# C_2004251EN.01000402.xml

| 9.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/4

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace di Bitonto by order of that court of 30 June 2004 in the case of Pasqualina Murgolo against Assitalia Assicurazioni SpA

(Case C-298/04)

(2004/C 251/08)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Giudice di Pace di Bitonto (Magistrates' Court, Bitonto, Italy) of 30 June 2004, received at the Court Registry on 13 July 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Pasqualina Murgolo against Assitalia Assicurazioni SpA on the following questions:

| 1. | Is Article 81 of the Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that it renders void an agreement or concerted practice between insurance companies consisting of a mutual exchange of information which makes it possible to increase RC auto insurance policy premiums which are not justified by market conditions, including in view of the fact that undertakings from several Member States took part in the agreement or concerted practice? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 81 of the Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that it renders void an agreement or concerted practice between insurance companies consisting of a mutual exchange of information which makes it possible to increase RC auto insurance policy premiums which are not justified by market conditions, including in view of the fact that undertakings from several Member States took part in the agreement or concerted practice?

| 2. | Is Article 81 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes the application of a national provision similar to that in Article 33 of Italian Law 287/90 under which a claim for damages for infringement of Community and national provisions for anti-competitive agreements must be made also by third parties before a court other than that which usually has jurisdiction for claims of similar value, thus involving a considerable increase in costs and time? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 81 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes the application of a national provision similar to that in Article 33 of Italian Law 287/90 under which a claim for damages for infringement of Community and national provisions for anti-competitive agreements must be made also by third parties before a court other than that which usually has jurisdiction for claims of similar value, thus involving a considerable increase in costs and time?

| 3. | Is Article 81 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that it entitles third parties who have a relevant legal interest to rely on the invalidity of an agreement or practice prohibited by that Community provision and claim damages for the harm suffered where there is a causal relationship between the agreement or concerted practice and the harm? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is Article 81 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that it entitles third parties who have a relevant legal interest to rely on the invalidity of an agreement or practice prohibited by that Community provision and claim damages for the harm suffered where there is a causal relationship between the agreement or concerted practice and the harm?

| 4. | Is Article 81 of the Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that for the purposes of the limitation period for bringing an action for damages based thereon, time begins to run from the day on which the agreement or concerted practice was adopted or the day on which the agreement or concerted practice came to an end? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is Article 81 of the Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that for the purposes of the limitation period for bringing an action for damages based thereon, time begins to run from the day on which the agreement or concerted practice was adopted or the day on which the agreement or concerted practice came to an end?

| 5. | Is Article 81 of the Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that where the national court sees that the damages that can be awarded on the basis of national law are lower than the economic advantage gained by the infringing party to the prohibited agreement or concerted practice, should also award of its own motion punitive damages to the injured third party in order to make the compensable amount higher than the advantage gained by the infringing party and deter the adoption of agreements or concerted practices prohibited under Article 81 of the Treaty? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Is Article 81 of the Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that where the national court sees that the damages that can be awarded on the basis of national law are lower than the economic advantage gained by the infringing party to the prohibited agreement or concerted practice, should also award of its own motion punitive damages to the injured third party in order to make the compensable amount higher than the advantage gained by the infringing party and deter the adoption of agreements or concerted practices prohibited under Article 81 of the Treaty?

---