Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December 2003 in Case C-63/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division): Samuel Sidney Evans v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and The Motor Insurers' Bureau (Approximation of laws — Directive 84/5/EEC — Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles — Damage or injury caused by unidentified or insufficiently insured vehicles — Protection of victims — Defective transposition of the directive — Liability of the Member State concerned)
Date: 2004-02-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, motor vehicle, personal accident insurance, road traffic, third-party insurance

7.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 4 December 2003

1. Article 1(4) of Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of
30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in
respect of the use of motor vehicles is to be interpreted as
meaning that:

in Case C-63/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s
Bench Division): Samuel Sidney Evans v The Secretary of
State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions,
and The Motor Insurers’ Bureau (1)

(Approximation of laws — Directive 84/5/EEC — Compul-
sory insurance against civil liability in respect of motor
vehicles — Damage or injury caused by unidentified or
insufficiently insured vehicles — Protection of victims —
Defective transposition of the directive — Liability of the
Member State concerned)

(2004/C 35/01)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-63/01, Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s
Bench Division, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Samuel Sidney Evans and
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the
Regions, and The Motor Insurers’ Bureau, on the interpretation
of Article 1(4) of the Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of
30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in
respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17), the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur),
acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward
and S. von Bahr, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
Principal Administrator, Registrar, has given a judgment on
4 December 2003, in which it has ruled:

— A body may be regarded as authorised by a Member State
within the meaning of that provision where its obligation
to provide compensation to victims of damage or injury
caused by unidentified or insufficiently insured vehicles
derives from an agreement concluded between that body
and a public authority of the Member State, provided that
the agreement is interpreted and applied as obliging the
body to provide victims with the compensation guaranteed
to them by Directive 84/5 and provided that victims may
apply directly to that body.

— Procedural arrangements such as those adopted in the
United Kingdom are sufficient to provide the protection to
which victims of damage or injury caused by unidentified
or insufficiently insured vehicles are entitled under Direc-
tive 84/5.

— The compensation awarded for damage or injuries caused
by an unidentified or insufficiently insured vehicle, paid
by the body authorised for that purpose, must take account
of the effluxion of time until actual payment of the sums
awarded in order to guarantee adequate compensation for
the victims. It is incumbent on the Member States to lay
down the rules to be applied for that purpose.

— The compensation awarded for damage or injury caused
by an unidentified or insufficiently insured vehicle, paid
by the body authorised for that purpose, is not required to
include reimbursement of the costs incurred by victims in
connection with the processing of their application for
compensation except to the extent to which such reim-
bursement is necessary to safeguard the rights derived by
victims from Directive 84/5 in conformity with the
principles of equivalence and effectiveness. It is for the
national court to consider whether that is the case under
the procedural arrangements adopted in the Member State
concerned.

C 35/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.2.2004

2.

It is incumbent on the national court, if examination of the
existing compensation system discloses a defect in transposition
of Directive 84/5 and if that defect has adversely affected Mr
Evans, to determine whether the breach of that obligation of
transposition is sufficiently serious.

(1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.

Is Article 6(2) of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 of
the Association Council, set up by the Agreement establishing
an Association between the European Economic Community
and Turkey, on the development of the Association (herein-
after, ‘Decision No 1/80’) to be interpreted as meaning that a
Turkish national forfeits the rights acquired under Article 6(1)
of Decision No 1/80 if he is held in custody under the
enforcement of a prison sentence for a period of three years?

Application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order
on the Commission of the European Communities, lodged
on 21 November 2003 by Icon Institute GmbH

(Case C-1/03 SA)

(2004/C 35/02)

An application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order on
the Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
21 November 2003 by Icon Institute GmbH, represented by
R. Nathan, with an address for service in Luxembourg. The
applicant claims that the Court should:

Lift the Commission’s immunity so that a garnishee order
relating to the funds it holds on behalf of a judgment debtor,
in this case CESD-Communautaire a.s.b.l., may take effect,
since there is no argument in law or in fact to prevent the
Commission, the garnishee, from properly releasing to the
applicant the funds it holds provisionally.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tampereen
käräjäoikeus by order of that Court of 7 November 2003
in the case of A.G.M.-COS.MET s.r.l. against Finnish State
and Tarmo Lehtinen

(Case C-470/03)

(2004/C 35/04)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tampereen kärä-
jäoikeus (Tampere District Court) of 7 November 2003,
received at the Court Registry on 11 November 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of A.G.M.-COS.MET s.r.l. against
Finnish State and Tarmo Lehtinen on the following questions:

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
richtshof by order of that Court of 4 september 2003 in
the complaint proceedings brought by Ergül Dogan

(1)

(Case C-383/03)

(2004/C 35/03)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichtsh-
of
(Administrative Court, Austria) of 4 September 2003,
received at the Court Registry on 12 September 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the complaint proceedings brought by
Ergül Dogan on the following question:

Is there a measure having equivalent effect to quantitative
restrictions within the meaning of Article 28 EC, or a
measure which should be abstained from under the
second paragraph of Article 10 EC, if an expert official
belonging to the State’s health and safety at work
organisation who does not have decision-making power,
after a market supervision case has been raised but before
the decision in the case, expresses his opinion on the
main news programme of a national TV channel and in
daily newspapers with wide circulation and also in
commercial and labour market associations, in such a
way that his statements, direct or repeated by others, on
the hazard to health and even to life of the machinery
manufactured and marketed by a specified manufacturer
which is the subject of the market supervision case may
give the machinery negative publicity and affect
its
marketing?