# C_2011141EN.01001101.xml

| 12.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/11

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 10 December 2010

in Case E-2/10

Þór Kolbeinsson v The Icelandic State

(Safety and health of workers — Directives 89/391/EEC and 92/57/EEC — Article 3 of the EEA Agreement — Employers’ and employees’ liability for work accidents — State liability)

2011/C 141/11

In Case E-2/10 between Þór Kolbeinsson and the Icelandic State — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court), Iceland, concerning the interpretation of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work and of Council Directive 92/57/EEC of 24 June 1992 on the implementation of minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites (eighth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson and Henrik Bull (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 10 December 2010, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | Save in exceptional circumstances it is not compatible with Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work and Council Directive 92/57/EEC of 24 June 1992 on the implementation of minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites (eighth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) interpreted in light of Article 3 of the EEA Agreement to hold a worker liable under national tort law for all, or the greater share, of the losses suffered as a result of an accident at work due to his own contributory negligence when it has been established that the employer had not on his own initiative complied with rules regarding safety and conditions in the work place.
  Exceptional circumstances may exist where the employee has caused the accident wilfully or by acting with gross negligence, but even in such cases a complete denial of compensation would be disproportionate and not in compliance with the Directives except in extreme cases of the employee being substantially more to blame for the accident than the employer. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Save in exceptional circumstances it is not compatible with Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work and Council Directive 92/57/EEC of 24 June 1992 on the implementation of minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites (eighth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) interpreted in light of Article 3 of the EEA Agreement to hold a worker liable under national tort law for all, or the greater share, of the losses suffered as a result of an accident at work due to his own contributory negligence when it has been established that the employer had not on his own initiative complied with rules regarding safety and conditions in the work place.

Exceptional circumstances may exist where the employee has caused the accident wilfully or by acting with gross negligence, but even in such cases a complete denial of compensation would be disproportionate and not in compliance with the Directives except in extreme cases of the employee being substantially more to blame for the accident than the employer.

| 2. | An EEA State may be held liable for breach of the rule on contributory negligence inherent in Directives 89/391/EEC and 92/57/EEC interpreted in light of Article 3 of the EEA Agreement provided that the breach is sufficiently serious. It is for the national court to decide in accordance with the settled case law on State liability for breaches of EEA law whether this condition is fulfilled in the case before it. |
| --- | --- |

2.

An EEA State may be held liable for breach of the rule on contributory negligence inherent in Directives 89/391/EEC and 92/57/EEC interpreted in light of Article 3 of the EEA Agreement provided that the breach is sufficiently serious. It is for the national court to decide in accordance with the settled case law on State liability for breaches of EEA law whether this condition is fulfilled in the case before it.

---