CELEX: 62009CN0452
Language: en
Date: 2009-11-18 00:00:00
Title: Case C-452/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di Appello di Firenze (Italy) lodged on 18 November 2009 — Tonina Enza Iaia, Andrea Moggio, Ugo Vassalle v Ministero dell'Istruzione dell'Università e della Ricerca, Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Università di Pisa

30.1.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 24/32
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di Appello di Firenze (Italy) lodged on 18 November 2009 — Tonina Enza Iaia, Andrea Moggio, Ugo Vassalle v Ministero dell'Istruzione dell'Università e della Ricerca, Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Università di Pisa
   (Case C-452/09)
   2010/C 24/58
   Language of the case: Italian
   
      Referring court
   
   Corte di Appello di Firenze
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants: Tonina Enza Iaia, Andrea Moggio, Ugo Vassalle
   
      Defendants: Ministero dell'Istruzione dell'Università e della Ricerca, Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Università di Pisa
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Is it compatible with Community law that the Italian State may, in relation to the period preceding the adoption of the first national legislation implementing Directive 82/76/EEC, (1) lawfully rely on five-year limitation or ten-year ordinary limitation, in respect of a right arising under that directive? — without thereby definitively preventing that right, relating to pay/essential needs, from being exercised, or, failing which, an action for compensation/damages from being brought?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Is it compatible with Community law, on the other hand, that all preliminary objections of limitation be precluded because they definitively prevent the above right from being exercised?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               In the alternative, is it compatible with Community law that all preliminary objections of limitation be precluded until such time as the Court of Justice confirms the infringement of Community law (in the present case, up until 1999)?
            
         
               4.
            
            
               In the further alternative, is it compatible with Community law that all preliminary objections of limitation be precluded in any event until such time as the directive establishing the right has been correctly and fully transposed into national law (which, in the present case, never occurred), as laid down in the judgment in Emmott?
            
         
      (1)  OJ L 43, 15.2.1982, p. 21.