Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro (CGIL) and Istituto Nazionale Confederale Assistenza (INCA) v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Others.
Date: 2015-09-02
16. In that regard, the referring court, relying on the judgment in Commission v Netherlands  (C‑508/10, EU:C:2012:243), notes that the legislation of the Member State concerned will be compatible with the principles laid down by Directive 2003/109 only where the fees charged — which may, however, vary within a range of values — do not amount to, at their lowest value, a sum which would be inordinately high and therefore disproportionate in relation to the amount which nationals of that State have to pay for a similar document, such as a national identity card.
17. In particular, the referring court points out that, in the judgment in Commission v Netherlands  (C‑508/10, EU:C:2012:243), the provisions of the legal order of the Kingdom of the Netherlands which laid down, as the lowest amount for the fee charged for issuing a residence permit, a sum equal to approximately seven times that charged for issuing a national identity card to a national of the Member State concerned were considered incompatible with the principles laid down in Directive 2003/109.
18. Given that the cost of issue of the national identity card in Italy is currently about EUR 10, according to the referring court, and given that the lowest amount set by the 2011 decree is EUR 80, with the result that the financial burden placed on a third-country national in order to be issued with a residence permit in Italy is approximately eight times greater, that court expresses doubts as to whether the national provisions at issue are compatible with the principles of Directive 2003/109, in the light of the judgment in Commission v Netherlands  (C‑508/10, EU:C:2012:243).
21. At the outset, it must be recalled that, as is app arent from recitals 4, 6 and 12 in the preamble to Directive 2003/109, the principal purpose of that directive is the integration of third-country nationals who are settled on a long-term basis in the Member States (judgment in Commission v Netherlands , C‑508/10, EU:C:2012:243, paragraph 66).
22. It is important to recall that the Court has already recognised that Member States may make the issue of residence permits pursuant to Directive 2003/109 subject to the payment of charges and that, in fixing the amount of those charges, they enjoy a margin of discretion (judgment in Commission v Netherlands , C‑508/10, EU:C:2012:243, paragraph 64).
23. However, the Court has stated that the discretion granted to Member States in that respect is not unlimited and that they may not apply national rules which are liable to jeopardise the achievement of the objectives pursued by Directive 2003/109 and, therefore, deprive it of its effectiveness (see judgment in Commission v Netherlands , C‑508/10, EU:C:2012:243, paragraph 65).
24. Moreover, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, which is one of the general principles of EU law, the measures taken to transpose Directive 2003/109 must be suitable for achieving the objectives of that provision and must not go beyond what is necessary to attain them (see, to that effect, judgment in Commission v Netherlands , C‑508/10, EU:C:2012:243, paragraph 75).
25. Therefore, while it is open to Member States to make the issue of residence permits under Directive 2003/109 subject to the levying of charges, nevertheless, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, the level at which those charges are set must not have either the object or the effect of creating an obstacle to the obtaining of the long-term resident status conferred by that directive, and also of other rights which stem from the granting of that status, since both the objective and the spirit of that directive would otherwise be undermined (see, to that effect, judgment in Commission v Netherlands , C‑508/10, EU:C:2012:243, paragraph 69).