CELEX: 62001CJ0063
Language: en
Date: 2003-12-04
Title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December 2003. # Samuel Sidney Evans v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and The Motor Insurers' Bureau. # Reference for a preliminary ruling: High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division - United Kingdom. # 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. # Case C-63/01.

Case C-63/01 Samuel Sidney EvansvSecretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the RegionsandMotors Insurers' Bureau(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division)
         
            «(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)»
            
               
                  Opinion of Advocate General Alber delivered on 24 October 2002 
                     
               I - 0000 
               
            
                   
               
               
            
               
                  Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 4 December 2003  
                     
               I - 0000 
               
            
                   
               
               
            
            Summary of the Judgment
         
         
                  1..
                  Approximation of laws – Civil liability insurance in respect of motor vehicles – Directive 84/5 – Compensation for damage or injury caused by an unidentified or insufficiently insured vehicle – Obligation to pay compensation attaching to a body under an agreement concluded with a public authority of the Member State – Conditions(Council Directive 84/5, Art. 1(4)) 
         
                  2..
                  Approximation of laws – Civil liability insurance in respect of motor vehicles – Directive 84/5 – Protection of victims – Adequacy of procedural arrangements under national law – Conditions(Council Directive 84/5, Art. 1(4)) 
         
                  3..
                  Approximation of laws – Civil liability insurance in respect of motor vehicles – Directive 84/5 – Compensation for damage or injury caused by an unidentified or insufficiently insured vehicle – Compensation taking account of the effluxion of time until actual payment of the sums awarded – Determination of arrangements the responsibility of the Member States(Council Directive 84/5, Art. 1(4)) 
         
                  4..
                  Approximation of laws – Civil liability insurance in respect of motor vehicles – Directive 84/5 – Compensation for damage or injury caused by an unidentified or insufficiently insured vehicle – Reimbursement of costs incurred by the victim – Conditions – Assessment by the national court(Council Directive 84/5, Art. 1(4)) 
         
                  5..
                  Community law – Rights conferred on individuals – Breach by a Member State – Obligation to make good damage caused to individuals – Conditions – Sufficiently serious breach – To be determined by the national court  
         
         1.
          A body may be regarded as authorised by a Member State within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the second Directive 84/5 on
         the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of
         motor vehicles where its obligation to pay compensation to victims for damage or injury caused by unidentified or insufficiently
         insured vehicles derives from an agreement concluded between that body and a public authority of the Member State, provided
         that the agreement is interpreted and applied as obliging the body to provide victims with the compensation guaranteed to
         them by the second directive and provided that victims may apply directly to that body. see para. 37, operative part 1
         
         2.
          Procedural arrangements under national law that do not render it impossible or excessively difficult in practice to exercise
         the right to compensation and that thus comply with the principle of effectiveness are sufficient to provide the protection
         to which victims of damage or injury caused by unidentified or insufficiently insured vehicles are entitled under the second
         Directive 84/5 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect
         of the use of motor vehicles. see paras 54, 58, operative part 1
         
         3.
          Article 1(4) of the second Directive 84/5 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against
         civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles must be interpreted as meaning that the compensation awarded for damage
         or injuries caused 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 down the rules to be applied for that purpose. see para. 71, operative part 1
         
         4.
          Article 1(4) of the second Directive 84/5 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against
         civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles must be interpreted as meaning that the compensation awarded for damage
         or injuries caused by an unidentified or insufficiently insured vehicle, paid by the body authorised for that purpose, is
         not required to include reimbursement of the costs incurred by victims in connection with the processing of their application
         for compensation except to the extent to which such reimbursement is necessary to safeguard the rights derived by victims
         from the second directive in conformity with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness. It is for the national court
         to consider whether that is the case under the procedural arrangements adopted in the Member State concerned. see para. 78, operative part 1
         
         5.
          The conditions to be satisfied for a Member State to be required to make reparation for loss and damage caused to individuals
         as a result of breaches of Community law for which the State is responsible are threefold: the rule of law infringed must
         be intended to confer rights on individuals; the breach must be sufficiently serious; and there must be a direct causal link
         between the breach of the obligation incumbent on the State and the loss or damage sustained by the injured parties. As regards the question whether a breach is sufficiently serious, all the factors which characterise the situation must be
         taken into account. Those factors include, in particular, the clarity and precision of the rule infringed, whether the infringement
         or the damage caused was intentional or involuntary, whether any error of law was excusable or inexcusable, and the fact that
         the position taken by a Community institution may have contributed towards the adoption or maintenance of national measures
         or practices contrary to Community law. Those criteria must in principle be applied by the national courts in accordance with
         the guidelines laid down by the Court. It is incumbent on the national court, if examination of the existing compensation system discloses a defect in transposition
         of the second Directive 84/5 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 if that defect has adversely affected the person concerned, to determine whether
         the breach of that obligation of transposition is sufficiently serious. see paras 83, 86-88, operative part 2
      

      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
            
            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)4 December 2003  (1)
         
         
            
         
               ((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))
               
            In Case C-63/01, 
            REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC 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 Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions,  and  The Motor Insurers' Bureau, 
            
            
            on the interpretation of Article 1(4) of the 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 (OJ 1984
            L 8, p. 17),
            
            THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),,
            
            composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and S. von Bahr, Judges, 
            
            Advocate General: S. Alber, Registrar: L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, 
            
            
            after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of: 
               
               
               ─
               Samuel Evans, by R. Plender QC and D. Broatch, Barrister, 
               
               
               ─
               the Motor Insurers' Bureau, by D. O'Brien QC and F. Randolph, Barrister, 
               
               
               ─
               the United Kingdom Government, by G. Amodeo, acting as Agent, P. Roth QC and H. Davies, Barrister, 
               
               
               ─
               the Commission of the European Communities, by C. Tufvesson, C. Ladenburger and M. Shotter, acting as Agents, 
               
               
            
            
            having regard to the Report for the Hearing,
            
            after hearing the oral observations of S. Evans, represented by R. Plender and D. Broatch, of the Motor Insurers' Bureau,
               represented by D. O'Brien and F. Randolph, of the United Kingdom Government, represented by J.E. Collins, acting as Agent,
               P. Roth and H. Davies, and of the Commission, represented by M. Shotter, at the hearing on 11 July 2002,
            
            
            after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 24 October 2002, 
         gives the following
         
         
         Judgment
         1
            
         By order of 17 May 2000, received at the Court on 13 February 2001, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's
         Bench Division, referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC five questions on the interpretation of
         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 respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17, hereinafter  
         the Second Directive). 
         
