I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
()
2010/C 328/42
Language of the case: Italian
Applicant: Teresa Cicala
Defendant: Regione Siciliana
1.Are the interpretation and application of Article 3 of Law 241/1990 and of Article 3 of Sicilian Regional Law 10/1991 — in relation to Article 1 of Law 241/90, which requires the Italian administrative authorities to apply the principles of European Union law, pursuant to the obligation to state reasons for the acts of public authorities laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in the third indent of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — to the effect that measures of public authorities in a private-law form — that is to say, measures relating to individual rights and which are in any event mandatory, in matters relating to pensions — may be exempt from the obligation to state reasons, compatible with European Union law, and does such a case amount to infringement of an essential procedural requirement governing an administrative measure?
2.Is the first sentence of Article 21g(2) of Law 241/1990, as interpreted by the administrative case-law — in relation to the obligation to state reasons for an administrative measure laid down by Article 3 of Law 241/1990 and by Sicilian Regional Law 10/1991, in conjunction with the obligation to state reasons for the acts of public authorities laid down by the second paragraph of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the third indent of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — compatible with Article 1 of Law 241/1990, which requires the administrative authorities to apply the principles of European Union law, and, consequently, are the interpretation and application of that interpretation whereby the authorities may supplement a statement of reasons for an administrative measure in court proceedings compatible and admissible?