Portale europeo della giustizia elettronica - Case Law
Chiudi

LA VERSIONE BETA DEL PORTALE È DISPONIBILE ORA!

Visita la versione BETA del portale europeo della giustizia elettronica e lascia un commento sulla tua esperienza sul sito!

 
 

Percorso di navigazione


menu starting dummy link

Page navigation

menu starting dummy link

Case Details

Case Details
National ID 165
Stato membro Italia
Common Name link
Decision type Administrative decision, first degree
Decision date 07/01/2017
Organo giurisdizionale Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Roma)
Oggetto
Attore CODACONS
Convenuto BANCA D'ITALIA, MINISTERO DELLO SVILUPPO ECONOMICO, MINISTERO DELLA GIUSTIZIA, CONSOB
Parole chiave abusive behaviour, adequate powers, consumer, legal actions

Injunctions Directive, Article 2 Injunctions Directive, Article 3, (b)

Art, 140 of the Consumer Code provides for a fixed list of actions that the associations referred to in art. 137 can undertake in order to protect consumers and users interests, and these are: a) inhibition of acts and behaviours that harm consumers' and users' interests; b) adoption of the appropriate measures for the rectification or removal of the detrimental effects of the ascertained infringments; and c) ordering of the publication of the decision on one or more newspaper with a local or national distribution in case the publication of the decision may contribute to rectify or remove the effects of the ascertained infringments.
The plaintiff as well as other 249 subjects brought an action before the court requesting the invalidity declaration of several decisions issued by defendant (among which decisions of 21 November 2015 n. 554/2015, n. 553/2015, n. 555/2015 and n. 556/2015) that disposed the resolution of Banca Popolare dell'Etruria e del Lazio, Banca delle Marche S.p.a., Cassa di Risparmio di Ferrara S.p.a. and Cassa di Risparmio della Provincia di Chieti S.p.a. The 249 plaintiffs, owners of said banks' shares, requested the decisions' annulment based on abuse of power of defendant, and a compensation for damages suffered as a consequence of the resolution proceedings that depreciated thier shares value. The defendant claimed the illegality of Codacons standing to bring the action at issue in court.
Can the action for annulment be comprised in the meaning of art. 140 of the Consumer Code, that lists the actions that can be undertaken by the associations referred to in art. 137 for the protection of consumers' and users' interest?
The list of actions referred to in art. 140 of the Consumer Code is rigidly fixed and exhaustive, and it is not possible to find in the wording of said article an interpretation that may allow for the associations referred to in art. 137 to bring into court an action of annulment even if it is for the protection of consumers' and users' interests.
URL: N/A
Full Text: Full Text

No results available

No results available

The regional administrative tribunal rejected the plaintiff complaint and declared it inadmissible.