Livio Menini and Maria Antonia Rampanelli v Banco Popolare – Società Cooperativa.
Date: 2017-06-14
28


According to the Court’s settled case-law, the Court may refuse to rule on a question submitted by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of EU law that is sought is unrelated to the actual facts of the main action or its subject matter, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (judgment of 14 March 2013, Allianz Hungária Biztosító and Others, C‑32/11, EU:C:2013:160, paragraph 26 and the case-law cited).
29


In the present case, it is apparent, however, that the question whether Directive 2013/11 is applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings is inextricably linked to the answers to be given to the present request for a preliminary ruling. In those circumstances, the Court has jurisdiction to answer that request (see, by analogy, judgment of 7 March 2017, X and X, C‑638/16 PPU, EU:C:2017:173, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited).
47


However, it is settled case-law of the Court that, in interpreting a provision of EU law, it is necessary to consider not only its wording, but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (judgment of 15 October 2014, Hoštická and Others, C‑561/13, EU:C:2014:2287, paragraph 29 and the case-law cited).
52


Accordingly, the fact that national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, has not only put in place an out-of-court mediation procedure, but has also made it mandatory to have recourse to that procedure before bringing an action before a judicial body, is not such as to jeopardise the attainment of the objective of Directive 2013/11 (see, by analogy, judgment of 18 March 2010, Alassini and Others, C‑317/08 to C‑320/08, EU:C:2010:146, paragraph 45).
53


It is, admittedly, common ground that, by making the admissibility of legal proceedings brought in the areas referred to in Article 5(1bis) of Legislative Decree No 28/2010 conditional upon the implementation of a mandatory attempt at mediation, the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings introduces an additional step to be overcome before being entitled to access the courts. That condition might prejudice implementation of the principle of effective judicial protection (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 March 2010, Alassini and Others, C‑317/08 to C‑320/08, EU:C:2010:146, paragraph 62).
54


Nevertheless, it is settled case-law of the Court that fundamental rights do not constitute unfettered prerogatives and may be restricted, provided that the restrictions in fact correspond to objectives of general interest pursued by the measure in question and that they do not involve, with regard to the objectives pursued, a disproportionate and intolerable interference which infringes upon the very substance of the rights guaranteed (judgment of 18 March 2010, Alassini and Others, C‑317/08 to C‑320/08, EU:C:2010:146, paragraph 63 and the case-law cited).
61


Accordingly, the requirement for a mediation procedure as a condition for the admissibility of proceedings before the courts may prove compatible with the principle of effective judicial protection, 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 are 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 (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 March 2010, Alassini and Others, C‑317/08 to C‑320/08, EU:C:2010:146, paragraph 67).