Case C-125/02: Action brought on 5 April 2002 by European Parliament against HDI International (HDI)
Date: 2002-06-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Parliament, action for annulment (EU), guarantee, insurance, insurance contract

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.

C 144/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

15.6.2002

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1.

2.

declare null and void the terminations of guarantee
notified by HDI on 30 October and 13 and 20 November
2001;

order HDI to pay damages amounting to EUR 44 556,84
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 HDI on the basis of the policies wrongfully terminated;

3.

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
its obligations under that directive, in particular Article 27
thereof;

— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposition, extended by one year on
account of the specific characteristics of Belgium’s electricity
network, expired on 19 February 2000, but Belgium has not
adopted all the requisite measures, particularly as regards the
appointment of the network manager (as provided for in
Article 10 of the Belgian Law on the organisation of the
electricity market).

Pleas in law and main arguments

(1) OJ L 27 of 30.1.1997, p. 20.

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

Action brought on 8 April 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
Belgium

(Case C-126/02)

(2002/C 144/33)

An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 April
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by R. Tricot, acting as Agent, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

Appeal brought on 8 April 2002 by Bernhard Schulte
against the judgment delivered on 7 February 2002 by the
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities
in Case T-261/94 between
Bernhard Schulte and the Council of the European Union
and the Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-128/02 P)

(2002/C 144/34)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 February 2002
by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-261/94 between Bernhard
Schulte and the Council of the European Union and the
Commission of the European Communities (1) was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
8 April 2002 by Bernhard Schulte, represented by Reinhard
Freise, Rechtsanwalt and Notar, Salzkotten.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment under appeal;

— declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations
and administrative measures necessary in order to comply
with Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning
common rules for the internal market in electricity (1), or
at any rate by failing to communicate the same to the

— order the respondents to pay the appellant compensation,
quantified by him to be at least DEM 30 000, plus interest
of 5 % per annum from 1 December 1989, for the
damage suffered by him as a result of the unlawful refusal
to grant him the reference delivery quantities for which
he applied.