Costa v ENEL
Jurisdiction | European Union |
Date | 15 July 1964 |
Court | European Court of Justice |
(Donner, President; Hammes, Trabucchi, Delvaux, Rossi, Lecourt, Strauss, Judges; Lagrange, Advocate-General)
Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Effect in municipal law — European Economic Community Treaty, 1957, distinguished from ordinary international treaty — Partial transfer of sovereignty from Member States to Community — New legal order created by EEC Treaty — Supremacy of Community law over conflicting municipal law — Individuals benefitting from legal rights derived from EEC Treaty
Treaties — Effect in municipal law — Enforcement by municipal courts — Provisions of EEC Treaty, 1957 — Articles 102, 93, 53 and 37 — Whether direct effect — Whether conferring rights upon individuals — Whether rights of individuals can be protected in national courts
International tribunals — Duty to refer under Article 177(3) of EEC Treaty, 1957—Court of Justice of the European Communities — Jurisdiction to interpret EEC Treaty, 1957 — Subordinate Italian court asking Court of Justice to interpret articles of EEC Treaty, 1957 — Whether within jurisdiction of Court of Justice — The law of the European Economic Community
Summary: The facts:—An Italian law of 6 December 1962 nationalized the Italian electricity industry to create Ente Nazionale Energia Elettrica (‘enel’). Mr Costa objected to the nationalization law and refused to pay an electricity bill presented to him by enel. In proceedings before the Giudice Conciliatore, Milan, Mr Costa argued that the 1962 Italian law which effected the nationalization contravened Community law as well as being unconstitutional under Italian law.
The case was referred to the Italian Constitutional Court for a preliminary opinion. The Constitutional Court ruled that the 1962 Italian law would remain valid even if it failed to comply with the EEC Treaty, because a subsequent municipal law would impliedly repeal an earlier law incorporating an international treaty. Proceedings before the Giudice Conciliatore were suspended and a preliminary reference made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities under Article 177(3) of the EEC Treaty seeking a ruling on whether Articles 102, 93, 53 and 37 of the EEC Treaty produced direct effects and created individual rights which warranted protection in national courts. The Italian Government argued that the reference to the Court of Justice was inadmissible since the procedure contained within Articles 169 to 171 of the EEC Treaty (which provided for actions to be brought in the Court of Justice by the Commission or a Member State against a State accused of violating the Treaty) was the appropriate method of dealing with a Member State's alleged contravention of Articles 102 and 93 and such contravention could not render the domestic law invalid.
Opinion of the Advocate-General:—The Advocate-General disagreed with the Government's submissions. He contended that Articles 53 and 37(2) were directly effective and could be invoked before a national court. There were to be no new measures which would create discrepancy in the treatment of nationals of Member States regarding the freedom of establishment according to Article 53. Article 37(2) of the EEC Treaty prohibited measures which would effectively create new duties or restrictions and measures with similar effects.
Held:—Articles 37 and 53 of the EEC Treaty had direct effect in Member States. Directly effective Community law prevailed over inconsistent national legislation and national courts must apply directly effective rules of Community law.
(1) The reference by the Giudice Conciliatore for a preliminary ruling under Article 177(3) of the EEC Treaty was within the jurisdiction of the court in so far as it requested the interpretation of treaty provisions. The contentions of the Italian Government that the Giudice Conciliatore was not entitled to refer to the Court of Justice in this instance and that these proceedings were inadmissible were rejected. Any national court, whatever its status within the juridical hierarchy, had the power to make a reference under Article 177 (pp. 37–8).
(2) By contrast with ordinary international treaties, the EEC Treaty had created its own legal system which, on the entry into force of the Treaty, became an integral part of the legal systems of the Member States and which their courts were bound to apply. By creating a Community of unlimited duration, having its own institutions, its own personality, its own legal capacity and capacity of representation on the international plane and, more particularly, real powers stemming from a limitation of sovereignty or a transfer of powers from the States to the Community, the Member States had limited their sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields, and had thus created a body of law which bound both their nationals and themselves (p. 38).
(3) The supremacy of Community law was assured by the new legal order embraced by Member States after the entry into force of the EEC Treaty on 1 January 1958, a treaty whose powers extended beyond that of an ordinary international agreement. Municipal legislation subsequent to, and inconsistent with, the EEC Treaty could not prevail over directly effective provisions of the Treaty. Any other decision would threaten the whole legal basis of the Community (p. 39).
