JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber)
18 December 1997 (1)
(Agriculture Nature and archaeological park Economic activity Protectionof 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 PreturaCircondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli, for a preliminary ruling in theproceedings 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 generalprinciples of Community law,
THE COURT (First Chamber),
composed of: D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the FirstChamber, 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 theRome Bar,
the President of the Lazio Region, by Giuseppe La Cute, Aldo Rivela andMassimo Luciani, of the Rome Bar,
the Commission of the European Communities, by Paolo Ziotti, of its LegalService, 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 October1997,
gives the following
Judgment
- 1.
- By order of 9 September 1996, received at the Court on 23 September 1996, thePretura Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli (Rome DistrictMagistrates' Court, Tivoli Division) referred to the Court for a preliminary rulingunder Article 177 of the EC Treaty two questions on the interpretation of Article40(3) of the EC Treaty and of the general principles of Community law.
- 2.
- Those questions were raised in proceedings between Mr Annibaldi, on the onehand, 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 3hectares within the perimeter of a regional park.
- 3.
- Article 1 of Lazio Regional Law No 22 of 20 June 1996 (Supplemento Ordinario No2 of the Bollettino Ufficiale della Regione Lazio No 18 of 1 July 1996, p. 3, 'theRegional Law) established Inviolata Nature and Archaeological Park. Accordingto Article 2(1) of that Law, the park was created in order to protect and enhancethe value of the environment and the cultural heritage of the area concerned.
- 4.
- In order to achieve those objectives, Articles 7, 8 and 9 of the Regional Lawimpose a number of prohibitions on certain activities within the perimeter of thepark which, in exceptional cases, are subject to certain derogations relating to thepursuit of the objectives of the park and require, as a general rule, specialpermission to be granted by the managing organization. The prohibitions providedfor in Article 7 of the Regional Law include changes in cultivation and movementof soil (Article 7(e)), the driving or parking of motor vehicles (Article 7(g)), theopening of new roads or access paths (Article 7(h)) and all construction work(Article 7(l)).
- 5.
- Under Article 9(2) of the Regional Law, part of the funds intended for themanagement of the park is to be used to pay compensation for loss of incomeresulting, in particular, from the application of the rules relating to the use of forestand agricultural areas of the park.
- 6.
- 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 includedwithin the park.
- 7.
- By letter of 8 August 1996, the Mayor of Guidonia, in his capacity as manager ofthe park, refused to grant Mr Annibaldi permission to plant an orchard of 3hectares within the park.
- 8.
- Mr Annibaldi, considering that the Regional Law effects, in essence, expropriationswithout compensation, brought an action on 26 August 1996 against that refusalbefore the Pretura Circondariale di Roma. He claimed that the Regional Law wascontrary to the provisions of the EC Treaty, in particular Articles 40 and 52thereof, to the general principles of law, in particular those concerning property,carrying on business and equal treatment by the national authorities, and to theItalian Constitution.
- 9.
- Taking the view that the dispute raised certain questions involving theinterpretation of Community law, the Pretura Circondariale di Roma stayedproceedings and referred the following questions to the Court of Justice for apreliminary ruling:
'1. Is a national law which requires undertakings incorporated within a natureand archaeological park to refrain from any activity whatsoever in the areaconcerned which amounts to a substantial expropriation of theundertakings incorporated within the park itself without any provision beingmade for payment of compensation to the individuals whose property isexpropriated in breach of the fundamental right to property, to carry onbusiness and to equal treatment by the national authorities?
2. Irrespective of the answer which the Court of Justice may considerappropriate in response to the first question, are the measures provided forby Article 7 of the Regional Law in question (equivalent, for the purposesof proceedings under Community law, to any other national legislation) inbreach of the principle of equal treatment and the related prohibition ofdiscrimination laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 40(3) of theTreaty of Rome?
The Court's jurisdiction
- 10.
- The Lazio Region and the Commission take the view that the Court has nojurisdiction to give a ruling on the questions referred since the provisions of theRegional Law do not fall within the scope of Community law.
- 11.
- Mr Annibaldi, on the other hand, considers that the Court is entitled to identify thegeneral principles of the Community legal order in reply to questions referred toit for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of those principles.
- 12.
- It should be observed at the outset that, as the Court has consistently held (see, inparticular, 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, theobservance of which it ensures. For that purpose, the Court draws inspiration fromthe constitutional traditions common to the Member States and from the guidelinessupplied by international treaties for the protection of human rights on which theMember States have collaborated or of which they are signatories. The EuropeanConvention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of4 November 1950 ('the Convention) has special significance in that respect. Itfollows that the Community cannot accept measures which are incompatible withobservance of the human rights thus recognized and guaranteed (see, in particular,Case C-260/89 ERT [1991] ECR I-2925, paragraph 41).