         
         2
            
         Those questions were raised in proceedings between Samuel Evans and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport
         and the Regions (hereinafter  
         the Secretary of State) and the Motor Insurers' Bureau (hereinafter  
         the MIB) concerning compensation for injuries suffered by Mr Evans in a road traffic accident involving an unidentified vehicle.
         
         
            
               Legal background
            Community legislation
         
         
         3
            
         Article 3(1) of 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 (OJ, English Special Edition, Series I, 1972 (I), p. 360, hereinafter  
         the First Directive), provides: 1. Each Member State shall, subject to Article 4, take all appropriate measures to ensure that civil liability in respect
         of the use of vehicles normally based in its territory is covered by insurance. The extent of the liability covered and the
         terms and conditions of the cover shall be determined on the basis of these measures.
         
         
         4
            
         Article 1 of the Second Directive is worded as follows: 
         
         1.
          The insurance referred to in Article 3(1) of Directive 72/166/EEC shall cover compulsorily both damage to property and personal
         injuries.
         
         
         2.
          Without prejudice to any higher guarantees which Member States may lay down, each Member State shall require that the amounts
         for which such insurance is compulsory are at least:
         
         
         
         ─
            in the case of personal injury, ECU 350 000 where there is only one victim; where more than one victim is involved in a single
            claim, this amount shall be multiplied by the number of victims, 
         
         
         
         ─
            in the case of damage to property ECU 100 000 per claim, whatever the number of victims. 
         Member States may, in place of the above minimum amounts, provide for a minimum amount of ECU 500 000 for personal injury
         where more than one victim is involved in a single claim or, in the case of personal injury and damage to property, a minimum
         overall amount of ECU 600 000 per claim whatever the number of victims or the nature of the damage....
         
         4.
          Each Member State shall set up or authorise a body with the task of providing compensation, at least up to the limits of the
         insurance obligation for damage to property or personal injuries caused by an unidentified vehicle or a vehicle for which
         the insurance obligation provided for in paragraph 1 has not been satisfied. This provision shall be without prejudice to
         the right of the Member States to regard compensation by that body as subsidiary or non-subsidiary and the right to make provision
         for the settlement of claims between that body and the person or persons responsible for the accident and other insurers or
         social security bodies required to compensate the victim in respect of the same accident.
         The victim may in any case apply directly to the body which, on the basis of information provided at its request by the victim,
         shall be obliged to give him a reasoned reply regarding the payment of any compensation.However, Member States may exclude the payment of compensation by that body in respect of persons who voluntarily entered
         the vehicle which caused the damage or injury when the body can prove that they knew it was uninsured.Member States may limit or exclude the payment of compensation by that body in the event of damage to property by an unidentified
         vehicle.They may also authorise, in the case of damage to property caused by an uninsured vehicle, an excess of not more than ECU
         500 for which the victim may be responsible.Furthermore, each Member State shall apply its laws, regulations and administrative provisions to the payment of compensation
         by this body, without prejudice to any other practice which is more favourable to the victim.
         National legislation
         
         
         5
            
         In the United Kingdom, Article 1(4) of the Second Directive was implemented by means of a number of agreements between the
         Secretary of State and the MIB. 
         
         
         6
            
         The MIB is a private-law entity of which all insurance companies which offer motor vehicle insurance in the United Kingdom
         are members.  Its main purpose is to pay compensation to victims of accidents caused by uninsured or untraced drivers. 
         
         
         7
            
         The compensation scheme, which was set up before the United Kingdom acceded to the Community, is based on two series of agreements
         between the Secretary of State and the MIB: the Motor Insurers' Bureau (Compensation of Victims of Uninsured Drivers) Agreement
         and the Motor Insurers' Bureau (Compensation of Victims of Untraced Drivers) Agreement (hereinafter  
         the Agreement). 
         
         
         8
            
         The provisions of the Agreement relevant to this case are as follows: 
         
         
         ─
            The Agreement is to apply to any case in which an application is made to the MIB for a payment in respect of the death of
            or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use of a motor vehicle on a road in Great Britain where, subject
            to certain conditions which are not relevant to this case, the applicant for the payment is unable to trace any person responsible
            for the death or injury (clause 1).
         
         
         
         ─
            On any application in a case to which the Agreement applies, the MIB is to award payment of an amount which is to be assessed
            in the same way as a court, applying as appropriate the laws in force, would assess the damages which the applicant would
            have been entitled to recover from the untraced person (clause 3).
         
         
         
         ─
            The MIB must cause any application for a payment under the Agreement to be investigated and decide whether to make an award
            (clause 7).
         
         
         
         ─
            The MIB is required to give the applicant a reasoned reply regarding the payment of any compensation.  Where the MIB decides
            to make an award, it must notify the applicant of the amount it proposes to pay and the way in which that amount has been
            calculated.  Where the applicant decides to accept the award, the MIB must pay to the applicant the amount of the award (clauses
            9 and 10).
         
