Case number 6/64, Nationality of parties Italy | Chamber Full court End date July 15, 1964 | |
 | ||
Full case name Flaminio Costa v E.N.E.L. Case Type Reference for a preliminary ruling Procedural history Giudice conciliatore di Milano, Sezione I, ordinanza del 16 January 1964 21 January 1964 (RG 1907/63) Similar Van Gend en Loos v Nederlan, R (Factortame Ltd) v Sec, Defrenne v Sabena (No 2), Faccini Dori v Recreb Srl, Rewe‑Zentral AG v Bundesm | ||
Costa v enel 1964
Flaminio Costa v ENEL (1964) Case 6/64 was a landmark decision of the European Court of Justice which established the supremacy of European Union law over the laws of its member states'.
Contents
Facts
Mr. Costa was an Italian citizen who had owned shares in an electricity company and opposed the nationalisation of the electricity sector in Italy. He refused to pay his electricity bill, which amounted to 1,925 lire, in protest and was sued for nonpayment by the newly created state electricity company, Enel. In his defence he argued that the nationalisation of the electricity industry violated the Treaty of Rome and the Italian Constitution. The Italian judge, the Giudice Conciliatore of Milan referred the case first to the Italian Constitutional Court and then to the European Court of Justice.
The Italian Constitution Court gave judgement in March 1964, ruling that while the Italian Constitution allowed for the limitation of sovereignty for international organisation like the European Economic Community, it did not upset that normal rule of statutory interpretation that where two statutes conflict the subsequent one prevails (lex posterior derogat legi anteriori/priori). As a result the Treaty of Rome which was incorporated into Italian law in 1958 could not prevail over the electricity nationalisation law which was enacted in 1962.
In light of the decision of the constitutional court, the Italian government submitted to the ECJ that the Italian court's request for a preliminary ruling from the ECJ was inadmissible on the grounds that as the Italian court was not empowered to set aside the national law in question, a preliminary ruling would not serve any valid purpose.
Judgment
The ECJ held the Treaty of Rome rule on an undistorted market was one on which the Commission alone could challenge the Italian government. As an individual, Costa had no standing to challenge the decision because that Treaty provision had no direct effect. However, Costa could raise a point of EC law against a national government in legal proceeding before the courts in that Member State: EC law would not be effective if Costa could not challenge national law on the basis of its alleged incompatibility with EC law.
Significance
This case is additional confirmation that under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), a court has an obligation to refer cases that have reached the highest point of appeal in their respective country, if there is a question of the application of EU Law. Costa had reached its highest point of appeal.