European Union v Axa Belgium SA.
Date: 2015-10-15
18. As a preliminary point, it should be recalled that, according to the case-law of the Court, the purpose of Article 85a of the Staff Regulations is not to alter the national rules applicable for determining whether and to what extent there is liability on the part of the third party who caused the damage. That third party’s liability remains subject to the substantive rules which are normally to be applied by the national court before which the victim’s proceedings are brought, that is to say, in principle, the legislation of the Member State in whose territory the damage occurred (judgment in Clinique La Ramée and Winterthur , C‑397/02, EU:C:2004:502, paragraph 17 and the case-law cited).
21. It should be noted that the Court has consistently held that it follows from the need for a uniform application of EU law, and the principle of equality, that the terms of a provision of EU law, which make no express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope, must normally be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation throughout the European Union, which must take into account the context of the provision and the objective pursued by the legislation in question (judgments in Deckmyn and Vrijheidsfonds , C‑201/13, EU:C:2014:2132, paragraph 14 and the case-law cited, and Modelo Continente Hipermercados , C‑343/13, EU:C:2015:146, paragraph 27 and the case-law cited).
23. In order to determine whether that concept should be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation in the EU legal order, it is necessary, having regard to the case-law referred to in paragraph 21 of the present judgment, to take into account the legislative context of Article 85a of the Staff Regulations, since those regulations are intended to regulate the legal relations between the European institutions and their officials, by establishing a series of reciprocal rights and obligations (see, to that effect, judgment in Johannes , C‑430/97, EU:C:1999:293, paragraph 19).
31. According to the Court’s settled case-law, the wording used in one language version of a provision of EU law cannot serve as the sole basis for the interpretation of that provision, or be made to override the other language versions in that regard. Provisions of EU law must be interpreted and applied uniformly in the light of the versions existing in all EU languages. Where there is divergence between the various language versions of an EU legislative text, the provision in question must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part (judgment in Léger , C‑528/13, EU:C:2015:288, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited).
33. It is clear from the Court’s settled case-law that the purpose of the subrogation of the European Union referred to in Article 85a of the Staff Regulations is to ensure that an official is not compensated twice in respect of the same damage. In so far as the damage suffered by an official renders the European Union subject to the obligation to pay him benefits under the Staff Regulations, the risk of twofold compensation can be avoided only if the official is deprived of his rights against any third party responsible for causing him damage, those rights being transferred to the European Union (see, to that effect, judgments in Royale belge , C‑333/90, EU:C:1992:94, paragraph 9 and the case-law cited, and Lucaccioni  v Commission , C‑257/98 P, EU:C:1999:402, paragraph 20).