         
         
         ─
            The applicant is to have a right of appeal to an arbitrator against any decision of the MIB (clause 11).
         
         
         
         ─
            Before lodging an appeal, the applicant may make comments to the MIB on its decision and may supply further evidence relating
            to the application.  The MIB may investigate that new evidence and must inform the applicant of the result of such investigation
            and of any change in its decision (clause 13).
         
         
         
         ─
            On appeal, the arbitrator is to decide whether the MIB should make an award under the Agreement and, if so, the amount which
            it should award to the applicant (clause 16).
         
         
         
         ─
            The arbitrator is to be selected from two panels of Queen's Counsel appointed respectively by the Lord Chancellor and the
            Lord Advocate (clause 18).
         
         
         
         ─
            The arbitrator is to decide the appeal on the documents submitted to him, although he may ask the MIB to make any further
            investigation which he considers desirable, and the applicant may submit comments on the findings of such investigation (clause
            17).
         
         
         
         ─
            Each party to the appeal is to bear its own costs (clause 21).  The MIB is to pay the arbitrator's fees, except where it appears
            to the arbitrator that there were no reasonable grounds for the appeal, in which case he may decide that his fee ought to
            be paid by the applicant (clause 22).
         
         
         
         
         9
            
         The Agreement makes no express provision for payment of interest on the compensation awarded or for reimbursement of costs
         incurred in the proceedings before the MIB. 
         The main proceedings and the questions referred to the Court
         
         10
            
         On 25 December 1991, Mr Evans was struck by a vehicle which was never traced, causing him physical injury. 
         
         
         11
            
         On 11 June 1992, Mr Evans submitted a request for compensation under the Agreement. 
         
         
         12
            
         On 11 January 1996, the MIB informed Mr Evans that it had decided to make an award of GBP 50 000. 
         
         
         13
            
         Mr Evans appealed against that decision. 
         
         
         14
            
         On 27 August 1996 the arbitrator made her award.  She considered that Mr Evans's damages on a full liability basis would have
         been GBP 58 286 but that that figure should be reduced by 20% by reason of his contributory negligence, resulting in an award
         of GBP 46 629.  Taking into account certain evidence, the arbitrator also took the view that Mr Evans had been dishonest and
         therefore ordered him to pay the fees of the arbitration.  She did not award him interest on the damages. 
         
         
         15
            
         The MIB paid Mr Evans the sum of GBP 46 629, together with his representative's costs of GBP 770 and an  
          ex gratia  payment of GBP 150, plus VAT. 
         
         
         16
            
         In December 1996, Mr Evans was granted leave to appeal to the High Court against the arbitrator's refusal to award him interest.
          His appeal was dismissed.  In September 1998, the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) dismissed a further
         appeal by Mr Evans.  In January 1999, the House of Lords refused his application for leave to appeal. 
         
         
         17
            
         On 25 February 1999, Mr Evans commenced proceedings against the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the
         Regions, who was responsible for the implementation of the First and Second Directives by the United Kingdom.  Mr Evans submitted,
         in essence, that the United Kingdom had failed to implement the Second Directive or had done so inadequately in the following
         respects:  
         
         
         ─
            the Agreement makes no provision for payment of interest on the damages awarded;
         
         
         
         ─
            the Agreement also fails to make provision for payment of the costs incurred by victims in proceedings for compensation;
         
         
         
         ─
            victims' access to court is insufficient in that they have a full right of appeal against the determination of the MIB only
            to an arbitrator and not to a court;
         
         
         
         ─
            the United Kingdom has not duly authorised a body to provide compensation for victims of untraced drivers, as required by
            the Second Directive, since the Agreement does not create rights which such victims can enforce directly against the MIB.
         
         
         
         
         18
            
         Mr Evans maintains that those defects in the transposition of the Second Directive adversely affected him and constitute a
         sufficiently grave and manifest breach of Community law to found a right to recover damages from the Secretary of State. 
         
         
         19
            
         It was in those circumstances that the High Court of Justice stayed proceedings and referred the following questions to the
         Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: 
         
         1.
          On the proper interpretation of 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 Second Motor Insurance Directive): 
         
         (a)
         must the arrangements concerning the provision of compensation by the body established or authorised pursuant to Article 1(4)
         include provision for the payment of interest on the sums found to be payable for the damage to property or personal injuries?
         
         
         
         (b)
         if the answer to question (a) is yes, from what date and on what basis should such interest be calculated? 
         
         
         
         2.
          On the proper interpretation of Article 1(4) of the Second Motor Insurance Directive, in circumstances where the compensating
         body itself has an obligation to investigate the victim's injury and loss (and to incur the costs thereof, including the cost
         of medical and other reports): 
         
         (a)
         must the arrangements concerning the provision of compensation by the body include provision for the payment of the costs
         incurred by a victim in preparing and making his application to that body for compensation? 
         
         
         (b)
         if the answer to question (a) is yes, on what basis are those costs to be calculated in a case where that body has made an
         offer to the victim in excess of the amount that he finally recovers, which offer the victim declined to accept? 
         
         
         
         3.
          On the proper interpretation of Article 1(4) of the Second 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 facts and the law; 
         
         
         (ii)
         when giving notice of appeal, the victim may make further representations and adduce further evidence to the compensating
         body upon which the compensating body may alter its award prior to the appeal; 
         
         
         (iii)
         the victim is provided in advance with a copy of all the material to be provided to the arbitrator and is given the opportunity
         to add any material that he wishes in response; 
         
         
         (iv)
         the arbitrator makes an award, without an oral hearing, in which he or she decides what award the compensating body ought
         to make and gives reasons for that decision; 
         
         
         (v)
         if the victim is dissatisfied, he is entitled to appeal from the arbitrator to the Courts but he may do so only on the grounds
         of serious irregularity affecting the arbitration or on a question of law (including whether there was any evidence to support
         any particular conclusion of the arbitrator or whether any particular conclusion was one to which no arbitrator could reasonably
         come upon the evidence), and in the case of an appeal on a question of law, permission to appeal must be obtained from the
         Court which will not be given unless the decision of the arbitrator is obviously wrong and it is just and proper in all the
         circumstances for the Court to determine the question. 
         
