In case CJEU, C-510/23, Trenitalia v. Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, the Courtroom of Justice took a stand on the need to make sure that deadlines enshrined in nationwide procedural legal guidelines regarding administrative proceedings shall not impair the flexibility of successfully tackling anti-competitive or anti-consumer conduct.
The case considerations a sanction addressed by the AGCM, the Italian client and market authority, to Trenitalia, the first Italian rail transport firm. Trenitalia challenged the choice in court docket, claiming that the Authority didn’t respect the 90-day time restrict prescribed by Italian legislation to start out the proceedings. This infringement would result in the annulment of the sanction imposed to Trenitalia for illegal conduct. The executive tribunal of the Lazio area referred due to this fact to the Courtroom of Justice the query on whether or not this Italian authorized provision was compliant with EU legislation; and particularly, with Articles 11 and 13 of the Unfair Business Practices Directive. The Courtroom said that EU legislation doesn’t preclude nationwide laws to impose sure deadlines for concluding or beginning administrative proceedings, given nonetheless that these limits don’t undermine the effectiveness of client legislation. The procedural autonomy of Member States should be balanced with the necessity to assure efficient client safety.
The case was determined in parallel and coherently with Case C-511/23, Caronte&Vacationer v. Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, relating to the identical problem of legislation. This latter case involved the proceedings for anti-competitive conduct began by the AGCM in opposition to the company “Caronte&Vacationer”, the principle supplier of ferry companies throughout the Strait of Messina, connecting the Italian areas of Sicily and Calabria. The CJEU established the illegitimacy of nationwide laws requiring the competent Authority to begin the investigation for alleged infringement of competitors legislation by notifying the assertion of objections to the endeavor inside a interval of 90 days. The CJEU additional held that the measure sanctioning the dearth of respect of that time period by annulling the ultimate choice undertaken by the Authority, and in addition precluding to start a brand new infringement process for a similar observe and state of affairs, was not in line with EU legislation, and particularly with Article 4(5) and Article 13(1) of Directive (EU) 2019/1, to empower the competitors Authorities of Member States to be simpler enforcers and to make sure the correct functioning of the inner market.
Each rulings verify the significance of efficient enforcement of EU competitors and client safety legislation. Nevertheless, whereas the Trenitalia case emphasises extra the necessity to steadiness procedural autonomy with efficient client safety, the Caronte&Vacationer case appears to go barely additional, making specific the need for nationwide legal guidelines to not impose constraints, additionally relating to procedural deadlines, which might hinder the overarching purpose of competitors within the inside market. To this purpose, the Courtroom resorts to the ideas of effectiveness, equivalence, and effet utile.
