In its monthly list of infringement proceedings update, the European Commission has announced that it has sent a reasoned opinion to Sweden on the basis that it believes it is failing to fulfil its obligations under various pieces of EU secondary law.
The pieces of EU secondary law in question are: Regulation 725/2004 on enhancing ship and port facility security, Directive 2005/65 on enhancing port security, and Commission Regulation 324/2008 on revised procedures for conducting Commission inspections in the field of maritime security.
Collectively, they set out security arrangements and requirements for ports, port facilities, vessels, and procedures for applicable security inspections. According to the Commission, this batch of secondary law are ‘important to bolster the security of ports against threats of intentional unlawful acts, and to improve the resilience of the EU’s critical infrastructure’.
The thrust of the Commission’s argument is that Sweden is incorrectly applying the secondary law, and thus, by not carrying out the required administrative and control tasks, which can put at risk EU maritime security. The letter of formal notice was sent to Sweden in February 2023, and following the Commission’s view that Sweden has not acted, a reasoned opinion was sent to it in April 2024. Sweden now has eight weeks to rectify the matter, before the Commission may decide to proceed to take it to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to find an infringement, and potentially levy a lump sum fine, and/or recurring financial penalties (fines) for continuing to not fulfil its obligations under EU law.
Sweden joined NATO in 2024, following Finland in 2023, following their respective decisions to seek NATO accession in 2022. These actions have thus enhanced collective security and defence arrangements in northern Europe. Of particular interest for the Commission here however, is the Baltic Sea. Shipping movements of all kinds in the Baltic have come under increased scrutiny as it becomes a ‘NATO lake’. Furthermore, now as a NATO member, it must radically improve some of its internal infrastructure givens its predominance in north-south movements, with a lack of west-east routes.
Whilst NATO aspects are not directly part of the Commission’s legal pleas here, they are unequivocally part of the broader geopolitical narrative that insufficiently engaging in basic maritime security surveillance that EU law demands will not be tolerated.
The case, INFR(2022)2206, can be found on the European Commission’s infringement database here.