         
         
         4.
          If the answer to questions l(a) and/or 2(a) and/or 3 is yes, has a Member State duly authorised a body under Article 1(4)
         of the Second Motor Insurance Directive when an existing body has the task of providing compensation to victims pursuant only
         to an agreement with the relevant authority of the Member State that does not correspond to the Second Motor Insurance Directive
         in those respects, and: 
         
         (a)
         that agreement creates a legal obligation owed to the relevant authority of the Member State to provide compensation to victims
         which is directly enforceable by the relevant authority and does not give such victims a directly enforceable legal right
         to claim against that body, but the victim may apply to the Court for an order that the authority should enforce the agreement
         if the authority were to fail to do so; and 
         
         
         (b)
         that body carries out that obligation by accepting and paying claims from victims in accordance with that agreement; and 
         
         
         (c)
         the Member State considered in good faith that the provision of that agreement gave at least as good protection to victims
         as the requirements of the Second Motor Insurance Directive? 
         
         
         
         5.
          If the answer to any of questions l(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?
         
         The questions referred to the Court
         
         20
            
         The questions referred to the Court, which it is appropriate to consider together, raise a number of problems concerning the
         nature of the body which the Member States are required to establish in order to implement the Second Directive (fourth question),
         the remedies which must be available to victims of damage or injury caused by unidentified vehicles or vehicles for which
         the insurance obligation has not been satisfied (hereinafter  
         insufficiently insured vehicles) (third and fourth questions), the need to provide for interest to be payable on sums paid to victims by the abovementioned
         body (first question), the need to provide for reimbursement of costs incurred by victims pursuing claims for compensation
         (second question) and the possible liability of the Member State concerned for failure to transpose the Second Directive correctly
         (fifth question). 
         Preliminary observations
         
         
         21
            
         It is appropriate, first, to consider the nature of the system established by the Second Directive for the benefit of victims
         of damage or injury caused by unidentified or insufficiently insured vehicles. 
         
         
         22
            
         In contrast to victims of damage or injury caused by an identified vehicle, victims injured by an unidentified vehicle are
         normally unable to enforce their claims in legal proceedings for compensation because of the impossibility of identifying
         the person against whom proceedings should be brought. 
         
         
         23
            
         In the case of an insufficiently insured vehicle, even if the victim is able to identify the person against whom legal proceedings
         should be brought, such proceedings are often liable to be fruitless because the defendant does not have the requisite financial
         resources to comply with the judgment given against him, or even to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings. 
         
         
         24
            
         It is against that background that the first subparagraph of Article 1(4) of the Second Directive provides that each Member
         State is to set up or authorise a body with the task of providing compensation, at least up to the limits of the insurance
         obligation for damage to property or personal injuries caused by an unidentified or insufficiently insured vehicle. 
         
         
         25
            
         The insurance obligation laid down in Article 3(1) of the First Directive covers civil liability in respect of the use of
         vehicles, at least on the basis of the minimum amounts of cover set by the Community legislature. 
         
         
         26
            
         As regards the extent of the insurance obligation, the fifth recital in the preamble to the Second Directive indicates that
         the amounts of compulsory insurance cover must in any event guarantee victims  
         adequate compensation. 
         
         
         27
            
         It is thus clear that the Community legislature's intention was to entitle victims of damage or injury caused by unidentified
         or insufficiently insured vehicles to protection equivalent to, and as effective as, that available to persons injured by
         identified and insured vehicles. 
         
         
         28
            
         It must nevertheless be emphasised that, to meet the requirements of the Second Directive, the body responsible for awarding
         compensation does not necessarily have to be placed, as far as civil liability is concerned, on the same footing as a defendant
         such as the driver of an identified and sufficiently insured vehicle. 
         The nature of the body referred to in Article 1(4) of the Second Directive
         Observations submitted to the Court
         
         
         29
            
         According to Mr Evans, the Second Directive has not been implemented in the United Kingdom with the binding force necessary
         to satisfy the principle of legal certainty.  Apart from the fact that the compensation provided for by the Agreement is not
         the same in all respects as that provided for by that directive, victims have to rely on an agreement to which they are not
         parties and on the MIB's practice of failing to take before the courts the point that the Agreement confers no rights on victims
         which can be enforced against it. 
         
         
         30
            
         The MIB and the United Kingdom Government point out that it is for the Member States to choose the form of the measures to
         be adopted for implementing a directive and that, where national provisions already in force comply with those of the directive,
         they do not need to be amended.  In their view, the existing system enables victims of damage or injury caused by unidentified
         vehicles to make application to the MIB directly. 
         
         
         31
            
         In the Commission's view, the MIB appears to be an authorised body within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the Second Directive
         since it has been entrusted by the public authorities with the role provided for in the Second Directive; it not only has
         the capacity to pay, but is obliged to pay, compensation to victims; victims have the right to apply directly to that body;
         and the body is obliged to provide a reasoned reply.  At the hearing, however, it expressed doubts as to the possibility of
         interpreting and applying the Agreement in such a way as to ensure that victims enjoy all the rights conferred on them by
         the Second Directive. 
         Findings of the Court
         
         
         32
            
         The first subparagraph of Article 1(4) of the Second Directive contains no provision concerning the legal status of the body
         or the detailed arrangements for its authorisation. It expressly allows the Member States to regard compensation by the body
         as subsidiary and enables them to make provision for the settlement of claims between that body and those responsible for
         the accident and for relations with other insurers or social security bodies required to compensate the victim in respect
         of the same accident. 
         
