Is Article 81 EC 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 civil liability auto insurance policy premiums which are not justified by market conditions, having regard, in particular, to the fact that undertakings from several Member States took part in the agreement or concerted practice?

Yes, if the agreement or practice may influence trade between Member States and that influence is not insignificant.

Is Article 81 EC 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?

It is for the national legal system to prescribe the limitation period, observing the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.

Is Article 81 EC to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes the application of a national provision similar to that in Article 33 of Law [No 287/90] under which a claim for damages for infringement of Community and national provisions for anti-competitive arrangements must also be made 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?

No, provided that the national provisions do not render the exercise of the right to seek compensation practically impossible or excessively difficult.

Is Article 81 EC 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 in any event lower than the economic advantage gained by the infringing party to the prohibited agreement or concerted practice, it should also award of its own motion punitive damages to the injured third party, making the compensable amount higher than the advantage gained by the infringing party in order to deter the adoption of agreements or concerted practices prohibited under Article 81 EC?

It is for the national legal system to set the criteria for determining the extent of damages, observing the principles of equivalence and effectiveness. Punitive damages must be possible if they are available for similar domestic actions.

Individuals can claim compensation for harm from anti-competitive agreements under Article 81 EC.

European Court of Justice (Third Chamber) · 13 juli 2006 · Judgment · Preliminary ruling

(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)

Rechtsvraag

Whether an agreement or concerted practice between insurance companies, which results in an increase in premiums not justified by market conditions, constitutes an infringement of Article 81 EC and whether individuals can claim compensation for harm suffered due to such agreements.

Regel

Art. 81(1) EC (Prohibits agreements and concerted practices that may affect trade between Member States and prevent, restrict, or distort competition within the common market)
Art. 81(2) EC (Declares void all agreements or decisions prohibited under Article 81(1) EC)
Principle of equivalence (National procedural rules must not be less favorable than those governing similar domestic actions)
Principle of effectiveness (National procedural rules must not render practically impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law)

Conclusie

The Court concluded that an agreement or concerted practice between insurance companies, which results in an increase in premiums not justified by market conditions, may constitute an infringement of Article 81 EC if it has a significant impact on trade between Member States. Individuals can rely on the invalidity of such agreements and claim compensation for harm suffered due to these agreements. National procedural rules must comply with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness to ensure that individuals can effectively exercise their rights under Community law.

Tijdlijn

10-10-1990 Enactment of Law No 287/90 on the rules for the protection of competition and markets.
1994 Commencement of unusual and sustained increase in civil liability auto insurance premiums in Italy.
08-09-1999 AGCM initiates the procedure for infringement under Article 2 of Law No 287/90 against various insurance companies.
10-11-1999 Continuation of the AGCM's infringement procedure.
03-02-2000 Continuation of the AGCM's infringement procedure.
28-07-2000 AGCM declares the insurance companies' agreement for exchanging information unlawful.
14-08-2000 Publication of the AGCM's decision in Bolletino 30/2000.
2001 Insurance companies challenge the AGCM's decision before the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio and the Consiglio di Stato.
2003 Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio and Consiglio di Stato uphold the AGCM's decision.
30-06-2004 Giudice di pace di Bitonto makes a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the interpretation of Article 81 EC.
13-07-2004 Court of Justice of the European Union receives the preliminary reference from Giudice di pace di Bitonto.
26-01-2006 Advocate General Geelhoed delivers his opinion on the case.