case bickel and franz

8/6/2019 Case Bickel and Franz

1/11

JUDGMEN T O F 24. 11. 1998 CASE C-274/96

J U D G M E N T O F T H E C O U R T24 N ove m be r 1998 *

I n C a s e C -27 4 /96 ,

R E F E R E N C E to t he C ou r t un de r A r ti c le 17 7 o f t he E C T r e aty by t he P r e tu r aCircondar ia le di Bolzano, Sezione Dis tacca ta di Si landro ( I ta ly) , for a pre l iminaryrul ing in the cr iminal proceedings before tha t cour t agains t

Hor s t Ot t o B i c k e l ,

U l r i c h F r an z ,

on the interpre ta t ion of Art ic les 6 , 8a and 59 of the EC Treaty,

T H E C O U R T ,

composed of : G . C . Rodrguez Iglesias, President, P. J . G . Ka pte yn , J . -P. P uissoch et ,G . H i r s c h a nd P. Jan n (Pres idents of Ch am bers ) , G . F . M anc in i , J . C . M oi t in ho deA lm e ida , C . G u lm a n n , J. L . M ur r a y , H . Ragnemalm ( R a p por t e u r ) , L . Se vn ,M . Wathelet and R . Schin tgen , Judges ,

A dv oc a t e G e ne r a l : F . G . J a c o bs ,Regis t ra r : H . vo n Hols te in , D ep ut y Regis tra r,

* Language of the case: Italian.

I - 7650


2/11

BICKEL AND FRANZ

af ter cons ider ing the wri t ten observat ions submit ted on behalf of :

the I t al i an Go ve rnm en t , by Professor U m be r to Leanza , H ead of the Lega lAffairs Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs , acting as Agent, assistedby Pier Giorgio Ferr i , Avvocato de l lo Sta to,

the Co m mis s ion of the Eu rop ean Co m mu ni t ie s , by P ie te r van Nuf fel , o f i t sLegal Service , and Enr ico Alt ie r i , a na t ional c ivi l servant on secondment to tha tservice , ac t ing as Agents ,

having rega rd to the Repor t for the Hear ing ,

af ter hear ing the ora l observat ions of Mr Bickel and Mr Franz , represented by Kar lZel ler , of the Merano Bar ; of the I ta l ian Government , represented by Pier GiorgioFerr i ; and of the Co m m iss io n, represen ted by Pie ter van Nuffe l and Lu cio G usse t t i ,of i ts Legal Service , ac t ing as Ag ents , a t the hear ing o n 27 Jan ua ry 1998,

af ter hear ing the O p in io n of the Adv oca te Gen era l at the s i t ting on 19 M arc h 1998,

gives the fol lowing

J u d g m e n t

1 By ord ers of 2 A ug us t 1996, rece ived a t the Co u rt on 12 A ug us t 1996, the P re t ur aCircondar ia le , Sezione Dis tacca ta di Si landro (Dis t r ic t Magis t ra tes ' Cour t , Si landroDivis ion) , Bo lzano , r e fe r red to the C ou r t for a pre l imina ry ru l ing und er Ar t ic le 177of the EC Treaty a ques t ion on the interpre ta t ion of Art ic les 6 , 8a and 59 of theEC Trea ty .

I - 7651


3/11

JUDGMENT OF 24. 11. 1998 CASE C-274/96

2 That ques t ion was ra ised in cr iminal proceedings , brought agains t Mr Bickel andMr Franz respect ive ly.

3 Mr Bickel is a lorry dr iver of Austr ian na t ional i ty , res ident a t Nziders in Austr ia .O n 15 Fe b r ua r y 1994, while dr iving his lorry a t Cas te lbe l lo in the Trentino-AltoAdige Region of I ta ly, he was s topped by a carabinieri pa t ro l and cha rged wi thdr iving whi le under the inf luence of a lcohol .

4 M r Fra nz , a G erm an na t iona l r e s ident a t Pe i s senberg in Ge rma ny, v i s i ted theTrentino-Alto Ad ige as a tour is t . O n 5 Ma y 1995, in the course of a cus toms inspect ion , he was fou nd to be in poss ess ion of a ty pe of knife tha t is pro hib i ted .