         
         33
            
         The second subparagraph of Article 1(4) makes it clear, however, that a victim of damage or injury caused by an unidentified
         or insufficiently insured vehicle must be able to apply directly to the authorised body responsible for paying compensation
         to him. 
         
         
         34
            
         The fact that the source of the obligation of the body in question lies in an agreement concluded between it and a public
         authority is immaterial, provided that that agreement is interpreted and applied as obliging that body to provide victims
         with the compensation guaranteed to them by the Second Directive and as enabling victims to address themselves directly to
         the body responsible for providing such compensation. 
         
         
         35
            
         As to whether it is sufficient, for the purposes of transposing the Second Directive, to rely on an existing body, it must
         be borne in mind that, whilst legislative action on the part of each Member State is not necessarily required in order to
         implement a directive, it is essential for national law to guarantee that the national authorities will effectively apply
         the directive in full, that the legal position under national law should be sufficiently precise and clear and that individuals
         are made fully aware of all their rights and, where appropriate, may rely on them before the national courts (Case C-365/93
          
          Commission  v  
          Greece  [1995] ECR I-499, paragraph 9, and Case C-144/99  
          Commission  v  
          Netherlands  [2001] ECR I-3541, paragraph 17). 
         
         
         36
            
         As the Court has already made clear, the last-mentioned condition is of particular importance where the directive in question
         is intended to accord rights to nationals of other Member States (
          Commission  v  
          Greece , cited above, paragraph 9, and  
          Commission  v  
          Netherlands , cited above, paragraph 18).  That is the position in relation to the Second Directive, which is intended in particular,
         according to the fifth recital in its preamble, to guarantee victims adequate protection, irrespective of the Member State
         in which the accident occurred. 
         
         
         37
            
         In those circumstances, it must be held that a body may be regarded as authorised by a Member State within the meaning of
         Article 1(4) of the Second Directive where its obligation to provide compensation to victims of damage or injury caused by
         unidentified or insufficiently insured vehicles derives from an agreement concluded between that body and a public authority
         of the Member State, provided that the agreement is interpreted and applied as obliging the body to provide victims with the
         compensation guaranteed to them by the Second Directive and provided that victims may apply directly to that body. 
         The remedies available to victims
         Observations submitted to the Court
         
         
         38
            
         Mr Evans submits that the arbitration procedure under the Agreement does not comply with the requirements of the principle
         of effective judicial control, as developed in the case-law of the Court of Justice (Case 222/84  
          Johnston  [1986] ECR 1651, paragraphs 18 and 19), or those of the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention
         for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 (hereinafter  
         the ECHR).  The victim is not granted an oral hearing and can appeal against the arbitrator's award only on the ground of serious
         irregularity affecting the arbitration or on a question of law, and in the latter case leave to appeal must be obtained. 
         
         
         39
            
         Those procedural rules also constitute, in his view, a breach of the principle of equal treatment, which requires that the
         Member States afford to victims of damage or injury caused by unidentified vehicles the same judicial protection as that enjoyed
         by victims injured by vehicles which have been identified, and, in the United Kingdom, the latter are entitled to bring proceedings
         directly before a court. 
         
         
         40
            
         The MIB and the United Kingdom Government submit, as a preliminary point, that Article 1(4) of the Second Directive prescribes
         only minimum procedural requirements, namely that a victim of damage or injury caused by an unidentified vehicle must be able
         to apply directly to the body responsible for awarding compensation.  For the rest, the Second Directive refers to the legal
         systems of the Member States. 
         
         
         41
            
         The United Kingdom Government observes that the procedures adopted for dealing with an application for compensation submitted
         by victims of damage or injury caused by an unidentified vehicle, far from rendering impossible or excessively difficult the
         exercise of the rights accruing to victims under the directive, offer them multiple levels of protection.  A victim of damage
         or injury caused by an unidentified vehicle is, in certain respects, in a more favourable situation than a victim injured
         by an identified but uninsured vehicle, since the procedure available often makes it possible to settle the dispute in a speedier
         and less costly manner than by recourse to court proceedings. 
         
         
         42
            
         The MIB and the United Kingdom Government also contend that, according to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights,
         the question whether a procedure meets the requirements of Article 6 of the ECHR must be considered as a whole, including
         the role of any appellate court (see European Court of Human Rights,  
          Bryan  v  
          United Kingdom , judgment of 22 November 1995, Series A, No 335). 
         
         
         43
            
         In the Commission's view, it is for the Member States to ensure effective judicial control of the rights which the Second
         Directive is intended to confer on the victims of unidentified vehicles.  It considers the procedure established in the United
         Kingdom and concludes that application of the criteria developed by the European Court of Human Rights might disclose the
         existence of shortcomings in the system in force, particularly as regards the status of the arbitrator, the lack of any hearing
         to establish the facts and the limitations imposed on the right to appeal against the arbitration award. 
         Findings of the Court
         
         
         44
            
         The second subparagraph of Article 1(4) of the Second Directive confines itself to laying down minimum procedural requirements
         by providing that victims of damage or injury caused by unidentified or insufficiently insured vehicles must be able to apply
         directly to the body responsible for providing them with compensation (see paragraphs 32 to 34 of this judgment) and that
         that body is required to give a reasoned reply concerning the action taken by it.  According to the information available
         to the Court, clause 9 of the Agreement meets the latter obligation. 
         
         
         45
            
         It is settled case-law that in the absence of Community rules governing the matter it is for the domestic legal system of
         each Member State to designate the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction and to lay down the detailed procedural rules
         governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive from Community law, provided, however, that such rules
         are not less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (the principle of equivalence) and do not render virtually
         impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law (the principle of effectiveness) (see,
         in particular, Case C-120/97  
          Upjohn  [1999] ECR I-223, paragraph 32). 
         
