Poland will pay EUR 8.3 million. The EU Court fined the late directive

The Court of Justice of the European Union (TEU) issued a judgement which means that Poland must pay a crucial financial penalty. It's the amount. EUR 8.3 million. The reason for the imposition of sanctions is the hold in the implementation of the EU Copyright Directive in the Digital Single Market, in peculiar with respect to certain online transmissions. Although EU regulations were to be in Polish law until June 2021, the applicable regulations were not adopted until 2024. This nearly three-year hold became the basis of a complaint by the European Commission and yet led to an adverse decision of the TEU for Poland. The judgement stresses the importance of timely implementation of EU law by associate States.

Why did Poland face punishment?

The main reason for the imposition of a punishment by the TEU is Poland's failure to comply with the work to transpose Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the digital single market. associate States, including Poland, had time to implement its provisions into national law to June 7, 2021. However, Poland adopted the essential regulations much later, as it was not until 2024. This delay, almost 3 years after the deadline, was considered by the Court to be a breach of the obligations arising from membership of the European Union.

The European Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, lodged a complaint with the TEU in March 2023, pointing to the hold as an obstacle to the appropriate functioning of the Digital Single marketplace in the area of copyright. The Court accepted the Commission’s argument, considering that the hold in transposition is simply a fact and a breach of Union law.

What is this directive and what controversy was it?

The Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single marketplace (sometimes called the ACTA 2 Directive, although this simplification) was adopted by the European Parliament in March 2019. Its main nonsubjective is to adapt copyright rules to the digital reality of the planet and the Internet. It introduces fresh rules on the publication and monitoring of online content, and is intended to make it easier for creators and broadcasters to exercise their rights in a digital environment across the EU.

Special controversy in many countries, including Poland, has sparked 2 articles of the directive. Article 17 (formerly frequently referred to as Article 13) concerns the work of online platforms for content posted by users and introduces an work to apply measures (e.g. filtering) to prevent copyright infringements. Article 15 (previously Article 11) introduces the alleged related rights for press publishers, giving them the chance to claim remuneration for the usage of their publications by net platforms, content aggregators or search engines.

Implementation of these provisions required circumstantial national regulations which would specify, inter alia, filtering mechanisms, wage negotiation rules or exceptions to the application of the Directive. The legislative process in Poland was long and complicated, partially due to the turbulent public consultation and complexity of legal matter.

Financial and legal consequences of the TEU judgment

The most direct and felt consequence of the judgement of the CEU is the request for Poland to pay a fine of EUR 8.3 million. This is simply a one-off amount imposed for a period of hold in implementing the Directive. This money will contribute to the European Union budget. Although the amount may seem large, it is simply a standard mechanics that disciplines associate States that do not fulfil their obligations under EU law.

The judgement of the TEU is besides of legal importance. It confirms that the arguments put forward by the Polish government to justify delays were insufficient. The Court has clearly stated that COVID-19 pandemic and the request for a public consultationAlthough they may affect the legislative process, they cannot constitute an absolute justification for specified a crucial hold in the transposition of the Directive. The TEU recalled that associate States are required to guarantee effective implementation of Union law within the deadlines set.

The ruling besides sends a clear signal to Poland and another associate States that the European Commission and the TEU are serious about the timely and correct transposition of EU law and that delays may consequence in severe financial sanctions. This is part of a wider EU law enforcement mechanism.

Polish arguments rejected by the Court

During the proceedings before the TEU, Poland put forward arguments to justify delays in the implementation of the Directive. The main reasons indicated by the Polish authorities were the difficulties related to COVID-19 pandemicwhich has influenced the work of Parliament and Administration, and the request for broad and complex public consultation due to the controversial nature of certain provisions of the Directive, in peculiar those concerning filtering of content and related rights for publishers.

However, the Court of Justice of the European Union has held that these arguments, although they reflect certain realities, cannot full justify nearly 3 years of delay. The TEU stressed that associate States are required to organise their legislative processes in specified a way that they are able to meet the deadlines for transposition of directives, even in the face of difficulties. The Court considered that Poland did not show that pandemics or consultations would prevent appropriate legislative action from being taken within the required time limit and that the hold was disproportionately long in relation to the reasons presented.

The rejection of Poland's arguments by the TEU confirms that, in the eyes of the Court, the work to implement EU law within the time limit is simply a priority, and associate States are liable for organising their legislative apparatus in specified a way as to meet those deadlines.