European Integration/Case Analysis

618 Words3 Pages
Costa v ENEL, Case 6/64 ‘It was not until the decision of Costa v ENEL that the role of the Court of Justice in Treaty interpretation was confirmed and the task begun of deciding whether particular national statues and regulations were compatible with the relevant treaty provisions.’ In 1962, the Italian government nationalized a private electricity company, a stock corporation, today known as E.N.E.L (Ente Nazionale Energia Elettrica). Flamino Costa, an Italian lawyer, who had several shares locked in the company, had lost all his rights due to the nationalization. Mr. Costa opposed to the nationalizing of energy and protested to pay his electricity bills. This was the initial reason that brought the Italian government and Mr. Costa under the ‘Justice of the peace of Milan’. Mr. Costa’s justification was that the law with respect to the nationalization of the electricity industry was contrary to Community provisions, infringing the EC Law and by this creating a distortion to the market. The first arising conflict with regard to the referring was about the' nationalization' undertaken by the Italian law, whether it was under the scope of the Court of Justice's authority to give a verdict and to make a legal judgment on a law determining nationalization. Before heading further, it is crucial to understand the legal background, taking place under the Italian Constitutional Law. Italy, in the year 1957, had ratified the 'Treaty of Rome, and in 1962, proceeded in the nationalization of the former private electricity company. Here we introduce an important concept named as the 'Lex-Posterior' principle, meaning that the new law could abolish a law prior to the ratification. This principle served as one of the references introduced by the Italian Government, as they held the notion that 'nationalization of a company', was
Open Document