         
         46
            
         As regards application of the principle of effectiveness, each case which raises the question whether a national procedural
         provision renders application of Community law impossible or excessively difficult must be analysed by reference to the role
         of that provision in the procedure, its progress and its special features, viewed as a whole, before the various national
         instances.  In the light of that analysis, the basic principles of the domestic judicial system, such as protection of the
         rights of the defence, the principle of legal certainty and the proper conduct of procedure, must, where appropriate, be taken
         into consideration (see Joined Cases C-430/93 and C-431/93  
          Van Schijndel and Van Veen  [1995] ECR I-4705, paragraph 19). 
         
         
         47
            
         According to the observations submitted to the Court, the procedure established by the Agreement comprises several phases.
         
         
         
         48
            
         It is to be observed at the outset that, although the MIB is not a court, it is nevertheless required to determine the amount
         of the compensation which it is to pay under the same conditions as those under which a court would, pursuant to the provisions
         in force in the United Kingdom, determine the amount of damages which a victim would be entitled to obtain from a person identified
         as responsible. 
         
         
         49
            
         Among the various arrangements for review provided for by the Agreement, the victim may, first, apply for re-examination of
         the decision taken by the MIB.  However, that application must be submitted to the MIB, which itself decides whether it is
         appropriate to amend its own decision. 
         
         
         50
            
         Second, the victim has a right of appeal to an arbitrator.  According to the information before the Court, the arbitrator
         is appointed under conditions which ensure that he is independent and that he makes his award after making his own assessment
         of the information in the file.  The file must contain, among other things, all the documents lodged by the victim and all
         comments made by the victim in connection with both the application for compensation and, if appropriate, the application
         for review.  The arbitrator may call on the MIB to undertake additional investigations, on which the victim is entitled to
         submit his comments. 
         
         
         51
            
         Third, under the general rules on arbitration laid down by the Arbitration Acts, the victim may, in certain cases, appeal
         against the award to the High Court of Justice.  That right of appeal is automatically available to a victim who alleges a
         serious irregularity affecting the arbitration.  That right is also available to the victim, albeit subject to leave being
         granted by the High Court, if he alleges infringement of a rule of law, which may include the question whether there was any
         evidence to support any particular conclusion of the arbitrator or whether any particular conclusion was one to which no arbitrator
         could reasonably have come upon the evidence considered. 
         
         
         52
            
         Fourth, a victim may, subject to obtaining leave from the competent court, subsequently appeal to the Court of Appeal and
         then to the House of Lords. 
         
         
         53
            
         As the United Kingdom Government observes, the procedure thus established by the Agreement gives the victim the advantages
         of speed and economy of legal costs.  The United Kingdom Government claimed, without being contradicted, that the bulk of
         the costs incurred in relation to applications for compensation and gathering of relevant evidence are borne by the MIB, which
         makes contact with all the witnesses to the accident to obtain statements from them and endeavours to obtain all necessary
         medical or other expert evidence. 
         
         
         54
            
         In the light of all the foregoing considerations, it must be held that the procedural arrangements laid down by the national
         law in question do not render it practically impossible or excessively difficult to exercise the right to compensation conferred
         on victims of damage or injury caused by unidentified or insufficiently insured vehicles by the Second Directive and thus
         comply with the principle of effectiveness referred to in paragraphs 45 and 46 of this judgment. 
         
         
         55
            
         In view of the objective pursued by the Second Directive which, as stated in paragraphs 21 to 28 of this judgment, is to provide
         a simple mechanism for compensating victims, it further appears that the cumulative effect of the possibilities of review
         available under the procedure established in the United Kingdom and also the practical advantages associated with that procedure
         confer on victims of damage or injury caused by unidentified or insufficiently insured vehicles a level of protection corresponding
         to that provided for by that directive. 
         
         
         56
            
         Nevertheless it is important to stress that the procedure established must guarantee that, both in dealings with the MIB and
         before the arbitrator, victims are made aware of any matter that might be used against them and have an opportunity to submit
         their comments thereon. 
         
         
         57
            
         It is for the national court to determine whether those conditions have been fulfilled in this case. 
         
         
         58
            
         Subject to that reservation, it must be held that procedural arrangements such as those adopted in the United Kingdom are
         sufficient to provide the protection to which victims of damage or injury caused by unidentified or insufficiently insured
         vehicles are entitled under the Second Directive. 
         Payment of interest on sums paid by way of compensation
         Observations of the Court
         
         
         59
            
         According to Mr Evans, a textual interpretation of Article 1(1) and (4) and Article 3(1) of the Second Directive shows that
         that directive requires victims of damage or injury caused by an unidentified vehicle and victims of damage or injury caused
         by identified and insured vehicles are treated in the same way.  Moreover, even if the Second Directive did not impose that
         rule, that obligation would stem from the general principle of equal treatment.  However, that requirement is not fulfilled
         in the United Kingdom.  In contrast to victims of identified and insured vehicles, victims of untraced vehicles do not obtain
         compensation that includes interest. 
         
         
         60
            
         Referring to the judgment in Case C-271/91  
          Marshall  [1993] ECR I-4367, paragraph 31, in which the Court held, with regard to discriminatory dismissal, that the award of interest
         must be regarded as an essential component of compensation, Mr Evans considers that that principle must apply to the compensation
         to be paid under the Second Directive to victims of damage or injury caused by unidentified vehicles. 
         
         
         61
            
         The MIB states, as a preliminary point, that, in English law, damages and interest are assessed by the courts at the time
         of judgment, taking into account any fluctuations in monetary value up to that point.  Section 35A of the Supreme Court Act
         1981 admittedly gave the courts the power, under certain conditions, to award interest on damages, but that power can be exercised
         only in court proceedings. 
         
