FRANCAIS, AGAINST WHICH AN ACTION WAS BROUGHT FOR COMPENSATION FOR THE VICTIM, BROUGHT THIRD-PARTY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE GERMAN INSURANCE COMPANY AND THE GERMAN CENTRAL BUREAU . THE LATTER ARGUED THAT THE FRENCH COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION BECAUSE OF THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN ARTICLE 13 OF THE ABOVEMENTIONED AGREEMENT BETWEEN BUREAUX OF 17 DECEMBER 1953, WHICH PROVIDES THAT "ANY DISPUTE BETWEEN BUREAUX REGARDING THE INTERPRETATION AND EFFECTS OF THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO ARBITRATORS ...". THE BUREAU CENTRAL FRANCAIS CONTENDED THAT THAT CLAUSE WAS AMENDED BY THE SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT BETWEEN BUREAUX OF 16 OCTOBER 1972 ( ARTICLE 2*(C )*), CITED ABOVE, WHICH FROM THAT DATE RESTRICTED THE APPLICATION OF THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE TO THE SOLE CASE OF A DISPUTE REGARDING THE INTERPRETATION OF THE TERM "NORMALLY BASED ".
13 THE TRIBUNAL DE GRANDE INSTANCE, COLMAR, STAYED THE PROCEEDINGS ON THE THIRD-PARTY CLAIM AND SUBMITTED TO THE COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING THE QUESTION :
"WHETHER THE SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT OF 16 OCTOBER 1972 RESTRICTED THE APPLICATION OF THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE, WHICH THE AGREEMENT OF 17 DECEMBER 1953 HAD PROVIDED AS BEING OF GENERAL APPLICATION, TO THE SOLE CASE OF A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE BUREAUX ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CONCEPT 'NORMALLY BASED' ".
14 REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE REPORT FOR THE HEARING FOR A MORE DETAILED ACCOUNT OF THE FACTS, THE LAW APPLICABLE, THE COURSE OF THE PROCEDURE AND THE OBSERVATIONS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT, WHICH ARE MENTIONED OR DISCUSSED HEREINAFTER ONLY IN SO FAR AS IS NECESSARY FOR THE REASONING OF THE COURT .
THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
15 THE BUREAU CENTRAL FRANCAIS, DEFENDANT IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS, THE UNITED KINGDOM, THE DANISH GOVERNMENT AND THE COMMISSION SUBMIT IN THEIR WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS THAT THE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO INTERPRET THE PROVISIONS REFERRED TO IN THE QUESTION ASKED BY THE NATIONAL COURT SINCE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN CENTRAL BUREAUX, INASMUCH AS THEY ARE CONCLUDED BETWEEN BODIES GOVERNED BY PRIVATE LAW, ARE PRIVATE AGREEMENTS AND THEREFORE ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF AN ACT OF AN INSTITUTION OF THE COMMUNITY WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY .
16 THE HUK-VERBAND, WHICH IS THE GERMAN CENTRAL BUREAU AND A PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS, MAINTAINS THAT THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO INTERPRET THE AGREEMENTS IN QUESTION; THAT VIEW WAS ALSO ADOPTED BY THE BUREAU CENTRAL FRANCAIS AT THE HEARING . IN THEIR VIEW, THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF DIRECTIVE 72/166 IS DEPENDENT ON THE CONCLUSION OF A SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CENTRAL BUREAUX OF THE MEMBER STATES, AND THE DURATION OF THAT AGREEMENT DETERMINES THE PERIOD OF APPLICABILITY OF THE DIRECTIVE; THUS THE AIM OF THE DIRECTIVE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED IN THE ABSENCE OF THE AGREEMENT IN QUESTION . MOREOVER, THE FACT THAT THE 1973 SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT WAS ANNEXED TO COMMISSION DECISION 74/167 SHOWS THAT THE AGREEMENTS IN QUESTION ARE CONNECTED WITH THE COMMUNITY MEASURES GOVERNING THESE MATTERS .
17 ARTICLE 177 PROVIDES THAT "THE COURT OF JUSTICE SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION TO GIVE PRELIMINARY RULINGS CONCERNING