Introduction
On 15 October 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Third Chamber) delivered its judgment in Case C-879/24, European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark (ECLI:EU:C:2026:857). The case concerned infringement proceedings brought by the European Commission under Articles 258 and 260(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), following Denmark's alleged failure to transpose two directives relating to the recognition of professional qualifications in the field of inland waterway navigation.
The action was introduced on 18 December 2024. The two directives at issue were Directive (EU) 2017/2397 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2017 on the recognition of professional qualifications in inland navigation, and Directive (EU) 2021/1233 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 July 2021, which amended Directive 2017/2397 as regards transitional measures for the recognition of certificates from third countries. Both instruments required transposition by 17 January 2022.
This article provides an educational overview of the proceedings as recorded in the official judgment. It does not constitute legal advice, and readers with specific legal questions should consult a qualified legal professional.
The parties and the composition of the court
The applicant in the proceedings was the European Commission, represented by agents U. Nielsen and B. Sasinowska. The defendant was the Kingdom of Denmark, represented initially by agents M. Jespersen, C. A.-S. Maertens, and J. Sandvik Loft, and subsequently by M. Jespersen and C. A.-S. Maertens.
The Third Chamber of the Court of Justice, which heard the case, was composed of President of the Chamber C. Lycourgos, and Judges N. Fenger, S. Rodin, N. Piçarra (acting as Rapporteur), and O. Spineanu-Matei. Advocate General L. Medina delivered her Opinion at the hearing held on 16 April 2026. The Registrar was V. Di Bucci.
The case was decided following written procedure and after the Advocate General's submissions were heard at the oral stage.
The directives at issue and the transposition obligation
Directive (EU) 2017/2397, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ 2017, L 345, p. 53), established a framework for the recognition of professional qualifications in the field of inland waterway navigation and repealed Council Directives 91/672/EEC and 96/50/EC. Article 39(3) of that directive imposed a transposition obligation on member states, while Article 39(4) provided for an exemption from that obligation in cases where inland navigation is technically impossible on the waterways of a given member state.
Directive (EU) 2021/1233, published in the Official Journal (OJ 2021, L 274, p. 52), amended Directive 2017/2397 by introducing transitional measures for the recognition of certificates issued by third countries. Article 2(1) of Directive 2021/1233 required member states to communicate to the Commission the national measures adopted to transpose that directive.
Both directives shared the same transposition deadline of 17 January 2022. The Commission's case rested on the allegation that Denmark had failed, by that date, either to adopt the necessary legislative, regulatory, and administrative measures to comply with those directives, or at the very least to communicate any such measures to the Commission.
The Commission's claims and the financial penalties sought
The Commission asked the Court to declare that Denmark had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 39(3) of Directive 2017/2397 and Article 2(1) of Directive 2021/1233 by failing to adopt, by 17 January 2022 at the latest, the measures necessary to comply with those directives, or in any event by failing to communicate such measures to the Commission.
In addition to a declaration of infringement, the Commission sought the imposition of financial penalties under Article 260(3) TFEU. Specifically, it requested that Denmark be ordered to pay a lump sum of 2,289.60 euros per day, calculated from the day following the expiry of the transposition deadline — that is, from 17 January 2022 — until the date on which the infringement ceased or, if it had not ceased, until the date of the judgment. The Commission specified that the lump sum should be no less than 1,599,000 euros in total.
Furthermore, if the infringement were found to persist until the date of the judgment, the Commission requested that Denmark be ordered to pay a daily penalty payment of 20,542.80 euros for each day of continued non-compliance, running from the date of the judgment until the date on which Denmark fulfilled its obligations under the two directives. The Commission also sought an order that Denmark bear the costs of the proceedings.
The legal framework: Directive (EU) 2016/1629
The judgment also references the broader legislative context of inland waterway regulation in the European Union. Recital 27 of Directive (EU) 2016/1629 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2016, which established technical requirements applicable to inland waterway vessels, amended Directive 2009/100/EC, and repealed Directive 2006/87/EC (OJ 2016, L 252, p. 118), forms part of the legal framework cited in the proceedings.
This directive is relevant to understanding the regulatory environment within which the professional qualification requirements established by Directive 2017/2397 operate, as both instruments form part of the EU's broader framework governing inland navigation.
The document as available does not reproduce the full text of Recital 27 of Directive 2016/1629, but its inclusion in the judgment's legal framework section indicates its relevance to the interpretation of the obligations at issue in the case.
Significance of Article 260(3) TFEU in infringement proceedings
A notable feature of this case is the Commission's reliance on Article 260(3) TFEU, which allows the Court to impose financial penalties on a member state at the same time as it finds an infringement, where the infringement consists of a failure to notify measures transposing a directive adopted under a legislative procedure. This provision enables the Court to act in a single set of proceedings, rather than requiring a separate enforcement action after an initial finding of infringement.
The use of Article 260(3) TFEU reflects the Commission's enforcement approach in cases of non-communication of transposition measures, where the financial deterrent is built into the initial infringement action. The lump sum and daily penalty payment sought by the Commission in this case illustrate the dual nature of the financial sanctions available under that provision: the lump sum addresses the period of past non-compliance, while the daily penalty payment is intended to incentivise future compliance.
The specific amounts sought by the Commission — a daily lump sum of 2,289.60 euros and a daily penalty payment of 20,542.80 euros — are set out in the judgment as part of the Commission's formal claims, and reflect the methodology applied by the Commission in calculating penalties for member states in infringement proceedings of this type.
Conclusion
Case C-879/24, European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark, illustrates the enforcement mechanisms available to the European Commission when a member state fails to transpose EU directives within the prescribed deadline. The case concerns two directives in the field of inland waterway navigation — Directive 2017/2397 and Directive 2021/1233 — both of which required transposition by 17 January 2022. The Commission's decision to invoke Article 260(3) TFEU in the same proceedings as the infringement action under Article 258 TFEU demonstrates the procedural tools available to ensure timely implementation of EU law by member states.
The financial penalties sought — including a minimum lump sum of 1,599,000 euros and a daily penalty payment of 20,542.80 euros — underscore the seriousness with which the Court of Justice and the Commission treat failures to communicate transposition measures. The judgment, delivered by the Third Chamber on 15 October 2026, forms part of the official digital reports of cases and carries official status.
This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Sources consulted
- Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 October 2026. — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark. — Case C-879/24. - Court of Justice of the European Union, European Union
Published by Synojus International
Back to English publications