1 BY JUDGMENT OF 21 DECEMBER 1982 , WHICH WAS RECEIVED AT THE COURT ON 29 DECEMBER 1982 , THE COUR D ' APPEL ( COURT OF APPEAL ), PARIS , REFERRED TO THE COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY A QUESTION ON THE INTERPRETATION OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 72/166 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 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1972 ( II ), P . 360 ) AND IN PARTICULAR OF THE TERM ' ' TERRITORY IN WHICH THE VEHICLE IS NORMALLY BASED ' ' .
2 THE QUESTION WAS RAISED IN PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN GAMBETTA AUTO SA ON THE ONE HAND AND , ON THE OTHER , THE BUREAU CENTRAL FRANCAIS DES SOCIETES D ' ASSURANCE CONTRE LES ACCIDENTS D ' AUTOMOBILES ( FRENCH CENTRAL BUREAU OF MOTOR-VEHICLE ACCIDENT INSURERS , HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ' ' THE BUREAU ' ' ) AND THE FONDS DE GARANTIE AUTOMOBILE ( MOTORISTS ' GUARANTEE FUND , HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ' ' THE FUND ' ' ) WHICH WAS SET UP TO DEAL WITH CLAIMS IN RESPECT OF ACCIDENTS CAUSED BY UNINSURED VEHICLES FOR WHICH THE BUREAU IS NOT LIABLE .
3 WHILST PARKED IN PARIS ON 19 JULY 1979 A CAR BELONGING TO GAMBETTA AUTO WAS DAMAGED BY A VEHICLE BEARING AN AUSTRIAN REGISTRATION PLATE , THE DRIVER OF WHICH FAILED TO REPORT THE ACCIDENT . THE AUTHORIZATION TO USE THE AUSTRIAN VEHICLE HAD BEEN WITHDRAWN ON 9 MARCH 1979 SINCE THE INSURANCE HAD BEEN CANCELLED ON 7 MARCH 1979 . MOREOVER , IT PROVED IMPOSSIBLE TO TRACE THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE .
4 THE TRIBUNAL D ' INSTANCE ( DISTRICT COURT ) OF THE NINTH DISTRICT , PARIS , REJECTED THE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES BY GAMBETTA AUTO , WHICH APPEALED . BEFORE BOTH THE TRIBUNAL D ' INSTANCE AND THE COUR D ' APPEL GAMBETTA AUTO RELIED ON THE COUNCIL DIRECTIVE OF 24 APRIL 1972 , THE PURPOSE OF WHICH IS TO ABOLISH WITHIN THE COMMUNITY CHECKING OF THE ' ' GREEN CARD ' ' FOR VEHICLES ' ' NORMALLY BASED ' ' IN A MEMBER STATE OR IN A NON-MEMBER COUNTRY IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE NATIONAL INSURANCE BUREAUX HAVE CONCLUDED A GUARANTEE AGREEMENT . SUCH AN AGREEMENT WAS CONCLUDED ON 16 OCTOBER 1972 . GAMBETTA AUTO AND THE BUREAU HAVE PUT FORWARD CONFLICTING INTERPRETATIONS OF THE TERM ' ' NORMALLY BASED ' ' . IN THE VIEW OF GAMBETTA AUTO THE TERM MEANS THE TERRITORY OF THE STATE WHOSE REGISTRATION PLATE THE VEHICLE BEARS AND IT IS UNNECESSARY TO INQUIRE WHETHER OR NOT THE REGISTRATION IS STILL VALID . ON THE OTHER HAND THE BUREAU , WHICH IS THE GUARANTOR OF THE AUSTRIAN BUREAU AND IS ACTING ON ITS BEHALF , CONTENDED THAT REGISTRATION WHICH IS CANCELLED , AS IN THIS CASE , MUST BE TREATED AS A FALSE REGISTRATION AND CONSEQUENTLY NEITHER THE COMMUNITY DIRECTIVE NOR THE GUARANTEE AGREEMENT MADE BETWEEN THE INSURANCE BUREAUX IS APPLICABLE , SO THAT IN THIS CASE THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF ANY COVER BY THE AUSTRIAN BUREAU OR , THEREFORE BY THE BUREAU .
