Joined Cases C-295/04 to C-298/04: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 July 2006 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Bitonto — Italy) — Vincenzo Manfredi v Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni SpA (C-295/04), Antonio Cannito v Fondiaria Sai SpA (C-296/04), Nicolò Tricarico v Assitalia SpA (C-297/04) and Pasqualina Murgolo v Assitalia SpA (C-298/04) (Article 81 EC — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Accidents caused by motor vehicles, vessels and mopeds — Compulsory civil liability insurance — Increase in premiums — Effect on trade between Member States — Right of third parties to claim compensation for harm suffered — National courts and tribunals having jurisdiction — Limitation period — Punitive damages)
Date: 2006-09-16
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

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/3

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 July 2006
(references for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di
Pace di Bitonto — Italy) — Vincenzo Manfredi v Lloyd
Adriatico Assicurazioni SpA (C-295/04), Antonio Cannito
v Fondiaria Sai SpA (C-296/04), Nicolò Tricarico v Assitalia
SpA (C-297/04) and Pasqualina Murgolo v Assitalia SpA
(C-298/04)

(Joined Cases C-295/04 to C-298/04) (1)

(Article 81 EC — Competition — Agreements, decisions and
concerted practices — Accidents caused by motor vehicles,
vessels and mopeds — Compulsory civil liability insurance —
Increase in premiums — Effect on trade between Member
States — Right of third parties to claim compensation for
harm suffered — National courts and tribunals having juris-
diction — Limitation period — Punitive damages)

(2006/C 224/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Giudice di Pace di Bitonto

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Vincenzo Manfredi (C-295/04), Antonio Cannito (C-
296/04), Nicolò Tricarico (C-297/04), Pasqualina Murgolo (C-
298/04)

Defendants: Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni SpA, Fondiaria Sai
SpA, Assitalia SpA

Re:

Interpretation of Article 81 EC — Concerted practice between
Italian and foreign insurance companies established in Italy
covering car and motorcycle insurance contracts — Exchange
of information which makes it possible to increase civil liability
insurance premiums not justified by market conditions

Operative part of the judgment

1. An agreement or concerted practice, such as that at issue in the
main proceedings, between insurance companies, consisting of a
mutual exchange of information that makes possible an increase
in premiums for compulsory civil
liability insurance relating to
accidents caused by motor vehicles, vessels and mopeds, not justi-
fied by market conditions, which infringes national rules on the
protection of competition, may also constitute an infringement of
Article 81 EC if, in the light of the characteristics of the national
market at issue, there is a sufficient degree of probability that the
agreement or concerted practice at issue may have an influence,
direct or indirect, actual or potential, on the sale of those insurance
policies in the relevant Member State by operators established in
other Member States and that that influence is not insignificant.

2. Article 81 EC must be interpreted as meaning that any individual
can rely on the invalidity of an agreement or practice prohibited
under that article and, where there is a causal relationship between
the latter and the harm suffered, claim compensation for that
harm.

In the absence of Community rules governing the matter, it is for
the domestic legal system of each Member State to prescribe the
detailed rules governing the exercise of that right, including those
on the application of the concept of ‘causal relationship’, provided
that the principles of equivalence and effectiveness are observed.

3. In the absence of Community rules governing the matter, it is for
the domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the
courts and tribunals having jurisdiction to hear actions
for
damages based on an infringement of the Community competition
rules and to prescribe the detailed procedural rules governing those
actions, provided that the provisions concerned are not less favour-
able than those governing actions for damages based on an infrin-
gement of national competition rules and that
those national
provisions do not render practically impossible or excessively diffi-
cult the exercise of the right to seek compensation for the harm
caused by an agreement or practice prohibited under Article 81
EC.

4. In the absence of Community rules governing the matter, it is for
the domestic legal system of each Member State to prescribe the
limitation period for seeking compensation for harm caused by an
agreement or practice prohibited under Article 81 EC, provided
that the principles of equivalence and effectiveness are observed.

