CELEX: C2002/144/32
Language: en
Date: 2002-06-15 00:00:00
Title: Case C-125/02: Action brought on 5 April 2002 by European Parliament against HDI International (HDI)

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.
 ---pagebreak--- C 144/20               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        15.6.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
                                                                                its obligations under that directive, in particular Article 27
1.    declare null and void the terminations of guarantee                       thereof;
      notified by HDI on 30 October and 13 and 20 November
      2001;                                                               —     order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
2.    order HDI to pay damages amounting to EUR 44 556,84
      to offset the expenditure incurred by the Parliament in
      respect of additional insurance cover to replace the                Pleas in law and main arguments
      guarantees wrongfully terminated by the defendant and
      all other connected expenditure, together with interest
      calculated at the legal rate of interest, it being understood       The time-limit for transposition, extended by one year on
      that all accidents occurring during 2002 will be declared           account of the specific characteristics of Belgium’s electricity
      to HDI on the basis of the policies wrongfully terminated;          network, expired on 19 February 2000, but Belgium has not
                                                                          adopted all the requisite measures, particularly as regards the
                                                                          appointment of the network manager (as provided for in
3.    order the defendant to pay the costs.                               Article 10 of the Belgian Law on the organisation of the
                                                                          electricity market).
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           (1) OJ L 27 of 30.1.1997, p. 20.
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
forward in Case C-123/02.
                                                                          Appeal brought on 8 April 2002 by Bernhard Schulte
                                                                          against the judgment delivered on 7 February 2002 by the
                                                                          Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities in Case T-261/94 between
                                                                          Bernhard Schulte and the Council of the European Union
                                                                              and the Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 8 April 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                             Belgium                                                              (Case C-128/02 P)
                         (Case C-126/02)                                                           (2002/C 144/34)
                         (2002/C 144/33)
                                                                          An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 February 2002
                                                                          by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities in Case T-261/94 between Bernhard
                                                                          Schulte and the Council of the European Union and the
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before               Commission of the European Communities (1) was brought
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 April               before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       8 April 2002 by Bernhard Schulte, represented by Reinhard
represented by R. Tricot, acting as Agent, with an address for            Freise, Rechtsanwalt and Notar, Salzkotten.
service in Luxembourg.
                                                                          The appellant claims that the Court should:
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:                                                         —     set aside the judgment under appeal;
—     declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations         —     order the respondents to pay the appellant compensation,
      and administrative measures necessary in order to comply                  quantified by him to be at least DEM 30 000, plus interest
      with Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament                        of 5 % per annum from 1 December 1989, for the
      and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning                         damage suffered by him as a result of the unlawful refusal
      common rules for the internal market in electricity (1), or               to grant him the reference delivery quantities for which
      at any rate by failing to communicate the same to the                     he applied.