# C_2017283EN.01001402.xml

| 28.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 25 April 2017 — Silvio Berlusconi, Finanziaria d’investimento Fininvest SpA (Fininvest) v Banca d’Italia, Istituto per la Vigilanza Sulle Assicurazioni (IVASS)

(Case C-219/17)

(2017/C 283/20)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Silvio Berlusconi, Finanziaria d’investimento Fininvest SpA (Fininvest)

Applicants:

Defendants: Banca d’Italia, Istituto per la Vigilanza Sulle Assicurazioni (IVASS)

Defendants:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 263(1), (2) and (5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 256(1) thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that the Courts of the European Union have jurisdiction, or that the national courts have jurisdiction, in an action challenging decisions to initiate procedures, measures of inquiry and non-binding proposals adopted by the competent national authority (as specified in paragraph 1 of the present order) in proceedings governed by Articles 22 and 23 of Directive 2013/36/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013, by Articles 1(5), 4(1)(c) and 15 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 (2) of 15 October 2013, by Articles 85, 86 and 87 of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 (3) of the European Central Bank of 16 April 2014 and by Articles 19, 22 and 25 of the Italian Banking Act? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 263(1), (2) and (5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 256(1) thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that the Courts of the European Union have jurisdiction, or that the national courts have jurisdiction, in an action challenging decisions to initiate procedures, measures of inquiry and non-binding proposals adopted by the competent national authority (as specified in paragraph 1 of the present order) in proceedings governed by Articles 22 and 23 of Directive 2013/36/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013, by Articles 1(5), 4(1)(c) and 15 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 (2) of 15 October 2013, by Articles 85, 86 and 87 of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 (3) of the European Central Bank of 16 April 2014 and by Articles 19, 22 and 25 of the Italian Banking Act?

1

2

3

| 2. | In particular, may the jurisdiction of the Courts of the European Union be asserted when the abovementioned measures are challenged, not in a general action for annulment, but in an action for a declaration of invalidity on the grounds of breach or circumvention of the ruling in Judgment No 882/2016 of 3 March 2016 of the Consiglio di Stato brought in accordance with Article 112 et seq. of the Italian Code of Administrative Procedure relating to compliance with a judgment (that is to say, in proceedings peculiar to Italian administrative procedural law), when the decision of the EU Courts involves the interpretation and identification, in accordance with national law, of the objective limits of the ruling given in the judgment in question? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In particular, may the jurisdiction of the Courts of the European Union be asserted when the abovementioned measures are challenged, not in a general action for annulment, but in an action for a declaration of invalidity on the grounds of breach or circumvention of the ruling in Judgment No 882/2016 of 3 March 2016 of the Consiglio di Stato brought in accordance with Article 112 et seq. of the Italian Code of Administrative Procedure relating to compliance with a judgment (that is to say, in proceedings peculiar to Italian administrative procedural law), when the decision of the EU Courts involves the interpretation and identification, in accordance with national law, of the objective limits of the ruling given in the judgment in question?

---

(1)  Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC Text with EEA relevance (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 338).

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63).

2

(3)  Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank of 16 April 2014 establishing the framework for cooperation within the Single Supervisory Mechanism between the European Central Bank and national competent authorities and with national designated authorities (SSM Framework Regulation) (ECB/2014/17) (OJ 2014 L 141, p. 1).

3

---