COSTA VS ENEL CASE

Costa Vs Enel case

Costa Vs Enel case

Introduction

M. F. Costa, a lawyer practising in Milan, claims that he is not under an obligation to pay the amount of an invoice 0,925 Italian lire) which was demanded from him in respect of the supply of electricity by the Ente Nazionale Per L'energia Elettrica (ENEL). He objected to this payment before a Justice of the Peace (who was competent in first and last resort by virtue of the amount involved) claiming that the Law of 6 December 1962 nationalising the electrical industry in Italy was contrary to a certain number of Articles of the E.E.C (Peterson, 2002, 89).

Treaty, and was unconstitutional. In this connection he demanded and obtained-a preliminary reference of the whole matter on the one hand to the Italian Constitutional Court and on the other hand to this Court in pursuance of Article 177 of the Treaty.

Preliminary questions

Preliminary question in connection with the jurisdiction of EU Court was:

The first amounts to knowing whether the Milan judge has really seized you with question of the Treaty. In effect, the judgment in question restricted itself to ' the allegation that the Law of 6 December 1962 and the presidential decrees issued in pursuance of such Law violate Articles 102, 93, 53 and 37 of the Treaty' and, as a consequence, went on to order the , transmission of a certified copy of the file to the Court of Justice of the European Economic Community in Luxembourg.

Judgment Of The European Court

As regards the application of Article 177: It was submitted that the question posed had the aim, by means of Article 171, of obtaining a judgment upon the conformity of a law with the Treaty. This Article provides that national courts, whose judgments, as in the case in instance, are without appeal, must refer the matter to this Court so that a preliminary decision may be given upon the' interpretation of the Treaty' when such a question is raised before them. If such a provision is applied, this Court can neither apply the Treaty to a specific case, nor decide upon the validity of a national law with regard to the Treaty itself, would he possible under Article 169.

Common Market Law Reports [1964]

It was further submitted that, in dealing with the judgment of the national court, this Court has power to separate those questions which alone pertain to the interpretation of the Treaty. Consequently a decision would be given not upon the validity of an Italian Law with regard to the Treaty, but upon the interpretation of the Articles mentioned above in connection with the problems raised by the Milan judge.

On the other hand, it was also submitted that the Milan judge called for an interpretation of the Treaty which was not at all necessary for the solution of the proceedings before him. Since Article 177 is based upon a clear separation of functions between national courts and this Court, it cannot give us ...