5 In each case , the accused made a dec lara t ion in the presence of the Dis t r ic t Magis t ra te of Bolzano tha t he had no knowledge of I ta l ian and, re lying on rules for thepro tec t ion of the Germ an-speak ing c om m uni ty of the Province of Bo lzano, r eques tedtha t the proceedings be conduc ted in German.

6 Artic le 99 of Pres ident ia l Dec ree N o 670 of 30 Au gu st 1972 con cern ing th e specia la r rangements for the Trentino-Alto A dige R e g ion ( G U R I N o 301 o f 20 N o ve m be r1972) provides tha t the German language is to have the same s ta tus there as I ta l ian.

7 Under Ar t ic le 100 of tha t dec ree , the German-speaking c i t i zens of the Province ofBolzano ( the a rea where mos t of the German-speaking minor i ty l ive ) a re en t i t l edto use the ir own language in re la t ions with the judic ia l and adminis t ra t ive author i t ies based in tha t province or entrus ted with responsibi l i ty a t regional level .I - 7652


4/11

BICKEL AND FRANZ

8 Artic le 13 of Pres ident ia l De cree N o 574 of 15 Ju ly 1988 (here inafter 'D ecr ee N o574/88 ' ) on the implementa t ion of the spec ia l a r rangements for the Trent ino-Al toAdige with regard to the use of German or Ladin in re la t ions be tween c i t izens andthe publ ic adminis t ra t ion and in jud ic ia l p roceedings (G U R I N o 105 of 8 M ay1989) provides tha t the adminis t ra t ive and judic ia l author i t ies must , in the ir dea lings wi th c i t i zens of the Province of Bolzano and in documents conce rn ing them,use the language of the person concerned.

9 Artic le 14 of Dec ree N o 574/88 provid es mo reo ve r tha t , in cases of flagrante delictoor arres t , the judic ia l or pol ice author i ty must , before interviewing the person conce rned or t ak ing any o the r procedura l s tep , a sk h im to s ta te h i s mothe r tongue . I fhe is a German-speaker , the interview and a l l other s teps in the procedure must beconduc ted in tha t l anguage .

10 Last ly, pursuant to Art ic le 15 of Dec ree N o 574/88 , the jud icia l au th or i ty re sp on s ib le for drawing up a proc edu ra l do cum ent to be com mu nica ted to or se rved on asuspec t or accused pe rson mus t use tha t pe r son ' s presumed language , which i sde te rm ined o n the bas is of h i s kn ow n m emb ersh ip of a l anguage gro up and o th e rinforma t ion w hich has com e to ligh t dur in g the proc edu re . W i th in t en days of co m munica t ion or service of the f i rs t procedura l document , the suspect or accusedperson may contes t the l anguage used by making a dec la ra t ion in pe rson or bya r ranging to have such a dec la ra t ion submi t ted to the prosecut ing au thor i ty . Wherethe la t te r opt ion is exerc ised, the judic ia l author i ty must make sure tha t any documents a l ready drawn up are t rans la ted and tha t a l l documents thereaf ter a re drawnup in the language des ignated.

1 1 S ince the na tiona l cou r t was unce r ta in w he t he r the ru les of pro ced ure appl icable tothe c i t i zens of the Province of Bolzano mus t , unde r Communi ty l aw, be ex tendedto na t iona l s of o the r Member S ta te s v i s i t ing the province , i t dec ided to s tayI - 7653


5/11


proceedings p end ing a pre l imin a ry ru l ing from the C ou r t of Jus t ice on the fo l l ow ing que s t i on :

'Do the pr inc ip le of non-d isc r imina t ion a s l a id down in the f i r s t pa ragraph ofArt ic le 6 , the r ight of movement and res idence for c i t izens of the Union as la iddown in Art ic le 8a and the f reedom to provide services as la id down in Art ic le 59of the Trea ty require tha t a c i t izen of the Union who is a na t ional of one MemberSta te but is in another Member Sta te be granted the r ight to have cr iminal proceedings agains t him conducted in another language where na t ionals of the hos t Sta teenjoy tha t r ight in the same c ircumstances? '

12 By tha t ques t ion, the na t ional cour t i s essent ia l ly asking whether the r ight conferredby nat ional rules to have cr iminal proceedings conducted in a language other thanthe pr inc ipa l language of the Sta te concerned fa l ls wi thin the scope of the Trea tyand mus t accord ingly comply wi th Ar t ic le 6 thereof. I f so, the na t ional cour t a lsoasks whether Art ic le 6 of the Trea ty prec ludes na t ional rules , such as those in issue ,wh ich, in respec t of a par t icu lar language oth er tha n the pr inc ipa l language of theMember Sta te concerned, confer on c i t izens whose language is tha t par t icular language and who are res ident in a def ined area the r ight to require tha t c r iminal proceedings be conducted in tha t language , wi thout conferr ing the same r ight onnat ionals of other Member Sta tes t ravel l ing or s taying in tha t a rea , whose languageis the same.

