Case C-123/02: Action brought on 5 April 2002 by European Parliament against Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance (RSA)
Date: 2002-06-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Parliament, action for annulment (EU), contractual liability, guarantee, insurance, insurance contract

C 144/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

15.6.2002

4. Do the legal consequences provided for by Italian Law
No 89 of 24 March 2001 justify the application of
Article 21 of the Brussels Convention even if a party is at
risk of detriment as a consequence of
the possible
excessive length of proceedings before the Italian court
and therefore, as suggested in Question 3, it would not
actually be appropriate to proceed in accordance with
Article 21?

5. Under what conditions must the court other than the
court first seised refrain from applying Article 21 of the
Brussels Convention?

6. What course of action must the court follow if, in the
circumstances described in Question 3, it is not allowed
to apply Article 21 of the Brussels Convention?

Should it be necessary in any event, even in the circumstances
described in Question 3,
to proceed in accordance with
Article 21 of the Brussels Convention, there is no need to
answer Questions 4, 5 and 6.

3.

4.

with a moisture content of over 30 % and an average
moisture content, on entry to the processing undertaking,
of at least 35 % measured at most every ten days
compatible with Article 249(2) EC, Article 10 EC,
Article 34.2(2) EC, Council Regulation (EC) No 603/95
of 21 February 1995 and Commission Regulation (EC)
No 785/95 of 6 April 1995.

Is a national provision which makes the grant of aid for
the drying of green or fresh fodder subject
to the
condition that the fodder must be kept at the processing
plant for a maximum of 24 hours before it is processed
compatible with Article 249(2) EC, Article 10 EC,
Article 34.2(2) EC, Council Regulation (EC) No 603/95
of 21 February 1995 and Commission Regulation (EC)
No 785/95 of 6 April 1995?

Is a national provision which makes the grant of aid for
the drying of green or fresh fodder subject
to the
condition that the fodder must come from parcels situated
at a maximum distance of 100 kilometres from the
corresponding processing plant unless, in the latter case,
a greater distance may be justified by the use of the
appropriate
compatible with
Article 249(2) EC, Article 10 EC, Article 34.2(2) EC,
Council Regulation (EC) No 603/95 of 21 February 1995
and Commission Regulation (EC) No 785/95 of 6 April
1995?

specialised transport

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Supre-
mo, Sala de lo Contencioso-administrativo, Seccio´ n: Cuar-
ta by order of that Court of 6 February 2002 in the case
of Industrias de Deshidratacio´ n Agrı´cola, S.A. against
Administracio´ n del Estado

(1) OJ L 063 of 21.3.1995, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 079 of 7.4.1995, p. 5.

(Case C-118/02)

(2002/C 144/29)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunal Supremo, Sala
de lo Contencioso-administrativo, Seccio´ n: Cuarta (Supreme
Court — Chamber for contentious administrative matters,
Fourth Chamber) of 6 February 2002, received at the Court
Registry on 29 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Industrias de Deshidratacio´ n Agrı´cola, S.A. against
Administracio´ n del Estado on the following questions:

1.

Is a national provision which makes the grant of aid for
the drying of green or fresh fodder subject
to the
condition that
the fodder for drying is delivered to
processing undertakings chopped, and not baled compat-
ible with Article 249(2) EC, Article 10 EC, the second
subparagraph of Article 34(2) EC, Council Regulation
(EC) No 603/95 (1) of 21 February 1995 and Commission
Regulation (EC) No 785/95 (2) of 6 April 1995?

Action brought on 5 April 2002 by European Parliament
against Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance (RSA)

(Case C-123/02)

(2002/C 144/30)

An action against Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance (RSA)
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 5 April 2002 by the European Parliament,
represented by D. Petersheim, O. Caisou-Rousseau and
M. Ecker, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

2.

Is a national provision which makes the grant of aid for
the drying of green or fresh fodder subject
to the
condition that the fodder must reach the processing plant

1.

declare null and void the terminations of guarantee
notified by RSA on 9 October and 6 November 2001;

15.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 144/19

2.

pay

damages

RSA to

amounting

order
to
EUR 40 781 286 for 2001 and to EUR 9 409 701 for
2002 to offset the expenditure incurred by the Parliament
in respect of additional insurance cover to replace the
guarantees wrongfully terminated by the defendant and
all other connected expenditure, together with interest
calculated at the legal rate of interest, it being understood
that all accidents occurring during 2002 will be declared
to RSA on the basis of the policies wrongfully terminated;

3.

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action has been brought before the Court on the basis of
an arbitration clause in an insurance contract covering build-
ings and contents of the European Parliament located in
Luxembourg, Strasbourg, Brussels and in a number of other
towns and cities (where the European Parliament has infor-
mation offices).

The parties are in dispute over the validity of the termination
concerning, on the one hand, ‘labour dispute/terrorist acts’ risk
cover and, on the other, the remaining guarantees (fire and
connected risks).

The European Parliament takes the view that the special
conditions of the contract replace the general conditions relied
for buildings in France,
on by the defendant. Moreover,
Article 42 of the general conditions cannot justify termination
with notice of less than the 6 months provided for in the
standard guarantees. Since French legislation makes cover for
standard risks undetachable from the risk of ‘labour dispute/
terrorist attacks’, that article cannot justify termination with
notice of less than 6 months for property in France. Likewise,
since there is no provision for notice of 7 days under
Luxembourg law, which strictly forbids terminations which it
does not expressly provide for, such notice is unlawful with
respect to buildings in Luxembourg. In so far as the defendants
invoke the general conditions to claim that the risk has become
more serious for reasons outwith the control of the insured
party, the relevant terminations are tardy, since they disregard
the period of one month following notice of the event giving
rise to the aggravated circumstances.

liability for failure to perform the insurance
Contractual
contract is based on the law of the Member States where the
insured property is located.

Action brought on 5 April 2002 by European Parliament
against AIG Europe (AIG)

(Case C-124/02)

(2002/C 144/31)

An action against AIG Europe (AIG) was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 April 2002
by the European Parliament, represented by D. Petersheim,
O. Caisou-Rousseau and M. Ecker, acting as Agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1.

2.

declare null and void the terminations of guarantee
notified by AIG on 8 October and 5 November 2001;

order AIG to pay damages amounting to EUR 181 852,93
for 2001 and to EUR 44 556,84 for 2002 to offset the
expenditure incurred by the Parliament in respect of
insurance cover to replace the guarantees
additional
wrongfully terminated by the defendant and all other
connected expenditure, together with interest calculated
at the legal rate of interest, it being understood that all
accidents occurring during 2002 will be declared to AIG
on the basis of the policies wrongfully terminated;

3.

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
forward in Case C-123/02.

Action brought on 5 April 2002 by European Parliament
against HDI International (HDI)

(Case C-125/02)

(2002/C 144/32)

An action against HDI International (HDI) was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 April
2002 by the European Parliament, represented by D. Peters-
heim, O. Caisou-Rousseau and M. Ecker, acting as Agents, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.