# C_2011347EN.01000702.xml

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/7

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Metropolitan Court lodged on 1 August 2011 — Gábor Csonka and Others v Hungarian State

(Case C-409/11)

2011/C 347/11

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Fővárosi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Gábor Csonka, Tibor Isztli, Dávid Juhász, János Kiss, Csaba Szontágh

Applicants:

Defendant: Hungarian State

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | At the time when the applicants caused the damage had the Hungarian State implemented Directive 72/166/EC (1) having particular regard to the obligations set out in Article 3 of that directive? Must the directive thus be declared to have direct effect as regards the applicants? |
| --- | --- |

1.

At the time when the applicants caused the damage had the Hungarian State implemented Directive 72/166/EC (1) having particular regard to the obligations set out in Article 3 of that directive? Must the directive thus be declared to have direct effect as regards the applicants?

1

| 2. | According to the applicable Community law, may an individual whose rights have been prejudiced as a result of the fact that the State did not implement Directive 72/1966/EEC require that State to comply with the provisions of the directive by relying directly on the Community legislation vis-à-vis that negligent State in order to obtain the guarantees which that State should have offered him? |
| --- | --- |

2.

According to the applicable Community law, may an individual whose rights have been prejudiced as a result of the fact that the State did not implement Directive 72/1966/EEC require that State to comply with the provisions of the directive by relying directly on the Community legislation vis-à-vis that negligent State in order to obtain the guarantees which that State should have offered him?

| 3. | According to the applicable Community law, may an individual whose rights have been prejudiced as a result of the fact that Directive 72/166/EEC has not been implemented claim compensation for damage from the State responsible for that failure to implement? |
| --- | --- |

3.

According to the applicable Community law, may an individual whose rights have been prejudiced as a result of the fact that Directive 72/166/EEC has not been implemented claim compensation for damage from the State responsible for that failure to implement?

| 4. | If the previous question is answered in the affirmative, does the Hungarian State have a responsibility to pay compensation for damage both to the applicants and to those injured in road traffic accidents caused by the applicants?
  The relevant wording of the Directive is as follows: ‘Member States shall take the necessary steps to ensure that all compulsory insurance policies against civil liability arising out of the use of vehicles cover, on the basis of a single premium and during the whole term of the contract, the entire territory of the Community [as regards the damage caused]’. |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the previous question is answered in the affirmative, does the Hungarian State have a responsibility to pay compensation for damage both to the applicants and to those injured in road traffic accidents caused by the applicants?

The relevant wording of the Directive is as follows: ‘Member States shall take the necessary steps to ensure that all compulsory insurance policies against civil liability arising out of the use of vehicles cover, on the basis of a single premium and during the whole term of the contract, the entire territory of the Community [as regards the damage caused]’.

| 5. | Can the State be held responsible if a drafting error in the legislation caused the damage? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Can the State be held responsible if a drafting error in the legislation caused the damage?

| 6. | Is Government Decree No 190/2004 of 8 June on compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (190/2004. (VI.8) Korm. rendelet a gépjármű üzembentartójának kötelező felelősségbiztosításról), in force until 1 January 2010, compatible with the content of Council Directive 72/166/EEC, or has Hungary failed to transpose into Hungarian law the obligations laid down in that Directive? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Is Government Decree No 190/2004 of 8 June on compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (190/2004. (VI.8) Korm. rendelet a gépjármű üzembentartójának kötelező felelősségbiztosításról), in force until 1 January 2010, compatible with the content of Council Directive 72/166/EEC, or has Hungary failed to transpose into Hungarian law the obligations laid down in that Directive?

---

(1)  Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ, English Special Edition: Series I Chapter 1972(II) p. 360).

1

---