Judgment_paragraph 15 · Federconsumatori and Others and Associazione Azionariato Diffuso dell’AEM SpA and Others v Comune di Milano (C-463/04, C-464/04)

15In those circumstances, the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions, the wording of which is identical in Cases 0463/04 and 0464/04, to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:(1) Can Article 2449 of the Civil Code, as applied in the circumstances at issue in this case, be held to be compatible with Article 56 EC as interpreted in the judgments in Case 058/99 [Commission v Italy], Case 0503/99 and Case 0483/99 [Commission v Belgium and Commission v France], Case 098/01 and Case 0463/00 [Commission v United Kingdom and Commission v Spain], when it is invoked by a public entity which, although it has lost control by operation of law over a company limited by shares, retains a substantial shareholding (33.4%) as a shareholder holding a relative majority of the shares, thereby obtaining a disproportionate power of control?(2) Can Article 2449 of the Civil Code, applied in conjunction with Article 4 of Decree-Law No 332 of 31 May 1994, which became Law No 474 of 30 July 1994, be held to be compatible with Article 56 EC as interpreted in the judgments of the Court of Justice in Case 058/99 [Commission v Italy], Case 0503/99 and Case 0483/99 [Commission v Belgium and Commission v France], Case 098/01 and Case 0463/00 [Commission v United Kingdom and Commission v Spain], when it is invoked by a public entity which, although it has lost control by operation of law over a company limited by shares, retains a substantial shareholding (33.4%) as a shareholder holding a relative majority of the shares, and thereby obtaining a disproportionate power of control?(3) Can Article 2449 of the Civil Code be held to be compatible with Article 56 EC, as interpreted in the judgments of the Court of Justice in Case C-58/99 [Commission v Italy], Case C-503/99 and Case C-483/99 [Commission v Belgium and Commission v France], Case C-98/01 and Case C-463/00 [Commission v United Kingdom and Commission v Spain], inasmuch as, when applied in specific cases, it brings about a result that is contrary to another provision of national law (in particular Article 2(1)(d) of Decree-Law No 332 of 31 May 1994, which became Law No 474 of 30 July 1994) which itself complies with Article 56 EC and consequently reflects, in respect of the conditions on which special powers are exercised and the requirements to which they are subject, the principles established in that connection by the judgments of the Court of Justice cited above?’

Federconsumatori and Others and Associazione Azionariato Diffuso dell’AEM SpA and Others v Comune di Milano (C-463/04, C-464/04)

Connections

History · 1 version

Key facts