## Facts

- Italy enacted Law No. 1643/1962 nationalizing the electricity sector and creating a state entity (ENEL) to take over existing electricity undertakings.
- Flaminio Costa, a customer and shareholder of a displaced electricity company, opposed the nationalization.
- Costa refused to pay a small electricity bill issued by ENEL and challenged the nationalization law as incompatible with both the Italian Constitution and several EEC Treaty provisions (including rules on state monopolies, establishment, and state aid).
- In related litigation, the Italian Constitutional Court treated the later nationalization statute as prevailing over earlier treaty-implementing legislation under a domestic lex posterior approach.
- In the present small-claims proceeding, a Justice of the Peace referred questions to the Court of Justice under Article 177 EEC (preliminary ruling) seeking interpretation of multiple Treaty provisions.

## Issues

1. Whether the Court of Justice had jurisdiction under Article 177 EEC to answer interpretive questions where national law purported to give priority to later conflicting national legislation.
2. Whether obligations arising from the EEC Treaty take precedence over conflicting national law, including legislation enacted after the Treaty was implemented domestically.
3. Whether certain cited Treaty provisions (including Articles 37, 52, 53, 93, and 102 EEC) conferred rights individuals may invoke before national courts.

## Decision

- The reference was admissible; the Court of Justice had jurisdiction to interpret the Treaty under Article 177 EEC despite the existence of a later conflicting national statute.
- Community law, as an independent source integrated into Member States’ legal systems, cannot be overridden by domestic legal measures; conflicting national law must yield.
- Articles 93 and 102 EEC were interpreted as establishing institutional procedures and obligations involving Community institutions and Member States, not individual rights enforceable in national courts.
- Articles 37(2), 52, and 53 EEC were characterized as imposing obligations capable of conferring judicially protectable rights, depending on the conditions for their operation and the national court’s factual/legal assessment.
- The Court provided interpretive guidance and did not decide the legality of Italy’s nationalization measures or Costa’s liability on the bill; those determinations remained for the referring court.

## Legal Principles

- Community law has primacy over conflicting national law, including subsequent legislation; Member States cannot nullify Treaty obligations through unilateral later measures.
- The preliminary reference mechanism requires national courts to be able to seek authoritative Treaty interpretation; domestic rules on hierarchy of norms cannot bar access to Article 177 review.
- A Treaty provision may be invoked by individuals in national courts when it imposes clear, unconditional obligations not dependent on further institutional action; provisions structured as inter-institutional procedures generally lack such enforceable effect.
- National courts are bound to apply Community law within their jurisdiction and to use the preliminary reference procedure to ensure uniform interpretation.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Community law prevails over conflicting national legislation and that national courts remain empowered to obtain Treaty interpretations through Article 177 even when domestic law claims later statutes control; it also distinguished between Treaty provisions that can confer enforceable individual rights and those that operate only through institutional processes.


Flaminio Costa v. E.N.E.L., Case 6/64, 1964 E.C.R. 585 (Ct. J. 1964)