WRITTEN QUESTION E-1423/00 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Enforcement of the Treaties.
Date: 2000-05-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: appeal to the Court (EU), appeals by private individuals, legal person

C 53 E/140

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.2.2001

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2000)

The Commission is not aware of any financial interventions by the state in favour of Telecom Italia related
to the financing of part of the costs of the undertaking(cid:146)s restructuring plan.

The availability of social security support measures, such as anticipated pensioning or other unemployment
schemes is not exclusively destined to Telecom and, as a matter of principle, is open to all undertakings
having significant number of excess personnel. In this sense,
it does not constitute a discriminatory
measure in the sense of Article 87 (ex Article 92) of the EC Treaty.

(2001/C 53 E/178)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1423/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 May 2000)

Subject: Enforcement of the Treaties

Does the Commission believe that individuals or legal personalities who believe that their rights under the
European Treaties have been violated should have the right to petition the Court of Justice directly?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(23 June 2000)

Any natural or legal person may bring a direct action before the Court of Justice against acts taken by the
Community institutions in the manner prescribed in Article 230 (former Article 173) of the EC Treaty.
They may also bring an action before it for failure by the Community institutions to act (third paragraph
of Article 232, former Article 175) and in respect of Community(cid:146)s contractual or non-contractual liability
(Articles 235 (former 178) and 288 (former 215)).

Natural and legal persons may bring an action before the national courts, which are the ordinary courts for
matters of Community law, against measures which the national authorities are alleged to have taken in
violation of Community law or in accordance with a Community act which they consider to be contrary
to the EC Treaty. As the Court has held in a long line of cases, the existence of a remedy of a judicial
nature against any decision of a national authority refusing the benefit of a right conferred on individuals
by the EC Treaty or by an act of secondary legislation is essential to guarantee the individual actual
protection of his right (1).

It should be recalled that, under Article 234 (former 177) of the EC Treaty (2), national courts before which
questions are raised may and, in certain cases, are obliged to stay proceedings and refer to the Court of
Justice matters concerning the interpretation or validity of Community law to which the disputes brought
before them give rise. National courts are required to settle disputes in accordance with the terms of the
preliminary rulings of the Court.

The aim of all these procedures is to ensure the legal protection of the rights which individuals enjoy
under the EC Treaty.

(1) Case 222/86 Unectef v. Heylens [1987] ECR 4097; Case C-282/85P [1997] ECR I-1503.
(2) See also Cases 283/81 Cilfit [1982] ECR 3415 and 314/85 Foto v. Frost [1987] ECR 4199.