25.5.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 147/6

1.

Is it inconsistent with the correct application of Articles 3(2) and 216 TFEU — according to which the Union has exclusive competence for the conclusion of an international agreement when that conclusion is provided for in a legislative act of the Union or is necessary to enable the Union to exercise its internal competence, or in so far as its conclusion may affect common rules or alter their scope, with the twofold consequence that, first, the power to conclude with non-member States agreements that affect common rules or alter their operation, or [affect] a sector completely governed by Community law and for which the Union has exclusive competence, is centralised within the European Union itself and, secondly, that such authority no longer resides individually or collectively with the Member States — and of Article 5 of Directive 2001/77/EC, for a national provision ([Article] 20(3) of Legislative Decree No 387 of 2003) to make the recognition of the guarantees of origin issued by third States subject to the conclusion of an appropriate international agreement between the Italian State and the third State in question?

2.

Are the national rules at issue inconsistent with the correct application of the abovementioned Community rules, when the Non-Member State is the Swiss Confederation, linked to the European Union by a free trade agreement concluded on 22 July 1972 and entered into force on 1 January 1973?

3.

Is it inconsistent with the correct application of the Community rules referred to in question (i) for the provision of national law, contained in Article 4(6) of the Ministerial Decree of 11 November 1999, to lay down that, when electricity is imported from non-Member States of the European Union, acceptance of the application is conditional upon the conclusion of an agreement between the National Grid Manager and an equivalent local authority determining the detailed rules for the necessary checks?

4.

In particular, is it inconsistent with the proper application of the Community rules at issue for the agreement under Article 4(6) of the Ministerial Decree of November 1999 to consist of a merely tacit agreement, never set out in official documents and the subject of a mere statement by the appellant, which is unable to provide details of its essential elements?