CJEU clearly indicates total lack of will to effectively become EU's constitutional court (C-206/13)

In its Judgment of 6 March 2014 in case C-206/13 Siragusa, the Court of Justice of the EU has continued developing its case law on the lack of applicability / jurisdiction to interpret the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (CFREU) in purely domestic situations (which it had, amongst other instances, already indicated in Romeo).

In my view, the approach adopted by the CJEU is prone to create potential situations of reverse discrimination and may end up creating multiple (and possibly conflicting) standards of protection of fundamental rights in the EU with significant constitutional implications.

 

In the case at hand, the CJEU was presented with a question on the interpretation of the right to property recognised in article 17 CFREU and, more specifically, on whether it could be constructed as a limit against certain landscape protection rules applicable in Italy. The issue was raised by an Italian court hearing a dispute between an Italian citizen and an Italian public authority. Despite the efforts in trying to connect the situation with the (indirect) application of EU environmental law, the CJEU was not persuaded that there was a sufficient connection and, therefore, rejected to provide a substantive interpretation. The main argument of the CJEU was indeed that

30 [...] there is nothing to suggest that the provisions of Legislative Decree [...] fall within the scope of EU law. Those provisions do not implement rules of EU law [...].

31 It is also important to consider the objective of protecting fundamental rights in EU law, which is to ensure that those rights are not infringed in areas of EU activity, whether through action at EU level or through the implementation of EU law by the Member States.

32 The reason for pursuing that objective is the need to avoid a situation in which the level of protection of fundamental rights varies according to the national law involved in such a way as to undermine the unity, primacy and effectiveness of EU law (see, to that effect, Case 11/70 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft [1970] ECR 1125, paragraph 3, and Case C‑399/11 Melloni [2013] ECR, paragraph 60). However, there is nothing in the order for reference to suggest that any such risk is involved in the case before the referring court.

33 It follows from all the foregoing that it has not been established that the Court has jurisdiction to interpret Article 17 of the Charter (see, to that effect, Case C‑245/09 Omalet [2010] ECR I‑13771, paragraph 18; see also the Orders in Case C‑457/09 Chartry [2011] ECR I‑819, paragraphs 25 and 26; Case C‑134/12 Corpul Naţional al Poliţiştilor [2012] ECR, paragraph 15; Case C‑498/12 Pedone [2013] ECR, paragraph 15; and Case C‑371/13 SC Schuster & Co Ecologic [2013] ECR, paragraph 18) (C-206/13 at paras 30-33, emphasis added).

In my view, this line of reasoning (acknowledgedly, rather in line with art 51 CFREU and art 6 TEU) is clearly problematic. To begin with, because it clearly disconnects (implicitly, at least) the protection of the CFREU rights from EU citizenship (art 20 TFEU, coupled with the general prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of nationality in art 18 TFEU). The CJEU has clearly considered it insufficient that EU citizens can be granted different levels of protection of their CFREU rights at domestic level as a result of the application of the domestic laws as sufficient justification for intervention (i.e. to assume jurisdiction and provide legal interpretation). By restricting the goal of a common level of protection of CFREU rights to cases in which 'the unity, primacy and effectiveness of EU law' is affected and excluding its competence, the CJEU seems to forget that the CFREU is in itself EU law and, consequently, that it should be afforded the same treatment as the other Treaty provisions.

 

Secondly, the CJEU is laying down too strong foundations for unresolved problems of reverse discrimination. If the claimant in Siragusa had not been Italian and, consequently, a (very loose) connection to free movement rights could be established, the CJEU may have been willing to assess the intervention by the Italian State on the property of a (moving) EU citizen under a different light (worse still, that challenge could be easier for corporate claimants than for individuals, at least if they do not engage in an economic activity, since 'corporate citizens' could also be potentially protected by freedom of establishment).

 

In such a case, the trigger for the application of the CFREU would be equally unrelated to the content of the rights of the CFREU themselves and, sometimes, the trigger for CJEU intervention may simply result from the fact that the EU citizen affected exercised or not free movement rights--which, in my view, continues to create an unjustifiable discrimination between moving (proper) EU citizens and non-moving (unaware) EU citizens that can only continue to erode the potential development of the EU.