The f irs t part of the quest ion

1 3 Th e firs t po in t to no te is tha t in the context of a C om m un i ty based on the pr in c iples of f reedom of movement for persons and f reedom of es tabl ishment , the protec t ion of the l inguis t ic r ights and pr ivi leges of individuals is of par t icular importance (Case 137/84 Mutsch [1985] E C R 2 681, pa ragrap h 11).I - 7654


6/11

BICKEL AND FRANZ

14 Secondly , by prohib i t ing ' any d i sc r imina t ion on grounds of na t iona l i ty ' , Ar t ic le 6of the Trea ty requi res tha t pe r s on s in a s i tua t ion governed by C om m un i ty l aw beplaced ent i re ly on an equal foot ing with na t ionals of the Member Sta te (Case 186/87Cowan [1989] E C R 195, pa rag raph 10).

15 Si tua t ions governed by Communi ty l aw inc lude those cove red by the f reedom toprovide services , the r ight to which is la id down in Art ic le 59 of the Trea ty. TheC o u rt has con sis ten t ly he ld tha t this r ight inc ludes the freedom for the rec ipientsof services to go to another Member Sta te in order to rece ive a service there(Cowan, par ag rap h 15) . Art ic le 59 therefore co vers a ll na t ion als of Me m be r Sta tesw h o , inde pen den t ly of o the r f reedom s gu a ranteed by the Trea ty , v i s it an othe rMember Sta te where they intend or a re l ike ly to rece ive services . Such persons and they inc lude both Mr Bickel and Mr Franz are f ree to vis i t and move aroundwi th in the hos t S ta te . Fur the rmore , pursuant to Ar t ic le 8a of the Trea ty , '[e]veryci t izen of the Union shal l have the r ight to move and res ide f ree ly within the te r r i tory of the Member Sta tes , subjec t to the l imita t ions and condi t ions la id down inthis Treaty and by the measures adopted to give i t effect ' .

1 6 In tha t regard, the exerc ise of the r ight to move and res ide f ree ly in anotherMember Sta te is enhanced i f the c i t izens of the Union are able to use a given language to communica te with the adminis t ra t ive and judic ia l author i t ies of a Sta te onthe same foot ing as i ts na t ionals . Consequent ly, persons such as Mr Bickel andMr Franz , in exerc is ing tha t r ight in another Member Sta te , a re in pr inc iple ent i t led,pursuant to Art ic le 6 of the Trea ty, to t rea tment no less favourable than tha taccorded to na t ionals of the hos t Sta te so far as concerns the use of languages whicha re spoken the re .

17 Although, genera l ly speaking, c r iminal legis la t ion and the rules of c r iminal procedure such as the na t ional rules in issue , which govern the language of the proceedings a re ma t te r s for which the M em ber S ta tes are re spons ib le , the Co u r t hascons i s ten t ly he ld tha t Communi ty l aw se t s ce r ta in l imi t s to the i r power in tha trespect . Such legis la t ive provis ions may not discr iminate agains t persons to whomI - 7655


7/11


Community law gives the r ight to equal t rea tment or res t r ic t the fundamenta l f reedo m s gua ranteed by C o m m u ni ty law (see , to tha t ef fect, Cowan, paragraph 19) .

18 Co nse qu ent l y, in so far as the y ma y com pro m ise the r ight of na t ion als of o the rMember Sta tes to equal t rea tment in the exerc ise of the ir r ight to move and res idefree ly in another Member Sta te , na t ional rules concerning the language to be usedin cr iminal proceedings in the hos t Sta te must comply with Art ic le 6 of the Trea ty.

19 Accordingly, the answer to the f i rs t par t of the ques t ion referred for a pre l iminaryrul ing must be tha t the r ight conferred by na t ional rules to have cr iminal proceedings conducted in a language other than the pr inc ipa l language of the Sta te concerned fa l ls wi thin the scope of the Trea ty and must comply with Art ic le 6 thereof.

