Traghetti del Mediterraneo SpA v Repubblica italiana Case C-173/03, [2006] ECR I-5177
Facts
A shipping company alleged that a competitor’s low fares were supported by unlawful public subsidies. Its litigation failed in the Italian courts, including the court of last instance. After entering liquidation, the company pursued the Italian state for damage attributed to the final court’s treatment of Community law and refusal to refer questions. Italian legislation restricted judicial liability and excluded liability for certain interpretative and evidential activities. The damages court asked whether those limits were compatible with the EU principle of Member State liability recognised in Köbler.
Legal Issue
Could national law exclude liability for a final court’s interpretation of law or assessment of evidence, or confine liability so narrowly that manifest EU infringements escaped compensation?
Held
The Court held that a general exclusion for judicial interpretation of law or assessment of facts and evidence was incompatible with Community law. Those activities are central to judging and can themselves involve a manifest infringement. National rules could set conditions concerning fault, but could not exclude liability in other cases satisfying the EU manifest-breach standard by confining recovery to intentional wrongdoing or narrowly defined serious misconduct. The exceptional threshold for judicial liability remained. The Court did not impose liability for every interpretative error or decide the underlying subsidy dispute itself. The national court had to apply the appropriate standard to the alleged judicial breach.
⭐ Legal Principle
National judicial-immunity rules cannot exclude compensation for a manifest EU-law infringement simply because it arose in legal interpretation or assessment of evidence. Domestic fault conditions must not narrow the EU judicial-liability standard impermissibly.
Significance
Traghetti reinforces Köbler by preventing national exceptions from emptying the remedy of practical value. It preserves the demanding manifest-infringement threshold while rejecting categorical immunity for ordinary judicial tasks. The case concerns state liability for judicial conduct, not personal damages against a judge. Students should distinguish the existence of an unlawful domestic restriction from whether the claimant ultimately proves all elements of the compensation claim.
Common exam questions about this case
Why could interpretation of law not be immune in every case?
Interpretation is central to judicial work and can be the very means through which a manifest EU-law breach occurs. Excluding it categorically would remove much of the judicial-liability remedy recognised in Köbler. The seriousness threshold protects legitimate adjudication without requiring such a blanket exclusion.
Does Traghetti make every judicial mistake compensable?
No. Liability remains exceptional and requires the applicable conditions, including a manifest infringement by a court of last instance. The decision prevents national law from excluding qualifying breaches through overly narrow fault rules. It does not substitute ordinary error correction with an automatic damages action for every unsuccessful litigant.
Who is the defendant in the liability claim?
The claim is against the Member State for the judicial breach attributable to it. It is not a personal claim against the judge. That distinction matters to the Court’s treatment of independence and accountability and prevents the case being misread as imposing individual financial liability on judicial officeholders.