CELEX: C2004/071/09
Language: en
Date: 2004-03-20 00:00:00
Title: Case C-526/03: Action brought on 17 December 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

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                    party who has suffered damage as a result of an agreement
    an obligation on the part of the person committing it to                  which is unlawful and void under Article 81 EC or an
    compensate end users, and all those who demonstrate                       abuse of a dominant position unlawful under Article 82
    that they have suffered any injury, for damage suffered?                  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
3.  In assessing the amount of damages, in addition to the                    office (sede) of the subsidiary of the insurance company
    restitution of sums charged in breach of Community                        with which they entered into a contract or in the court
    rules, is the national court required (again as a matter of               district in which the injured party is resident, having
    Community law) to award the injured party a sum by way                    regard also to the difference in legal costs which each
    of punitive damages against those persons responsible                     approach involves?
    for the prohibited agreement or abuse of a dominant
    position?
                                                                        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?
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                  Action brought on 17 December 2003 by the Commission
    under Italian law too short and therefore in conflict with          of the European Communities against the Hellenic
    Community law?                                                                                   Republic
7.  As a matter of Community law, for the purposes of the                                        (Case C-526/03)
    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?                                         (2004/C 71/09)
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        An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
    of the European Convention on Human Rights) and a                   Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 December
    national provision having an effect similar to that in the          2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
    second paragraph of Article 3 of Italian Law No 287 of              represented by Gregorio Valerio Jordana and Minas Konstanti-
    10 October 1990 which requires a consumer or a third                nidis, of its Legal Service.
    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                       The Commission claims that the Court should:
    application to a court other than the one which has
    jurisdiction ratione loci, ratione materiae and for the
                                                                        —     declare that, by failing to take all the measures necessary
    value of the dispute in accordance with the ordinary
                                                                              to make urban waste water from the wider Athens region
    national rules on jurisdiction, Article 33 of Law No 287/
                                                                              subject to treatment more stringent than secondary
    90 involving an increase in the cost and duration of the
                                                                              treatment before its discharge into the sensitive area
    case which would not occur had the ordinary national
                                                                              comprising the inner Saronic Gulf, the Hellenic Republic
    rules on jurisdiction ratione loci, ratione materiae and for
                                                                              has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2) of
    the value of the dispute applied?
                                                                              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
9.  Is there a conflict between Community competition law                     Council Directive 91/271 with respect to certain require-
    and/or the fundamental principles of Community law                        ments established in Annex I (1) thereto;
    (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             —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 20.3.2004              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 71/7
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           f)   infringement and failure to comply with the ‘practice for
                                                                               aid to farms in difficulty’ and with the ‘Community
—     The dispute concerns not the classification of the Saronic               guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring
      Gulf as a sensitive area but the lack of a system subjecting             firms in difficulty’;
      urban waste water from the wider Athens area to
      treatment more stringent than secondary treatment                   g)   breach of the principle of legitimate expectations.
      before its discharge into a sensitive area.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 248 of 11.9.1997, p. 27.
—     It is an unquestionable fact that on expiry of the period           (2) OJ L 93 of 30.3.1985, p. 1.
      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.
                                                                          Action brought on 22 December 2003 by the Commission
(1) OJ L 135 of 30.5.1991, p. 40.                                         of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
                                                                                                   lic of Germany
                                                                                                  (Case C-538/03)
                                                                                                    (2004/C 71/11)
Reference for a preliminary ruling made by order of the
Tribunale di Cagliari of 20 October 2003 in the case                      An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
between Marco Antonio Scalas and Renato Lilliu and the                    brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
              Regione Autonoma della Sardegna                             ties on 22 December 2003 by the Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities, represented by Nicola Yerrell, of the
                         (Case C-529/03)                                  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
                          (2004/C 71/10)                                  as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
A reference for a preliminary ruling was made to the Court of             1.   Declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has
Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunale                  infringed the principle of equal treatment for men and
di Cagliari on 20 October 2003 in proceedings between Marco                    women laid down under Articles 1, 2 and 5 of Council
Antonio Scalas and Renato Lilliu and the Regione Autonoma                      Directive 76/207/EEC (1), and Clause 4 of the Framework
della Sardegna which was lodged at the Court Registry on                       Agreement on part-time work concluded between UNICE,
19 December 2003. The Tribunale di Cagliari seeks a ruling                     CEEP and the ETUC set out in the Annex to Council
on the validity of Commission Decision No 97/612 (1), having                   Directive 97/81/EC (2), in that it indirectly discriminates
regard to the following defects:                                               against women, who form the great majority of part-time
                                                                               employees working less than 18 hours a week in the
a)    lack of competence on the part of the Commission to                      German public sector,
      adopt the contested decision in infringement of the
      combined provisions of Articles 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37                   by excluding,
      and 38 EC;
                                                                               (a)   under Paragraph 14(2) of the Bundespersonalvertre-
b)    infringement of the provisions governing the procedure                         tungsgesetz (Federal Law on staff committees in
      provided for under Article 88(1) EC;                                           the public sector) and the equivalent regulations
                                                                                     applying in the Länder of
c)    infringement of the provisions governing the procedure
                                                                                     —     Bavaria
      provided for under Article 88(2) and (3) EC;
                                                                                     —     Berlin
d)    failure to state reasons for the decision in application of
      the combined provisions of Articles 253, 88(3) and 87(1)                       —     Bremen
      EC;
                                                                                     —     Hesse,
e)    infringement and erroneous application of Council Regu-
      lation No 797/85 (2) on improving the efficiency of                            part-time employees who normally work less than
      agricultural structures;                                                       18 hours a week, and