The second par t of the ques t ion

20 In the submiss ion of Mr Bicke l and Mr Franz , i f any d i sc r imina t ion cont ra ry toArt ic le 6 of the Trea ty is to be avoided, the r ight to have proceedings conducted inGerman must be extended to a l l c i t izens of the Union, s ince i t i s a l ready avai lableto na t ionals of one of the Member Sta tes .

21 The I ta l i an Government contends tha t the only na t iona l s upon whom the r igh t inques t ion is conferred are those who are both res idents of the Province of Bolzanoand members of i t s German-speaking community, the a im of the rules in issue be ingto recognise the e thnic and cul tura l ident i ty of persons be longing to the protec tedminor i ty . Accordingly, the r ight of tha t protec ted minor i ty to the use of i t s ownlanguage need not be extended to na t ionals of other Member Sta tes who are present ,I - 7656


8/11

BICKEL AND FRANZ

occas ional ly and temporar i ly , in tha t region, s ince provis ion has been made toenable such persons to exerc ise the r ights of the defence adequate ly, even wherethey have no knowledge of the official language of the host State.

2 2 Th e Co mm iss ion po in t s ou t tha t the r igh t to have proceedings cond uc ted in G erm anis not accorded to a l l I ta l ian na t ionals , but only to those who are res ident in thePr ov inc e of B o lz a no a nd w h o be long t o it s G e r m a n- s pe a k ing c om m un i ty . A c c or d ingly, i t i s for the na t ional cour t to de termine whether the rules in issue genuinelygive rise to discrimination on grounds of na t ional i ty , to ident i fy the group of persons d i sc r imina ted aga ins t and then to de te rmine whe the r such d i sc r imina t ion i sjus t i f iable by reference to objec t ive c i rcumstances .

2 3 The documents before the Court show tha t the I ta l ian rules res t r ic t the r ight tohave proceed ings condu c ted in G erm an to Germa n-spea king c i t i zens of the Pr ov ince of Bolzano. I t fol lows tha t German-speaking na t ionals of other Member Sta tes ,pa r t i cu la r ly Germany and Aus t r ia such a s Mr Bicke l and Mr Franz who t rave lor s tay in tha t province cannot requi re c r imina l proceedings to be conduc ted inGerman despi te the fac t tha t the na t iona l ru le s provide tha t the German languageis to have the same status as I talian.

2 4 In those c ircums tances , i t appea rs tha t G erma n-speak ing na t iona l s of o the r M em be rSta tes t ravel l ing or s taying in the Province of Bolzano are a t a disadvantage bycom par i son wi th I t a l ian na t iona l s r e s ident the re wh ose language i s Ge rm an. W hereasa member of the la t te r group may, i f charged with an offence in the Province ofBolzano, have the proceedings conduc ted in German, a German-speaking na t iona lf rom another Member Sta te , t ravel l ing in tha t province , i s denied tha t r ight .

I - 7657


9/11


2 5 Even on the assum pt ion tha t , a s the I t a li an G ov ern m en t main ta ins , Ge rm an -speak ing na t iona l s o f o ther Member S ta tes who a re r es iden t in the P rov ince o fBolzano may r e ly on the ru les in i s sue and submi t the i r p l ead ings in German sotha t ther e is n o discr im inat ion o n grou nd s of nat ion al i ty as betw een residen ts ofthe region I ta l ian nat ionals are a t an advantage by compar ison wi th nat ionals ofo the r M em be r S ta tes . Th e major i ty o f I t a li an na t iona l s w ho se l anguage is G erm anare in a pos i t ion to de m and tha t Germ an be used th ro ug ho u t the p roceed ings inthe P rov ince o f Bo lzano , because they mee t the r es idence r equ i r ement l a id downby the ru les in i s sue ; the major i ty o f Ge rma n-sp eak in g na t iona l s of o ther M em berStates , on the o ther hand, cannot avai l themselves of that r ight because they do notsa t i s fy tha t r equ i r ement .

