Case C-62/01 P: Appeal brought on 12 February 2001 (facsimile of 9 February 2001) by Anna Maria Campogrande against the judgment delivered on 7 December 2000 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-136/98 between A.M. Campogrande and Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-05-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), mental stress, sexual harassment, working conditions

5.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134/5

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Council Directive 92/49/EEC (1) of
18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations
and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance
other
than life assurance and amending Directives
73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance
Directive) in that it has set up and kept in force a system
of premium controls applicable to all contracts for the
insurance of civil liability arising from the use of motor
vehicles in relation to risks situated within Italian territory,
without distinguishing between insurance companies
having their head office in Italy and those conducting
their business in Italy through branch offices or under the
freedom to provide services, in breach of:

(a)

(b)

the principle of the freedom to set premiums and
the abolition of prior or systematic controls over
premiums and contracts, as dealt with in Articles 6,
29 and 39 of the said directive;

the provisions of Article 44 of the said directive,
which concern arrangements for gathering infor-
mation on the amount of the premiums, claims and
commission, the frequency and average cost of
claims, and the exchange of information between
the regulatory authorities of the Member State of
origin and those of the host Member State;

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of

the

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission submits that:

Freezing the premiums and certain other components of
the contractual offer, and requiring all civil liability motor
insurance undertakings to offer contracts with premiums
calculated by reference to a no-claims bonus, and with full
indemnity, for between ITL 500 000 and ITL 1 000 000, are
measures which should be regarded as inconsistent with the
principle of freedom to set premiums enshrined by Articles 6,
29 and 39 of Directive 92/49/EEC. Insurers who provide
contracts covering risks situated within Italian territory do not
enjoy the right to determine freely these components of their
contractual offer. There appears to be no justification for this
restriction of the freedom to set premiums.

Article 2(5)(a) and (d) of Decree No 70 of 28 March 2000,
which confers upon ISVAP (the Istituto per la vigilanza sulle
assicurazioni private e di interesse collective, the Private and
Collective Interest Insurance Supervisory Authority) authority
to supervise insurance undertakings offering ‘compulsory
motor insurance’ in connection with the matters set out in
Article 2(2), (3) and (4), is incompatible with the provisions of
Article 44 of
the directive concerning the gathering of
information on the amount of the premiums, claims and
commissions,
the frequency and average cost of claims,
and the exchange of information between the supervisory
authorities of the Member State of origin and those of the
host Member State. As regards the communication of such
information, insurance undertakings operating in Italy under

the freedom of establishment or the freedom to provide
services actually have a duty to account to the competent
authorities of the Member State of origin only.

Lastly, under the last sentence of Article 2(5)(d) of Decree
No 70, insurance undertakings operating in Italy, including
their business under the freedom of
those that conduct
establishment or the freedom to provide services, are required
to contribute to the funding and management costs of the data
bank set up under Decree No 70. A requirement such as that
is linked to the obligation to provide ISVAP with information
laid down by Article 2 of Decree No 70, which is itself
inconsistent with Article 44 of the directive. Consequently, the
obligation to contribute to the funding of the data bank
imposed upon undertakings operating under the freedom of
establishment or the freedom to provide services within Italian
territory is clearly also inconsistent with Community law.

(1) OJ 228 of 11.8.1992, p. 1.

Appeal brought on 12 February 2001 (facsimile of 9 Feb-
ruary 2001) by Anna Maria Campogrande against the
judgment delivered on 7 December 2000 by the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-136/98 between A.M. Campo-
grande and Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-62/01 P)

(2001/C 134/09)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 December
2000 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities in Case T-136/98 between
A.M. Campogrande and Commission of the European Com-
Justice of the
munities was brought before the Court of
European Communities on 12 February 2001 (facsimile of
9 February 2001) by A.M. Campogrande, represented by Anne
Krywin, avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Declare the present appeal admissible and well-founded;

Accordingly,

— set aside the judgment in Case T-136/98 of the Court of
First Instance of 5 December 2000 in so far as it finds:

C 134/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.5.2001

— at paragraph 66: the claim for damages to make
reparation for the damage caused by the reprisals is
inadmissible in the absence of proper pre-litigation
procedure beforehand.

— at paragraph 67: the claim for compensation does
not fall within the jurisdiction of the Court, in view
of the form of order sought;

— at paragraph 68: annulment of

the contested
decision is sufficient to make good the non-material
damage caused to the applicant by the uncertainty
in which the Commission left her as regards the
action it proposed to take on her request
for
its administrative
assistance and the results of
enquiry;

— at paragraph 69: the applicant has not established to
the requisite legal standard the damage caused by
having been exposed to the consequences of having
complained of sexual harassment, to which the
Commission was indifferent.

— at paragraph 70: the applicant did not adduce the
abovementioned evidence with regard either to the
conduct prior to the incident of 27 February 1997
or the incident itself;

— recognise that there was sexual harassment and that non-

material damage was caused to the appellant;

— order the defendant to pay damages together with interest

in an amount to be determined by the Court;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Breach of the obligation to state reasons:

— by simply annulling the implied rejection, the Court
of First Instance has altered the degree of seriousness
of the Commission’s failure to fulfil its obligations
after criticising the Commission at length in the
grounds of the judgment, thus leading to a regret-
table contradiction in those grounds.

— by stating, first, that the applicant did not prove that
she had in fact suffered sexual harassment and,
secondly, by acknowledging the existence of conduct
falling within the scope of sexual harassment in the
same judgment, the Court of First Instance has
contradicted itself in its grounds.

— it is at the very least contradictory to use as evidence,
in the procedure before the Court, an administrative
enquiry which was conducted in a manner which
was censured by the Court of First Instance itself,
and the results of which are challenged by the
applicant.

— it is altogether contradictory for the Court of First
Instance to make use of earlier staff reports in order
to put in question the applicant’s abilities and thus
prove that her problems at work could not be
attributed to sexual harassment. Its reasoning does
not moreover settle the question whether the failure
to reward the applicant for progress is not in fact
the result of her refusal to succumb to the pressures
of sexual harassment.

— Infringement of Community law and the relevant case-

law on new pleas in law.

— Justice denied in respect of liability.

— Infringement of the rights of the defence: the Court of
First Instance unreasonably drew inferences from an
administrative enquiry which was contested by the appli-
cant who had not been able to submit observations or be
present to hear the evidence of witnesses or of the person
accused of the conduct under investigation.

Action brought on 20 February 2001 by the Commission
the United
of

the European Communities against

Kingdom

(Case C-85/01)

(2001/C 134/10)

An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 February
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Mr Richard Wainwright, acting as Agent, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to ensure that the bathing waters
in Blackpool and adjacent to Southport comply with the
limit values set in accordance with Article 3 of Council
Directive 76/160/EEC (1), in compliance with the judg-
ment of the Court of Justice in Case C-56/90 delivered on
14 July 1993, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its
obligations under paragraph 1 of Article 228 of the EC
Treaty;