Joined Cases C-317/08 to C-320/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 March 2010 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Ischia — Italy) — Rosalba Alassini (C-317/08) and Filomena Califano v Wind SpA (C-318/08) and Lucia Anna Giorgia Iacono v Telecom Italia SpA (C-319/08) and Multiservice Srl v Telecom Italia SpA (C-320/08) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Principle of effective judicial protection — Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/22/EC — Universal Service — Disputes between end users and providers — Mandatory to attempt an out-of-court settlement)
Date: 2010-03-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, civil proceedings, consumer protection, interpretation of the law, telecommunications, transmission network, universal service








C_2010134EN.01000302.xml










22.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/3





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 March 2010 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Ischia — Italy) — Rosalba Alassini (C-317/08) and Filomena Califano v Wind SpA (C-318/08) and Lucia Anna Giorgia Iacono v Telecom Italia SpA (C-319/08) and Multiservice Srl v Telecom Italia SpA (C-320/08)
(Joined Cases C-317/08 to C-320/08) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Principle of effective judicial protection - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/22/EC - Universal Service - Disputes between end users and providers - Mandatory to attempt an out-of-court settlement)
2010/C 134/04
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Giudice di Pace di Ischia

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Rosalba Alassini(C-317/08), Filomena Califano (C-318/08), Lucia Anna Giorgia Iacono (C-319/08) and Multiservice Srl (C-320/08)

Defendants: Telecom Italia SpA (C-317/08), Wind SpA (C-318/08), Telecom Italia SpA (C-319/08), Telecom Italia SpA (C-320/08)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Giudice di Pace di Ischia — Interpretation of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51), Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees (OJ 1999 L 171, p. 12) and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights — Disputes between end users and operators concerning electronic communications, in which compensation is sought for damage suffered on account of the alleged non-performance of a contract for the supply of telephone services by the operator — National rules under which it is mandatory to attempt settlement before bringing judicial proceedings — Whether it is possible to bring judicial proceedings without first attempting settlement

Operative part of the judgment







—


Article 34 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on Universal Service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State under which the admissibility before the courts of actions relating to electronic communications services between end-users and providers of those services, concerning the rights conferred by that directive, is conditional upon an attempt to settle the dispute out of court.










—


Nor do the principles of equivalence and effectiveness or the principle of effective judicial protection preclude national legislation which imposes, in respect of such disputes, prior implementation of an out-of-court settlement procedure, provided that that procedure does not result in a decision which is binding on the parties, that it does not cause a substantial delay for the purposes of bringing legal proceedings, that it suspends the period for the time-barring of claims and that it does not give rise to costs — or gives rise to very low costs — for the parties, and only if electronic means is not the only means by which the settlement procedure may be accessed and interim measures are possible in exceptional cases where the urgency of the situation so requires.






(1)  OJ C 236, 13.9.2008.