Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

ACTION TO HAVE MEASURE DECLARED VOID - APPLICATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF HAVING NATIONAL MEASURES DECLARED VOID - INADMISSIBILITY
( EEC TREATY , ART . 173 ; RULES OF PROCEDURE , ART . 92 ( 1 ))

IN CASE 46/81
GIORGIO BENVENUTO , IN HIS CAPACITY AS GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE UNIONE LAVORATORI ITALIANI ( ULI ) ( UNION OF ITALIAN WORKERS )

APPLICATION CLAIMING THAT THE COURT , AFTER NOTIFYING ( 1 ) THE MINISTER FOR THE TIME BEING OF INDUSTRY , TRADE AND CRAFT TRADES OF THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT ; ( 2 ) THE COMITATO INTERMINISTERIALE PREZZI ( CIP ) ( INTERDEPARTMENTAL PRICE COMMITTEE ); AND ( 3 ) THE ASSOCIAZIONE NAZIONALE FRA LE IMPRESE ASSICURATRICI ( ANIA ) ( NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INSURANCE UNDERTAKINGS ) OF THE ACTION , SHOULD DECLARE ABSOLUTELY VOID , FOR INFRINGEMENT OF ARTICLE 85 OF THE TREATY OF ROME , THE PROCEDURES FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL POLICY CONDITIONS AND TARIFFS AS RESULTING FROM AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN INSURANCE UNDERTAKINGS TENDING TO DISTORT AND ELIMINATE FREE COMPETITION ,

1 BY APPLICATION LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 24 FEBRUARY 1981 THE APPLICANT BROUGHT AN ACTION FOR A DECLARATION THAT THE PROCEDURES ADOPTED UNDER THE ITALIAN LEGAL SYSTEM FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE TARIFFS OF PREMIUMS AND GENERAL CONDITIONS OF INSURANCE IN THE MATTER OF CIVIL LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE CAUSED BY MOTOR VEHICLE TRAFFIC ARE ABSOLUTELY VOID FOR INFRINGEMENT OF ARTICLE 85 OF THE EEC TREATY .

2 IN THE WORDS OF ARTICLE 92 ( 1 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , ' ' WHERE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF AN APPLICATION LODGED WITH IT IN PURSUANCE OF ARTICLE 38 ( 1 ), THE COURT MAY BY REASONED ORDER DECLARE THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE . SUCH A DECISION MAY BE ADOPTED EVEN BEFORE THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN SERVED ON THE PARTY AGAINST WHOM IT IS MADE ' ' .

3 ARTICLE 173 OF THE EEC TREATY , WHICH LAYS DOWN THE CONDITIONS FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF APPLICATIONS TO HAVE MEASURES DECLARED VOID , PROVIDES THAT THE COURT OF JUSTICE ' ' SHALL REVIEW THE LEGALITY OF ACTS OF THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION OTHER THAN RECOMMENDATIONS OR OPINIONS ' ' . IT FOLLOWS FROM THAT PROVISION THAT THE COURT OF JUSTICE HAS NO JURISDICTION TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF APPLICATIONS SEEKING TO HAVE PURELY NATIONAL LAWS OR MEASURES DECLARED VOID .

4 A REVIEW OF THE LEGALITY OF ACTS OR MEASURES ADOPTED BY THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES OF A MEMBER STATE BY VIRTUE OF RULES OF MUNICIPAL LAW IS THEREFORE NOT A MATTER FOR THE COURT OF JUSTICE BUT COMES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF NATIONAL COURTS OR TRIBUNALS , FOR WHICH IT IS LAWFUL , IN PURSUANCE OF ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY AND UNDER THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN THEREBY , TO REFER TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING QUESTIONS ON THE INTERPRETATION OR VALIDITY OF RULES OF COMMUNITY LAW , TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH SUCH COURTS OR TRIBUNALS CONSIDER THAT A DECISION ON SUCH A POINT IS NECESSARY TO ENABLE THEM TO GIVE JUDGMENT .

5 HAVING REGARD TO THE ABOVE-MENTIONED PROVISIONS AND TO THE FACT THAT THE APPLICATION SEEKS A DECLARATION THAT NATIONAL PROCEDURES LAID DOWN BY VIRTUE OF RULES OF MUNICIPAL LAW ARE VOID , THE COURT MUST STATE THAT IT CLEARLY HAS NO JURISDICTION TO TAKE COGNIZANCE THEREOF . IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES , AND IN ORDER THAT PROCEEDINGS MAY BE CONDUCTED WITHOUT UNDUE EXPENSE IT IS APPROPRIATE TO APPLY ARTICLE 92 ( 1 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND TO DECLARE THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE EVEN BEFORE IT HAS BEEN SERVED ON THE PARTIES AGAINST WHOM IT IS MADE .

ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
HAVING REGARD TO THE VIEWS OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL ,
THE COURT
HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS :
THE APPLICATION IS DISMISSED AS INADMISSIBLE .