CELEX: C2002/144/30
Language: en
Date: 2002-06-15 00:00:00
Title: Case C-123/02: Action brought on 5 April 2002 by European Parliament against Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance (RSA)

C 144/18              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   15.6.2002
4.   Do the legal consequences provided for by Italian Law                 with a moisture content of over 30 % and an average
     No 89 of 24 March 2001 justify the application of                     moisture content, on entry to the processing undertaking,
     Article 21 of the Brussels Convention even if a party is at           of at least 35 % measured at most every ten days
     risk of detriment as a consequence of the possible                    compatible with Article 249(2) EC, Article 10 EC,
     excessive length of proceedings before the Italian court              Article 34.2(2) EC, Council Regulation (EC) No 603/95
     and therefore, as suggested in Question 3, it would not               of 21 February 1995 and Commission Regulation (EC)
     actually be appropriate to proceed in accordance with                 No 785/95 of 6 April 1995.
     Article 21?
                                                                      3.   Is a national provision which makes the grant of aid for
5.   Under what conditions must the court other than the                   the drying of green or fresh fodder subject to the
     court first seised refrain from applying Article 21 of the            condition that the fodder must be kept at the processing
     Brussels Convention?                                                  plant for a maximum of 24 hours before it is processed
                                                                           compatible with Article 249(2) EC, Article 10 EC,
6.   What course of action must the court follow if, in the                Article 34.2(2) EC, Council Regulation (EC) No 603/95
     circumstances described in Question 3, it is not allowed              of 21 February 1995 and Commission Regulation (EC)
     to apply Article 21 of the Brussels Convention?                       No 785/95 of 6 April 1995?
Should it be necessary in any event, even in the circumstances        4.   Is a national provision which makes the grant of aid for
described in Question 3, to proceed in accordance with                     the drying of green or fresh fodder subject to the
Article 21 of the Brussels Convention, there is no need to                 condition that the fodder must come from parcels situated
answer Questions 4, 5 and 6.                                               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 specialised transport 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?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Supre-
mo, Sala de lo Contencioso-administrativo, Sección: Cuar-
ta by order of that Court of 6 February 2002 in the case              (1) OJ L 063 of 21.3.1995, p. 1.
of Industrias de Deshidratación Agrı́cola, S.A. against              (2) OJ L 079 of 7.4.1995, p. 5.
                  Administración del Estado
                        (Case C-118/02)
                        (2002/C 144/29)
                                                                      Action brought on 5 April 2002 by European Parliament
                                                                             against Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance (RSA)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunal Supremo, Sala
de lo Contencioso-administrativo, Sección: Cuarta (Supreme                                   (Case C-123/02)
Court — Chamber for contentious administrative matters,
Fourth Chamber) of 6 February 2002, received at the Court                                     (2002/C 144/30)
Registry on 29 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Industrias de Deshidratación Agrı́cola, S.A. against
Administración del Estado on the following questions:
                                                                      An action against Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance (RSA)
1.   Is a national provision which makes the grant of aid for
                                                                      was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     the drying of green or fresh fodder subject to the
                                                                      Communities on 5 April 2002 by the European Parliament,
     condition that the fodder for drying is delivered to
                                                                      represented by D. Petersheim, O. Caisou-Rousseau and
     processing undertakings chopped, and not baled compat-
                                                                      M. Ecker, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
     ible with Article 249(2) EC, Article 10 EC, the second
                                                                      Luxembourg.
     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?
                                                                      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               1.   declare null and void the terminations of guarantee
     condition that the fodder must reach the processing plant             notified by RSA on 9 October and 6 November 2001;
 ---pagebreak--- 15.6.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 144/19
2.    order RSA to pay damages amounting to                               Action brought on 5 April 2002 by European Parliament
      EUR 40 781 286 for 2001 and to EUR 9 409 701 for                                       against AIG Europe (AIG)
      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                                       (Case C-124/02)
      all other connected expenditure, together with interest
      calculated at the legal rate of interest, it being understood                               (2002/C 144/31)
      that all accidents occurring during 2002 will be declared
      to RSA on the basis of the policies wrongfully terminated;
                                                                          An action against AIG Europe (AIG) was brought before the
3.    order the defendant to pay the costs.                               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.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          1.    declare null and void the terminations of guarantee
This action has been brought before the Court on the basis of                   notified by AIG on 8 October and 5 November 2001;
an arbitration clause in an insurance contract covering build-
ings and contents of the European Parliament located in                   2.    order AIG to pay damages amounting to EUR 181 852,93
Luxembourg, Strasbourg, Brussels and in a number of other                       for 2001 and to EUR 44 556,84 for 2002 to offset the
towns and cities (where the European Parliament has infor-                      expenditure incurred by the Parliament in respect of
mation offices).                                                                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
The parties are in dispute over the validity of the termination                 accidents occurring during 2002 will be declared to AIG
concerning, on the one hand, ‘labour dispute/terrorist acts’ risk               on the basis of the policies wrongfully terminated;
cover and, on the other, the remaining guarantees (fire and
connected risks).                                                         3.    order the defendant to pay the costs.
The European Parliament takes the view that the special                   Pleas in law and main arguments
conditions of the contract replace the general conditions relied
on by the defendant. Moreover, for buildings in France,
Article 42 of the general conditions cannot justify termination           The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
with notice of less than the 6 months provided for in the                 forward in Case C-123/02.
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           Action brought on 5 April 2002 by European Parliament
more serious for reasons outwith the control of the insured                              against HDI International (HDI)
party, the relevant terminations are tardy, since they disregard
the period of one month following notice of the event giving                                      (Case C-125/02)
rise to the aggravated circumstances.
                                                                                                  (2002/C 144/32)
Contractual liability for failure to perform the insurance
contract is based on the law of the Member States where the
insured property is located.                                              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.