Case C-296/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace di Bitonto by order of that court of 30 June 2004 in the case of Antonio Cannito against Fondiaria SAI SpA
Date: 2004-10-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: competition law, damage, exchange of information, indemnification, insurance company, interpretation of the law, motor vehicle insurance, restriction on competition, restrictive trade practice

9.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/3

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
Finanzsenat by order of that court of 28 June 2004 in the
case of AB against Finanzamt für den 6., 7. und 15. Bezirk

(Case C-288/04)

(2004/C 251/04)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat
(Independent Tax Chamber) (Austria), of 28 June 2004, which
was received at the Court Registry on 6 July 2004, for a preli-
minary ruling in the case of AB against Finanzamt für den 6.,
7. und 15. Bezirk.

The Unabhängiger Finanzsenat asks the Court of Justice to give
a preliminary ruling on the following question:

1. Does the first paragraph of Article 13 of the Protocol on the
Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities
preclude the taxation in the Member States of the salaries,
wages and emoluments which the Communities pay to their
officials and other servants only if the European Commu-
nities exercise their right of taxation?

2. Does the second paragraph of Article 16 of the Protocol on
the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities
preclude the taxation in the Member States of the salaries,
wages and emoluments which the Communities pay to their
officials and other servants only if those officials or other
servants are listed in a communication within the meaning
of that article, and does a communication forwarded on the
basis of that article automatically entitle the tax authorities
of the Member State to exercise the national right of taxa-
tion in respect of officials and other servants not listed in
that communication and thus in respect of those servants
whom the European Communities regard as local staff?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace
di Bitonto by order of that court of 30 June 2004 in the
case of Vincenzo Manfredi against Lloyd Italico Assicura-
zioni

(Case C-295/04)

(2004/C 251/05)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Giudice di Pace di Bitonto
(Magistrates' Court, Bitonto, Italy) of 30 June 2004, received at
the Court Registry on 13 July 2004, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Vincenzo Manfredi against Lloyd Italico Assicura-
zioni on the following questions:

1. Is Article 81 of the Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that
it renders void an agreement or concerted practice between

insurance companies consisting of a mutual exchange of
information which makes it possible to increase RC auto
insurance policy premiums which are not
justified by
market conditions, including in view of the fact that under-
takings from several Member States took part in the agree-
ment or concerted practice?

2. Is Article 81 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning
that it entitles third parties who have a relevant legal interest
to rely on the invalidity of an agreement or practice prohib-
ited by that Community provision and claim damages for
the harm suffered where there is a causal relationship
between the agreement or concerted practice and the harm?

3. Is Article 81 of the Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that
for the purposes of the limitation period for bringing an
action for damages based thereon, time begins to run from
the day on which the agreement or concerted practice was
adopted or the day on which the agreement or concerted
practice came to an end?

4. Is Article 81 of the Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that
where the national court sees that the damages that can be
awarded on the basis of national
law are lower than the
economic advantage gained by the infringing party to the
prohibited agreement or concerted practice, should also
award of its own motion punitive damages to the injured
third party in order to make the compensable amount
higher than the advantage gained by the infringing party
and deter the adoption of agreements or concerted practices
prohibited under Article 81 of the Treaty?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace
di Bitonto by order of that court of 30 June 2004 in the
case of Antonio Cannito against Fondiaria SAI SpA

(Case C-296/04)

(2004/C 251/06)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Giudice di Pace di Bitonto
(Magistrates' Court, Bitonto, Italy) of 30 June 2004, received at
the Court Registry on 13 July 2004, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Antonio Cannito against Fondiaria SAI SpA on the
following questions:

1. Is Article 81 of the Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that
it renders void an agreement or concerted practice between
insurance companies consisting of a mutual exchange of
information which makes it possible to increase RC auto
justified by
insurance policy premiums which are not
market conditions, including in view of the fact that under-
takings from several Member States took part in the agree-
ment or concerted practice?

C 251/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.10.2004

2. Is Article 81 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning
that it entitles third parties who have a relevant legal interest
to rely on the invalidity of an agreement or practice prohib-
ited by that Community provision and claim damages for
the harm suffered where there is a causal relationship
between the agreement or concerted practice and the harm?

3. Is Article 81 of the Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that
for the purposes of the limitation period for bringing an
action for damages based thereon, time begins to run from
the day on which the agreement or concerted practice was
adopted or the day on which the agreement or concerted
practice came to an end?

4. Is Article 81 of the Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that
where the national court sees that the damages that can be
awarded on the basis of national law are lower than the
economic advantage gained by the infringing party to the
prohibited agreement or concerted practice, should also
award of its own motion punitive damages to the injured
third party in order to make the compensable amount
higher than the advantage gained by the infringing party
and deter the adoption of agreements or concerted practices
prohibited under Article 81 of the Treaty?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace
di Bitonto by order of that court of 30 June 2004 in the
case of Nicolò Tricarico against Assitalia Assicurazioni
SpA

(Case C-297/04)

(2004/C 251/07)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Giudice di Pace di Bitonto
(Magistrates' Court, Bitonto, Italy) of 30 June 2004, received at
the Court Registry on 13 July 2004, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Nicolò Tricarico against Assitalia Assicurazioni SpA
on the following questions:

1. Is Article 81 of the Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that
it renders void an agreement or concerted practice between
insurance companies consisting of a mutual exchange of
information which makes it possible to increase RC auto
insurance policy premiums which are not
justified by
market conditions, including in view of the fact that under-
takings from several Member States took part in the agree-
ment or concerted practice?

2. Is Article 81 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning
that it entitles third parties who have a relevant legal interest
to rely on the invalidity of an agreement or practice prohib-
ited by that Community provision and claim damages for

the harm suffered where there is a causal relationship
between the agreement or concerted practice and the harm?

3. Is Article 81 of the Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that
for the purposes of the limitation period for bringing an
action for damages based thereon, time begins to run from
the day on which the agreement or concerted practice was
adopted or the day on which the agreement or concerted
practice came to an end?

4. Is Article 81 of the Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that
where the national court sees that the damages that can be
awarded on the basis of national
law are lower than the
economic advantage gained by the infringing party to the
prohibited agreement or concerted practice, should also
award of its own motion punitive damages to the injured
third party in order to make the compensable amount
higher than the advantage gained by the infringing party
and deter the adoption of agreements or concerted practices
prohibited under Article 81 of the Treaty?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace
di Bitonto by order of that court of 30 June 2004 in the
case of Pasqualina Murgolo against Assitalia Assicurazioni
SpA

(Case C-298/04)

(2004/C 251/08)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Giudice di Pace di Bitonto
(Magistrates' Court, Bitonto, Italy) of 30 June 2004, received at
the Court Registry on 13 July 2004, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Pasqualina Murgolo against Assitalia Assicurazioni
SpA on the following questions:

1. Is Article 81 of the Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that
it renders void an agreement or concerted practice between
insurance companies consisting of a mutual exchange of
information which makes it possible to increase RC auto
insurance policy premiums which are not
justified by
market conditions, including in view of the fact that under-
takings from several Member States took part in the agree-
ment or concerted practice?

2. Is Article 81 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning
that it precludes the application of a national provision
similar to that in Article 33 of Italian Law 287/90 under
which a claim for damages for infringement of Community
and national provisions for anti-competitive agreements
must be made also by third parties before a court other
than that which usually has jurisdiction for claims of similar
value, thus involving a considerable increase in costs and
time?