Case C-509/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Magistrates' Court, Bitonto by order of that court of 21 November 2003 in the case of Vincenzo Manfredi against Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni
Date: 2004-03-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: competition law, contract, insurance company, interpretation of the law, restrictive trade practice

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/5

course in the district of Wörschach in the Province of Styria
despite a negative assessment of the implications for the
habitat of the corncrake (crex crex) in the special protection
area, within the meaning of Article 4 of Council Directive 79/
409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds
(OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1), situated in that district, the Republic of
Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3)
and (4), in conjunction with Article 7, of Council Directive 92/
43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), the
Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans,
President of
the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet and N. Colneric, Judges;
P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 29 January 2004, in which it:

1. Declares that, by authorising the proposed extension of the golf
course in the district of Wörschach in the Province of Styria
despite a negative assessment of its implications for the habitat
of the corncrake (crex crex) in the ‘Wörschacher Moos’ special
protection area situated in that district and classified as provided
for in Article 4 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April
1979 on the conservation of wild birds, the Republic of Austria
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3) and (4), in
conjunction with Article 7, of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of
21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of
wild fauna and flora;

2. Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

with an address for service in Luxembourg, v United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: K. Manji):
Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
with Council Directive 96/29/Euratom laying down basic
safety standards for the protection of the health of workers
and the general public against
the dangers arising from
ionizing radiation (OJ 1996 L 159, p. 1) in its whole territory,
or in any event by failing to communicate them to the
Commission, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and North-
its obligations under that
ern Ireland has failed to fulfil
directive,
composed of:
the Court
C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), acting for the President of
the Fourth Chamber, A. La Pergola and S. von Bahr, Judges;
A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 29 January 2004, in which it:

(Fourth Chamber),

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply with Council Directive 96/29/Euratom laying down
basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers
and the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing
radiation in its whole territory, the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
under that directive;

2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.

(1) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 29 January 2004

in Case C-218/02: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
96/29/Euratom — Protection of the health of workers and
the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing
radiation — Failure to transpose in whole territory)

(2004/C 71/07)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-218/02, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: initially T.F. Cusack, and, subsequently, X. Lewis),

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Magistrates’
Court, Bitonto by order of that court of 21 November
2003 in the case of Vincenzo Manfredi against Lloyd
Adriatico Assicurazioni

(Case C-509/03)

(2004/C 71/08)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Magistrates’ Court,
Bitonto of 21 November 2003, received at the Court Registry
on 4 December 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Vincenzo Manfredi against Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni. The
Magistrates’ Court, Bitonto asks the Court to give a ruling 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 EC and 82 EC?

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.