CELEX: C2001/134/09
Language: en
Date: 2001-05-05 00:00:00
Title: Case C-62/01 P: Appeal brought on 12 February 2001 (facsimile of 9 February 2001) by Anna Maria Campogrande against the judgment delivered on 7 December 2000 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-136/98 between A.M. Campogrande and Commission of the European Communities

5.5.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 134/5
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               the freedom of establishment or the freedom to provide
                                                                          services actually have a duty to account to the competent
—     declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its          authorities of the Member State of origin only.
      obligations under Council Directive 92/49/EEC (1) of
      18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance          Lastly, under the last sentence of Article 2(5)(d) of Decree
      other than life assurance and amending Directives                   No 70, insurance undertakings operating in Italy, including
      73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance                 those that conduct their business under the freedom of
      Directive) in that it has set up and kept in force a system         establishment or the freedom to provide services, are required
      of premium controls applicable to all contracts for the             to contribute to the funding and management costs of the data
      insurance of civil liability arising from the use of motor          bank set up under Decree No 70. A requirement such as that
      vehicles in relation to risks situated within Italian territory,    is linked to the obligation to provide ISVAP with information
      without distinguishing between insurance companies                  laid down by Article 2 of Decree No 70, which is itself
      having their head office in Italy and those conducting              inconsistent with Article 44 of the directive. Consequently, the
      their business in Italy through branch offices or under the         obligation to contribute to the funding of the data bank
      freedom to provide services, in breach of:                          imposed upon undertakings operating under the freedom of
                                                                          establishment or the freedom to provide services within Italian
      (a)   the principle of the freedom to set premiums and              territory is clearly also inconsistent with Community law.
            the abolition of prior or systematic controls over
            premiums and contracts, as dealt with in Articles 6,
            29 and 39 of the said directive;
                                                                          (1) OJ 228 of 11.8.1992, p. 1.
      (b) the provisions of Article 44 of the said directive,
            which concern arrangements for gathering infor-
            mation on the amount of the premiums, claims and
            commission, the frequency and average cost of
            claims, and the exchange of information between
            the regulatory authorities of the Member State of
            origin and those of the host Member State;
—     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the
      proceedings.
                                                                          Appeal brought on 12 February 2001 (facsimile of 9 Feb-
                                                                          ruary 2001) by Anna Maria Campogrande against the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           judgment delivered on 7 December 2000 by the Fourth
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
The Commission submits that:                                              Communities in Case T-136/98 between A.M. Campo-
                                                                            grande and Commission of the European Communities
Freezing the premiums and certain other components of
the contractual offer, and requiring all civil liability motor                                     (Case C-62/01 P)
insurance undertakings to offer contracts with premiums
calculated by reference to a no-claims bonus, and with full
indemnity, for between ITL 500 000 and ITL 1 000 000, are                                          (2001/C 134/09)
measures which should be regarded as inconsistent with the
principle of freedom to set premiums enshrined by Articles 6,
29 and 39 of Directive 92/49/EEC. Insurers who provide                    An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 December
contracts covering risks situated within Italian territory do not         2000 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
enjoy the right to determine freely these components of their             of the European Communities in Case T-136/98 between
contractual offer. There appears to be no justification for this          A.M. Campogrande and Commission of the European Com-
restriction of the freedom to set premiums.                               munities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities on 12 February 2001 (facsimile of
                                                                          9 February 2001) by A.M. Campogrande, represented by Anne
Article 2(5)(a) and (d) of Decree No 70 of 28 March 2000,
                                                                          Krywin, avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
which confers upon ISVAP (the Istituto per la vigilanza sulle
assicurazioni private e di interesse collective, the Private and
Collective Interest Insurance Supervisory Authority) authority
                                                                          The appellant claims that the Court should:
to supervise insurance undertakings offering ‘compulsory
motor insurance’ in connection with the matters set out in
Article 2(2), (3) and (4), is incompatible with the provisions of
                                                                          Declare the present appeal admissible and well-founded;
Article 44 of the directive concerning the gathering of
information on the amount of the premiums, claims and
commissions, the frequency and average cost of claims,                    Accordingly,
and the exchange of information between the supervisory
authorities of the Member State of origin and those of the
host Member State. As regards the communication of such                   —     set aside the judgment in Case T-136/98 of the Court of
information, insurance undertakings operating in Italy under                    First Instance of 5 December 2000 in so far as it finds:
 ---pagebreak--- C 134/6                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          5.5.2001
      —     at paragraph 66: the claim for damages to make                     —     it is at the very least contradictory to use as evidence,
            reparation for the damage caused by the reprisals is                     in the procedure before the Court, an administrative
            inadmissible in the absence of proper pre-litigation                     enquiry which was conducted in a manner which
            procedure beforehand.                                                    was censured by the Court of First Instance itself,
                                                                                     and the results of which are challenged by the
                                                                                     applicant.
