Transposition of law
This last year the Member States had to transpose 66 new directives, which represents a large increase in their workload compared with the preparation of Scoreboard 2016 (47 directives). This situation has caused great difficulties, which are reflected in the results for most of the Member States. In general, since the transposition deficit has risen, the average delay has decreased because the significant number of recent directives counted heavily in the calculation of the delay for overdue directives.
Transposition deficit: 1.5% (last report: 1.4%) – Increase of a score that was already in the red zone 1 year ago, although not among the 10 worst increases. In addition, Poland was in a group of 3 Member States that increased their deficit by only 0.1 of a percentage point. If Poland was the Member State with the second highest deficit 1 year ago, but this is no longer the case, as it has moved from 27th to 15th position). Poland has a transposition deficit of 21% for the directives that had to be transposed in 2016 (until 30 November) and 56% for the 9 directives with a transposition date within the 3 months before the cut-off date for calculation. This shows that Poland monitors the timely transposition of the directives quite well although with a six-month delay (see average delay below). The difficulties that Poland has in transposing directives are not only due to planning issues.
EU average = 1.5%; Proposed target (in Single Market Act) = 0.5%
Overdue directives: 15 (last report: 15) including 4 in the environmental sector (= 27%) and none more than 2 years overdue.
Average delay: 6.1 months (last report: 10.0 months) – Sharp decrease. Poland has no more long overdue directives in its backlog and most of its outstanding directives (14/15) have been due for less than 12 months.
EU average = 6.7 months
Compliance deficit: 1.8% (last report: 2.2%) – Despite the decrease, Poland still has the highest deficit of all 28 Member States: 18 directives have not been correctly transposed into national law (almost 4 times the proposed target).
EU average = 0.7%; Proposed target (in Single Market Act) = 0.5%
Pending cases: 33 (5 new cases and 16 cases closed including 4 in environment and 4 in transport; last report: 44 pending cases) – Further sharp decrease (-34% since November 2014) and no longer in the group of Member States with the highest number of single market-related cases (now eight position among Member States with the most cases).
(EU average = 24 cases)
Problematic sectors: transport with road & rail transport (5 cases) and air transport (4); environment (8), of which water protection & management (3)
Average case duration: 38.9 months for the 22 cases not yet sent to the Court (last report: 32.9 months) - Increase and now above the EU average. Poland was able to solve a significant number of cases not yet sent to the Court (13 with an average duration of 26.9 months) but the older remaining cases weigh more heavily in the calculation of the average duration (namely 2 cases running for more than 10 years and 7 cases open for 3 to 7 years).
(EU average = 36.9 months)
Compliance with court rulings: 20 months for the 14 cases at this stage of the procedure (last report: 18.9 months) - Slight increase because Poland has complied with 3 new rulings, on average 14 months after the Court judgment.
(EU average = 21 months)
Poland’s average response time respects the 70-day benchmark in EU Pilot.
Internal Market Information System
Performance – Poland continues to perform well.
- Its overall performance remains stable, despite the high volume of incoming requests.
- The satisfaction ratings have fallen slightly and are now below average.
- Speed in answering requests is below the EU average and could be improved.
National provider: PSZ (Polish Public Employment Service)
EURES advisers (nationally): 55
Performance: could be improved by a higher number of EURES advisers.
National portal for citizens in PL: www.obywatel.gov.pl (under development)
Portal for businesses in PL and EN: www.eu-go.gov.pl
Record for this period
- active participation in Editorial Board work
- responsive to all requests for information for the website
- back-linking from national websites to Your Europe and promotional activities
- ensure stable representation on the Editorial Board
- attend the Board meetings twice a year
- provide information, when requested, on how the country applies single market rules
- raise awareness of Your Europe within national administration and among potential end users
- link national websites to Your Europe
Overall, Poland’s performance in 2016 was satisfactory. For further information and the methodology applied, please see the section on Public procurement performance.
For easier analysis, EU countries are divided into 3 groups on the basis of absolute GDP per capita and EU accession date (method used in EU postal sector study (2010–13) :
Western – Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Sweden and UK
Southern – Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal and Spain
Eastern – Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.
Prices in purchasing power parity (PPP)
Domestic prices 2012–15 (in PPP): Increase from 0.89 PPPs to 1.09 PPPs
Cross-border price developments 2012–15 (in PPP): Significant increase from 1.38 to 2.42 PPPs
Transit time performance D+1:
Performance in terms of transit time decreased gradually from 68.5 % in 2012 to 60.9% in 2015.
Polish performance target = 82%
For some countries, the reference figures for the previous period may differ slightly from the last Scoreboard, due to subsequent updates that they provided.
Trade in goods and services
Poland’s trade integration in the single market for goods is above the EU average, whereas its trade integration for services is just below the EU average. In 2015, both indicators increased above EU average.
Trade in goods and services
Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)
In 2015, Poland's share of EU FDI inflows and outflows decreased whereas the share of EU FDI inward stock increased slightly. The share of FDI outward stock remained unchanged.
||Share of EU FDI Flows
||Share of EU FDI Stocks
|% FDI 2015
|Change 2013 – 2014|