 

 

Finally, this line of reasoning may end up creating a situation where the (constitutional) courts of the Member States may be obliged to enforce at the same time conflicting standards of substantive protection for a given fundamental right, depending on the 'sorce of law' that controls it in a given situation. And that will surely be difficult to understand. How could 'my' right to private property be different under 'my' domestic constitutional law protection or under 'my' CFREU protection, depending on factors unrelated to me, my property, or the rules (primarily) applicable? Surely the compatibility between the CFREU and competing (superior) standards of protection (those derived from the European Convention on Human Rights) have (somehow) been ironed out in art 52(3) CFREU. However, the situation is not the same with (lower-ranking?) domestic standards of protection [art 52(4) CFREU is clearly insufficient for that task] and, in my view, the CJEU approach is not helpful in that regard either.

 

Therefore, the continued rejection of its role as a constitutional court of the EU and the increasing restriction of the scope of application of the CFREU in which the CJEU is engaged are, in my view, undesirable developments in EU law.

#CJEU incorrectly analyses 'State imputability' and gives green light to (pseudo)fiscal #Stateaid schemes (C-677/11)

In its Judgment of 30 May 2013 in case C-677/11 Doux Élevages and Coopérative agricole UKL-AREE  the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has carried on with its line of case law in C-345/02 Pearle and Others and stressed that, according to Art 107(1) TFEU, State aid cannot exist if the economic advantage under analysis is not funded by 'State resources' and there is no 'imputability to the State'.

In the case at hand CIDEF, a French agricultural inter-trade organisation (for poultry), introduced the levying of a 'cotisation volontaire obligatoire' (sic) (CVO) for the purposes of financing common activities decided on by that organisation. The contribution was initially introduced in 2007 as a voluntary measure for the members of CIDEF, but it was extended to all traders in the sector on a compulsory basis in 2009 by a tacit Ministerial decision to accept that extension (see press release).

Two complainants challenged the extension of the CVO on the basis that making it a mandatory payment for all traders in the sector (ie going beyond the group of members of CIDEF) involved State aid. The French Conseil d’État referred the matter to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling, which has decided that there is no element of State aid in the mandatory extension of the CVO to all traders in the industry concerned.

The reasoning of the CJEU indeed follows its previous line of case law in the area of State aid and adopts a very narrow approach to the concept of economic advantages 'granted by a Member State or through State resources'. On the point of the involvement of State resources, the CJEU finds that

the contributions [...] are made by private‑sector economic operators – whether members or non-members of the inter‑trade organisation involved – which are engaged in economic activity on the markets concerned. That mechanism does not involve any direct or indirect transfer of State resources, the sums provided by the payment of those contributions do not go through the State budget or through another public body and the State does not relinquish any resources, in whatever form (such as taxes, duties, charges and so on), which, under national legislation, should have been paid into the State budget. The contributions remain private in nature throughout their lifecycle and, in order to collect those contributions in the event of non‑payment, the inter-trade organisation must follow the normal civil or commercial judicial process, not having any State prerogatives (C-677/11 at para 32, emphasis added).

This should come as no big surprise, since this has become the standard position in the case law of the CJEU (ie that if the State 'does not touch' and 'should not have touched' the money, it cannot constitute a 'State resource'). However, one may wonder why the Court has not addressed the point of the (pseudo)fiscal nature of the imposition of a contribution (ie a levy) on undertakings that do not belong to the private organisation charging it. In the absence of a voluntarily established association (via membership), the prerogative of the inter-trade association to require payments from undertakings surely goes beyond the sphere of powers created by private law (taxation is one of the very exclusive powers of the State). In that regard, the reasoning followed by the CJEU on the point of 'imputability to the State' requires some close scrutiny. The Court finds that

35 […] Article 107(1) TFEU covers all the financial means by which the public authorities may actually support undertakings, irrespective of whether or not those means are permanent assets of the public sector. Therefore, even if the sums corresponding to the measure in question are not permanently held by the Treasury, the fact that they constantly remain under public control, and therefore available to the competent national authorities, is sufficient for them to be categorised as State resources (see [C‑482/99 France v Commission (2002) ECR I‑4397], paragraph 37 and the case-law cited).

