
• RRF funds disbursed by end‑2023: ~33 %.

Sector‑specific concerns

• Trade – need clear application dates; delays hurt EU businesses and credibility.
• Employment – the minimum‑wage directive must be fully adopted; monitor partial transpositions.
• Environment – publish yearly dashboards for each country; non‑implementation costs €180 bn.
• Energy – many infringement cases arise from incomplete implementation; coordinate enforcement, monitoring, and support.
• Digital services – keep a dedicated unit to enforce the Digital Services Act and work with national coordinators.
• Agriculture – ensure CAP funds are used correctly and fraud is prevented.
• Media & culture – improve implementation and monitoring of the Media Freedom Act and Creative Europe programme.
• Internal market – guard against unfair practices that bypass EU rules, especially for creators and small businesses.
• Asylum & migration – report on rule application.
• Gender equality & youth – provide detailed data on the gender equality strategy, Accessibility Act, and youth strategy.

Bottom line
The Parliament is telling the Commission to keep the yearly monitoring report, make the data clear and comparable, act faster and more transparently when a member state fails to follow EU law—especially on fundamental rights—use technology responsibly, and support member states so they can implement EU law on time and correctly while holding them accountable when they do not.

Broader context

This resolution is part of a long‑standing power struggle between the European Parliament (directly elected, representing citizens) and the European Commission (appointed, proposing and enforcing laws). By demanding annual reports and transparency on infringement cases, the Parliament is asserting its right to supervise the Commission, not just member states.

The missing 2024 report mentioned in the summary is a big deal because annual monitoring had been done every year since 1983 – breaking that tradition weakens the Parliament’s ability to hold anyone accountable. The Commission’s new focus on “simplification” (making rules fewer and less complex) worries the Parliament, because it could be used as an excuse to weaken enforcement or even deregulate.

Two influential reports from 2024–2025 (by former Italian prime ministers Enrico Letta and Mario Draghi) called for a stronger, more competitive EU. The Parliament uses them to argue that enforcement of EU law is not a burden, but a tool to make the EU work better for everyone.

The cost of not following environmental laws (€180 billion per year) is much higher than the cost of fixing the problems (€122 billion per year). This shows that enforcement is actually a good investment, not an expense.

Impact on people living in the EU

For ordinary citizens, the practical effect of this resolution is about protecting your daily rights and making sure promises from Brussels are real.

If a member state ignores EU law (e.g. doesn’t protect your data, lets your local river become polluted, or denies you access to a service), the Parliament wants the Commission to:

1. Investigate your complaint (even if just one person complains).
2. Start formal infringement proceedings faster, not just talk for years.
3. Publish clear information about why a case is open or closed, so you can follow what’s happening.

For people in countries with federal systems (like Germany, Belgium, Austria), the resolution acknowledges that regional governments (e.g. Länder, regions) often delay or mess up implementation. The Commission should provide more training and digital tools to help them.

For people outside the EU (e.g. businesses trading with the EU, or citizens in candidate countries), the resolution notes that delays and unclear application dates hurt the EU’s credibility as a trading partner. If you rely on EU rules (e.g. for product standards), unclear timelines mean uncertainty and extra costs.