British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) >>
Annibaldi (Principles of Community law) [1997] EUECJ C-309/96 (18 December 1997)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1997/C30996.html
Cite as:
EU:C:1997:631,
[1997] ECR I-7493,
ECLI:EU:C:1997:631,
[1997] EUECJ C-309/96
[
New search]
[
Help]
IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The source of this judgment is the web site of the Court of Justice of the European Communities. The information in this database has been provided free of charge and is subject to a Court of Justice of the European Communities disclaimer and a copyright notice. This electronic version is not authentic and is subject to amendment.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber)
18 December 1997 (1)
(Agriculture - Nature and archaeological park - Economic activity - Protection
of fundamental rights- Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
In Case C-309/96,
REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Pretura
Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between
Daniele Annibaldi
and
Sindaco del Comune di Guidonia,
Presidente Regione Lazio,
on the interpretation of Article 40(3) of the EC Treaty and of the general
principles of Community law,
THE COURT (First Chamber),
composed of: D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the First
Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges,
Advocate General: G. Cosmas,
Registrar: R. Grass,
after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:
- Mr Annibaldi, by Romano Vaccarella, of the Rome Bar,
- the Mayor of the Municipality of Guidonia, by Giovanni Mascioli, of the
Rome Bar,
- the President of the Lazio Region, by Giuseppe La Cute, Aldo Rivela and
Massimo Luciani, of the Rome Bar,
- the Commission of the European Communities, by Paolo Ziotti, of its Legal
Service, acting as Agent,
having regard to the Report of the Judge-Rapporteur,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 2 October
1997,
gives the following
Judgment
- By order of 9 September 1996, received at the Court on 23 September 1996, the
Pretura Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli (Rome District
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling
under Article 177 of the EC Treaty two questions on the interpretation of Article
40(3) of the EC Treaty and of the general principles of Community law.
- Those questions were raised in proceedings between Mr Annibaldi, on the one
hand, and the Municipality of Guidonia and the Lazio Region, on the other,
concerning the refusal to grant Mr Annibaldi permission to plant an orchard of 3
hectares within the perimeter of a regional park.
- Article 1 of Lazio Regional Law No 22 of 20 June 1996 (Supplemento Ordinario No
2 of the Bollettino Ufficiale della Regione Lazio No 18 of 1 July 1996, p. 3, 'the
Regional Law') established Inviolata Nature and Archaeological Park. According
to Article 2(1) of that Law, the park was created in order to protect and enhance
the value of the environment and the cultural heritage of the area concerned.
- In order to achieve those objectives, Articles 7, 8 and 9 of the Regional Law
impose a number of prohibitions on certain activities within the perimeter of the
park which, in exceptional cases, are subject to certain derogations relating to the
pursuit of the objectives of the park and require, as a general rule, special
permission to be granted by the managing organization. The prohibitions provided
for in Article 7 of the Regional Law include changes in cultivation and movement
of soil (Article 7(e)), the driving or parking of motor vehicles (Article 7(g)), the
opening of new roads or access paths (Article 7(h)) and all construction work
(Article 7(l)).
- Under Article 9(2) of the Regional Law, part of the funds intended for the
management of the park is to be used to pay compensation for loss of income
resulting, in particular, from the application of the rules relating to the use of forest
and agricultural areas of the park.
- Mr Annibaldi is the owner of an agricultural holding known as 'Prato Rotondo',
situated within the Municipality of Guidonia; of its 65 hectares, 35 are included
within the park.
- By letter of 8 August 1996, the Mayor of Guidonia, in his capacity as manager of
the park, refused to grant Mr Annibaldi permission to plant an orchard of 3
hectares within the park.
- Mr Annibaldi, considering that the Regional Law effects, in essence, expropriations
without compensation, brought an action on 26 August 1996 against that refusal
before the Pretura Circondariale di Roma. He claimed that the Regional Law was
contrary to the provisions of the EC Treaty, in particular Articles 40 and 52
thereof, to the general principles of law, in particular those concerning property,
carrying on business and equal treatment by the national authorities, and to the
Italian Constitution.
- Taking the view that the dispute raised certain questions involving the
interpretation of Community law, the Pretura Circondariale di Roma stayed
proceedings and referred the following questions to the Court of Justice for a
preliminary ruling:
'1. Is a national law which requires undertakings incorporated within a nature
and archaeological park to refrain from any activity whatsoever in the area
concerned - which amounts to a substantial expropriation of the
undertakings incorporated within the park itself without any provision being
made for payment of compensation to the individuals whose property is
expropriated - in breach of the fundamental right to property, to carry on
business and to equal treatment by the national authorities?
2. Irrespective of the answer which the Court of Justice may consider
appropriate in response to the first question, are the measures provided for
by Article 7 of the Regional Law in question (equivalent, for the purposes
of proceedings under Community law, to any other national legislation) in
breach of the principle of equal treatment and the related prohibition of
discrimination laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 40(3) of the
Treaty of Rome?'
The Court's jurisdiction
- The Lazio Region and the Commission take the view that the Court has no
jurisdiction to give a ruling on the questions referred since the provisions of the
Regional Law do not fall within the scope of Community law.
- Mr Annibaldi, on the other hand, considers that the Court is entitled to identify the
general principles of the Community legal order in reply to questions referred to
it for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of those principles.
