ABSTRACT – This article seeks to reconstruct the Alace and Canpelli case in a comprehensive and systematic manner. The aim, in particular, is to provide a necessarily concise account not only of the judgment of the Court of Justice, but also of everything that “surrounded” that case. Therefore, in the first place, the material circumstances that preceded the preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice and then followed it are taken into consideration. In addition to these, I reviewed the various legal issues that initially sparked the doctrinal debate in the phase prior to the preliminary ruling and then developed – according to partially modified paradigms – as the case unfolded before the Court. Finally, the conclusions reached in the judgment have been acknowledged.