36 In the case in the main proceedings, the conditions laid down by the Court in paragraph 37 of the judgment in France v Commission are not met. It is clear that the national authorities cannot actually use the resources resulting from the [CVOs] to support certain undertakings. It is the inter-trade organisation that decides how to use those resources, which are entirely dedicated to pursuing objectives determined by that organisation. Likewise, those resources are not constantly under public control and are not available to State authorities.

37 Any influence that the Member State may exercise over the functioning of the inter-trade organisation by means of its decision extending an inter-trade agreement to all traders in an industry is not capable of altering the findings made in paragraph 36 of this judgment.

38 It is clear from the case-file submitted to the Court that the legislation at issue in the main proceedings does not confer upon the competent authority the power to direct or influence the administration of the funds. Moreover, as the Advocate General noted in point 71 of his Opinion, according to the case-law of the competent national courts, the provisions of the Rural Code governing the extension of an agreement introducing the levying of contributions within an inter-trade organisation do not permit public authorities to exercise control over CVOs except to check their validity and lawfulness.

39 Regarding that control, it should be noted that Article L. 632-3 of the Rural Code does not permit making the extension of an agreement dependent upon the pursuit of political objectives which are specific, fixed and defined by the public authorities, given that that article non‑exhaustively lists the very general and varied objectives that an inter-trade agreement must promote in order to be capable of being extended by the competent administrative authority. That conclusion cannot be undermined by the obligation imposed by Article L. 632-8-I of that code to inform the authorities of the way in which CVOs have been used.

40 Moreover, there is nothing in the case-file submitted to the Court permitting it to consider that the initiative for imposing the CVOs originated with the public authorities rather than the inter-trade organisation. It is important to emphasise, as the Advocate General observed in point 90 of his Opinion, that the State was simply acting as a ‘vehicle’ in order to make the contributions introduced by the inter-trade organisations compulsory, for the purposes of pursuing the objectives established by those organisations.

41 Thus, neither the State’s power to recognise an inter-trade organisation under Article L. 632-1 of the Rural Code, nor the power of that State to extend an inter‑trade agreement to all the traders in an industry under Articles L. 632-3 and 632-4 of that code permit the conclusion that the activities carried out by the inter‑trade organisation are imputable to the State (sic) (C-677/11 at paras 35 to 41, emphasis added).

The reasoning followed by the CJEU could not be more puzzling, particularly at para 41, which to me seems plainly wrong. Given the literal tenor of Art 107(1) TFEU, which sets that the prohibition of State aid covers 'any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever' it is clear that the analysis of the 'imputability to the State' must cover the aid measure and not the activities of the beneficiary of such measure. 

Therefore, the conclusion reached in para 41 of C-677/11 is simply a non sequitur. After having recognised that 'the State was simply (sic) acting as a ‘vehicle’ in order to make the contributions introduced by the inter-trade organisations compulsory, for the purposes of pursuing the objectives established by those organisations' (para 40), it is an illogical step to conclude that such (vehicular) intervention is not imputable to the State. In my opinion, this plainly makes no sense.

The implications of the Judgment in Doux Élevages are likely to be far fetched, since they open the door to a floodgate of (pseudo)fiscal measures designed by Member States (by indirect influence to the relevant inter-trade or similar organisations, which should not be readily proven, see para 40 ab initio) to compensate for the stricter (?) controls on aid directly granted by public authorities. 

The only remaining hope at this point is that, under the relevant constitutional law of the Member States, such (pseudo)fiscal levies are considered unconstitutional limitations to the right to property, since the State is the only entity vested with powers to extract money payments not voluntarily accepted, at least as a general implication of the membership of an association (as was the case in Pearle, although any element of mandatory membership obviously would grant the same conclusion). And, consequently, this (pseudo)fiscal structure  that allows non-State entities to extract mandatory payments can be seen as an excessive restriction of the right to property under some Member States constitutional law (such as in Spain, for instance).

Maybe with the accession of the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights and a (stronger) duty to protect the right to property under Art 1 Protocol No. 1 ECHR (which includes rules on taxation not mentioned in the right to property recognised in Art 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU), the CJEU will need to revisit this line of case law.