CELEX: E2000J0007
Language: en
Date: 2001-06-14
Title: EFTA Court - Judgment of the Court of 14 June 2001 in Case E-7/00 (Request for an Advisory Opinion from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court): Halla Helgadóttir v Daníel Hjaltason and Iceland Insurance Company Ltd (Motor Vehicle Insurance Directives — Standardised compensation system — Compensation for victims) (Pursuant to Article 27(5) of the Rules of Procedure only the English and Icelandic texts are authentic)

Important legal notice

|

E2000J0007

EFTA Court - Judgment of the Court of 14 June 2001 in Case E-7/00 (Request for an Advisory Opinion from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court): Halla Helgadóttir v Daníel Hjaltason and Iceland Insurance Company Ltd (Motor Vehicle Insurance Directives — Standardised compensation system — Compensation for victims) (Pursuant to Article 27(5) of the Rules of Procedure only the English and Icelandic texts are authentic)  

Official Journal C 237 , 23/08/2001 P. 0006 - 0006

Judgment of the Courtof 14 June 2001in Case E-7/00 (Request for an Advisory Opinion from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court): Halla Helgadóttir v Daníel Hjaltason and Iceland Insurance Company LtdMotor Vehicle Insurance Directives - Standardised compensation system - Compensation for victims(Pursuant to Article 27(5) of the Rules of Procedure only the English and Icelandic texts are authentic)(2001/C 237/08)In Case E-7/00: request to the Court pursuant to Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a surveillance authority and a Court of Justice by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court), for an Advisory Opinion in the case pending before it between Halla Helgadóttir and Daniel Hjaltason and Iceland Insurance Company Ltd, on the interpretation of the EEA Agreement, with particular reference to the following acts referred to in Annex IX; the Act referred to in point 8 of Annex IX (Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability), the Act referred to in point 9 of Annex IX (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), the Act referred to in point 10 of Annex IX (Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles), the Court, composed of: Thór Vilhjálmsson, President, Carl Baudenbacher (Judge-Rapporteur) and Per Tresselt, Judges; and Gunnar Selvik, Registrar, gave an Advisory Opinion on 14 June 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:1. It is compatible with EEA law, in particular Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, 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, and Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, to determine compensation payable to victims under the third-party liability insurance of a motor vehicle in accordance with national tort liability statutes providing for standardised compensation based on a tier of non-pecuniary loss (medical disability tier), regardless of a tier of permanent disability (occupational disability tier), in cases of victims who, on the date of an accident, make use of their earning capacity in a manner providing them with little or no earnings from employment.2. The aforementioned Motor Vehicle Insurance Directives do not contain any specific requirement for a minimum compensation for a victim in the situation referred to in the first question.3. It is for the contracting parties to determine whether, and to what extent, the compensation covered by compulsory third-party insurance under the Directives should be adjusted by reference to any entitlement of a victim to compensation from other sources.