      —     at paragraph 67: the claim for compensation does
            not fall within the jurisdiction of the Court, in view             —     it is altogether contradictory for the Court of First
            of the form of order sought;                                             Instance to make use of earlier staff reports in order
                                                                                     to put in question the applicant’s abilities and thus
                                                                                     prove that her problems at work could not be
      —     at paragraph 68: annulment of the contested
                                                                                     attributed to sexual harassment. Its reasoning does
            decision is sufficient to make good the non-material
                                                                                     not moreover settle the question whether the failure
            damage caused to the applicant by the uncertainty
                                                                                     to reward the applicant for progress is not in fact
            in which the Commission left her as regards the
                                                                                     the result of her refusal to succumb to the pressures
            action it proposed to take on her request for
                                                                                     of sexual harassment.
            assistance and the results of its administrative
            enquiry;
                                                                          —    Infringement of Community law and the relevant case-
                                                                               law on new pleas in law.
      —     at paragraph 69: the applicant has not established to
            the requisite legal standard the damage caused by             —    Justice denied in respect of liability.
            having been exposed to the consequences of having
            complained of sexual harassment, to which the
                                                                          —    Infringement of the rights of the defence: the Court of
            Commission was indifferent.
                                                                               First Instance unreasonably drew inferences from an
                                                                               administrative enquiry which was contested by the appli-
      —     at paragraph 70: the applicant did not adduce the                  cant who had not been able to submit observations or be
            abovementioned evidence with regard either to the                  present to hear the evidence of witnesses or of the person
            conduct prior to the incident of 27 February 1997                  accused of the conduct under investigation.
            or the incident itself;
—     recognise that there was sexual harassment and that non-
      material damage was caused to the appellant;
—     order the defendant to pay damages together with interest
      in an amount to be determined by the Court;                         Action brought on 20 February 2001 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the United
                                                                                                        Kingdom
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.
                                                                                                     (Case C-85/01)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                     (2001/C 134/10)
—     Breach of the obligation to state reasons:                          An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
                                                                          Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 February
                                                                          2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
      —     by simply annulling the implied rejection, the Court          represented by Mr Richard Wainwright, acting as Agent, with
            of First Instance has altered the degree of seriousness       an address for service in Luxembourg.
            of the Commission’s failure to fulfil its obligations
            after criticising the Commission at length in the
            grounds of the judgment, thus leading to a regret-            The Applicant claims that the Court should:
            table contradiction in those grounds.
                                                                          —    declare that, by failing to ensure that the bathing waters
                                                                               in Blackpool and adjacent to Southport comply with the
      —     by stating, first, that the applicant did not prove that           limit values set in accordance with Article 3 of Council
            she had in fact suffered sexual harassment and,                    Directive 76/160/EEC (1), in compliance with the judg-
            secondly, by acknowledging the existence of conduct                ment of the Court of Justice in Case C-56/90 delivered on
            falling within the scope of sexual harassment in the               14 July 1993, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its
            same judgment, the Court of First Instance has                     obligations under paragraph 1 of Article 228 of the EC
            contradicted itself in its grounds.                                Treaty;