, AND THE BELGIAN GEMEENSCHAPPELIJK MOTORWAARBORGFONDS ( JOINT MOTOR GUARANTEE FUND , HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ' ' THE FUND ' ' ) FOLLOWING A ROAD ACCIDENT IN BELGIUM IN WHICH MRS KENIS , A NETHERLANDS NATIONAL LIVING IN THE NETHERLANDS , WAS INJURED .
3 AS A RESULT OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT THE ACCIDENT IN QUESTION HAD BEEN CAUSED BY AN UNKNOWN THIRD PARTY . TIEL-UTRECHT , WHICH HAD PAID MRS KENIS BFR 94 069 AS REIMBURSEMENT OF MEDICAL EXPENSES UNDER A HEALTH-CARE INSURANCE POLICY HELD BY HER , BROUGHT AN ACTION IN BELGIUM FOR THE RECOVERY OF THAT AMOUNT AGAINST THE FUND , WHICH UNDER BELGIAN LAW IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES AND DAMAGES CAUSED BY UNIDENTIFIED , STOLEN OR UNINSURED MOTOR VEHICLES .
4 THE FUND ARGUED BEFORE THE BELGIAN COURT THAT IT WAS NOT LIABLE TO REIMBURSE THE SUM PAID TO MRS KENIS BY TIEL-UTRECHT BECAUSE THE BELGIAN LAW OF 9 AUGUST 1963 INTRODUCING A COMPULSORY SICKNESS AND INVALIDITY INSURANCE SCHEME , IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE 70 THEREOF , INTENDED THAT ONLY THE BELGIAN INSTITUTIONS RESPONSIBLE FOR APPLYING THE PROVISIONS ON COMPULSORY INSURANCE WERE TO HAVE A RIGHT OF RECOVERY AGAINST THE FUND .
5 TIEL-UTRECHT , RELYING ON ARTICLE 93 OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 , SUBMITTED THAT IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AN ' ' INSTITUTION ' ' WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT REGULATION AND THEREFORE TREATED IN THE SAME WAY AS BELGIAN INSURANCE INSTITUTIONS .
6 THE FUND SUBMITTED THAT REGULATION NO 1408/71 WAS INAPPLICABLE IN THIS CASE , ON THE GROUND THAT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TIEL-UTRECHT AND THE INSURED PERSON WAS OF A CONTRACTUAL NATURE , AND ARGUED THAT THE BELGIAN LEGISLATION COULD NOT BE APPLIED ' ' BY ANALOGY ' ' TO A LEGAL ENTITY INCORPORATED UNDER NETHERLANDS LAW .
7 IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE BURGERLIJKE RECHTBANK VAN EERSTE AANLEG , HASSELT , REFERRED THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS TO THE COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING :
' ' 1 . WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE REGARDED AS ' NATIONAL FEDERATIONS ' ( LANDSBONDEN ) OR ' RELIEF FUNDS ' ( HULPKAS ) WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 2 ( D ) OF THE BELGIAN LAW OF 9 AUGUST 1963 , MUST THE ' INSTITUTIONS ' REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 93 ( OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 ) BE UNDERSTOOD AS BEING ' INSURANCE INSTITUTIONS ' WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 70 OF THE BELGIAN LAW OF 9 AUGUST 1963?
2.MUST THE EXPRESSIONS ' LIABLE THIRD PARTIES ' AND ' THIRD PARTY BOUND TO COMPENSATE FOR THE INJURY ' APPEARING IN ARTICLE 93 OF THE REGULATION BE TAKEN TO MEAN THE SAME AS THE TERMS ' VERGOEDINGSPLICHTIGEN ' ( PERSONS LIABLE TO MAKE GOOD THE DAMAGE ) AND ' AANSPRAKELIJKEN ' ( PERSONS LIABLE ) APPEARING IN ARTICLE 1382 ET SEQ . OF THE BELGIAN CIVIL CODE? OR MUST THEY INSTEAD BE CONSTRUED MORE WIDELY AS COVERING ANY OR EVERY OTHER POSSIBLE RIGHT OF RECOVERY?
' '
8