EU environmental laws are a vital tool to tackle the triple climate, biodiversity and pollution crisis, protecting both people and nature in Europe. However, across the EU, governments are failing to implement the laws they themselves made, a failure which is flagged regularly. Laura Hildt, Raphael Weyland, and Samantha Ibbott report.
Hidden costs
Across Europe, poor implementation and enforcement is leading to huge costs to EU taxpayers, amounting to €55 billion per year in health costs and environmental damage. In Poland and Bulgaria, for example, complaints were filed in 2019 regarding the inability to challenge inadequate air quality plans, but six years on, the same problems persist! While over in Germany, it took ten years for a complaint by NABU on the destruction of grasslands, a vital habitat for many species, to reach a judgment. In that time precious habitat was lost, leaving species such as the Curlew and Northern Lapwing increasingly at-risk.
“This is not just about saving billions — it’s about saving human lives”
Raphael Weyland, BirdLife Europe
Beyond these disastrous implications, a lack of implementation also risks jeopardising the EU’s ability to reach its climate goals. In 2024, the EU Commission received a series of complaints by civil society on inadequate National Energy and Climate Plans drawn up by EU governments to act on climate change. With the plans falling woefully short of what is required, the Commission, as the ‘Guardian of the Treaties’, has the responsibility to ensure that EU law is complied with and to take action when governments fail to do so – including when governments fail to stick to EU climate objectives.
However, it often takes decades for the Commission to act, leading to long delays, as covered by META previously. A new report of the European Court of Auditors has shone a spotlight on the Commission’s lack of action, highlighting how such delays in the enforcement process have dire consequences for the climate and environment – and by extension, us all.
Shhhh it’s a secret, but why?
Delays are not the only obstacle to proper law enforcement. The infringement process is shrouded in secrecy making it impossible for the EU Parliament or civil society to effectively monitor it.
With a mere paragraph on the steps taken and, if lucky, a press release on the broad points, there is very little information available for the public. All communication between the Commission and EU governments is kept under lock and key, as are the complaints that have already been filed. All this leaves the public, and those elected to represent them, in the dark about what legal obligations their governments are breaching. Obligations that are intended to protect them from climate breakdown, the destruction of nature, and the pollution of crucial ecosystems and resources.
While the Court of Justine in the European Union (CJEU), the EU’s highest court, has confirmed that the Commission is permitted to use exemptions from transparency rules for documents relating to infringement procedures, it is not under a legal obligation. This essentially means that keeping the public in the dark is an entirely political choice.
Transparency is the key
While transparency is not the only measure required to ensure broad improvements in the enforcement system (political will, staff capacity, and compliance with timelines are also essential), it is a cost-efficient way of improving effectiveness and ensuring better oversight and protection of the the public’s fundamental ‘right to know’ – as required by the Aarhus Convention, the Charter and the Treaty.
Without the full picture, democratic accountability is undermined and brings the EU’s compliance with international law into question. The Parliament must be in a position to hold the Commission accountable for one of its key tasks: ensuring compliance with EU law. By ensuring that the Commission stands up for the public’s rights – whether it is ensuring safe water or clean air, to take just two examples – the EU would greatly increase public trust.
In short, ‘justice must be seen to be done’.
“Transparency in infringement proceedings isn’t just a ‘nice to have’ — it’s fundamental for democracy.”
Ilze Tralmaka, ClientEarth
Beyond these clear benefits, increased transparency would have a ripple effect on EU law making itself. Presented with a more accurate picture of implementation issues, policymakers would be better able to overcome them when amending or creating laws. Civil society would be better able to perform its vital role of calling out non-compliance and helping the Commission to challenge it.
Political will
Without implementation, EU environmental laws cannot fulfil their purpose. And without full transparency proper implementation will remain out of reach, as made clear by a joint report ‘Effective implementation: Transparency in the EU infringement process’ published by ClientEarth, BirdLife Europe, and ourselves, and backed up by the Court of Auditors’ report.
During an event on 6 March 2025, where we discussed our transparency demands alongside the European Court of Auditors’ recommendations, a high-level representative of the Commission promised some incremental improvements, such as a database for pilots and more information in the press releases of the infringement packages. While these are welcome steps, they are far from the full transparency needed to enhance trust and effectiveness, and many questions remain unanswered.
Each report provides clear recommendations that, with political will, can improve the effectiveness of environmental laws in Europe, with many clear benefits for people, nature, and climate. We will continue to hold the Commission accountable for its role and look forward to further progress.
Read the recommendations in full: ‘Effective implementation: Transparency in the EU infringement process’