Case C-543/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck by order of that Court of 16 December 2003 in the case of 1) Christine Dodl, 2) Petra Oberhollenzer against Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse
Date: 2004-04-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: family benefit, interpretation of the law, social legislation, social-security benefit, social-security harmonisation, worker (EU)

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/13

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesger-
icht Innsbruck by order of that Court of 16 December
2003 in the case of 1) Christine Dodl, 2) Petra Oberhol-
lenzer against Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse

(Case C-543/03)

(2004/C 85/19)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
Innsbruck (Higher Regional Court Innsbruck) of 16 December
2003, received at the Court Registry on 29 December 2003,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of 1) Christine Dodl, 2)
Petra Oberhollenzer against Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse on
the following questions:

1)

Is Article 73 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the
Council of 14 June 1971 (1) on the application of social
security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
persons and to members of their families moving within
the Community, in conjunction with Article 13 of that
regulation, as amended, to be interpreted as extending
even to employed persons whose employment relation-
ships are still in existence but do not involve any duty to
carry out work or pay remuneration (unpaid leave) or
any social security obligations under national law?

2)

If the answer to the first question should be in the
affirmative:

Is the State of the place of employment responsible for
the benefit payment in such a case even if the employed
person and those members of his or her family for whom
family benefit such as Austrian ‘Kinderbetreuungsgeld’
(child-care allowance) might be payable have not lived in
the State of the place of employment, particularly during
the period of unpaid leave?

(1) English special edition: Series I Chapter 1971(II) P. 0416.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Magistrates’
Court, Bitonto, by order of that court of 20 December
2003 in the case of Nicolò Tricarico against Assitalia
Assicurazioni

(Case C-2/04)

(2004/C 85/20)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Magistrates’ Court,
Bitonto, of 20 December 2003, received at the Court Registry
on 5 January 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Nicolò Tricarico against Assitalia Assicurazioni on the follow-
ing 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, and the decision of the Italian AGCM to which both
those judicial decisions refer (concerning a cartel set up
by various insurance companies in the area of civil
liability for road accidents), constitute infringements of
Community law, in particular of Articles 81 EC and 82
EC?

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 are third
parties not involved in the agreement or the abuse but
demonstrate that they have suffered 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?