CELEX: C2001/118/19
Language: en
Date: 2001-04-21 00:00:00
Title: Case C-63/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of 17 May 2000, in the case of Samuel Sidney Evans against 1) Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and 2) Motor Insurers' Bureau

C 118/12              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      21.4.2001
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  b)   if the answer to question (a) is yes, from what date
                                                                                  and on what basis should such interest be calculated?
—     order the defendant to repay, to the Commission, EUR
      263 656 together with interest as from 14 July 1999               2.   On the proper interpretation of Article 1(4) of the Second
      until actual payment;                                                  Motor Insurance Directive, in circumstances where the
                                                                             compensating body itself has an obligation to investigate
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                  the victim’s injury and loss (and to incur the costs thereof,
                                                                             including the cost of medical and other reports):
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              a)   must the arrangements concerning the provision of
                                                                                  compensation by the body include provision for the
The action, brought on the basis of an arbitration clause, seeks                  payment of the costs incurred by a victim in
the repayment of sums of money advanced in the context of                         preparing and making his application to that body
Contract No 70317, signed on 13 November 1996, in the                             for compensation?
context of the 16:9 Action Plan to promote the broadcast of
high-definition television programmes in Europe.                             b)   if the answer to question (a) is yes, on what basis are
                                                                                  those costs to be calculated in a case where that
The beneficiary, within the period laid down in the contract,                     body has made an offer to the victim in excess of
broadcast only 43 hours and 20 minutes of programmes in                           the amount that he finally recovers, which offer the
16:9 format instead of the 500 hours offered and contracted                       victim declined to accept?
for. The Commission therefore decided to terminate the
contract, governed by Belgian law, for breach of contract by            3.   On the proper interpretation of Article 1(4) of the Second
the defendant.                                                               Motor Insurance Directive, if the victim’s application for
                                                                             compensation is determined by a body that is not a
                                                                             court, must he have a full right to appeal against that
                                                                             determination to a court, on both the facts and the law,
                                                                             rather than an appeal to an independent arbitrator having
                                                                             the following principal characteristics:
                                                                             i)   the victim may appeal to the arbitrator on both the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                           facts and the law;
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, by
order of that court of 17 May 2000, in the case of
                                                                             ii)  when giving notice of appeal, the victim may make
Samuel Sidney Evans against 1) Secretary of State for the
                                                                                  further representations and adduce further evidence
Environment, Transport and the Regions and 2) Motor
                                                                                  to the compensating body upon which the compen-
                        Insurers’ Bureau
                                                                                  sating body may alter its award prior to the appeal;
                         (Case C-63/01)                                      iii) the victim is provided in advance with a copy of all
                                                                                  the material to be provided to the arbitrator and is
                        (2001/C 118/19)                                           given the opportunity to add any material that he
                                                                                  wishes in response;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                        iv)  the arbitrator makes an award, without an oral
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, of 17 May                      hearing, in which he or she decides what award the
2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 13 February                     compensating body ought to make and gives reasons
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Samuel Sidney                       for that decision;
Evans against 1) Secretary of State for the Environment,
Transport and the Regions and 2) Motor Insurers’ Bureau, on                  v)   if the victim is dissatisfied, he is entitled to appeal
the following questions:                                                          from the arbitrator to the Courts but he may do so
                                                                                  only on the grounds of serious irregularity affecting
1.    On the proper interpretation of Council Directive                           the arbitration or on a question of law (including
      84/5/EEC (1) of 30th December 1983 on the approxi-                          whether there was any evidence to support any
      mation of the laws of the Member States relating to                         particular conclusion of the arbitrator or whether
      insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of                  any particular conclusion was one to which no
      motor vehicles (‘the Second Motor Insurance Directive’):                    arbitrator could reasonably come upon the evi-
                                                                                  dence), and in the case of an appeal on a question of
      a)    must the arrangements concerning the provision of                     law, permission to appeal must be obtained from
            compensation by the body established or authorised                    the Court which will not be given unless the decision
            pursuant to Article 1(4) include provision for the                    of the arbitrator is obviously wrong and it is just
            payment of interest on the sums found to be payable                   and proper in all the circumstances for the Court to
            for the damage to property or personal injuries?                      determine the question.
