Case C-438/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del guidice di pace de Bitonto by order of that Court of 6 October 2003 in the case of Antonio Cannito against Fondiaria-Sai Ass.ni.
Date: 2004-02-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, competition law, infringement of EU law, interpretation of the law, restrictive trade practice

21.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 47/13

(b) does that apply notwithstanding an opinion as
mentioned above on the basis that where the
plaintiff proves or even where the plaintiff substan-
tiates that in the filling of the post the applicant
preferred to the plaintiff was less well-qualified than
the plaintiff the rule of evidence under this directive
comes into effect

(c)

and on the basis that proof to the contrary may only
be regarded as conclusive if it leads to the factual
finding that the candidate appointed was better
suited or that in actual fact a non-gender-related
reason was the decisive factor in the appointment of
a less well-suited candidate?

(1) OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40.
(2) OJ 1997 L 14, p. 6.

4. Does Community law also require the payment of

damages for non-material loss?

5. As a matter of Community law, is the national court
required of its own motion to order the payment of
punitive damages or damages for non-material loss?

6.

Is the limitation period of one year for bringing an action
for damages for breach of Articles 81 and 82 EC under
Italian law too short and therefore in conflict with
Community law?

7. As a matter of Community law, for the purposes of the
limitation period for bringing an action for damages,
does time begin to run from the day on which the
infringement of Articles 81 and 82 EC was committed or
the day on which that infringement came to an end?

8. Does Community law require national courts to disapply
national rules in conflict with Community law or rather
to interpret them so as to comply with Community law?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del
guidice di pace de Bitonto by order of that Court of
6 October 2003 in the case of Antonio Cannito against
Fondiaria-Sai Ass.ni.

(Case C-438/03)

(2004/C 47/21)

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del
guidice di pace de Bitonto by order of that Court of
6 October 2003 in the case of Antonio Cannito against
Fondiaria-Sai Ass.ni.

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Ufficio del guidice di
pace de Bitonto of 6 October 2003, received at the Court
Registry on 16 October 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Antonio Cannito against Fondiaria-Sai Ass.ni. on the
following questions:

1. Do the facts as found in Judgment No 2199 of the
Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) of 23 April 2002 and
in Judgment No 6139 of the Tribunale Amministrativo
Regionale (Regional Administrative Court) Lazio (Rome)
of 5 July 2001, which are deemed to be set out here in
full, constitute infringements of Community law,
in
particular of Articles 81 and 82 EC?

2. Does an infringement of Articles 81 and 82 EC imply an
obligation on the part of the person committing it to
compensate end users, and all those who demonstrate
that they have suffered any injury, for damage suffered?

3.

In assessing the amount of damages, in addition to the
restitution of sums charged in breach of Community
rules, is the national court required (again as a matter of
Community law) to award the injured party a sum by way
of punitive damages against those persons responsible
for the prohibited agreement or abuse of a dominant
position?

(Case C-439/03)

(2004/C 47/22)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Ufficio del guidice di
pace de Bitonto of 6 October 2003, received at the Court
Registry on 16 October 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Antonio Cannito against Fondiaria-Sai Ass.ni. on the
following questions:

1. Do the facts as found in Judgment No 2199 of the
Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) of 23 April 2002 and
in Judgment No 6139 of the Tribunale Amministrativo
Regionale (Regional Administrative Court) Lazio (Rome)
of 5 July 2001, which are deemed to be set out here in
full, constitute infringements of Community law,
in
particular of Articles 81 and 82 EC?

2. Does an infringement of Articles 81 and 82 EC imply an
obligation on the part of the person committing it to
compensate end users, and all those who demonstrate
that they have suffered any injury, for damage suffered?