C-309/96

ANNIBALDI

J U D G M E N T O F T H E C O U R T (First Chamber) 18 December 1997 *

In Case C-309/96,

R E F E R E N C E to the Court under Article 177 of the E C Treaty by the Pretura Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between

Daniele Annibaldi

and

I - 7505

JUDGMENT OF 18. 12. 1997 — CASE C-309/96

Advocate General: G. Cosmas, Registrar: R. Grass,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

— Mr Annibaldi, by Romano Vaccarella, of the Rome Bar,

— the Mayor of the Municipality of Guidonia, by Giovanni Mascioli, of the Rome Bar,

1 By order of 9 September 1996, received at the Court on 23 September 1996, the Pretura Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli (Rome District

I - 7506

ANNIBALDI

Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the E C Treaty two questions on the interpretation of Article 40(3) of the EC Treaty and of the general principles of Community law.

2 Those questions were raised in proceedings between Mr Annibaldi, on the one hand, and the Municipality of Guidonia and the Lazio Region, on the other, con- cerning the refusal to grant Mr Annibaldi permission to plant an orchard of 3 hect- ares within the perimeter of a regional park.

3 Article 1 of Lazio Regional Law N o 22 of 20 June 1996 (Supplemento Ordinario No 2 of the Bollettino Ufficiale detta Regione Lazio N o 18 of 1 July 1996, p. 3, 'the Regional Law') established Inviolata Nature and Archaeological Park. According to Article 2(1) of that Law, the park was created in order to protect and enhance the value of the environment and the cultural heritage of the area concerned.

8 Mr Annibaldi, considering that the Regional Law effects, in essence, expropriations without compensation, brought an action on 26 August 1996 against that refusal before the Pretura Circondariale di Roma. H e claimed that the Regional Law was contrary to the provisions of the E C Treaty, in particular Articles 40 and 52 thereof, to the general principles of law, in particular those concerning property, carrying on business and equal treatment by the national authorities, and to the Italian Constitution.

9 Taking the view that the dispute raised certain questions involving the interpreta- tion of Community law, the Pretura Circondariale di Roma stayed proceedings and referred the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary rul- ing:

'1. Is a national law which requires undertakings incorporated within a nature and archaeological park to refrain from any activity whatsoever in the area concerned — which amounts to a substantial expropriation of the undertak- ings incorporated within the park itself without any provision being made for payment of compensation to the individuals whose property is expropriated — in breach of the fundamental right to property, to carry on business and to equal treatment by the national authorities?

I - 7508

ANNIBALDI

2. Irrespective of the answer which the Court of Justice may consider appropri- ate in response to the first question, are the measures provided for by Article 7 of the Regional Law in question (equivalent, for the purposes of proceedings under Community law, to any other national legislation) in breach of the prin- ciple of equal treatment and the related prohibition of discrimination laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 40(3) of the Treaty of Rome?'

12 It should be observed at the outset that, as the Court has consistently held (see, in particular, Opinion 2/94 of 28 March 1996 [1996] E C R I-1759, paragraph 33), fun- damental rights form an integral part of the general principles of law, the obser- vance of which it ensures. For that purpose, the Court draws inspiration from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States and from the guidelines supplied by international treaties for the protection of human rights on which the Member States have collaborated or of which they are signatories. The European Convention for the Protection of H u m a n Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950 ('the Convention') has special significance in that respect. It fol- lows that the Community cannot accept measures which are incompatible with observance of the human rights thus recognized and guaranteed (see, in particular, Case C-260/89 ERT [1991] E C R 1-2925, paragraph 41).

I - 7509

JUDGMENT OF 18. 12. 1997 — CASE C-309/96

13 It is also apparent from the Court's case-law (see, in particular, Case C-299/95 Kremzow v Austrian State [1997] ECR I-2629, paragraph 15) that, where national legislation falls within the scope of Community law, the Court, in a reference for a preliminary ruling, must give the national court all the guidance as to interpreta- tion necessary to enable it to assess the compatibility of that legislation with the fundamental rights — as laid down in particular in the Convention — whose observance the Court ensures. However, the Court has no such jurisdiction with regard to national legislation lying outside the scope of Community law.

18 Under the second subparagraph of Article 40(3) of the Treaty, the common orga- nization of the agricultural markets to be established in the context of the common agricultural policy must 'exclude any discrimination between producers or con- sumers within the Community'. That prohibition of discrimination is merely a specific enunciation of the general principle of equality which is one of the funda- mental principles of Community law (see, in particular, Joined Cases 201/85 and 202/85 Klensch and Others v Secrétaire d'État [1986] E C R 3477, paragraph 9, and Case C-2/92 The Queen v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ex parte Bostock [1994] ECR 1-955, paragraph 23).

19 In particular, Article 40(3) of the Treaty covers all measures relating to the com- mon organization of the agricultural markets, irrespective of the authority which lays them down. Consequently, it is also binding on the Member States when they are implementing the said common organization (see, in particular, Klensch and Others, cited above, paragraph 8, and Case C-351/92 Graff v Hauptzottamt Köln- Rheinau [1994] E C R 1-3361, paragraph 18).

23 Finally, given the absence of specific Community rules on expropriation and the fact that the measures relating to the common organization of the agricultural mar- kets have no effect on systems of agricultural property ownership, it follows from the wording of Article 222 of the Treaty that the Regional Law concerns an area which falls within the purview of the Member States.

24 Accordingly, as Community law stands at present, national legislation such as the Regional Law, which establishes a nature and archaeological park in order to pro- tect and enhance the value of the environment and the cultural heritage of the area concerned, applies to a situation which does not fall within the scope of Commu- nity law.

25 The Court therefore has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Pretura Circondariale di Roma.

Costs

26 The costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities, which has submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the proceedings pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.

I - 7512

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 18 December 1997.

R. Grass M. Wathelet

Registrar President of the First Chamber

I - 7513