Muscat's claim is one of the cleanest factual claims in the press conference. Every step of the EU infringement procedure is publicly documented in the European Commission's infringement database, and Malta's progression from missed deadline through to CJEU referral is on the record. If anything, Muscat's framing of 'infringement opened' understates how far the procedure has actually escalated — the CJEU referral is the final step before potential financial penalties.

The directive — RED III

The Renewable Energy Directive (EU) 2023/2413 — known as RED III — strengthened the EU's renewable-energy promotion framework, building on RED II. Key obligations relevant to Malta:

• Article 3(1): Binding EU-wide target of 42.5% renewable energy share by 2030 (Malta's national target as part of the burden-sharing arrangement was lower but ambitious).
• Article 7: Faster permitting procedures for renewable projects (deadline 1 July 2024 for member-state designation of acceleration areas).
• Article 15: Streamlined administrative procedures for renewables.
• Annex IX: Sustainability criteria for biofuels (subsequently amended by Delegated Directive 2024/1405).

Transposition deadline for the bulk of the directive: 21 May 2025. Permitting provisions: 1 July 2024.

The infringement-procedure escalation

EU infringement procedure follows a four-stage escalation path. Malta has moved through three of the four stages on RED III:

April 2026 — the same month as Muscat's claim — was the CJEU referral, alongside Greece and Portugal on the same directive. This is the most serious stage of the EU infringement procedure under Article 258 TFEU.

The second infringement file — Delegated Directive 2024/1405

Separately, the European Commission has also opened a second infringement file on the Delegated Directive (EU) 2024/1405, which amends Annex IX of RED III (the sustainability criteria for biofuels). A letter of formal notice has been sent for non-transposition of these amendments. So Muscat's plural 'directives' framing is justified by two separate infringement files, not just one — RED III itself and the Delegated Directive amending it.

What financial penalties could look like

If the CJEU rules against Malta and Malta doesn't comply with the ruling, the Commission can return to court and request financial penalties under Article 260 TFEU. Two types are possible:

• Lump-sum penalty: punitive, paid once for the period of non-compliance.
• Daily penalty payment: ongoing, paid until compliance is achieved.

For comparable RED transposition cases historically, lump-sum penalties have been in the €1-5M range for small member states; daily payments €1,000-€10,000/day. Malta's exposure on RED III specifically depends on how long non-compliance continues post-CJEU ruling.

Important distinction — legal text vs physical projects

The infringement is about non-transposition of the directive's legal text into Maltese national law. It is not about absence of physical renewable-energy projects or capacity build-out. Malta has active offshore wind tender, domestic battery scheme, rooftop solar growth, and IC2/IC3 interconnector projects (covered in #72, #74). The legal-compliance failure and the project pipeline are two separate issues.

This matters for how to read Muscat's claim. The infringement is real and serious; it doesn't equate to 'no plan' or 'no projects' (those framings are separately addressed in #72 / #74).

So is the claim accurate?

Yes — and the more precise reading is that Muscat undersells it. The EC opened infringement proceedings against Malta on RED III, escalated through letter of formal notice (July 2025), reasoned opinion (December 2025), and referred Malta to the CJEU in April 2026 — the most serious stage of the procedure. A second infringement file is open on the Delegated Directive. The framing is documentary fact.

Verdict: True.