CELEX: C2004/035/01
Language: en
Date: 2004-02-07 00:00:00
Title: 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)

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                                     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
                       (Fifth Chamber)                                         respect of the use of motor vehicles is to be interpreted as
                                                                               meaning that:
                     of 4 December 2003
                                                                               —     A body may be regarded as authorised by a Member State
                                                                                     within the meaning of that provision where its obligation
in Case C-63/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                             to provide compensation to victims of damage or injury
the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s                                 caused by unidentified or insufficiently insured vehicles
Bench Division): Samuel Sidney Evans v The Secretary of                              derives from an agreement concluded between that body
State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions,                                and a public authority of the Member State, provided that
             and The Motor Insurers’ Bureau (1)                                      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
(Approximation of laws — Directive 84/5/EEC — Compul-                                apply directly to that body.
sory insurance against civil liability in respect of motor
vehicles — Damage or injury caused by unidentified or
insufficiently insured vehicles — Protection of victims —                      —     Procedural arrangements such as those adopted in the
Defective transposition of the directive — Liability of the                          United Kingdom are sufficient to provide the protection to
                   Member State concerned)                                           which victims of damage or injury caused by unidentified
                                                                                     or insufficiently insured vehicles are entitled under Direc-
                                                                                     tive 84/5.
                        (2004/C 35/01)
                                                                               —     The compensation awarded for damage or injuries caused
                  (Language of the case: English)                                    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
In Case C-63/01, Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                         down the rules to be applied for that purpose.
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 compensation awarded for damage or injury caused
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the                        by an unidentified or insufficiently insured vehicle, paid
Regions, and The Motor Insurers’ Bureau, on the interpretation                       by the body authorised for that purpose, is not required to
of Article 1(4) of the Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of                          include reimbursement of the costs incurred by victims in
30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the                             connection with the processing of their application for
Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in                       compensation except to the extent to which such reim-
respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17), the                       bursement is necessary to safeguard the rights derived by
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur),                            victims from Directive 84/5 in conformity with the
acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward                         principles of equivalence and effectiveness. It is for the
and S. von Bahr, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,                     national court to consider whether that is the case under
Principal Administrator, Registrar, has given a judgment on                          the procedural arrangements adopted in the Member State
4 December 2003, in which it has ruled:                                              concerned.
 ---pagebreak--- 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         Is Article 6(2) of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 of
      existing compensation system discloses a defect in transposition     the Association Council, set up by the Agreement establishing
      of Directive 84/5 and if that defect has adversely affected Mr       an Association between the European Economic Community
      Evans, to determine whether the breach of that obligation of         and Turkey, on the development of the Association (herein-
      transposition is sufficiently serious.                               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
(1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.                                                 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)
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tampereen
                            (2004/C 35/02)                                 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
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                                         (Case C-470/03)
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:
                                                                                                    (2004/C 35/04)
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 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-                   (1) Is there a measure having equivalent effect to quantitative
richtshof by order of that Court of 4 september 2003 in                          restrictions within the meaning of Article 28 EC, or a
    the complaint proceedings brought by Ergül Dogan                             measure which should be abstained from under the
                                                                                 second paragraph of Article 10 EC, if an expert official
                           (Case C-383/03)                                       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
                            (2004/C 35/03)                                       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
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           way that his statements, direct or repeated by others, on
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichtsh-                       the hazard to health and even to life of the machinery
of (Administrative Court, Austria) of 4 September 2003,                          manufactured and marketed by a specified manufacturer
received at the Court Registry on 12 September 2003, for a                       which is the subject of the market supervision case may
preliminary ruling in the complaint proceedings brought by                       give the machinery negative publicity and affect its
Ergül Dogan on the following question:                                           marketing?