2 6 Consequen t ly , ru les such as those in i s sue in the main p roceed ings , which make ther ight , in a def ined area , to have cr iminal proceedings conducted in the language ofthe per son concerned cond i t iona l on tha t pe r son be ing r es iden t in tha t a r ea , f avourna t iona l s o f the hos t S ta te by compar i son wi th na t iona l s o f o ther Member S ta tesexerc i s ing the i r r igh t to f r eedom of movement and there fo re run coun te r to thepr inciple of non-discr iminat ion la id down in Ar t ic le 6 of the Treaty .

27 A r e s i d e n c e r e q u i r e m e n t o f t h a t k i n d c a n b e j u s t i f ie d o n l y if i t i s b a s e d o n o b j e c t i ve cons idera t ions independen t o f the na t iona l i ty o f the per sons concerned and i spropor t ionate to the legi t imate a im of the nat ional provis ions ( see , to that ef fect ,C a s e C-15/96 Schning-Kougebetopoulou [1998] ECR I -47 , pa ragraph 21) .

28 However , i t i s c lear f rom the order for reference that th is i s not the posi t ion in thecase of the rules in issue.

29 Th e I t a li an Go ve rnm en t ' s con ten t io n tha t the a im of thos e ru les is to p ro tec t theethno-cultural minor i ty r es id ing in the p rov ince in ques t ion does no t cons t i tu te aI - 7658


10/11

BICKEL AND FRANZ

val id jus t i f ica t ion in this context . Of course , the protec t ion of such a minor i ty mayconst i tute a legi t imate a im. I t does not appear , however , f rom the documents beforethe Co ur t tha t tha t aim w ou ld be un der m ine d if the ru le s in i ssue were ex tended tocover German-speaking na t ionals of other Member Sta tes exerc is ing the ir r ight tof reedom of movement .

so Fu r th erm or e , i t sho uld be reca lled th a t M r Bickel and M r Fr an z po inte d out at thehea r ing , w i th ou t be ing cont rad ic ted , tha t the cour t s conc e rned a re in a pos i t ion toconduc t proceedings in German wi thout addi t iona l compl ica t ions or cos t s .

31 Consequent ly, the answer to the second par t of the ques t ion referred for a pre l iminary rul ing must be tha t Art ic le 6 of the Trea ty prec ludes na t ional rules which, inrespect of a par t icu lar languag e oth er than th e pr inc ipa l language of the M em be rSta te concerned, confer on c i t izens whose language is tha t par t icular language andwho are res ident in a def ined area the r ight to require tha t c r iminal proceedings becon du cted in tha t language , w i th ou t con ferr ing th e same r ight on na t ionals of ot he rMember Sta tes t ravel l ing or s taying in tha t a rea , whose language is the same.

C o s t s

32 The cos t s incur red by the I t a l i an Government and the Commiss ion , which havesubmi t ted obse rva t ions to the Cour t , a re not r ecoverable . S ince these proceedingsare, for the pa r t i e s to the ma in proceedings , a s tep in the proceedings pendingbefore the na t ional cour t , the dec is ion on cos ts is a mat ter for tha t cour t .

I - 7659


11/11


O n t h o s e g r o u n d s ,

T H E C O U R T ,

in answer to the question r e fe r r ed to i t by the P re tu ra Ci rcondar ia l e d i Bo lzano ,Sezion e Distac cata d i S i landro , by o rders of 2 A ug us t 1996, he reb y rules:

1. The r ight conferred by nat ional rules to have criminal proceedings conductedin a language other than the pr inc ipal language of the State concerned fal lswi th in the scope of the EC Treaty and must comply wi th Art ic le 6 thereof .

2 . Artic le 6 of the Treaty prec ludes nat ional rules which, in respect of a part icu lar language other than the pr inc ipal language of the Member State concerned, confer on c i t i zens whose language i s that par t icu lar language andwho are res ident in a def ined area the r ight to require that cr iminal proceedings be conducted in that language , w i thout conferr ing the same r ight onnat ionals o f o ther Member State s t rave l l ing or s tay ing in that area , whoselanguage i s the same .

Rodriguez Ig les ias K ap tey n Pu i ssoche tH i r s c h J a n n

M a n c i n i M o i t i n h o d e A l m e i d a GulmannM u r r a y R a g n e m a l m

Sevn Wathelet Schin tgen

D e l i v e r e d in o p e n c o u r t in L u x e m b o u r g o n 2 4 N o v e m b e r 1 9 9 8.

R. GrassRegis t r a r

G . C . Rodrguez IglesiasPres ident

I - 7660

case bickel and franz

Documents