- It should be observed at the outset that, as the Court has consistently held (see, in
particular, Opinion 2/94 of 28 March 1996 [1996] ECR I-1759, paragraph 33),
fundamental rights form an integral part of the general principles of law, the
observance of which it ensures. For that purpose, the Court draws inspiration from
the constitutional traditions common to the Member States and from the guidelines
supplied by international treaties for the protection of human rights on which the
Member States have collaborated or of which they are signatories. The European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of
4 November 1950 ('the Convention') has special significance in that respect. It
follows that the Community cannot accept measures which are incompatible with
observance of the human rights thus recognized and guaranteed (see, in particular,
Case C-260/89 ERT [1991] ECR I-2925, paragraph 41).
- It is also apparent from the Court's case-law (see, in particular, Case C-299/95
Kremzow v Austrian State [1997] ECR I-2629, paragraph 15) that, where national
legislation falls within the scope of Community law, the Court, in a reference for
a preliminary ruling, must give the national court all the guidance as to
interpretation necessary to enable it to assess the compatibility of that legislation
with the fundamental rights - as laid down in particular in the Convention - whose
observance the Court ensures. However, the Court has no such jurisdiction with
regard to national legislation lying outside the scope of Community law.
- Accordingly, it is necessary to consider whether national legislation, such as the
Regional Law, which establishes a nature and archaeological park in order to
protect and enhance the value of the environment and the cultural heritage of the
area concerned, falls within the scope of Community law, in particular Article 40(3)
of the Treaty.
- First of all, Article 2 of the EC Treaty defines the task of the Community and its
aims are set out in Article 3 (see, in particular, Case C-177/94 Perfili [1996] ECR I-161, paragraph 10). Under Article 3(e) and (k) of the EC Treaty, the
activities of the Community are to include the implementation of common policies
in the spheres of agriculture and the environment.
- Next, Article 128 of the EC Treaty provides for action by the Community in the
field of culture including, in particular, the conservation and safeguarding of
cultural heritage of European significance (second indent of Article 128(2)).
- Finally, Article 222 of the EC Treaty provides that it 'shall in no way prejudice the
rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership'.
- Under the second subparagraph of Article 40(3) of the Treaty, the common
organization of the agricultural markets to be established in the context of the
common agricultural policy must 'exclude any discrimination between producers
or consumers within the Community'. That prohibition of discrimination is merely
a specific enunciation of the general principle of equality which is one of the
fundamental principles of Community law (see, in particular, Joined Cases 201/85
and 202/85 Klensch and Others v Secrétaire d'État [1986] ECR 3477, paragraph 9,
and Case C-2/92 The Queen v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ex parte
Bostock [1994] ECR I-955, paragraph 23).
- In particular, Article 40(3) of the Treaty covers all measures relating to the
common organization of the agricultural markets, irrespective of the authority
which lays them down. Consequently, it is also binding on the Member States when
they are implementing the said common organization (see, in particular, Klensch
and Others, cited above, paragraph 8, and Case C-351/92 Graff v Hauptzollamt
Köln-Rheinau [1994] ECR I-3361, paragraph 18).
- Furthermore, the Court has consistently held (see Joined Cases 141/81, 142/81 and
143/81 Holdijk and Others [1982] ECR 1299, paragraph 12, and Case 118/86
Openbaar Ministerie v Nertsvoederfabriek Nederland [1987] ECR 3883, paragraph 12)
that the establishment of a common organization of the agricultural markets
pursuant to Article 40 of the Treaty does not have the effect of exempting
agricultural producers from any national provisions intended to attain objectives
other than those covered by the common organization, even though such provisions
may, by affecting the conditions of production, have an impact on the volume or
the cost of national production and therefore on the operation of the common
market in the sector concerned. The prohibition of any discrimination between
producers in the Community, laid down in the second subparagraph of Article
40(3) of the Treaty, refers to the objectives pursued by the common organization
and not to the various conditions of production resulting from national rules which
are general in character and pursue other objectives (see Holdijk and Others, cited
above, paragraph 12).
- Against that background, it is clear, first of all, that there is nothing in the present
case to suggest that the Regional Law was intended to implement a provision of
Community law either in the sphere of agriculture or in that of the environment or
culture.
- Next, even if the Regional Law be capable of affecting indirectly the operation of
a common organization of the agricultural markets, it is not in dispute that, the
park having been created to protect and enhance the value of the environment and
the cultural heritage of the area concerned, the Regional Law pursues objectives
other than those covered by the common agricultural policy, or that the Law itself
is general in character.
- Finally, given the absence of specific Community rules on expropriation and the
fact that the measures relating to the common organization of the agricultural
markets have no effect on systems of agricultural property ownership, it follows
from the wording of Article 222 of the Treaty that the Regional Law concerns an
area which falls within the purview of the Member States.
- Accordingly, as Community law stands at present, national legislation such as the
Regional Law, which establishes a nature and archaeological park in order to
protect and enhance the value of the environment and the cultural heritage of the
area concerned, applies to a situation which does not fall within the scope of
Community law.
- The Court therefore has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the
Pretura Circondariale di Roma.
Costs
26. The costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities, which has
submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. Since these proceedings
are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the proceedings pending
before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.
On those grounds,
THE COURT (First Chamber),
in answer to the questions referred to it by the Pretura Circondariale di Roma,
Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli, by order of 9 September 1996, hereby rules:
The Court has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Pretura
Circondariale di Roma.
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 18 December 1997.
R. Grass
M. Wathelet
Registrar
President of the First Chamber
1: Language of the case: Italian.