Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2014:126
Date: 2014-03-06
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Tenth Chamber
Subject matter: Environment;Principles, objectives and tasks of the Treaties
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling - inadmissible
Origin: Italy

summary of the relevant findings of fact required under Article 94(a) of those Rules, must be of such a kind as to enable the Court to ascertain, not only whether the request for a preliminary ruling is admissible, but also whether it has jurisdiction to answer the question referred. 20 Under Article 51(1) thereof, the provisions of the Charter are addressed to the Member States only when they are implementing EU law. Article 6(1) TEU and Article 51(2) of the Charter specify that the provisions of the Charter are not to extend in any way the competences of the Union as defined in the Treaties. Accordingly, the Court is called upon to interpret, in the light of the Charter, the law of the European Union within the limits of the powers conferred on it (see Case C‑256/11 Dereci and Others [2011] ECR I‑11315, paragraph 71 and the case-law cited). 21 The Court has already observed that it has no jurisdiction to examine the compatibility with the Charter of national legislation falling outside the scope of EU law. On the other hand, if such legislation falls within the scope of EU law, the Court, when requested to give a preliminary ruling, must provide all the guidance as to interpretation needed in order for the national court to determine whether that legislation is compatible with the fundamental rights the observance of which the Court ensures (see Case C‑617/10 Åkerberg Fransson [2013] ECR, paragraph 19 and the case-law cited). 22 That definition of the scope of the fundamental rights of the European Union is borne out by the explanations relating to Article 51 of the Charter, which, in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 6(1) TEU and Article 52(7) of the Charter, have to be taken into consideration for the purposes of interpreting the Charter (see, to that effect, Case C‑279/09 DEB [2010] ECR I‑13849, paragraph 32). According to those explanations, the obligation to respect fundamental rights defined in the context of the European Union is binding upon the Member States only in respect of matters covered by EU law. 23 According to the description provided by the referring court, the main proceedings concern an order requiring Mr Siragusa to dismantle work carried out in breach of a law protecting the cultural heritage and the landscape. There is a connection between such proceedings and EU environmental law since protection of the landscape – the aim of the national legislation in question – is an aspect of protection of the environment. In that regard, the referring court refers to various provisions of EU environmental law. 24 However, it should be borne in mind that the concept of ‘implementing Union law’, as referred to in Article 51 of the Charter, requires a certain degree of connection above and beyond the matters covered being closely related or one of those matters having an indirect impact on the other (see, to that effect, Case C‑299/95 Kremzow [1997] ECR I‑2629, paragraph 16). 25 In order to determine whether national legislation involves the implementation of EU law for the purposes of Article 51 of the Charter, some of the points to be determined are whether that legislation is intended to implement a provision of EU law; the nature of that legislation and whether it pursues objectives other than those covered by EU law, even if it is capable of indirectly affecting EU law; and also whether there are specific rules of EU law on the matter or capable of affecting it (see Case C‑309/96 Annibaldi [1997] ECR I‑7493, paragraphs 21 to 23; Case C‑40/11 Iida [2012] ECR, paragraph 79; and Case C‑87/12 Ymeraga and Others [2013] ECR, paragraph 41). 26 In particular, the Court has found that fundamental EU rights could not be applied in relation to national legislation because the provisions of EU law in the subject area concerned did not impose any obligation on Member States with regard to the situation at issue in the main proceedings (see Case C‑144/95 Maurin [1996] ECR I‑2909, paragraphs 11 and 12). 27 As the interested parties which have submitted observations have argued, no specific obligations to protect the landscape, akin to those laid down by Italian law, are imposed on the Member States by the TEU and TFEU provisions referred to by the referring court; nor are such obligations imposed by the legislation relating to the Aarhus Convention, nor by Directives 2003/4 and 2011/92. 28 The objectives pursued by that EU legislation are not the same as those pursued by Legislative Decree No 42/04, even though the landscape is one of the factors to be taken into consideration in assessing the impact of a project on the environment in accordance with Directive 2011/92 and among the factors to be taken into consideration as part of the environmental information referred to in the Aarhus Convention, Regulation No 1367/2006 and Directive 2003/4. 29 In Annibaldi, cited in the explanations relating to Article 51 of the Charter, the Court held that the fact that national legislation is capable of indirectly affecting the operation of a common organisation of the agricultural markets cannot in itself constitute a sufficient connection between that legislation and EU law (Annibaldi, paragraph 22; see also Kremzow, paragraph 16). 30 In that regard, there is nothing to suggest that the provisions of Legislative Decree No 42/04 which are relevant to the case before the referring court fall within the scope of EU law. Those provisions do not implement rules of EU law, a fact which distinguishes the case in which the present request for a preliminary ruling has been made from the case which gave rise to the judgment in Case C‑416/10 Križan and Others [2013] ECR, cited by the referring court. 31 It is also important to consider the objective of protecting fundamental rights in EU law, which is to ensure that those rights are not infringed in areas of EU activity, whether through action at EU level or through the implementation of EU law by the Member States. 32 The reason for pursuing that objective is the need to avoid a situation in which the level of protection of fundamental rights varies according to the national law involved in such a way as to undermine the unity, primacy and effectiveness of EU law (see, to that effect, Case 11/70 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft [1970] ECR 1125, paragraph 3, and Case C‑399/11 Melloni [2013] ECR, paragraph 60). However, there is nothing in the order for reference to suggest that any such risk is involved in the case before the referring court. 33 It follows from all the foregoing that it has not been established that the Court has jurisdiction to interpret Article 17 of the Charter (see, to that effect, Case C‑245/09 Omalet [2010] ECR I‑13771, paragraph 18; see also the orders in Case C‑457/09 Chartry [2011] ECR I‑819, paragraphs 25 and 26; Case C‑134/12 Corpul Naţional al Poliţiştilor [2012] ECR, paragraph 15; Case C‑498/12 Pedone [2013] ECR, paragraph 15; and Case C‑371/13 SC Schuster & Co Ecologic [2013] ECR, paragraph 18). 34 As for the principle of proportionality, that is one of the general principles of EU law which must be observed by any national legislation which falls within the scope of EU law or which implements that law (see, to that effect, Case 77/81 Zuckerfabrik Franken [1982] ECR 681, paragraph 22; Case 382/87 Buet and EBS [1989] ECR 1235, paragraph 11; Case C‑2/93 Exportslachterijen van Oordegem [1994] ECR I‑2283, paragraph 20; and Joined Cases C‑422/09, C‑425/09 and C‑426/09 Vandorou and Others [2010] ECR I‑12411, paragraph 65). 35 Given that the referring court has failed to establish, by demonstrating a sufficient connection, that Article 167(4)(a) of Legislative Decree No 42/04 falls within the scope of EU law or implements that law, it has by the same token not been established that the Court has jurisdiction to interpret the principle of proportionality in the present case. 36 In those circumstances, the Court has no jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Sicilia. Costs 37 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable. On those grounds, the Court (Tenth Chamber) hereby rules: The Court of Justice of the European Union has no jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Sicilia (Italy). [Signatures] * Language of the case: Italian.