EN Official Journal of the European Union C 174/9

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bolzano — Italy) — Servet Kamberaj v Istituto per l’Edilizia sociale della Provincia autonoma di Bolzano (IPES), Giunta della Provincia autonoma di Bolzano, Provincia autonoma di Bolzano

(Case C-571/10) (1)

(Area of Freedom, Justice and Security - Article 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Directive 2003/109/EC - Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents - Right to equal treatment with regard to social security, social assistance and social protection - Derogation from the principle of equal treatment for social assistance and social protection measures - Exclusion of ‘core benefits’ from the scope of that derogation - National legislation providing for housing benefit for low income tenants - Amount of funds for third-country nationals determined on the basis of a different weighted average - Rejection of an application for housing benefit owing to the exhaustion of the funds for third-country nationals)

2012/C 174/12

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Bolzano

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Servet Kamberaj

Defendants: Istituto per l’Edilizia sociale della Provincia autonoma di Bolzano (IPES), Giunta della Provincia autonoma di Bolzano, Provincia autonoma di Bolzano

Interveners in support of the defendants: Associazione Porte Aperte/Offene Türen, Human Rights International, Associazione Volontarius, Fondazione Alexander Langer

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Bolzano — Protection of linguistic minorities — Provincial legislation giving effect to the fundamental principle of the national constitutional system that linguistic minorities are to be protected — Social policy — Application of different coefficients in order to determine the amount intended for housing allowances for citizens of the Union and for nationals of non-member countries — Different selection criteria applicable for the grant of the housing allowance to citizens of the Union and to nationals of non-member countries — Compatibility with Articles 2 and 6 TEU and with Articles 21 and 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Compatibility with Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ 2000 L 180, p. 22) and with Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (OJ 2003 L 16, p. 44) — Direct applicability of provisions of EU law –Compatibility with Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the ECHR’) and Article 1 of Protocol No 12 thereto — Direct applicability of the ECHR pursuant to Article 6 TEU — Applicable sanctions for the purpose of Article 15 of Directive 2000/43/EC

Operative part of the judgment

1. The first and fourth to seventh questions referred by the Tribunale di Bolzano in Case C-571/10 are inadmissible.

2. The reference made by Article 6(3) TEU to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950, does not require the national court, in case of conflict between a provision of national law and that convention, to apply the provisions of that convention directly, disapplying the provision of domestic law incompatible with the convention.

3. Article 11(1)(d) of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents must be interpreted as precluding a national or regional law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides, with regard to the grant of housing benefit, for different treatment for third country nationals enjoying the status of long-term resident conferred pursuant to the provisions of that directive compared to that accorded to nationals residing in the same province or region when the funds for the benefit are allocated, in so far as such a benefit falls within one of the three categories referred to in that provision and Article 11(4) of that directive does not apply.

(1) OJ C 46, 12.2.2011.