(4) Individual rights which could be invoked before national courts were created in Community law when the provisions of the EEC Treaty were negative, legally complete and required no further action on the part of the Member State or the European Community. Articles 102 and 93 of the EEC Treaty, which imposed positive obligations on Member States and required action to be taken by the Community, did not, therefore, create such rights (pp. 39–41).
(5) Articles 53 and 37 of the EEC Treaty contained prohibitions which were legally complete and did not require any further steps to be taken by the State or at Community level and thus had direct effects on relations between Member States and individuals from the date of entry into force of the EEC Treaty. An individual was thus entitled to allege contravention of these provisions before a national court and to have his rights safeguarded (pp. 41–2).
(6) Article 53 did not confer a right to engage in any occupation whatsoever, but prohibited the introduction of any new measure which would make it more difficult for the nationals of other Member States to be established than the nationals of the host Member State (pp. 41–2).
(7) Under Article 37 of the EEC Treaty the creation of a state monopoly was forbidden only when it was commercial in its character and dealt with commercial products capable of transactions and competition between Member States and played a major role in such transactions. The determination of this was a matter for the court which dealt with the main action of the case (pp. 42–3).
The text of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities commences at p. 33. The following is the text of the relevant parts of the opinion of Advocate-General Lagrange delivered on 25 June 1964:
The preliminary question upon which you have to give a ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty does not, for once, come from a Netherlands court, but from an Italian one, and it is no longer a question of social security or of Regulation No 3, but rather of a certain number of provisions of the Treaty itself, in respect of which your interpretation is requested in circumstances that are such as to bring in issue the constitutional relations between the European Economic Community and its Member States. This highlights the importance of the judgment you are called upon to pronounce in this case. The facts are known to you: Mr Costa1, a lawyer practising in Milan, claims that he is not under an obligation to pay an invoice amounting to 1925 lire demanded of him in respect of the supply of electricity by the “Ente Nazionale per l'Energia Elettrica (ENEL)”. He objected to this
payment before the Giudice Conciliatore (which has sole jurisdiction by virtue of the amount involved) claiming that the Law of 6 December 1962 nationalizing the electricity industry in Italy was contrary to a certain number of provisions of the Treaty of Rome, and was unconstitutional. In this connexion he requested—and obtained—a reference of the case, on the one hand to the Italian Constitutional Court, and on the other hand to this Court for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 177 of the Treaty.Two preliminary questions in connexion with the validity of the reference to this Court must be resolved.
A. The first is the question whether the Milan court has referred to you questions which really relate to the interpretation of the Treaty. The order contained in the judgment in question does no more than mention “the allegation that the Law of 6 December 1962 and the presidential decrees issued in pursuance of that Law infringe Articles 102, 93, 53 and 37 of the Treaty” and, as a consequence, suspends proceedings and orders the “transmission of a certified copy of the file to the Court of Justice of the European Economic Community in Luxembourg”. However, in its reasoning, the judgment shows in a brief but nevertheless precise manner, how the law nationalizing the electricity industry in Italy might constitute an infringement of each of the relevant Articles of the EEC Treaty and hence be incompatible with the Treaty. I think that this Court can and must make the necessary effort from the four points of difficulty set out in the judgment that which is relevant to the interpretation of the Treaty. You have been willing to make such efforts in other cases with a view to enabling a national court to give a decision within the limits of its jurisdiction, whilst remaining within the sphere of your own; and this, after all, is quite...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Peter Jägerskiöld v Torolf Gustafsson.
...of Article 37(4) of the Treaty of Rome? 5. Does the aforementioned legal rule have direct legal effect in accordance with the judgment in Case 6/64 Costa v ENEL? 6. Has sufficient account been taken of farmers' interests? 7. Does such an amendment of the Law on Fishing 1045/1996 concerning ......
-
Fratelli Pardini SpA v Ministero del Commercio con l'Estero and Banca Toscana (Lucca branch).
...defined in the Court' s judgment in International Chemical Corporation ( 11 ) and in its order in Woensche . Moreover, as early as the Da Costa case, ( 12 ) the Court stated that the authoritative nature of the interpretation given may free the courts or tribunals referred to in the third p......
-
Criminal proceedings against Krister Hanner.
