Case C-287/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Milano (Italy) lodged on 30 June 2008 — Crocefissa Savia and Others v Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Università e della Ricerca and Others
Date: 2008-06-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, Italy, administrative personnel, case-law, interpretation of the law, legal hearing, personnel administration

13.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/9

Question referred

Do Articles 9 and 13 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of
25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liabi-
lity for defective products (1) preclude the interpretation of
domestic law or settled domestic case-law such that it enables
the victim to seek compensation for damage to an item of prop-
erty intended for professional use and employed for that use,
where that victim simply proves damage,
in the
product and the causal
link between that defect and the
damage?

the defect

(1) OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
ordinario di Milano (Italy) lodged on 30 June 2008 —
Crocefissa Savia and Others v Ministero dell'Istruzione,
dell'Università e della Ricerca and Others

(Case C-287/08)

(2008/C 236/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Milano (Italy)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Crocefissa Savia, Monica Maria Porcu,
Randazzo, Daniela Genovese and Mariangela Campanella

Ignazia

Defendants: Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Università
e della
Ricerca, Direzione Didattica II Circolo — Limbiate, Ufficio
Scolastico Regionale per la Lombardia, Direzione Didattica III
Circolo — Rozzano, Direzione Didattica IV Circolo — Rho, Isti-
tuto Comprensivo — Castano Primo, Istituto Comprensivo A.
Manzoni — Rescaldina

Questions referred

1. Is it permissible for the legislature of a Member State of the
European Union to adopt a rule which purports to provide
an authentic interpretation but which in reality introduces
substantive innovation and,
in particular, attributes to the
legislation purportedly interpreted effects other than those
previously attributed to it in the majority of judicial decisions
concerning the substance and by the consolidated case-law
of the supreme courts?

2. Can the answer to Question 1 be affected by the possibility
that the rule referred to may be classed as genuinely interpre-

tative — rather than as introducing innovation with retroac-
tive effect — in that it reflects the way in which the original
legislation was construed in a minority series of judicial deci-
sions concerning the substance even though that has repeat-
edly been contradicted by the supreme courts?

3. If the answer is affirmative, what — for the purposes of
appraising the compatibility of such a rule with Community
law and, in particular, with the principles governing the ‘fair-
ness’ of judicial proceedings — are the implications in either
case of the fact that the Member State itself is a party to the
proceedings and application of
the rule de facto in force
requires the court seised to dismiss the forms of order
sought against that State?

4. What guidance can be given as regards the ‘overriding reasons
of public interest’ capable of justifying — as the case may be,
even in derogation from the answer which should in prin-
ciple be given to Questions 1, 2 and 3 — recognition of the
retroactive effects of a statutory provision concerning civil
law matters as well as private law relationships, albeit estab-
lished with a body governed by public law?

in

Judgments Nos

5. Could those reasons include organisational considerations
analogous to those referred to by the Italian Court of Cassa-
tion
and
11922/2008 in order to justify — on grounds, in particular,
of the need to ‘regulate a wide-ranging organisational restruc-
turing operation’ — adoption of the rule intended to regulate,
six years after it had taken place, the transfer to the State of
the ATAs employed by the local authorities?

618/2008,

677/2008

6. In any event, is it for the national courts to identify, where
the national law is silent on the point, the ‘overriding reasons
of public interest’ which — in the case of proceedings pending
and in derogation from the principle of equality of arms —
could justify the adoption of a retroactive rule capable of
reversing the outcome of
the
national courts confine themselves to assessing the compat-
ibility with Community law of the reasons expressly invoked
by the legislature of the State as a basis for its choices?

the proceedings, or must

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de
cassation (Luxembourg) lodged on 7 July 2008 — Irène
Bogiatzi, married name Ventouras v Deutscher Luftpool,
Luxair SA, European Communities, State of the Grand
Duchy of Luxembourg, Foyer Assurances SA

(Case C-301/08)

(2008/C 236/14)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation