Czechia Taken to EU Court Over Failure to Implement Proportionality Rules

European Commission

Today, the Commission has decided to refer Czechia to the Court of Justice of the European Union for its failure to ensure the correct transposition of the Proportionality Test Directive (Directive (EU) 2018/958) into national legislation.

This Directive governs the proportionality assessment of new or amended rules restricting access to, or pursuit of, regulated professions. Member States are required to ensure that any national regulation of professions pursues legitimate public interest objectives and is necessary and balanced. The availability of a clear and common assessment framework before adopting the regulation of professions is crucial to prevent unjustified barriers in the single market and to facilitate access to regulated professions.

Czechia failed to ensure that all measures covered by the directive, in particular those being initiated by professional bodies and parliamentary amendments, undergo a prior proportionality assessment. In addition, Czechia neglected to ensure the assessment of the cumulative impact of multiple requirements introduced simultaneously.

The Commission launched this infringement procedure as part of an infringement package against Member States that failed to properly transpose the Proportionality Test Directive. In December 2021, the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to Czechia, followed by an additional one in February 2023 and a reasoned opinion in October 2023. Despite the repeated warnings and ongoing dialogue with the Czech authorities, the issues have still not been fully addressed, leading the Commission to decide to refer Czechia to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

This action aims to ensure the proper implementation of the directive, thereby preventing disproportionate barriers in the Single Market, in line with the objectives outlined in the Commission's Communication on "The Single Market at 30".

Background

The Directive on a proportionality test before adoption of new regulation of professions (Directive (EU) 2018/958) is one of the four initiatives that were proposed as part of the 2017 Services Package. It was adopted on 28 June 2018 and should have been implemented by Member States by 30 July 2020. The Directive aims to contribute to better prior assessments of restrictive regulations in line with the prevention pillar of the Enforcement Action Plan.

According to the Directive, Member States must make a proportionality assessment before adopting new regulation of professions. The Directive provides a list of criteria that Member States are obliged to consider for this assessment. In addition, the Directive contributes to the transparency of the rule-making process by requiring these assessments to be made publicly available and by obliging Member States to appropriately inform and involve all relevant stakeholders. In addition, Member States must continue monitoring the proportionality of these new or amended provisions after their adoption and consider any relevant developments such as technological innovation.

Directive (EU) 2018/958 applies to all legislative, regulatory, or administrative provisions restricting access to a regulated profession or its pursuit, or one of its modes of pursuit. However, Czechia has failed to ensure that all provisions (in particular measures of professional associations as well as parliamentary amendments) are covered by the national transposing measures.

In addition, the Directive requires an assessment of the proposed measures when taken together with other requirements. Czechia has failed to transpose with sufficient clarity this criterion of cumulative effect and requires an assessment only in relation to existing legislation, which seems to exclude consideration of the cumulative impact of a package of measures.

/Public Release. This material from the originating organization/author(s) might be of the point-in-time nature, and edited for clarity, style and length. Mirage.News does not take institutional positions or sides, and all views, positions, and conclusions expressed herein are solely those of the author(s).View in full here.