C-344/82

J U D G M E N T O F T H E COURT (FIRST CHAMBER) 9 FEBRUARY 1984 1

SA Gambetta Auto ν Bureau Central Français and Fonds de Garantie Automobile (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel, Paris)

(Place, within the territory of a Member State, in which a motor vehicle is normally based — Compensation for damage sustained in another Member State)

Case 344/82

Approximation of laws — Insurance against civil liability for motor vehicles — Directive 72/166 — Territory in which a vehicle is normally based — Concept — State of registration (Council Directive 72/166)

Where a vehicle bears a properly issued the State of registration, even if at the registration plate it must be regarded as material time authorization to use the normally based, within the meaning of vehicle had been withdrawn. Directive 72/166, in the territory of

1 — Language of t h e Case: French.

JUDGMENT OF 9. 2. 1984 — CASE 344/82

for a preliminary ruling o n the interpretation of Council Directive 7 2 / 1 6 6 / E E C of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of the M e m b e r States relating t o insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of m o t o r vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (Official J o u r n a l , English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 360) and in particular of the term " t e r r i t o r y in which the vehicle is normally b a s e d " ,

T H E C O U R T (First C h a m b e r )

composed of: T . K o o p m a n s , President of Chamber, A. O'Keeffe and G. Bosco, J u d g e s ,

Advocate G e n e r a l : Sir G o r d o n Slynn Registrar: P . H e i m

and the Fund before the Tribunal "Whereas the abolition of checks on d'Instance [District Court] of the Ninth green cards for vehicles normally based District, Paris. The latter dismissed the in a Member State entering the territory action. An appeal from that judgment of another Member State can be effected was thereupon lodged with the Cour by means of an agreement between the d'Appel, Paris. six national insurers' 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 Before both the Tribunal d'Instance and one of those vehicles, whether or not the Cour d'Appel Gambetta Auto relied insured; in support of its claim on the Council Directive of 24 April 1972 which seeks to abolish within the Community checking of the "green card" in respect of vehicles Whereas such a guarantee agreement "normally based" in a Member State or, presupposes that all Community motor as regards non-member countries, for vehicles travelling in Community which the national insurers' bureaux territory are covered by insurance; have concluded a "guarantee agree- whereas the national law of each ment". The two parties to the main Member State should, therefore, provide proceedings, Gambetta Auto and the for the compulsory insurance of vehicles Bureau, have put forward conflicting against civil liability, the insurance to be interpretations of the term "normally valid throughout Community territory; based": in Gambetta Auto's view it whereas such national law may means the territory of the State in which nevertheless provide for exemptions for the vehicle is registered, and it is certain persons and for certain types of unnecessary to inquire whether or not vehicles; the registration is still valid; on the other hand the Bureau, which is the guarantor of the Austrian bureau and is acting on Whereas the system provided for in this its behalf, contended that registration Directive could be extended to vehicles which is cancelled, as in this case, must normally based in the territory of any be treated as improper registration and third country in respect of which the consequently neither the Community national bureaux of the six Member directive nor the guarantee agreement States have concluded a similar concluded between the insurance agreement." bureaux is applicable, and in this case no guarantee of the settlement of claims by the Austrian bureau or, therefore, by the Bureau, is possible. The main provisions involved in this case are as follows:

in cases where neither registration plate nor insurance plate nor distinguishing Article 7, which provides : sign is required for certain types of vehicle, the territory of the State in which the person who has custody of the vehicle is permanently resident;” “However, 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 Article 2 (2), which provides: 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.” “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: The scheme thus provided for by the directive was extended by a sup- plementary agreement concluded on 12 December 1973 by the national bureaux to vehicles normally based in the terri- after an agreement has been concluded tory of certain non-member countries: between the six national insurers' Sweden, Finland, Norway, Austria and bureaux under the terms of which each Switzerland, in conformity with the national bureau guarantees the settle- principles of Article 7 (2) of the directive. ment, in accordance with the provisions By that agreement, which was concluded of its own national law on compulsory for an indefinite period subject to 12 insurance, of claims in respect of months's notice of termination, the accidents occurring in its territory caused national bureaux of the Member States by vehicles normally based in the guarantee the settlement of claims arising territory of another Member State, in their territory from the use of vehicles whether or not such vehicles are insured; normally based in the territory of one of the non-member countries referred to above. Article 2 (c) of the Agreement provides that “vehicles registered in that territory” are to be treated as normally from the date fixed by the Commission, based in one of the countries mentioned upon its having ascertained in close in Article 1 (a).

In view of the fact that no request for 3. In those circumstances, the Cour the case to be dealt with by the full d'Appel, Paris, by judgment of 21 Court had been made by any Member December 1982 stayed the proceedings State or any institution which is a party and referred the following question to to the proceedings, the Court, by order the Court for a preliminary ruling under of 18 May 1983, assigned the case to the Article 177 of the Treaty: First Chamber, pursuant to Article 95 (1) and (2) of the Rules of Procedure. “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 Com- II— Written observations sub- munities of 24 April 1972, means the m i t t e d to the C o u r t territory of the State in which it is registered, is it permissible and necess- ary, where it is established that a car 1. The Bureau observes first of all that bears a registration plate of a particular in view of the system established by country, to consider that the car is the directive and the supplementary normally based in that country, even agreement of 12 December 1973, which though the competent authorities state creates a presumption of insurance cover that at the material time authorization to in a State according to the criterion of use the car has been definitively where the vehicle is normally based, it is withdrawn?” necessary to give as precise as possible a definition of the term “normally based” The judgment making the reference was in relation to a vehicle which has caused received at the Court on 29 December an accident. It is important for the 1982. The written procedure followed bureaux concerned to know in what the normal course. circumstances they may avail themselves of the supplementary agreements. It is apparent from the work of the “Council Pursuant to Article 20 of the Protocol on of Bureaux” that the terms in which the the Statute of the Court of Justice of the inter-bureau agreements apply are not EEC written observations were lodged well defined in certain circumstances on 24 March 1983 by the Bureau, where the registration of the vehicle

In order to avoid difficulties in the rendering of accounts between national bureaux, the central bureau of the The two objectives pursued by the country where the accident occurred — Council when drafting the directive were in this case the Bureau — is obliged, in to abolish frontier checks in relation to proceedings before its national courts, to the existence of insurance against civil put forward the case of the central liability in respect of the use of motor bureau of the country of origin of the vehicles in order to bring about free vehicle on behalf of which it is acting. movement of goods and persons and to On the other hand, since in the present protect the interests of persons who case the Court has before it a request for might be the victims of accidents caused interpretation, the Bureau feels entitled by such vehicles. Those objectives ought to adopt an impartial position and to to have been achieved by the system set raise the discussion to Community level, up by the agreements made between account being taken of the interests of the national bureaux pursuant to the the victims of accidents caused by directive, but the second objective was vehicles duly or otherwise registered in a not achieved. Compulsory insurance Member State or participating State. cover, which constitutes the keystone of the system, is treated as having been provided by the bureau of the country where the vehicle is normally based, whether or not the owner, driver or person in possession of the vehicle holds a valid certificate. Accordingly there is insurance cover only when the vehicle in question is normally based in a Member When no agreement was reached by the State or other country participating in General Assembly of the Council of the system.

2. The Government of (be Italian Therefore if an issuing bureau challenges Republic observes that it is apparent from the validity of a registration and Article 1 (4) of the directive that the consequently refuses to recognize that a Council intended to refer to the vehicle is normally based in its territory distinguishing sign (whether it be a because the registration which is registration plate, insurance plate or evidence of that fact has lapsed, with the other sign) which the vehicle carries, result that there is no presumption of irrespective of its validity for operation insurance in relation to the vehicle whose of the vehicle in the State where it was registration is irregular or has lapsed, the issued; the directive is concerned with victim of an accident caused by the where the vehicle is situated, not with vehicle runs the danger of obtaining whether it is being operated lawfully, compensation only after protracted and its use may in any case cease to be disputes, which is contrary to the second lawful for many reasons which arc objective pursued by the directive. Fur- not necessarily connected with the thermore, in such circumstances the distinguishing sign. ultimate burden of the claim is shifted from the country of origin and registration of the vehicle to the country where the accident occurred. It is only by adopting that interpretation that the directive can be applied in practice and contribute positively to liberalization of the international The objective pursued by the directive movement of persons and vehicles. If requires that the place where the vehicle that were not so it would be necessary in is normally based should be identified every instance to check at the frontier without the possibility of any dispute. the validity of the document authorizing The registration plate is the only simple use of the vehicle on the roads and to and effective means of identification. To ask for production of the insurance require in addition that the registration document, thus frustrating the purpose should be in order and currently valid — of the directive. a requirement neither prescribed nor envisaged by the directive — would lead to re-establishing frontier checks and replacing the checking of the green card, which the directive abolished, by By contrast with a false plate, an out- systematic checking of the validity of the of-date plate should, irrespective of its registration. In view of the objective validity regarding authority to use the pursued by the directive the words vehicle on roads, nevertheless continue

