# C_2011347EN.01001201.xml

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/12

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Brescia (Italy) lodged on 9 September 2011 — Gennaro Currà and Others v The Italian Republic

(Case C-466/11)

2011/C 347/17

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Brescia

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Gennaro Currà and Others

Applicants:

Defendants: The Italian Republic

Defendants:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | On the basis of the international obligations resting upon Germany (Articles 2 and 5(2) of the London Agreement, etc.), are the alleged civil immunity from the Italian courts in relation to the facts of the present case, which, from 11 March 2004 onwards (the judgment in Ferrini), Germany may no longer claim, and the agreement reached with the Italian Government on 18 November 2008 in Trieste to initiate proceedings before the International Court (No 143/2008 General list), together with the related Italian Law No 89/2010, which renders unenforceable Italian judgments based on serious crimes against humanity, inconsistent with Article 6 of the Treaty of Lisbon and Articles 17, 47 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 18 December 2000? |
| --- | --- |

1.

On the basis of the international obligations resting upon Germany (Articles 2 and 5(2) of the London Agreement, etc.), are the alleged civil immunity from the Italian courts in relation to the facts of the present case, which, from 11 March 2004 onwards (the judgment in Ferrini), Germany may no longer claim, and the agreement reached with the Italian Government on 18 November 2008 in Trieste to initiate proceedings before the International Court (No 143/2008 General list), together with the related Italian Law No 89/2010, which renders unenforceable Italian judgments based on serious crimes against humanity, inconsistent with Article 6 of the Treaty of Lisbon and Articles 17, 47 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 18 December 2000?

Ferrini

| 2. | Is the application of Article 7 of the Reichsbeamtenhaftungsgesetz (judgment of 26 June 2003, AZ. III ZR 245/98) and of the Bundensverfassungsgericht (judgment of 15 February 2006, AZ. 2 Bvr 1476/03) relating to war crimes and crimes against humanity, which prevents European citizens from obtaining compensation from Germany, inconsistent with Article 2 of the 1953 London Agreement on German External Debts; did it undermine the plaintiffs’ rights under Articles 17 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 18 December 2000 until 11 March 2004 (the judgment in Ferrini), and is reliance on a time bar therefore inconsistent with European Union obligations and, in particular, Articles 3 and 4(3), first and last subparagraphs, of the Treaty of Lisbon and with the principle non conceditur contra venire factum proprio? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the application of Article 7 of the Reichsbeamtenhaftungsgesetz (judgment of 26 June 2003, AZ. III ZR 245/98) and of the Bundensverfassungsgericht (judgment of 15 February 2006, AZ. 2 Bvr 1476/03) relating to war crimes and crimes against humanity, which prevents European citizens from obtaining compensation from Germany, inconsistent with Article 2 of the 1953 London Agreement on German External Debts; did it undermine the plaintiffs’ rights under Articles 17 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 18 December 2000 until 11 March 2004 (the judgment in Ferrini), and is reliance on a time bar therefore inconsistent with European Union obligations and, in particular, Articles 3 and 4(3), first and last subparagraphs, of the Treaty of Lisbon and with the principle non conceditur contra venire factum proprio?

Ferrini

non conceditur contra venire factum proprio

| 3. | Is the objection of immunity raised by the Federal Republic of Germany inconsistent with Articles 4(3), first and last subparagraphs, and 21 of the Treaty of Lisbon in that they preclude civil liability based on common European principles (Article 340) on the part of that defendant in relation to the violations of international law (the prohibition on slavery and forced labour) which it committed against the citizens of another Member State? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the objection of immunity raised by the Federal Republic of Germany inconsistent with Articles 4(3), first and last subparagraphs, and 21 of the Treaty of Lisbon in that they preclude civil liability based on common European principles (Article 340) on the part of that defendant in relation to the violations of international law (the prohibition on slavery and forced labour) which it committed against the citizens of another Member State?

---