Servet Kamberaj v Istituto per l’Edilizia Sociale della Provincia autonoma di Bolzano (IPES) and Others.
Date: 2012-04-24
40. It should be recalled as a preliminary point that, according to settled case‑law, within the framework of the cooperation between the Court and national courts and tribunals established by Article 267 TFEU, it is solely for the national court before which the dispute has been brought and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision to determine, in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court. Consequently, where the questions submitted concern the interpretation of European Union law, the Court is in principle bound to give a ruling (see, inter alia, Case C‑212/04 Adeneler and Others [2006] ECR I‑6057, paragraph 41 and case‑law cited).
41. However, the Court must examine the circumstances in which cases are referred to it by the national court in order to assess whether it has jurisdiction. The spirit of cooperation which must prevail in the preliminary ruling procedure requires the national court for its part to have regard to the function entrusted to the Court of Justice, which is to contribute to the administration of justice in the Member States and not to give advisory opinions on general or hypothetical questions (see Adeneler and Others , paragraph 42).
42. In that regard, a reference from a national court may be refused only if it is quite obvious that the interpretation of European Union law sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or to its purpose, or where the problem is hypothetical or the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (Case C‑238/05 Asnef‑Equifax and Administración del Estado [2006] ECR I‑11125, paragraph 17).
61. That provision of the Treaty on European Union reflects the settled case‑law of the Court according to which fundamental rights form an integral part of the general principles of law the observance of which the Court ensures (see, inter alia, Case C‑521/09 P Elf Aquitaine v Commission [2011] ECR I‑8947, paragraph 112).
62. However, Article 6(3) TEU does not govern the relationship between the ECHR and the legal systems of the Member States and nor does it lay down the consequences to be drawn by a national court in case of conflict between the rights guaranteed by that convention and a provision of national law.
66. With regard to Directive 2003/109, it should be noted, as a preliminary point, that the system put in place by that directive clearly makes the acquisition of the status of long-term resident conferred by that directive subject to a specific procedure and, in addition, to fulfilment of all the conditions set out in Chapter II of that directive.
67. Thus, Article 4 of Directive 2003/109 provides that the Member States are to grant long‑term resident status to third-country nationals who have resided legally and continuously on their territory for five years immediately prior to the submission of the relevant application. Article 5 of the directive makes the acquisition of long‑term resident status conditional upon evidence that the third‑country nationals who wish to enjoy that status have sufficient resources and sickness insurance. Finally, Article 7 of the directive lays down the procedural requirements for acquisition of that status.
77. In that regard, it must be noted that, when the European Union legislature has made an express reference to national law, as in Article 11(1)(d) of Directive 2003/109, it is not for the Court to give the terms concerned an autonomous and uniform definition under European Union law (see, to that effect, Case 327/82 Ekro  [1984] ECR 107, paragraph 14). Such a reference means that the European Union legislature wished to respect the differences between the Member States concerning the meaning and exact scope of the concepts in question.
86. Second, it must be noted that, since the integration of third-country nationals who are long-term residents in the Member States and the right of those nationals to equal treatment in the sectors listed in Article 11(1) of Directive 2003/109 is the general rule, the derogation provided for in Article 11(4) thereof must be interpreted strictly (see, by analogy, Case C‑578/08 Chakroun  [2010] ECR I‑1839, paragraph 43).
87. In that regard, it should be held that a public authority, at national, regional or local level, can rely on the derogation provided for in Article 11(4) of Directive 2003/109 only if the bodies in the Member State concerned responsible for the implementation of that directive have stated clearly that they intended to rely on that derogation.
90. The meaning and scope of the concept of ‘core benefits’ in Article 11(4) of Directive 2003/109 must therefore be sought taking into account the context of that article and the objective pursued by that directive, namely the integration of third‑country nationals who have resided legally and continuously in the Member States.
91. Article 11(4) of Directive 2003/109 must be understood as allowing Member States to limit the equal treatment enjoyed by holders of the status conferred by Directive 2003/109, with the exception of social assistance or social protection benefits granted by the public authorities, at national, regional or local level, which enable individuals to meet their basic needs such as food, accommodation and health.
92. In that regard, it should be recalled that, according to Article 34 of the Charter, the Union recognises and respects the right to social and housing assistance so as to ensure a decent existence for all those who lack sufficient resources. It follows that, in so far as the benefit in question in the main proceedings fulfils the purpose set out in that article of the Charter, it cannot be considered, under European Union law, as not being part of core benefits within the meaning of Article 11(4) of Directive 2003/109. It is for the referring court to reach the necessary findings, taking into consideration the objective of that benefit, its amount, the conditions subject to which it is awarded and the place of that benefit in the Italian system of social assistance.