         
         62
            
         The MIB and the United Kingdom Government submit that the aim of the two directives at issue is to provide specified minimum
         guarantees, but that they do not provide for uniformity in the legislation of the Member States.  Neither directive contains
         any provision relating to the financial components of the compensation or requires equal treatment as between victims of identified
         vehicles and victims of unidentified vehicles. 
         
         
         63
            
         The MIB and the United Kingdom Government also claim that there is no general principle of Community law that a requirement
         to pay a monetary amount by way of compensation due under Community law necessarily entails a requirement to pay interest.
         
         
         
         64
            
         The Commission refers to the absence, in both the First and Second Directives, of any express provision obliging the Member
         States to require the body responsible for paying compensation to victims of damage or injury caused by unidentified vehicles
         to pay interest to them.  However, on the basis of a purposive interpretation of that directive and having regard to the case-law
         of the Court relating to non-contractual liability of the Community (Case C-238/78  
          Ireks-Arkady  v  
          Council and Commission  [1979] ECR 2955, paragraph 20, and Case C-308/87  
          Grifoni  v  
          EAEC  [1994] ECR I-341, paragraph 40) and relating to equal treatment for men and women (
          Marshall , cited above, paragraph 31), it inclines towards the view that the award of interest, under the applicable national rules,
         must be regarded as an essential component of the compensation referred to in Article 1(4) of the Second Directive. 
         Findings of the Court
         
         
         65
            
         First, it must be observed that the Second Directive contains no provision concerning interest on sums awarded by way of compensation
         for damage or injury caused by unidentified or insufficiently insured vehicles. 
         
         
         66
            
         Under Article 1(4) of the Second Directive, the body responsible for paying compensation for such damage or injuries must
         do so at least up to the limits of the insurance obligation, so as to guarantee victims adequate compensation. 
         
         
         67
            
         However, compensation for loss is intended so far as possible to provide restitution for the victim of an accident (
          Grifoni , cited above, paragraph 40). 
         
         
         68
            
         Accordingly, compensation for loss cannot leave out of account factors, such as the  effluxion of time, which may in fact
         reduce its value (see, to that effect,  
          Marshall , cited above, paragraph 31). 
         
         
         69
            
         In the absence of Community rules it is for the Member States to decide on the rules to be applied to areas covered by the
         Second Directive and in particular the question of the effluxion of time and definition of the period to be taken into account
         to guarantee the victims of damage or injury caused by unidentified or insufficiently insured vehicles the adequate compensation
         which that directive seeks to provide. 
         
         
         70
            
         In that connection, the Member States are free, in order to compensate for the loss suffered by victims as a result of the
         effluxion of time, to choose between awarding interest or paying compensation in the form of aggregate sums which take account
         of the effluxion of time. 
         
         
         71
            
         Accordingly, Article 1(4) of the Second Directive is to be interpreted as meaning that the compensation awarded for damage
         or injuries caused 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 down the rules to be applied for that purpose. 
         Reimbursement of costs incurred in connection with the application for compensation
         Observations submitted to the Court
         
         
         72
            
         Mr Evans submits that payment of the costs incurred in relation to an application for compensation constitutes an essential
         component of the right to compensation.  He also relies on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, according to
         which the ECHR is intended to guarantee rights that are practical and effective (see European Court of Human Rights,  
          Airey  v.  
          Ireland,  judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A, No 32, § 24). 
         
         
         73
            
         The other parties which have submitted observations repeat  
          mutatis mutandis  the considerations set out in connection with the first question regarding the award of interest as a component of the right
         to compensation (see paragraphs 60 to 63 of this judgment). 
         Findings of the Court
         
         
         74
            
         First, it is to be observed that the Second Directive contains no provision concerning reimbursement of costs incurred by
         the victims of damage or injury caused by unidentified or insufficiently insured vehicles in connection with their application
         to the body responsible for awarding compensation. 
         
         
         75
            
         The view of most of the Member States is that the question of reimbursement of costs incurred in connection with the procedure
         for obtaining compensation is a procedural matter. 
         
         
         76
            
         As pointed out in paragraph 45 of this judgment, in the absence of Community rules governing the matter, it is for the domestic
         legal system of each Member State to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which
         individuals derive from Community law, in conformity with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness. 
         
         
         77
            
         It is incumbent on the national court to verify whether, under the procedural arrangements adopted in the United Kingdom,
         those principles are complied with.  In particular, it should assess whether, in view of the less advantageous position in
         which victims find themselves vis-à-vis the MIB and the conditions under which such victims are able to submit their comments
         on matters that may be used against them, it appears reasonable, or indeed necessary, for them to be given legal assistance.
         
         
         
         78
            
         In those circumstances, Article 1(4) of the Second Directive is to be interpreted as meaning that compensation awarded for
         damage or injury caused by an unidentified or insufficiently insured vehicle, paid by the body authorised for that purpose,
         is not required to include reimbursement of the costs incurred by victims in connection with the processing of their application
         for compensation except to the extent to which such reimbursement is necessary to safeguard the rights derived by victims
         from the Second Directive in conformity with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.  It is for the national court
         to consider whether that is the case under the procedural arrangements adopted in the Member State concerned. 
         Possible liability on the part of the Member State concerned
         Observations submitted to the Court
         
         
         79
            
         Mr Evans submits that the conditions necessary to establish a claim for damages against the United Kingdom for failure to
         implement the Second Directive are satisfied.  The result prescribed by the directive manifestly entails the grant of a right
         to individuals, the victims of untraced or uninsured vehicles, a class to which the claimant clearly belongs.  The extent
         of that right, namely entitlement to compensation from an authorised body, can be identified from the provisions of the directive.
          It is not necessary for the Court to consider the question of causality, this being a matter for the national court.  Finally,
         the breach is sufficiently serious because the United Kingdom has failed to adopt any measure whatsoever to implement the
         directive. 
         