In that regard, it is for the national court to determine whether a
national rule which provides that the limitation period for seeking
compensation for harm caused by an agreement or practice prohib-
ited under Article 81 EC begins to run from the day on which
that prohibited agreement or practice was adopted, particularly
where it also imposes a short limitation period that cannot be
suspended, renders it practically impossible or excessively difficult
to exercise the right to seek compensation for the harm suffered.

5. In the absence of Community rules governing that field, it is for
the domestic legal system of each Member State to set the criteria
for determining the extent of the damages for harm caused by an
agreement or practice prohibited under Article 81 EC, provided
that the principles of equivalence and effectiveness are observed.

Therefore, first, in accordance with the principle of equivalence, if
it is possible to award particular damages, such as exemplary or
punitive damages, in domestic actions similar to actions founded
on the Community competition rules, it must also be possible to
award such damages in actions founded on Community rules.
However, Community law does not prevent national courts from
taking steps to ensure that the protection of the rights guaranteed
by Community law does not entail the unjust enrichment of those
who enjoy them.

C 224/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.9.2006

Secondly, it follows from the principle of effectiveness and the right
of individuals to seek compensation for loss caused by a contract
or by conduct liable to restrict or distort competition that injured
persons must be able to seek compensation not only for actual loss
(damnum emergens) but also for loss of profit (lucrum cessans)
plus interest.

(1) OJ C 251, 9.10.2004.

a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53
of the EEA Agreement — Case COMP/E-1/36.490 — Graphite
electrodes (OJ 2002 L 100, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the first indent of paragraph 2 of the operative part of
the judgment of
the European
Communities of 29 April 2004 in Joined Cases T-236/01, T-
239/01, T-244/01 to T-246/01, T-251/01 and T-252/01
Tokai Carbon and Others v Commission;

the Court of First

Instance of

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 June 2006
— Commission of the European Communities v SGL
Carbon AG, Tokai Carbon Co. Ltd, Nippon Carbon Co.
Ltd, Showa Denko KK, GrafTech International Ltd,
Inc., SEC Corp., The
formerly UCAR International

Carbide/Graphite Group Inc.

2. Sets at EUR 75.7 million the amount of the fine imposed on
SGL Carbon AG by Article 3 of Commission Decision
2002/271/EC of 18 July 2001 relating to a proceeding under
Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement
— Case COMP/E-1/36.490 — Graphite electrodes;

3. Orders SGL Carbon AG to pay the costs.

(Case C-301/04 P) (1)

(Appeals — Competition — Agreements, decisions and
concerted practices — Graphite electrodes — Article 81(1)
EC — Fines — Guidelines on the method of setting fines —
Leniency Notice — Production of documents in a Commission
investigation)

(1) OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.

(2006/C 224/06)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: W. Mölls, W. Wils and H. Gading, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: SGL Carbon AG (represented by:
M. Klusmann, Rechtsanwalt), Tokai Carbon Co. Ltd, established
in Tokyo (Japan), Nippon Carbon Co. Ltd, established in Tokyo,
Showa Denko KK, established in Tokyo, GrafTech International
Ltd,
in
Wilmington (United States), SEC Corp., established in Amaga-
saki (Japan), The Carbide/Graphite Group Inc.

formerly UCAR International

established

Inc.,

Re:

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 July 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
gericht Frankfurt am Main, Germany) — Franz Egenberger
GmbH Molkerei und Trockenwerk v Bundesanstalt für
Landwirtschaft und Ernährung

(Case C-313/04) (1)

(Milk and milk products — Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001
— New Zealand butter — Import licence procedures —
Inward Monitoring Arrangement (IMA 1) certificate)

(2006/C 224/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Appeal brought against the judgment of 29 April 2004 of the
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) in Joined Cases T-
236/01, T-239/01, T-244/01 to T-246/01, T-251/01 and T-
252/01 Tokai Carbon and Others v Commission in so far as the
Court of First Instance reduced the amount of the fine which
had been imposed on SGL Carbon (Case T-239/01) by
Commission Decision 2002/271/EC of 18 July 2001 relating to

Applicant: Franz Egenberger GmbH Molkerei und Trockenwerk

Defendant: Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung

Intervening party: Fonterra (Logistics) Ltd