CELEX: C2004/071/08
Language: en
Date: 2004-03-20 00:00:00
Title: 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

20.3.2004                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                  C 71/5
course in the district of Wörschach in the Province of Styria                   with an address for service in Luxembourg, v United Kingdom
despite a negative assessment of the implications for the                       of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: K. Manji):
habitat of the corncrake (crex crex) in the special protection                  Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws,
area, within the meaning of Article 4 of Council Directive 79/                  regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds                       with Council Directive 96/29/Euratom laying down basic
(OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1), situated in that district, the Republic of               safety standards for the protection of the health of workers
Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3)                 and the general public against the dangers arising from
and (4), in conjunction with Article 7, of Council Directive 92/                ionizing radiation (OJ 1996 L 159, p. 1) in its whole territory,
43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural                            or in any event by failing to communicate them to the
habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), the                 Commission, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and North-
Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans,                         ern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),                              directive, the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet and N. Colneric, Judges;                 C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), acting for the President of
P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                    the Fourth Chamber, A. La Pergola and S. von Bahr, Judges;
judgment on 29 January 2004, in which it:                                       A. Tizzano, 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            1.   Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
       despite a negative assessment of its implications for the habitat             the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
       of the corncrake (crex crex) in the ‘Wörschacher Moos’ special                comply with Council Directive 96/29/Euratom laying down
       protection area situated in that district and classified as provided          basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers
       for in Article 4 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April                   and the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing
       1979 on the conservation of wild birds, the Republic of Austria               radiation in its whole territory, the United Kingdom of Great
       has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3) and (4), in           Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
       conjunction with Article 7, of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of                 under that directive;
       21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of
       wild fauna and flora;                                                    2.   Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                                     Ireland to pay the costs.
2.     Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
                                                                                (1) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.
(1 ) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.
                                                                                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Magistrates’
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                        Court, Bitonto by order of that court of 21 November
                                                                                2003 in the case of Vincenzo Manfredi against Lloyd
                                                                                                     Adriatico Assicurazioni
                           (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                                         (Case C-509/03)
                           of 29 January 2004
                                                                                                           (2004/C 71/08)
in Case C-218/02: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                 Ireland (1)
                                                                                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive                    European Communities by order of the Magistrates’ Court,
96/29/Euratom — Protection of the health of workers and                         Bitonto of 21 November 2003, received at the Court Registry
the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing                    on 4 December 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
      radiation — Failure to transpose in whole territory)                      Vincenzo Manfredi against Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni. The
                                                                                Magistrates’ Court, Bitonto asks the Court to give a ruling on
                                                                                the following questions:
                              (2004/C 71/07)
                                                                                1.   Do the facts as found in Judgment No 2199 of the
                     (Language of the case: English)                                 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
In Case C-218/02, Commission of the European Communities                             full, constitute infringements of Community law, in
(Agents: initially T.F. Cusack, and, subsequently, X. Lewis),                        particular of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC?
 ---pagebreak--- 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.