Surviving the Deadline
| DOI | 10.1177/146511650344001 |
| Author | Ellen Mastenbroek |
| Published date | 01 December 2003 |
| Date | 01 December 2003 |
| Subject Matter | Journal Article |
Surviving the Deadline
The Transposition of EU Directives in
the Netherlands
Ellen Mastenbroek
Leiden University, The Netherlands
ABSTRACT
By focusing on the speed of transposition of European direc-
tives in the Netherlands, this article evaluates the claim made
by various researchers and EU politicians that there is an EU
implementation deficit. It has the twofold objective of assess-
ing the timeliness of transposition and explaining delays,
using the technique of survival analysis. The main finding is
that almost 60 percent of the directives are transposed late,
i.e. after the deadline specified by the directive. There hence
exists an implementation deficit in the Netherlands. Various
legal and political variables combine to explain the time
needed for transposition, the most important of which are
the legal instrument used, the responsible ministry and the
EU decision-making procedure.
371
European Union Politics
[1465-1165(200312)4:4]
Volume 4 (4): 371–395: 038135
Copyright© 2003
SAGE Publications
London, Thousand Oaks CA,
New Delhi
KEY WORDS
European Union
EU directives
implementation deficit
transposition
survival analysis
01Mastenbroek (bc/t) 14/10/03 8:21 AM Page 371
Introduction
European integration is claimed to be haunted by an implementation deficit.
Academics and European Union (EU) officials alike share the view that the
member states’ record for complying with EU policies is rather poor (e.g.
Mendrinou, 1996: 2; Richardson, 1996: 288; Knill and Lenschow, 1998: 595).
According to Metcalfe (1992: 117), this is one of the most pressing problems
for the European Commission in seeking to manage the European integration
process. Yet, the allegation that a deficit exists has never been seriously evalu-
ated, nor have the myriad explanations proposed in the literature been
studied in an integrated fashion. The implementation deficit is hence
portrayed as a black hole (Weiler, 1991: 2465). This paper seeks to partly fill
this hole, focusing on the speed of transposition of EU directives in The
Netherlands.
The implementation debate has especially evolved around a particular
type of EU legislation, namely directives. These acts make up about 80 percent
of all Community legislation (Dinan, 2000: 421). Their special character stems
from the fact that they are binding not in their entirety, but only ‘as to the
result to be achieved’, and leave national governments ‘the choice of form
and methods’ (Article 249 EC). The member states must, in other words, trans-
pose directives into their national legislation, and then apply and enforce
them. Transposition is a first step in the implementation process, and may
signal problems in later stages.
What is more, this paper specifically looks at the timeliness of transposi-
tion. Not only do member states have to implement directives correctly, they
are required to do so before the deadline specified in each directive. The
Commission and Court take this obligation very seriously, because of the
possible adverse effects of delays: late transposition endangers the uniform
application of Community law and implies the continued existence of
discriminatory practices. This paper seeks to explain possible delays by means
of survival analysis.
Existing data and their shortcomings
The implementation deficit first came to the fore in the early 1990s, when the
European Commission noted widespread non-observance of internal market
rules by the member states. In combating this problem, the Commission
started out quite cautiously, forming a committee led by former Commis-
sioner Peter Sutherland to study the problem. Yet, over time it toughened its
stance, shaking off its reputation for being ‘a pussycat when it comes to
European Union Politics 4(4)
372
01Mastenbroek (bc/t) 14/10/03 8:21 AM Page 372
To continue reading
Request your trial