...Éditions de l’université de Bruxelles, 2nd edition, Brussels, 1992, p. 311, and Berrod, F., cited above, point 6. 25 – Case 6/64 Costa v ENEL [1964] ECR 585, paragraph 11, and paragraph 4 of the operative 26 – Case 155/73 Sacchi [1974] ECR 409, paragraph 10, and Case C‑6/01 AnomarandOthers ......
-
Danske Slagterier v Bundesrepublik Deutschland.
...development of the principle of State liability under Community law was foreseeable long before Francovich and Others. They refer first to Case 6/64 Costa [1964] ECR 585 in which the supremacy of Community law over national law was established and, in connection with an obligation on Member......
-
Alessandro Tedesco v Tomasoni Fittings Srl and RWO Marine Equipment Ltd.
...L 195, p. 16. 7 – See Article 20 of Directive 2004/48. 8 – Decreto Legislativo (legislative decree) No 30/05 of 10 February 2005. 9 – See Case 6/64 Costa v ENEL [1964] ECR 585; Case C-337/95 Parfums Christian Dior [1997] ECR I-6013, paragraph 25; and Case C-99/00 Lyckeskog [2002] ECR I‑4839......
-
Novartis AG, University College London and Institute of Microbiology and Epidemiology v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks for the United Kingdom (C-207/03) and Ministre de l'Économie v Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc. (C-252/03).
...of the regulation, owing to, for example, the fact that the wrong date was given in the application for a certificate. 51 – Enunciated in Case 6/64 Costa v Enel [1964] ECR 52 – See the judgment in Case 106/77 Simmenthal [1978] ECR 629. Kovar, R., in ‘Relations between Community law and nati......
-
Fendt Italiana Srl v Agenzia Dogane - Ufficio Dogane di Trento.
...No 504 of 26 October 1995 (GURI No 279 of 29 November 1995, Ordinary Supplement). 13 – See footnote 4. 14 – At paragraph 30. 15 – See Case 6/64 Costa [1964] ECR 585, at pp. 592 and 593 and, more recently, Case C-346/97 Braathens Sverige [1999] ECR I-3419, paragraph 14. 16 – The travaux prép......
-
Angela Maria Sirdar contra The Army Board y Secretary of State for Defence.
...[1986] ECR 1651. (10) - See paragraph 24 of the judgment. (11) - See paragraph 26 of the judgment (emphasis added). (12) - Judgment in Case 6/64 Costa v ENEL [1964] ECR 585, in particular p. 594 (emphasis added). (13) - Johnston, paragraph 27. (14) - The observation is from Advocate General......
-
Competition Litigation 2019
...and Crehan ). In addition, the TFEU, and in particular Articles 101 and 102, have primacy over the national laws of the EU Member States (Case C-6/64, Costa v ENEL). The procedural grounds for bringing a claim before the European Courts include Article 263 TFEU, which permits the European C......
-
Common Foreign and Security Policy: The Consequences of the Court's Extended Jurisdiction
...and the European Cour t of Justice(CambridgeUniversity Press, 2012).122Case 26/62, van Gend, [1963]ECR 1; Case 6/64, Costa v. ENEL, [1964] ECR 585; Cases C-402/05 P andC-415/05 P, Kadi and al Barakaat.123Article 4(3) TEU appliesto all EU policies. Article 24(3) TEU specifically sharpensthe......
-
The Influence of the EU and the ECHR on ‘Parliamentary Sovereignty Regimes’: Assessing the Impact of European Integration on the British and Swedish Judiciaries
...in particular, Case 26/62, Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen [1963] ECR1, Case 6/64, Costa v Enel [1964] ECR 585 and Case 11/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft v Einfuhrund Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel [1970] ECR 1125.8Stone Sweet, op cit,1.9A. ......
-
Fundamental rights in the E.U.: whose rights are they anyway ... and who´s right?
...objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others”. See [2000] OJ C364/1. 14 Case C-6/64 Costa v. ENEL [1964] ECR 15 Case C-6/90 and Case C-9/90 Francovich and others v. Italy [1992] IRLR 84. 16 Factortame Ltd v. Secretary of Sta......
-
Protecting Supremacy from External Influences: A Precondition for a European Constitutional Legal Order?
...paper.3Case 11/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft [1970] ECR 1125; C-106/77, Simmenthal II [1978] ECR629.4Case 6/64, Costa v ENEL [1964] ECR 585.5Article 47 TFEU.6See inter alia Article 351 TFEU, but also the general principle of loyal cooperation in Article 4(3) TEU.7C-124/95, Centro-C......