CELEX: C1999/281/17
Language: en
Date: 1999-10-02 00:00:00
Title: Cases C-281/99 P and C-282/99 P: Appeal brought on 28 July 1999 by Ferriera Lamifer SpA (C-281/99 P) and Ferriera Acciaieria Casilina SpA (C-282/99 P), against the judgment delivered on 12 May 1999 by the Third Chamber, extended composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-164/96, T-165/96, T-166/96, T-167/96, T-122/97 and T-130/97, brought by Moccia Irme SpA, Prolafer Srl, Ferriera Acciaieria Casilina SpA, Dora Ferriera Acciaieria Srl, Ferriera Lamifer SpA and Nuova Sidercamuna SpA, against Commission of the European Communities

2.10.1999              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 281/9
Appeal brought on 28 July 1999 by Ferriera Lamifer                      — Misuse of powers in terms of view of unequal treatment.
SpA (C-281/99 P) and Ferriera Acciaieria Casilina SpA
(C-282/99 P), against the judgment delivered on 12 May
1999 by the Third Chamber, extended composition, of                     (1) Decision of the ECSC Commission of 27 November 1991, OJ
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                     1991 L 362 of 31.12.1991, p. 57.
in Joined Cases T-164/96, T-165/96, T-166/96, T-167/96,
T-122/97 and T-130/97, brought by Moccia Irme SpA,
Prolafer Srl, Ferriera Acciaieria Casilina SpA, Dora Ferri-
era Acciaieria Srl, Ferriera Lamifer SpA and Nuova Sider-
camuna SpA, against Commission of the European Com-
                              munities
                                                                        Action brought on 29 July 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against the Italian Republic
              (Cases C-281/99 P and C-282/99 P)
                                                                                                 (Case C-283/99)
                         (1999/C 281/17)                                                         (1999/C 281/18)
                                                                        An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 May 1999 by              Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 July
the Third Chamber, extended composition, of the Court of                1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases              represented by Antonio Aresu and Maria Patakia, both of its
T-164/96, T-165/96, T-166/96, T-167/96, T-122/97 and                    Legal Service, acting as Agents, the office of Carlos Gómez de
T-130/97, brought by Moccia Irme SpA, Prolafer Srl, Ferriera            la Cruz, Wagner Centre Kirchberg.
Acciaieria Casilina SpA, Dora Ferriera Acciaieria Srl, Ferriera
Lamifer SpA and Nuova Sidercamuna SpA, against Com-
mission of the European Communities, was brought before                 The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 July             the Court should:
1999 by Ferriera Lamifer SpA, having its registered office in
Travagliato (Italy), and Ferriera Acciaieria Casilina SpA having        a) Declare that, by providing that:
its registered office in Montecompatri (Italy), both represented
by Carmine Punzi, Mario Siragusa and Filippo Satta, of the                   — private security work (including surveillance or caretak-
Rome Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                           ing of movable property and buildings) may be carried
Helvinger, Hoss & Prussen, 2 place Winston Churchill, L-1340                     out in Italy, subject to licence, only by ‘private surveil-
Luxembourg.                                                                      lance firms’ holding Italian nationality;
                                                                             — only citizens in possession of such a licence may be
                                                                                 employed as ‘qualified private security guards’;
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                             the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                             39 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC; and
— grant these appeals, amend the contested decision accord-
     ingly and make an appropriate order for costs.                     b) Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The nationality requirement for ‘qualified private security
— Breach of Articles 4(c) and 95 of the ECSC Treaty inasmuch            guards’ constitutes an obstacle to freedom of movement for
     as the Court of First Instance held that Article 95 of the         workers contrary to Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after
     Treaty was not applicable to the State aids in question            amendment, Article 39 EC).
     where the requirements were not met for the applicability
     of the derogation under the Fifth Aid Code.                        The requirement of possession of Italian nationality restricts,
                                                                        furthermore, the right of any natural or legal person belonging
— Failure to state grounds for the judgment and misapplica-             to another Member State to work in Italy, contrary to
     tion of Community law inasmuch as the Court did not rule           Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43
     on the unlawfulness of Article 4(2) of the Fifth Code in           EC) on the freedom of establishment. So far as concerns legal
     relation to Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty.                       persons, Article 134 of the Consolidated Legislation on Public
                                                                        Security restricts the right to pursue such activity by means of
                                                                        a branch or agency, as expressly provided for in Article 43 EC.
— Breach and eroneous, illogical, irrational and groundless             Thus, the only way in which it would be possible for a foreign
     application of Article 4(2), second indent, of Commission          undertaking to establish itself in Italy would be by setting up a
     Decision 3855/91 (1).                                              subsidiary company under Italian law. Natural persons who
                                                                        are non-Italian Community citizens, on the other hand, are
— Breach, erroneous and groundless application of the                   precluded under Article 138 of the Consolidated Legislation on
     decision of the Commission of 12 December 1994; mis-               Public Security from establishing themselves as self-employed
     taken assumptions; mistaken investigation.                         ‘qualified private security guards’.