Ratti judgment
The Ratti judgment (Case 148/78) was a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Penale di Milano concerning criminal proceedings against Tullio Ratti .
Ratti was the responsible manager for a company that produced solvents and paints. In accordance with Directive 73/173 / EEC and 77/728 / EEC, the member states of the European Economic Community were obliged to introduce certain labeling obligations within the implementation period, including for the substances manufactured by the company concerned, or to define them in accordance with the directive . The Italian regulations were more extensive, but the company for which Ratti was responsible adhered to the requirements of the two European directives. Criminal proceedings were then initiated against Ratti for failing to comply with the Italian regulations.
References for a preliminary ruling
The following questions were then briefly put to the Court:
- Do the provisions of the EEC Directive have a direct effect in that they give the person concerned subjective rights?
- Is the member state affected by the implementation of the directive entitled to provide more detailed, i. H. to issue more detailed or at least different regulations?
- Was the percentage of toluene , benzene and xylene required by Italian law incompatible with the directive?
- Should the free movement of goods be restricted by protecting the physical integrity of the consumer?
- Does the directive (here: 77/728 / EEC) take effect immediately before the implementation period expires, if the person concerned has already complied with the regulations?
Decision of the ECJ
The Court of Justice has summarized the five questions raised, namely that once the transposition period for a directive has expired, individuals have a subjective right which prevents the application of conflicting national law. However, such a right cannot be asserted before the implementation period has expired.
Directive 73/173 / EEC does not allow any deviating regulations of the national legislature for the labeling of solvents to the detriment of the manufacturer. The member states cannot raise any objections in the form of national restrictions against the implementation of a harmonization measure that serves to protect the physical integrity and health of consumers, which in turn is justified by the protection of consumers.
Effects
The continued validity of the principles on the direct effect of directives only after the deadline has expired for market citizens continues to apply to Art. 288 TFEU .
