Case C-526/03: Action brought on 17 December 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
Date: 2004-03-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Greece, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, wastewater, water treatment

C 71/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.3.2004

2. Does an infringement of Articles 81 EC 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?

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 EC 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 EC and 82 EC was committed
or the day on which that infringement came to an end?

8.

Is there a conflict between Community competition law
and/or the fundamental principles of Community law
(with reference in particular to Article 6(1) and Article 13
of the European Convention on Human Rights) and a
national provision having an effect similar to that in the
second paragraph of Article 3 of Italian Law No 287 of
10 October 1990 which requires a consumer or a third
party who has suffered damage as a result of an agreement
which is unlawful and void under Article 81 EC or an
abuse of a dominant position unlawful under Article 82
EC and who seeks to obtain damages to make an
application to a court other than the one which has
jurisdiction ratione loci, ratione materiae and for the
value of the dispute in accordance with the ordinary
national rules on jurisdiction, Article 33 of Law No 287/
90 involving an increase in the cost and duration of the
case which would not occur had the ordinary national
rules on jurisdiction ratione loci, ratione materiae and for
the value of the dispute applied?

9.

Is there a conflict between Community competition law
and/or the fundamental principles of Community law
(with reference in particular to Article 6(1) and Article 13
of the European Convention on Human Rights) and a
national provision which requires a consumer or a third

party who has suffered damage as a result of an agreement
which is unlawful and void under Article 81 EC or an
abuse of a dominant position unlawful under Article 82
EC and who seeks to obtain damages to make an
application to a court other than the one which has
jurisdiction ratione loci on the basis of the registered
office (sede) of the subsidiary of the insurance company
with which they entered into a contract or in the court
district in which the injured party is resident, having
regard also to the difference in legal costs which each
approach involves?

10. 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?

Action brought on 17 December 2003 by the Commission
the Hellenic
of

the European Communities against

Republic

(Case C-526/03)

(2004/C 71/09)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 December
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Gregorio Valerio Jordana and Minas Konstanti-
nidis, of its Legal Service.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

to treatment more stringent

— declare that, by failing to take all the measures necessary
to make urban waste water from the wider Athens region
subject
than secondary
treatment before its discharge into the sensitive area
comprising the inner Saronic Gulf, the Hellenic Republic
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2) of
Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concern-
ing urban waste-water treatment, as amended by Com-
mission 98/15/EC of 27 February 1998 which amends
Council Directive 91/271 with respect to certain require-
ments established in Annex I (1) thereto;

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/7

Pleas in law and main arguments

— The dispute concerns not the classification of the Saronic
Gulf as a sensitive area but the lack of a system subjecting
urban waste water from the wider Athens area to
treatment more stringent
than secondary treatment
before its discharge into a sensitive area.

— It is an unquestionable fact that on expiry of the period
prescribed by the Commission in its reasoned opinion,
but also up to the time when the present action was
brought, urban waste water from the Psitallia plant did
not receive treatment more stringent than secondary
treatment.

(1) OJ L 135 of 30.5.1991, p. 40.

Reference for a preliminary ruling made by order of the
Tribunale di Cagliari of 20 October 2003 in the case
between Marco Antonio Scalas and Renato Lilliu and the
Regione Autonoma della Sardegna

(Case C-529/03)

(2004/C 71/10)

A reference for a preliminary ruling was made to the Court of
Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunale
di Cagliari on 20 October 2003 in proceedings between Marco
Antonio Scalas and Renato Lilliu and the Regione Autonoma
della Sardegna which was lodged at the Court Registry on
19 December 2003. The Tribunale di Cagliari seeks a ruling
on the validity of Commission Decision No 97/612 (1), having
regard to the following defects:

a)

b)

c)

d)

e)

lack of competence on the part of the Commission to
adopt the contested decision in infringement of the
combined provisions of Articles 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37
and 38 EC;

infringement of the provisions governing the procedure
provided for under Article 88(1) EC;

infringement of the provisions governing the procedure
provided for under Article 88(2) and (3) EC;

failure to state reasons for the decision in application of
the combined provisions of Articles 253, 88(3) and 87(1)
EC;

infringement and erroneous application of Council Regu-
lation No 797/85 (2) on improving the efficiency of
agricultural structures;

f)

infringement and failure to comply with the ‘practice for
aid to farms in difficulty’ and with the ‘Community
guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring
firms in difficulty’;

g)

breach of the principle of legitimate expectations.

(1) OJ L 248 of 11.9.1997, p. 27.
(2) OJ L 93 of 30.3.1985, p. 1.

Action brought on 22 December 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
lic of Germany

(Case C-538/03)

(2004/C 71/11)

An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
the
ties on 22 December 2003 by the Commission of
European Communities, represented by Nicola Yerrell, of the
Commission’s Legal Service, and Horstpeter Kreppel, a labour
court judge appointed to the Commission’s Legal Service under
the exchange programme for national public servants, acting
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that

the Federal Republic of Germany has
infringed the principle of equal treatment for men and
women laid down under Articles 1, 2 and 5 of Council
Directive 76/207/EEC (1), and Clause 4 of the Framework
Agreement on part-time work concluded between UNICE,
CEEP and the ETUC set out in the Annex to Council
Directive 97/81/EC (2), in that it indirectly discriminates
against women, who form the great majority of part-time
employees working less than 18 hours a week in the
German public sector,

by excluding,

(a)

under Paragraph 14(2) of the Bundespersonalvertre-
tungsgesetz (Federal Law on staff committees in
the public sector) and the equivalent regulations
applying in the Länder of

— Bavaria

— Berlin

— Bremen

— Hesse,

part-time employees who normally work less than
18 hours a week, and