- 13.
- It is also apparent from the Court's case-law (see, in particular, Case C-299/95Kremzow v Austrian State [1997] ECR I-2629, paragraph 15) that, where nationallegislation falls within the scope of Community law, the Court, in a reference fora preliminary ruling, must give the national court all the guidance as tointerpretation necessary to enable it to assess the compatibility of that legislationwith the fundamental rights as laid down in particular in the Convention whoseobservance the Court ensures. However, the Court has no such jurisdiction withregard to national legislation lying outside the scope of Community law.
- 14.
- Accordingly, it is necessary to consider whether national legislation, such as theRegional Law, which establishes a nature and archaeological park in order toprotect and enhance the value of the environment and the cultural heritage of thearea concerned, falls within the scope of Community law, in particular Article 40(3)of the Treaty.
- 15.
- First of all, Article 2 of the EC Treaty defines the task of the Community and itsaims 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, theactivities of the Community are to include the implementation of common policiesin the spheres of agriculture and the environment.
- 16.
- Next, Article 128 of the EC Treaty provides for action by the Community in thefield of culture including, in particular, the conservation and safeguarding ofcultural heritage of European significance (second indent of Article 128(2)).
- 17.
- Finally, Article 222 of the EC Treaty provides that it 'shall in no way prejudice therules in Member States governing the system of property ownership.
- 18.
- Under the second subparagraph of Article 40(3) of the Treaty, the commonorganization of the agricultural markets to be established in the context of thecommon agricultural policy must 'exclude any discrimination between producersor consumers within the Community. That prohibition of discrimination is merelya specific enunciation of the general principle of equality which is one of thefundamental principles of Community law (see, in particular, Joined Cases 201/85and 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 parteBostock [1994] ECR I-955, paragraph 23).
- 19.
- In particular, Article 40(3) of the Treaty covers all measures relating to thecommon organization of the agricultural markets, irrespective of the authoritywhich lays them down. Consequently, it is also binding on the Member States whenthey are implementing the said common organization (see, in particular, Klenschand Others, cited above, paragraph 8, and Case C-351/92 Graff v HauptzollamtKöln-Rheinau [1994] ECR I-3361, paragraph 18).
- 20.
- Furthermore, the Court has consistently held (see Joined Cases 141/81, 142/81 and143/81 Holdijk and Others [1982] ECR 1299, paragraph 12, and Case 118/86Openbaar Ministerie v Nertsvoederfabriek Nederland [1987] ECR 3883, paragraph 12)that the establishment of a common organization of the agricultural marketspursuant to Article 40 of the Treaty does not have the effect of exemptingagricultural producers from any national provisions intended to attain objectivesother than those covered by the common organization, even though such provisionsmay, by affecting the conditions of production, have an impact on the volume orthe cost of national production and therefore on the operation of the commonmarket in the sector concerned. The prohibition of any discrimination betweenproducers in the Community, laid down in the second subparagraph of Article40(3) of the Treaty, refers to the objectives pursued by the common organizationand not to the various conditions of production resulting from national rules whichare general in character and pursue other objectives (see Holdijk and Others, citedabove, paragraph 12).
- 21.
- Against that background, it is clear, first of all, that there is nothing in the presentcase to suggest that the Regional Law was intended to implement a provision ofCommunity law either in the sphere of agriculture or in that of the environment orculture.
- 22.
- Next, even if the Regional Law be capable of affecting indirectly the operation ofa common organization of the agricultural markets, it is not in dispute that, thepark having been created to protect and enhance the value of the environment andthe cultural heritage of the area concerned, the Regional Law pursues objectivesother than those covered by the common agricultural policy, or that the Law itselfis general in character.
- 23.
- Finally, given the absence of specific Community rules on expropriation and thefact that the measures relating to the common organization of the agriculturalmarkets have no effect on systems of agricultural property ownership, it followsfrom the wording of Article 222 of the Treaty that the Regional Law concerns anarea which falls within the purview of the Member States.
- 24.
- Accordingly, as Community law stands at present, national legislation such as theRegional Law, which establishes a nature and archaeological park in order toprotect and enhance the value of the environment and the cultural heritage of thearea concerned, applies to a situation which does not fall within the scope ofCommunity law.
- 25.
- The Court therefore has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by thePretura Circondariale di Roma.
Costs
- 26.
- The costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities, which hassubmitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. Since these proceedingsare, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the proceedings pendingbefore 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 PreturaCircondariale di Roma.
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 18 December 1997.
R. Grass
M. Wathelet
Registrar
President of the First Chamber