Case C-63/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of 17 May 2000, in the case of Samuel Sidney Evans against 1) Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and 2) Motor Insurers' Bureau
Date: 2001-04-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, civil liability, insurance, interpretation of the law, motor vehicle insurance, personal accident insurance

C 118/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21.4.2001

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the defendant to repay, to the Commission, EUR
263 656 together with interest as from 14 July 1999
until actual payment;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

b)

if the answer to question (a) is yes, from what date
and on what basis should such interest be calculated?

2. On the proper interpretation of Article 1(4) of the Second
Motor Insurance Directive, in circumstances where the
compensating body itself has an obligation to investigate
the victim’s injury and loss (and to incur the costs thereof,
including the cost of medical and other reports):

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action, brought on the basis of an arbitration clause, seeks
the repayment of sums of money advanced in the context of
Contract No 70317, signed on 13 November 1996, in the
context of the 16:9 Action Plan to promote the broadcast of
high-definition television programmes in Europe.

The beneficiary, within the period laid down in the contract,
broadcast only 43 hours and 20 minutes of programmes in
16:9 format instead of the 500 hours offered and contracted
for. The Commission therefore decided to terminate the
contract, governed by Belgian law, for breach of contract by
the defendant.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, by
in the case of
order of that court of 17 May 2000,
Samuel Sidney Evans against 1) Secretary of State for the
Environment, Transport and the Regions and 2) Motor
Insurers’ Bureau

(Case C-63/01)

(2001/C 118/19)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, of 17 May
2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 13 February
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Samuel Sidney
Evans against 1) Secretary of State for the Environment,
Transport and the Regions and 2) Motor Insurers’ Bureau, on
the following questions:

1. On the proper

interpretation of Council Directive
84/5/EEC (1) of 30th December 1983 on the approxi-
mation of the laws of the Member States relating to
insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of
motor vehicles (‘the Second Motor Insurance Directive’):

a) must the arrangements concerning the provision of
compensation by the body established or authorised
pursuant to Article 1(4) include provision for the
payment of interest on the sums found to be payable
for the damage to property or personal injuries?

a) must the arrangements concerning the provision of
compensation by the body include provision for the
payment of
the costs incurred by a victim in
preparing and making his application to that body
for compensation?

b)

if the answer to question (a) is yes, on what basis are
those costs to be calculated in a case where that
body has made an offer to the victim in excess of
the amount that he finally recovers, which offer the
victim declined to accept?

3. On the proper interpretation of Article 1(4) of the Second
Motor Insurance Directive, if the victim’s application for
compensation is determined by a body that is not a
court, must he have a full right to appeal against that
determination to a court, on both the facts and the law,
rather than an appeal to an independent arbitrator having
the following principal characteristics:

i)

the victim may appeal to the arbitrator on both the
facts and the law;

ii) when giving notice of appeal, the victim may make
further representations and adduce further evidence
to the compensating body upon which the compen-
sating body may alter its award prior to the appeal;

iii)

iv)

v)

the victim is provided in advance with a copy of all
the material to be provided to the arbitrator and is
given the opportunity to add any material that he
wishes in response;

the arbitrator makes an award, without an oral
hearing, in which he or she decides what award the
compensating body ought to make and gives reasons
for that decision;

if the victim is dissatisfied, he is entitled to appeal
from the arbitrator to the Courts but he may do so
only on the grounds of serious irregularity affecting
the arbitration or on a question of law (including
whether there was any evidence to support any
particular conclusion of the arbitrator or whether
any particular conclusion was one to which no
arbitrator could reasonably come upon the evi-
dence), and in the case of an appeal on a question of
law, permission to appeal must be obtained from
the Court which will not be given unless the decision
of the arbitrator is obviously wrong and it is just
and proper in all the circumstances for the Court to
determine the question.

21.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 118/13

4.

If the answer to questions 1(a) and/or 2(a) and/or 3 is
Yes, has a Member State duly authorised a body under
Article 1(4) of the Second Motor Insurance Directive
when an existing body has the task of providing compen-
sation to victims pursuant only to an agreement with the
relevant authority of the Member State that does not
correspond to the Second Motor Insurance Directive in
those respects, and:

a)

b)

c)

that agreement creates a legal obligation owed to
the relevant authority of
the Member State to
provide compensation to victims which is directly
enforceable by the relevant authority and does not
give such victims a directly enforceable legal right to
claim against that body, but the victim may apply to
the Court for an order that the authority should
enforce the agreement if the authority were to fail to
do so; and

that body carries out that obligation by accepting
and paying claims from victims in accordance with
that agreement; and

the Member State considered in good faith that the
provision of that agreement gave at least as good
protection to victims as the requirements of the
Second Motor Insurance Directive?

5.

If the answer to any of questions 1(a) or 2(a) or 3 is Yes,
and/or if the answer to question 4 is No, does a failure to
comply with the Second Motor Insurance Directive in
that respect constitute a sufficiently serious breach by the
Member State to give rise to liability for damages as a
matter of Community law if it is established that such
damage was caused?

(1) OJ L 8, 11.1.1984, p. 17.

Action brought on 14 February 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-65/01)

(2001/C 118/20)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 February
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Antonio Aresu, acting as Agent.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Council Directive 89/655/EEC (1) of 30 November 1989
concerning the minimum safety and health requirements
for the use of work equipment by workers at work
(second individual Directive within the meaning of
Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (2), the Italian

Republic has failed to transpose general minimum
requirements and failed to ensure the protection of
workers and thus failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 4(1) and 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.8 of Annex I; and

— Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission finds that none of the documents referred to
by the Italian authorities contains provisions which correspond
to certain points of Annex I to Directive 89/655/EEC, namely,
point 2.1, the second sentence of point 2.2, the second
subparagraph of point 2.3 and the second subparagraph of
point 2.8.

The Commission therefore concludes that the Italian Republic
has not implemented the relevant provisions of Directive
89/655, thus failing to fulfil its obligations under Community
law.

(1) OJ 1989 L 393, p. 13.
(2) OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
Verwaltungssenat by order of 7 February 2001 in the
appeals brought by Dr Manfred Hückel

(Cases C-66/01 to C-74/01)

(2001/C 118/21)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 7 February 2001 by
the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg (Independent
Administrative Chamber, Salzburg), which was received at the
Court Registry on 14 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling
in the appeals brought by Dr Manfred Hückel on the following
questions:

1. Does Article 2(1)(b) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of
18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of
the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation
and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate
consumer (now consolidated in European Parliament and
Council Directive 2000/13/EC of 20 March 2000 — OJ
2000 L 109, p. 29), under which — subject to Com-
munity provisions applicable to natural mineral waters
and to foodstuffs for particular nutritional uses — the
labelling and methods used may not attribute to any
foodstuff the property of preventing, treating or curing a
human disease, or suggest that it possesses such proper-
ties, preclude national
legislation which makes it an
offence when marketing foodstuffs: