31. 7. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 194/3 
So much documentation already has to be submitted 
that this additional requirement would merely deter the 
manufacturer. Merely outlining the technical solutions 
adopted ought to be enough. 
Annex 4 [point 1 (b)j 
a) The number of the EC-type examination should be 
added to the list of inscriptions which instruments 
are required to carry. 
b) The problem of gravitational variation when a 
machine is moved from one area to another can be 
solved by the machine being stamped with the value 
'little g' (*) or the identification of the gravitational 
(') 'Little g' = local value of the gravitational constant. zone for which it has been adjusted. Where 
machines have self adjusting gravitational mechan­
ism or where the machine has a low resolution 
(which would not be affected) the machine should 
be so clearly marked. 
Annex 5 
The Committee understands that the criteria to be 
applied by Member States when designating bodies 
referred to in Article 8 is currently the subject of a 
Commission draft proposal. Annex 5 as drafted in the 
current document should therefore be withdrawn when 
the new Commission proposal is completed and the 
latter then substituted for it. 
Done at Brussels, 31 May 1989. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive amending, particularly as regards motor 
vehicle liability insurance, first Council Directive 73/239/EEC, and second Council Directive 
88/357/EEC on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating 
to direct insurance other than life assurance and laying down provisions to facilitate the 
effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 73/239/EEC 
(89/C 194/02) 
On 16 January 1989, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee 
under Article 57 paragraph 2 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, 
on the abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services, which was responsible for preparing 
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 3 May 1989. The rapporteur 
was Mr Speirs. 
At its 266th plenary session (meeting of 31 May 1989), the Economic and Social Committee 
unanimously adopted the following Opinion. 
Subject to the comments which follow, the Committee 
welcomes the Commission's proposals as a modest 
step towards liberalizing the market in motor vehicle 
insurance; it introduces greater competition between 
insurance companies while trying to avoid any difficult­
ies which may result from the freedom to provide 
services for those who are involved in accidents caused 
by a motor vehicle which is insured by a company 
established outside their own Member State. 1. General comments 
1.1. Freedom to provide services in motor vehicle 
insurance 
1.1.1. When the second Council Directive on the 
coordination of laws, regulations and administrative 
provisions relating to direct insurance other than life 
No C 194/4 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 7. 89 
assurance was adopted, the Commission recorded its 
intention to present, as soon as possible, a specific new 
proposal covering freedom to provide services in third 
party motor insurance. The present proposal for a 
Directive, which covers not only compulsory third party 
motor insurance but also optional motor insurance 
(essentially damage to or theft of the insured person's 
own vehicle), therefore has as its primary objective the 
inclusion of third party motor insurance within the 
framework for freedom of services set up in the second 
Directive. 
1.1.2. The shape of the second Directive was itself 
much influenced by judgements handed down by the 
Court of Justice in four insurance cases on 4 December 
1986. 
1.1.3. The second Directive provided separate 
regimes for 'large risks' (that is to say policies taken 
out by large industrial and commercial concerns) regu­
lation of which is carried out by the State where the 
insurer is established and 'mass risks' (that is to say 
smaller policy holders) where regulation is carried out 
by the State where the risk is situated. 
1.1.4. The present proposal does not seek to amend 
the general framework of the second Directive, not 
its provisions concerning compulsory insurances 
Article 8(2) of which states: 
'When a Member State imposes an obligation to 
take out insurance, the contract shall not satisfy 
that obligation unless it is in accordance with the 
specific provisions relating to that insurance laid 
down by that Member State.' 
1.1.5. Since liberalization of the market in motor 
vehicle insurance based on home country control is, 
under the proposed Directive, to be limited to large 
risks, its impact may well be limited. However, the 
Court of Justice recognized that insurance is, in general, 
a sensitive area. Large industrial and commercial con­
cerns should be capable of assessing the advantages and 
disadvantages of insuring their vehicles with companies 
established in Member States other than their own; and 
should be given the possibility of insuring all their 
Community motor risks under a single policy. 
1.1.6. The Committee therefore welcomes the Com­
mission's proposals as a first step towards opening up 
the market, the ultimate objective of which should be 
to have a completely free market when Community law 
has been harmonized to the extent necessary to ensure 
adequate protection for policyholders both large and 
small. 
1.2. Operation of supplementary green card agreement 
and of national guarantee funds 
1.2.1. At the present time all motor liability insurers 
in each Member State must belong to and finance a national bureau which will give a guarantee to other 
participating bureaux that it will accept liability for 
claims resulting from accidents caused in the territories 
covered by those other bureaux by a vehicle based in its 
own territory whether or not that vehicle was properly 
insured. 
1.2.2. As a result of the opening up of the market 
it follows that the situation may arise that a vehicle 
registered in one Member State and causing an accident 
in another Member State may have obtained insurance 
cover from a company established neither in the Mem­
ber State where the accident occurs nor in the Member 
State where the vehicle is registered and does not con­
tribute to the national bureau in either Member State. 
1.2.3. The current arrangements therefore need to 
be modified to make provision for such an eventuality 
and thus the proposed Directive will require any insurer 
providing cover for a vehicle bearing the registration 
plate of a Member State to join and participate in the 
financing of the bureau of that State and likewise to 
join and contribute to the financing of the local guaran­
tee fund. Furthermore, the Member State where services 
are provided may require any undertaking providing 
services but not established there to nominate a claims 
settlement representative resident or established in that 
State possessing the necessary powers to bind the under­
taking. 
1.2.4. The Committee does not object in principle 
to the Commission's proposals but has a number of 
concerns which it would draw to the attention of the 
Commission which have as their prime objective the 
protection of the victim in accidents involving motor 
vehicles. 
1.2.5. The Committee is concerned that the introduc­
tion of the new arrangements should not delay the 
settlement of claims once liability has been determined. 
The Commission is called upon to exert whatever influ­
ence it can to encourage the early settlement of claims. 
1.2.6. Furthermore, it should be made clear that 
when an undertaking joins a national bureau in another 
Member State it must, in addition to contributing 
towards the cost thereof, comply with the ethical stan­
dards laid down by and for the members of that bureau, 
even if these are more stringent than those imposed by 
the Member State where the undertaking is established. 
When, for example, a Member State currently requires 
particulars of policies and the vehicles covered thereby 
to be recorded in a central register, that requirement 
should be met by the insurance company providing 
services on the same basis as companies established 
within that Member State. 
31. 7. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 194/5 
1.2.7. It is not clear to the Committee, bearing in 
mind the need to protect the victim, what will be the 
situation in the event of the insurer becoming bankrupt 
or going into liquidation when the undertaking con­
cerned is not established in the Member State where 
the vehicle is registered. There would appear to be a 
strong argument in favour of the guarantee fund of the 
Member State where the undertaking is established 
being held responsible for the liabilities of its constitu­
ent member. 
1.2.8. Finally, the legal status of a nominated claims 
representative is not entirely clear. His legal status and 
the extent to which he is answerable on behalf of his 
employing insurance company to the courts of law of 
the Member State in which he operates should be made 
clear. 
1.2.9.1. The nomination of a claims representative 
does not by itself give members of the public adequate 
protection. Members of the public in order to be given 
the necessary protection have a right to expect that 
there should be harmonization of the laws, regulations 
and administrative provisions in each Member State 
governing access to the activity of insurer and the 
exercise of that activity. 
1.2.9.2. The Commission has not sufficiently dis­
tinguished between: 
— the laws, regulations and administrative provisions 
in each Member State concerning access to the 
activity of insurer and the exercise of this activity, 
and 
— the laws applicable to insurance contracts. 
1.2.9.3. In view of this first category of provisions, 
the Commission should, as a matter of urgency, intro­
duce proposals for a sufficient harmonization of the 
provisions relating to financial guarantees (especially 
technical reserves) to enable the implementation of the 
principle of checking by the country of origin and the 
granting of a single authorization valid throughout 
the Community. This legislation should desirably be 
implemented simultaneously with the present Directive. 
Done at Brussels, 31 May 1989. 2. Specific comments 
2.1. Article 2 
While it is accepted that fleets of vehicles owned by 
companies in the same group may be classified as a 
'large risk' if the criteria are fulfilled, it should be made 
clear that artificial fleets are not covered. 
2.2. Article 5 
2.2.1. For the reasons stated under the heading of 
general comments, it should be made clear that under­
takings should comply with the ethical standards 
required of members of the national bureau. Provision 
should be made for the protection of vehicle owners 
and of accident victims in the event of the undertaking 
being declared bankrupt or going into liquidation. 
2.2.2. The Committee also considers that the word­
ing would be improved if the phrase 
'by reference to its premium income from that class 
in that State or the number of risks in that class 
covered there' 
were deleted from Article 12a (2) 2nd sub-paragraph. 
The Committee considers in fact that the Funds should 
be able to benefit from a certain degree of freedom to 
fix the financing criteria, given that no discrimination 
must exist between services and undertakings and estab­
lished undertakings. The fixing of a minimum contri­
bution should be regarded as discriminatory. 
2.3. Article 6 
This Article should be amended to provide that it shall 
come into operation twelve months after the date of 
approval by the Council of Ministers of the proposed 
Directive. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE