CJEU - Joined cases C 317/08, C 318/08, C 319/08 and C 320/08 / Judgment

Rosalba Alassini v Telecom Italia SpA, Filomena Califano v Wind SpA, Lucia Anna Giorgia Iacono v Telecom Italia SpA, and Multiservice Srl v Telecom Italia SpA
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
European Court of Justice (Fourth Chamber)
Decision date
ECLI (European case law identifier)
  • CJEU - Joined cases C 317/08, C 318/08, C 319/08 and C 320/08 / Judgment

    Key facts of the case:

    References for a preliminary ruling: Giudice di pace di Ischia - Italy.

    Reference for a preliminary ruling - Principle of effective judicial protection - Electronic communications networks and services -Directive 2002/22/EC - Universal Service - Disputes between end-users and providers - Mandatory to attempt an out-of-court settlement.

    Outcome of the case:

    On those grounds, the Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby rules:

    Article 34 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on Universal Service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State under which the admissibility before the courts of actions relating to electronic communications services between end-users and providers of those services, concerning the rights conferred by that directive, is conditional upon an attempt to settle the dispute out of court.

    Nor do the principles of equivalence and effectiveness or the principle of effective judicial protection preclude national legislation which imposes, in respect of such disputes, prior implementation of an out-of-court settlement procedure, provided that that procedure does not result in a decision which is binding on the parties, that it does not cause a substantial delay for the purposes of bringing legal proceedings, that it suspends the period for the time-barring of claims and that it does not give rise to costs – or gives rise to very low costs – for the parties, and only if electronic means is not the only means by which the settlement procedure may be accessed and interim measures are possible in exceptional cases where the urgency of the situation so requires.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    4) Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, proclaimed at Nice on 7 December 2000 (OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1), as adjusted at Strasbourg on 12 December 2007 (OJ 2007 C 303, p. 1), which is entitled ‘Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial’, provides:

    ‘Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Article.

    Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law. Everyone shall have the possibility of being advised, defended and represented.

    Legal aid shall be made available to those who lack sufficient resources in so far as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice.’


    21) It was in that context that the Giudice di Pace di Ischia (Magistrates Court, Ischia) (Italy) decided, in each pending case, to stay the proceedings and to refer to the Court the following question for a preliminary ruling: ‘Do the Community rules referred to above (Article 6 of the [ECHR], [the Universal Service] Directive …, Directive [1999/44], … Recommendation [2001/310] and [Recommendation [98]/257]) have direct effect and must they be interpreted as meaning that disputes “in the area of electronic communications between end-users and operators concerning non-compliance with the rules on Universal Service and on the rights of end-users, as laid down in legislation, decisions of the Regulatory Authority, contractual terms and service charters” (the disputes contemplated by Article 2 of [the regulation annexed to] Decision No 173/07/CONS of the Regulatory Authority) must not be made subject to a mandatory attempt to settle the dispute without which proceedings in that regard may not be brought before the courts, thus taking precedence over the rule laid down in Article 3(1) of [the regulation annexed to] Decision No 173/07/CONS?’


    61) Secondly, it should be borne in mind that the principle of effective judicial protection is a general principle of EU law stemming from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, which has been enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR and which has also been reaffirmed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (see Mono Car Styling, paragraph 47 and the case-law cited).