 ---pagebreak--- 21.4.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 118/13
4.   If the answer to questions 1(a) and/or 2(a) and/or 3 is                  Republic has failed to transpose general minimum
     Yes, has a Member State duly authorised a body under                     requirements and failed to ensure the protection of
     Article 1(4) of the Second Motor Insurance Directive                     workers and thus failed to fulfil its obligations under
     when an existing body has the task of providing compen-                  Article 4(1) and 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.8 of Annex I; and
     sation to victims pursuant only to an agreement with the
     relevant authority of the Member State that does not               —     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
     correspond to the Second Motor Insurance Directive in
     those respects, and:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
     a)     that agreement creates a legal obligation owed to
            the relevant authority of the Member State to
            provide compensation to victims which is directly           The Commission finds that none of the documents referred to
            enforceable by the relevant authority and does not          by the Italian authorities contains provisions which correspond
            give such victims a directly enforceable legal right to     to certain points of Annex I to Directive 89/655/EEC, namely,
            claim against that body, but the victim may apply to        point 2.1, the second sentence of point 2.2, the second
            the Court for an order that the authority should            subparagraph of point 2.3 and the second subparagraph of
            enforce the agreement if the authority were to fail to      point 2.8.
            do so; and
                                                                        The Commission therefore concludes that the Italian Republic
     b)     that body carries out that obligation by accepting
                                                                        has not implemented the relevant provisions of Directive
            and paying claims from victims in accordance with
                                                                        89/655, thus failing to fulfil its obligations under Community
            that agreement; and
                                                                        law.
     c)     the Member State considered in good faith that the
            provision of that agreement gave at least as good
                                                                        (1) OJ 1989 L 393, p. 13.
            protection to victims as the requirements of the            (2) OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1.
            Second Motor Insurance Directive?
5.   If the answer to any of questions 1(a) or 2(a) or 3 is Yes,
     and/or if the answer to question 4 is No, does a failure to
     comply with the Second Motor Insurance Directive in
     that respect constitute a sufficiently serious breach by the
     Member State to give rise to liability for damages as a
     matter of Community law if it is established that such
     damage was caused?                                                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
                                                                        Verwaltungssenat by order of 7 February 2001 in the
                                                                                    appeals brought by Dr Manfred Hückel
(1) OJ L 8, 11.1.1984, p. 17.
                                                                                          (Cases C-66/01 to C-74/01)
                                                                                                 (2001/C 118/21)
Action brought on 14 February 2001 by the Commission                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                European Communities by order of 7 February 2001 by
                                                                        the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg (Independent
                          (Case C-65/01)                                Administrative Chamber, Salzburg), which was received at the
                                                                        Court Registry on 14 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling
                         (2001/C 118/20)                                in the appeals brought by Dr Manfred Hückel on the following
                                                                        questions:
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 February             1.    Does Article 2(1)(b) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                           18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of
represented by Antonio Aresu, acting as Agent.                                the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation
                                                                              and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   consumer (now consolidated in European Parliament and
                                                                              Council Directive 2000/13/EC of 20 March 2000 — OJ
—    Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force                   2000 L 109, p. 29), under which — subject to Com-
     within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and                   munity provisions applicable to natural mineral waters
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with                       and to foodstuffs for particular nutritional uses — the
     Council Directive 89/655/EEC (1) of 30 November 1989                     labelling and methods used may not attribute to any
     concerning the minimum safety and health requirements                    foodstuff the property of preventing, treating or curing a
     for the use of work equipment by workers at work                         human disease, or suggest that it possesses such proper-
     (second individual Directive within the meaning of                       ties, preclude national legislation which makes it an
     Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (2), the Italian                  offence when marketing foodstuffs: