1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of: - Article 3(4), Article 5(1) and (4), Article 6(1), and Article 10 of the Internal Regulations of the Council of Bureaux, adopted by the Agreement of 30 May 2002 between the national insurers’ bureaux of the Member States of the European Economic Area and other Associate States, and appended to the annex to Commission Decision 2003/564/EC of 28 July 2003 on the application of Council Directive 72/166/EEC relating to checks on insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 2003 L 192, p. 23, ‘the Internal Regulations’); - Article 2, Article 10(1) and (4), and Article 24(2) of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11); and - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).
2 The request has been made in proceedings between the Lietuvos Respublikos transporto priemonių draudikų biuras (the Bureau of Motor Insurers of the Republic of Lithuania, ‘Bureau B’), and Gintaras Dockevičius and Jurgita Dockevičienė, Lithuanian nationals, in respect of a subrogated claim pursuant to which Bureau B is seeking an order that the applicants in the main proceedings, who had not complied with the obligation to take out compulsory insurance cover against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles at the time that they were involved in a motor vehicle accident in Germany, refund to it the amounts paid to the German insurance bureau (‘Bureau A’) by way of reimbursement of the amounts paid by Bureau A as compensation to the other party involved in the accident.
3 Pursuant to Article 2 of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of 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 1972 (II), p. 360, and corrigendum, OJ 1973 L 75, p. 30), as amended by Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 14) (‘Directive 72/166’): ‘1. Member States shall refrain from making checks on insurance against civil liability in respect of vehicles normally based in the territory of another Member State and in respect of vehicles normally based in the territory of a third country entering their territory from the territory of another Member State. However, they may carry out non-systematic checks on insurance provided that they are not discriminatory and are carried out as part of a control which is not aimed exclusively at insurance verification. 2. 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 nine national insurers’ bureaux under the terms of which each national bureau guarantees the settlement, in accordance with the provisions of 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.’
4 Article 1(4) and (7) 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), as amended by Directive 2005/14 (‘Directive 84/5’), states: ‘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. The first subparagraph shall be without prejudice to the right of the Member States to regard compensation by the body as subsidiary or non-subsidiary and the right to make provision for the settlement of claims between the 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. However, Member States may not allow the body to make the payment of compensation conditional on the victim establishing in any way that the person liable is unable or refuses to pay. … 7. Each Member State shall apply its laws, regulations and administrative provisions to the payment of compensation by the body, without prejudice to any other practice which is more favourable to the victim.’
5 The first subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2000 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 amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (OJ 2000 L 181, p. 65) provides: ‘The objective of this Directive is to lay down special provisions applicable to injured parties entitled to compensation in respect of any loss or injury resulting from accidents occurring in a Member State other than the Member State of residence of the injured party which are caused by the use of vehicles insured and normally based in a Member State.’
6 Article 6(1) and (2) of that directive is worded as follows: ‘1. Each Member State shall establish or approve a compensation body responsible for providing compensation to injured parties in the cases referred to in Article 1. Such injured parties may present a claim to the compensation body in their Member State of residence: (a) if, within three months of the date when the injured party presented his claim for compensation to the insurance undertaking of the vehicle the use of which caused the accident or to its claims representative, the insurance undertaking or its claims representative has not provided a reasoned reply to the points made in the claim; or (b) if the insurance undertaking has failed to appoint a claims representative in the State of residence of the injured party in accordance with Article 4(1). In this case, injured parties may not present a claim to the compensation body if they have presented a claim for compensation directly to the insurance undertaking of the vehicle the use of which caused the accident and if they have received a reasoned reply within three months of presenting the claim. Injured parties may not however present a claim to the compensation body if they have taken legal action directly against the insurance undertaking. The compensation body shall take action within two months of the date when the injured party presents a claim for compensation to it but shall terminate its action if the insurance undertaking, or its claims representative, subsequently makes a reasoned reply to the claim. The compensation body shall immediately inform: (a) the insurance undertaking of the vehicle the use of which caused the accident or the claims representative; (b) the compensation body in the Member State in which the insurance undertaking which issued the policy is established; (c) if known, the person who caused the accident, that it has received a claim from the injured party and that it will respond to that claim within two months of the presentation of that claim. 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 who caused the accident and other insurance undertakings or social security bodies required to compensate the injured party in respect of the same accident. However, Member States may not allow the body to make the payment of compensation subject to any conditions other than those laid down in this Directive, in particular the injured party’s establishing in any way that the person liable is unable or refuses to pay. 2. The compensation body which has compensated the injured party in his Member State of residence shall be entitled to claim reimbursement of the sum paid by way of compensation from the compensation body in the Member State in which the insurance undertaking which issued the policy is established. The latter body shall then be subrogated to the injured party in his rights against the person who caused the accident or his insurance undertaking in so far as the compensation body in the Member State of residence of the injured party has provided compensation for the loss or injury suffered. Each Member State shall be obliged to acknowledge this subrogation as provided for by any other Member State.’
7 Directive 2009/103 codified the earlier directives relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and therefore repealed, pursuant to Article 30 thereof, those earlier directives with effect from 27 October 2009. Pursuant to the correlation table in Annex II to that directive, Article 2(2) of Directive 72/166 corresponds to Article 2 of Directive 2009/103, Article 1(4) and (7) of Directive 84/5 corresponds to Article 10(1) and (4) of Directive 2009/103 and Article 6(2) of Directive 2000/26 corresponds to Article 24(2) of Directive 2009/103.
8 Article 3(1) of the Internal Regulations provides: ‘When a bureau is informed of an accident occurring in the territory of the country for which it is competent, involving a vehicle from another country it shall, without waiting for a formal claim, proceed to investigate the circumstances of the accident. It shall as soon as possible give notice of any such accident to the insurer who issued the Green Card or policy of insurance or, if appropriate, to the bureau concerned. Any omission to do so shall however not be held against it. If, in the course of this investigation, the bureau notes that the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident is identified and that a correspondent of this insurer has been approved in conformity with the provisions in Article 4, it shall forward this information promptly to the correspondent for further action.’
9 Article 3(4) of the Internal Regulations states: ‘All claims shall be handled by the bureau with complete autonomy in conformity with legal and regulatory provisions applicable in the country of accident relating to liability, compensation of injured parties and compulsory insurance in the best interests of the insurer who issued the Green Card or policy of insurance or, if appropriate, the bureau concerned. The bureau shall be exclusively competent for all matters concerning the interpretation of the law applicable in the country of accident (even when it refers to the legal provisions applying in another country) and the settlement of the claim. Subject to this latter provision, the bureau shall, on express demand, inform the insurer, or the bureau concerned, before taking a final decision.’
10 Article 5(1) of the Internal Regulations provides as follows: ‘When a bureau or the agent it has appointed for the purpose has settled all claims arising out of the same accident it shall send, within a maximum period of one year from the date of the last payment made in favour of an injured party, by fax or e-mail to the member of the bureau which issued the Green Card or policy of insurance or, if appropriate, to the bureau concerned a demand for reimbursement specifying: 1.1. the sums paid as compensation to injured parties under either an amicable settlement or a court order; 1.2. the sums disbursed for external services in the handling and settlement of each claim and all costs specifically incurred for the purposes of a legal action which would have been disbursed in similar circumstances by an insurer established in the country of the accident; 1.3. a handling fee to cover all other charges calculated under the rules approved by the Council of Bureaux. When claims arising out of the same accident are defended and settled without any compensation being paid, such sums as provided in subparagraph [1.2] above and the minimum fee fixed by the Council of Bureaux in conformity with subparagraph [1.3] above may be claimed.’
11 Article 5(4) of the Internal Regulations provides: ‘Supporting documents, including the objective proof that compensation due to injured parties has been paid, shall be sent promptly on demand but without delay to the reimbursement.’
12 Article 6(1) of the Internal Regulations provides: ‘Each bureau shall guarantee the reimbursement by its members of any amount demanded in accordance with the provisions of Article 5 by the bureau of the country of accident or by the agent that it has appointed for the purpose. If a member fails to make the payment demanded within the period of two months specified in Article 5, the bureau to which this member belongs shall itself make the reimbursement in accordance with the conditions described hereunder, following receipt of a guarantee call made by the bureau of the country of accident or by the agent that it has appointed for the purpose. The bureau standing as guarantor shall make the payment within a period of one month. On expiry of that period, late interest at 12% per annum on the amount due, calculated from the date of the guarantee call to the date of receipt of the remittance by the beneficiary’s bank, shall apply automatically. The guarantee call shall be made by fax or e-mail within a period of 12 months after the date of despatch of the demand for reimbursement under Article 5. On expiry of that period and without prejudice to any late interest for which it may be liable, the liability of the Bureau standing as guarantor shall be limited to the amount claimed from its member plus 12 months interest calculated at 12% per annum. No guarantee call shall be admissible if made more than two years after the despatch of the demand for reimbursement.’
13 Article 10 of the Internal Regulations provides: ‘The bureaux to which the provisions of this section apply shall guarantee, on a full reciprocity basis, the reimbursement of all amounts payable under these Regulations arising out of any accident involving a vehicle normally based in the territory of the State for which each of these bureaux is competent, whether the vehicle is insured or not.’
14 In the version in force at the material time, Article 17(4) of the Transporto priemonių valdytojų civilinės atsakomybės privalomojo draudimo įstatymas (Law on compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles), of 5 March 2004 (Žin., 2004, No 46-1498), provided: ‘[Bureau B] shall pay compensation for the damage caused in another Member State of the European Union in accordance with the legislation of that other Member State of the European Union (whose national insurers’ bureau has signed the Internal Regulations) if the person responsible whose motor vehicle is normally based in the territory of the Republic of Lithuania is not covered by compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles. … [Bureau B] shall also pay compensation in other cases, in compliance with the requirements of the Internal Regulations.’
15 Article 23(5) of that Law provided as follows: ‘After having paid the amount claimed by the compensation body of another Member State of the European Union, [Bureau B] shall be entitled to claim reimbursement of the amount thus paid from the person responsible who is not insured or from the insurer of the person responsible.’
16 On 20 July 2006, a car accident occurred in Germany involving a vehicle driven by Mr Dockevičius and owned by Mrs Dockevičienė, and a vehicle driven by Mr Floros, a German national residing in Germany. Mrs Dockevičienė’s vehicle did not meet the requirement for insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles.
17 The accident report drawn up by the police service in Frankfurt-am-Main (Germany) stated that it had not been possible, at the scene of the accident, to determine conclusively the circumstances and causes of the accident. Both drivers were, simultaneously, considered victims of the accident and accused of having been in breach of the Highway Code, for which fines of EUR 35 and 60 respectively were imposed on Mr Floros and Mr Dockevičius. According to the police report, it was determined that Mr Floros was driving without maintaining a safe distance when he hit another vehicle which was in the process of braking and that Mr Dockevičius had been reversing without due care and attention.
18 Following the accident, Mr Floros submitted a claim for compensation to Bureau A which was rejected; Mr Floros then brought an action before the Landgericht Frankfurt (Regional Court, Frankfurt am Main, Germany) seeking an order that Bureau A pay him the sum of EUR 4095 in compensation for the loss incurred in that accident.
19 By judgment delivered in default on 27 December 2010, the Landgericht Frankfurt dismissed the application as unfounded and unsupported by evidence. On 8 August 2011, that court, sitting as a collegiate body, upheld that judgment.
20 On 31 January 2012, the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt (Higher Regional Court, Frankfurt am Main, Germany) invited Bureau A and Mr Floros to enter into an amicable settlement of the dispute which would satisfy Mr Floros’s claim.
21 Consequently, Bureau A paid Mr Floros the amount requested and a sum of EUR 3643.71 in respect of the costs of the proceedings and sent Bureau B a claim for repayment of the combined amount of EUR 8352.96.
22 Bureau B complied with Bureau A’s request and asked the defendants in the main proceedings to repay that amount. As the applicants did not comply with the request, Bureau B brought a subrogated claim before the Marijampolės rajono apylinkės teismas (District Court, Marijampolė, Lithuania) seeking an order that the defendants in the main proceedings refund the amount.
23 By judgment of 5 May 2014, the Marijampolės rajono apylinkės teismas upheld the application, holding that Bureau A was alone competent to determine any issues relating to the interpretation of the applicable law in the Member State in which the accident occurred and to settle the claim. Consequently, since Bureau B had brought an action for indemnification against the person responsible for the damage which had occurred, and since the latter was contesting that his liability had been incurred under the law of the Member State in which the accident had occurred, it was for the defendant to adduce evidence in support of the pleas and arguments made in their defence.
24 On 7 October 2014, the Kauno apygardos teismas (Regional Court, Kaunas, Lithuania) upheld the defendants’ appeal against that judgment, quashed the latter judgment and dismissed Bureau B’s action. The appellate court held that, in view of the fact that the person responsible for the damage was not a party to the correspondence between the insurance bureaux and had not accepted the amount of the damage, the information provided by Bureau B, relating to the compensation of the victim by Bureau A, could not be deemed sufficient or as reliably establishing the damage.
25 The appeal court also noted that in that type of proceedings, the burden of proving the amount of the damage and the causal link was on the party bringing an action for indemnification. The Internal Regulations govern only the relations between national insurers’ bureaux, and are not directly applicable to relations between national insurers’ bureaux and third parties. Neither the Law on compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles nor Directive 2009/103 provides that, after having reimbursed to the national insurers’ bureau of the other Member State the amount of compensation paid by the latter, the national insurers’ bureau of the Member State concerned could be granted an order for payment by the person responsible for the damage of that amount, without an assessment of the merits of the evaluation thereof.
26 An appeal was brought by Bureau B against the judgment of the Kauno apygardos teismas (Regional Court, Kaunas) of 7 October 2014 before the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania); the latter court observes that that judgment is, in essence, consistent with its own case-law, in particular in so far as it imposes on the national insurers’ bureau of the Member State concerned the burden of proving the causal link between the conduct of the person involved in the accident and the loss incurred.
27 However, Bureau B argues that the Internal Regulations govern not only the relationship between the insurance bureaux themselves, but also the relationship between them and third parties. Consequently, since Bureau B has, in accordance with that regulation, refunded to Bureau A the sums paid by the latter, the defendants in the main proceedings are required to repay those amounts to it. In those circumstances, the burden of proof, in particular that of the lack of any causal link, rests with them. This does not have an impact on the rights of defence of the defendants in the main proceedings, since they could have intervened and defended those rights in the disputes which took place, in the present case, in Germany.
28 The referring court expresses doubts as to the merits of that argument and observes, first of all, that there was no obligation in the present case on Bureau A to inform the defendants in the main proceedings of the claim-settlement process. Neither Directive 2009/103 nor the Internal Regulations expressly provide for any such information mechanism or how it should function.
29 Furthermore, Mr Dockevičius always disputed that his civil liability had been incurred as a result of the accident, and the information in the file does not support the conclusion that it was. Finally, Mr Floros’s compensation was alleged to have been effected by an amicable settlement in which Mr Dockevičius did not participate and which did not establish the latter’s civil liability.
30 The referring court thus asks whether, in such circumstances, Mr Dockevičius may be held liable for the expenditure incurred by Bureau B.
31 In those circumstances, the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Are Articles 2, 10(1) and (4) and 24(2) of Directive 2009/103, Articles 3(4), 5(1) and (4), 6(1) and 10 of the Internal Regulations, and Article 47 of the Charter (together or separately, but without limitation to the aforementioned provisions) to be understood and interpreted as meaning that, in the case where: - a national insurers’ bureau (Bureau A) pays compensation to the party injured in a road traffic accident in the Member State in which that bureau is established because the national of another Member State who was responsible for the damage was not insured against civil liability; - by reason of that compensation, Bureau A is subrogated to the injured party in his rights and seeks reimbursement of the costs incurred in the settlement of the claim from the national insurers’ bureau in the country of origin of the person responsible (Bureau B); - Bureau B, without carrying out any independent investigation or requesting additional information, accedes to the request for reimbursement made by Bureau A; - Bureau B brings legal proceedings against the defendants (the person responsible and the owner of the vehicle) seeking indemnification of the expenses which it incurred, the applicant in those proceedings (Bureau B) can base its claim against the defendants (the person responsible and the owner of the vehicle) solely on the fact of the payment of the costs made to Bureau A and it (the applicant) is not under any obligation to establish that the conditions governing the civil liability of the defendant/person responsible were satisfied (his fault, unlawful acts, the causal link and the amount of damage), and is not under any obligation to establish that the foreign law was properly applied when the injured party was compensated? (2) Are point (c) of the fifth subparagraph of Article 24(1) of Directive 2009/103 and Article 3(1) and (4) of the Internal Regulations (together or separately, but without limitation to the aforementioned provisions) to be understood and interpreted as meaning that Bureau A must, before taking a final decision to pay compensation for the damage suffered by the injured party, inform, in a clear and comprehensible manner (including in regard to the language in which the information is provided), the person responsible and the owner of the vehicle (if not the same person) about the initiation of the claim-handling process and its progress, and give them sufficient time to submit their comments on, or objections to, the decision to be taken to pay compensation and/or the amount of that compensation? (3) If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative (that is to say, the defendants (the person responsible and the owner of the vehicle) may require the applicant (Bureau B) to provide proof or may raise any objections or doubts concerning, inter alia, the circumstances of the road traffic accident, the application of the regulatory framework relating to civil liability of the person responsible, the amount of the damage and how it was calculated), are Articles 2, 10(1) and 24(2) of Directive 2009/103 and the second subparagraph of Articles 3(4) of the Internal Regulations (together or separately, but without limitation to the aforementioned provisions) to be understood and interpreted as meaning that, notwithstanding the fact that Bureau B did not, before the final decision was taken, request Bureau A to provide information on the interpretation of the legislation applicable in the country in which the road accident occurred and on the settlement of the claim, Bureau A must in any event provide that information to Bureau B if the latter subsequently requests it, together with any other information necessary for Bureau B establish its claim [for indemnification] against the defendants (the person responsible and the owner of the vehicle)? (4) If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative (that is to say, Bureau A is required to inform the person responsible and the owner of the vehicle about the claim-settlement process and to provide them with an opportunity to submit objections concerning liability or the amount of the damage), what consequences will failure on the part of Bureau A to comply with its duty to provide information entail for: (a) the obligation of Bureau B to accede to the request for reimbursement presented by Bureau A; (b) the obligation of the person responsible and the owner of the vehicle to indemnify Bureau B for the expenses which it has incurred? 5. Are Articles 5(1) and 10 of the Internal Regulations to be understood and interpreted as meaning that the amount paid as compensation by Bureau A to the injured party is to be regarded as a non-reimbursable risk assumed by Bureau A itself (unless that risk is assumed by Bureau B) rather than a pecuniary obligation on the other person involved in the same road traffic accident, regard being had, a fortiori, to the circumstances of the present case: - initially, the compensation body (Bureau A) rejected the injured party’s claim for compensation; - for that reason, the injured party brought a legal action seeking compensation; - that action brought against Bureau A was dismissed by the lower courts as being unfounded and not supported by evidence; - an amicable settlement between the injured party and Bureau A was reached only in a higher court, when the latter pointed out that, if the parties refused to enter into an amicable settlement, the case would be referred back for fresh examination; - Bureau A justified its decision to enter into an amicable settlement essentially on the basis that this would avoid additional costs due to prolonged litigation; and - in the present proceedings, no court has established the liability (fault) of the defendant involved in the road traffic accident?’
32 By letter of 25 July 2016, the Court sent the referring court the judgment of 6 October 1987, Demouche and Others (152/83, EU:C:1987:421), in its German, English and French versions, that judgment not having been translated into Lithuanian, together with the question whether, having regard to paragraphs 17 to 21 of that judgment, it wished to maintain its reference for a preliminary ruling.
33 By letter of 20 September 2016, the referring court stated that it wished to maintain its request.
34 By its questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks essentially whether Article 3(4), Article 5(1) and (4), Article 6(1) and Article 10 of the Internal Regulations, Article 2, Article 10(1) and (4) and Article 24(2) of Directive 2009/103 and/or Article 47 of the Charter are to be interpreted as precluding, in the present case, the consequences flowing from its case-law according to which, in essence, for the purposes of the subrogated claim, the burden of proof relating to all of the elements establishing the civil liability of the defendants in the main proceedings for the accident which occurred on 20 July 2006 rests with Bureau B.
35 In the first place, in so far as the national court is asking the Court to interpret the Internal Regulations, it must be borne in mind that, under Article 267 TFEU, the Court has jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning the interpretation of the Treaties and the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the European Union.
36 The Court has already had occasion to find, in relation to similar acts which preceded that regulation, that they may not be regarded as acts taken by the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the European Union (see, to that effect, judgments of 6 October 1987, Demouche and Others, 152/83, EU:C:1987:421, paragraph 19, and of 12 November 1992, Fournier, C‑73/89, EU:C:1992:431, paragraphs 22 and 23).
37 The Court noted that those acts were drawn up and concluded by bodies governed by private law without any institution or body of the European Union having participated in their conclusion (see, to that effect, judgment of 6 October 1987, Demouche and Others, 152/83, EU:C:1987:421, paragraphs 18 and 19).
38 Moreover, the Court dismissed as irrelevant to the nature of those acts the circumstances that, first, their conclusion had been laid down as a condition for the entry into force of Directive 72/166; secondly, the period of applicability of that directive was conditional upon the period during which the measures in question were applied; thirdly, the Commission had noted each time, by a recommendation and by successive decisions, that those acts were consistent with the requirements of that directive; and, fourthly, those acts had been annexed to the Commission’s decisions and published with the latter in the Official Journal of the European Union (see, to that effect, judgment of 6 October 1987, Demouche and Others, 152/83, EU:C:1987:421, paragraphs 19 and 20).
39 It must be held that the same considerations apply to the Internal Regulations, which were drawn up and concluded by bodies governed by private law without any institution, body, office or agency of the European Union participating in their conclusion.
40 Consequently, the Court has no jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling on the questions referred by the national court in respect of the interpretation of the Internal Regulations.
41 Secondly, in so far as the referring court asks the Court to interpret certain provisions of Directive 2009/103, it must be held, on the one hand, that that directive is not applicable ratione temporis to the dispute in the main proceedings, having regard both to the date of its entry into force and to that of the loss giving rise to the dispute.
42 On the other hand, since Mr Floros sent his application to Bureau A and since that bureau, in Germany, is not the competent body within the meaning of Article 1(4) and (7) of Directive 84/5, but the relevant bureau under the green card bureau system, it is clear that the dispute in the main proceedings falls within the scope of that system and not that instituted, inter alia, by Directives 72/166, 84/5 and 2000/26.
43 Moreover, since Article 6 of Directive 2000/26 relates, in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 1(1) of that directive, to the compensation procedure only for injured persons residing in a Member State other than that in which the loss in question occurred, and, since the dispute in the main proceedings occurred in the Member State of residence of Mr Floros, that provision is not, in any event, applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings. The same applies to Article 2 of Directive 72/166, which does not appear to have any other connection with that dispute than its reference to the Internal Regulations, for the interpretation of which the Court does not have jurisdiction.
44 Thirdly, in those circumstances, the dispute in the main proceedings does not reveal an implementation of EU law within the meaning of Article 51(1) of the Charter, with the result that Article 47 thereof does not appear to be applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings.
45 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the questions referred is as follows: - The Court has no jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling on the questions referred by the national court in respect of the interpretation of the Internal Regulations. - Since Directive 2009/103 is not applicable ratione temporis to the dispute in the main proceedings, - since Directives 72/166, 84/5 et 2000/26 are not applicable ratione materiae to the present dispute and, therefore, - since, in the absence of an implementation of EU law within the meaning of Article 51(1) of the Charter, neither is Article 47 of the Charter applicable to the dispute, those directives and Article 47 of the Charter must be interpreted as not precluding, in the present case, the consequences arising from the case-law of the referring court to the effect that, for the purposes of the subrogated claim, the burden of proof relating to all of the elements establishing the civil liability of the defendants in the main proceedings for the accident which occurred on 20 July 2006 rests with Bureau B.
46 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. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.