Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2014:189
Date: 2014-03-27
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: Anti-discrimination;Non-discrimination on grounds of nationality
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 27 March 2014 1. EU law — Principles — Equal treatment — Discrimination on grounds of nationality — Prohibition — Scope — Whether national legislation on language rules applicable to civil proceedings is included (Arts 18 TFEU and 21 TFEU) 2. EU law — Principles — Equal treatment — Discrimination on grounds of nationality — National legislation on language rules applicable to civil proceedings before the courts of a Member State situated in a specific territorial entity in that State — Discrimination against nationals of other Member States — Prohibition (Arts 18 TFEU and 21 TFEU) 1. The right conferred by national legislation to have judicial proceedings conducted in a language other than the principal language of the State concerned falls within the scope of EU law and applies to all judicial proceedings brought within the territorial entity concerned, including, civil proceedings. (see paras 19, 20) 2. Articles 18 TFEU and 21 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which grants the right to use a language other than the official language of a Member State in civil proceedings brought before the courts of a Member State situated in a specific territorial entity in that State only to citizens of that State who are domiciled in the same territorial entity. If it were otherwise, a citizen speaking the language of a Member State other than the Member State in which the courts hearing the dispute are situated, who travels and stays in that territorial entity would be treated less favourably in comparison with a national of the latter Member State who speaks the language of the other Member State spoken in that territorial entity, since that national resides there and is allowed to use the official language of that other Member States in civil proceedings before the courts situated in that entity. Such legislation could be justified only if it were based on objective considerations independent of the nationality of the persons concerned and proportionate to the legitimate aim of the national provisions. That is not the case where, first, the judges in the territorial entity concerned are perfectly capable of conducting judicial proceedings in both languages and, second, aims of a purely economic nature cannot constitute pressing reasons of public interest justifying a restriction of a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the Treaty. (see paras 21, 23-27, operative part)