         
         80
            
         For the United Kingdom Government, the first two alleged breaches, resulting from the absence of provisions concerning the
         award of interest and of provisions concerning reimbursement of expenses in connection with applications for compensation,
         at the very least raise certain questions.  Also, it was reasonable for the United Kingdom to consider that the procedure
         established satisfied the requirement of effective judicial control.  Finally, the alleged breach, consisting in failure properly
         to authorise the body responsible for compensating victims of damage or injury caused by unidentified vehicles, even if proved,
         would not in any event have caused Mr Evans to suffer any loss. 
         
         
         81
            
         The Commission considers that it is for the national court to establish whether in this case there has been a sufficiently
         serious breach of Community law.  In that connection, it emphasises, however, that there is no mention of interest and costs,
         as such, relating to the application for compensation in the Second Directive, that there is no case-law on those points and
         that the Commission has never previously raised them in relation to transposition of the Second Directive.  It adds that the
         issue of the compatibility of the system established in the United Kingdom with the right of access to the courts calls for
         further clarification. 
         Findings of the Court
         
         
         82
            
         First, as the Court has repeatedly held, the principle of liability on the part of a Member State for damage caused to individuals
         as a result of breaches of Community law for which the State is responsible is inherent in the system of the Treaty (see,
         in particular, Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90  
          Francovich and Others [1991] ECR I-5357, paragraph 35; Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93
          Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame  [1996] ECR I-1029, paragraph 31, and Case C-424/97  
          Haim  [2000] ECR I-5123, paragraph 26). 
         
         
         83
            
         As to the conditions to be satisfied for a Member State to be required to make reparation for loss and damage caused to individuals
         as a result of breaches of Community law for which the State is responsible, the Court has held that these are threefold:
         the rule of law infringed must be intended to confer rights on individuals; the breach must be sufficiently serious; and there
         must be a direct causal link between the breach of the obligation incumbent on the State and the loss or damage sustained
         by the injured parties (
          Haim , cited above, paragraph 36). 
         
         
         84
            
         If in light of the examination to be undertaken by the national court in accordance with the guidance given by the Court,
         the compensation system set up in the United Kingdom is found to be subject to one or more defects of transposition, then
         it will be incumbent on the national court to determine whether or not those defects have adversely affected Mr Evans. 
         
         
         85
            
         If they have, it will then be necessary to determine whether the non-fulfilment of the United Kingdom's obligation to transpose
         the Second Directive is sufficiently serious. 
         
         
         86
            
         In that connection, all the factors which characterise the situation must be taken into account.  Those factors include, in
         particular, the clarity and precision of the rule infringed, whether the infringement or the damage caused was intentional
         or involuntary, whether any error of law was excusable or inexcusable, and the fact that the position taken by a Community
         institution may have contributed towards the adoption or maintenance of national measures or practices contrary to Community
         law (see  
          Haim , cited above, paragraph 43). 
         
         
         87
            
         Those criteria must in principle be applied by the national courts in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Court
         (see, in particular,  
          Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame , cited above, paragraphs 55 to 58). 
         
         
         88
            
         Accordingly, it is incumbent on the national court, if examination of the existing compensation system discloses a defect
         in transposition of the Second Directive and if that defect has adversely affected Mr Evans, to determine whether the breach
         of that obligation of transposition is sufficiently serious. 
         
         Costs
         89
            
         The costs incurred by the United Kingdom Government and by the Commission, which have submitted observations to the Court,
         are not recoverable. Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before
         the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. 
         
         On those grounds, 
         
         
         
            
            THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),
         
         
         in answer to the questions referred to it by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division, by order
         of 17 May 2000, hereby rules: 
         
            
            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 respect of the use of motor vehicles is to be interpreted as meaning that:
            
            
            
            
            
            ─
            A body may be regarded as authorised by a Member State within the meaning of that provision where its obligation to provide
            compensation to victims of damage or injury caused by unidentified or insufficiently insured vehicles derives from an agreement
            concluded between that body and a public authority of the Member State, provided that 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 apply directly to that body. 
            
            
            
            ─
            Procedural arrangements such as those adopted in the United Kingdom are sufficient to provide the protection to which victims
            of damage or injury caused by unidentified or insufficiently insured vehicles are entitled under Directive 84/5. 
            
            
            
            ─
            The compensation awarded for damage or injuries caused 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 down the rules to be applied
            for that purpose. 
            
            
            
            ─
            The compensation awarded for damage or injury caused by an unidentified or insufficiently insured vehicle, paid by the body
            authorised for that purpose, is not required to include reimbursement of the costs incurred by victims in connection with
            the processing of their application for compensation except to the extent to which such reimbursement is necessary to safeguard
            the rights derived by victims from Directive 84/5 in conformity with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.  It
            is for the national court to consider whether that is the case under the procedural arrangements adopted in the Member State
            concerned. 
            
            
            
            2.
             It is incumbent on the national court, if examination of the existing compensation system discloses a defect in transposition
            of Directive 84/5 and if that defect has adversely affected Mr Evans, to determine whether the breach of that obligation of
            transposition is sufficiently serious.
            
            
                  Jann
               
               
                  Edward 
               
               
                  von Bahr 
               
            
                  
               
               
                  
               
               
                  
               
            
                  
               
               
                  
               
               
                  
               
            
                  
               
               
                  
               
               
                  
               
            
                  
               
               
                  
               
               
                  
               
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
         
         
         Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 4 December 2003. 
         
         
         
         
                  R. Grass 
               
               
                  V. Skouris  
               
            
         
         
         
                  Registrar
               
               
                  President
               
            
      
      
          1 –
            
             Language of the case: English.