5 THE QUESTION SUBMITTED BY THE COUR D ' APPEL , PARIS IS AS FOLLOWS : ' ' ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE PLACE IN WHICH A MOTOR VEHICLE IS NORMALLY BASED , WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE DIRECTIVE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES OF 24 APRIL 1972 , MEANS THE TERRITORY OF THE STATE IN WHICH IT IS REGISTERED , IS IT PERMISSIBLE AND NECESSARY , WHERE IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT A CAR BEARS A REGISTRATION PLATE OF A PARTICULAR COUNTRY , TO CONSIDER THAT THE CAR IS NORMALLY BASED IN THAT COUNTRY , EVEN THOUGH THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES STATE THAT AT THE MATERIAL TIME AUTHORIZATION TO USE THE CAR HAD BEEN DEFINITIVELY WITHDRAWN? ' '
6 THE COUNCIL DIRECTIVE OF 24 APRIL 1972 ESTABLISHED A SYSTEM THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF WHICH ARE CLEARLY SET OUT IN THE LAST THREE RECITALS : ' ' WHEREAS THE ABOLITION OF CHECKS ON GREEN CARDS FOR VEHICLES NORMALLY BASED IN A MEMBER STATE ENTERING THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE CAN BE EFFECTED BY MEANS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SIX NATIONAL INSURER ' S BUREAUX , WHEREBY EACH NATIONAL BUREAU WOULD GUARANTEE COMPENSATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF NATIONAL LAW IN RESPECT OF ANY LOSS OR INJURY GIVING ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION CAUSED IN ITS TERRITORY BY ONE OF THOSE VEHICLES , WHETHER OR NOT INSURED ; WHEREAS AUCH A GUARANTEE AGREEMENT PRESUPPOSES THAT ALL COMMUNITY MOTOR VEHICLES TRAVELLING IN COMMUNITY TERRITORY ARE COVERED BY INSURANCE ; WHEREAS THE NATIONAL LAW OF EACH MEMBER STATE SHOULD , THEREFORE , PROVIDE FOR THE COMPULSORY INSURANCE OF VEHICLES AGAINST CIVIL LIABILITY , THE INSURANCE TO BE VALID THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY TERRITORY ; WHEREAS SUCH NATIONAL LAW MAY NEVERTHELESS PROVIDE FOR EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN PERSONS AND FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF VEHICLES ; WHEREAS THE SYSTEM PROVIDED FOR IN THIS DIRECTIVE COULD BE EXTENDED TO VEHICLES NORMALLY BASED IN THE TERRITORY OF ANY THIRD COUNTRY IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE NATIONAL BUREAUX OF THE SIX MEMBER STATES HAVE CONCLUDED A SIMILAR AGREEMENT . ' '
7 ARTICLE 2 ( 1 ) OF THE DIRECTIVE PROVIDES THAT MEMBER STATES ARE TO REFRAIN FROM MAKING CHECKS ON INSURANCE AGAINST CIVIL LIABILITY IN RESPECT OF VEHICLES NORMALLY BASED IN THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE .
8 FOR VEHICLES OF THE KIND INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE , ARTICLE 1 ( 4 ) PROVIDES THAT ' ' TERRITORY IN WHICH THE VEHICLE IS NORMALLY BASED ' ' MEANS ' ' THE TERRITORY OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE VEHICLE IS REGISTERED ' ' .
9 ARTICLE 2 ( 2 ) PROVIDES : ' ' AS REGARDS VEHICLES NORMALLY BASED IN THE TERRITORY OF A MEMBER STATE , THE PROVISIONS OF THIS DIRECTIVE , WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 4 , SHALL TAKE EFFECT : AFTER AN AGREEMENT HAS BEEN CONCLUDED BETWEEN THE SIX NATIONAL INSURER ' S BUREAUX UNDER THE TERMS OF WHICH EACH NATIONAL BUREAU GUARANTEES THE SETTLEMENT , IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ITS OWN NATIONAL LAW ON COMPULSORY INSURANCE , OF CLAIMS IN RESPECT OF ACCIDENTS OCCURRING IN ITS TERRITORY CAUSED BY VEHICLES NORMALLY BASED IN THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE , WHETHER OR NOT SUCH VEHICLES ARE INSURED ; FROM THE DATE FIXED BY THE COMMISSION , UPON ITS HAVING ASCERTAINED IN CLOSE COOPERATION WITH THE MEMBER STATES THAT SUCH AN AGREEMENT HAS BEEN CONCLUDED ; FOR THE DURATION OF THAT AGREEMENT . ' '