In the present case the Bureau rejected Gambetta Auto's claim since the system in force in Austria made the validity of vehicle's registration plate, and thus the It follows from the provisions in question right to use the vehicle on the roads, that only vehicles normally based in dependent on a valid contract of another Member State or in certain other insurance. However, by virtue of the countries are exempt from checking of above-mentioned provision in the sup- the "green card". That presupposes that plementary agreement of 12 December those vehicles must be easily identifiable. 1973 to which Austria and France were The registration plate constitutes the signatories, the Bureau is to be regarded only adequate means of identification. as guaranteeing the settlement of claims To require in addition that the plate arising from accidents occurring in · its ' s h o u l d be in order and still valid would territory, even those caused by an mean replacing checking of the "green- uninsured vehicle. When a country asks, card" by systematic checking of the by virtue of the directive and the registration. agreement, for its vehicles to be allowed to enter and use the roads in the territory of another Member State without their being subjected to checking of the green card, that country must also bear the consequences, that is to say it must assume liability in respect of any The proposed interpretation does not accidents caused abroad by vehicles mean that national insurance bureaux bearing the plate issued by it, even if would not be free to agree among their use on the roads is unauthorized themselves that an accident caused by a because they have no insurance. vehicle whose registration had been withdrawn was to remain the responsibility of the bureau dealing with the accident; thus, on 19 October 1977 certain bureaux (including the Austrian bureau but not the French bureau) The Commission draws the attention of signed a protocol, referred to as the the Court to a new fact which has arisen Luxembourg Protocol, establishing such since the Cour d'Appel, Paris, stayed the a system. In any event, however, a proceedings. On 16 February 1983 the system of that kind created by agreement relevant department of the Commission, does not affect the requirement under the Directorate-General for Financial Article 2 (2) of the directive that the

Decision

1 By j u d g m e n t of 21 D e c e m b e r 1982, which was received at the C o u r t on 29 D e c e m b e r 1982, the C o u r d'Appel [ C o u r t of Appeal], Paris, referred to the C o u r t for a preliminary ruling u n d e r Article 177 of the E E C T r e a t y a question on the interpretation of Council Directive 7 2 / 1 6 6 of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of the M e m b e r States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of m o t o r 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 T h e question was raised in proceedings between Gambetta A u t o SA on the one hand and, on the other, the Bureau Central Français des Sociétés d'Assurance contre les Accidents d'Automobiles [French Central Bureau of

JUDGMENT OF 9. 2. 1984 — CASE 344/82

Motor-Vehicle Accident Insurers, hereinafter referred to as "the Bureau"] and the Fonds de Garantie Automobile [Motorists' Guarantee Fund, here- inafter 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.

GAMBETTA AUTO ν BUREAU CENTRAL FRANÇAIS

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.”

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."

1 1 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

GAMBETTA AUTO ν BUREAU CENTRAL FRANÇAIS

1 4 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

JUDGMENT OF 9. 2. 1984 — CASE 344/82

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 auth- orization to use the vehicle had been withdrawn.

Costs

16 The costs incurred by the Government of the Italian Republic and the Commission, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. As the proceedings are, in so far as the parties to the main action are concerned, in the nature of a step in the proceedings pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.

For the Registrar

H. A. Rühi T. Koopmans Principal Administrator President of the First Chamber