10 ARTICLE 7 ( 2 ) PROVIDES THAT : ' ' . . . VEHICLES NORMALLY BASED IN A THIRD COUNTRY SHALL BE TREATED AS VEHICLES NORMALLY BASED IN THE COMMUNITY IF THE NATIONAL BUREAUX OF ALL THE MEMBER STATES SEVERALLY GUARANTEE , EACH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ITS OWN NATIONAL LAW ON COMPULSORY INSURANCE , SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS IN RESPECT OF ACCIDENTS OCCURRING IN THEIR TERRITORY CAUSED BY SUCH VEHICLES . ' '
11 THE SYSTEM PROVIDED FOR BY THE DIRECTIVE WAS EXTENDED BY A SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT CONCLUDED ON 12 DECEMBER 1973 BETWEEN THE NATIONAL BUREAUX TO VEHICLES NORMALLY BASED IN THE TERRITORY OF CERTAIN NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES , NAMELY SWEDEN , FINLAND , NORWAY , AUSTRIA AND SWITZERLAND , IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF ARTICLE 7 ( 2 ) OF THE DIRECTIVE ; BY THAT AGREEMENT , WHICH WAS CONCLUDED FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD SUBJECT TO 12 MONTHS ' NOTICE OF TERMINATION , THE NATIONAL BUREAUX OF THE MEMBER STATES GUARANTEE THE SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS ARISING IN THEIR TERRITORY FROM THE USE OF VEHICLES NORMALLY BASED IN THE TERRITORY OF ONE OF THE NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES REFERRED TO ABOVE . ARTICLE 2 ( C ) OF THE AGREEMENT PROVIDES THAT THESE ARE TO BE REGARDED AS BEING NORMALLY BASED IN ONE OF THE TERRITORIES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 1 ( A ) ' ' VEHICLES REGISTERED IN THAT TERRITORY ' ' . IN ADDITION TO THE DIRECTIVE OF 24 APRIL 1972 , IT IS NECESSARY TO MENTION THE SECOND COMMISSION DECISION OF 6 FEBRUARY 1974 RELATING TO THE APPLICATION OF THE AFORESAID COUNCIL DIRECTIVE ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1974 , L 87 , P . 14 ) WHICH FIXES 15 MAY 1974 AS THE DATE FROM WHICH ' ' EACH MEMBER STATE SHALL REFRAIN FROM MAKING CHECKS ON INSURANCE AGAINST CIVIL LIABILITY IN RESPECT OF VEHICLES WHICH ARE NORMALLY BASED IN THE TERRITORY OF SWEDEN , FINLAND , NORWAY , AUSTRIA AND SWITZERLAND AND WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE AGREEMENT OF NATIONAL INSURERS ' BUREAUX OF 12 DECEMBER 1973 ' ' ( ARTICLE 1 ).
12 IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT , THE BUREAU TOLD THE COURT THAT IT FELT OBLIGED TO SUBMIT OBSERVATIONS DIFFERENT FROM THOSE SUBMITTED BY IT TO THE FRENCH COURTS , AND IT SUPPORTED THE CLAIM OF GAMBETTA AUTO TO THE EFFECT THAT THE VEHICLE IN QUESTION WAS ' ' NORMALLY BASED ' ' IN AUSTRIA WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE DIRECTIVE . THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT AND THE COMMISSION PUT FORWARD THE SAME INTERPRETATION .
13 IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT THE DIRECTIVE SEEKS TO ABOLISH CHECKING OF THE ' ' GREEN CARD ' ' AT THE FRONTIER . FOR THAT PURPOSE IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE STATE WHERE THE VEHICLE IS NORMALLY BASED SHOULD BE EASILY IDENTIFIABLE , AND THIS IS ENSURED BY THE ISSUE OF A REGISTRATION PLATE . TO REQUIRE THAT THE PLATE SHOULD BE CURRENTLY VALID WOULD AMOUNT TO REPLACING CHECKING OF THE ' ' GREEN CARD ' ' BY SYSTEMATIC CHECKING OF REGISTRATION AND WOULD DEPRIVE THE DIRECTIVE OF ANY USEFUL PURPOSE .
14 IT FOLLOWS THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPLYING THE COUNCIL DIRECTIVE THE VEHICLE BEARING THE PLATE MUST BE REGARDED AS NORMALLY BASED IN THE TERRITORY OF REGISTRATION EVEN IF AUTHORIZATION TO USE THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN IN THE MEANTIME .
15 FOR THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION MUST THEREFORE BE THAT WHEN A VEHICLE BEARS A PROPERLY ISSUED REGISTRATION PLATE IT MUST BE REGARDED AS NORMALLY BASED , WITHIN THE MEANING OF DIRECTIVE 72/166 , IN THE TERRITORY OF THE STATE OF REGISTRATION , EVEN IF AT THE MATERIAL TIME AUTHORIZATION TO USE THE VEHICLE HAD BEEN WITHDRAWN .